Marta, Liviu (szerk.): Satu Mare. Studii şi comunicări. Seria arheologie 26/1. (2010)

Nagy József-Gábor - Körösfői Zsolt: Early Iron Age Storage Pit at Porumbenii Mari-Várfele (Harghita County)

Nagy József-Gábor - Körösfői Zsolt

rippled decoration (Figure 6/1). Antecedents of this vessel type could be found in the Late Bronze Age, from the Wietenberg Culture, but the shape was still used with small differences, until the end of the Iron Age, so it has small chronological value.88

Along with the pottery fragments mentioned above in the pit from Porumbenii Mari a fragmentary animal figurine (Figure 5/1) - which can also be attributed to the Early Iron Age - was discovered. The zoomorphic statuette was moulded in a realistic manner, with the essential characteristic of a domestic animal, probably bull or a ram. Same figurines can be found in all the area of Gáva-Holihrady culture, but being a wide-spread element, it can be found on numerous Early Iron Age settlements.89 The presence of these zoomorphic statuettes on the settlements and in the ritual pits can be linked to the practices of protecting the animals and influencing their breeding.90

The interpretation of the finds

A key issue in the interpretation of the finds from Porumbenii Mari was the settle of the sacral or profane character of the pit. Could the everyday habits be separated from the ritual ceremonials?91

The pits with rich pottery inventory cannot be regarded always as storage or rubbish pits, in this case the ritual character also had to be taken into consideration.92 The ethnological analogies showed that the inventory of the rubbish pits was influenced by taboos related to food, cooking, eating and the handling of pots.93

In case of ritual deposition the high status of the pottery was reflected in the standardized manufacture and design of certain given types of vessels, by using new advanced techniques of surface treatment.94 The use of black and red vessels, with well smoothed polished inside or outside, decorated with various types of channelling was typical of the Early Iron Age. The handling of the pottery was regulated, after the sacrifice or ritual consumption of the vessels’ contents they were buried empty in the ground.95 In other cases the vessels had to be ritually smashed to withdraw the specific instruments of the ritual from everyday handling.96

A possible approach in the interpretation of this type of features was to search for intact, reusable objects that indicated non-waste or objects broken and deposited on site.97 As a reference had be observed that if there were waste materials, like daub and animal bones in the filling of the pit or traces of use on the surface of the recovered pottery, that are characteristic for a refuse pit.

At first sight the pit in Porumbenii Mari showed similarities with the first type of vessel deposition separated by V. Szabó Gábor. He included the depositions of Tiszacsege and Gyoma98 in this type, both found on settlements, with vessels broken in the pit or before placing them into the pit.99

88 Vasiliev et al. 1991,83.

89 Berciu-Berciu 1946, 21, fig. 6/2, 12/40; Poroszló-Aponhát (Patay 1976, 197, Abb. 3/7-9); Lechinţa de Mureş (Popescu 1925, 313,1-V t.; Horedt 1963, 527-534, fig. 2/1-11; Kemenczei 1971,46; Popescu 1956, 316); Teleac (Berciu - Popa 1965, 84-85, fig. 5-6; Vasiliev et al. 1983, 156, fig. 1,4; Vasiliev 1985-1986, 80-83, fig. 1, 2; Vasiliev et al. 1991, 145, 223, fig. 27, 224, fig. 28, nr. 1-8); Reci-Telek (Székely 1966, pl. ViI/6); Grăniceşti (László 1994, 90, 266-269, fig. 46- 49), Chinari-Mociar (Rezi - Nagy 2009, 100, footnote 17, 129, fig. XXII/141-142); Ursache 1999, 41-69.

90 Vasiliev 1985-1986, 80-83; Ursache 1999, 45.

91 “Settlement site pit” defines a hole dug in the ground and filled again, to which a functional definition can’t be given today (Stâlbom 1997, 23).

92 Stâlbom 1997, 32.

93 Stâlbom 1997, 33.

94 Stâlbom 1997, 32.

95 V. Szabó 2004, 87.

96 Stâlbom 1997, 32-33.

97 Presumably they took the reusable objects to the new settlement leaving behind the dwelling remains and the thrown away objects (Stâlbom 1997, 27-28).

98 Genito-Kemenczei 1990, 113-125.

99 V. Szabó 2004, 86.

140