Folia archeologica 18.

Tibor Kovács: Eastern Connections of North-Eastern Hungary in the Late Bronze Age

EASTERN CONNECTIONS OF HUNGARY 47 known sites of the Felsőszőcs group in Hungary is considerably reduced.

4

0 The vessel from Igric and very likely that of Tiszafüred came to light in the cemetery of the Egyek group while the specimens of Hajdúsámson, Haláp and Hajdúbagos were found in the settlements of the Hajdúbagos group and in the cemetery of the latter site.

4

1 After distinguishing between all these, there remain five Felsőszőcs sites known in Hungary: Rétközberencs—Paromdomb, Pócspetri— Ercsivár, Panyola, Jánkmajtis, Nyíregyháza—Bujtos (?),

4

2 which are located in the eastern and south-eastern part of the Nyírség. The small number of sites in itself indicates that only a part of the western border area of the Felsőszőcs group falls within the boundaries of Hungary. This assumption is supported by the fact that a great number of sites is known from Transylvania and the Carpathian Ukraine.

4

3 On the other hand the sites of the Upper Tisza Region and the Nyírség belonging to the Egyek group of the tumulus culture indicate that the people of the Egyek group inhabited a considerable part of the area of the Nyírség.

4

4 After all these we find it just to raise the question whether the penetration of the Egyek group into the Nyírség was possible at the beginning of the third phase of the Late Bronze Age (beginning of the R BD period). It is also a question whether this could have been a decisive factor in initiating those changes which led to the ethnic and cultural transformation of North-Eastern Hungary.

4

5 Without analysing the finds, merely on a topographical basis, the answer must be decisively in the negative. It should be mentioned here that T. Kemenczei's results are contradictory in outlining the development of the Berkesz

—Demecser group.

4

6 According to his assumption the Berkesz

—Demecser group, on the plain at the foot of the Bükk Mountains, can be regarded as the organic continuation of the development of the Egyek culture,

4

7 while in NorthEastern Hungary its development was preceded by the eastward spread of the 4

0 Sites of the pottery of the Felsőszőcs type : Nyíregyháza Bujtos and Morgó, Rétközberencs— Paromdomb, Pócspetri—Ercsivár, Igrici, Hajdúsámson, Tiszafüred (ibid.) ; Panyola, Hajdúbagos, Haláp [Mozsolics, A., Acta Arch. Hung. 12 (I960) 119.] Jánkmajtis (Jósa András Múzeum, Nyíregyháza). 4

1 Igrici [Kalicz, N., HOMÉ 2 (1958) Pl. II, nos. 2a-2b] ; Tiszafüred [Childe, V. G., The Danube in Prehistory. (Oxford 1929) Fig. 216.]; Hajdúsámson Majorság lands (Zoltay, L., DJ 1908. Fig. 22 A); Debrecen—Haláp, Hajdúbagos [Mozsolics, A., Acta Arch. Hung. 12 (I960) 119.]; Méra [Kemenczei, T., HOMÉ 4 (1964) Pl. Ill, no. 4.]. 4

2 We consider it probable that the finds of the Felsőszőcs type from Nyíregyháza Bujtos and Morgó reached the cemetery of the Egyek group of the tumulus culture as bartered goods. It should be mentioned that among the stray finds Egyek vessels occur in great number among which only fragments of Felsőszőcs cups were found. (Cf. Igrici, Tiszafüred, Hajdúbagos.) 4

3 Jankovich, J., Podkarpatská Rus v prehistorii. (Munkaéevo 1931) 49. ; Zatlukál, J.—Zatlukál, E., Adatok a Podkarpatszka Rusz praehistoriájához. (Data to the prehistory of Podkarpatska Rus) (Munkács 1937) 66. ; Roska, M., Akimetszett díszű agyagművesség Erdélyben. (Pottery with cut out decoration in Transylvania) (E)ebrecen 1940) 21—22. ; Popescu, D., Die frühe und mittlere Bronzezeit in Siebenbürgen. (Bucuresti 1944) 136—137. ; Berniakovits, К. V., Archeologitsni raboti museiu v 1952—1957 gg. (Lvov 1959) 34—42. ; Rusu, M., Die Verbreitung der Bronzehorte in Transilvanien vom Ende der Bronzezeit bis in die mittlere Hallstattzeit. Dacia 8 ( 1964) 183. 4

4 The remarks made in connection with the development and chronological position of the Egyek group are based on the results gained from the detailed analysis of the finds of the tumulus culture of the Northern Great Plain. [Cf. A Déri Múzeum Évkönyve 1962—1964. 75—86. ; Arch. Ért. 93 (1966) 160—188.] 4

5 Cf. Kemenczei, T., Arch. Ért. 90 (1963) 183. 4

6 The technical terms appearing in the mentioned works are always quoted at the discretion of the authors. 4' Kemenczei, T., Arch. Ért. 92 (1965) 18—20.