Agria 39. (Az Egri Múzeum Évkönyve - Annales Musei Agriensis, 2003)
Domboróczki László: Radiokarbon adatok Heves megye újkőkori régészeti lelőhelyeiről
carried out on the Tiszahát, J. Korek had something similar in mind, whereby Neolithic development on the Tiszahát was based throughout on the Körös Culture seen in an ethnic sense. 106 I. Bona also used this as the starting point. He saw in the Szatmár group the inheritance of the Körös Culture, arguing that the Szatmár group didn't in fact have much in common with the ALP Culture. 107 At the beginning of the 1990s R. Kertész discovered traces of an indigenous microlithic-producing population in the Jászság. 108 From that moment onwards the Mezolithic people's role in the Neolithisation process reoccupied centre stage. For R. Kertész and P. Sümegi this was seen mainly in relation to the TLP Culture, 109 which in turn effected the development of the ALP Culture. 110 Arguing that the explanation for the extent of the Körös Culture did not fit in with the geographical causal factors, R. Kertész and P. Sümegi developed a geoarchaeological model and having criticised the previous explanations introduced the notion of the СЕВ AEB (the Central European Balkan Agro Ecological Barrier). According to this, if one takes into consideration the climatic and the soil features, as well as the development of the environmental mosaic from the point of view of Körös Culture food production, then these would provide the limiting factors from which it would be possible to determine the extent of northern development. So those communities which found themselves on the periphery of Balkan climatic and environmental influence found themselves in an ecological trap which slowed and indeed prevented further expansion. The СЕВ AEB was drawn precisely along the northern border of Körös Culture know at that time. According to the authors it was a line which held for a thousand years, and as a result of the adaptation process north of this barrier, a new Neolithic culture evolved, Line Pottery, which adapted to the local conditions and differed radically from the early Neolithic communities both in its material culture and subsistence strategies. 111 Whilst not wishing to address all the arguments and counter-arguments for Neolithisation individually, we find statements with which we can agree and disagree in all of the theses It is our intention here merely to publish new data and thoughts, yet, we would have to turn our attention to R. Kertész and P. Sümegi 's СЕВ AEB for a while, a thesis so recent that it has only received little criticism. We would like first for all, to refer to the critical observations of J. Makkay, criticism to which we partly subscribe. 112 At this point we should add to that whilst we do agree with the essence of the criticism we do not agree with the explanations which are given. Whilst agreeing that climatic, geological and ecological attributes are indeed important and would have influenced Neolithic expansion, they were not the only factors influencing the creation of line-like barrier. The barrier is not 106 KOREK József 1983. 25-26. 107 BONA István 1986. 63-64. 108 KERTÉSZ Róbert ET AL. 1994. 15-37. 109 KERTÉSZ Róbert ET AL. 1994. 33. 110 CB NAZ: KERTÉSZ Róbert-SÜMEGI Pál 1999b. 17-19. J. Makkay also saw in this, justification for his earlier views (see footnote 102.) and continued to believe that the indigenous local Mezolithic population (although accepting R. Kertész and P. Siimegi's views, and therefore not necessarily including the Jászság population) were the predecessors of the ALP Culture: MAKKAY János 1996. 41. J. Makkay invented the term "Jászság Border" which he believed separated the Körös Culture from the ALP and TLP populations. MAKKAY János 2001. 62-64. 111 KERTÉSZ Róbert-SÜMEGI Pál 1999a. 17-19., KERTÉSZ Róbert-SÜMEGI Pál 2001a. 236-237. 112 MAKKAY János 2001. 61-62. 33
