A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum évkönyve 36. - 1994 (Nyíregyháza, 1995)

Katalin Bíró: The role of lithic finds in the Neolithic archaeology of the Alföld region

The role of lithic finds in the Neolithic archaeology of the Alföld region Katalin BIRÓ T X he archaeological investigation of the Neolithic of the Alföld (Great Hungarian Plain) has traditionally concentrated on the study of chronology, stratigraphy and settlement features with a special emphasis on pottery among the elements of the material culture. In the last few years, a systematical study of lithic artefacts especially concerned with the more recent periods of the Neolithic has been started which has important new implications for prehistoric interpretation. This paper deals with the specific role of lithic artefacts as sources of archaeological information. Furthermore, some examples of current results are given with comments on further directions in research. Considerations about the role of lithic artefacts as sources of archaeological information Archaeology deals with objects (features, phenomena) located in time and space. The history of our subject can be regarded as a continuous refinement of these categories; using methods and techniques to determine and relate the categories more exactly, with increasingly better precision and accuracy. The concurrent occurrence of certain objects (groups of objects, phenomena etc.) provides a basis for delimiting the archaeological culture, in terms of separating it from contemporary but different assemblages; the formal development of these objects, in relation with stratigraphy, is the basis of typology and, consequently, of archaeological (relative) chronology. The objects found on an archaeological site could have been made on the site itself or on other sites and activity areas; on the basis of morphological studies, the place of origin can only be determined in specific cases with a degree of certainty (e.g., KALICZ-MAKKAY 1977. Abb.l.) Taking raw material into consideration, a new aspect is added to the information set. Some of the natural ran' materials (not transformed chemically by burning, melting etc. ) can be found in the everyday activity region (the location of the settlement can be selected accordingly!) - some of the raw materials of vital importance, however, are not necessarily present in the ecological niche of the site and its immediate surroundings. Thus, the minimal information conveyed by any worked piece of stone is, at least, double: its location (type, shape, place in the production chain, use and discard, stratigraphy and its associated chronological data) and its provenance (geological age, formation conditions, the region of its occurrence and the human utilisation of that region, distance from the location, and possible means of its transport). Morphological analysis: type, technology and use Traditional study of lithic assemblages concentrated on the formal - typeable - features of the implements. The peak of this approach concentrated in the so-called „French school of prehistory" lead by F. Bordes and a number of distinguished followers of typological classification. The morphological features of stone artefacts, however, are suitable for more than the mere stylistic comparison of stone industries. The procurement, processing and use of lithic artefacts have important implications concerning the site economy, everyday activities, crafts and the relation of the site to the source region. Stone tools differ from pottery remains and most other archaeological finds in that they are not generally found as „fragments" but rather, as used and discarded tools, and as debris contemporary with their manufacture. Thus, the process of the production, i.e., „reduction sequence" can be established for the settlement itself- as well as for the corresponding „customers" or related workshops. The use and the production phases can be widely different in time, and particulary in space. On Fig. 1 a schematical representation of the most important stages of „the lithic cycle" is given after M. De GROOTH (1988.). 1 Provenancing man-made (artificial) raw materials is another long chapter in the relation of science and archaeology; it can - or cannot - be characteristic of source, workshop, certainly that of industrial tradition. The vast realm of artificial materials however falls outside the scope of this paper.