Agria 39. (Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve - Annales Musei Agriensis, 2003)
Domboróczki László: Radiokarbon adatok Heves megye újkőkori régészeti lelőhelyeiről
as though the dating and understanding of the transitional period is completely impossible. Attempts at making ever more refined periodisations within the transitional period has caused the whole undertaking to be abandoned. This amounts to a serious methodological problem. Unfortunately the terminology we have today cannot be applied to a more detailed examination of the transition. Thus, in the case of a mixed find one has no choice but to call it ALPI. But what precisely is ALP about the material at Kőtelek, 75 Tiszavalk, Tiszacsege and the other places betraying Körös characteristics? 76 Although it is clear there are ALP finds present, 77 however, it is the Körös elements which dominate. Using this terminology suggests that the ALP Culture was already in existence. Today we know that when using this terminology the finds were not being dated with any greater accuracy, as the existence of the ALP Culture at the end of the Körös Culture was already recognised. Consequently dating something very late Körös or very early ALP meant more or less the same thing chronologically speaking. However, what tends to be confusing today is that finds and groups of finds containing Körös Culture material, like for example those in Újtikos 78 and Kötelek, 79 tend to be termed ALP. This makes it impossible to talk about the very end of the Körös Culture at all, let alone whether the final stage of the Körös Culture is made up of mixed or transitional finds. 80 What is needed is a discussion on the local development of the ALP Culture, the transitional group finds, the development of the ALP Culture from the Körös region northwards and a 75 Kőtelek pit no. 8: RACZKY Pál 1983. 166-186., RACZKY Pál 1988. 10-17. ills., MAKKAY János 2001. 61, note no. 32. Tiszavalk: RACZKY Pál 1988., ills. 20-29., NAGY Emese Gyöngyvér 1998.73., 89-116., Tiszacsege: KALICZ Nándor-MAKKAY János 1977. 165., 240-242., NAGY Emese Gyöngyvér 1998. 118-119. 76 Most recently Újtikos-Köztemető: NAGY Emese Gyöngyvér 1998. 121-126. 77 Obviously the most important consideration is what kind of ALP finds are there.There could be both developed and early ALP material at a Körös site. Dating errors can arise if we interpret the pinched decoration, the low tubular supports and the other Körös features as purely early ALP, because in doing so we blur over the issue and fail to notice those features pointing to a possible Körös inheritance. In any case (and this is our opinion at least) neither pinched decoration, small pedestal supports nor high base rings are generally found in ALP objects. These, apart from in the case of one or two small finds, are characteristic of the mixure of stylistic features one finds in the Szatmár period. 78 NAGY Emese Gyöngyvér 1998. 121-126. 79 RACZKY Pál 1983. 166-186., RACZKY Pál 1988. ills. 10-19. 80 Protovinca finds also contain ALP fragments, like for example at pits 1. and 3. at Öcsöd-Kiritó: RACZKY Pál 1988. ill. 9. These are nevertheless believed to be of the final phase of the Körös Culture (RACZKY Pál 1986. 34.). The question is why is it only these which can be discussed in terms of being late Körös finds. 26
