# Pottery vessels, technological knowledge, and potters at the Early Copper Age site of Polgár-Király-ér-part (Northeastern Hungary)

Eszter Solnay¹,²,³, Márton Szilágyi¹

1 MTA-ELTE Lendület "Momentum" Innovation Research Group, Institute of Archaeological Sciences, ELTE Eötvös Loránd

University, Budapest; HU; eszter.solnay@gmail.com; marton.szilagyi@btk.elte.hu

2 Doctoral School of Archaeology, Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, Paris; FR

3 UMR 8215 Trajectoires, Paris; FR

**ABSTRACT** - This paper investigates the long-debated issue of technological knowledge and potters in the Early Copper Age (4500-4000/3900 cal BC) through the analysis of the forming technology of a typical, small-scale settlement at Polgár-Király-ér-part (Northeastern Hungary). A complex technological knowledge of forming was identified, in which most of the vessel types have their own forming method. This technological knowledge presumably originated in the local Neolithic. However, a few smaller technological differences nuance this picture, raising the possibility of distinct learning networks and multiple potters at the settlement.

**KEY WORDS** - pottery chaîne opératoire; technological analysis; pottery forming; Great Hungarian Plain; Early Copper Age

## Lončene posode, tehnološko znanje in lončarji v zgodnji bakreni dobi v naselbini Polgár-Király-ér-part (severovzhodna Madžarska)

IZVLEČEK - V članku s pomočjo analize tehnologij oblikovanja posod raziskujemo tehnološko znanje in delovanje lončarjev v majhnem naselju Polgár-Király-ér-part v severovzhodni Madžarski v zgodnji bakreni dobi (4500-4000/3900 pr. n. št.). Prepoznali smo kompleksno znanje tehnik oblikovanja, pri čemer ima večina tipov posod lastno tehniko oblikovanja. Tehnološko znanje najverjetneje izhaja iz lokalnega neolitika. Manjše tehnološke razlike nakazujejo različna učna omrežja in delovanje več lončarjev v naselju.

KLJUČNE BESEDE - operacijska sekvenca izdelave lončenine; analiza tehnik; oblikovanje lončenine; Velika madžarska ravnica; zgodnja bakrena doba

## Introduction

After the Late Neolithic, in the mid-5th millennium BC, many aspects of life were gradually transformed in the Early Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain (Eastern Hungary). The tells and large horizontal settlements were replaced by a network of small settlements

(Sherratt 1982; 1983a; 1983b; Parkinson 2006b; 2006a; Parkinson, Gyucha 2007), the first formal cemeteries were established alongside the continuity of the tradition of burials on settlements (Patay 1961; 1974; Bognár-Kutzián 1963; 1972; Raczky, Siklósi
2013; Raczky et al. 2014; Siklósi, Szilágyi 2021), and the first appearance of heavy copper tools (Bognár-Kutzián 1963; Patay 1974; 1984; Siklósi et al. 2022).

In previous chronological models, the Tiszapolgár culture was dated to the Early Copper Age, which was followed by the Middle Copper Age Bodrogkeresztúr culture (Kalicz 1958; Banner, Bognár-Kutzián 1961; Patay 1961; 1974; Bognár-Kutzián 1963; 1972; 1985). This distinction was mainly based on the analysis of cemeteries (O.c.) and supported by calibrated radiocarbon dates (Raczky 1995). However, from the very beginning it was difficult to separate the pottery of the two cultures despite the strict chronological distinction. Several vessel types – such as bowls, barrel-shaped vessels, or storage vessels – occur even at those Tiszapolgár and Bodrogkeresztúr sites, upon which the chronological separation of the two cultures was based (Bognár-Kutzián 1963.236–294; 1972.119–135; Patay 1974.19–29). Therefore, the focus was mainly on a few characteristic forms, for example the so-called ‘milk jugs’ or two-handled cups, both defined as ‘culture-specific’ vessel types of the Bodrogkeresztúr culture (Bognár-Kutzián 1963.276–285; Patay 1974.20–21,25–26). This similarity could also be observed in the case of pottery decoration. Knobs and lugs dominated plastic applications in both pottery traditions (Bognár-Kutzián 1963.300–306; 1972.118–135). The typo-chronologically most distinctive features were the impressed and incised motifs that were mainly associated with the Bodrogkeresztúr culture (Patay 1974.42–43), but such motifs could also be observed in some assemblages considered to be from the Tiszapolgár culture (Bognár-Kutzián 1972.172–182; Patay 1979.38–41). The high degree of similarity of pottery often made it difficult to link assemblages to one culture or another.

It has recently become clear that the previous chronological and cultural models of this period need to be revised. Firstly, the new AMS data and Bayesian modelling challenged the absolute chronology of the two cultures by dating them both to the Early Copper Age. The appearance of the Tiszapolgár culture on the Great Hungarian Plain can be dated earlier, at least from 4435 (68.2%) 4385 cal BC to 4220 (68.2%) 4165 cal BC (Siklósi, Szilágyi 2021.35). The Bodrogkeresztúr culture appeared a little later, first in the Middle Tisza Region around 4400 (68.2%) 4325 cal BC. Then it can be observed throughout the whole Great Hungarian Plain until 4020 (68.2%) 3930 cal BC (Siklósi, Szilágyi 2021.35,40). Secondly, new studies on Early Copper

Age settlements (Parkinson 2006a; 2006b; Parkinson, Gyucha 2007; Raczky et al. 2014; Gyucha 2015; Szilágyi 2015; Parkinson et al. 2021) shed light on the differences between the pottery assemblages of the settlements and those of the burials (Siklósi et al. 2022. 354–358). Certain vessel types, such as ‘milk jugs’ or two-handled cups, which played an important role in the definition of the Bodrogkeresztúr culture, are primarily known from special ritual contexts, mostly graves (Szilágyi 2015.316–319). The stylistic analysis of the settlements proved that the Tiszapolgár and Bodrogkeresztúr pottery assemblages cannot be clearly separated (Szilágyi 2015.289–296).

These new studies demonstrate that the Tiszapolgár and Bodrogkeresztúr cultures cannot be described as different, well-defined, homogeneous entities, and that there is no sufficient explanation for the variability or homogeneity of the pottery styles (Siklósi et al. 2022. 351–352). One possible way to explain either variability or homogeneity is to define the different characteristics at the level of individual vessels using bottom-up analytical approaches rather than broad cultural definitions.

Furthermore, recent settlement analyses highlighted the issue of social organization in the Early Copper Age. After the abandonment of the Late Neolithic tells and large horizontal settlements on the Great Hungarian Plain, the settlement structure was transformed into a network of considerably smaller settlements (Gyucha 2015; Szilágyi 2015; Parkinson et al. 2021, 2010). William A. Parkinson and Attila Gyucha assumed that the small, single-roomed houses discovered in the Körös Region in the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain were used by nuclear family groups (Parkinson 2006a.151; Parkinson, Gyucha 2007.64). According to the low number of buildings (mostly one to three), small-scale communities – probably extended families – inhabited these settlements (Gyucha 2015.137; Parkinson et al. 2021.183). In terms of pottery, this raises the question about the number of potters who made the vessels in these communities and the pottery-making tradition they followed.

The present paper aims to investigate the issues listed above using the technological approach of pottery forming. One of the main advantages of this methodology is its capability to define real embedded knowledge and social patterns by a detailed analysis of the individual vessels. This method is based on the French school of the anthropological approach of techniques
(Leroi-Gourhan 1943; 1945; 1964; 1965; Mauss 1947) that describes the strong relation between the steps of a production process (i.e. *chaîne opératoire*) and the social identity of the producer (Balfet 1975; 1991; Cresswell 1976; Lemonnier 1991; Latour, Lemonnier 1994). In the case of pottery vessels, this link is to be found in the relation between the vessel fabrication steps and the social link(s) of the potter. The reason for this lies in the learning process, because the necessary motoric and cognitive skills of forming are acquired during a long learning period. During that time, the learner observes and copies the 'way of doing' of the tutor, i.e. tools or gestures. Once the learning process is complete, the learned motor and cognitive skills become fixed and difficult to change later (Bril 2002). The transmission of knowledge is always personal, where the tutor and the learner are socially related in some way (not necessarily biologically related). Thus, the learning process always takes place in social groups, connected by shared technical knowledge, i.e. communities of practice (Lave, Wenger 1991; Wenger 1999). The continuous transmission of the 'ways of doing' over a long period creates technical traditions of pottery forming, that can be studied in space and time (Gosselain 2002.26; Gelbert 2003.53-59; Gosselain, Livingstone Smith 2005.41-42; Roux 2010.6; Gomart 2014a.154; Giligny 2015.73).

The focus of this paper, Polgár-Király-ér-part, is an ideal
case study for exploring these issues, as it is a typical,

small Early Copper Age settlement, which is extremely
homogeneous in terms of pottery style (Szilágyi 2015.
140-141). Thus, the technological analysis of pottery
forming could clarify the technological variability be-
hind the uniform repertoire of pottery forms and de-
corations. Moreover, the technological diversity can
reflect the number of potters in this small-scale settle-
ment and their learning networks.

Material

Polgár-Király-ér-part lies on the so-called Polgár island,
which is a well-studied region in the Northern Great
Hungarian Plain, in Northeastern Hungary (Fig. 1).
Many archaeological sites are known in this region,
from which 24 can be dated to the Early Copper Age
(Raczky et al. 2014.328). The Király-ér-part site is si-
tuated on the bank of the Király (or Selypes) Creek,
and was revealed in 1995 during the preventive exca-
vations of the M3 Motorway construction (Hajdú,
Nagy 1999.144-146). Altogether 22 archaeological
features could be dated to the Early Copper Age: eight
graves and 11 settlement pits (Fig. 2; Tab.1 see below).
The remaining three features<fnref n="1" /> cannot be categorized
due to the insufficient documentation.<fnref n="2" /> According to
the traditional stylistic classification, the assemblage
was dated to the Tiszapolgár culture (Szilágyi 2015.
130-141). As the features were situated in the south-
western part of the excavated area, we can assume that
the settlement was only partially unearthed. No trace
of buildings or ditches could be ob-
served, and therefore the settle-
ment structure remained unclear.
According to the most recent AMS
dating, the Early Copper Age site
of Polgár-Király-ér-part can be dat-
ed between 4370 (68.2%) 4120 cal
BC and 4235 (68.2%) 4015 cal BC
and the span of use can be estimat-
ed to 0 (68.2%) 100 years (Siklósi,
Szilágyi 2021.600).

Overall, 470 pottery sherds were
analysed, belonging to at least 338
vessels. The small and non-diagnos-
tic sherds were most likely discard-
ed undocumented shortly after the
excavation (Szilágyi 2015.134). Of

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Location of the analysed site.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="1">1 Presumably two archaeological features were also given the number 139. However, due to lack of documentation, it is not possible to separate them.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 Zsuzsanna Siklósi and Márton Szilágyi (2021.591) defined nine graves and 13 settlement features on the site, classifying one uncertain feature among the burials and two among the settlement features.</footnote>
the 338 vessels that were preserved in the museum, 69 vessels from 11 settlement pits, three graves, and the two undefined features were suitable for technological analysis. That is because these vessels contained macroscopically identifiable traces of forming.

The most common vessel category among the 69 examined vessels was the different types of bowls, either pedestalled or flat-based: conical, wide conical, hemispherical, carinated, and gently S-profiled (Fig. 3). Barrel-shaped vessels, jars, and storage vessels also occurred frequently, and some tumblers were also found (Fig. 4). Besides, the exact type of some vessels cannot be defined, and thus these were classified into three categories: bases,<fnref n="3" /> fine wares, and coarse wares<fnref n="4" />. Plastic applied decoration was dominant in the material, and only a few simple geometric patterns of impressed dots were identified (e.g., two impressed dots). The pottery style of the vessels in the settlement features and the burials cannot be clearly separated.

## Method

Although the methodological basis for the technological study of the forming of pottery vessels has been laid down in many significant works (among others Rye 1981; Rice 1987; Roux 1994; 2010; 2016; 2019; Pierret 1995; Martineau 2000; Gosselain 2002; Gelbert 2003; Livingstone Smith 2007; Giligny 2010; Gomart 2014b), the methodology is not strictly standardized and unchanging (Pyzel, Gomart 2023.118). The reason for this lies in the great diversity of pottery assemblages, and therefore the general rules and application of this approach must be adapted to the studied assemblage(s), as will be shown in this paper.

Macroscopical analyses were carried out on the inner and outer vessel surfaces were assessed visually to study the wall thickness, the lines of fractures, and the internal structure of the vessel walls to identify macrotraces - i.e. discernible forming traces (Pierret 1995.59; Livingstone Smith 2010.112-129; Van Doosselaere 2010.180-222; Gomart 2014b.44-45; Roux 2016.179-187; Solnay 2021.201). All identifiable forming phases of all diagnostic vessels were recorded, de-

scribed, and drawn and/or photographed following the method of François Giligny (2010.2) and Louise Gomart (2014.45). The observations were then coded and recorded in a database. As a result of a systematic analysis of macrotraces, forming methods can be reconstructed, which can be defined as an ordered sequence of certain functional operations from the beginning of the forming to the creation of the final vessel form (Roux 2019.41).

Potters used a variety of forming techniques, i.e. physical modalities of clay transformation, for the successful realization of a forming method (Roux 2019.41-42). These techniques can be classified into two large categories: the roughing-out, during which the vessel gets its basic shape, and the preforming, during which the vessel gets its final shape (Rye 1981.62; Roux 1994; 2019.41; Pierret 1995.16-17; Martineau 2000.116; Gosselain 2002.80; Livingstone Smith 2007.94-95; Gallay 2012.61). For the identification of the different forming techniques, many ethnographic, archaeological, and experimental collections have provided comparative references (Smith, Crépeau 1983; Gelbert 2003.15; Giligny 2010.21; Van Doosselaere 2010.223; Gomart 2014a.146; Solnay 2021.203).

In this Early Copper Age pottery assemblage, only the roughing-out techniques could be systematically identified and preforming techniques with characteristic macrotraces appear only sporadically on a few vessels. Therefore, the determination of the forming method is only based on the roughing-out technique of the five

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Map of the excavation at Polgár-Király-ér-part highlighting the Early Copper Age archaeological features.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="3">3 In the case of these vessels, only the base was known. Therefore, it is often not possible to classify it clearly into any of the other categories.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 For fine and coarse vessels, not only the base but also a large part of the vessel was known (e.g., the body), but the exact shape could not be determined.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** *Different main bowl types from the site. 1 gently S-profiled bowl (with pedestal) (grave 112/119); 2 carinated bowl (grave 327/390); 3 he-mispherical bowl (grave 327/390); 4 conical bowl (grave 327/390); 5 wide conical bowl (pit 147/157).*</figcaption></figure>

distinct sections of the vessels: (1) pedestal, (2) base, (3) body, (4) neck, and (5) rim. Although, due to the fragmentation of the material, it was not possible to observe the whole forming method on every vessel. Besides, it was also important to describe the preforming techniques separately but, at the same time, avoid the creation of further subgroups based on only a few sherds. Preformed vessels are thus always presented within the relevant method and are not defined as separate variants. In that way, the data that might be important after the technological analysis of further sites in this period and/or region are preserved.

## Results

### Forming technology

Overall, three forming methods were identified in the assemblage (Forming method 1–3), with Forming method 1 having two variants (Variants 1.1 and 1.2) based on the differences in the making of one section of the vessel.

### Forming method 1

In Forming method 1, the bodies of most of the vessels – 43 in total – were shaped with the same technique (Figs. 5–7). Undulations, bulges of clay, as well as horizontal lines of fractures and fissures could be observed on the outer and/or inner surface of the bodies. These indicate a bottom-up coiling technique when the vessels were built from coils from the bottom towards the rim. Besides, in the case of one vessel, the absence of a characteristic fracture in the profile between the base and body raises the possibility of coiling in/on a support (Fig. 6.2).

The configuration and size of the coils are very diverse, they can be varied even on the same vessel. The configuration can be inward oblique (Fig. 6.2), S-Z-shaped (Figs. 5.4, 6.1), mixed inward oblique and S-Z-shaped (Fig. 7.1), as well as O-shaped (Fig. 6.1). The size of coils cannot be clearly grouped, even if we are taking the configuration into account.<fnref n="5" /> Coils are generally between 2–5cm. The macrotraces of coils indicate two different procedures: the usage of superposed or

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** *Main vessel categories from the site, other than bowls. 1 jar (grave 112/119); 2 tumbler (pit 106/113); 3 barrel-shaped vessel (pit 67/73); 4 storage vessel (pit 64/71).*</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="5">5 The only exception is one O-shaped coil (1cm) that is observed on an otherwise S-Z-shaped configuration. However, in the present context, we do not consider it necessary to group the whole assemblage on the basis of this single vessel.</footnote>
elongated coils. In the latter case, the coils have been attached together in several different ways from the inside, the outside or in alternating directions. Due to the high degree of variability of procedures of coiling and ways of attachment, even on a single vessel, (Figs. 6.1, 7.1), it was not possible to make relevant categories of the different ways of coiling in this assemblage.

In Forming method 1, two variants can be separated based on the shaping of the base. In Variant 1.1 (Fig. 5.1-3), oval and rounded depressions were found on the inner and/or outer surfaces of six vessels. The lines of fractures are occasionally laminar. The internal structure was homogeneous or linear fissures can be observed. This suggests that the base was built from

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

1

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>linear fissures</figcaption></figure>

2

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>linear fissures</figcaption></figure>

3

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>deep thin striation</figcaption></figure>

4

<caption>U-shaped internal structure</caption>

Fig. 5. Macrotraces of Forming method 1. 1 Variant 1.1 (grave 112/119); 2 Variant 1.1 (pit 64/71); 3 Variant 1.1 (pit 64/71); 4 Variant 1.2 (pit 51/57).
one or more (mainly one) superposed clay disks, fol-
lowed by a body built with coils.

Moreover, in the case of one vessel in Variant 1.1, hori-
zontal, deep, thin striation can be observed at the in-
ner surface of the joint of the base and the body (Fig.

5.3). This could be an indication of scraping, when a
vessel is preformed using a rigid tool to profile the in-
ner surface.

In the case of Variant 1.2 (Fig. 5.4), undulation can be
observed on the inner surface of three vessels. The

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 6. Macrotraces of Forming method 1. 1 vessel with unknown base (pit 67/73); 2 vessel with unknown base (pit 106/113).</figcaption></figure>
lines of fractures are circular. The internal structure of
the base is C/U-shaped. This refers to a base made of a
spiral or rings of coils.

Furthermore, the base of 30 vessels is missing (Fig. 6),
only the bottom-up coiled bodies were found. Thus,
they cannot be classified into a variant. In the case of
one vessel, the wall of the body was thinned towards
the base and there is no characteristic fracture in the
profile between the base and the body, which might
indicate that support may have been used while join-
ing the coils (Fig. 6.2). Since there is only a single ves-
sel, in case of which the possibility (not certainty) of
using a support emerged, it was not considered as a se-
parate variant at this stage of the study. Furthermore,
if the form required it, a neck was added to the body.
The macrotrace of the neck is similar to that of the
body (Fig. 7.1), and thus it could have been formed
with coils.

Moreover, preforming techniques were identified in
the case of four vessels whose bases were unknown.
On the one hand, horizontal, deep, thin striation can
be observed at the inner surface and/or outer surface
of the body or neck (Fig. 7.1) of three vessels. Similarar-
ly to the previous pot in Variant 1.1, this suggests pre-
forming with scraping. On the other hand, longitudinal
flat stripes were found on the inner surface of a pot-
tery neck (Fig. 7.2). This indicates that the inner part of
the vessel was profiled with a sharp tool that can be
defined as shaving. Furthermore, horizontal, deep,
thin striation was found above the longitudinal flat
stripes that might refer to scraping after shaving.

Forming method 2

In total, seven vessels can be categorized into Forming
method 2 (Fig. 8). Characteristic oval and circular de-
pressions were found on the outer surface of the base.
The internal structure of the base showed continuity
with the body and the profile of the vessel is conti-
nuous. It is thus possible that the base and the body
were formed together. The inner and outer surfaces of
the body were mainly homogeneous with slight undu-
lations on the outer surface. The internal structure of
the body was inward oblique, almost parallel to the
wall. This suggests strongly elongated coils (6–9cm)
on the whole body.

However, the wall of the body was relatively thin (1–
2cm), and the size of the body was comparatively large
(the diameter of the rim was approximately 20–25cm
and the height of the body was around 15cm). These

parameters imply that it would be difficult to build
such vessels from coils of this size and shape without
a support (Gomart 2014a.157). Given that the inner
surface of the vessels is homogeneous and macrotraces
can only be found on the outer surface, concave sup-
port can be presumed (when the vessel was built on
– not in – the support) in the case of these vessels. This
hypothesis can be reinforced by the observed oval and
circular depressions in the outer surface of the base.
These traces can only be created when the paste is still
wet, possibly when the joint of the coils is worked
together with the fingers. Presumably, the easiest way
to do this is to turn the vessel upside down. Therefore,
the base and body of the vessels in Forming method 2
are probably shaped with the reverse coiling techni-
que.

Depending on the form of the vessels, other parts were
also shaped and subsequently added to the main body.
First, pedestals can be formed where strong undula-
tion occurs on the outer surface. Besides, the internal
structure is exclusively S-Z-shaped, suggesting a coiling
technique with elongated coils (4–6cm).

Rims could also be made separately from the body with
bottom-up coiling, based on the thinning of the wall of
the rim and the horizontal lines of fissures between
the body and the rim. Only one internal structure can
be studied that shows an O-shaped configuration. This
refers to superposed coils, even though the body was
formed with elongated coils.

Forming method 3

Nineteen vessels can be categorized into Forming
method 3 (Fig. 9). The base of these vessels is never
sharply separated from the body, and thus it could
have been formed from one clay mass. The inner and
outer surfaces of these forming phases are generally
homogeneous, only a few shallow depressions were
found. The lines of fractures can be central, from the
rim towards the base in a relatively straight line. The
internal structure was homogeneous. This evidence
indicates the use of a moulding technique that consists
of a clay mass that was pushed on/in a form to take
its shape.

The rim of these vessels was shaped separately with
a bottom-up coiling technique based on the oval and
longitudinal depressions on the inner and outer sur-
faces (working together the body and the rim with fin-
gers), the thickening of the rim, as well as the inward
oblique or S-Z-shaped internal structure. The size of
the coils is generally between 1-3cm. This suggests that some of these were probably superposed coils but are aligned in alternate directions (Fig. 9.2), and others are elongated coils (Fig. 9.1). However, in many cases the size and gradient of the coils do not allow us to separate these procedures on the vessels. Therefore, in this paper, no classification was made based on the coils, as with Forming method 1.

## Forming technology and pottery types

The variability of forming technology cannot be investigated without the comparison of the forming tech-

niques and the pottery types (Fig. 10). Certain types cannot be made with a given technique or require a large effort. Therefore, the shape of the vessels may have a strong influence on the technique that is applied (Arnold 1989.34).

Barrel-shaped vessels – one of the most common vessel types at the site – were always formed with Forming method 1, i.e. bottom-up coiling. However, the base can be built in different ways. Superposing one or more clay discs was the most common base-building technique (Variant 1.1), but it could also be made of

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 7. Macrotraces of Forming method 1. 1 Variant 1.3 (pit 64/71); 2 Variant 1.3 (pit 64/71).</figcaption></figure>
coil rings or spirals (Variant 1.2). Thus, in the case of barrel-shaped vessels, we can reckon with a certain technological variability within the similar forming technique.

Storage vessels were also made by Forming method 1. However, the forming of the base is not known.

The two analysed tumblers were also made with Forming method 1. Only the shaping of one base can be defined, it was made of coil rings or spirals (Variant 1.2).

The others cannot be classified into any of the variants because the bases were unknown. Besides, the macrotraces of one latter vessel (with unknown base) raise the possibility of coiling in/on a support, which would be an important technological difference.

Jars were also exclusively made by Forming method 1. All the known bases are made with one or more superposing clay discs (Variant 1.1). However, in many jars, the fragment of the base was not found, or it was not enough to determine the forming technique.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 8. Macrotraces of Forming method 2. 1 (grave 112/119); 2 (pit 147/157).</figcaption></figure>
All the different bowls had their own way of forming. Deviations from this rule are very rare, indicating a high degree of technological homogeneity. The wide conical bowls (either pedestalled or flat-based) and S-profiled bowls with a pedestal were always shaped with Forming method 2, i.e. reverse coiled body occasionally with bottom-up coiled pedestal and rim. The hemispherical, S-profiled, and carinated bowls (both

flat-based) were exclusively built using Forming method 3, i.e. a moulded body and rim made from coils. Conical bowls were the only bowl type where some level of forming variability was detected. The majority of these were also made with Forming method 3, yet two of them were formed with Forming method 1 (the base was unknown).

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 9. Macrotraces of forming method 3. 1 (grave 327/390); 2 (pit 106/113); 3 (grave 108/115).</figcaption></figure>
Discussion

Contextualization of the forming methods

Technological analyses conducted at the site of Polgár-Király-ér-part revealed three pottery forming methods and three variants. These strongly correlate with different vessel types.

First, it is important to explore the presence of these
forming methods at other Early Copper Age sites and
sites from earlier Neolithic periods in the Carpathian
Basin to understand the origin of this technical know-
ledge. There have been only a few publications on the
forming technology of the Neolithic (Gomart 2014a;
Kreiter et al. 2017; Füzesi 2019; 2023; Gomart et al.
2020) and Early Copper Age (Gucsi 2006; Solnay 2021;
Solnay et al. 2023) pottery vessels in the Carpathian
Basin so far, and only one of those is located on the
Polgár island (Gomart 2014a; Gomart et al. 2020).
However, these studies provide crucial information
for contextualizing the pottery assemblage of Polgár-
Király-ér-part.

Most of these ways of forming can be found in the Car-
pathian Basin since the Neolithic. The coiling techni-

que was one of the most frequent ways of roughing-
out the body that has been continuously observed in
the region since the Early Neolithic until at least the
studied period (Gomart 2014a.156-157; Kreiter et
al. 2017.120; Füzesi 2019.91; 2023.171,173; Gomart
et al. 2020.53-55). It was also identified on two Early
Copper Age sites - one at Tiszagyenda-Vágott-halom on
the Great Hungarian Plain (Solnay 2021.216; Solnay et
al. 2023.6-7, Tab. 1), and another at Zamárdi-Kútvöl-
gyi dűlő in Transdanubia (Western Hungary) (Gucsi
2006.9).

Regarding the base shaping of these coil-bodied ves-
sels, one or multiple superposed clay discs had been
common since the Early Neolithic (Gomart 2014a.156-
157; Kreiter et al. 2017.120; Füzesi 2019.91; 2023.176;
Gomart et al. 2020.53-55). However, based on the al-
ready published data, no separate foot-ring shaped
from coil rings or spirals was known from the Neoli-
thic.

The earliest examples of the combination of moulding
(the base and body) and coiling (the upper part of the
vessel) were observed in the Middle Neolithic in the
Carpathian Basin, and interestingly from the other

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 10. Chaîne opératoire of every forming method and variant, as well as the resulting vessel forms.</figcaption></figure>
analysed site on the Polgár island: Polgár-Ferenci-hát (Gomart 2014a.157; Gomart et al. 2020.55). This method also existed in the Late Neolithic (Füzesi 2023.173-174) and it was observed at the Early Copper Age site of Tiszagyenda-Vágott-halom, where this was also one of the most common methods to form a bowl (Solnay 2021.216; Solnay et al. 2023.15).

The reverse coiling method was first detected in the Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain (Gomart 2014a.157; Gomart et al. 2020.55). However, its continuity into the Early Copper Age is not yet clarified.

Previous studies have demonstrated the continuous presence of certain techniques over very long periods of time in other regions and periods (Vandiver 1987; Roux 2019). The contextualization of the results of Polgár-Király-ér-part possibly suggests a similar pattern. Most of the observed forming methods and variants at the site existed in other Early Copper Age sites and had their roots in the Neolithic. However, it is also essential to consider the relationship between forming technology and vessel shapes to understand the transformation of the technological repertoires.

So far, there is little published data on this topic. Until now, no correlation has been detected between the forming techniques and pottery shapes in the Early and Middle Neolithic (Kreiter et al. 2017.122). At that time, the different forming methods presumably indicate different technical traditions, that probably signify multiple communities of practice (Gomart 2014a.159-160; Kreiter et al. 2017.128-129; Gomart et al. 2020.60-62). However, similarly to Polgár-Király-ér-part, the pottery assemblage of the Late Neolithic site of Öcsöd-Kovácshalom shows that certain forming methods are limited to certain vessel shapes (Füzesi 2023.170.Fig. 6). In the Early Copper Age, this phenomenon was also observed at Tiszagyenda-Vágott-halom (Solnay 2021.216; Solnay et al. 2023.15).

## Technological knowledge and potters

This study has demonstrated that at Polgár-Király-ér-part no clear pattern can be observed regarding the spatial distribution of forming methods and variants. Furthermore, there is no definitive technological difference between the material of the settlement features and that of burials.

However, a strong connection between the forming methods and vessel shapes suggests a clear regularity in the pottery-making practice at Polgár-Király-ér-part.

At this point of the research, it is highly unlikely that the Early Copper Age potters specialized in only one pottery form in this small-scale site. Therefore, the different forming methods at Polgár were probably part of shared technological knowledge, in which most of the vessel shapes had its own forming method: jars, barrel-shaped vessels, storage vessels, and tumblers were made with a bottom-up coiled body (Forming method 1), wide conical bowls (either pedestalled or flat-based) and S-profiled bowls with a pedestal were shaped with a reverse coiled body and additional, coiled rim (Forming method 2), as well as hemispherical, S-profiled, and carinated bowls (both flat-based) were made with a moulded body and coiled rim (Forming method 3). Based on the previously cited studies, this complex technological knowledge probably already existed in the local Late Neolithic (Füzesi 2019; 2023), and was possibly followed by other Early Copper Age potters on the Great Hungarian Plain, not only in Polgár (Solnay 2021; Solnay et al. 2023).

However, taking a closer look at this shared technological knowledge reveals some minor technological differences. Although the body of the barrel-shaped bowls were made always made with a bottom-up coiling technique (Forming method 1), their bases could be fabricated both with one or multiple superposed clay discs (Variant 1.1), as well as coil rings or spirals (Variant 1.2). Conical bowls can also be formed with moulding and a coiled rim (Forming method 3), or bottom-up coiling (Forming method 1). Besides, coil-ing in/on a support is possible in the case of one tumbler. These findings suggest that a certain degree of technological diversity must be considered. This assumption is further supported by the fact that traces of preforming (namely scraping and/or shaving) were also found on a few vessels. Based on these data, a hypothesis can be established to interpret these small technological diversities.

The similar pottery shapes that were made by different forming techniques, as well as preformed and non-preformed vessels, probably would not have been made by the same potter. Some of these techniques, like the fabrication of the base with one or multiple superposed clay discs, had their roots in the Early and Middle Neolithic, where they can be understood as part of separate technical traditions (Gomart 2014a; Kreiter et al. 2017; Gomart et al. 2020). Therefore, it is possible that these minor differences in the shared technological knowledge are the signs of distinct learning networks in Polgár-Király-ér-part. This suggests that
the vessels found in this site could have been made by
more than one potter. This is a surprising result given
the small size and presumably short life span of the
settlement. Further studies of other Early Copper Age
sites are necessary to explore this hypothesis.

Conclusion

The technological approach of pottery assemblages
reveals the pottery making practices in the Early Cop-
per Age settlement of Polgár-Király-ér-part. As a result,
a very complex technological knowledge of pottery
forming was identified in which almost all the vessel
types have their own forming methods. Although most
of the forming techniques originated in the local Neoli-
thic, the examples considered above indicate that there
might have been some level of change in the process
of the transmission of knowledge in the Early Copper
Age.

However, some minor technological differences im-
ply different pottery learning networks, which sug-
gest that more than one potters made the vessels at
Polgár. This result raises many issues about the so-
cial organization of this small-scale settlement with a
relatively short life span, such as the spatial and tem-
poral relationship of the potters and the number of
households.

Besides, the extremely homogeneous pottery style of
the site is not entirely in harmony with the forming
technology. Although there is evidence of shared tech-
nological knowledge at the site, the observed minor
differences may suggest the existence of different
learning networks. This, however, cannot be observed
in the pottery style.

Therefore, the paper demonstrates the importance of
the technological approach to pottery forming and
proves the usefulness of the combination of the re-
sults of both technological and stylistic analyses. This
methodology reveals the complexity of pottery produc-
tion and sheds light on the network of technological
knowledge and the potters following them.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Zsuzsanna Siklósi, Louise Go-
mart, and François Giligny for their useful comments
that greatly improved the quality of the study. We are
also grateful to Zsigmond Hajdú for providing the op-
portunity to study the site and its finds. The pottery
technological analysis was supported by the ÚNKP-
20-1 New National Excellence Program of the Ministry
for Innovation and Technology from the source of the
National Research, Development and Innovation Fund.
The technological analysis of the Early Copper Age pot-
tery forming on the whole Great Hungarian Plain is part
of the ongoing PhD research of Eszter Solnay.

∴

References

Arnold D. E. 1989. Technological diversity and evolutionary viability: A comparison of contemporary pottery-making technologies in Guatemala, Peru, and Mexico. In C. C. Kolb (ed.), *Ceramic Ecology 1988: Current Research on Ceramic Materials*. BAR International Series 513. Archaeopress. Oxford: 29-59.

Balfet H. 1975. Technologie. In R. Cresswell (ed.), *Éléments d'ethnologie. Six Approches*. Armand Colin. Paris: 44-80.

1991. Des chaînes opératoires, pour quoi faire? In H. Balfet (ed.), *Observer l'action Technique: Des Chaînes Opéra-toires, Pour Quoi Faire?* Centre National de Recherche Scientifique. Paris: 11-20.

Banner J., Bognár-Kutzián I. 1961. Beiträge zur Chronologie der Kupferzeit des Karpatenbeckens. *Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae* **13**: 1-32.

Bognár-Kutzián I. 1963. *The Copper Age Cemetery of Tiszapolgár-Basatanya*. Archaeologia Hungarica 42. Akadémia Kiadó. Budapest.

1972. *The Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár Culture in the Carpathian Basin*. Archaeologia Hungarica 48. Akadémia Kiadó. Budapest.

1985. Contribution to the prehistoric chronology of Hun-
gary. Mitteilungen Des Archäologischen Instituts Der
Ungarischen Akademie Der Wissenschaften 14: 293-
298.

Bril B. 2002. L'apprentissage de gestes techniques: ordre de contraintes et variations culturelles. In B. Bril, V. Roux (eds.), *Le Geste Technique. Réflexions Méthodologiques et Anthropologiques*. Revue d'Anthropologie Des Connaissances, Technologies, Idéologies, Pratiques. Éditions Erès. Ramonville Saint-Agne : 113-150.
Cresswell R. 1976. *Techniques et Cultures. Les bases d'un programme de travail.* *Techniques et Cultures* 1: 7-59.

Füzesi A. 2019. A késő neolitikus edények megformálásának technikai jellegzetességei – Öcsöd-Kováshalom leletegyüttese alapján. In M. Vice, G. Kovács (eds.), *MΩΜΟΣ Χ. Öskoros Kutatók Χ. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete. Öskori technikák, őskori technológiák. Százhalombatta 2017, április 6–8.* „Matrica” Múzeum. Százhalombatta: 84–109.

2023. Öcsöd-Kováshalom and the Neolithic Ceramic Technological Tradition in Hungary. In A. Király (ed.), *From Tea Leaves to Leaf-Shaped Tools. Studies in Honour of Zsolt Mester on His Sixtieth Birthday*. Lithic Research Roundtable, Institute of Archaeological Sciences. ELTE Eötvös Loránd University. Budapest: 159–186.
https://doi.org/10.23898/litikumsi02a08

Gallay A. 2012. *Potières du Sahel. A la découverte des traditions*. Infolio. Gollion.

Gelbert A. 2003. *Traditions céramiques et emprunts techniques dans la vallée du fleuve Sénégal*. Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme. Paris.

Giligny F. 2010. Reconstitution des techniques de fabrication de la céramique néolithique dans le Bassin parisien. *Les nouvelles de l'archéologie* 119: 20-25.
https://doi.org/10.4000/nda.961

2015. Reconstruction of the process techniques of the Neolithic pottery in Paris Basin: A research assessment. *Samaura Journal of Science* 12(3): 72-89.
https://doi.org/10.17816/snv20153206

Gomart L. 2014a. Quels facteurs d'émergence du premier Néolithique d'Europe tempérée? Apports de l'approche anthropologique d'assemblages céramiques du Néolithique ancien et moyen de Hongrie/What factors of emergence of the first Neolithic in temperate Europe? Contribution of the anthropological approach of ceramic assemblages from the early and middle Neolithic in Hungary. *Annales de La Fondation Fyssen* 29: 143-160.

2014b. *Traditions techniques et production céramique au Néolithique ancien. Étude de huit sites rubanés du nord est de la France et de Belgique*. Sidestone Press. Leiden. https://www sidestone com/books/traditions-techniques-et-production-ceramique-au-neolithique-ancien

Gomart L., Anders A., Kreiter A., Marton T., Oross K., and Raczky P. 2020. Innovation or inheritance? Assessing the social mechanisms underlying ceramic technological change in early Neolithic pottery assemblages in Central Europe. In M. Spataro and M. Furholt (eds.), *Detecting and Explaining. Technological Innovation in Prehistory*. Sidestone Press. Leiden: 49-71.

Gosselain O. P. 2002. *Poteries du Cameroun méridional: Styles techniques et rapports à l'identité*. CNRS Editions. Paris.

Gosselain O. P., Livingstone Smith A. 2005. The source: Clay selection and processing practices in sub-Saharan Africa. In A. Livingstone Smith, D. Bosquet, and R. Martineau (eds.), *Pottery Manufacturing Processes: Reconstitution and Interpretation. Acts of the XIVth UISPP Congress. University of Liège. Belgium. 2-8 September 2001*. Archaeopress. Oxford: 33-44.

Gucsi L. 2006. Rézkori és kora bronzkori kerámiákon végzett technikai megfigyelések. In J. Szulovszky, S. A. Holló (eds.), *Az agyagművesség évezredei a Kárpát-medencében*. MTA Veszprémi Akadémiai Bizottság. Budapest, Veszprém: 7-18.

Gyucha A. 2015. *Prehistoric Village Social Dynamics: The Early Copper Age in the Koros Region*. Archaeolinguva. Budapest.

Hajdú Z., Nagy E. Gy. 1999. Rövid jelentés az M3 autó-pál-ya Hajdú-Bihar megyei szakaszán azonosított régészeti lelőhelyeken végzett munkáról 1993-1998 között. *A Debre-ceni Déri Múzeum Évkönyve* (1997-1998): 143-154.

Kalicz N. 1958. Rézkori sztratigrafia Székely község határában. Copper Age stratigraphy in the outskirts of the village Székely. *Archaeologiai Értesítő* 85: 3-6.

Kreiter A., Marton T., Gomart L., Oross K., and Pánczél P. 2017. Looking into houses: analysis of LBK ceramic technological change on a household level. In L. Burnez-Lanotte (ed.), *Matières à Penser: Raw Materials Acquisition and Processing in Early Neolithic Pottery Productions. Proceedings of the the Workshop of Namur (Belgium) 29 and 30 May 2015*. Séances de La Société Préhistorique Française. Société préhistorique française. Paris: 111-132.

Latour B., Lemonnier P. 1994. *De la préhistoire aux mis-siles balistiques L'intelligence sociale des techniques*. Recherches. La Découverte. Paris.

Lave J., Wenger E. 1991. *Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation*. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.

Lemonnier P. 1991. De la culture matérielle à la culture? Ethnologie des techniques et Préhistoire. In C. Perlès (ed.), *25 ans d'études technologiques en Préhistoire: bilan et perspectives actes des XIe Rencontres internationales d'archéologie et d'histoire d'Antibes. 18-19-20 octobre 1990*. Actes des Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire et d'Antibes. Juan-les-Pins: 15-34.

Leroi-Gourhan A. 1943. *Evolution et techniques. L'Homme et la matière Volume 1*. Albin Michel. Paris.
1945. *Évolution et techniques. Milieu et technique Vo-lume 2*. Albin Michel. Paris.

1964. *Le geste et la parole. Technique et langage Volume 1*. Albin Michel. Paris.

1965. *Le geste et la parole. La mémoire et les rythmes Volume 2*. Albin Michel. Paris.

Livingstone Smith A. 2007. *Chaine operatoire de la potte-rie: References ethnographiques, analyses et reconstitution*. Musee Royal de l'Afrique Centrale. Tervuren. https://www. africamuseum.be/sites/default/files/media/docs/research/ publications/rmca/online/documents-social-sciences- humanities/poterie.pdf

2010. Reconstitution de la chaine opératoire de la poterie. *Les nouvelles de l'archéologie* 119: 9-12.
https://doi.org/10.4000/nda.955

Martineau R. 2000. *Poterie, techniques et sociétés. Études analytiques et expérimentales à Chalain et Clairvaux (Ju-ra), entre 3200 et 2900 av. J.-C.*, 2000. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Franche-Comté. Besançon.

Mauss M. 1947. *Manuel d'ethnographie*. Bibliothèque scien-tifique. Payot. Paris.

Parkinson W. A. 2006a. *The Social Organization of Early Copper Age Tribes on the Great Hungarian Plain*. Archaeo-press. Oxford. https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841717883

2006b. Tribal boundaries: Stylistic variability and social boundary maintenance during the transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology* 25(1): 33-58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2005.06.002

Parkinson W. A., Gyucha A. 2007. A késő neolitikum-kora rézkor átmeneti időszakának társadalomszerkezeti válto-zásai az Alföldön: Rekonstrukciós kísérlet. *Archaeologiai Értesítő* 132(1): 37-81.
https://doi.org/10.1556/archert.13.2.2007.1.2

Parkinson W. A., Gyucha A., and Yerkes R. W. 2021. *Bikeri: Two Copper Age Villages on the Great Hungarian Plain*. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA. Los Angeles.

Parkinson W. A., Yerkes R. W., Gyucha A., Sarris A., Morris M., and Salisbury R. B. 2010. Early Copper Age Settlements in the Körös Region of the Great Hungarian Plain. *Journal of Field Archaeology* 35(2): 164-183.
https://doi.org/10.1179/009346910X12707321520675

Patay P. 1961. *A bodrogkeresztúri kultúra temetői*. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum - Történeti Múzeum. Budapest.

1974. Die hochkupferzeitliche Bodrogkeresztúr-Kultur. *Bericht Der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission* 55: 1-71.

1979. A Tiszavalk-tetesi rézkori temető és telep. II. A telep. Folia Archaeologica: 30 28-53.

1984. *Kupferzeitliche Meißel, Beile und Äxte in Ungarn. Prähistorische Bronzefunde* 15. Beck. München.

2008. A bodrogkeresztúri kultúra belső időrendjéről. *Ar-chaeologiai Értesítő* 133(1): 21-48.
https://doi.org/10.1556/archert.133.2008.1.2

Pierret A. 1995. *Analyse technologique des céramiques archéologiques: Développements méthodologiques pour l'identification des techniques de façonnage; un exemple d'application*. Unpublished PhD thesis. University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne. Paris.

Pyzel J., Gomart L. 2023. From pots to potters: reconstruc-ting group and individual variability in pottery production. A case study of the LBK site Cząstków Polski XII, Comm. Czosnów. *Sprawozdania Archeologiczne* 75: 115-135.
https://doi.org/10.23858/SA/75.2023.2.3222

Raczky P. 1995. New data on the absolute chronology of the Copper Age in the Carpathian Basin. In T. Kovács (ed.), *Neuere Daten zur Siedlungsgeschichte und Chronologie der Kupferzeit des Karpatenbeckens*. Magyar Nemzeti Mú-zead. Budapest: 51-60.

Raczky P., Anders A., and Siklósi Zs. 2014. Trajectories of Continuity and Change between the Late Neolithic and the Copper Age in Eastern Hungary. In W. Schier, F. Drašovean (eds.), *The Neolithic and Eneolithic in Southeast Europe: New approaches to dating and cultural dynamics in the 6th to 4th millenium BC*. Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH. Rah-den: 319-346.

Raczky P., Siklósi Zs. 2013. Reconsideration of the Copper Age chronology of the eastern Carpathian Basin: A Bayesian approach. *Antiquity* 87(336): 555-573.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00049127

Rice P. M. 1987. *Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook*. University of Chicago Press. Chicago, London.

Roux V. 1994. La technique du tournage: Définition et recon-naissance par les macrotraces. In D. Binder, J. Courtin (eds.), *Terre cuite et société. La céramique, document technique, économique, culturel. Actes des XIVe rencontres interna-tionales d'archéologie et d'histoire d'Antibes*. Actes des Rencontres Internationales d'Archéologie et d'Histoire et d'Antibes. Juan-les-Pins: 45-58.
2010. Lecture anthropologique des assemblages céramiques. *Les nouvelles de l'archéologie 119: 4-9.*
https://doi.org/10.4000/nda.957

2016. Des céramiques et des hommes. Décoder les assemblages archéologiques. Presses universitaires de Paris Nanterre. Paris, Nanterre.

2019. *Ceramics and Society: A Technological Approach to Archaeological Assemblages*. Springer. Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03973-8

Rye O. S. 1981. *Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction*. Taraxacum. Washington, D.C.

Sherratt A. 1982. Mobile resources: Settlement and exchange in early agricultural Europe. In C. Renfrew and S. Shennan (eds.), *Ranking, Resource and Exchange: Aspect of the Archaeology of Early European Society*. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 27-32.

1983a. Early agrarian settlement in the Körös region of the Great Hungarian Plain. *Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae* 35: 155-169.

1983b. The Development of Neolithic and Copper Age Settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain. Part II: Site Survey and Settlement Dynamics. *Oxford Journal of Archaeology* 2(1): 13-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.1983.tb00093.x

Siklósi Zs., Faragó N., Dani J., Csedreki L., Kertész Z., Szikszai Z., and Szilágyi M. 2022. Creating Histories: Different Perspectives, Controversial Narratives at Rákóczifalva, an Early Copper Age Site on the Great Hungarian Plain. *European Journal of Archaeology* 25(3): 350-371.
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2022.2

Siklósi Zs., Szilágyi M. 2021. Culture, Period or Style? reconsideration of Early and Middle Copper Age Chronology of the Great Hungarian Plain. *Radiocarbon* 63(2): 585-646.
https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.115

Smith P. E. L., Crépeau R. 1983. Fabrication expérimentale de répliques d'un vase néolithique du site de Ganj Dareh, Iran: Recherche technologique. *Paléorient* 9(2): 55-62.
https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1983.4342

Solnay E. 2021. A kerámiaedények formázásának technológiái vizsgálata: Áttekintés a módszertan alapjainól és alkalmazásáról. *Archaeologiai Értesítő* 146(1): 197-224.
https://doi.org/10.1556/0208.2021.00010

Solnay E., Kreiter A., and Szilágyi M. 2023. The Ugly Duckling: Understanding the Making of an Early Copper Age Atypical Ceramic Vessel from the Great Hungarian Plain. *Open Archaeology* 9(1): 20220343.
https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2022-0343

Szilágyi M. 2015. *Kora rézkori településszerkezet a Közép-Tisza-vidéken*. Unpublished PhD thesis. Eötvös Loránd University. Budapest.

Vandiver P. B. 1987. Sequential Slab Construction; A Conservative Southwest Asiatic Ceramic Tradition, ca. 7000-3000 B.C. *Paléorient* 13: 9-35.
https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.1987.4426

Van Doosselaere B. 2010. *Poterie et histoire au temps des grands empires ouest africains: Études technologiques de l'assemblage céramique de Koumbi Saleh (Mauritanie 6e-17e siècles)*. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Paris 1 and Panthéon-Sorbonne University. Paris.

Wenger E. 1999. *Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity*. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
<table><caption>Tab. 1. Early Copper Age archaeological features at Polgár-Király-ér-part.</caption><thead><tr><th>Number of the<br>archaeolo-gical<br>feature</th><th>Description of the<br>archaeological<br>feature</th><th>Number<br>of sherds</th><th>Number<br>of vessels</th><th>Number of<br>analysed<br>vessels</th><th>Type of every<br>analysed vessel</th><th>Forming method and<br>variant of every<br>analysed vessel</th><th>Configuration of the<br>coils on different<br>forming phases</th><th>Traces of<br>preforming<br>technique</th><th>References</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">50/56</td><td rowspan="10">Pit with round<br>shape, straight<br>side, and flat<br>bottom.</td><td rowspan="10">14</td><td rowspan="10">10</td><td rowspan="10">7</td><td>Fine ware</td><td>Forming method 1,<br>Variant 1.1</td><td>Body: inward oblique</td><td>—</td><td rowspan="10">Szilágyi<br>2015.130–131</td></tr><tr><td>Base</td><td>Forming method 1,<br>Variant 1.2</td><td>Neck: S-Z-shaped</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Jar</td><td>Forming method 1,<br>unknown base</td><td>Rim: inward oblique</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Conical bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Rim: S-Z shaped</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>S-profiled bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Rim: S-Z shaped</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>S-profiled bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Rim: S-Z shaped</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>S-profiled bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Rim: S-Z shaped</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Jar</td><td>Forming method 1,<br>unknown base</td><td>Body: inward oblique</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Hemispherical bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Rim: inward oblique</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>S-profiled bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Rim: inward oblique</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">51/57</td><td rowspan="10">Pit with round<br>shape, straight<br>side, and flat<br>bottom.</td><td rowspan="10">33</td><td rowspan="10">30</td><td rowspan="10">3</td><td>Fine ware</td><td>Forming method 1,<br>Variant 1.1</td><td>Body: S-Z shaped</td><td>—</td><td rowspan="10">Szilágyi<br>2015.131</td></tr><tr><td>Jar</td><td>Forming method 1,<br>Variant 1.1</td><td>Unknown</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Base</td><td>Forming method 1,<br>Variant 1.1</td><td>Body: inward oblique</td><td>Horizontal,<br>deep, thin<br>striation</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Barrel-shaped<br>vessel</td><td>Forming method 1,<br>unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Barrel-shaped<br>vessel</td><td>Forming method 1,<br>unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped and<br>inward oblique</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Barrel-shaped<br>vessel</td><td>Forming method 1,<br>unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped and<br>inward oblique</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Coarse ware</td><td>Forming method 1,<br>unknown base</td><td>Body: inward oblique</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Coarse ware</td><td>Forming method 1,<br>unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Jar</td><td>Forming method 1,<br>unknown base</td><td>Body: inward oblique</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Tab. 1. Continued</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>Storage vessel</th><th>Forming method 1, unknown base</th><th>Neck: S-Z-shaped and inward oblique</th><th>Horizontal, deep, thin striation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Storage vessel</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Neck: inward oblique</td><td>Longitudinal flat stripes and horizontal, deep, thin striation</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">67/73</td><td rowspan="6">Pit with amor- phous shape and uneven bottom.</td><td rowspan="6">119</td><td rowspan="6">99</td><td rowspan="6">6</td><td>Barrel-shaped vessel</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped, rim: O-shaped</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Barrel-shaped vessel</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: inward oblique</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Barrel-shaped vessel</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Barrel-shaped vessel</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped</td><td>Szilágyi 2015.131</td></tr><tr><td>Storage vessel</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Storage vessel</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Neck: inward oblique</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>95/105</td><td>Grave with an east-west orient- ed skeleton on the left side in crouched positio- on. No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave good.</td><td>Szilágyi 2015.132</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">106/113</td><td rowspan="4">Pit with round shape, straight side, and flat bottom.</td><td rowspan="4">96</td><td rowspan="4">52</td><td rowspan="4">5</td><td>Barrel-shaped vessel</td><td>Forming method 1, Variant 1.1</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Coarse ware</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped and inward oblique</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Tumbler</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: inward oblique</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td>Storage vessel</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Neck: S-Z-shaped</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Carinated bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Rim: S-Z-shaped</td><td>—</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Tab. 1. Continued</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Grave with an east-west</th><th>4</th><th>4</th><th>3</th><th>Tumbler</th><th>Forming method 1, Variant 1.2</th><th>Body: S-Z-shaped</th><th>-</th><th>Siklósi, Szilágyi</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>108/115</td><td>oriented skeleton on the right side in gently crouched position. Grave-goods: vessels and pig's mandi-ble. AMS radiocarbon dates from an ulna of a Homo sapiens: 4330 (68.2%) 4170 cal BC.</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Barrel-shaped vessel</td><td>Forming method 1, Variant 1.2</td><td>Unknown</td><td>-</td><td>2021.593, Tab. 1; Szilágyi 2015.132</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>S-profiled bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Rim: S-Z</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Barrel-shaped vessel</td><td>Forming method 1, Variant 1.1</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Jar</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped, neck: inward oblique</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>S-profiled bowl with hollow-pedestal</td><td>Forming method 2</td><td>Pedestal: inward oblique</td><td>-</td><td>Siklósi, Szilágyi 2021.593, Tab. 1; Szilágyi 2015.132</td></tr><tr><td>112/119</td><td>Grave with three skeletons, one adult laid supine in an extended position, two children skeleton in crouched position. Grave-goods: vessels. AMS radiocarbon dates from a costa frg., phalanx of a Homo sapiens: 4240 (68.2%) 4060 cal BC</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>117/124</td><td>Grave with an east-west oriented skeleton laid supine in an extended position. No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Tab. 1. Continued</caption><tr><td>118/125</td><td>Disturbed grave, cut by grave 117/124. No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>125/133</td><td>Grave with an east-west oriented skeleton on the left side in crouched position. No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>-</td><td>Szilágyi 2015.132</td></tr><tr><td>126/133</td><td>Pit with round shape, straight side, and flat bottom.</td><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>2</td><td>Coarse ware</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td><td>Szilágyi 2015.132-133</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">139/141; 146; 166</td><td rowspan="10">Two archaeological features have been given this number, presumably a grave and a pit, which cannot be separated due to lack of documentation. Three stratigraphical numbers (141, 146, and 166) have been assigned to the feature number 139, but their relationship is unclear.</td><td rowspan="10">39</td><td rowspan="10">30</td><td rowspan="10">7</td><td>Vessel with pedestal</td><td>Forming method 2</td><td>Pedestal: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td><td rowspan="10">Szilágyi 2015.133</td></tr><tr><td>Vessel with pedestal</td><td>Forming method 2</td><td>Pedestal: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Vessel with pedestal</td><td>Forming method 2</td><td>Pedestal: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Vessel with pedestal</td><td>Forming method 2</td><td>Pedestal: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Carinated bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Rim: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Carinated bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Rim: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Carinated bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Rim: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Carinated bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Rim: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Carinated bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Rim: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td></tr></table>
<table><caption>Tab. 1. Continued</caption><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Pit with round shape, straight side, and flat bottom.<br>AMS radiocarbon dates from a calcaneus dextra of a juvenis Sus scrofa: 4255 (68.2%) 4065 cal BC.</td><td>71</td><td>67</td><td>8</td><td>Barrel-shaped vessel<br>Storage vessel<br>Carinated bowl<br>Carinated bowl<br>S-profiled bowl<br>S-profiled bowl<br>S-profiled bowl<br>Conical bowl</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base<br>Forming method 1, unknown base<br>Forming method 3<br>Forming method 3<br>Forming method 3<br>Forming method 3<br>Forming method 3<br>Forming method 3</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped<br>Neck: inward oblique<br>Rim: inward oblique<br>Rim: O-shaped<br>Rim: inward oblique<br>Rim: inward oblique<br>Rim: S-Z-shaped<br>Unknown</td><td>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-</td><td>Sziklósi, Szilágyi 2021.593.<br>Tab. 1;<br>Sziklósi 2015.133</td></tr><tr><td>147/157</td><td>Pit with round shape.</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>Wide conical bowl<br>Wide conical bowl<br>Coarse ware<br>Jar</td><td>Forming method 2<br>Forming method 2<br>Forming method 1, unknown base<br>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: inward oblique, rim: O-shaped<br>Unknown<br>Body: S-Z-shaped and inward oblique<br>Neck: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-<br>-<br>-<br>-</td><td>Sziklósi 2015.133</td></tr><tr><td>181/189; 235</td><td>Pit with amorphous shape and uneven bottom.<br>Two stratigraphical numbers have been assigned to feature 181, 189 for the surface of the feature and 235 for its infill.<br>AMS radiocarbon dates from a large ungulate vertebra frg.? 5030 (68.2%) 4900 cal BC.</td><td>51</td><td>40</td><td>3</td><td>Jar</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body and neck: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td><td>Sziklósi, Szilágyi 2021.593.<br>Tab. 1;<br>Sziklósi 2015.133</td></tr><tr><td>208/223</td><td>Pit with round shape.</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>S-profiled bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Unknown</td><td>-</td><td>Sziklósi 2015.133-134</td></tr><tr><td>234/237</td><td>Disturbed grave in crouched position. No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>No grave goods.</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Tab. 1. Continued</caption><tr><td rowspan="4">263/280</td><td rowspan="4">Pit with round shape.</td><td rowspan="4">3</td><td rowspan="4">3</td><td>Coarse ware</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td><td rowspan="4">Szilágyi 2015.134</td></tr><tr><td>Coarse ware</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Conical bowl</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Conical bowl</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">327/390</td><td rowspan="3">Grave with a west-east oriented skeleton on the left side in crouched position. Grave-goods: vessels.</td><td rowspan="3">3</td><td rowspan="3">3</td><td>Carinated bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Rim: inward oblique</td><td>-</td><td rowspan="3">Szilágyi 2015.134</td></tr><tr><td>Conical bowl</td><td>Forming method 3</td><td>Unknown</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Coarse ware</td><td>Forming method 1, unknown base</td><td>Body: S-Z-shaped</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>351/379</td><td>Probably a grave in a pit, but the</td><td>9</td><td>9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Szilágyi 2015.134</td></tr></table>