Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. Az István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 6.-7. 1965-1966 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (1966)

Tanulmányok – Abhandlungen - Bándi Gábor: The Cemetery of Ercsi-Sinatelep. VI–VII, 1965–66. p. 11–25. t. I–XIV.

r i n с

79

). This is borne out by the field surveys made in Tolna county, along the rivers Sió, Kapos and Koppány in the recent years.

80 On the other hand these sites have no cultural or immediate genetical connection with the finds ornamented with rolled sticks, appearing in a Nagyrév neighbourhood along the Danube, the less so, as such finds are unknown in the largest portion of the Mezőföld region, thus there are no connecting links between the Western Transdanubian sites and those of the narrov stripe along the Danube. (The Pákozd and Lovasberény stray finds, mentioned by Mozsolics, cannot be regarded as such for chronological reasons in the first place.

81

) Consequently the wandering of the Kisapostag culture from West to East seems to be highly impobable before a detailed analysis of the sites along the Danube and the enumeration of the arguments for the contrary. Since we were able to discard 90 per cent of its sites, we have to contradict the view that it were a self-standing, extensive and coherent culture in the largest part of Transdanubia in the Early Bronze Age. Now we turn to the fourth group of our sites, represented, irrespective of the stray finds, by five parts of cemeteries on the right bank of the Danube (Kulcs, D u n a p e n t e 1 e, Kisapostag, Bölcske — Szentandráspuszta, Ercsi — Sinatelep). On the left bank of the Danube some scattered finds and the Homokszentlőrinc cemetery may be attached to this group.

82 The problem of the finds along the Danube. — In the first place we begin the treatment of the coherent group of finds along the Danube with the material of group V at Ercsi—Sinatelep presented above, or the conclusions drawn from it, respectively. As we have seen, the finds of our group may be attached to the forms of the Nagyrév culture as a whole, in the framework of which the nearest relations may be established with the Szigetszentmiklós type. In the find complex we notice two graves which yielded a jug and urn with a pronouncedly typical rolled stick ornament, in the company of Nagyrév material. The nearest analogies or the twin cemeteries connected to these groups of graves of such mixture are found in the „Kisapostag cemeteries" with Nagyrév influence along the Danube. We know their material from the comprehensive work of I. Bón a,

83 whose respective conclusions we quote in the following: 79 The excavations of the Szebény and Szentlőrinc settlements bear out the close relations to the incrusted finds in Veszprém county clearly. We inted to deal with this problem in a separate study. (The cord-ornamented К 5 1 e s d find, quoted by numerous publications, may toe attached to this subject.) 80 I am much indebted to I. Torma for his kind oral communications. a) These cemeteries contain groups of graves belonging to several cultures. (We have quoted the details above.) b) There are chronological differences between the various groups as well. The material of the pure Nagyrév groups is not identical with the finds of Nagyrév character, appearing in the Kisapostag and Kisapostag

—Vatya groups, thus this impact cannot be connected with the Nagyrév groups of the cemeteries. The people exercising this influence, i. e. the pure groups of graves of the later developping Nagyrév population ,, . . . must be hidden in the earth yet".

81 c) These cemeteries contain also „conservative" Kisapostag groups (Kisapostag — Kollárföld).

85 d) The scheme of amalgamation has been defined by the author as follows: KisapostagNagyrév — Kisapostag

—Vatya — Vatya.

88 e) Ha has noticed that there are few Kisapostag elements in the early Vatya period. Then the author proceeded to fill this scheme by historical elements. In his judgment the warlike oriental folk of herdsmen, appearing on the Mezőföld from the West, led a self-standing (?) existence for a short while and established some contacts with the Nagyrév people, then in the lifetime of the second generation the amalgamation of the two people began, giving life to the Vatya culture.

87 This conception, based on numerous fine observations and revealing a true historical outlook, however, becomes uncertain on account of the fact that it is based on the assumption that the Kisapostag culture were a self-standing culture and a definite ethnical element. Looking at the so-called Kisapostag groups of the amalgamating cemeteries in question, we find with all of them that the majority of their material culture may be allotted to the Szigetszentmiklós group of the Nagyrév culture, as it is the case with group V of Sinatelep. If we discard therefore the individual stray finds (though these sites yield also Szigetszentmiklós stray finds in each case, for the rest) the so-called Kisapostag culture is only represented by cemeteries or groups of graves like those quoted above, lacking its pure form of appearance altogether. The only argument for the contrary may be found in the seven graves of Kisapostag

—Kollárföld,

88 but these may have had close relations 81 A. MOZSOLICS: AH 26 (1942) pp. 43 seq. 82 I. BONA: The Bronze Age . . . pp. 74 seq. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. p. 75. 85 Ibid. pp. 74 seq. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid.; ср. Geschichte . . . pp. 12 seq. 88 A. MOZSOLICS: AH 26 (1942) pp. 10 seq., Pl. II. 22