Petercsák Tivadar – Veres Gábor szerk.: Agria 44. (Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve - Annales Musei Agriensis, 2008)

Domboróczki László: Számítógépes módszerek régészeti adatok tárolására, elemzésére és bemutatására: esettanulmányok Heves megyéből

forms, could provide us with information of a chronological nature that may help us to verify the validity of our present chronological system, which is currently based mainly on radiocarbon data. According to our five-phase chronological system the settlement was of a long time duration, lasting from 5600 to 5100 BC, with only a limited number of features (houses, pits, graves) existing at any one time (Fig. 2.). A'r- ^-v-^r i rn~, A sr^A, •••' • <' 1. Phase , ít _i ' 5620-5470

Cal BC + r-^S), . r-a r xv.^ |»er „ .«£3 0 u u , m^-f s ii

l

r ä —-o,*^ ' i 4. Phase 5380-5210 Cal BC 4- r

i * d °

, iff- Wr

J <1'^ 6° , P

h & ^-f — » 2. Phase _J " 5510-5370 Cal BC + no, ° dQr

n : J zptff'.f § & ^frf* , 4B. Phase V, - 5300-5210 Cal BC • I*: :

' ^ o r ° , > \i r-^ó.t yi , ° n JH/. •/ ~\tfi- s fb,TX /— 6 'I'' » « 3. Phase ~~i7T\-\ 1 5470-5300 Cal BC mh f r 5. Phase 5210-5000 Cal BC Fig. 2. Settlement phases at Füzesabony-Gubakút If this reflects the real situation then the same typological order will be detected among the material finds. At Gubakút we have excavated 24 pits containing more than 100,000 pieces of pottery in all, an average of approximately 4000-5000 pieces per pit. Such a huge amount of data could only be handled and analysed by computer. Our two main objectives were the following: A. To make typological tables according to form and decoration in order to understand and describe the pottery-making activities at the site and by doing so draw general conclusions for this time period of the neolithic. B. To detect a chronological sequence among the features by seriating those find groups of chronological significance i.e. where the characteristics seem to be chronologically distinctive on a pit by pit basis. Below is a short procedural scheme showing how we have tried to obtain results: (We have included what we have done so far and what we intend to do in the future.) 1. In 2001 -2002 we established a typological system for the description of the ceramics of Füzesabony-Gubakút. This consisted of detailed groupings based on forms, 7