Paluch Tibor: Egy középső neolitikus lelőhely a kultúrák határvidékén. A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve: Monographia Archeologica 2. (Szeged, 2011)

Maroslele-Pana: A Middle Neolithic Site at the Frontier of Cultures

100 PALÖ

CH Tibor • M

AROSLELEP

ANA: EGY KÖZÉPSŐ NEOLITIKUS LELŐHELY A KULTÚRÁK HATÁRVIDÉKÉN Vinca borderline north of the Maros (CHAPMAN 1981, 188; BÁNFFY 2005, Fig. 1

), and also by the fact that in the northern areas of the Vinca territory, including present-day southern Hungary, the Banat type of the many different local Vinca variations predominates (CHAPMAN 1981, 188; TASIC 1998, 68). Consequently, the Maros River is not an unambiguous border. In the pottery assemblages excavated from settlements along the Maros River and Száraz-ér high percentage of Balkan and Vinca A finds have been registered (HORVÁTH 2006a, 314), implying that there were no strict borderlines such as the Maros River. Hydrogeological conditions also demonstrate that the Maros could not have served as a border. Before the modern river regulations the Maros had no stable watercourse: in the Pleistocene it had four courses. The riverbed followed the line of Száraz-ér; the recent watercourse was created only during the modern period of river regulation. In the Holocene the river supplied water to the drainage basins of its tributaries. The bed of the ancient Száraz-ér was located north of the modern town of Arad and follows the former course of the ancient Maros River. This low-gradient stream was the only large watercourse flowing into the Maros in the area of present-day Hungary. Its importance, however, must have been more profound than previously assumed, as according to geological penetration tests this was the main bed of the Maros River in the Neolithic. The Aranka, the other tributary of the Maros, might have had a similar impact. Some scholars regard the Aranka as the borderline between the ALP and the Vinca areas instead of the Maros (MAKKAY 1982, 15; RACZKY 1992, 149). This means that there were two watercourses north and south of the Maros River which might have played the role usually ascribed to the Maros. As previously mentioned. Aranka must have been a factor in the formation of the ALP-Vinca cultural border. This suggestion is supported by the lack of Vinca A finds in the northern part of the Banat region up to the Resita-Karánsebes line (SZÉNÁSZKY 1983, 245). Száraz-ér, nevertheless, became a factor at the end of the Early Neolithic. In order to explain its role, however, it is necessary to define the structure and geographical position of Körös settlements. The catchment basin of the Tisza, Körös, Maros and Berettyó rivers constituted a border for Early Neolithic settlement. In the area encircled by these watercourses a unique settlement density is to be observed that diifers from the usual in the rest of the Körös culture area. Alone in the area of present-day Csongrád county (that is, more than 4 000 km

2) altogether 232 Early Neolithic sites have been identified based on topographic descriptions (PALUCH s. a. a.), various databases, and the secondary literature, of which there are about 100 Körös sites on the alluvium between the Tisza and Maros rivers (HORVÁTH 1996. 126). This extremely dense settlement partem is partly explained by the abundance of water, but internal developments of the Körös culture may also have played a role in the high concentration of sites. The ALP population moved south from the northern edges of the Great Plain and infiltrated the Körös settlements in the middle Tisza region. At the same time a group of Vinca people headed north from the present-day Banat and Vojvodina regions, and thus the area where the Körös culture was dominant slowly decreased. Consequently, in the late Körös era the Early Neolithic population retained their identity mainly in the area between the Maros and Körös rivers. Although there is no excavation data to prove that most sites at the confluation of the Tisza and Körös rivers are dated to a late phase of the Körös culture, the theory is appealing. According to this view, the area between the Áranka and Száraz-ér could have been a refuge for the last Körös people. It is not clear what happened to other Körös groups. ALP peoples might pushed them into Vinca territories south of the Maros or slowly assimilated them into ALP groups north of the Körös (MAKKAY 1982, 45). This assimilation with ALP groups could not have happened between the Maros and Körös rivers as ALP appears here only in its classical form and not independently, as it is demonstrated by the Maroslele material. Between the Maros and Körös, or at least in the area south of Száraz-ér, a different development took place. In the late Körös era, at the end of the Vinca Al period, Vinca groups moving northwards crossed the borderline of Aranka or the Maros River. The integration of a late Körös-Starcevo-Cri§ population and the Vinca A1-A2 groups led to the emergence of the Banat culture (LAZAROVICI ET AL. 2005, 179). The Banat culture appeared in the Vinca A3-Starcevo-Cri§ IVB period (LAZAROVICI-LAZAROVICI 2003, 384). The first phase belongs to the Early Neolithic and runs parallel with the Starcevo-Cri§ IIIB-IVB and the Vinca A1-A3 periods; it ends in the Late Neolithic, simultaneously with the Vinca C and Tisza I periods (LAZAROVICI ET AL. 2005, 181; DRA$OVEAN 2006, 96). The duality observed in the 2008 Maroslele material might be explained by the Early Neolithic traditions still present in the Banat culture, which occur in the assemblage mixed with Balkan, Vinca, elements. A similar duality has been described in the archaeological assemblage connected to the Térepart group at the confluence of the Tisza and Maros rivers (HORVÁTH 2002, 22). The problem with the Térepart-group hypothesis is that it presupposes the existence of an independent ALP complex south of the Körös region. The 2008 Maroslele excavation did not provide proof for the existence of this group, although the assemblage is coeval and the number of finds was high. Sites ascribed to the Térepart group, just as in the whole Térepart area, might be interpreted as belonging to the Banat culture. This means that in the Marosszög area southern elements were present permanently. At the end of the Vinca A3 period these groups might have been assimilated into the Szakáihát culture. This is the time when the first Szakáihát settlements, all connected to Száraz-ér, appear on the left bank of the Tisza River [Tápé-Lebő A, Battonya-Parázs-tanya (SZÉNÁSZKY 1988, 5); Battonya-Vidpart (SZÉNÁSZKY 1979, 67)]. The Vinca-group elements along Száraz-ér intermingling with ALP groups resulted in the emergence of the Szakáihát culture. The radiocarbon dating of the site of Tápé-Lebő 6290 BP shows (HERTELENDI-HORVÁTH 1992, 861) that the settlement at Maroslele still existed when the first Szakáihát settlements appeared, although their coexistence must have been very short or the two did not have any connection. In summary, the remains of a late Körös population that inhabited the area were found by Ottó Trogmayer in 1963. This population intertwined with groups of southern origin that crossed the Maros or its tributaries and gave rise to the Banat culture. The latter, however, dominated the Marosszög region for only a short period of time; traces of Vinca A3 were discovered at Maroslele. After this short period, this mixed population was assimilated into the people of the Szakáihát culture. Thus, the Körös elements of Banat culture became a Szakáihát heritage. Paluch Tibor Móra Ferenc Múzeum 6720 Szeged Pf. 474. E-mail: paluch. tibor@gmail. com