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

ginal observations to suit the chronological aspects of his age. In the knowledge of the results of our new excavations his stratigraphical observations can only be partly accepted, but his conclusions referring to the division of the artefacts by settlement-level cannot be accepted at all. The contradictory publications served as a basis for Hungarian research to divide the Gorzsa group (i. e. the 1st and 2nd levels according to GAZDAPUSZTAI, our C phase) from the CTP and to regard it as the Illrd period of the Tisza culture (KOREK

1973,19,379,393-94, Idem 1984,148). When defining the Gorzsa group I. KUTZIÁN situated it chronologically correctly but as for the relation between the embossed pottery she had necessarily been misled by GAZDAPUSZTAI. Namely, she accepted that „Die Keramik wird... durch die Eigenheit gekennzeichnet, dass Ritzverzierung fehlt" and that „In TápéLebő B spielt die Theiss Kultur noch eine bedeutende Rolle, weiter östlich (sie!) in Gorzsa, ist sie bereits gering" (KUTZIÁN 1966, 265-266). These misunderstandings led all the more to contradictions as the correct recognition of the contemporaneity of Gorzsa and the early Lengyel culture (Zengővárkony, Villánykövesd) was understood as a LN-ECA transitional synchronism. Only this contradiction would lead GAZDAPUSZTAI to the artificial, forced stratigraphical division of the material into two types (GAZDAPUSZTAI 1969, 130-135). That is why I. KUTZIÁN left open the question of the appearance and origin of the Gorzsa group in her cited fundamental work (KUTZIÁN 1966, 266). The question has been settled by the new excavations which proved that the pottery of Gorzsa D phase contains some early Tisza elements (PI. I. 1-12, PI. II. 1-5). The beginning of the life of Gorzsa group must be parallel at least with the latest period of the early Tisza culture (ETC). Since L KUTZIÁN puts the early Tisza-pottery of Békés-Povádzug which includes Gorzsa-ware, and the uppermost level of Lebő A (see KUTZIÁN 1966,265 and TROGMAYER

1960-62,31-32, Taf. XIII-XIV) into the Gorzsa group, only terminological misunderstandings would cause the barrier in perspicacity. As the chronological discrepancy led GAZDAPUSZTAI to the artificial separation of the archeological material, the attention of research has been diverted in the same way from the obvious possibility of solution, given even at that time, by the unclear inner startigraphies of the great tells of the Southern Alföld (Csóka-Coka, Hódmezővásárhely-Kökénydomb, Szegvár— Tüzköves, Békés-Povád) and, the different contents of ideas hidden behind the terms of the startigraphical and chronological periodizations. The appearance of the embossed pottery in the great tells mentioned has been known for a long time. Thus in a rather lesser number according to the chronological position of the embossed pottery in Coka and Kökénydomb, but especially in Szegvár-Tüzköves and in the case of the top-level of Tápé-Lebő A, respectively (BANNER 1931,93, Idem 1960 Pis. VII, XIII-XIV, KOREK 1973 Pis. XLIII. 6, XLIV. 3-4, XLVII, 4-7. TROGMAYER 1957,23-24, Pis. I-IL). On the basis of the Aszód excavations N. KALICZ made unambiguously clear the contemporaneity of the early Lengyel culture and a certain period of the ETC, and in connection with this, as a supporting evidence, he also reffered to the early Lengyel connections of Gorzsa (KALICZ 1970,22). The proper chronological situation of Gorzsa ought to have been established even without new excavations on the basis of the upper chronological relations. The new excavations yielded sufficient evidence to prove the appearance of the embossed pottery at the end of the ETC (PI. II. 6-8, 8-12). A fundamental 90