Budapest Régiségei 36. (2002) – In memoriam Rózsa Kalicz-Schreiber (1929-2001)

Raczky Pál: Evidence of contacts between the Lengyel and Tisza-Herpály Cultures at the late neolithic site of Polgár-Csőszhalom : relationships between Central European and Balkan ritual practice and sacral thought in the Upper Tisza Region = A lengyeli és tisza-herpályi kulturális érintkezés régészeti emlékei Polgár-Csőszhalom késő neolitikus lelőhelyén : a rituális gyakorlat és a szakrális gondolkodás közép-európai, illetve balkáni eredetű elemeinek összefüggései a Felső-Tisza-vidéken 79-92

EVIDENCE OF CONTACTS BETWEEN THE LENGYEL AND TISZA-HERPÁLY CULTURES have had the head or face on it, is entirely missing. However, the large diameter of the surviving neck indicates this vessel had a smoothed mouth. This makes it unlikely that the vessel is of the variety which ended in a „proper" head, that is, a bulging, cup-like top segment. The design of this special anthropomorphic vessel is similar to a find published from Grave 2/71 at the Lengyel Culture settlement of Svodin in Slovakia.

14 However, the arms were not depicted in this latter figure. It seems that at Svodin and other Lengyel Culture sites anthropomorphic vessels with full female shapes with upright arms occur more commonly This variety also has a head. The representation of legs, bent into a sitting position, however, is always missing.

15 This latter type of anthropomorphic vessel is well known and is also represented by several specimens in Lengyel Culture archaeological assemblages from Hungary

16 Their comprehensive analysis has recently been carried out by Zalai-Gaál,

17 who considered the examples reviewed a characteristic of the cultural sphere defined as the Lengyel Culture. The anthropomorphic vessel that came to light at Polgár-Csőszhalom is similar to the aforementioned examples and embodies a special combination of the standing figure from Svodin and of sitting varieties (a group portrait of these vessels was published in 1981 by Juraj Pavúk

18

), since this sitting, presumably female figure, also has upright arms (Fig. 1. 3). A similar, mixed composition may be seen in the reconstruction of a fragmented anthropomorphic vessel from the site of Bustehrad in Bohemia,

19 where legs, upright arms and even a bulging head were modeled the artist. Therefore, it is not surprising to see a similarly complex design in the Late Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin. The special function of the Svodin vessels is obvious from the fact that they were recovered from burials.

20 Find circumstances of the Bustehrad specimen also reflect a sacral context.

21 Certainly the vessel from Polgár also played a special role in the life of that prehistoric population, as is confirmed by the fact that it came to light in the middle of the area surrounded by the concentric ditch system and its decoration is comprised of paste-like whitish-yellow painting on a red basis. (Unfortunately, the original pattern of the whitish-yellow paint can no longer be reconstructed owing to heavy erosion on the vessel's surface). All these things suggest that the anthropomorphic vessel from Polgár-Csőszhalom presented here, is a 14 NEMEJCOVÁ-PAVÜKOVÁ 1986. Abb. 8. 15 For a summary see NEMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ 1986. 146 and Abb. 9. « KALICZ 1985. 47,101, Abb. 74.1-2; KALICZ 1998. 105, Abb. 58, 2,4. v ZALAI-GAÁL 2000. 10-22, 31, Abb. 1-2. « LICKA-BARBS 1979. 137, Abb. XXII. 1.18 PAVÚK 1981, Abb. 24. 20 NEMEJCOVÁ-PAVÜKOVÁ 1986.146. 21

LICKA-BARES 1979. 138. cultic representation traditional to the Lengyel Culture, but recovered from the late neolithic settlement of Polgár from witJhin a circular ditch system. It is also important that since the time of tell formation, other characteristic (predominantly painted) sherds of the Lengyel Culture (Type Lengyel I) have also been found at this site. In addition to the aforementioned archeological artifacts of typical Lengyel Culture character, fragments of another type of anthropomorphic vessel came to light (Fig. 2. 2a-d), accompanied by sherds decorated with Tisza Culture type incised decoration as well as broad-banded black painting. This variety of anthropomorphic vessel is well known in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain and may be termed the „Kökénydomb type".

22 It may be considered another canonized Late Neolithic form in the eastern section of the Carpathian Basin. This female figure with a cylindrical body shape sits on a stool. Her arms rest by the side of her body, bent at the elbow, while her hands are positioned below her breast. Several specimens found recently at the settlement of Öcsöd-Kováshalom demonstrate this type of representation has a general distribution within the Tisza Culture. In addition, they show that occasionally, the face was also sketched-in below the rim of these anthropomorphic vessels.

23 Reconstruction attempts that hypothesize an additional, triangular head raised above the vessel's rim are therefore not realistic.

24 The anthropomorphic vessel from Polgár-Csőszhalom has a horizontal rim with no excess broadening. It therefore undoubtedly represents the aforementioned Kökénydomb type of the Tisza Culture. It is important to emphasize this detail, since another anthropomorphic vessel is known from the Protolengyel Period site of Sé in Transdanubia (Western Hungary),

25 whose cylindrical neck broadens upwards in a cup-like fashion with the thus distinguished top section of the vessel symbolizes the figure's head. To date, five of the six anthropomorphic vessels found within the Lengyel Culture I context in Svodin in Slovakia have heads which are similarly indicated.

26 The arms are always upright however, on these figures. These, as well as several other fragments, together form a special type from the established Lengyel Culture in the Carpathian Basin.

27 In the case of the Sé find, the arms rest by the side of the body, bent at the elbow below the breast. It is this stylistic trait that is characteristic of Late Neolithic anthropomorphic vessels from the 22 BANNER 1942. Taf. 1.1-4, Tai. II. A-A; BANNER 1959. TAE 5-7, Taf. 9; GIMBLTAS 1974. Fig. 105-107, Fig. 210-211. 23 RACZKY 1987. Fig. 32, 34, 35. 24 CSALOG 1955. 27-34, Tai. III. 3-4. 25 KALICZ 1983-84. Taf. 5,1.; KALICZ 1998. Abb. 38. 1-2. 26

NEMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ 1986.146; ZALAI-GAÁL 2000. 10-11. 27 KALICZ 1998.105.; ZALAI-GAÁL 2000.10-13. 81