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

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

a late variant thereof was for a lo ng time an attractive, but barely provable hypothesis.

117 The small-scale excavations carried out during recent topographical surveys in the valleys of the Körös rivers yielded material indicating a gradual transition from the classical Alföld Linear Pottery culture to the Szakáihát group, a transition which could be observed in minute details.

118 In numerous cases this transitional phase could be fully observed since the same pit or layer — i.e. a closed assemblage —, contained characteristic Alföld Linear Pottery culture and transitional or extremely early Szakálhát-type sherds. J. Makkay proposed that this transitional phase be named the Furugy type after a site showing numerous such features.

119 The majority of the Szakáihát settlements, however, did not yield even scanty Alföld Linear Pottery culture finds; at the same time, the material recovered from these sites does not show signs of a gradual transition to the Tisza culture. Szentes— Ilonapart, Tiszaszöllős—Csákányszeg, Tiszaigar—Csikóstanya and Tápé—Lebő— Felsőhalom are regarded by N. Kalicz and J. Makkay as being representative of the classical Szakáihát period.

120 To these we would add — on typological grounds — the Csanytelek settlement and also the Bokros settlement. This, most probably long classical period was followed by the Szakáihát — early Tisza period, the material remains of which are to be found in the bottom layer of the large tell settlements of the Tisza culture (e.g. Hódmezővásárhely— Kökénydomb, Szegvár—Tüzköves, Vésztő—Mágor, Battonya—Gödrösök and Battonya—Parázstanya). The relative chronological position of the classical phase of the Szakáihát group is now fully established on the basis of the numerous import objects found in Szakáihát contexts, thus a discussion of this issue is irrelevant. Finds of the late groups of the Alföld Linear Pottery culture (Bükk, Szilmeg, Esztár) and the Transdanubian Notenkopf and Zseliz groups, contemporary with the Szakáihát group, occur frequently on sites of the latter,

121 and vice versa : Szakáihát imports are often found on sites of contemporary groups and cultures.

122 The small Bükk vessel used for storing paint (PI. 1:4) is another proof of the contemporaneity of the developed Bükk and classical Szakáihát phase.* * The figures 16 and 17 has been lost during the course of the priting works. Copies of them has not been possible to get becouse of the advanced stage of priting. The editorial board entreat the readers' indslgence about this imperfection. 117 Ibid., 107. 118 Makkay, J., A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új eredményei (New results in the research of the Neolithic in Hungary). Budapest (1982) 57—58. 119 Ibid., 58—59. 120 Kalicz, N— Makkay, J., op. cit., Budapest (1977) 107. 121 Ibid., 44, Fig. 1. 122 Hévízgyörk—Kaparóház: Szakáihát sherds in a Notenkopf context; Párkány (âturovo in southwest Slovakia): a few Szakáihát sherds in an early Zseliz assemblage. Kalicz, N.—Makkay, J. op. cit. Budapest (1977) 108. 42