A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, 1980/81-1.(Szeged, 1984)
Régészet - Horváth, Ferenc: Ada-type Artifacts of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Alföld
hy — Сака —Nyírség type of artifacts. 67 It can hardly be accidental that the Ada-type artifacts dealt with here come from the eastern part of the territory. 68 This chronological situation is proved on the base of the zók finds Nr. 12 from Ada (T. VI: 1, 3—4) within an Ada-type unit. The analogues with the above-mentioned artifacts show their respective connections very well. The closest of these relationships are the Vinkovci, Belotic —Bela Crkva and Schneckenberg В groups. They are not directly related to the Transdanubian Somogyvár culture but the unusual handle divided by the perpendicular central strut shows that some connections do exist. The small sample does not allow us to determine from which of the three Early Bronze Age cultural units the group developed originally. In any case, the typological and locational data strongly suggest that the Ada-type artifacts belong to the Belotic —Bela Crkva (Somogyvár В) and Vinkovci groups. The Glina III and Schneckenberg В traits may be the result of the connection with the Belotic — Bela Crkva group. Thus Garasanin found relationships between the grave goods from Tumulus graves and the south Transsylvanián Barcaság and Olténia material. 69 The material presented here also has traits characteristic of Makó, early Nagyrév, and Óbéba—Pitvaros ceramics. When analyzing these artifacts however, one must consider the differences between Ada and these other groups, the differences which usually serve as a basis for the definition of archaeological groups. There are several chronologically fixed points. The synchronisation of the Belotic Tumulus graves and the Óbéba—Pitvaros group is demonstrated by the occurance of identical dagger types in grave 7 from Pitvaros and from Belotic. 70 Detailed support for the partial synchronisation of the Óbéba—Pitvaros—Ökörhalom—Kőtörés groups has been offered by István Bona. 71 The temporal coincidence of these and the Somogy vár—Vinkovci group has been shown by numerous researchers. 72 There are several reliable time points which may be used in determinating the chronological position of the southern Alföld material. During the analysis of the Hódmezővásárhely—Barci-rét finds Ágnes Somogyvári discovered two pottery fragments among the Makó — early Nagyrév artifacts, which are of particular importance to this study (T. VIII: 3. and T. IX: l.) 73 One of these is a fragment from a large storage jar whose form has analogues in the Nagyrév culture and Somogyvár group. 74 The other is an unusually shaped bowl fragment almost identical to a bowl coming from the Glina III. site of Branet. 75 Their occurence points to a possible influence of the Ada type in the southern Alföld where here-to-fore no pottery of 67 Ecsedy (1979a) 109, Fig. 8. 68 No such artifacts were to be found in the museum of Kiskunfélegyháza, while the material from Kunpeszér awaits publication by Attila Horváth, therefore has not yet been available for direct analysis. 69 Garasanin (1958) 93—94. 70 Bona (1965a) 52. 71 Bona (1963) 20—22; Bona (1965a) 28—29, 50—52. 72 Bona (1963) 50, Bona (1972) 13, paragraph 8; Ecsedy (1979a) 106—114, Kalicz— Schreiber (1976) 74—75. 73 Somogyvári (1979). 74 This is a fragment of a large, light brown storage vessel with a short flared neck which was slightly smoothed around. Directly under the neck there are four incisions placed across from one another. The vessel is roomy at the shoulders and narrows toward the bottom. Hódmezővásárhely, Tornyai János Múzeum, 66. 2. 739. Diameter: 30.5 cms at the rim. See: Schreiber (1972) 3/5; 5/4; Bona (1972) 2/1. 75 This is a rim fragment from a light brown burnished bowl. The walls are slightly arched, the rim is sharply inverted. There is a horizontally located lug directly under the rim. See: Roman (1976) Fig. 3/6. 25
