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

198

Polen Kosa

oldal dűlő is located eastwards to the river Hernád near the Harangod Stream approx. 220 m above the sea level. The sites were at higher sea levels and rich in water.

Although the connection between the ditch and the pits is still unclear, it is certain that no similar Tumulus settlement is known from the surrounding North Hungarian region. Moreover the practice of constructing palisades is unusual by this culture (SÁNTA 2010, 520), although there are more known examples by the Piliny culture.40 Megyaszó is not classifiable among these sites. However, some influence might have affected the Tumulus culture, as they had interactions with northern populations, which can be remarked on the ceramic forms, and other practises could have become similar as well. Furthermore, the previous Middle Bronze Age traditions might also be taken into account, since tells were often surrounded by ditches (P. FISCHL et al. 2013, 358-362).

HISTORY OF RESEARCH OF THE TUMULUS CULTURE

Research began with the chronological division of the Central Danubian Tumulus culture based on finds from Austrian sites. The first chronological classification is related to Kurt Willvonseder (WILLVONSEDER 1937, 277—281). Western research dates the culture to the Middle Bronze Age period. Later, Richard Pittioni divided this period into three phases (PITTIONI 1954, 359—403). The phases can be distinguished by some significant cemetery finds and also compared to Paul Reinecke’s timetable (REINECKE 1924, 43-44): 1. Phase: Mistelbach-Regelsbrunn (Rei. Br. Bl); 2. Phase: Pitten-Sieding (Rei. Br. B2); 3. Phase: Maisbirbaum- Zohor (Rei. Br. C-D).

V. Gordon Childe (CHILDE 1929, 418) and Ferenc Tompa (TOMPA 1937, 83-102) were the first, who outlined the Tumulus culture in the Carpathian basin. They both tried to parallel the new objects to the upper levels of Tószeg (Tószeg A-D). Childe connected connected the finds to the Tószeg B-D period, to the Middle and Late Bronze Age, while F. Tompa dated the Middle and Late Bronze Age to the Tószeg C-D, but he did not mention the Tumulus culture in his chronological table (TOMPA 1937, 102).

40 Known examples from Slovakia and Hungary are: Gemer/ Gömör, Ozd’any/Osgyán, Rimavská Sobota/Rimaszombat, Miskolc, Bükkaranyos-Földvár, Kisterenye-Hársashegy, Piliny- Várhegy, Szécsény-Benczúrfalva (FURMÁNEK 1983, 25; Obr. 1).

A more concentrated research began in the 1950s when Vladimir Milojcic pointed out that research should also deal with a Carpathian Tumulus culture, not only with a Central European one (HÄNSEL 1968, 1). Instead of Tószeg’s levels, he created a chronological table with six phases and correlated it with Reinecke’s periodization (MILOJCIC 1953, 275). Based on this, the earliest Tumulus period in Hungary could begin in the Tószeg C phase, which is the Rei. Br. A2-B1 phase.

The Hungarian Tumulus research began with Amália Mozsolics, who introduced the first 3 phased division throughout the Bronze Age (MOZSOLICs 1952, 55). Later she refined this division during examining the transition between the Middle and Late Bronze Age (MOZSOLICS 1957,119-121). This chronology had 6 phases, in which Tumulus culture fell to IV—VI. period of the Late Bronze Age. The IV. period can be paralleled with Rei. Br. C-D.

István Bóna drew up a Hungarian Bronze Age chronological table as well (BÓNA 1959, 223). He divided local Bronze Age into 3 periods. He refined Middle Bonze age into 3 and the Late Bronze Age into 2 subunits. In this division Middle Bronze Age is corresponding to the Rei. Br. A-Bl and Late Bronze Age to Rei. Br. B2-C period. Later I. Bóna reviewed his timeline, mainly “by thinking on the bronze industry development”, but inversely, he placed the Tumulus culture before the Koszider period (BÓNA 1966,26-29).

Bernhard Hänsel also studied the chronology of the Carpathian Basin (HÄNSEL 1968, 8, Abb. 1; 20—23, Abb. 2), and his aim was to write up a Middle Bronze Age chronology. Hansel divided the Bronze Age into 3 large periods and to further subunits. However, his timetable is currently not in use, but the revised periodization by his students are still applied today (DAVID 1998; BUSCHKE 2002).

Current research divides the Middle and Late Bronze Age into 3 subgroups (MOZSOLICS 1973,9-11; BÓNA 1975, 25-26; KEMENCZEI 1984, 7-11). Researchers of the Carpathian Basin often apply the 6 phased timetable of Mozsolics, which has been refined into several subgroups since (MOZSOLICS 1973, 9—11). The northern region of the Carpathian Basin was dated by Furmánek based on all information collected until the end of the 1970s (FURMÁNEK 1977a, 554-563).

Current research suggests that the Carpathian Tumulus culture appeared both in Transdanubia and in the Great Hungarian Plain in the Rei. Br. B1-B2 period, during the transition of the Middle to Late Bronze Age and lasted up to the Rei. Br. D period.