A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve, 1982/83-1. (Szeged, 1985)

Régészet - Hegedűs Katalin: The Settlement of the Neolithic Szakálhát-Group at Csanytelek–Újhalastó

rarely found on these settlements which also supports the fact that these were most probably located inside the houses. The nearly total of floors, ceramic or other finds and inner furnishings (e.g. hearths) within these structures prompted certain scholars to question the function of these structures as houses and to suggest that these were perhaps used as granaries.

21 This interpretation has been vigorously challenged by O. Paret.

22 Subsequent research has, however, proved that these structures were indeed houses and that the smaller structures supported by posts, often only comprising a single room together with various pits which were only rarely provided with a roof

23 were most probably used for storing foodstuffs or perhaps functioned as work pits.

24 Geleen-type houses were gradually succeeded by Elsloo-type houses. The Y-configuration of posts in the middle of the house disappeared and was supplanted by three posts aligned in a row. The fact that the Elsloo-type is later is also supported by the fact that at the Geleen site these overlay chronologically earlier remains. The analysis of the ceramic ware from Sittard also corroborated the later dating of the Elsloo-type.

25 Regarding the evolution of the Geleen-type house, Waterbolk and Modderman have forwarded an ingenious and attractive hypothesis:

26 "Es wäre also denkbar, dass der Geleentyp durch die Vereinigung eines hölzernen Gebäudes — mit Vorhalle — mit einem überdeckten Speicher durch das Anbringen eines Daches über den Zwischenraum entstanden sein könnte." According to these scholars the southeastern part of this house-type probably functioned as a granary; one of the double posts observed in this part supported the roof, the other double posts held a raised floor which was a necessary precaution against humidity and verious vermin. On the basis of the double posts it is the opinion of the author that house 4 of Csanytelek represents the eastern part, i.e. the granary of a Geleen-type house. House 1 of Csanytelek which was divided into three rooms is reminiscent of the somewhat later Elsloo-type since the Y-configuration of posts in the central part of the house was supplanted by three posts arranged in a row. 100 sites of the Szakáihát group of the Linear Pottery Culture are known at present in Hungary. The majority of these settlements represents small villages located in close proximity to each other, practically forming small groups. The nothern area of the distribution territory of the group (the valley of the Zagyva and Tarna streams unto the foot of the Mátra and Bükk mountains) is characterised by single-layer settlements, whereas in the southern area (the lower reach of the Tisza river to the mouth of the Maros river) which abounds in tell settlements, the material remains of the Szakáihát group are to be found in the lowest layer of these tell settlements.

27 Most of the excavations conducted in this area were rescue digs in the course of which houses were rarely uncovered. 21 Buttler, W., Das bandkeramische Dorf bei Köln—Lindenthal. Germania 15 (1931) 245. See also Buttler, W.

—Haberey, W., Die Bandkeramische Ansiedlung bei Köln

—Lindenthal. BerlinLeipzig (1936) 67. 22 Paret, O., Das neue Bild der Vorgeschichte. Stuttgart (1946) 54. 23 See Buttler, W— Haberey, W., op. cit. (1936). 24 Stieren, A., BRGK 33 (1943—50) 80; Waterbolk, H. T.—Modderman, P. J. R., Paleohistoria VI—

VII (1958—59) 169; Sangmeister, E., Das bandkeramische Dorf als Siedlungstypus. BRGK (1943—50) 89. 25 Waterbolk, W.—Modderman, P. J. R., Paleohistoria VI—

VII (1958—59) 167. 26 Ibid., 169. 27 Kalicz, N.—Makkay, J., Die Linienbandkeramik in der Grossen Ungarischen Tiefebene. Budapest (1977) 84—85. 18