Szőllősy Csilla - Pokrovenszki Krisztián (szerk.): Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis - Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei. C. sorozat 45. (Székesfehérvár, 2017)

Tanulmányok/közlemények - Régészet - Keszi Tamás: A nagyrévi kultúra szimbolikus ábrázolásokkal díszített urnái Kiapostag - Dunai-dűlő lelőhelyről. Alternatív javaslat a Budapest - Pannonhalmi úti edény ábrázolásának értelmezésére

Tamás Kes^i: Cinerary urns from the Nagyrév Culture ornamented with symbolic representations found at the Kisapostag — Dunai-dűlő site

Interpretation of motifs

A similar representation is known on a vessel found in a grave in Nagyrév.14 According to Rózsa Schreiber, this representation depicts the ‘pedestal’ of a shrine, to which ‘half men’ with raised arms are connected on both sides15 (Fig. 4, No. 6), and, logically, they have no head.16 Recendy, Magdolna Vicze published the description of a similarly decorated mug from the Százhalombatta — Földvár site17 (Fig. 5, No. 1). In her interpretation, this one also features two humans with raised arms, without a head or lower body, and V-shaped motifs are not an integral part of the human representations. Perhaps a part of the same scene was found at the Iváncsa — Lapos settlement, which can be dated to the period of transition from the Late Makó to the Early Nagyrév pottery style. This approx. 2.6 X 3.3 cm burnished grey fragment, tempered with sand and ground pottery, was poorly fired and has a thickness of approx. 4.5 mm (Fig. 5, Fig. 2). The body of the figure is made up of a triple line, similarly to the Nagyrév vessel. Only a part of the V-motif originating from the body has remained.18 (Group A)

On another vessel found in a grave in Nagyrév (Nagyrév — Zsidóhalom), according to the interpretation of Rózsa Schreiber, only the adoring arms are depicted (Fig. 5, No. 3).19 A parallel of the latter was found in grave No. 139 of the Szigetszentmiklós-Felső — Ürge-hegyi dűlő site and published by Róbert Patay (Figure 5, No. 4).20 It is doubtful whether these two representations intend to capture the same scene as those belonging to the previous group, but with a less detailed depiction. The reason for this similarity may be that a limited number of symbols were used in the ‘art’ of the Nagyrév Culture.21 Depending on the context, individual symbols could have several meanings, and thus different content could be hidden behind the similar form. Similar composition principles can be observed on these artefacts as well: on vessel with a single handle, the central motif is located on the opposite side of the handle, while on hanging vessel, in the area between the two handles. (Group B.)

Finally, a plastic decoration consisting of similar elements was found on the wall ruins of a house found on level 2 of the Tiszaug — Kéménytető tell.22 In addition to the similarity, significant differences can also be observed compared to the objects classified to Group A: a) the size of V-shaped elements is considerably smaller than that of other elements; b) the scene depicts details that are missing from the other representations; b) according to the reconstruction drawing, there was no place at the end of the house to accommodate the symmetrical arrangement shown on the vessels. The above may indicate that, also in this case, we are dealing with a representation consisting of similar elements, but bearing a different meaning. (Group C.)

Representation of the figures seems to be the most detailed on the Kisapostag vessel, so it is worth using this one as a starting point for the interpretation of the rest. Accordingly, where they really feature the visual representations of humans, heads are depicted - even if usually they are only indicated by means of simple projections.23 On the Kisapostag vessel, the human creatures’ heads are facing upwards, while on the other two, their feet: Rózsa Schreiber brings several examples for upside-down representations.24 She classifies, however, the figures in the decoration of the Nagyrév vessel as those in a normal position — on the basis of the Kisapostag vessel, her opinion probably should be modified.25 This way, the body part that extends from the human figures and is connected to the building gets an anatomical sense — it can be identified as an outstretched arm.

14 TOMPA 1937, Table 23, 5; PATAY 1938, Table V, 4.

'5 SCHREIBER 1984a, 20, 5-8, Fig. 7, 1 a-b.

16 Schreibet marking No. 2: SCHREIBER 1984a, 23.

17 VICZE 2009,312: Fig. 3.

18 Regarding identification, the only that may give rise to some doubts is an oblique line section running in the direction of one of the ‘limbs’, which is a detail missing from the other representations.

19 CSÁNYI 1982, Fig. 23; SCHREIBER 1984a, 8: Fig. 7,2; CSÁNYI 2003, Fig. 2, 1; 5,1.

20 PATAY 2009, 215: Fig. 3, 7-8, Fig. 9-10.

21 For information on the similarity' and simplicity of elements and the limited number of motifs used in prehistoric imaging, see: HUTH 2010.

22 CSÁNYI-STANCZIK 1992, Fig. 76.

23 We know many examples for the rough-and-ready, cudgel-like representation of the head from Late Bronze Age idols (KOVÁCS 1977, Fig. 24A-B, 29-31). A similar abstraction can also be supposed in representations from the Early Bronze Age.

24 SCHREIBER 1984a, 26.

25 This also confirms the theory that grave No. C/l of the Nagyrév — Zsidóhalom site is not part of the group, since if we look at it upside down - in accordance with the other Nagyrév vessel —, the ‘adoring arms’ turn out to be feet.

14