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

Domboróczki László: Radiokarbon adatok Heves megye újkőkori régészeti lelőhelyeiről

but with the sudden acculturating of the a local late Mezolithic population. They postulated such an indigenous population, not only from that the northern extent of the Körös Culture, was not adjusted to the geographical borders (stretching to Szolnok in the middle of the Alföld), but from that the main body of early ALP settlements belonging to the Szatmár Group was situated immediately to the north, as well as from the later ALP groups in the area displaying formal and believed ethnic differences, and finally from the position of the Eger Culture, which was then thought to be Mezolithic.

102 The existence of a Mezolithic Eger Culture responsible for making macrolithic tools, however, lost its validity during the 1980s.

103 The northernmost Körös sites were known to be on the banks of the Túr and the Szamos, at a time when the Körös Culture sites could only be traced up to the Kunhegyes-Berettyóújfalu line. It appeared that the sites of the Körös Culture avoided the Upper Tisza region, only spreading along the banks of the Szamos to where the later Szatmár II sites also appear more densely.

104 During the 1980s P. Raczky produced a new model for the genesis of the ALP Culture. According to Raczky the ALP Culture went back to that branch of the Körös Culture passing through Transylvania and the Partium, so the population of the earliest ALP Szatmár II being traced back to the bulk of settlements there forming the final phase of the Körös Culture.

105 The Kunhegyes-Berettyóújfalu line would therefore have been at the confluence of the two branches of the Körös Culture (from the Alföld and the Partium), the border of which at that time would have separated different types of economy as well. From the point of view of ethnic origins, using the research he 102 KALICZ Nándor-MAKKAY János 1977. 18-19., 29., MAKKAY János 1982a. 21-24., 57. J. Makkay traced one part of the Körös population to the local indigenous pre-Neolithic people, who he believed were quickly assimilated by the new arrivals. Looking at the proportions it is possible that the local elements formed were in a significant majority. Later: MAKKAY János 2001.66. 103 RINGER Árpád 1983. 104 It looked as though the Körös Culture avoided the Upper Tisza region altogether. J. Makkay also mentioned the early Neolithic sites lying to the east of the Carpathians (which he listed as belonging to the Körös Culture), but in connection with Méhtelek and Felsőhomoród he draws a possible link between the sites in western Transylvania and the Alföld: MAKKAY János 1982a. 19. At the same time, because of the similarities of finds in Moldavia and the Körös Region, A. Sherrat believed the whole of the Körös Culture radiated out from a primary centre in Transylvania: SHERRAT, Andrew 1982. 295. This view was at complete odds with the state of research in Hungary, as the Körös Culture had long been traced back to the Starcevo Culture: KUTZIÁN Ida 1944. 147., MAKKAY János 1965. 10. (For the early Neolithic sites in Romania: COMSA, Eugen 1971. 42-43., LAZAROVIC1, Gheorghe 1984. 88-104.) At the end of the 1970s new Körös sites were found to the north of Szolnok, but these were also to the south of the Kunhegyes-Berettyóújfalu line: RACZKY 1980, 22. In the meantime the definition of the Szatmár I group changed, the sites being attributed to the Körös Culture: KALICZ Nándor-MAKKAY János 1976. 22. Although this left Szatmár II rootless it was soon moved toward the ALP. According to P. Raczky the finds at the most northerly of the Körös sites carry features which are both alien to its Alföld variation (sandy attenuation, oblong-shaped idols) and similar to the Szatmár II finds: RACZKY Pál 1986. 27, 31. In his opinion in this area one can also later find finds related to Szatmár II, (the Ciumesti finds group: KALICZ Nándor-MAKKAY János 1977. 28.). 105 RACZKY Pál 1983. 187, 189., RACZKY Pál 1986. 27-32. Criticisms: MAKKAY János 1996. 43., KERTÉSZ Róbert-SÜMEGI Pál 1999a. 17. 32