Vadas Ferenc (szerk.): A Szekszárdi Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve 13. (Szekszárd, 1986)
Ferenc Horváth: Aspects of Late Neolithic changes in the Tisza-Maros Region
Aspects of Late Neolithic changes in the Tisza-Maros Region FERENC HORVÁTH, SZEGED The study of the Late Neolithic (LN) in the Southern Plain has contributed significantly to our knowledge of this period in the Carpathian Basin through the excavation of several tell settlements with key-importance between the 40's and the end of the 60's. The publication of important monographs and articles summarising the results of these excavations has made the LN in our area one of the best known fields of our prehistory (KUTZIÁN1972, KOREK 1973, MAKKAY 1982). Despite the results achieved, numerous principal questions have remained undiscussed or unclear or have arisen since the time of the last excavations. So terms of inner chronology of the Tisza Culture proved by manifold evidence has not been solved satisfactorily even today. Since 1978 we have been continuosly carrying out excavations on the tell settlement of Gorzsa near Hódmezővásárhely (HORVÁTH 1982). The results of this, and experiences deriving from other smaller excavations have given us the opportunity to contribute to the solution of the above mentioned problems. On the basis of Gy. GAZDAPUSZTAFs excavations Hungarian research given the name Gorzsa group to those sites of the Tisza culture, where the Tiszastyle pottery coexists with the embossed ware (GAZDAPUSZTAI 1962, 8-10, Idem 1963, 21-48, idem 1969,125-139, KUTZIÁN 1966, 249-279). They pointed out the place of this group within the LN according to his stratigraphical observations. In his first publications (GAZDAPUSZTAI 1962,1963) GAZDAPUSZTAI spoke about two levels of settlement and ascertained that the embossed ware coexists with the Tisza-pottery from the lowest level to the uppermost, only the number of the latter was gradually decreasing. The two levels are probably parallel with the D-C phases of the new excavations. Some years later the realised that burials sunk into the upper level belonged to the same cemetery and represented an independent period (GAZDAPUSZTAI 1969). This period corresponds to our phase B. When he divided the upper level into two parts, however, he did so without reason (it is our C phase Fig. 1.). According to this he changed his standpoint as regards the estimation of the artefacts. So according to him there are no painted, embossed, pedestalled and collared-ware at all in the lower level, and thus it is contemporaneous with the Classical Tisza Period (CTP). The mentioned pottery-forms appear and become general only in the 2nd level, when the Tisza-style pottery had only a subordinate role, moreover in the 3rd level (which is still C phase) disappeared completely (GAZDAPUSZTAI 1969). This classification is just the opposite of his earlier conclusions, and very probably he modified his ori89
