Volume III ● Issue 1/2012 ● Pages 57–73
“Post” Transformation: Preliminary Research
into the Organization of Technology during the Neolithic
Elisabetta Starninia, Barbara Voytekb*
aSoprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Liguria, via Balbi 10, 16126 Genova, Italy.
bArchaeological Research Facility, 2251 College, University of California at Berkeley, California 94720-1076, USA
Article info
Article history:
Received: 10 April 2012
Accepted: 27 June 2012
Key words:
Late Neolithic
Tisza archaeological culture
Hungary
lithic analysis
Abstract
Using lithic data from the Neolithic tell-site of Hungary, the authors discuss social and cultural developments that characterize the Late Neolithic after the Neolithic transformation. The premise is that the inhabitants of the site of Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa, had a good knowledge of, and access to, the raw materials that they chose. By the time of the Tisza archaeological culture represented at the site, the landscape had been enculturated. The agro-pastoral subsistence base had been established. Connections with neighbouring territories, through exchange and/or trade, had been developed. Transformation continued, however, within the society particularly in terms of the development of social relations and the growth of socio-economic complexity.
1. Introduction
The site of Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa, a Tisza culture tell-site, lies at the confluence of the Tisza and Maros rivers in south-east Hungary (Figure 1). After water management activities of the 19th century, the location of the site was on a natural terrace at a height of 4–5 m, surrounded by water courses, swamps and marshes due to the fluvial system of the Tisza. At the foot of the terrace, an ancient stream, the Kero, constitutes a direct link with the Tisza, the Hód lake near Hódmezővásárhely, the Száraz stream, and the Maros River (Horváth 1991; 2005).
The most recent excavations were begin in 1978, directed by Ferenc Horváth of the Móra Ferenc Museum of Szeged. They became part of the ongoing study of tell settlements in the region, for example, at Szegvár and Tápé-Lebő. The layers of the settlement formed a sequence that was 2.60 to 3 m thick and contained remains from the late Neolithic to the period of the Sarmatians. The thickest layer was 180–200 cm and was that of the late Neolithic, representing the early, classic and late periods of the Tisza culture. In terms of absolute chronology, calibrated dates place the sequence roughly between 4970 and 4380 BC (Horváth 2005; Gulyás et al. 2010).
There are at least three culture groups associated with the Late Neolithic in eastern Hungary, known as the Tisza-Herpály-Csőszhalom complex. The Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár culture is characterized by more dispersed sites but is clearly developed from the earlier complex (Bognár-Kutzián 1972). Kalicz and Raczky (1987) discuss three basic site types for the Hungarian Neolithic: tells, tell-like mounds, and small to moderate sized flat sites enclosed by ditches. Although larger sites are associated with the Late Neolithic, all three are also known in the Copper Age. At the same time, there has been a burst of recent research that focuses on the nature of changes during the Neolithic that led to the settlement patterns, economic systems, and social structures known during the Copper Age (e.g., Raczky, Anders 2006; Parkinson et. al. 2004).
The expanse of Gorzsa was approximately five hectares, but during the late Neolithic, different parts of the area were not inhabited simultaneously. Over the 12 year period 1978 to 1990, only 1.4 % of the extent of the settlement has been brought to light. According to the modifications of the settlement structure and the typology of the objects, the Neolithic occupation was divided into five different phases of occupation, succeeding each other directly through time. Although the stratigraphy is complicated and disturbed by numerous pits, it was possible to uncover several houses of wattle and daub (Horváth 1991).
During the first two phases of the settlement, subsistence was heavily based on food production, this being evident from frequent finds of carbonized cereal grains and impressions. The percentage of domestic animals among the faunal remains measured close to 80 % and the diet was also supplemented by fish and molluscs. Studies of ceramics have shown that the people of Gorzsa had extensive cultural and economic relationships with neighbouring sites and archaeological cultures. Studies of the stone assemblage have suggested similar results (Biró 1998; Starnini et. al. 2007; Szakmány et. al. 2009; 2010).
In 1999, the authors undertook a study of the chipped stone assemblage from Gorzsa. One of the authors (Voytek), after engaging in the Hungarian research for several weeks in the summer, would then travel to Prague to meet with Marek Zvelebil and work with him and his Czech colleagues on the Northern Bohemian project. This collaboration continued for three years and although Voytek and Zvelebil did not publish the results of their research, it was a particularly positive and memorable period which created a warm and lasting friendship that included Marek Zvelebil’s time as a Visiting Professor at UC Berkeley, California.
2. Methodology
The study of the lithic assemblage from Gorzsa is still underway, currently funded by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA), with the Principal Investigator being Ferenc Horváth who had directed the excavations. Thus far, approximately 1900 chipped stone artefacts have been analysed for raw materials, typology, metrics (including weight), and use wear, utilizing a low power binocular microscope. A preliminary report on this research was made in 2006 at the Middle/Late Neolithic conference held in Krakow, Poland, and subsequently published (Starnini et. al. 2007).
This current contribution must also be considered preliminary, not only because the study is ongoing, but also because only a small sample of the analysed tools has been assigned stratigraphically to specific phases of the Tisza archaeological culture. A large portion of the analysed materials comes from pits that have yet to be clarified as to provenience. Therefore, we would like to emphasise that the current exercise presented here is basically a test case of the directions in which we hope to take this research. The conclusions section of this paper will underscore that fact.
Our premise is that the inhabitants of the site of Gorzsa had a sound knowledge of, and access to, the raw materials that they chose. Given the fact that the surrounding environment was comprised of mud, clay, and silt-sand, the stone used for tools had to have come from some distance away. Referring to the theme of this volume, we would venture to say that by the time of the Tisza archaeological culture, the landscape had been enculturated. The agro-pastoral subsistence base had been established. Connections with neighbouring territories, through exchange and/or trade had been developed. Transformation continued, however, within the society, particularly in terms of the development of social relations and the growth of socio-economic complexity.
Squeezing information about increasing socio-economic complexity from stones is not an easy matter. However, we formulated a hypothesis that could be tested with the lithic data, at least in preliminary terms. We focused on the choices made by the toolmakers and tool users – specifically, the choice of raw materials to produce specific types of tools that were used for specific purposes. We hypothesized that if there is a strong correlation between these three variables (raw material, tool type, and use), then the Neolithic peoples had based their choices on the functionality of the raw material. If however, there was no strong correlation, and the choices appeared to be random, the functionality or characteristics of the raw material was not the main factor. Other issues, such as ease of access including social access, had been in play. Admittedly, the hypothesis is a basic one. However, it is a beginning in the attempt to understand prehistoric human choice and behaviour.
As has been mentioned, the sample is admittedly very small, 175 pieces, because it is only composed of used tools coming from only two of the excavated squares. Roughly half can be assigned to the Classic Tisza phase of the culture, the other half to the Early Tisza (Figures 2–9). Due to the fact that the sample is as small as it is, we did not make any attempt at dividing it according to further chronological sub-phases. Interesting differences between the two suggests avenues for future research. For example, concerning raw material, obsidian is found principally in the later Classic Tisza levels, including used scrapers as well as cores and core fragments (Figure 9). In the Early Tisza, no used tools of obsidian were noted in the sample. In addition, during the Classic Tisza, it appears that there had been knowledge and use of Prut flint, also among the few pieces we included from the Late Tisza phase (Figure 8, 14). No Prut was seen from the Early Tisza artefacts of this sample. In the future, we hope, with more data, to test whether the introduction of such exotics was indeed a later development. In this study, we focused on three different lithic raw materials: Transdanubian (both Szentgál and Úrkút Eplény variants) radiolarite, Mecsek radiolarite, and Central Banat radiolarite (also known as Central Banat chert or silex). The distances between the site and these potential sources are not particularly large; however all are located more than 60–100 km distance from the site as the crow flies. The Transdanubian is generally to the north-west, Mecsek generally south-west, and Central Banat to the south-east. Central Banat raw materials have been also uncovered at Vinča archaeological sites such as Opovo in Vojvodina and Selevac in Serbia (Voytek 2001; 1990). Raw materials identification was carried out according to the list proposed by K. T. Biró (1998) and following the classification of Lithotheca of the National Museum in Budapest (Biró, Dobosi 1991; Biró et al. 2000).
3. Results
3.1 Tool Types
The most common tool type within the sample (80 pieces), and most likely, within the assemblage as a whole, is the end scraper, mostly the short type (Laplace 1964). This type constituted over 50 % of the sample presented here (Figures 2–3, 5–6). Thus, we chose to focus on two of the less represented types, namely, blades (47 pieces) and borers/becs (6) (Figures 3, 6–8). Within our sample, blades made of the Central Banat chert (15 pieces) exhibit a limited range of tasks: 25% cut silica-based vegetation; 25% sickles; 25% cut soft; 5% scrape hard; 20% cut wood. In contrast, blades made of Mecsek radiolarite (30 pieces) had been used in a broader range of activities: 45% cut soft; 18% cut wood; 18% cut silica-based vegetation; 10% sickles; 5% cut medium; 5% scrape hard. The actual number of borers/becs was only six. Two were made from Mezőzombor limnoquartzite and four were of Mecsek radiolarite.
Examining the used sickles, regardless of tool type per se, we found that the Mecsek radiolarite was slightly less used for this task – namely, 41% of the sickles were made of Mecsek, while 53% were made of Central Banat chert. The balance (6%) were made of limnoquartzite.
3.2 Tool Function/Use
Although end scrapers are the most common tool type in the sample, the most frequent activity was cutting vegetation that contained silica. Such plants include various wild grasses as well as reeds, straw, etc. This category includes the sickles as well as tools that show silica gloss but not to the same extent as the sickles. They had been used to cut vegetation but not as harvest implements for grains. Of the sample, 20% had been used in this manner. This activity was followed very closely by scraping hard or resistant materials such as bone or antler (17%). Wood-working/cutting/scraping had also been the function of 17% of the sampled tools, while cutting soft or least resistant materials amounted to 10%. The remaining tools had been used in a variety of tasks, mainly scraping.
Breaking out the three types of radiolarites that we introduced above, we found that the use of the Central Banat chert may reflect a preference for this rock in certain activities. Of the total, 26% had been used to cut vegetation that contained silica and 24% had been used to scrape hard or resistant materials such as bone or antler. Another 17% had been used in activities that involved scraping medium resistant materials such as hides, while 5% had been used for cutting wood. The balance was spread fairly evenly over other activities involving cutting and scraping. As mentioned above in the section on Tool Types, the blades of Central Banat chert also suggested a preference for certain tasks.
The sample of Szentgál or Transdanubian radiolarite is particularly small (18 pieces) which of course skews any calculations. We can, however, report that there is once again suggestion of preferred usage. Of the total, 22% had been used to scrape medium resistant materials such as hides, while 16% had been used to scrape hard materials. The percentage used to cut silica-based vegetation was 11%. Another 22% comprised cores and core fragments which is important information although not exactly related to tool use. The balance of the tools is spread over several activities including one piece which had been an armature.
Finally, we considered the Mecsek radiolarite which is the most numerous lithic raw material on the site. Again, the larger sample does tend to smooth out the percentages thus it is less likely that any activity would measure much higher than any other. And in fact, we did determine that a range of activities characterized the use of this material. Fourteen percent of the tools had been used in cutting soft or less resistant materials, while 11% had been used in cutting silica-based vegetation. Another 8% had been used in each of the following activities: scraping wood, scraping medium, and scraping hard. Six percent had been used for cutting medium while the rest were spread over various activities.
4. Conclusions
Although the sample used in this study is small and the differential quantities of the raw materials clearly affect the results, several observations can be made which lead to future directions for research. None of the raw materials appear to have been chosen for specific usage and/or types, suggesting that the choice of material had not been based on its quality or properties. The lack of correlation between material and usage suggests that ease of access, both physical and social, had been a major factor in the choice of rock.
Thus far, and in our limited sample, little evidence has been found for very long-distance trade of chipped stone materials from northern regions (i.e. Prut and chocolate flint and obsidian) during the earlier phases of the archaeological culture. Regarding lithic assemblages further south, associated with the Vinča archaeological culture, studies have shown that over time, local and nearby rock sources had been used more and more frequently during the Neolithic (Voytek 1990). At Gorzsa a similar pattern may be discerned. Along these lines, local cultural ties would have intensified as populations grew and spread into new regions of the landscape, solidifying “landscape relationships” (Zvelebil et al. 1992:194). Extended kinship patterns would be the beginning of tribal associations beyond the limits of individual settlements and individual households.
Concerning ease of physical access, and taking into account the geographical location of all the possible sources of lithic raw materials, both for chipped and polished/ground stone tools employed at Gorzsa (Figure 10), we would consider riverine travel and transport to have been of considerable value. The Maros River would have served as a potential E-W transport corridor, not only for raw materials such as the Central Banat chert, but also for the cultural contacts and interaction that exchange would represent, together with the Tisza River, acting as a major N-S connection axis.
In summary, the research into the lithic assemblage from Gorzsa is ongoing. Many questions remain unanswered but the data are there. Ideally, along with our detailed investigation, we hope to examine the organization of technology on a regional level. An individual site is a clear beginning but regional studies have been shown to be more effective in patterning ancient human behaviour (Zvelebil et al. 1992:196).
Acknowledgements
The authors express their thanks to Dr. Horváth Ferenc, the director of the tell Gorzsa excavations, for having been involved in the study of the lithic assemblage of Gorzsa. This research is carried out by the authors thanks to a grant from the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund n. OTKA K84151. Dr. Barbara Voytek was also supported by a grant from the Stahl Endowment Fund, Archaeological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley. The authors would also like to thank reviewers for their constructive comments.
References
BIRÓ, K. T. 1998: Lithic Implements and the Circulation of Raw Materials in the Great Hungarian Plain during the Late Neolithic Period. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest.
BIRÓ, K. T., DOBOSI, V. T. 1991: Lithotheca. Comparative Raw Material Collection of the Hungarian National Museum. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest.
BIRÓ, K. T., DOBOSI, V. T., SCHLÉDER, Z. 2000: Lithotheca II. Comparative Raw Material Collection of the Hungarian National Museum 1990–1997. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest.
BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN, I. 1972: The Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár Culture in the Carpathian Basin. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
GULYÁS, S., SUMEGI, P., MOLNÁR, M. 2010 : New radiocarbon dates from the Late Neolithic Tell Settlement of Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa, SE Hungary. Radiocarbon 52 (2–3), 1458–1464.
HORVÁTH, F. 1991: Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa. Un Habitat de la Culture de la Tisza. In: Les Agriculteurs de la Grande Plain Hongroise (4000–3500 av. J.-C.). Musée Archéologique de Dijon, Dijon, 33–49.
HORVÁTH, F. 2005: Gorzsa. Előzetes eredmények az újkőkori tell 1978 és 1996 közötti feltárásából. In: Bende, L., Lőrinczy, G. (Eds.): Hétköznapok Vénuszai. Tornyai János Múzeum, 51–83.
KALICZ, N., RACZKY, P. 1987: The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region : a survey of recent archaeological research. In: Raczky, P. (Ed.): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region. Szolnok County Museum, 11–29.
LAPLACE, G. 1964: Essay de typologie systématique. Annali dell’Università di Ferrara n.s. 15 (1), suppl. II, 1–85.
PARKINSON, W., YERKES, R., GYUCHA, A. 2004: The Transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain, Journal of Field Archaeology 29, 101–121.
RACZKY, P., ANDERS, A. 2006: Social Dimensions of the Late Neolithic Settlement of Polgár-Csőszhalom (Eastern Hungary), Acta Archaeologica 57, 17–33.
STARNINI, E., VOYTEK, B. A., HORVATH, F. 2007: Preliminary results of the multidisciplinary study of the chipped stone assemblage from the Tisza Culture site of tell Gorzsa (Hungary). In: Kozłowski, J. K., Raczky, P. (Eds.): The Lengyel, Polgár and Related Cultures in the Middle /Late Neolithic in Central Europe. The Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences, Kraków, 269–278.
SZAKMÁNY, G., STARNINI, E., BRADÁK, HORVÁTH, F. 2010: Investigating Trade and Exchange Patterns in Prehistory: preliminary results of the archaeometric analyses of the stone artefacts from tell Gorzsa (south-east Hungary). In: Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on Archaeometry. Siena 12th – 16th May 2008, 311–319.
SZAKMÁNY, G., STARNINI, E., HORVÁTH, F., SZILÁGYI, V., KASZTOVSKY, Z. 2009: Investigating trade and exchange patterns during the Late Neolithic: first results of the archaeometric analyses of the raw materials for the polished and ground stone tools from Tell Gorzsa (SE Hungary). In: Őskoros Kutatatók Összejövetele. VI. Szombathely, 369–383.
VOYTEK, B. 2001: The Use of Lithic Resources in the Vinča Archaeological Culture: the Case of Opovo-Ugar Bajbuk. In: Problems of the Stone Age in the Old World, Jubilee book dedicated to Professor Janusz K. Kozłowski. Kraków, 289–295.
VOYTEK, B. 1990: The Use of Stone Resources at Selevac. In: Selevac: A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia. Tringham, R., Krstic, D. (Eds.): Institute of Archaeology Press, University of California, Los Angeles, 437–495.
ZVELEBIL, M., GREEN, S., MACKLIN, M. 1992: Archaeological Landscapes, Lithic Scatters, and Human Behavior. In: Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. Rossignol, J., Wantsnider, L. (Eds).: Plenum Press, New York, 193–226.
*Corresponding author. E-mail: bvoytek@berkeley.edu
0 10 km
Figure 1. Geographical location of the tell site Gorzsa (from Starnini et al. 2007, Figure 1).
Figure 2. Gorzsa, squares III, V, VI. Early and Classic Tisza Culture chipped stone tools. Used long (G1) and short (G3) end scrapers: CG=cut grass; CM=cut medium; C-SH=cut-scrape hard; CW=cut wood; H=hafting traces; si=sickle gloss; SH=scrape hard; SHW=scrape hard wood; SM=scrape medium; SW=scrape wood (drawings by E. Starnini).
Figure 3. Gorzsa squares III, V, VI. Early and Classic Tisza Culture chipped stone tools. Used end scrapers (1–6), truncations (7–10), borers (11–13), blades (14–28), flakes (29–30): BH=bore hard; BHW=bore hard wood; CG=cut grass; CM=cut medium; CS=cut soft; CSW=cut soft wood; CW=cut wood; GH=groove hard; H=hafting traces; si=sickle gloss; SH=scrape hard; SM=scrape medium; SW=scrape wood; WM=work medium (drawings by E. Starnini).
Figure 4. Gorzsa squares III, V, VI. Early and Classic Tisza Culture cores and core fragments. Transdanubian radiolarites (1–2, 6, 8), Mecsek radiolarites (3), central Banat chert (4), Tevel flint (5), obsidian (7) (drawings by E. Starnini).
Figure 5. Gorzsa squares III, V, VI. Classic and Late Tisza Culture chipped stone tools. Used long (G1) and short (G3) end scrapers: CM=cut medium; CS=cut soft; CW=cut wood; H=hafting traces; SH=scrape hard; SM=scrape medium; SW=scrape wood; WH=work hard; WW=work wood (drawings by E. Starnini).
Figure 6. Gorzsa squares III, V, VI. Classic and Late Tisza Culture chipped stone tools. Used end scrapers (1–10), truncations (11–21), borers (22–23, 27), isosceles trapezes (24–26): BH=bore hard; CG=cut grass; CHW=cut hard wood; CM=cut medium; CSW=cut soft wood; CW=cut wood; H=hafting traces; SH=scrape hard; SM=scrape medium; SW=scrape wood; WW=work wood (drawings by E. Starnini).
Figure 7. Gorzsa squares III, V, VI. Classic and Late Tisza Culture chipped stone tools. Used blades: CG=cut grass; CM=cut medium; CS=cut soft; CW=cut wood; SM=scrape medium; SH=scrape hard; si=sickle gloss (drawings by E. Starnini).
Figure 8. Gorzsa squares III, V, VI. Classic and Late Tisza Culture chipped stone tools. Used blades (1–8), flakes (9–12), splintered piece (13), end scraper (14): CG=cut grass; CH=cut hard; CM=cut medium; CS=cut soft; CW=cut wood; SM=scrape medium; SW=scrape wood; WM=work medium (drawings by E. Starnini).
Figure 9. Gorzsa squares III, V, VI. Classic and Late Tisza Culture cores, core fragments and crested blade (9). Obsidian (1–5, 8, 12), Mecsek radiolarites (6–7), Transdanubian radiolarites (11), central Banat chert (10–11) (drawings by E. Starnini).
Figure 10. Map of the Carpathian Basin with the location of the tell- site Gorzsa and the possible directions of provenances of the raw materials for the polished, ground (orange and red boxes) and chipped (white boxes) stone tools, in relationship with the cultural provinces (from Szakmány et al. 2009, Figure 6).
0 3 cm
0 3 cm
0 3 cm
0 3 cm
0 3 cm
0 3 cm
0 3 cm
0 3 cm
Table 1. Gorzsa, squares III, V, VI. List of used artefacts and cores from the Early, Classic and Late Tisza Culture layers.
|
Square |
Layer |
Phase |
Raw material |
Typology (Laplace, 1964) |
1use |
2use |
Hafting |
Figure |
|
Vb |
18–19 |
Early Tisza |
radiolarite |
G1/end scraper |
CW |
SW |
2/1 |
|
|
VI |
15–16 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G1/end scraper |
SH |
CG |
2/2 |
|
|
Va |
17–18 |
Early Tisza |
radiolarite |
G1/end scraper |
sickle |
SW |
2/3 |
|
|
Va |
17–18 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G1/end scraper |
SH |
2/4 |
||
|
VI |
12–13 |
Early Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
2/5 |
||
|
VI |
12–13 |
Early Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
2/7 |
||
|
Va |
20 |
Early Tisza |
radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SW |
yes |
2/8 |
|
|
VI |
12–13 |
Early Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
yes |
2/9 |
|
|
VI |
15–16 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
C-SH |
2/10 |
||
|
VI |
14–15 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
2/11 |
||
|
VI |
12–13 |
Early Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
2/12 |
||
|
VI |
15–16 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
2/13 |
||
|
VI |
14–15 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
2/14 |
||
|
Va |
20–21 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SHW |
2/16 |
||
|
Va |
18–19 |
Early Tisza |
Tevel flint |
G3/end scraper |
SW |
CM |
2/17 |
|
|
Va |
18–19 |
Early Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
2/18 |
||
|
VI |
15–16 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
sickle |
2/19 |
||
|
Va |
16–17 |
Early Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
2/20 |
||
|
Va |
16–17 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
sickle |
SH |
2/21 |
|
|
VI |
16–17 |
Early Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
2/22 |
||
|
VI |
17–18 |
Early Tisza |
radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
2/23 |
||
|
VI |
17–18 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
2/24 |
||
|
Va |
18–19 |
Early Tisza |
Tevel flint |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
2/25 |
||
|
Va |
18–19 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
sickle |
SH |
2/26 |
|
|
Va |
18–19 |
Early Tisza |
red radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
sickle |
2/27 |
||
|
Va |
18–19 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
2/28 |
||
|
Va |
18–19 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
CH |
yes |
2/29 |
|
|
Va |
19–20 |
Early Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SW |
2/30 |
||
|
Va |
17–18 |
Early Tisza |
White flint |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
2/31 |
||
|
Va |
20–21 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
yes |
3/1 |
|
|
Va |
19–20 |
Early Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
WM |
3/2 |
||
|
Va |
19–20 |
Early Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
3/3 |
||
|
Vb |
19–20 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
sickle |
wear |
3/4 |
|
|
Vb |
21–22 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
none |
3/5 |
||
|
Vb |
22 House |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
yes |
3/6 |
|
|
Va |
19–20 |
Early Tisza |
White flint |
G3.T2/end scraper and truncation |
C/SW |
yes |
3/7 |
|
|
VI |
12–13 |
Early Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
T2/truncation |
sickle |
SH |
3/8 |
|
|
Vb |
19–20 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
T2/truncation |
sickle |
3/9 |
||
|
Vb |
22–23 |
Early Tisza |
Limnoquartzite |
T2/truncation |
sickle |
SM |
yes |
3/10 |
|
Va |
16–17 |
Early Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
Bc2/borer |
BH |
yes |
3/11 |
|
|
VI |
16–17 |
Early Tisza |
Tokaj limnoquartzite |
Bc2/borer |
BH |
2/12 |
||
|
Va |
17–18 |
Early Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
Bc0/borer |
BH |
2/13 |
||
|
Vb |
18–19 |
Early Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
L1-0/inframarginal retouched blade |
WW |
CW |
2/14 |
|
|
VI |
16–17 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
3/15 |
||
|
VI |
14–15 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
3/16 |
||
|
VI |
15–16 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L0/unretouched blade |
sickle |
3/17 |
||
|
VI |
15–16 |
Early Tisza |
radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
sickle |
3/18 |
||
|
VI |
15–16 |
Early Tisza |
radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
sickle |
3/19 |
||
|
Va |
19–20 |
Early Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
sickle |
3/20 |
||
|
Vb |
19–20 |
Early Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
3/21 |
||
|
Va |
17–18 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L0/unretouched blade |
sickle |
yes |
3/22 |
|
|
Vb |
18–19 |
Early Tisza |
Limnoquartzite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CW |
3/23 |
||
|
Va |
18–19 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L0/unretouched blade |
CG |
3/24 |
||
|
Va |
16–17 |
Early Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CW |
3/25 |
||
|
Vb |
18–19 |
Early Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CM |
yes |
3/27 |
|
|
VI |
14–15 |
Early Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
R1-0/inframarginal side scraper |
GH |
3/29 |
||
|
Vb |
19–20 |
Early Tisza |
radiolarite |
R0/unretouched flake |
CM |
3/30 |
||
|
Vb |
18–19 |
Early Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
core |
none |
4/1 |
||
|
VI |
15–16 |
Early Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
core fragment |
none |
4/2 |
||
|
VI |
14a–15 |
Early Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
core |
none |
4/3 |
||
|
VI |
14–15 |
Early Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
core |
none |
4/4 |
||
|
Va |
16–17 |
Early Tisza |
Tevel flint |
core |
none |
4/5 |
||
|
VI |
15–16 |
Early Tisza |
obsidian |
core fragment |
none |
4/7 |
||
|
Vb |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
G1/end scraper |
SH |
5/1 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G1/end scraper |
SM |
CM |
5/2 |
|
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G1/end scraper |
SH |
CS |
5/3 |
|
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G1/end scraper |
SW |
5/6 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G1/end scraper |
SW |
5/9 |
||
|
Va |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G1/end scraper |
SH |
CM |
5/11 |
|
|
Va |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G2/end scraper |
SM |
5/5 |
||
|
VI |
13–14 |
Classic Tisza |
radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
yes |
2/6 |
|
|
VI |
13–14 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
2/15 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SW |
5/13 |
||
|
Vb |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
yes |
5/14 |
|
|
Vb |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SW |
CW |
5/15 |
|
|
Va |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
CH |
CH |
5/17 |
|
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
CM |
5/19 |
||
|
Vb |
12–13 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
5/23 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
WH |
yes |
5/24 |
|
|
Vb |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
5/25 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
5/26 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
yes |
5/27 |
|
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
5/28 |
||
|
Vb |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SW |
5/29 |
||
|
Vb |
18–19 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SW |
5/30 |
||
|
Vb |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
5/31 |
||
|
Vb |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
6/1 |
||
|
V |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
SH |
yes |
6/2 |
|
Vb |
14–15 |
Classic Tisza |
obsidian |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
6/3 |
||
|
Vb |
12–13 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SW |
CW |
6/4 |
|
|
Vb |
14–15 |
Classic Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
yes |
6/5 |
|
|
Vb |
16–17 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
SW |
6/6 |
||
|
Vb |
17–18 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
6/7 |
||
|
Vb |
14–15 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
6/8 |
||
|
Vb |
17–18 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
CG |
SW |
6/9 |
|
|
Va |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G5/end scraper |
CW |
yes |
5/12 |
|
|
Vb |
17–18 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
fr G/fr. of end scraper |
SH |
6/10 |
||
|
Va |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
radiolarite |
T2/truncation |
CHW |
CHW |
6/11 |
|
|
Vb |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
T2/truncation |
CG |
6/12 |
||
|
Vb |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
green radiolarite |
T2/truncation |
SM |
6/13 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
T2/truncation |
CG |
CG |
6/14 |
|
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
T2/truncation |
CG |
yes |
6/15 |
|
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
T2/truncation |
CW |
6/16 |
||
|
Vb |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
T2/truncation |
SW |
yes |
6/17 |
|
|
Vb |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
T2/truncation |
CM |
yes |
6/18 |
|
|
Vb |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
obsidian |
T2/truncation |
none |
yes |
6/19 |
|
|
Vb |
13–14 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
Bc2/borer |
WW |
yes |
6/22 |
|
|
Vb |
16–17 |
Classic Tisza |
Tokaj limnoquartzite |
Bc2/borer |
BH |
6/23 |
||
|
Vb |
15–16 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
Gm6/trapezoidal geometric |
none |
yes |
6/24 |
|
|
Vb |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
Gm6/trapezoidal geometric |
impact? |
6/25 |
||
|
Vb |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
Gm6/trapezoidal geometric |
none |
6/26 |
||
|
Vb |
14–15 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L1/retouched blade |
SH |
SH |
7/1 |
|
|
Vb |
16–17 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L1-0/inframarginal retouched blade |
SH |
7/2 |
||
|
Vb |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L1-0/inframarginal retouched blade |
CG |
7/4 |
||
|
Vb |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L1-0/inframarginal retouched blade |
CG |
7/5 |
||
|
VI |
14a |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L0/unretouched blade |
CW |
CW |
3/26 |
|
|
Va |
14–15 |
ClassicTisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
3/28 |
||
|
Vb |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CW |
7/3 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CW |
7/6 |
||
|
Vb |
11–13 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
7/8 |
||
|
Vb |
18–19 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
7/9 |
||
|
Vb |
15–16 |
Classic Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CG |
CG |
7/10 |
|
|
Vb |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
7/11 |
||
|
Vb |
12–13 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
yes |
7/12 |
|
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L0/unretouched blade |
sickle |
7/13 |
||
|
Vb |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
sickle |
yes |
7/14 |
|
|
Vb |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
7/15 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
yes |
7/16 |
|
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L0/unretouched blade |
sickle |
yes |
7/19 |
|
|
Vb |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
7/20 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
7/21 |
||
|
Vb |
16–17 |
Classic Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CM |
yes |
7/22 |
|
|
Vb |
12–13 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
7/23 |
||
|
Vb |
14–15 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
8/1 |
||
|
Vb |
14–15 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L0/unretouched blade |
CG |
8/2 |
||
|
Vb |
15–16 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CM |
CM |
8/3 |
|
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CV |
CW |
8/6 |
|
|
Vb |
17–18 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L0/unretouched blade |
CW |
8/7 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
R0/unretouched flake |
CG |
8/10 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
R0/unretouched flake |
CM |
SW |
8/11 |
|
|
Vb |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
R0/unretouched flake |
CM |
8/12 |
||
|
VI |
12–13 |
Classic Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
core |
none |
4/6 |
||
|
VI |
12–13 |
Classic Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
core |
none |
4/8 |
||
|
Va |
10–11 |
Classic Tisza |
obsidian |
core |
none |
9/1 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
obsidian |
core |
none |
9/2 |
||
|
VI |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
obsidian |
core |
none |
9/3 |
||
|
VI |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
obsidian |
precore |
none |
9/4 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
obsidian |
core |
none |
9/5 |
||
|
Vb |
15–16 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
core |
none |
9/6 |
||
|
Vb |
18–19 |
Classic Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
core |
none |
9/7 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
crested blade |
none |
9/9 |
||
|
Va |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
core |
none |
9/10 |
||
|
Vb |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
core fragment |
none |
9/11 |
||
|
VI |
11–12 |
Classic Tisza |
obsidian |
core |
none |
9/12 |
||
|
Vb |
9–10 |
Late Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G1/end scraper |
SH |
5/4 |
||
|
Va |
9–10 |
Late Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G1/end scraper |
SH |
CW |
5/8 |
|
|
Vb |
9 |
Late Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
G3/end scraper |
CM |
yes |
5/16 |
|
|
V |
9–10 |
Late Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SH |
5/21 |
||
|
V |
9–10 |
Late Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
G3/end scraper |
SM |
5/22 |
||
|
VI |
layer 8 |
Late Tisza |
Prut flint |
G3/end scraper |
WM |
8/14 |
||
|
Vb |
9–10 |
Late Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
T2/truncation |
SH |
6/20 |
||
|
VI |
9–11 |
Late Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
T2/truncation |
CSW |
CSW |
6/21 |
|
|
Va |
9–10 |
Late Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
Bc2/borer |
BH |
6/27 |
||
|
Vb |
9 |
Late Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L0/unretouched blade |
CG |
7/7 |
||
|
V |
9–10 |
Late Tisza |
Transdanubian radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
yes |
7/17 |
|
|
V |
9–10 |
Late Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
L0/unretouched blade |
CW |
7/18 |
||
|
Vb |
9–10 |
Late Tisza |
Prut flint |
L0/unretouched blade |
CS |
yes |
7/24 |
|
|
VI |
layer 11 |
Late Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CG |
CG |
8/8 |
|
|
V |
9–10 |
Late Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CW |
8/4 |
||
|
Vb |
9–10 |
Late Tisza |
Mecsek radiolarite |
L0/unretouched blade |
CG |
8/5 |
||
|
Vb |
9–9a |
Late Tisza |
obsidian |
R1-0/inframarginal side scraper |
SM |
8/9 |
||
|
V |
9–10 |
Late Tisza |
Central Banat chert |
PE/splintered piece |
CH |
CH |
8/13 |
|
|
Vb |
7–9 |
Late Tisza |
obsidian |
core |
none |
9/8 |
Table 1. Gorzsa, squares III, V, VI. List of used artefacts and cores from the Early, Classic and Late Tisza Culture layers. (Continued).
Table 1. Gorzsa, squares III, V, VI. List of used artefacts and cores from the Early, Classic and Late Tisza Culture layers. (Continued).
Table 1. Gorzsa, squares III, V, VI. List of used artefacts and cores from the Early, Classic and Late Tisza Culture layers. (Continued).
