A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum évkönyve 36. - 1994 (Nyíregyháza, 1995)

Ferenc Horváth–Ede Hertelendi: Contribution to the 14C based absolute chronology of the Early and Middle Neolithic Tisza region

Contribution to the 14C based absolute chronology ... Similarly on the Roumanian side, there are Piscolt, Ciumesti-Berea, Vasad, Tiream, Valea lui Mihai, Sälacea, Oradea, (LAZAROVICI-NÉMETI 1983-, PAUNESCU 1963., COMSA 1963-, LAZAROVICI 1984. Nr. 120., COMSA 1971.43.). Since the time of the publication of the monography the situation has remained basically unchanged. No independent ALPC site has come to light up to now in the Esztár distributional area. As for a preceding period, traces of the Körös culture have been documented. For instance, Szentpéterszeg-Körtvélyes pit 4 (KALICZ et al. 1978. 24., KALICZ 1979.27., KALICZ 1980/81.213-, 214.). On the Roumanian side, where the Esztár sites spread far eastward alongside the Sebes Körös: Pestis, Síntandrei, Vadu Crisului (IGNAT 1974. Fig. 6-8.), the earlier period known up to now, is also the Körös culture (COMSA 1971.43.). 3. On the maps of the following period (Maps 4-6: Late ALPC, Tiszadob, Bükk) there are no independent sites of the Esztár Culture. To the west the independent ALPC sites appear only on the left side of the Szeghalom - Berettyóújfalu - Debrecen Hajdúsámson - Újfehértó - Vásárosnamény line. On Map 7 (Szilmeg - Esztár - Szakáihát) this area is full of signs of the Esztár group from the line of the Sebes Körös up to the line of the Tisza river. In the meantime the increasing number of Esztár sites at Geszt and Mezőgyán (SZÉNÁSZKY 1986.19., SZÉNÁSZKY 1991.13.19.) which have the „white patch", disappeared between the valleys of the Sebes Körös and the main Körös rivers and draw the southern border of the Esztár culture very clearly. Only the „export" appears south of the Körös and west of the Berettyó rivers was of Esztár group in classical ALPC and Szarvas-Érpárt settlements: Endrőd 3/103, 3/35, 3/36, Gyoma 4/194, Örménykút 7/17, Szarvas 8/26, Mezőberény-Laposi legelő and Bódisháti gyep, Békés-Déló, Gerla (MAKKAY 1982. 61., NIKOLIN 1982.15., GOLDMAN 1983. 24-34.). The conclusion to be drawn from our knowledge of the Roumanian side of Érmeilék: it is hard to imagine that, with the exception of Ecsedi láp (marsh), it was uninhabited. This area probably belonged to the first phase of ALPC. After this, in the time of the classical ALPC the Esztár Group already had this region. This explains the lack of Szakáihát imports in the Esztár area and vice versa. The Szarvas-Érpárt Group south of the Körös blocked the connection between the Esztár communities and the southern areas, whereas during the time of the classical ALPC this neighbour meant a link with the Banat Culture in the time of Vinca A2 (Satchinez pit 5). 4. The same situation can be seen in the case of the Tiszadob group. The central part of its distribution east of the Tisza (Maps 2-4) shows only Transitional and Late Phase sites, with the exception of those from Early ALPC, the Tiszalök-Kisfás (Map 3, Cat. 429)

7

. Now on the basis of the black pear-like paint and other characteristics we think that this site belongs to the phase 1 of ALPC in this subregion (KURUCZ 1989Pis. LI-LVIIL), together with Ibrány, Paszab, Rétközberencs in the Rétköz. In this case the whole area - namely the Nyíri mezőség - would be without classical ALPC sites. Consequently, a significant part of Tiszadob settlements east of the Tisza (Tiszadob I) must be contemporary with the Classical Period and a certain (first?) phase of the Esztár group too. The classical (ALPC 2 - at Kalicz-Makkay it is early) ALPC sites are also very rare inside the Tiszadob area west of the Tisza. The monography names only two of them, Tarcal and Bodrogkeresztúr (Cat. 28, 376). According to our present information, the material from Tarcal is very archaic, more than probably belonging to the early phase (KALICZ-MAKKAY 1977. Fig. 38.) together with Onga, Szerencs, Tarcal, and Kenézlő. In the case of Bodrogkeresztúr (Cat. 28, 29, 30) the typological and chronological distinction between the ALPC finds of the three sites is not convincing. To be more exact, we can not see typological difference between the earliest elements of the latter and the earlier finds of Tiszavasvári-Keresztfal, Paptelekhát, and the complexes of Hortobágy, Kisköre, Gyoma 107, Tiszafüred-Morotvapart pit 9 etc. (KALICZ-MAKKAY 1977. Cat. 457, 459, 143, 147., KOREK 1977. Fig. 6-11., MAKKAY 1982.a. Fig. 2.1-3., SIKLÓDI 1991. Pis. VII-XIL). 5. In the Middle Tisza Region, the sites of the classical (at Kalicz-Makkay: younger) ALPC (Tiszafüred-Ásotthalom, Abádszalók-Berei rév etc.) are not preceded by an older phase, but by ALPC 1 (Szatmár II) sites, like Tiszacsege, Tiszaörvény, Tiszavalk, Kőtelek, and followed by the Szakáihát sites (Tiszaszőlős-Csákányszeg, Kungyalu). 6. In the last years, in the Tisza-Maros angle, new, independent ALPC sites have been revealed during the course of archaeological topographic surveys. One of them at Hódmezővásárhely-Tére fok has been excavated and the results have been published just recently (HORVÁTH 1994.). The main characteristic of the site is that the majority of classical ALPC finds were found with a significant percentage of Banat Culture ware, which can be accurately dated to the Vinca A period (A2/3 by Lazarovici). Besides, there are several ALPC-Banat Culture sites of similar age and character in the Tisza-Maros angle, within the relatively small area between Tére-fok and the Maros, 7 Which was signed as Early Phase (i.e.classical) according to the authors. 8 Typologically there are no differences between the finds of Tiszafüred, Abádszalók and that of Hortobágy-Kisköre type. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 1994 117