Agria 39. (Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve - Annales Musei Agriensis, 2003)

Domboróczki László: Radiokarbon adatok Heves megye újkőkori régészeti lelőhelyeiről

Neolithic period.

85 In the central and southern parts of the Alföld it is less surprising that the Körös and the ALP periods overlap each other.

86 Whilst we do not want to deny that an evolutionary process was behind the development of the ALP Culture, mixed finds were not always due to stylistic development. It would therefore be a good idea to turn our attention to exchange-type mixes.

87 What is important, whether discussing exchange-type mixing, or differences apparently caused by stylistic change, is that you have to be quite clear when defining not only what is mixed but what could have mixed with what. Also the terminology used should be selfexplanatory and clearly defining. In the case of an overlap, one should be expected to state the degree to which transition and mixture has taken place. From the work of I. Kutzián, we are given a clear idea what the characteristics of Körös Culture ceramics are, even if there 85 As already stated above we do not think it likely that this would have happened in an aggressive manner, in the context of a major movement of people as envisaged by J. Makkay (MAKKAY János 1982a. 31., 44-45., MAKKAY János 2001. 69). We believe it is more likely that the fashion for ALP-type decoration and its consequent spread was motivated by more effective and more successful forms of farming. Based on what we know of the most recently excavated ALP sites we can say that animal husbandry, and perhaps agriculture to a similar degree, (although this cannot be proved as conclusively: GYULAI Ferenc 2003. 66.) meant that its means of sustenance was significantly more effective than that of the Körös Culture's. The main proof for this we believe is that 90-95% of the bones taken from ALP sites come from domestic animals. In contrast, at most of the Körös sites the proportion of domestic animals appears to be considerably lower (VÖRÖS István 1994. 177-178., VÖRÖS István 1980. 56-57.). This high proportion of domestic animals, starting from the Szatmár Group period onwards probably shows not that there weren't any wild animals but there was no longer such a need to hunt them. During the ALP period, at a time when there were no geographical limits for expansion and settlement and the further diffusion of their economic forms, it would appear that it was their dependence on large expanses of water (and what is more, the great rivers) which restricted the Körös Culture's development. It was therefore important for them to have raised sites which, whilst being close to water, would keep them above the water line during floods. Such geographical requirements would have been limiting factors on possible settlement in other areas, as would the poor quality of the surrounding soils (they would have had to contend with acidic soils: SHERRAT, Andrew 1983b. 158.). The proximity of water would also have been important for fishing and the collection of snails and shellfish. At the Körös sites there are enormous quantities of shellfish and snails, whilst the proportion of hunted animals is about the same as that of domesticated animals. Whilst the ALP population's animal husbandry meant they had a stable economic base and one which could allow some surplus, the Körös population, being reliant on natural resources for their nourishment, were forced to rely on ad hoc supplements. Although the Körös Culture's diet was more varied, the fact that in the ALP period there was always enough as well as something in reserve, means the survival strategy appears more advanced by others. It may also have had an attraction which meant that it would have been adopted by others at one time or another. 86 Just as an argument: the Körös and protovinca dates for the IV cluster produced by HorváthHertelendi (HORVÁTH Ferenc-HERTELENDI Ede 1994. 123-124.), or for example the datings for Szarva site-39 (GLÄSER, Roland 1991. 57., fig. 2b.) cover for example the ALP dates found in pit no. 135 at Gubakút (fig. Id). 87 ALP imports appear at a number of Körös sites (MAKKAY János 2001. 68., footnote 64.). Nevertheless one should look at mixed finds with a critical eye as, as is generally known, the movement of rodents and as yet unknown superpositions could have proved unsettling factors. 28