Folia Historico-Naturalia Musei Matraensis - A Mátra Múzeum Természetrajzi Közleményei 13. (1988)

SZATHMÁRY, L.: The Boreal (Mesolithic) peopling in the Carpathian Basin: the role of the peripheries

its Pleistocene bed in the Ér-valley (SÜMEGHY 1944, PAPP 1956, 1960, SOMOGYI 1960, 1961, 1962, 1967, 1971, 1982, 1984, BORSY et al. 1969, IHRIG 1973). According to recent investigations this latter riverbed-change started in the Upper Pleniglacial Cat about 17-16 000 B. C.) and manifested in a process shaded by recurring moments. The river Szamos followed the valley of the Ér still for 4000 years at least thereupon. Later the Ér-bed was gradually turning into the downflow area the Kraszna region only. The alteration of the Tisza-bed, which continued until the Atlantic, was accompained by the occlusion and periodical renewal of the north-south directed Pleistocene riverbeds of the Eastern-Plain (Topl'a Ondava, Uzh-Uh, Laborec, Latorica-Latorista)

. During the Boreal, besides the always changing branches of the river Tisza, it was the Ancient-Tisza in the Ér-valley that may have supplied the continuous need for water. In spite of its reduced water output this may have been the only scenery of the survival of the end-Pleistocene vegetation and fauna (cf. BORSY 1979, 1980, BORSY et al. 1982a, BORSY and FÉLEGYHÁZI 1982, 1983, BORSY and LÖKI 1982). That is why the settlements alongside the Ér deserves attention (Fig. 1), In fact, the territories suitable for settling may have remarkably decreased (cf. KLÉH and SZŰCS 1954, SÜMEGHY 1955, LÁNG 1960, STEFANOVITS 1963, BULLA 1964, BORSY 1977). The extreme ecological conditions in the Boreal outlined above may not have been favourable for human settling in the central plain. So much the more that in this region human adaptation of this character was unprecedented, which, on the other hand, may have also impeded the immigration from the neighbouring peripheries. Therefore the Preboreal-Boreal hiatus in the central plain seems to be justified by palaeoecologically

, as well. Moreover, it should not be an extreme conclusion, if we assume a general northward migration which concerned the central plain from two (western and eastern) directions dissimilarly. Hereby the Boreal civilizations developing independently in the northeastern and northwestern peripheries, respectively, can be well interpreted. Besides, the depopulation of the southern periphery also seems to be resonable. Similarly, the local development of the Iron Gate region could be also-well explained by the "repulsive" adaptation factors which exerted their influence from the direction of the central plain. Owing to its various ecological profile the periphery could further on preserve the Palaeolithic reminiscences on one hand, and was capable of receiving new components on the other hand. Accordingly, the northern peripheries in the nature of a refuge may have, to a greater extent, ensure the coexistence of both local and immigrant components of different adaptation preliminaries and of different civilization profiles. This is why it is rather difficult to range the lithic industry of the Carpathian Basin among the cultures of the neighbouring territories, which could develop less disturbed. This is a specific feature of the Carpathian Basin. Therefore the hiatus of the central plain can be also discerned through the evaluation of the structure of findings of the peripheries. It seems obvious that a climatic change which may have moderated the drawing-away between the populations of the southern and of the northern peripheries of the Carpathian Basin may have only took place at the beginning of the Atlantic. However, this population movement of the Atlantic brought in newer Balkan elements into the Carpathian Basin. As a consequence, an entirely altered kind of difference came about between the northern and the southern regions of the central plain. Those anthropological arguments which regarded the definite difference between the KürösCris culture and the Alföld Linear Pottery culture registrated this very condition (NEMESKÉRI 1961, FARKAS 1975, SZATHMÁRY 1982b, 1903a, 1983b, 1984, 1986). A peremterületek jelentősége a Kárpát-medence boreális kori (mezolitikus) népességtörténetében SZATHMÁRY László A szerző az Alföld peremvidékeinek jelentőségét vizsgálja n horeá]is kori népességtörténetben. A régészeti adatnk áttekintése után megállapítja, hogy csak a peremvidékeken telepedhettek meg huzamosabb ideig mezolitikus népességek. A központi síkságon érzékelhető településtörténeti hiátuszt paleoökológiai (klimatológiai, palinnlógiai, faunisztikai, geomorfológiai és hirirngcngráfiai) érvekkel indokolja. A boreális kor szélsőséges környezeti feltételei ugyanis nem kedvezhettek a folyamatos megtelepülések létrejöttének az Alföldön. Ez a körülmény a peremterületekről történő bevándorlást is háttérbe szoríthatta. Annál is inkább, mert az ilyen jellegű humán adaptációnak nem voltak előzményei a Kárpát-medencében. A népességek inkább a peremterületek lankái, völgyei mentén mozogva találhattak korábbi adaptációjuknak megfelelőbb életteret. E gyors felmelegedéssel jellemezhető időszakban a népmozgás döntően északi irányú lehetett. Paleoökológiai szempontból tehát magyarázható az északkeleti és az északnyugati peremterület kiemelkedő lelőhelysűrűségc. Ezekben a régiókban a változatos biogeográfiai adottságok refúgiumszerűen biztosíthatták a különböző adaptációs előéletű, eltérő civilizációs profilú, lokális és immigráns összetevőkből kialakuló néprészek egymás mellett élését. Ezért nehéz besorolni az itteni kőesz-