Tálas László szerk.: The late neolithic of the Tisza region (1987)

The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region: A survey of recent archaeological research (N. Kalicz and P. Raczky)

N. KALICZ-P. RACZKY devoted a number of studies to the European context of the Neolithic of the Danube region and, on the basis of the then available evidence, he incorporated the Late Neolithic finds and assemblages of the Tisza region into his 'Danubian II'. In his chronological framework the layer sequence of the Vinca tell was correlated with his two main phases, Danubian I and II, that in an embryonic form corresponded to the later division into Vinca-Tordos and Vinca-Plocnik phases. His Danubian II complex included also the younger layers of the Vinca mound and the Late Neolithic of the Tisza region, as well as Lengyeltype finds, and thus his relative chronological framework did, more or less, point in the right direction (CHILDE 1929, 27-111). The chronological guidelines proposed by Tompa and Childe were generally accepted and applied in further studies on the Hungarian Neolithic. The theoretical phases of Tompa's chronology were filled by the finds from the large-scale excavations begun by J. Banner at Hódmezővásárhely-Kökénydomb in 1928 (BANNER 1930, 49-158). He accepted Tompa's chronological and evolutionary proposals, but at the same time recognised that the Tisza culture should be distinguished from other contemporary cultures on the basis of its distinct incised meandric decoration, the so-called textile style, that was thought to be an imitation of woven textile and matwork patterns. The distinction of a ceramic ware ornamented with finger-pinched decoration as an independent assemblage later termed Körös culture - caused some confusion in the by then generally accepted view of the Tisza culture. Following Tompa's original scheme, Banner defined this complex as the third phase of the Tisza culture that represented the transition to the Copper Age (BANNER 1929, 23-34). However, both Tompa and Banner modified their earlier views after the stratigraphical sequence of Vinca became known to them since it became clear that this ceramic ware preceded the Tisza culture and should thus be assigned to the earliest phase of the Neolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain. On the basis of the main geographic distribution of sites yielding this pottery type, this complex was named Körös culture or group (BANNER 1935, 97-98, 121; 1937, 32-49; TOMPA 1934-35, 46-47). This modified chronological framework then became the basis for further studies (GALLUS 1938, 520-530). The origins and chronological position of the Tisza culture were viewed in a somewhat different context by M. Roska (1936, 81-83, 119-121), and then J. Csalog, who rejected entirely Tompa's suggestion that the Tisza culture should be derived from the Bükk culture (CSALOG 1941, 1-27). He considered the culture to have evolved independently and traced its origins to the local Mesolithic. In Csalog's opinion the Bükk and Tisza cultures had been coeval, and the so-called Bükk III type finds (now termed Tiszadob-Kapusany group and placed before the Bükk sequence) reflected the interaction of these two cultures. In his later studies he not only argued for the contemporaneity of the Bükk and Tisza cultures, but also advocated that the two cultures spanned the entire period from the Körös culture to the Copper Age Bodrogkeresztúr culture (CSALOG 1955, 23-44, 227-230; 1966-67, 35-47). Csalog's views on the contemporaneity of the Tisza and Bükk cultures became widely accepted in Hungarian research (KUTZIÁN 1946, 45-52, 94; BANNER 1950, 9-25; KOREK-PATAY 1956, 33-42; KOREK 1951, 68-72; KOREK 1958-59, 19-52; BOCNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1966, 256-260; TROGMAYER 1957, 57-60), as well as in international prehistoric research (MiLOjCiC 1949, 91-94; GARASANIN 1950, 19-25; 1951, 125-132). Another source of misunderstandings in this field was the assignment of most Szakálhát-type finds (BANNER-BÁLINT 1935, 76-96) to the Tisza culture, and the acceptance of the DiminiWanderung theory and its implications that the emergence of the Dimini culture can be attributed to formative influences from the Bükk-Tisza (i.e. Szakáihát) culture and their spiral decorated pottery (SCHACHERMEYR 1953-54,1-39; 1955, 99-125). An important step towards the clarification of these problems was the recognition that in the Great Hungarian Plain the Alföld Linear Pottery and the Szakálhát-Lebő types assemblages represented two distinct and independent chronological horizons (ALP: KOREK-PATAY 1958, 1-2; KOREK 1958-59, 19-52; KALICZ-MAKKAY 1966, 35-39; KAUCZ-MAKKAY 1977, passim; BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1966, 251-255; Szakáihát: BANNER-BÁLINT 1935, 76-96; BANNER 1961, 210-211; KALICZ-MAKKAY 1966, 39-41; 1977, 30-82; BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1966, 256-260). By the end of the 60s most Hungarian prehistorians accepted the Körös-Alföld Linear Pottery-Szakálhát-Tisza sequence, and the partial contemporaneity of the Alföld Linear Pottery and the Szakáihát group with the Bükk culture (KAUCZ-MAKKAY 1966, 47; 1977, 101-103). The Szakáihát group was thus assigned to the Middle Neolithic, while the Tisza culture was relegated to the Late Neolithic, together with the Herpály and Csőszhalom cultures (BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1966, 268; BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1972, 212-222; KALICZ 1970, 36-43; KALICZ 1970a, 13-23; KAUCZ-MAKKAY 1977, 116-117; KALICZ 1973, 329; KOREK 1972; KOREK 1972a, 3-4; MAKKAY 1978, chronological chart). The definition of the Herpály culture and its localisation to the Berettyó valley only became possible following the excavations at Herpály (KOREK-PATAY 1956, 23-42), Zsáka (KALICZ 1959, 14-15) and Berettyószentmárton (BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1963, 506-507; 1966, 268-270). The definition of the distribution territory of the Csőszhalom culture was based on earlier stray finds and I. Bognár-Kutzián's excavations at Csőszhalom and Bodrogzsadány (now called Sárazsadány) (BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1963, 382-386, 410-411, 431-434, 506-510; 1966, 268-270; 1972, 183-193, 212-220). The misleading term of 'Polgár cultures' introduced by Slovakian prehistorians after the excavations conducted on two different locations at Tiszapolgár (now called Polgár) yielding widely differing cultural assemblages that, however, were grouped as one cultural unit and termed Polgár cultures (SISKA 1968, 154-164; VÍZDAL 1970, 217-230; PAVÚK-SISKA 1981, 52) 12