Csengeri Piroska - Tóth Arnold (szerk.): A Herman Ottó Múzeum évkönyve 54. (Miskolc, 2015)
Régészet - Kósa Polett: Meggyasszó-Halom-oldal dűlő: New data int he Tumulus culture research from North-eastern Hungary
Megyaszó-Halom-oldal dűlő: New data in the Tumulus culture research... 185 Moreover, forms may reveal relations with neighbouring cultures, as well. The majority of vessels placed next to the dead, were large storage vessels, bowls and mugs. A few examples can be found for cups, jars, and amphora-shaped vessels. The potteries can be classified into subunits by their shape, by the presence or absence of handles or whether they have incised or impressed decorations or knobs. I. Large vessels (Fig. 14) According to the certainly determined ceramics there are a total of 9 urn graves and a scattered burial. Grave SI contained two large vessels or urns, while in grave SI 2 a bowl might have held the ashes. Therefore the 9 large vessels were in 8 graves. The amount of large vessels take 22.5% of the total amount of pottery, thus large vessels are the most common for ash storage. LA. 1. Undecorated biconical vessels A single uncertain example can be classified into this subunit. It was in grave Sll and only a fragmentary piece has survived between the rim and the shoulder line (Table 3. 5/7). As there are no signs of either handles or knobs, it is more reliable to outline an undecorated group. Although it is likely that it had handles or knobs or both, just as the rest of the large vessels, but without any additional piece, it cannot be categorised together with other vessels. I.A.2. Biconical vessels with strap handles Two vessels can be classified into this group from grave SI and S3 (Table 1. 1/4; Table 2. 3/1). In both cases the upper part of the urn is broken, so the upright rim and the conical-shaped neck are missing. They have 2 handles that are located on both sides below the belly line.2 I.A.3. Biconical vessels with strap handles and knobs Three almost complete vessels belong to this group from grave SI, S2 and S7 (Table 1. 1/1; Table 2. 2/1; Table 2. 4/1). The shape is identical to the I.A.2. type vessels, 2 There are 4 parallel examples from the Tumulus cemetery of Halmaj-. KEMENCZEI 1968, 166-176 (9. kép 17; 10. kép 7; 11. kép 15; 12. kép 11); and further examples are known from Piliny sites like Zagyvapáljalva: KEMENCZEI 1967, 259 (Abb. 14,9); Bodrogkeresztiir. KEMENCZEI 1984 (Taf. XXXI. 12,16); Kosice: FURMÁNEK 1968 (Obr. 3. 5); Ónod. KEMENCZEI 1984 (Taf. XL. 1). but some knobs are added, either on the shoulder or on the belly line.* 11 3 The distribution area of all I.A. type vessels can be clearly outlined. This vessel type can be found in several Tumulus cemeteries, but there are numerous examples from Piliny sites as well. Similar vessels are known from both the Zagyvapálfalva and Bárca groups of the Piliny culture (KEMENCZEI 1968, 180). LB. Biconical vessel with channeled decoration, strap handle and knobs This is the most ornamented piece of vessel from grave SI3 (Table 4. 2/9). Tibor Kemenczei has determined this type as a jug (KEMENCZEI 1968, 181), but it can be handled as an urn deriving from its function. Although it is highly fragmented, still the outcurving rim, the biconical shape, the vertically channeled decoration and the knobs are perfectly reconstructable. A middle part of the handle was also found.4 A rather reduced variant has been used by the Piliny culture, like a mug, while larger pieces were preferred by the Tumulus culture. The form has its roots in the Bodrogszerdahely group of the Middle Bronze Age Füzesabony culture (KEMENCZEI 1963, 178-179; 1967, 277-278). It is more typical of the early phase of the Tumulus material culture (KEMENCZEI 1964, 7), so they might have begun to use it in the Rei. Br. B2 till the Rei. Br. C phase, when Piliny culture also began to apply it. I.C. 1. Decorated conical vessel with straight neck The vessel has a typical outcurved rim, upright neck, rounded shoulder and conical shape. This urn from grave S16 (Table 4. 10/1) is slightly deformed, but the essential formal features can be deduced. Some incised lines on the neck, an impressed chain of dots on the shoulder, and some rough, an inch thick verti3 There are similar examples from the Tumulus sites of Halmaj-. KEMENCZEI 1968, 171, 176 (10. kép 1; 10. kép 11); Detek. KEMENCZEI 1968,171 (9. kép 6); Egyek-szplöhegy. KOVÁCS 1966, 167—176 (10. kép 15; 21. kép 11); Tiszafüred-. KOVÁCS 1975 (Plate 10, 102/1); and Piliny sites like Zagyvapálfalva-. KEMENCZEI 1967, 254-259 (Abb. 3, 1; Abb. 8, 12; Abb. 11, 16; Abb. 16, 8); Rodrogheresfur. KEMENCZEI 1984 (Taf. XXXI. 13,14; Taf. XXXII. 10,13; Taf. XXXIV. 22); Safarikovo- FURMÁNEK 1977b (Taf. VIII. 64/12). 4 Analogous pieces are from the Tumulus sites of Muhi-. KEMENCZEI 1963 (3. kép 14); Mezpcsát: KOVÁCS 1966 (17. kép 5); Tiszafüred: KOVÁCS 1975 (Plate 18,184/1; Plate 26, 271/1); and the Piliny site of Safarikovo-. FURMÁNEK 1977b (Abb. 7, IV/1).
