Book 2: Settlement Patterns in the Bodrogköz Block: The Upper Tisza Project. Studies in Hungarian Landscape Archaeology. 9781407305639, 9781407336220

Citation preview

B A R

Studies in Hungarian Landscape Archaeology

Book 2: Settlement Patterns in the Bodrogköz Block John Chapman, Mark Gillings, Enikő Magyari, Robert Shiel, Bisserka Gaydarska and Chris Bond with contributions by József Laszlovszky, Steve Leyland and David Brookshaw Illustrations by Sandra Rowntree and Chris Bond

BAR International Series 2087 2010

l na tio ne di nli ad l o ith ria W ate m

BAR  S2087 2010 CHAPMAN ET AL THE UPPER TISZA PROJECT BOOK 2: SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE BODROGKÖZ BLOCK

9 781407 305639

The Upper Tisza Project

The Upper Tisza Project Studies in Hungarian Landscape Archaeology

Book 2: Settlement Patterns in the Bodrogköz Block John Chapman, Mark Gillings, Enikő Magyari, Robert Shiel, Bisserka Gaydarska and Chris Bond with contributions by

József Laszlovszky, Steve Leyland and David Brookshaw Illustrations by

Sandra Rowntree and Chris Bond

BAR International Series 2087 2010

ISBN 9781407305639 paperback ISBN 9781407336220 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407305639 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Contents List Contents List List of Figures List of CD Figures (please see note below) List of Tables Preface Chapter One: Introduction to the Upper Tisza Project John Chapman & József Laszlovszky 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11

1 - 27

Setting the scene Identity, place and time Study region, research aims and objectives Previous research Parallel research programmes Summary of Project fieldwork, excavation and analysis Mode of publication GIS and field survey methodologies The creation of the Gazetteer Analytical Principles for fieldwalking data Summary

Chapter Two: The environment of the Bodrogköz Block 29 - 41 Robert Shiel, Enikő Magyari, Basil Davis & John Chapman 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Introduction Geological and geomorphological evolution of the Bodrogköz Soils of the Bodrogköz Robert Shiel The vegetation of the Bodrogköz Enikő Magyari The vegeration of the Nyírség Enikő Magyari & Basil Davis Summary John Chapman

Robert Shiel

Chapter Three: Land use potential of the Bodrogköz Block Robert Shiel 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

Introduction The study area Modern land use potential Suitability of the land types Change over time Summary

Please note that the CD referred to above has now been replaced with a download available at www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html

i

43 - 52

Chapter Four: The Gazetteer John Chapman, Mark Gillings, Steve Leyland, Leanne Stowe & Denise Telford

53 - 145

4.1 Introduction 4.2 NorthWest Nyírség 4.3 The Kenézlő Sand Island 4.4 The Bodrog valley

Chapter Five: Analysis and interpretation of field survey data .. 147- 205 John Chapman, Mark Gillings, Robert Shiel & Steve Leyland 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

The definition of Multi-Community Zones in Block 2 Inter-Quartile Range results for pottery and lithics General perspectives on Block 2 fieldwalking results Multi-Community Zones and the analysis of settlement patterns Period Syntheses Summary

Chapter Six: Summary of main results, Bodrogköz Block John Chapman, Mark Gillings & Steve Leyland. 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7

207 - 220

Introduction Interpretative framework Individual site biographies Multi-Community Zones General perspectives on the Bodrogköz Block Comparison with Block 1 settlement patterns Endwords

References

221- 230

ii

List of Figures 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30

The identity triangle Cyclical and linear structures of time The Project study region Topographical map of the Bodrogköz Block Project bilingual recording form Inter-quartile ranges by pottery number by Age, Block 2 Inter-quartile ranges by pottery weight by Age, Block 2 Inter-quartile ranges by pottery number by Period, Block 2 Inter-quartile ranges by pottery weight by Period, Block 2 Inter-quartile ranges for lithic collections by number and weight, Block 2. Geomorphology of the Bodrogköz Soils of the Bodrogköz Gávavencsellő pollen diagram Loss-on-ignition and macrofossil diagram, Gávavencsellő Györgytarló pollen diagram Map 44 Map 45 - sites Map 45 – Single Finds Map 46 - sites Map 46 – Single Finds Map 47 - sites Map 47 – Single Finds Map 48 - sites Map 49 - sites Map 50 - sites Map 50 – Single Finds Map 51 - sites Map 52 - sites Map 53 - sites Map 54 - sites Map 55 - sites Map 56 - sites Map 56 – Single Finds Map 57 - sites Map 57 – Single Finds Map 58 - sites Map 58 – Single Finds Map 59 - sites Map 59 – Single Finds Map 60 - sites Map 60 – Single Finds Map 61 - sites Map 61 – Single Finds Map 62 - sites Map 62 – Single Finds

iii

4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 4.38 4.39 4.40 4.41 4.42 4.43 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.47 4.48 4.49 4.50 4.51 4.52 4.53 4.54 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13

Map 63 - sites Map 63 – Single Finds Map 64 - sites Map 65 - sites Map 65 – Single Finds Map 66 – sites Map 66 – Single Finds Map 67 - sites Map 68 - sites Map 68 – Single Finds Map 69 – sites Resistivity plot, Sárazsadány 001 (Clive Titman) Map 69 – Single Finds Map 70 - sites Resistivity plot, Bodrogolaszi 002 (Clive Titman) Map 71 – sites Photograph of Rakamaz 006 barrow 1 – 21: Rakamaz 001 1 – 9: Rakamaz 001 1 – 4: Rakamaz 001; 5 – 13: Szabolcs 005 1 – 15: Szabolcs 005 1 – 2: Timár 004; 3 – 8: Zalkod 002; 9: Zalkod 005; 10 – 11: Kenézlő 003; 12 – 14: Viss 003 1: Bodrogkeresztúr 001; 2 – 10: Bodrogkeresztúr 005 1 – 9: Sárazsadány 001; 10 – 17: Sárazsadány 002 Location of Multi-Community Zones (MCZs) and sites with gridded collections (A – Rakamaz 001; B – Sárazsadány 001) Inter-quartile range of pottery numbers, Bodrog & Nyírség sites: (a) by age; (b) by period Inter-quartile range of Kenézlő Sand Island sites: (a) pottery numbers by age; (b) pottery numbers by period (c) pottery weights by age; (d) pottery weights by period. Inter-quartile range of pottery weights (a) by age and (b) by period, Bodrog & Nyírség sites Scatterplot of assemblage size vs. number of raw material categories Inter-quartile range of (a) numbers and (b) weights of lithics by sub-region Four methods of calculating site numbers: (a) count of non-overlapping phases; (b) timeadjusted count of non-overlapping phases; (c) adjusted with all undifferentiated site numbers; and (d) adjusted with partial undifferentiated site numbers. Site size plots: (a) all sites; (b) Neolithic sites; (c) Middle Neolithic sites Site size plots: (a) Bronze Age sites; (b) Medieval sites; (c) Post-Medieval – Modern sites Site size vs. number of non-overlapping occupation Phases: (a) Block 2; (b) Kenézlő Sand Island; (c) Bodrog valley; (d) North West Nyírség. Site size / discard intensity plots by period: (a) Middle Neolithic; (b) Late Neolithic; (c) Late Bronze Age; (d) Bronze Age Site size / discard intensity plots by period: (a) Migration Period; (b) Arpadian; (c) PostMedieval; (d) Modern. Site size / discard intensity plots by period and sub-region: (a) Middle Neolithic Bodrog & Nyírség; (b) Middle Neolithic, Bodrogköz; (c) Bronze Age, Bodrog & Nyírség; (d) Bronze Age, Bodrogköz.

iv

5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20

5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 6.1 6.2

Lithic single finds: MCZ 12: (a) by raw material source area (number); (b) by technological stage (number); MCZ 19: (c) by raw material source area (number); (d) by technological stage (number) Contour plot of Rakamaz 001, showing six ‘hills’ (H1 – H6) Resistivity plot of central part of Rakamaz 001 (C. Titman) Spatial analysis of discard, Rakamaz 001: (a) discard density ratios; (b) nearest neighbour distance; (c) inter-cluster spacing. Cluster size at Rakamaz 001: (a) size of mono-focal clusters; (b) size of clusters on multifocal sites Discard density ratio vs. cluster size, Rakamaz 001 Lithic single finds discarded outside MCZs, Block 2: (a) by raw material source area (numbers); (b) by technological stage, all raw materials (number); (c) by technological stage, Hungarian obsidian (HO) (number); (d) by technological stage, South Tokaj limnoquartzite (STL) (number) Surface lithics, Zalkod 003: (a) by raw material source area (numbers); (b) by raw material source area (weight); (c) by technological stage, all raw materials (number) Surface lithics, Zalkod 003: (a) by technological stage, North Tokaj limnoquartzite (NTL)(number); (b) by technological stage, South Tokaj limnoquartzite (STL)(number) Surface lithics, Zalkod 005: (a) by raw material source area (numbers); (b) by raw material source area (weight); (c) by technological stage, all raw materials (number) Surface lithics, Zalkod 015: (a) by raw material source area (numbers); (b) by raw material source area (weight); (c) by technological stage, all raw materials (number) Surface lithics, Kenézlő 001: (a) by raw material source area (numbers); (b) by raw material source area (weight); (c) by technological stage, all raw materials (number) Surface lithics, Bodrogkeresztúr 005: (a) by raw material source area (numbers); (b) by raw material source area (weights) Surface lithics, Bodrogkeresztúr 005: (a) by technological stage, all raw materials (number); (b) by technological stage, South Tokaj limnoquartzite (STL)(number); (c) by technological stage, Slovakian obsidian (SO)(number) Surface lithics, Viss 003: (a) by raw material source area (numbers); (b) by raw material source area (weight); (c) by technological stage, all raw materials (number) Surface lithics, Viss 003: (a) by technological stage, Slovakian obsidian (SO)(number) Surface lithics, Rakamaz 011: (a) by raw material source area (numbers); (b) by raw material source area (weights) (c) by technological stage, all raw materials (number) Surface lithics, Bodrogolaszi 002: (a) by raw material source area (numbers); (b) by raw material source area (weights) Surface lithics, Bodrogolaszi 002: (a) by technological stage, all raw materials (number); (b) by technological stage, Slovakian obsidian (SO)(number); (c) by technological stage, Hungarian obsidian (HO)(number) Surface lithics, Olaszliszka 003: (a) by raw material source area (numbers); (b) by raw material source area (weights) (c) by technological stage, all raw materials (number); (d) by technological stage, Hungarian obsidian (HO)(number) Surface lithics, Rakamaz 001: (a) by raw material source area (numbers); (b) by raw material source area (weights); (c) by technological stage, all raw materials (number) Site size vs. number of occupation phases: (a) all sites; (b) Bodrog valley sites; (c) Kenézlő Sand Island sites; (d) Nyírség sites The frequency of prior occupations in Block 2: (a) Bronze Age sites; (b) Arpadian sites

v

6.3

Comparison of dated Single Finds by Survey Block: (a) Polgár Block; (b) Bodrogköz Block; (c) Bodrogköz Block without Modern Single Finds

vi

List of CD Figures

(Now available to download at www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html)

IMAGES OF THE TISZA, NORTH EAST HUNGARY (source: Polgár, J. 1997. Tiszatér Útikönyv. Tiszadob: Üzent BT & Tiszatér Társulás) CD Fig. 0.1

Tisza at Tiszalök

CD Fig. 0.2

Tisza at Tiszalök

CD Fig. 0.3

Tisza at Tiszadob

CD Fig. 0.4

Tisza old meander at Tiszadob

CD Fig. 0.5

Tisza at Tiszadada

CD Fig. 0.6

Tisza frozen over

CD Fig. 0.7

Tisza after spring flood

CD Fig. 0.8

Tisza fisherman

CD Fig. 0.9

Tisza fisherman

CD Fig. 0.10 Andrássy Castle, Tiszadob CD Fig. 0.11 salt marsh near Tiszavasvári CD Fig. 0.12 Duck lake (Kacsás-tó) near Tiszavasvári BOOK 2

Settlement patterns in the Bodrogköz Block

CD Fig. 1.1

Tisza at Balsa

CD Fig. 1.2

Fieldwalking in the Bodrogköz

CD Fig. 1.3

The statue of King László at Szabolcs

CD Fig. 1.4

Szabolcs hill-fort

CD Fig. 1.5

Szabolcs hill-fort

CD Fig. 2.1

Tisza at Balsa

CD Fig. 2.2

Tisza at Balsa

CD Fig. 2.3

Cows in Tisza near Zalkod

vii

CD Fig. 2.4

Tokaj hill

CD Fig. 2.5

Tisza and North West Nyírseg from Tokaj hill

CD Fig. 2.6

Bodrog high terrace near Olaszliszka

CD Fig. 2.7

Particle size distribution by depth, Gávavencsellő core

CD Fig. 2.8

Particle size distribution by depth, Győrgytarló core

CD Fig. 2.9

Austro-Hungarian Military map extract, AD 1856 – 60

CD Fig. 2.10 Map of Block 2, cca. AD 1960 CD Fig. 3.1

Vineyards near Olaszliszka

CD Fig. 3.2

Sheep grazing in Bodrogköz

CD Fig. 3.3

Geological map of Block 2

CD Fig. 3.4

Pedological map of Block 2

CD Fig. 3.5

Satellite image of Block 2, AD 1990s (Source: GoogleEarth)

CD Fig. 4.1

Rakamaz barrow with Calvary

CD Fig. 4.2

Rakamaz barrow with Calvary

CD Fig. 5.1

Key to map symbols, Chapter 5

CD Fig. 5.2

Middle Neolithic and Late Neolithic discard, MCZ 11 (Rakamaz Hills)

CD Fig. 5.3 Undifferentiated Copper Age, Undifferentiated Bronze Age discard, Scythian,. Early Iron Age and Late Iron Age, MCZ 11 (Rakamaz Hills) CD Fig. 5.4 Undifferentiated Migration Period, Arpadian, Late Medieval / Post-Medieval, Post-Medieval and Modern discard, MCZ 11 (Rakamaz Hills) CD Fig. 5.5

Early-Middle and Middle Neolithic discard, MCZ12 (Pupos Hegy sandhills)

CD Fig. 5.6

Early and Late Copper Age, Middle, Late & Undifferentiated Bronze Age discard, MCZ 12 (Pupos Hegy sandhills)

CD Fig. 5.7

Undifferentiated Medieval & Post-Medieval discard, MCZ 12 (Pupos Hegy sandhills)

CD Fig. 5.8 Middle Neolithic, Early & Late Copper Age discard, MCZ 13 (Szabolcs terrace)

viii

CD Fig. 5.9

Early – Middle, Late & Undifferentiated Bronze Age, Early & Late Iron Age discard, MCZ 13 (Szabolcs terrace)

CD Fig. 5.10 Migration Period, Migration – Conquest Period, Arpadian, Late Medieval / PostMedieval, Undifferentiated Medieval, Post-Medieval & Modern discard, MCZ 13 (Szabolcs terrace) CD Fig. 5.11 Early – Middle Neolithic, Middle & Late Neolithic discard, MCZ 14 (Zalkod – Kenézlő terrace) CD Fig. 5.12 Early, Late & Undifferentiated Copper Age discard, MCZ 14 (Zalkod – Kenézlő terrace) CD Fig. 5.13 Early – Middle, Late & Undifferentiated Bronze Age & Bronze Age-Iron Age discard, MCZ 14 (Zalkod – Kenézlő terrace) CD Fig. 5.14 Pre-Scythian & Late Iron Age discard, MCZ 14 (Zalkod – Kenézlő terrace) CD Fig. 5.15 Roman Imperial Period, Pre-Hunnic, Germanic & Avar discard, MCZ 14 (Zalkod – Kenézlő terrace) CD Fig. 5.16 Late Migration Period, Przeworsk, Late Migration / Early Arpadian & Undifferentiated Migration Period discard, MCZ 14 (Zalkod – Kenézlő terrace) CD Fig. 5.17 Early, Late & Undifferentiated Arpadian, Late Medieval, Late Medieval / PostMedieval & Undifferentiated Medieval discard, MCZ 14 (Zalkod – Kenézlő terrace) CD Fig. 5.18 Post-Medieval, Post-Medieval / Modern, Early Modern & Modern discard, MCZ 14 (Zalkod – Kenézlő terrace) CD Fig. 5.19 Middle & Late Neolithic & Copper Age discard, MCZ 15 (Zalkod Sandhills) CD Fig. 5.20 Middle, Late & Undifferentiated Bronze Age & Late Iron Age discard, MCZ 15 (Zalkod Sandhills) CD Fig. 5.21 Roman Imperial, Przeworsk & Undifferentiated Migration Period discard, MCZ 15 (Zalkod Sandhills) CD Fig. 5.22 Arpadian, Late & Undifferentiated Medieval discard, MCZ 15 (Zalkod Sandhills) CD Fig. 5.23 Post-Medieval, Post-Medieval / Modern & Modern discard, MCZ 15 (Zalkod Sandhills) CD Fig. 5.24 Early-Middle Neolithic discard, Rakamaz 001 CD Fig. 5.25 Middle Neolithic, Middle-Late & Late Neolithic discard, Rakamaz 001 CD Fig. 5.26 Early-Middle, Late & Undifferentiated Copper Age discard, Rakamaz 001

ix

CD Fig. 5.27 Early-Middle & Late Bronze Age discard, Rakamaz 001 CD Fig. 5.28 Undifferentiated Bronze Age discard, Rakamaz 001 CD Fig. 5.29 Late & Undifferentiated Iron Age discard, Rakamaz 001 CD Fig. 5.30 Roman Imperial discard, Rakamaz 001 CD Fig. 5.31 Migration Period discard, Rakamaz 001 CD Fig. 5.32 Migration Period – Arpadian, Arpadian & Late Medieval discard, Rakamaz 001 CD Fig. 5.33 Late Medieval – Post-Medieval & Post-Medieval discard, Rakamaz 001 CD Fig. 5.34 Lithics discard, Rakamaz 001 CD Fig. 5.35 Lithic discard

Please note that the CD referred to above has now been replaced with a download available at www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html

x

List of Tables 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 2.1 2.2 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 5.1 5.2

Outline of long-term settlement sequence, North East Hungary Summary of fieldwork Summary fieldwalking data by season and Block, 1992 – 1993 Summary of all Block 2 sites with transect or gridded collection Data Sheet for KÖI Site Report for Rakamaz 009-010 Project Gazetteer Site Record for Rakamaz 008 Methods of identification of high-density site discard Methods of identification of medium-density site discard Methods of identification of low-density site discard Methods of identification of site artifact loss Project Lithic raw material classification Classes of lithic disposal by Block 2 Multi-Community Zones Areas (km2) of soils in the Bodrog valley Percentage of total soil area in each main use type for the Bodrogköz and Polgár Blocks Suitability of land-use classes Index of Block 2 sites by map extract Single Finds, Fig. 4.3 (Map 45) Single Finds, Fig. 4.5 (Map 46) Single Finds, Fig. 4.11 (Map 50) Single Finds, Fig. 4.12 (Map 51) Single Finds, Fig. 4.13 (Map 52) Single Finds, Fig. 4.14 (Map 53) Single Finds, Fig. 4.15 (Map 54) Single Finds, Fig. 4.18 (Map 56) Single Finds, Fig. 4.20 (Map 57) Single Finds, Fig. 4.22 (Map 58) Single Finds, Fig. 4.24 (Map 59) Single Finds, Fig. 4.26 (Map 60) Single Finds, Fig. 4.28 (Map 61) Single Finds, Fig. 4.30 (Map 62) (No. 607: Fig. 39/4) Single Finds, Fig. 4.32 (Map 63) (No. 507: Fig. 45/1) Single Finds, Fig. 4.33 (Map 64) Single Finds, Fig. 4.35 (Map 65) Single Finds, Fig. 4.37 (Map 66) Single Finds, Fig. 4.38 (Map 67) Single Finds, Fig. 4.40 (Map 68) Single Finds, Fig. 4.42 (Map 69) Single Finds, Fig. 4.43 (Map 70) Single Finds, Fig. 4.44 (Map 71) Single Finds Outside Map Extracts (No. 874: Fig. 4.4x/ = 52/10) List of artifact captions by site and period, Block 2 Key to abbreviations used in Single Finds Tables Multi-Community Zones in Block 2 Areas outside Multi-Community Zones, Block 2

xi

5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 6.1 6.1

Grouping of lithic raw material categories, Block 2 surface material Timelines for Block 2 Multi-Community Zones

Frequency of re-occupation by MCZ, Block 2 Settlement categorisation by surface area and discard intensity Number of Phases of Occupation per site, MCZ 11 Re-occupation and abandonment of sites by phase, MCZ 11 Number of Phases of Occupation per site, MCZ 12 Re-occupation and abandonment of sites by phase, MCZ 12 Number of Phases of Occupation per site, MCZ 13 Re-occupation and abandonment of sites by phase, MCZ 13 Timelines for individual sites, MCZ 14

Re-occupation and abandonment of sites by phase, MCZ 14 Number of Phases of Occupation per site, MCZ 14 Number of Phases of Occupation per site, MCZ 15 Re-occupation and abandonment of sites by phase, MCZ 15 Discard sequence at Rakamaz 001 Site size vs. discard intensity for all components, Block 2 Site discard frequency, intensity and size by phase, Block 2.

xii

Preface The activities of the Upper Tisza Project (henceforth “UTP”) have spanned more than a decade of immense change in Hungary and Central and Eastern Europe as a whole. Seven seasons of fieldwork have been followed by six years of post-survey research, post-excavation studies and, finally, publication. Post-Communist governments have come and gone and the early promises of capitalist “freedom” have been transformed into a world system in which Hungary has become a market with rich pickings for those with entrepreneurial flair. Common ownership of the means of production has changed into a mix of collective farms and family plots; where archaeological sites are found on the latter, it is sometimes impossible to carry out research in the light of individual property rights. Huge motorway rescue programmes have affected most of the 28 Hungarian counties, whose museums and research bases groan under the weight of truly vast quantities of freshly excavated material. The underlying organisation of Hungarian archaeology has witnessed enormous changes, as have the national heritage management structures. The increasing professionalisation of the “archaeological industry” can never be reversed but will continue to cause far-reaching changes. New leaders more attuned to such approaches have managed large excavation programmes, new IT strategies have been developed to cope with the surging mass of spatial data and new ideas have emerged to account for the implications of the “information revolution” of the 1990s. In comparison to this rather hectic activity, the UTP has moved slowly and on a smaller spatial scale, seeking to utilise a range of inter-disciplinary approaches to integrate a wider variety of sources of information than has perhaps been customary in most Hungarian projects of the 1990s. The project’s work has of necessity been interstitial, working between massive motorway rescue projects and the large-scale spatial recording systems used to standardise their excavation data. Yet the absence of continuous pressure to complete the salvage work before the next phase of building has enabled the UTP to select a range of different aims and objectives from those partly forced on the motorway teams. The UTP has worked for long enough in North East Hungary to become part of the regional archaeological scenery. Yet it was in Budapest that the project started life in the summer of 1990, when the late Sándor Bökönyi, at the time Director of the Institute of Archaeology, Professor Miklós Szabó, then Rector of ELTE, and the late Professor Istvan Bóna, formerly Chair of the Eötvös Loránd University Department of Archaeology, had the generosity to invite the British side of the Project to come and work in Hungary. We acknowledge our debt to each of these key members of Hungarian archaeology in the 20th century for their support for the Project over many years. The Project owes the funding agencies an enormous debt of gratitude - agencies whose generosity made the difference between a modest and only partly inter-disciplinary project and a project whose core was interactions across the humanistic – scientific archaeology divide: the British Academy, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, the National Geographic Society and the Society of Antiquaries of London, the Research Committee of the University of Newcastle, the Institute of Archaeology, Budapest, ELTE Department of Archaeology and the Prehistoric Society. It has been a source of great strength to have received support for the funding agencies from David Harris, John D. Evans, Anthony Harding, Alasdair Whittle, Richard Harrison, Clive Bonsall, Geoff Bailey, the late Jimmy Griffin, Bernard Wailes and Greg Johnson. It is also a pleasure for us to thank the Directors of the County Museums representing the three counties in which the UTP worked. Dr László Selmeczi (Deri Múzeum, Debrecen) and their staff (see below); Dr Peter Németh (Josa András Múzeum, Nyíregyháza) and his staff, particularly Eszter xiii

Istvanovits, Katalin Kurucz and Katalin Almássy; and Dr László Veres (Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc) and his staff, particularly Drs Maria Wolf, Judit Kóos, Magdolna Hellebrandt and Dr Arpad Ringer. Working on the M3 Motorway Rescue programme in the same area as the UTP Survey Block 1, Dr Pál Raczky led a large team from ELTE and the Deri Múzeum. Pál has been immensely helpful at many stages of the research project and we wish to thank him very deeply. His staff also contributed much time and effort, not least Béla Krivecky, the late Marta Sz. Mathé, Alexandra Anders, Zsigmond Hajdú and Emese Nagy - for which we are most grateful. There are many other colleagues who may not have worked in the field with the UTP nor have made written contributions but who nevertheless gave valuable assistance to the Project team and the debates of the times. Our warmest thanks go to János Makkay and Nándor Kalicz – those giants of Hungarian prehistoric studies; to Eszter Bánffy, especially for her support in the UTP Workshop of 1999; to Katalin Wollák, for explaining the subtleties of Hungarian Heritage Office policy and procedure to team members; to Andrea Vaday, whose expertise with Iron Age, Roman, Sarmatian and Early Medieval pottery made such a difference to our understanding of settlement patterning; to Katalin Biró, Viola Dobosi, Erzsébet Bacskay and Katalin Siman, whose knowledge of the lithic raw materials and assemblages of North East Hungary made the task of understanding surface lithic collections much easier. There are also many British colleagues who have generously given their time to read drafts of published papers: we are particularly grateful to Mike Rowlands, Bob Layton, John Barrett and Alasdair Whittle. Those working on the palaeo-environmental reconstructions of the varied landscapes of North East Hungary have also been very fortunate to have received such encouragement and assistance from Hungarian colleagues. Perhaps the greatest debt is to the late Professor Zoltán Borsy, who put the resources and personnel of the Kossuth Lajos University Debrecen’s Department of Geography at the Project’s disposal on several occasions. The UTP is also very grateful to Dr Enikő Felegyháza for her contributions to palynological research; to Dr László Kuti (MAFI) for his kindness in advising us on sedimentological and mineralogical matters; to Professor Gyula Gabris for discussion of Tisza palaeo-hydrology; to VIDUKI for providing maps and data relevant to the historical flooding of the river Tisza; and to the Széchenyi Library for providing rare books and documents, as well as valuable advice on cartography. The UTP is very grateful to Yvonne Beadnell, Sandra Rowntree and Amelie Roland-Gosselin for their diligent and skilful work on illustrations and, in particular, to Sandra Rowntree for organising the illustration of much of the Project material through her drawing class, to which the following contributed: Maureen Lazzari, Jackie Hutton, John Davies, Sheila Day, Chris Bond, Rick Renton, Barry Earnshaw, Sean Johnson, Ian Lumley and Brian Harley. The project also benefited from the kindness and practical assistance of many communities: the villages of Szabolcs (1993) and Boldogkőváralja (1995), the hamlet of Újhuta (1993), the Ibrany campsite on the Tisza (1992) and the village of Zalkod (2001). To all those who accommodated the teams and helped them to enjoy more fully the Hungarian spring / summer and village life, our profound thanks. Also, the UTP owes a great culinary debt to Dézső, the heroic chef of Tiszadob, and his delightful wife for all those wonderful lunches and dinners. The UTP is also very mindful of the contributions of Lajós Timari and Judit Krizsma during the 1999 lab season at the Institute of Archaeological Sciences, ELTE.

xiv

But the greatest debt which the UTP owes is to the staff and students who completed the fieldwork and labwork in often adverse conditions (flooded regosols for pedology students, permanent Tokaj wine lakes, etc.): summer 1992: Robert Shiel; Clive Titman; Zoltán Borsy; Enikő Felegyháza; Diana & Robin Fursdon; Mark Gillings; Richard Carlton; Magdi Vicze; Giedrius Puodziunas; Algis Kuzmickas; Zenonas Baubulis; Amit Rao; Sue Diamond; Ros Jackson; Linda Hill; Phil Smith; Mike Guy; John Howie; Phil Gunn; Fiona Robb. spring 1993: Magdi Vicze; Bożenna Szwejkowska and AnaMaria Kóvacs. summer 1993: Robert Shiel; Clive Titman; Kati Biró; Mark Gillings; Karen Hardy; Magdi Vicze; Timea Kiss; Al Rushworth; Giedrius Puodziunas; Linda Hill; Phil Smith; Sue Diamond; Amit Rao; Clara Lane; Maeve Jackson; John Howie; Mike Guy; Rachel Green; Becky Fursdon; Alison Broadbent; Maisie Taylor; Alison Schmidt; Lisa Cole and Phil Gunn. summer 1999: Sandra Rowntree; Steve Leyland; Steve Cousins; Leanne Stowe; Amelie RolandGosselin; Denise Telford; Dave Brookshaw and Zsolt Vágner. Easter 2001: Judy Rasson; Eva Seljan and Marijana Jukić. John Chapman

xv

xvi

Chapter One – Introduction to the Upper Tisza Project John Chapman & József Laszlovszky of social life.” Similarly, Barrett (1999) maintains that monuments did not represent certain social conditions, rather it was through their construction that those conditions were gradually transformed. Thus, objects or monuments are brought into a closer relationship with the people who made and used them. As Tilley (1999) states, “the processes of making things and making people are part of the same seamless order of things.” A similar approach, termed the “inherent” approach to landscape, has been developed by Johnston (1998), in which “landscape is not separately perceived but embedded within ways of living and being.” This approach emphasises the immanence of meanings in landscape and is opposed to the ‘explicit’ approach, whereby the cultural landscape fashioned out of a pre-existing natural landscape (Sauer 1925) or the notion that landscape cannot be understood without reference to a worldview which integrates place and space in the production of meaning (Snead & Preucel 1999). The importance of lived, meaningful experience is a key aspect of the theoretical developments of the 1990s – perhaps the main way in which attempts have been made to develop an understanding of the interior worlds of the past meaning (Snead & Preucel 1999). The importance of lived, meaningful experience is a key aspect of the theoretical developments of the 1990s – perhaps the main way in which attempts have been made to develop an understanding of the interior worlds of the past.

1.1. Setting the scene The life of a people is embedded in the landscape which they have inhabited. Like the successive strata of the geosphere, social generations pile up one upon another to form a time-series of experiences, patterns of behaviour, changing styles of life and death. Each individual enters into this long sequence of customary behaviour, seeking a way to live and to make decisions about dwelling in the landscape - the collective framing the individual. Groups choose where to live – and with whom to settle; individual decisions are important, to be sure, but settlement without group agreement is impossible. Around the islands of settlement stretch oceans of pastures, fields, forests and wasteland – part of the human communities dwelling in their landscapes. The extent to which groups change and influence their wider landscapes is a sign of the power and influence they exert upon their neighbours and the world-at-large. But, despite the many ways in which the collective frames the individual, these things are always changing – always in flux. The past is not fixed (by us) and was not fixed then. It is our responsibility to treat it seriously – as far as possible on its own terms but with an empathetic understanding, based upon our experience of 20th and 21st century living. Our task is to grasp the subtleties of changing relations between people, places and things, the changes which help to resolve (if only partially) the everpresent tensions between groups and individuals.

1.2 Identity, place and time To the extent that approaches to archaeological theory and especially to landscape archaeology have evolved rapidly in the 1990s, our attitudes to the UTP and its theoretical underpinnings have also moved on. A concern with the shift from space to place (Chapman 1988) and arenas of social power (Chapman 1991: applied to Eastern Hungary in Chapman 1994: 1997) has become integrated into a wider picture concerning archaeological approaches to identity. In the 1990s, there arose the notion that the three most important archaeological sources for identity were persons, places and things (Chapman 2000). This approach may be summarised as the relations defined by the “identity triangle” (Fig.1.1), in which three types of relations are posited: between persons and places, persons and things and places and things. Such ideas led to a radical re-conceptualisation of things, places and landscapes in and of themselves (Johnston 1998; van Dommelen 1999). The heightened sense of interconnectedness can be seen in Tilley’s (1996) view that “Material culture is as fundamental to the constitution of the social world as language ... Material culture is embedded in the everyday structures

Fig. 1.1. The identity triangle Some of the most important changes in the 1990s concerned new approaches to the archaeology of landscape. As Ashmore and Knapp (1999) recognise: “What was once theorised as passive backdrop or a forcible determinant of culture is now seen as an active and far more complex entity in relation to human lives.” Many studies quote Hirsch’s (1995) view that landscape 1

is “a process yielding a foregrounded, everyday social life from a background range of potential social existence.” Central to this concept is the notion of dwelling or inhabiting the land. Barrett (1999) characterises inhabitation as “to evoke or revitalize the ever-present ancestral and spiritual order embedded in that landscape”. Inhabitation empowers, so that actions gain legitimacy with reference to other places/times.

social life, it has to be recognised that time is a constituent dimension of social reality.' This new direction in archaeological thinking was connected to anthropological notions of indigenous conceptions of time (Shanks & Tilley 1987; Thomas 1988: 1990; Barrett 1990: 1991; see also Bailey 1990 and the World Archaeology issue devoted to Time: Bradley 1993). The key question in the agenda of social time has been raised by John Berger (1984:9-10) in his philosophical exploration of time and space. He posits that humans constitute two events - the event of the biological organism and the event of consciousness - and that these two times co-exist. The first time understands itself, while the second time understands itself in different ways. Therefore the first task of any culture is to propose an understanding of the time of its consciousness, of the relations between past, present and future. The notion that time is socially constituted and multi-facetted provides us with a starting-point for our discussion. For it means that there is no justification for an automatic mapping onto the prehistoric past of the characteristically 19th century concept of time as abstract, uniform, irreversible and unilinear, by which consciousness is, quite implausibly, treated as an event like any other.

This approach recognises the important pre-existing structures inhabiting a landscape, just as much as the habitus in a village house. Thus, for Barrett (1999), “the world as already existed (is) always imbued with meanings and therefore used as a background of reference against which contemporary acts played out, often through seeking to make explicit the meanings that were soaked into the landscape” or to help focus them more directly on contemporary concerns. These meanings refer to both natural and cultural features, since each has the potential to reveal the truths of a mythical past (Barrett 1999). It is hard, therefore, to underestimate the importance of the day-to-day experience of living in a world steeped in symbolic significance (Bradley 1998). This brings us to the significance of places in a landscape. Casey (1996) proposes that “phenomenologically, space and time come together in place. This view is echoed by Feld & Basso (1996): “place – that most powerful fusion of space, self and time.” The continuing inhabitation of a place brings an accumulated sense of history – of the peoples who settled there, the things which they used and deposited there and the ways in which the place was related to the rest of its landscape. For this reason, the notion of place-value is important in studies of landscape (Chapman 1998). It becomes clear that archaeological sites are not just spaces for the performance of specific tasks or activities but an essential way of creating the world in which people lived in the past (Chapman 1988). Tilley (1999) sums up the question as follows: “Place is thus an elemental existential fact and the social construction of a sense of place is a universal experiential medium.” To summarise, the creation of immanent relations between places and landscape is central to the self-perception of a group and their perception by outsiders. To the extent that the place is the locus for small-scale, local experiencing of the world, place is vital to interpretations of landscape archaeological data.

Gell has written the fundamental work on the anthropology of time (Gell 1992). His main contribution was the development of earlier ideas which differentiated time into two fundamental views: the A-series view on time, in which events have a past, a present and a future, and the B-series view of time, in which events are either before or after other events. (Gell 1992: 151 - 174). Gell attacks the privileging of A-series as “real” and the downgrading of the B-series as “intellectual reconstruction” because the structures of interpretation needed to understand A-series are of a B-series character (1992: 319). Instead, Gell argues for the importance of both series, maintaining that the A-series is a stage between two kinds of B-series – the one external (the outer reality of the world) and the other internal (the mental maps and models of time). There are three common mental models for conceptualising time in indigenous groups: alternating, cyclical and linear. Edmund Leach advances the case for the primacy of the alternating concept (the internal version of Gell’s B-series), in the sense that, while the other two notions are founded on an abstract, geometric idea (line, circle), a series of alternating states - night and day, winter and summer - are fundamental to human experience (or the external version of Gell’s B-series) (Leach 1961:126, 132-4).

Time has occupied a central place in the thoughts of archaeologists since the development of the Three Age System by Christian Thomsen in 1836 penetrated the thick fog that enveloped the past. It was not until the mid1980s, however, that social time entered the research agenda. A deeper reason why the significance of social time did not become apparent until the 1980s is provided by Fabian in relation to the shift in anthropological paradigms (Fabian 1983:24):

Each of the three internal B-series mental models of time can be used independently or in combination. However, since the cyclical concept can be adapted for a greater variety of time durations and a wider range of successions of events, we shall investigate this notion further, using the life-cycle as a metaphor for other, external B-series cyclical behaviour. At this juncture, we shall make a preliminary division between the cycles of individuals

'As soon as culture is no longer conceived as a set of rules to be enacted by individual members of distinct groups, but as the specific way in which actors create and produce beliefs, values and other means of 2

and social groups, on the one hand, and the cycles of material remains on the other. The interconnections between the two kinds of evidence necessarily raise the most interesting questions, for it is these cycles that intersect and cross-cut, frame and bracket the quotidian, Bourdieu's (1977) habitus - the everyday basis for social reproduction. Alongside the individual life-cycle we can set two social cycles - the household and the public (Fig. 1.2), whose various expansions and contractions are directly related to social reproduction through the media of exchange and mortuary ritual. It is an empirical task to discover whether it is the household or the public groups which play a more significant role in the social reproduction of specific communities. Just as we can define biographies of people and households, it is

possible to characterise artifacts, sites and monuments in terms of their respective biographies. Not only do artifacts have their own material cycle of manufacture, use and dis-use (Fig. 1.2) but they also bear qualities of their past history and associations with previous owners. It is their biography which allows some objects to be inalienable and some to be commoditized (Kopytoff 1986). Howell (1989) reminds us of one of Mauss' neglected suggestions, viz. that in total prestations between clan and clan, things are related in some degree as persons and persons in some degree as things. The meanings of past contexts can be brought into the present, not least through material culture (e.g., Ray's (1987) term “presencing”).

Fig. 1.2 Cyclical and linear structures of time The life-cycle of structures which archaeologists interpret as 'houses' may be divided into a daily and a whole-life cycle. The house as home implies an ontological grounding; for Eliade (1960), the home is a place from which the world was founded, the centre of the world, the untold story of a life being lived. In his discussion of the living house, Bailey (1990) takes up the theme of the multi-dimensionality of houses, stressing the varied perceptions of residents, kin and strangers to the wide range of meanings contained in the house. As a centre for production, reproduction and consumption, whether social or physical, the house is an active component in the construction of social reality. Like the artifact, the house has its own biography - construction, use and dis-use in the long-term, waking up, working there or going out to work, and returning to eat and sleep on a diurnal scale (Bailey 1990); the residents each provide their particular associations to the house, whether in the form of internal fittings and decorations or in the manner of the spatial

ordering of the household. The frequent comparison between houses and tombs, as houses for the dead, reinforces the biographical symbolism of the living house; the architecture here mediates between the living and the dead as liminal zone. These approaches to time and place provide a framework for the interpretation of archaeological data at the regional, local and site level. What is not clear, however, is the way that people enter the social dynamics of such a framework. Here, notions of agency and power are introduced to populate past times and places. The greatly increased emphasis on Structure – Agency relationships and social constructivism (Dobres & Robb 2000) is the principal route to the recognition of the importance of individual social action and a powerful method for breaking down apparently homogeneous schemes of cultural norms and values. As Johnson (1998) observed: “While to the social agent, (an existing structure) appears 3

to be a coherent set of values, it is one to be drawn upon selectively, manipulated and even inverted.” The archaeology of agency underlies much innovative theoretical work on the body, the individual and the social person, underpinning the social constructivist approach which emphasises the recursive relationship between persons ‘becoming’ themselves through bodily and social developments and those pre-existing structures which provide the material and the material conditions for such growth. Both these approaches highlight the small-scale and the local, in which power relations can be as developed as in the stories depicted in “grand narratives”.

(Mann 1986:22 - 32). Mann defines various ways in which social power can be extended in terms of the logistical capabilities of a given network. This theoretical framework is applied to the leading edge of world history, from the earliest times to the early modern period (Volume I: Mann 1986). Since it is based upon the grandest of “grand narratives”, Mann's model requires a re-orientation to be meaningful for times and places which are not at the leading edge of world historical change, including North East Hungary. The obvious way to achieve relevance in our study period is the location of Mann's social power model in a time - space context. The contextualisation of Mann's model in small-scale societies is best achieved by situating social power in a local nexus of practice, through the definition of arenas of social power. This concept leads to a technique for identifying the differentiation of social power through time and place. The term “arena of social power” has been coined to identify those places where ideological, economic, military and political power can be spatially identified. Arenas of social power (henceforth “ASPs”) mark a conjunction of a specific place, with its functions and meanings, and the social actors who have the power (including knowledge) to perform the activities in that place. The reasons for the creation of a new arena of social power are often related to the development of contradictions in the social order, where new developments are incompatible with the traditional social structure. Thus, household or individual wealth accumulation may be impossible within the social framework of communal ownership of land and herds, yet opportunities arise for private accumulation based on either exchange or local production. Alternatively, major changes in gender relations may lead to the elaboration of new arenas where the social power of one gender may be reinforced at the expense of the other. Yet again, the colonisation of new landscapes may lead to the creation of new arenas which legitimate the social claims of leaders to the newly settled land. Hence, the identification of new arenas of social power is always a sign of fundamental social change which requires explanation in terms of the local landscape and the regional setting (Chapman 1991: 1992).

The process of social colonisation of an unknown landscape has been summarised as the movement from space to place, in which a neutral, value-free, meaningless physical space takes on properties of meaning and value from those who colonise it (Chapman 1988). The creation of place led to the formation of those special areas termed settlements, the appearance of which attests the emergence of a place-based worldview. The appearance of settlements, especially those with upstanding remains (“monuments”), gives rise to the idea of place-value, or the nexus of stored meaning of past activities and traditional usage associated with a significant place. This idea can be more generally expressed in terms of the history of a settlement and its occupants as stored in collective memory - a site's “biography”. These notions which link time and place are basic to the development of a socially meaning-full landscape. An integral part of this process of spatial differentiation in the landscape is the matching of place-based activities with those people and groups who are empowered to be in the places that matter, to carry out significant activities and organise the participation of others not so empowered. This process begins from Foucault's (1984) idea that the control of space lies at the heart of social power. Since most of the social groups under study are small-scale communities with restricted hierarchical differentiation, networks of social power are most readily related to the social space which they have created. Individuals take the inherently risky step of creating and maintaining social power through their propensities to take action on their own behalf or on behalf of the group. Social activity per se produces power reflexively, just as power provides the opportunities for further action. The more varied, differentiated or specialised the activity or the place where it occurs, the greater the potential social power accruing to the individual concerned.

In summary, archaeologists can approach the hidden world of the past through theory-building which involves often subtle and complex relationships between persons, places and things. The interrogation of the principal source of archaeological data - material culture -through our modern concepts and ideas can lead to insights into past worldviews and the identification of past forms of habitus, together with understanding of change framed in terms of the dynamic and reflexive relationship between long-term structures and short-term social action.

However, this approach remains incomplete without any mention of the social power bases of those actors in the landscape. The model of social power advanced by Michael Mann is one which abandons the use of fixed entities such as “cultures”, “base” and “superstructure” in favour of a more flexible approach to social networks through which four different types of power can be created, maintained and extended simultaneously: the ideological, the economic, the military and the political

1.3 Study objectives

region,

research

aims

and

In this series of books presenting the results of the Upper 4

•

Tisza Project, we hope to be able to implement the approaches outlined here with a view to understanding the interaction of the long-term and the local in one region of Hungary. A useful starting-point for the definition of the research problematic is the selection of a relevant study region. Coones (1985) has made out a case for regarding the “region” as more than just an “area”, a convenient sub-natural unit of classification. Regions provide an integrated framework for the exploration of distinctive socio-economic structures and spatial patterns created by the use of the environment over time. Regional analysis is, therefore, a realistic scale for study, allowing the deepening of understanding of specific landscapes by concentrating attention on the inter-relationships within the region and facilitating the use of concepts of social power within precise contexts of period and place (Coones 1985). In this way, regional analysis serves to frame the unity of peoples and places within diachronic diversity. In his classic paper on archaeological research strategies, Binford (1964) defined the region as the essential unit of research into culture systems. The logic of this proposal relates primarily to the spatial integration of sites within a region, whose size must be large enough to permit study of all the seasonal movements and exchanges of goods and services essential to the social groups in question. Hence, regional analysis provides a perspective not only on period-by-period settlement distributions but also on the variability of human behaviour across different ecological zones within the region. Some images of the Upper Tisza region are provided on the accompanying CD-ROM (CD Figs. 0.1 – 0.12).

•

The integration of the detailed research questions arising out of the literature review (see below, Sections 1.4 – 1.5) with the overall project aims and the theoretical framework established for the project led to a further refinement of the formulation of 11 Project objectives: 1.

the identification and mapping of a dated sequence of Late Pleistocene and Holocene palaeochannels in the lowland Survey Blocks. 2. the provision of a dated long-term sequence of vegetational change, based upon sediment coring of palaeochannels. 3. the soil mapping of a 10% sample of each Survey Block, with extrapolation to the remaining 90% based upon geological maps, satellite images and general fieldwalking. 4. The definition of modern land use patterns in the Survey Blocks, together with interpretation of past land use potential based upon data from objectives 1 and 2. 5. The recovery of high-quality settlement pattern data for all periods from the Palaeolithic to modern times through the intensive, systematic fieldwalking of a minimum 10% sample of each Survey Block. 6. The recovery of depositional, material culture and subsistence data from excavations targeted on key upland and lowland settlements. 7. The interpretation of settlement, depositional and subsistence data in terms of the social power structures created and maintained across the landscape. 8. The identification of periods of settlement in the Zemplén Mountains through fieldwalking and survey of forested areas. 9. The systematic mapping of sources of lithic raw materials in the South Zemplén (Tokaj) Mountains. 10. The identification, by visual means and through petrological analysis, of the main lithic raw material groups in the excavated samples and fieldwalking material. 11. The production of a spatial data base of the distribution of lithics derived from the uplands and found on lowland settlements.

The boundaries of the Upper Tisza study region have been set so as to include a wide diversity of environmental zones. Within the 60 by 50 km region (total area = c. 3,000 sq. km), three main ecological zones can be distinguished (Fig. 1.3). (1) the main valley of the river Tisza itself, with its characteristic low-lying flood-plain and adjacent extensive terraces of loess. 2) the low-lying plain of the southern Bodrogköz, with its alluvial areas defined by the rivers Bodrog and Tisza and including the high terraces of those two rivers (Fig. 1.4). (3) the piedmont zone of the southern Zemplén hills, with their rich sources of rocks and minerals in a volcanic geological setting, with altitudinal variations from 100 masl to almost 800 masl. Within this study region, three principal research problems were selected as Project aims: •

the definition of long-term changes in arenas of social power which are related to the exploitation of local and regional potential; and the clarification of upland-lowland relationships though definition of the mechanisms of exploitation of upland resources.

the definition and explanation of changes in the palaeo-environment, together with changes in regional economic potential, over the last 10,000 years;

5

Fig. 1.3 The Project Study region, with the three survey blocks

Fig. 1.4 Topographical map of the Bodrogköz Block 6

In this second book, we pay particular attention to the first and second aims, as well as the first five objectives.

1.4.1.2 The Topography

1.4 Previous research

The programme which can be seen as the most important topographical survey in Hungary was launched after the completion of the early regional surveys. The basic objective of the Hungarian Archaeological Topography was to survey all archaeological sites in the whole country and to publish the results of these investigations in a uniform format which would incorporate archive data. This project was organised and funded largely by the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and supported by the county museums. Aside from original surveys of large areas, the Topography incorporated the results of previous fieldwalking and excavation into individual volumes which would cover the main administrative units (counties and parishes) of the country. This project has already produced some impressive results in the form of eight volumes of topographical work (e.g., Torma 1969; Jankovich et al. 1989). The published volumes and the work in progress cover some 10 % of the country. The surveyed areas differ considerably in terms of geomorphology and hydrology, making the individual surveys suitable for drawing more general conclusions than on just a regional level but also yielding useful data on the overall density of sites in Hungary. The scope and quality of the work already completed can be said to meet international standards. At the same time, these investigations have hardly begun to make an impact on the international archaeological scene. This can partly be attributed to a decision to publish only in Hungarian and partly to the failure after the first few volumes to elaborate a theoretical and methodological basis for the programme as a whole (Laszlovszky & Siklódi 1991:280). The surveying techniques employed in the Topography were handed down from one researcher to another and students of archaeology mastered these techniques in their university years without any formal statements for explicit guidance. Consequently, a number of differences can be noted between different volumes of the Topography that go well beyond questions of chronological refinements or the re-assessment of particular assemblages. The survey work published in the earlier volumes can be characterised as extensive survey focussing on the extent and date of individual sites, with scant attention to systematic mapping of surface features indicating site internal structure. Surveyed areas tended to be restricted to regions where finds could be expected on the basis of earlier fieldwalking. These surveys were often coupled with targeted surveys which attempted to identify sites known from the literature not found in “predicted” locations. The areas most often surveyed were plains and flood-free terraces adjoining river courses, as well as upland valleys which seemed suitable for human settlement.

1.4.1 Archaeological field survey in Hungary (József Laszlovszky with John Chapman) 1.4.1.1 Early survey programmes Earlier surveys first carried out in the late 19th century can be regarded as the precursors of modern topographical and settlement surveys. Floris Romer, one of the founding fathers of Hungarian archaeology, recorded in his detailed notes the sites he had identified and surveyed in the course of his extensive travels. However, both Romer and his followers restricted their surveys to upstanding monuments, such as prehistoric tells, Roman settlements, Medieval ruins, etc. Truly modern surveys were only initiated in the 1950s. The large-scale rescue excavations carried out in conjunction with the construction of dams on the Danube and the Tisza were generally preceded by preliminary intensive field surveys. István Meri, who can be credited with introducing the concept of Medieval settlement studies, played a pioneering role in establishing survey and sampling techniques (Meri 1952). A number of smaller regions was intensively surveyed and mapped at this time. Techniques for the investigation of the internal settlement structure within the framework of intensive fieldwalking were also formulated. A number of University theses written in the 1950s focussed on a single main period but within a general multi-period framework (Kalicz 1957; Valter 1964). One part of the UTP's Sample Block 2 coincides with Valter's earlier survey of the Medieval Bodrogköz, with her work based partly on individual fieldwalking and partly on written sources (Valter 1964: 1974). The present project is thus also suitable for examining the extent to which our overall picture of the Bodrogköz needs to be modified in the light of new data collected with more intensive, systematic techniques. The comparison of the results of these two surveys may have other interesting results, since, in the 1960s, intensive cultivation of this area had barely begun but this mode of cultivation has become much more widespread, resulting in the obliteration of many sites and a scantier scattering of surface finds. It will thus be possible to define the extent to which earlier known sites have been partially or completely destroyed in the past 30 years, to what extent their accessibility and visibility has deteriorated and also to gain some idea of the number of sites that are now identifiable from surface finds that have been revealed by extension of the cultivated area. This in turn may allow a degree of generalisation about the destruction of sites in other regions comparable to the Great Hungarian Plain (e.g., south central Moravia).

Hungarian

Archaeological

With methodological advances, later surveys of the Topography paid increasingly more attention to identifying the individual features of particular sites and defining the palaeo-environmental background. 7

Increasingly greater care was taken to collate archaeological evidence with historical sources. In the course of the Békés County surveys, it was noted that sites also occur in areas lying far from river courses (Jankovich 1985; Miklós 1985). It became abundantly clear that targeted extensive survey would have to be replaced by intensive and, in some cases, systematic survey strategies (Choyke 1981). However, a project which aims to survey the archaeological remains of a whole country cannot, for obvious logistical reasons, operate with a field-by-field survey everywhere; but the goal of moving in such a direction was fully expressed.

new interest in social archaeology and the vital importance of exchange at various spatial scales (Sherratt 1982: 1982a: 1983). In these studies, Sherratt contrasted several spatial scales of analysis for the Neolithic, Copper Age and Early Bronze Age: regional settlement contrasts in Eastern Hungary by period (1982a), detailed diachronic changes in settlement pattern in the Szeghalom area (1983) and intensive intra-site collection of a single site in each of the Early Neolithic, Later Neolithic and Early Copper Age periods (1983). The results were integrated with palaeo-environmental data and combined with newly-acquired data on lithic raw material sources, supplied by Dr. Katalin Biró, to produce an explanatory model of settlement and social evolution over four millennia of Hungarian prehistory (Sherratt 1982:1987).

In spite of these methodological shortcomings, the Hungarian Archaeological Topography nonetheless yielded impressive results. The number of known sites increased dramatically in all surveyed areas; new, previously unknown assemblages and settlement features were also uncovered and recorded. The number of AD 10th - 13th century villages, some already known from charters, was doubled and numerous isolated farmsteads not mentioned in written records were also identified, often in numbers far surpassing that of the villages (Laszlovszky 1986). Similarly, a number of small, mottelike castles not mentioned in the historical documents was also found. Comparable results can be quoted for all other archaeological periods too, often resulting in new research directions and a fresh perspective on settlement patterns and potential site hierarchies.

In many ways, the greatest change in survey archaeology in the late 1980s and early 1990s was the introduction into Hungarian prehistoric studies of GIS (Geographical Information Systems) and other forms of computer-based mapping and data retrieval programmes. GIS was pioneered at the same time as inter-disciplinary studies were making rapid progress. The Hungarian microregional approach to settlement pattern research was an ideal place in which to test the integration of interdisciplinary studies within a unified GIS framework. The first such project to be published was the first volume of the Gyomaendrőd microregional study (Bökönyi 1992) – what Bökönyi claimed (1992a :8) to be the first largescale research project in the history of Hungarian archaeology. The result was a combination of studies in remote sensing, geophysics, palaeohydrology, geomorphology, pedology, physical anthropology, archaeozoology, malacology and archaeobotany in a single research volume.

1.4.1.3 Recent advances The more recent developments of the 1980s and later formed part of the emergence of what has been termed “Hungarian processualism” (Chapman 2000:12-25). The results of the Topography eventually stimulated calls for intensive field surveys over smaller areas and for the testing of earlier findings with new techniques (Raczky et al. 1985). Major new excavations were now generally preceded by intensive intra-site field survey (Raczky et al. 1985). At the Late Neolithic site of ÖcsödKováshalom , a pioneering combination of methods was tested, using of soil coring, intra-site gridded surface collection and trial trenching; these results created the framework for the expansion of the project into a welltargeted full –scale excavation.

The second important microregional project was located in Western Hungary, in the Hahót Basin in Ko. Zala (Szőke 1995; 1996). Investigations over nine years (1986 – 1994) built on László Horváth’s earlier (1975 – 1985) extensive fieldwalking survey to define a small study region (120 km2) moderately rich in sites of all periods. Overall site density was lower than in the Great Hungarian Plain, largely because of the extent of modern forest cover and marshland. Fieldwalking indicated multiple periods of occupation, with an average of three phases per site but with much higher frequencies of reoccupation, up to 11, at lake-shore sites (Szőke 1995:18 – 20). Excavations were carried out at eighteen out of the total of 78 sites, giving insights into the full range of occupations over the last eight millennia.

One new type of research programme was the “Microregion” project, in which investigative methods based on the natural sciences were introduced to field archaeology. The formulation of strategies to be employed in this project was influenced largely by the influx of new archaeological theories and approaches from abroad (processual archaeology, spatial analysis, site catchment analysis, etc.) and by the participation of foreign researchers in Hungarian projects (Bökönyi 1992; Genito 1992; Jankovich et al. 1992). An example is the integration of Topographic data into a broader study of socio-economic change on the Hungarian plain - the result of an Anglo-Hungarian project led by István Torma and Andrew Sherratt. Sherratt’ approach demonstrated a

Concurrently, another major development in the scale of Hungarian field research occurred in the context of the major motorway building projects of the mid- to late 1990s. A good example is the work of the Eötvös Loránd University Department of Archaeology in the management and execution of fieldwork for the M-3 motorway programme in Ko. Hajdú-Bihar, using intensive, systematic fieldwalking along the line of the 8

motorway to define areas of potential archaeological interest for later investigation. These excavations, which were vast in scale in comparison with earlier research efforts, provided the opportunity for the first real understanding in Hungarian archaeology of intra-site spatial organization and structure (Raczky et al. 1997).

1.4.3 Lowland settlement patterns According to current knowledge, the settlement record of the last 12,000 years in the Upper Tisza lowlands is characterised by considerable variability in site type and degree of site nucleation. A summary of the absolute chronology of the settlement sequence for North East Hungary is presented below (Table 1.1).

In summary, recent advances in fieldwalking do not stem from any particular technical development since the 1980s but rather from the integration of intensive systematic field survey into a broader research context of non-destructive investigations, especially geophysical prospection, GIS and inter-disciplinary research. This enables the comparison of fieldwalking data with other types of information, with mutual benefits for the next stage of fieldwork.

1.4.2

Palaeolithic remains in the Northern Alföld have rarely been discovered. One find is a single Aurignacian blade found at the depth of 4 m during building work in Tiszadada (p.c., V. Dobosi). However, the valleys and the hills North of the Northern Alfold have long been known as a focus of Palaeolithic settlement in the PavlovianGravettian and Epigravettian (e.g., Bodrogkeresztúr) and the macrolithic assemblages of the Final Palaeolithic (e.g., Dobosi 1999). Only very recently has the first group of Mesolithic sites on the Northern fringes of the Alföld Plain been discovered, in the Jászság, near Szolnok (Kertész 1996; Kertész et al. 1995). The location of the site in the lowest part of the floodplain has clear implications for field survey. Chapman (1989a) has hypothesized that geomorphological changes in the courses of major rivers may have destroyed or buried most Mesolithic sites in Hungary, as in other parts of the Middle Danube basin.

The Holocene environment

The Great Hungarian Plain is a region of considerable hydrological instability. Previous geomorphological research based upon intensive deep sediment coring indicated that the Pleistocene course of the river Tisza ran across the centre of the plain, with the migration of the Tisza to its present course dated as late as post-3000 bc (Borsy et al. 1988: 3. abra). However, the dating of this movement is complicated by the absence of absolute dates from the relevant, early- to mid-Holocene parts of the cores. Study of 1:10,000 maps of the lowland parts of the study region indicated the presence of a large number of palaeo-channels of essentially unknown date. Historical records indicated that seasonal inundation of between 30% and 50% of the Tisza valley land surface could last for up to four months, with devastating floods occurring every 10 to 20 years (Lóczy 1985: 167-174). Although the published maps showing the estimated extent of standing water and seasonal flooding on the Plain in prehistory (e.g., Bognár-Kutzian 1972) are based on the historical records, the actual nature and frequency of Tisza palaeo-flooding is actually poorly understood and required much further research (cf. CD Figs. 0.7 & 1.1). Although a single outline pollen diagram was known from the Zemplén Mountains, and a range of better-quality diagrams was available from the central and Eastern parts of the Bodrogköz (Borsy et al. 1988), there was no single master core for the Holocene period in either Blocks 1 or 2.

The earliest sites commonly attributed to farming groups are associated with the Szatmár II style of pottery – the earliest phase of the Alföld Linear Pottery group (Raczky 1988). Later, the Tiszadob style of pottery of the Linear Pottery group became widespread (Kalicz & Makkay 1977; Raczky 1988; Kurucz 1989). The absence of Early Neolithic Körös remains constitutes a research problem, given the existence of Körös sites to the North East (Méhtelek: Kalicz & Makkay 1976) and to the South (Nepper 1970; Kosse 1979: Raczky 1988). Linear Pottery site types include both flat settlements and occasionally graves; a detailed study of these sites has been conducted for Ko. Szabolcs- Szatmár (Kurucz 1989). An important discovery is the hoard of limnic quartzite blade blanks in a vessel found in the village of Boldogkőváralja (Vértes 1965). The first occurrence of nucleated sites in the lowlands is dated to the Late Neolithic (Tálas & Raczky 1987). While both large and small flat settlements are known (e.g., the large settlement of Sárazsadány), the strikingly novel feature of this period is the appearance of tell settlements such as Polgár-Csőszhalom (Kutzian 1966; for later research, Raczky et al. 1994: 2002; Bánffy & BognárKutzian 2007). These tells are some of the Northernmost examples in Neolithic Eurasia in a distribution that starts in India and ends at the river Tisza. An important project goal is to explain why Neolithic tells were created no further North than this area; a second concerns the relations between tells and flat settlements in this period.

Without these basic data, it would be impossible to develop a land use model based on a wide range of past and present environmental data. Such a model could relate past settlement location throughout the Holocene to changing land use potential in different periods and also form the baseline for studying the process of inhabiting the landscape and the formation of what Ingold (1993) has called the “taskscape” – those places in the landscape to which people were attracted for different tasks and which produced different acoustic signatures.

9

Non-overlapping Period or Phase Late Palaeolithic Epi-Palaeolithic Mesolithic Early – Middle Neolithic Middle Neolithic Late Neolithic Early Copper Age Middle Copper Age Late Copper Age – early part Late Copper Age – late part Early Bronze Age Middle Bronze Age Late Bronze Age Early Iron Age Late Iron Age Roman Imperial Late Sarmatian - Early Migration Late Migration Period Migration / Early Medieval Arpadian Arpadian / Medieval Late Medieval Late Medieval / Post-Medieval Post-Medieval Post-Medieval / Modern Modern

Calendar Years BC 25,000 – 10,000 10,000 – 8,000 8,000 – 5,500 5400 – 5200 5300 – 4900 5000 – 4500 4500 – 3800 3800 – 3500 3500 – 2800 2800 – 2400 2400 – 1900 1900 – 1400 1400 – 800 800 - 300 450 - 1 BC AD 1 - 400 AD 400 - 550 550 - 1000 9th – 10th centuries 11th – 13th centuries 13th – 14th centuries 14th – 15th centuries 16th century 16th – 17th centuries 18th century 18th – 21st centuries

Cultural Affiliations Epigravettian, Eger group ? cf. Jászság group Szatmár II Tiszadob, with Bükk and Esztár Csoszhalom, with Herpály and Tisza Tiszapolgár Bodrogkeresztúr Boleráz, Baden barrow burials (‘kurgan’ phase) Makó, Hatvan, Nyírség Füzesabony Proto-Gáva, Gáva, Kyjatice Pre-Scythian, leading to Scythian La Tène (partly in parallel with Scythian) includes Huns (5th century) includes Avars (550 - 800)

Table 1.1 Outline of long-term settlement sequence, North East Hungary The Copper Age is characterised by settlement dispersion and the opposite trend of mortuary nucleation. Both eponymous sites of the Early and Middle Copper Age in Eastern Hungary - the Tiszapolgár-Basatanya (ECA) and Bodrogkeresztúr (MCA) cemeteries - fall within the UTP study region (Bognár-Kutzian 1963; Patay 1974). Beside large cemeteries, isolated graves are known (e.g., Sárazsadány) and occasional small settlements have been located (e.g., Kenézlő). While very few Late Copper Age settlements are known, by contrast, considerable emphasis is laid on individual graves under imposing barrows, or “kurgans” (Ecsedy 1979). The Northern boundary of kurgans in Hungary is also located in the study region. The relationship between settlement tells and mortuary barrows suggests the need for further investigation.

Edelény-Ludmilla dűlő and Felsővadász-Várdomb as “pseudo-tells” (Koós 1983; Simán 1980). The tells of Slovakia and North East Hungary are the northernmost tells in the whole Eurasian distribution and raise intriguing questions of settlement pattern and social structure. Looking more closely at the ceramics, Hatvan pottery is also associated with flat sites, such as Mera (Kalicz 1959, 202; Kemenczei 1984, 111). By contrast, the Füzesabony pottery style also occurs with stray metal finds, as well as with tells and flat settlements. In North East Hungary, the local pottery style contemporary with the Koszider metalwork horizon is termed Egyek; this pottery occurs mostly in cemeteries (Kóvacs, T. 1966-7). The most varied period for site types in prehistory is the Later Bronze Age (Kemenczei 1984). In this period, rich metal hoards occur more frequently than settlements, together with graves and the first known enclosed sites (e.g., Nyírpazony, just outside the study region). A significant development is the revival (or re-use ??) of burial under kurgans in the Later Bronze Age - a phenomenon which occurs as far North as Tiszaeszlár and Buj (Kalicz 1968, 18-19).

An increase in the variability of site types characterises the Bronze Age in the study region (Kóvacs, T. 1988; Meier-Arendt 1992). In the Earlier Bronze Age, the Nyírség group is associated mainly with flat settlement sites (e.g., Kenézlő) and occasionally cemeteries (Kalicz 1968). The Hatvan and Füzesabony pottery styles coincide with the re-emergence of tell settlement, as at Polgár-Kenderföld. The EBA tells form part of a wider group stretching North into the Hernád interfluve and possibly into South Slovakia. The precise definition of “tells” remains a research problem in this region, with the description of sites such as Alsóvadász-Várdomb,

The Iron Age is one of the least well understood periods in the prehistory of North East Hungary (Szabó, M. 1997: 1998). The paucity of settlement evidence has influenced the interpretation of cultural change towards invasions and population replacements in each period (e.g., Pre10

Scythian pastoralists in the 8th century BC; Scythians in the 7th century BC; Celts in the 4th century BC; Dacians in the 2nd century BC; Sarmatians in the 1st century BC). Thin sherd scatters in field survey (e.g., Fügöd) may indicate the existence of small open settlements, while isolated inhumations are also known (e.g., Gibárt, Mera). Stray finds of Scythian metalwork also occur in the Upper Tisza valley. In contrast to this the Late Iron Age in the Upper Tisza is characterised by “La Tène C” cemeteries and “La Tène D” settlements, including the hillfort of Miskolc-Bükkszentlászló (Kemenczei 1966). It is possible that there are intra-regional differences in lowland settlement pattern in this period, given the existence of fortified settlements and burial tumuli in the Hernád valley but not, apparently, the Tisza. A further possibility lies with the recognition of hillforts in the lowlands.

(1) the use in certain periods of nucleated forms of settlements (tells, Roman Imperial and Medieval villages) as compared with the likely occupation of small, flat settlements (hamlets or farmsteads) in all periods. (2) the marked emphasis on the construction of either settlement or mortuary monuments but rarely both (mostly settlement - Neolithic, Roman Imperial; mostly mortuary - Copper Age, Early Medieval; both - Later Bronze Age, High Medieval). (3) the rare and therefore significant creation of alternative depositional practices or site / monument types in specific periods (metal hoards in the Late Bronze Age, monasteries and castles in the Medieval). (4) the imitation of certain site types (e.g. tells) in the mortuary sphere (e.g. kurgans) or vice versa.

Contemporary with the Roman provincial settlement of Pannonia, a poorly understood but dense presence can be postulated for the Upper Tisza valley. Roman coins dating to the II - IV centuries AD have been found on settlements of Roman Imperial date. The “Csőrsz Árok” the great Sarmatian ditch system, with three parallel ditches running a total length of over 1,260 km - runs across the middle of the study region (Garam et al. 1983). The construction of the largely uninterrupted system of triple banks and ditches required an estimated 10 million person-days and it enclosed some 60 – 65,000 km2 (Garam et al. 1983: 15). The existence of well-preserved ditch sections near the village of Tiszadob (Garam et al. 1983: Karta 14b) prompts research questions concerning the intra-regional settlement in the Roman Iron Age and the relations between Sarmatians and Romans in the early 1st millennium AD.

This long-term sequence raises fundamental questions about where and how communities dwelt in the landscape in the past of North East Hungary. The definition of the places in which communities lived and worked will make a major contribution to their collective and individual identities.

1.4.4 Upland – lowland interactions Previous research on raw material acquisition (Biró 1988; Sherratt 1987; Takács- Biró 1987) indicates that the social networks linking upland and lowland zones were rooted in the complementarity of resources in the two areas. The lowland zone is rich in potting clays, placer gold and fertile arable land; the uplands boast plentiful supplies of rocks and minerals for flaked, ground and polished stone artifacts, copper, silver and lead, and rich summer pasture. Understanding of the precise mechanisms of upland-lowland interaction in any given period would be greatly enhanced by the definition of a sequence of upland settlement patterns through time. While the Hungarian Archaeological Topography has completed some of the largest-scale intensive field surveys in Europe, their work has concentrated on the lowland zone in both E and W Hungary. Systematic, intensive field survey of the upland part of the study region is a major priority. This project presents the first opportunity for close integration of upland and lowland settlement results.

In the Early Medieval period, both Avar and Slav (? Slovakian) graves are known from the Bodrogköz, with Slavic burials under tumuli. On historical grounds, the Slovakian tribes are said to be semi-nomadic groups living in pit-houses and concerned with horse-breeding. A similar transhumance system has been interpreted from archival records for the 11-12th century AD Early Arpadian clans. The peripatetic system of kingship developed in the AD 10th century included visits by King László to the Szabolcs hill-fort (CD Figs. 1.3 – 1.5) After the Mongol invasions of AD 1241-2, a period of settlement nucleation coincided with the abandonment of the semi-nomadic lifestyle as well as a lot of former settlements. Many new site types were formed in the Arpadian period: monasteries, churches, castles and manor-houses. These site types are well attested in the study region, especially in the Bodrogköz. This 13th century pattern formed the basis for village life until the end of the 17th century, when many settlements were destroyed. The modern nucleated village pattern dates from the settlement renewal of the 18th century.

The current data on upland settlement within the study region can be summarised by period. The Palaeolithic is far better known than in the lowland zone, with cave sites dating to several phases of both the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic (Svoboda 1989). Examples include the Szeletian (e.g., Szeleta cave); the Aurignacian (e.g., Istállóskő cave); the Pavlovian-Gravettian and Epigravettian (e.g., Korlát, Arka and Hidasnémeti); and the macrolithic assemblages of the Final Palaeolithic. However, the Mesolithic period remains a blank in the Zemplén Mountains, just as in the Upper Tisza valley, although it is quite feasible that undifferentiated lithic

In summary, four long-term variations can be detected in the diachronic record of currently known settlement pattern: 11

assemblages may date to either the Mesolithic or the Neolithic (p.c., K. Biró).

result fits well with Passmore and Davis’ geoarchaeological studies in the Polgár Block (Chapman et al. 1997). Equally, the publication of sedimentological and pollen cores from the Central and North East Bodrogköz showed a complex pattern of channel replacement, which had nonetheless stabilised to a great extent by the early Holocene (Borsy et al. 1988). New programmes of coring in the Polgár area have recently been initiated by the University of Budapest Department of Geography, under the leadership of Professor Gábris (Gábris 1998), and by Professor Pál Sümegi (Szeged University)( Sümegi 1999).

Although no Early Neolithic Koros sites are known from N Hungary, obsidian from Körös sites such as Kőtelek, near Szolnok, has been identified as deriving from the Zemplén Mountains (Biró 1988:271). The same is true for the obsidian of Méhtelek, whose origin is the Zemplén and SE Slovakian sources (Chapman 1986; Williams-Thorpe et al 1984). In the Linear Pottery period, Bükk open sites are well-known from the Zemplén Mountains, including a large flat settlement with dense lithic scatters at Erdőhorváti-Szelek fej (Nandris 1975). However, there is no known evidence for upland settlement in either the Late Neolithic or the whole of the Copper Age.

A key issue in palynological research in the 1990s has been the extent of impact by forgers and early farmers on the Holocene vegetation. Willis and Bennett (1994) examined 17 Holocene-dated pollen diagrams from Greece and the Balkans and concluded that there was no evidence for human impact by the first farmers. Criticisms of their argument by Magri (1996) emphasised the close relationship between climatic change and deforestation, while Edwards et al. (1997) argue that Willis & Bennett fail to recognise the complexity of the forager-farmer transition. In her presentation of the results of three well-dated pollen diagrams from Bátorliget in the Eastern Alföld Plain, Kis-Mohos-tó near the Aggtelek karst and Sárrét in Transdanubia, Willis (1997) identifies fire-induced vegetational changes at all three sites from 7000 CAL BC. Although Willis does not appear to realise this, these episodes of burning may well date to the local Mesolithic ! Even the creation of large, open areas through burning and grazing around Bátorliget is dated at 5800 CAL BC, still too early for the earliest farming communities of the Körös group in the area. Similarly, the postulated opening-up of the landscape around Kis-Mohos-tó is dated to 5500 CAL BC - earlier than the earliest local farmers of the Alföld Linear Pottery group. Thus what Willis has identified amounts to major new evidence for the activities of late foraging groups coeval with the Jaszsag Mesolithic group North of Szolnok (Kertész et al. 1994; Kertész et al. 1995). Sümegi and Kertész have sought to incorporate palaeoenvironmental change into a general model for the origins of the Hungarian Neolithic – their Central European – Balkan Agro-Ecological Barrier model (Kertész & Sümegi 2001; Sümegi & Kertész 2001). In a recent Masters thesis, Harrington detected the earliest anthropogenic impact on the Holocene mixed oak forest vegetation at Nyírestó (North East Hungary) to the Late Copper Age Baden period (Harrington 1995). Further palynological studies have began to evaluate the impact of later, perhaps more intensive agriculture and pastoralism on the mid - late Holocene vegetation, especially related to the synthesis of macro-botanical analyses for Bronze Age agriculture (Gyulai 1993).

Despite the Northward spread of tell settlement in this period, there is very little evidence for any occupation of the Zemplén in the Bronze Age. Similarly, only stray finds are known from the Early Iron Age and no Late Iron Age finds are known at all. No information is available for the period coeval with the Roman Iron Age. In summary, there appears to be a pattern of upland settlement with intensive exploitation of local resources in certain periods (Upper Palaeolithic, Middle Neolithic, Medieval) interspersed with longer periods when little settlement occurred and exploitation of the uplands was accomplished by other means (Late Neolithic – Roman period). However, this pattern may well be the product of absence of evidence rather than the converse. The strong bias against preservation and discovery of sites and finds in the Zemplén in comparison with the lowland valleys cannot be ignored.

1.5 Parallel research programmes During the 17 or more years since the start of the UTP, major changes have occurred in the way in which Hungarian archaeologists and palaeo-environmentalists approach field data and modes of explanation (for an overview of Neolithic and Copper Age research tendencies, see Chapman 2000). It is also worth emphasising that, through the 1990s, new archaeological and palaeo-environmental research in North East Hungary and the Alföld Plain in general have made the UTP study region much better known than hitherto. While an account of changing approaches to field survey is provided elsewhere, we shall simply allude to the most important new results to set the UTP in a broader and more up-to-date context. In palaeo-environmental studies, burgeoning interests in the Holocene period produced important research in the 1990s. Most interestingly, Felégyháza (1998) demonstrated with radiocarbon-dated cores from the Bodrogköz and the Ér-valley that the river Tisza abandoned its previous valley – the Ér-valley – much earlier than had been thought in the 1950s – viz. in the Late Pleistocene rather than in the middle Holocene. This

In lowland settlement studies, research intensified in the Jászság with further fieldwalking and more excavations of Mesolithic lithic scatters (Kertész et al. 1994; Kertész et al. 1995). Late Mesolithic occupations, including one house, have been dated to the 6th millennium CAL BC – only ca. two centuries earlier than the earliest Körös dates 12

- from Méhtelek (Kalicz & Makkay 1976). But the greatest impact on the study region has been the largescale research excavations at the Late Neolithic tell of Polgár-Csőszhalom (Raczky et al. 1994) and a whole series of rescue excavations in advance of the construction of the M-3 Motorway (Raczky et al. 1997). Many new discoveries about settlement planning have been possible because of the scale of the excavations, including the discovery of the first characteristic Linear Pottery long-houses in Hungary (Domboróczki 1997). The inter-disciplinary research at Late Neolithic Csőszhalom defined what was then a unique combination in Central European archaeology – a tell within a Rondel, next to a large horizontal settlement consisting of clusters of houses, graves, pits and wells (Raczky et al. 1997).

concepts and data available for research in North East Hungary. They challenge the UTP authors to evaluate and integrate with their own results these studies which reach a new level of sophistication, both in large-scale spatial analysis of settlement features and palaeo-environmental reconstruction.

1.6 Summary of Project fieldwork, excavation and analysis The fieldwork, excavation and analysis completed by the UTP team over six years of operations in North East Hungary is summarised below (Table 1.2).

1.7 Mode of publication (John Chapman and David Brookshaw)

Important new insights were made of the spatial organisation of Copper Age burial practices (Raczky et al. 1997a; Varadi 1997; Szabó J. J. 1997). Rare settlement features of the Early Bronze Age Nyírség group were made at Polgár-Kengyel köz (Sz. Mathé et al. 1997). Kemenczei (1994: 34) claims that a large number of Late Bronze Age Gáva culture settlements has been identified, although few have been published. M. Szabó (1998) has identified an increase in the number of La Tène C settlements in the Tisza area; an example is the La Tène settlement recently excavated at Polgár-Kiralyérpart (Szabo M. et al. 1997). A large and complex excavation of a tenth of a 30-hectare Sarmatian settlement of the AD 3rd – 4th centuries was completed at Polgár-Kengyel köz (Hajdú et al. 1997). The most significant result of the motorway programme has been the re-orientation of archaeological thought towards settlement studies and especially intra-site differentiation. There was also the publication of two surveys of the most important trends over the last two decades in Bronze Age tell settlement studies (Meier-Arendt 1992; Kóvacs 1994) and Iron Age studies (Kemenczei 1998).

Publication of this large body of data requires careful presentation in order to fulfil two criteria: •

•

the creation of a simple and clear structure which does not require the publication of future data to justify the interpretation of earlier materials. the publication of sufficient detail to allow the possibility of independent interpretation by the readers

The obvious plan at the end of the Project postexcavation analysis (2000) was the production of either one or two conventional volumes or a series of fascicules. However, by 2002, it emerged that there was a viable alternative to paper-based publication – a hybrid publication format including both paper-based materials and e-books. While there has been a steady increase in the number of e-journals since the mid-1990s, the e-book has hardly made an impact on academic publishing and the most successful examples have tended to be scientific, technological and/or medical textbooks. However, the principal objection to the e-book - the antipathy of readers to large quantities of unbroken on-screen text – can easily be circumvented through intelligent and innovative e-book design. We perceived five advantages to the e-book:• the high level of interaction between descriptive text, site descriptions, gazetteers, tables, artifact illustrations, plans and sections • the potential for in-text searching for information • the ability to publish large amounts of primary data, with back-up access through the Project archive for interested scholars to all Project data • The ability of Project authors to update the story, while the e-book hosts maintain the viability of the publication long into the future • The low cost of accessing project information

In terms of upland – lowland interactions, the lithics research of Katalin Biró and her colleagues continues to be central to prehistoric studies. The Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum’s collection of lithic raw materials - the Lithoteka - has continued to grow, producing very recently the second descriptive volume of their holdings (or “Lithoteka II”: Biró & Dobosi 2000). But a more cerebral achievement was the publication of K. T. Biró’s Candidate thesis on the circulation of Middle and Late Neolithic lithic tools in the Great Hungarian Plain (English version: Biró 1998). This is the first serious synthesis of a well-studied period of prehistory from a spatial and statistical viewpoint, emphasising the differences in strategies of supply and demand in the two periods. Biró’s research forms an essential background against which it will be possible to study the regional distribution of lithics in the study region. All of these research developments have been very welcome and indicate the range of important new

13

Year(s) 1991 – 3 / 2001 1991 – 3 / 1996 1991 - 3 1991 - 3 1993 1994 1995 1991 - 5 1994 – 2000 1991 - 2000 1991 – 5 1991 - 3 1991 – 2001

Research activity 383 sites and monuments recorded (all but 20 previously unknown); 3,498 single finds recorded intensive gridded surface collection of 22 sites tacheometric survey of 12 sites and monuments geophysical propection of 19 sites lithic raw material samples collected from 49 sources in the Zemplén Mountains excavations of Middle Neolithic lowland site at Polgár-10 excavation of Middle Neolithic, Late Bronze Age and Medieval upland settlement at Regéc-95 soil cover of Blocks 1 – 3 extrapolated from detailed mapping at 1:10,000 scale sediment coring of 19 sites pollen analysis of 11 cores particle size analysis of 10 cores clay mineralogical analysis of 4 cores thin-sectioning of 17 (RSS) + (KTB ??) = ??? ground and polished stone artefacts

Table 1.2 Summary of fieldwork The Project made progress with the new publication plan, culminating in the preparation of several major texts for E-publication. With British Academy funding, Mr. David Brookshaw created the first stage of the Project EPublication from CD-ROM-based materials, including a large number of scanned drawing and maps done by Mr Chris Bond. The British Academy-funded “Archaeological Data Service (henceforth ADS)” at York accepted the Upper Tisza Project’s E-publication plan and, with the patient and long-term assistance of Ms Catherine Hardman, the first part of the e-publication was transferred to the ADS (accessed through:

Book 4: Lowland settlement in North East Hungary: excavations at the Neolithic settlement of Polgár-10 (Chapman et al., 2010b)

http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/projArch/uppertisza_b a_2003/index.cfm (Chapman et al. 2003). The umbrella

The Project’s plan is to publish one further book, which will in effect be a synthesis of the principal results of the Upper Tisza Project in the light of longterm changes in Hungarian, Carpathian and European archaeology.

Book 5: Upland settlement in North-East Hungary: excavations at the multi-period site of Regéc-95 (Chapman et al., 2010c) Book 6: Lithic raw materials and artifacts in North East Hungary: production, exchange and consumption (Chapman et al., in prep.)

title of the e-publication was: “The Upper Tisza Project: studies in Hungarian landscape archaeology”. However, the Project encountered severe funding problems with all of the sponsors of our fieldwork and excavation, which made it impossible to realize the epublication plan. For this reason, and five years after the appearance of the first part of the e-publication, the Project has reluctantly decided to revert to the earlier scheme of conventional paper publication. The Project is indebted to Mr. David Davidson of BAR for his agreement to publish the remaining parts of the Project materials. The only repetition in this first book is an edited version of the Introduction to the Upper Tisza Project that appeared in the e-book; this edited version appears as this chapter (Chapter One). The authors also wish to point out that the text is current to 2002 and has not been substantially revised with new materials since that date. The four projected BAR publications are as follows: Book 3: Settlement patterns in the Zemplén Block (Chapman et al., 2010a) 14

1.8 GIS and field survey methodology 1.8.1 Introduction The development of an appropriate suite of regional methods for the maximisation of field survey information represents a long and complex negotiation between the first principles of survey design and the specific field situation each season. The emphasis has been on a consistency of application of a hierarchical set of techniques, according to which the more significant sites and monuments were explored in a more intensive manner, usually though the use of more than one technique (Astill & Davies 1982; Hope Simpson 1983; Gallant 1983). The Project does not claim that the main technique – intensive field walking – was applied with perfect consistency across three survey blocks and six different field seasons, not to mention across the

variations in team composition within each season. But there is demonstrable evidence that the investigation of most ‘sites’ has been conducted according to the same basic principles.

with a desktop PC 486 for data entry. The software selected for the project comprised the industry standard GIS package ArcInfo along with the ERDAS image processing suite, the S-PLUS statistical package (Farley et al. 1990) and the Paradox database system. Additional use was made of the PC Arc/Info and IDRISI GIS software suites for data input and limited analytical purposes and the Paradox relational database system for the management of attribute data.

We were guided by two main considerations in working out our field survey methods:- (1) to work out a complex and flexible strategy that can still yield representative information from the three sample blocks, representing areas of widely differing geomorphological and hydrological conditions and under diverse modes of cultivation; (2) to ensure that these methods should be broadly compatible with the techniques employed in other topographic surveys carried out in Hungary, thus enabling a comparison with their results.

In the absence of a pre-existing digital map base for the study region, Dr. Mark Gillings manually digitised 54 base maps (scale: 1:10,000; coverage: 6 x 4 km) – a total of over 1,000 km2 of North East Hungary. Three digitised map layers formed the basis of the UTP spatial database. These comprised contours (digitised at an interval of 0.5m), modern hydrology and land use. Following the initial process of digitising these were edited to eliminate data input errors and ensure topological integrity, and spatially referenced to the Hungarian national survey grid. Detailed soil maps were also unavailable and were produced by the UTP through a programme of soil mapping. While an earlier series of geological maps was available, at a scale of 1: 200,000 (Balogh & Ronai 1963), the maps could not be readily geo-referenced to the digitised 1:10,000 maps. Thus, both the soil and geological maps have, frustratingly, remained as a parallel resource for palaeo-environmental and settlement research.

1.8.2 GIS One of the innovative aspects of the Upper Tisza Project was the use of a Geographical Information System (or “GIS”) as a framework for integrating varied kinds of spatial information. The Project was the first international project co-directed from a British university where GIS was built into the research programme from the very outset. GIS are computer systems whose main purpose is to store, manipulate, analyse and present information about geographic space. Star and Estes (1990) define a GIS as “An information system that is designed to work with data referenced by spatial or geographic co-ordinates. In other words a GIS is both a database system with specific capabilities for spatially-referenced data as well as a set of operations for working (analysis) with the data”.

1.8.3 Field methods Eight types of non-destructive method have been used to recover sites and monuments information in the study region, four of which were utilized in the Bodrogköz Block (marked **):-

At the heart of the GIS is the spatial database – i.e. the collection of spatial and attribute data pertaining to a specific study region and/or set of research questions. The GIS provides archaeologists with not only the tools to manage and store data but also a dynamic environment within which to analyse and interpret data – enabling archaeologists to engage effectively with the problemsolving aspects of research central to all regionally based survey projects such as the UTP.

• • •

Integral to the spatial database are a series of what are termed thematic layers or coverages. These are individual collections of themed data geographically referenced to a common coordinate system. A distinction may be drawn between primary and secondary layers of information in a GIS-based spatial database. While primary sources include environmental data (soil maps, isolines, vegetation zones) and cultural data (settlement distributions), secondary sources represent the data derived from analysis of primary digitised data. Good examples are Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) interpolated from primary contour layers and, in the case of the UTP work, simulated flood zones (Gillings 1995).

• • • • •

targeted collection – grab collection of surface stone material from lithic raw material source locations intensive field walking – transect fieldwalking at 10-metre intervals** intra-site gridded or transect collection – network of grids or transects for intensive intrasite collection** topographic (‘humps-and-bumps’) survey – sketch-plans of sites and monuments in the forested Zemplen zone tacheometric survey – measured survey of selected sites and monuments**; geophysical survey – resistivity and magnetometry** aerial survey - aerial reconnaissance by Mr. Otto Braasch and the late Professor St. Joseph (19921994) lithic raw material source reconnaissance of sources in the South Tokaj Mountains

It is our belief that this multi-layered approach will enable comparison of much of the UTP data with finds from earlier fieldwalking as well as the latest projects and

The Project GIS hardware comprised a SUN workstation, an A0 digitising tablet and an A3 colour printer, together 15

will, at the same time, shed new light on the overall pattern of settlement location and site internal structure.

of the terrain and, in particular, the intensity and spatial distribution of modern cultivation. The accessibility and visibility conditions of the three sample blocks thus provides critical input to any decisions about possible field methods. The same bi-lingual recording form pioneered in 1991 was used in Block 2 (Fig. 1.5).

1.8.3.1 Intensive field walking The type of field survey methods which can be utilised in any part of the study region depends upon the conditions

UPPER TISZA PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK FORM PARISH/HELYSÉG ……………………MAP/KARTYA ………FIELD NO/MEZŐ SZ………. SITE NO/LELŐHELY ………………DATE RECORDED/DATUM ………./………../ 199…. RECORDED BY/FELVEVŐ ………………………………………………………… SURVEY/FELMÉRÉS …………………………………………………………………………… EXCAVATION/ÁSATÁS ……………………………………………………………………..… BORING/FURÁS ………………………………………………………………………………… AERIAL PHOTOS/LÉÉGIFÉNYK ………………………………………………………………... GEOPHYSICS/GEOFIZIKA …………………………………………………………………….. AGE/KORSZAK …………………………………………………………………………………. PERIOD/KOR ……………………………………………………………………………………. SITE TYPE/JELLEGE …………………………………………………………………………… SURVIVING FEATURES/MEGMARADT TELEP JELLEG ……………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………... SITE – MONUMENT SIZE/MÉRET ……………………………………………………………. LOCATION/HELYMEGJELŐLÉS ……………………………………………………………..... ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. TOPOGRAPHY/TOPOGRÁFIAI JELLEG …...…………………………………………………... ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. SURFACE SLOPE/FELSZINI LEJTÉS ………………………….………………………………. AMOUNT OF EROSION/EROZIO MÉRTÉKE …….…………………………………………... FUTURE THREATS/VESZÉLYEZETSÉG ….………………………………………………….. GEOLOGY/GEOLOGIA ………………………………………………………………………… HYDROLOGY/HIDROLOGIA …………………………………………………………………. WATER SOURCE/VIZ FORRÁS ………………………………………………………………. EXPOSURE TO WIND/SZÉL IRÁNY ………………………………………………………….. VEGETATION/VEGETÁCIÓ …………………………………………………………………... CULTIVATION/MÜVELÉS …………………………………………………………………….. MAP X COORDINATE/X KOORDINÁTA …………………………………………………….. MAP Y COORDINATE/Y KOORDINÁTA ………………………………….………………….. REF NO OF SAMPLE UNITS/MINTA REF. SZ. ….…………………………………………….. REF NO OF PHTOS/FOTO REF. SZ. B + W/ F/F ………… COLOUR/SZINES …………….. COMMENTS/MEGYJEGYZÉS

Fig. 1.5 Project bilingual recording form The geographical conditions of Block 2 (Bodrogköz Block) were more complex than in the Polgár Block. It is in part characterised by the fluvial plains of Block 1 but the main difference is that the late and post-Medieval development took a markedly different path. The desertion process was somewhat weaker and thus the main nucleated settlements of Medieval origin lie in approximately the same place as modern villages. The fertile belt adjoining the Tisza is narrower than in Block 1, since, in contrast to the extensive loess plains near Polgár, the areas lying further away from the river are mostly sandy and were covered in forests until as late as the 19th century. Even though these forests have disappeared by now and surface finds can be detected

owing to ploughing, these areas were less suitable for settlement than the riverine margins and we can thus hardly expect the occurrence of a high number of sites. In contrast, arable land was restricted to a narrow, fertile zone located on elevations rising above the floodplain. As a result settlements were generally positioned in one and the same place, from the Neolithic to modern times. In the modern settlement system, most villages lie at a distance of 3 - 7 km from each other and this greatly restricted the area open to survey. The greater part of the territory lying between the Tisza and the Bodrog rivers is regularly flooded; in addition the area of sandy elevations rising above the floodplain (the so-called “sand islands”) is restricted and the coincidence of archaeological sites 16

and modern villages is a rather frequent phenomenon.

1999; Bintliff 1999: 2000; Cherry et al. 1991). The two most frequent ways of measuring the intensity of field walking is the spacing of the lines and the time spent on covering a unit area (usually 1 km2). The UTP fieldwalking represents an ‘intermediate’ intensity (CD Fig. 1.2) – not as intensive as the Hvar Survey (in which the main aim was the differentiation of intra-site activity areas) but more intensive than previous field walking in Hungary (e.g., the Békés II survey: Jankovich et al. 1989). The various intensities for the two 1992/3 fieldwalking seasons of the Project are presented below (Table 1.3).

The location of most modern settlements also caused some problems when surveying the areas lying beside the West bank of the Bodrog river. Elongated, narrow settlements had already been established in the belt lying between the river and the Zemplén Hills in the Middle Ages and only the smaller fields lying between these settlements were suitable for surveying. In contrast, the side valleys of the Zemplén Hills are at present almost wholly cultivated, offering an unique possibility for investigating the environment of routes and pathways leading to the upland settlements and sources of valuable raw materials. The slopes descending from the Zemplén Hills to the Bodrog river are now covered with vineyards. The AD 17th - 19th expansion of the wine-producing area of Tokaj shifted the tree-line upwards, with the creation of hill-slope terraces. These cultivated areas are suitable for surveying but settlements are hardly to be expected on steep slopes that were originally covered with forest. The vine terraces often extend to the edge of medium-height elevations and have thereby often destroyed the traces of earlier special sites, such as Medieval castles.

The overall totals indicate that the UTP marshalled well over a thousand person-days in the five fieldwalking seasons, covering a total of almost 120 km2 -–or about 16% of the sample area (which included only the Central Zemplén Mountains). Because of the second ‘Easter’ season in 1992 and 1993, many more person-days were devoted to Blocks 1 and 2 than to Block 3. In the lowland Blocks, the harvesting of wheat in late August – early September and maize in March meant that two field seasons per annum were obligatory. There is a broadly comparable bias towards wheat fields over maize fields – a reflection of the crop preferences on the ground. Despite the two seasons, an estimated 10 % of the Autumn 1992 area could not be fieldwalked because of standing crops which were late for harvest. In addition, an estimated 40 % of the target areas in the lowland Blocks could not be fieldwalked because of permanent grassland.

An unanswerable case has been made by survey archaeologists since the 1970s and 1980s that the more intensive the field walking, the higher the probability of finding surface scatters representing the full range of ‘site’ types (Barker 1995; Chapman et al. 1996; Sbonias Block 2 Season (vegetation)

Autumn 92 (wheat)

Area walked (ha)

Easter 93 (maize)

TOTAL

31

10.4

41.4

8.90%

3%

11.90%

Person/days required

333

77

410

Survey Intensity (person-days/km2)

10.7

7.4

9.9

Percentage of total area

Table 1.3 Summary of fieldwalking data by season and Block, 1992 – 1993 In approaching UTP field surveying practice, the initial assumptions of the Hungarian and British teams were rather different. The Hungarian team expected a discontinuous distribution of material remains, with clear clustering of artifacts into ‘sites’ whose location was often linked to river terraces above current rivers and streams, with large ‘vacant’ areas in between these clusters. In contrast, the British assumption was that we would find a continuous distribution of finds across the landscape, leading to difficulties in the differentiation of ‘site’ and ‘non-site’ deposition.

“marginal” areas is often unproductive, to avoid them altogether would lead to a spurious validation of the current hypothesis of a settlement pattern focussed almost exclusively on the margins of old river channels. Predictably, the actual pattern of sites and non-sites is altogether more complex and interesting than this. Even the most devoted supporter of off-site archaeology in the British team had to admit that there was a very strong clustering of ‘site’ material and, correspondingly, a very thin scatter of ‘off-site’ finds. By contrast, the Hungarian assumption that the location of most ‘sites’ would occur in particular areas was proved unreliable, since ‘site’ discard was encountered in many parts of the landscape, including the flood-plains and the interfluves.

Our general findings proved an instructive correction to our initial idées fixes. At the same time as terrace-edge coverage, survey teams examined floodplain and interfluvial areas where sites were not expected and yet were encountered. Although fieldwalking in such

Because of the clustering of scatters, it was found helpful to continue the Hungarian Archaeological Topography’s 17

tradition of the identification of ‘sites’, with the additional recording of all ‘off-site’ discard found in the fields walked. The distance conventionally separating ‘sites’ was fixed at 25 m. Thus scatters whose edges fall within 25 m of each other coalesce as a single ‘site’, while the classification of two scatters with edges further than 25m apart remains as two ‘sites’. It will be seen later (see below, p. 23) that calculation of the densities of discard on ‘sites’ (using the 10 m x 10 m grid square collection unit) and ‘off-site’ reveals massive differences between these two categories of discard.

discard in the UTP survey is the representation of different components (viz. remains from different ages or periods). Almost by definition, the ‘off-site’ scatter comprises one age / period or at most two. In strong contrast, the average number of components on ‘sites’ in Block 2 is 4.4. The maximum number of components on a Block 2 ‘site’ consists of 14 periods, encompassing a time-depth of seven millennia. Methods of dealing with the ‘site palimpsest’ phenomenon lead us directly to consider the next, more intensive method of investigation.

1.8.3.2 Intra-site gridded and transect collection

The category of ‘single find’ was adopted from the Neothermal Dalmatia Project (Chapman et al. 1996), where it was defined as any spatial location in which one, two or three artifacts are found together. In the vast majority of the almost 3,500 find locations, the ‘single finds’ designation remained as the selected interpretation. However, in a few cases in the Bodrogköz part of Block 2, clusters of several ‘single finds’ were located so closely together that the scatter merited the description of ‘site’. The general importance of ‘single finds’ – a separate category, not usually identified in Hungarian field survey – is that it represents a new type of information. Single finds data can provide valuable cultural information in cases of systematic differences by period and by sub-region in the quantity of ‘off-site’ activity and discard. It should be noted that neither variations in the distribution and density of ‘site’ or ‘single finds’ affects the integrity of any community areas defined on the basis of the distribution of ‘site’ discard.

It is clear that one of the most important aspects of settlement patterning in North East Hungary is the tendency to return to the same ‘site’ on multiple occasions. This means that it was of considerable importance to distinguish the discard characteristics of each different component at each ‘site’. These data are best provided through intra-site gridded or transect collection, through which a clearly defined sampling strategy for each site enables the spatial differentiation of size and intensity of occupation for each represented component. Transect collections may be completed more rapidly, since the sampling basis relies upon a series of parallel transects of equal length (usually no greater than 100 m) at equal spacings (often 50 m). This sampling method provides a basic impression of the lateral distribution of site components but can neither be readily generalised nor easily utilised in contouring algorithms. By contrast, the regular layout of 10 x 10 m or 20 x 20 m grid squares for total pick-up provides a better 2dimensional picture of settlement spread; data can be readily entered into contouring programmes for exploratory data analysis (see Chapman et al. 2003). The full list of sites which have been studied through transect or gridded collection is presented below (Table 1.4).

The principal unit of analysis of areas of ‘site’ discard was the 10 x 10 m collection grid. Total collection of finds from within one or more grids on each ‘site’ provided a standardised method for comparison of discard densities from within such features. Another means of distinguishing ‘site’ from ‘off-site’ Site Name

RAKAMAZ 001

Block

SÁRA 002

2

Site size

2

OLASZ 001

SZABOLCS 005

2

2

25

3

12

6

No. of grids/transects

176 grids

13 grids

33 grids

24 transects

Size of grids/transects

10 x 10m

10 x 10m

10 x 10m

100 m long

No. of components Key:-

Table 1.4

9 SÁRA = Sárazsadány

3 + lithics

12

OLASZ = Olaszliszka

Summary of Block 2 sites with transect and/or gridded collection plotting, using a Kern alidade and levelling stadia staff. The locations of the plotted features on the Hungarian 1:10,000 maps were considered accurate enough not to have to survey all sites in from benchmarks, which were few and far between in cultivated land. Defining orientations were recorded for all sites so as to provide

1.8.3.3 Tacheometric survey A small number of sites was plotted by tacheometry, normally at a scale of 1:500, with contours interpolated from spot heights good to 5 cm. In the 1991 and 1992 autumn seasons, the method was classical plane table 18

marked points for re-survey or future investigation. In 1993, a Total-Station was used to survey the outer works of Regéc Castle and a number of sites associated with a Medieval monastic landscape. However, a hardware failure led to the loss of the 1993 EDM data before it could be downloaded and plotted. One of the authors (JL) organised the re-survey of the monastic sites (Laszlovszky & Romhányi 2003, 375).

hectare) could be covered in one day. However, the ground conditions encountered in the autumn seasons were much harder than those in the UK and, indeed, on one site it was found impossible to insert the electrodes to the required depth. In general, this considerably increased the time required for a resistivity survey. Each reading took between 5 and 10 seconds (sometimes more) and this rate could not be maintained for more than a few hours. Multiplying this reading time by 10,000 and adding the time taken for setting up the survey grid, it is easily seen that it may take up to one week to complete a survey of one hectare by this method. Data processing was undertaken using a combination of bespoke software developed in the Department of Physics at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and UNIMAP.

1.8.3.4 Geophysical survey The types of geophysical survey used were resistivity and magnetic fluxgate gradiometry (Clark 1990). The resistivity method measures soil moisture and is often useful in the detection of buried walls and ditches, where the contrast in resistivity with that of the soil matrix can be quite large. Magnetometry relies upon contrasts in the magnetic properties of buried objects and is useful in detecting the presence of features such as hearths, kilns and ditch fills. As the methods investigate different properties, when undertaken in tandem the results of the surveys aim to reveal different, but fully complementary, features of a given buried site.

1.9

The creation of a Gazetteer

The gazetteer for each of the three survey Blocks was constructed in two stages. The first stage involved the manipulation of Project data for the completion of ‘Site Reports’ which the Project had promised to make available to the former Hungarian Cultural Heritage Directorate (formerly “Kulturális Örökség Igazgatósága” or “KÖI”), whose first full year of operations was 1999 (Fejérdy 2003). The KÖI Site Reports were primarily intended as a management tool, with a strong emphasis on spatial data and the identification of future threats to the site. An example is provided below (Table 1.5), using the combined site of Rakamaz 009 - 010 in Block 2.

A total of six Bodrogköz Block sites was surveyed in 1992 and 1993. The method used in the geophysical surveys undertaken in the 1992 and 1993 autumn seasons was resistivity survey. This technique measures the apparent ground resistivity over the site under investigation, taking readings at one metre intervals on a regular square grid. The apparatus consists of four electrodes, two of which serve to inject current into the ground while the other two are used for measurement of the potential difference developed over a known region of the ground. The depth of burial of objects affecting the reading obtained is directly proportional to the spacing of the current electrodes. The apparatus used by Dr. Clive Titman had been developed in the Department of Physics at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and was designed to be used on a grid of 30m maximum width. The method measures local apparent resistivity using a Wenner four-electrode array with (equal) inter-probe spacings of one metre. The method of positioning the electrodes was by means of a multicore cable which could be attached to 33 electrodes spaced at one metre intervals. A switching device allowed any four adjacent electrodes to be accessed and connected to the correct terminals on the resistivity meter. The time taken to acquire an individual reading is determined mainly by the current stabilising time (about four seconds on most of the sites surveyed in this region). With two people operating the apparatus, three 30m x 30m grids (0.27

The second stage was the definition of a site report for the UTP gazetteer. The information requirements of the UTP gazetteer overlapped with those of the KÖI Site Report in many respects. The most important difference was in the chronological and spatial specificity of the UTP records, in which the full details are presented of any available quantified information from gridded, transect or grab collection. An example is given below from Block 2 (Table 1.6). The results are grouped together according to extracts from the digitised 1:10,000 map cover centred upon clusters of identified sites. The index of sites and single finds for each of the map extracts is provided at the beginning of the Gazetteer for each respective Block. At the end of the site forms for each map extract is a list of single finds found on that map coverage. At the very end of the gazetteer is a list of those remaining single finds not distributed on any of the map extracts.

19

1. Site Definition 1. County: Szabolcs- Szatmár -Bereg 2. Town / village name (Budapest district): Rakamaz 2. Name of site: Rakamaz 009 - 010 3. Exact Site Location 1. Type of map / map projection: 1:10,000 2. Map Number: 89-141 3. Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 30990 y (E-W): 83255 4. Height: 106 m 5. Land Registry Number : 6. Geographical Description (if necessary):. on North-South sand dune, with scatter on both slopes as well as on the top; overlooking marshy area 500 m to West 7. Precision of information: accurate to 10 m 4. Extent of Site Length: 600 m Width: 200 m Diagonal length: 650 m 5. Chronology of site finds Type: Age: Pottery, lithics Prehistoric 6. Site Status: partly explored 7. Threats to Site: ploughing 8. Type of Source: fieldwalking 9. Type of Site Investigations year activity name comments 1993 fieldwalking UTP 10. Name of Museum housing finds: Jósa András Múzeum, Nyíregyháza 11. Name/Address of Reporter / Date of Report: UTP, Durham - ELTE. 18.08.1999 12. Additional Notes: originally defined as 2 “sites” but edges of scatters less than 25 m apart; Middle Neolithic sherds, ? Middle Bronze Age sherds, undifferentiated Bronze Age sherds. 13. Name of Person filling out Record: UTP

Table 1.5 Data Sheet for KÖI Site Report on Rakamaz 009 - 01 Rakamaz 008 (Szabolcs- Szatmár -Bereg) (Map 45) Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter; Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 89-141; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 31000; y (E-W): 83208; Height: 101 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. Investigation fieldwalking, UTP, 1993: ( 1 grab sample); Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 250 m; Width: 25 m; Diagonal length: 240 m; Description: at the junction between the flat, marshy first terrace of the palaeo-meander of the Tisza (Nagy-Morotvató) and the sand hills to the East; slight surface slope and erosion Chronological Data Middle Neolithic scatter Lithic data: Chipped Stone: 1 piece/ 5 g (below LQ by No. & Wt.); Material:- HO; Technological Stage: flake. Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; orchard expansion; Name of Museum housing finds: Jósa András Múzeum, Nyíregyháza Interpretation a single-period settlement with overall low densities of pottery, lithics and daub.

Table 1.6 Project Gazetteer site record for Rakamaz 008

1.10 Analytical Principles for fieldwalking data

1.10.2 Framework for the interpretation of pottery discard densities

1.10.1 Introduction

1.10.2.1 Inter-quartile ranges

There are two methodological aspects in the interpretation of the surface finds from the Bodrogköz Block. The first concerns the ceramics, while the second relates to the lithics.

One basic statistical technique for the assessment of the discard densities in a given age or period has been used in the Ager Tarraconensis survey (Keay 1991; Millett 1991) and further developed for multi-period survey in the 20

Neothermal Dalmatia Project (Chapman et al. 1996:4755). This is the inter-quartile range measure (Moroney 1951: 59 – 60) – a relatively conservative measure which identifies the nth/2 measurement in a list of n measurements as the median (MQ), the 1 x (nth/4) measurement as the lower quartile (LQ) and the 3 x (nth/4) measurement as the upper quartile (UQ). An example for a list of 100 measurements would be as follows: the median measurement is the 50th, the lower quartile measurement is the 25th (1 x 100/4) and the upper quartile measurement is the 75th (3 x 100/4). The calculation of upper and lower octiles as was used in the Neothermal Dalmatia Project (ibid., p. 52, Table 9) has been discontinued here since no clear benefit was judged to have been gained from the calculation. In the Neothermal Dalmatia Project, the interpretation of the grid collection discard densities distinguished between scatters with a discard density higher than that of the mean - interpreted as a residential ‘site’ – and scatters with a density equal to or lower than the median score interpreted as ‘off-site’ discard. This Interpretative Level 1 was followed by a further interpretative level, in which groups of ‘sites’ and monuments were distinguished between clustered and dispersed remains, the former termed ‘settlement foci’, the latter classed with ‘off-site’ discard as ‘other settlement remains’ (ibid, p. 53: Fig.

24). In effect, both sets of terms - clustered and dispersed remains - acted for the concept of a set of community areas (here, a “Multi-Community Zone”: 147; Chapman et al. 2003). In UTP Block 2, the same diachronic pattern was noted for discard densities as in the Ager Tarraconensis survey and the Neothermal Dalmatia Project: major shifts in ceramic discard by age or period. This finding subsumes the well-known discoveries of the Hungarian Archaeological Topography concerning the representability of material remains of different periods (Choyke 1981; see above, pp. 7 - 8) and puts them on a more objective footing. For instance, it has long been known that Migration Period and Copper Age sherds have been under-represented in field walking, with some scholars maintaining that a single decorated Copper Age or Early Migration Period sherd indicates a residential site. The reasons for such abrupt shifts between discard densities are, of course, a major question for survey investigation (see below, pp. 157- 164. For now, it is important to provide a graphic representation of Block 1 variations in inter-quartile range by age (Figs. 1.6 - 1.7) and period (Figs. 1.7 - 1.9), using both sherd numbers and sherd weights. The same presentation is made of the overall lithics data (Fig. 1.10).

Fig. 1.6 Inter-quartile ranges by pottery number by Age, Block 2 which allows between 5 – 10% visibility and necessitates very slow and careful artifact retrieval. Here, no numerical correction factors are applied, as was attempted for the Ager Pharensis and Boeotia surveys (Bintliff 1999, 2000; Bintliff & Gaffney 1988). Instead, a qualitative correction has been applied to the values of the IQR for that unit, usually resulting in the redesignation of the unit as a ‘site’ rather than a ‘scatter’.

The IQR method is a simple way of differentiating between major differences in discard density in standardised grid collection units. But these figures cannot be used ‘raw’, since, although the vast majority of fields walked had been ploughed freshly or within the last fortnight, there was still a number of collection units where the vegetation cover was less than 100%. An example is surface collection from fields of lucerne,

21

Fig. 1.7 Inter-quartile ranges by pottery weight by Age, Block 2

Fig. 1.8 Inter-quartile ranges by pottery number by Period, Block 2 In addition to land use variations in the interpretation of unit data, there are cases when the densities of artifacts other than pottery can affect unit findings. Where high densities of fired clay daub have been collected in standard units, there must be a strong likelihood that these densities represent structures. A further refinement in interpretation of discard intensities is derived from the lithics analysis (see work by Leanne Stowe, Steve Cousins and Denise Telford: Chapman, in prep).

with low densities of prehistoric pottery. Potential interpretations of workshop areas with little ceramic discard may therefore be appropriate. The results of the inter-quartile range analysis has been the identification of the intensity of discard in each components. The method for defining discard intensity is described below (see p. 23). It is an informative aspect of the survey to identify diachronic changes in the uses of the same residential space through the record of discard intensity in standard units.

In some units, there are high densities of lithics combined

22

Fig. 1.9 Inter-quartile ranges by pottery weight by Period, Block 2

Fig. 1.10 Inter-quartile ranges for lithic collections by number and weight, Block 2.

The interpretative terms used are limited to five terms: high-intensity discard; medium-intensity discard; lowintensity discard; artifact loss; and artifact presence. A short description follows of these five terms. It should be noted that, in intra-site gridded collections where quadrats exhibit a wide variation in artifact densities, the highest densities will be used for diagnostic purposes.

1.10.2.2 Interpretation of surface ceramic data The surface pottery density by component is presented in the main text of each Gazetteer, in terms of its relationship to the inter-quartile ranges defined for the age / period / phase in question. These relationships are given a summary interpretation for each site, which, in turn, is used to provide the basis for the mapping of sites in different microregions of each Block.

High-intensity discard is registered when one of the following discard patterns has been identified: 23

• • • •

artifact densities higher than UQ by number AND weight artifact densities higher than UQ by number OR weight and =UQ by the other measure artifact densities higher than UQ by number OR weight and MQ by BOTH number and weight artifact densities of >MQ by number OR weight and =MQ by the other artifact densities of =MQ by number OR weight and LQ by BOTH number and weight artifact densities of >LQ by number OR weight and =LQ by the other artifact densities of =LQ by number OR weight and UQ by No., >MQ by Wt. , 1 line + well above UQ by both No. & Wt.; Conc. L. (lines 261-3): 2 lines + MQ by No., >LQ by Wt.; Conc. M (lines 266-8): 1 line + >MQ by No. & Wt. , 1 line + >MQ by No., =M by Wt. , 1 line + =UQ by No., >MQ by Wt.). Lithic data: Chipped Stone: 1 piece/ 5 g (< UQ by No., by Weight); Material:- TL; Technological Stage: 1 flake. Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; Name of Museum housing finds: Jósa András Múzeum, Nyíregyháza Interpretation a multi-period settlement, with very low-density Middle Neolithic discard, high-intensity Late – undifferentiated Bronze Age discard with lowerintensity discard also, and high-intensity Conquest – Medieval discard with a wide range of lower-density discards also. Loss of prehistoric lithics.

=MQ by No. & Wt. , 1 line + UQ by No., >MQ by Wt. , 1 line + well above UQ by both No. & Wt.; Conc. F (lines 250-6): 1 line + LQ by Wt. , 1 line + =MQ by No., >MQ by Wt. , 1 line + >MQ by No., MQ by Wt. , 1 line + =UQ by No., .UQ by Wt. , 1 line + above UQ by both No. & Wt.; Conc. G (lines 261-3): 1 line + =MQ by No., MQ by No. & Wt. , 1 line + >UQ by No., UQ by Wt.; Conc. H (lines 265-8): 1 line + LQ by No., by Weight); Materials:- HO, NTL; Technological Stages: 2 flakes, 1 core.

Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; Name of Museum housing finds: Jósa András Múzeum, Nyíregyháza Interpretation a two-phase Bronze Age site, with a high-intensity Late Bronze Age settlement and discard in the Hatvan phase of the Bronze Age. A small assemblage of obsidian.

Table 4.8 Single Finds, Fig. 4.15 (Map 54)

CODE 416 1072 1105 1108 1159 1162 1208

XCOORD 31636 31724 31756 31723 31709 31710 31726

YCOORD 89450 83357 83401 83353 83356 83357 83357

MATERIAL POT POT POT LRM POT POT POT

IDENTIFICA NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC

MAP 55 (Fig. 4.16)

Fig. 4.16 76

TECHNO_INF

DATING MO MIG MIG UN LBA MN BA

REMARKS

Gávavencsellő 001 (Pusztafalu) Szatmár -Bereg) (Map 55)

Chronological Data discard of Middle Neolithic, Arpadian and Post-Medieval pottery. Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: logging; Name of Museum housing finds: Jósa András Múzeum, Nyíregyháza Interpretation a multi-period site with Middle Neolithic, Arpadian and Post-Medieval discard. Geophysical prospection indicated six rectangular structures which survived in the form of non-fired brick wall tumble – probably the site of a deserted Medieval village.

(Szabolcs-

Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter; Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 89-122; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 31718; y (E-W): 83977; Height: 99 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. Investigation fieldwalking, UTP, 1992: (standard: grab sample); geophyscal prospection, UTP, 1992. Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 40 m; Width: 30 m; Diagonal length: 30 m; Description: on the top of a North - South sandy ridge, overlooking part of the floodplain of the Tisza to the East

4.3 The Bodrogköz (Kenézlő Sand Island) MAP 56 (Figs. 4.17 – 4.18)

Fig. 4.17 Description: on gentle South slope of a sand dune separating the site from the floodplain of the Bodrog; small marshy area to the South. Chronological Data discard of Middle Neolithic sherds (well above UQ by both number & eight); discard of Bükk sherds (>LQ by number, LQ by No. & Weight); Materials:- HO & SO; Technological Stages: 3 flakes. Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing ; Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc Interpretation multi-period settlement, with highintensity discard of Middle Neolithic Bükk and PostMedieval/Modern sherds, medium-intensity discard of Modern sherds, low-intensity discard of Bronze Age sherds and loss of Medieval material. Minor discard of prehistoric obsidian.

Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 110 m; Width: 70 m; Diagonal length: 110 m; Description: on gentle South East slope of low sand dune, just above the floodplain of the Bodrog. Area overlooks a small marshy area to South East (Bankodo es Nagylaposdulo) Chronological Data discard of Middle Neolithic sherds (1993 Grab: above UQ by nuber & weight; 2001 Grab: >LQ by number, >MQ by weight); loss of one Pink Ware sherd; loss of one Copper Age sherd; discard of Late Bronze Age Gáva sherds (2001 Grab - highest density); discard of undifferentiated Bronze Age (1993 Grab: MQ by number & weight); discard of ? Arpadian sherds (1993 Grab: MQ by weight); discard of two Post-Medieval/Modern sherds (2001 Grab: low density); discard of Modern sherds (2001 Grab: low density). Lithic data: Chipped Stone: 3 pieces/ 17 g (> LQ by No. & Weight); Materials:- HO and TL; Technological Stages: 1 flake, 1 core, 1 irregular/chunk. Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc Interpretation multi-period settlement with highintensity discard of Middle Neolithic and Late Bronze Age Gáva material, medium-intensity discard of Arpadian sherds, low-intensity discard of PostMedieval/Modern and Modern sherds and loss of Pink Ware and Copper Age. Minor prehistoric lithic discard.

Zalkod 007 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 56) Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 89-121; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 31978; y (E-W): 83014; Height: 97 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. Investigation fieldwalking, UTP, 1993: (standard: 1 quadrat); UTP, 2001 (1 grab sample) Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 100 m; Width: 80 m; Diagonal length: 100 m; Description: in gently undulating sand dune area, some 300m from edge of floodplain of the Bodrog. Chronological Data discard of Middle Neolithic (well above UQ by both numbers & weight); discard of Bükk sherds (above UQ by both numbers & weight); discard of Pink Ware (high density); discard of large Late Neolithic sherds (>MQ by number, >UQ by weight); loss of one Late Copper Age sherd; loss of one Late Bronze Age Gáva sherd; loss of one large undifferentiated Bronze Age sherd; discard of Late Iron Age sherds (low density); discard of Migration Period sherds (high density); discard of Modern sherds (=UQ by number, >UQ by weight). Lithic data: Chipped Stone: 13 pieces/ 85 g (< UQ by No., > MQ by Weight); Materials:-SO, NTL, KRAKÓW, TL; Technological Stages: 6 flakes, 5 blades, 2 irregular/chunks. Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc Interpretation a multi-period settlement, with highintensity discard of Middle Neolithic Bükk, Migration Period and Modern sherds, medium-intensity Late Neolithic discard, low-intensity Late Iron Age discard and loss of Late Copper Age, Late Bronze Age Gáva and Bronze Age material. Medium-intensity lithic discard, dominated by Slovakian obsidian and North Tokay limnoquartzite, with little evidence of local production.

Zalkod 013 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 56) Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter; Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 89-121 ; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 31970; y (E-W): 82984; Height: 102 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. Investigation fieldwalking, UTP, 1993: (standard: 1 quadrat); UTP, 2001 (1 grab sample) Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 10 m; Width: 10 m; Diagonal length: 10 m; Description: on the Western slopes of a sand dune above a marshy area to West (Bankodo és Nagylapos-dűlő) Chronological Data discard of Middle Neolithic sherds (>MQ by number, UQ by No.,< UQ by Weight); Materials:- SO, HO, NTL, FHL, A & TL; Technological Stages: 11 flakes, 7 blades, 3 cores, 1 irregular/chunk; Ground & Polished Stone: half of a saddle quern, fragment of a polished stone axe and 1 fragment of grindstone. Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc Interpretation a multi-period settlement with highintensity discard of Middle Neolithic Bükk, Late Bronze Age and Przeworsk material, medium-intensity discard of Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age Gáva, Late Medieval, Post-Medieval and Modern sherds, lowintensity discard of undifferentiated Bronze Age, ? Sarmatian and ? Migration Period sherds and loss of Late Neolithic and Late Iron Age material. Medium-sized lithic discard, dominated by Slovakian obsidian and blade production.

Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 31973; y (E-W): 83005; Height: 97.5 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. Investigation fieldwalking, UTP, 1993: (standard: 1 quadrat); UTP, 2001 (1 grab sample) Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 10 m; Width: 10 m; Diagonal length: 10 m; Description: on gentle slope at North end of small marshy area, overlooked by sand dune to West. Chronological Data discard of Middle Neolithic sherds (1993 Grab: >LQ by number, >MQ by weight; 2001 Grab: MQ by weight); discard of undifferentiated Bronze Age sherds (>MQ by number, =LQ by weight); discard of Modern sherds (MQ by weight). Lithic data: Chipped Stone: 2 pieces/ 11 g (< LQ by No. & Weight); Materials:- NTL and SO; Technological Stages: 2 retouched flakes. Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc Interpretation a small multi-period settlement with medium-intensity discard of Middle Neolithic and Modern sherds and low-intensity discard of Bronze Age sherds. Minor prehistoric lithic discard.

Zalkod 017 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 56) Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter; Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 99-343; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 32020; y (E-W): 82985; Height: 100.5 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. Investigation fieldwalking, UTP, 2001 (1 grab sample) Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 50 m; Width: 30 m; Diagonal length: 50 m; Description: on Northern end of low sand dune, at the highest point, just above the floodplain of the Bodrog. Area overlooks a small marshy area to South East (Bankodo es Nagylapos-dulo) Chronological Data discard of undifferentiated Bronze Age sherds (>MQ by number, =MQ by weight); discard of two Post-Medieval sherds (low density). Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc Interpretation a small, two-period settlement with scattered discard of medium-intensity Bronze Age sherds and low-intensity Post-Medieval sherds.

Zalkod 016 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 56) Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter; Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 99-343; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 32015; y (E-W): 83043; Height: 102 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. Investigation fieldwalking, UTP, 2001 (1 quadrat, 2 concentrations & 4 grab samples) Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 130 m; Width: 130 m; Diagonal length: 135 m; Description: on dominant Northern oval spur of sand dune, above the floodplain of the Bodrog. Chronological Data discard of Middle Neolithic sherds (UQ by Weight, Grab 2); discard of Late Medieval sherds (medium density – Grab 1); discard of Post-Medieval sherds (medium density – Grab 3); discard of Modern sherds (LQ by weight, Quad 1; >UQ by both

Zalkod 018 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 56) Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter; Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 99-343; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 32007; y (E-W): 83025; Height: 100.5 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. Investigation fieldwalking, UTP, 2001 (1 grab sample) Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 80 m; Width: 30 m; Diagonal length: 75 m; Description: on North West spur of a sand dune, within 50m of the floodplain of the Bodrog. Chronological Data loss of one Middle Neolithic sherd; discard of undifferentiated Bronze Age (>LQ by number, >MQ by weight); discard of Late Medieval sherds (highest density by number & weight).

79

Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc Interpretation a two-period settlement, with highintensity Late Medieval discard, low-intensity Bronze Age discard and loss of Middle Neolithic material.

Description: on South East spur of sand dune, some 150m from edge of the floodplain of the Bodrog. Chronological Data discard of Middle Neolithic sherds, with one decorated Bükk sherd (LQ by weight); discard of undifferentiated Bronze Age sherds (=MQ by number, UQ by number, >MQ by weight); discard of one Middle Neolithic Bükk sherd; discard of Pink Ware sherds (=UQ by number, >UQ by weight); discard of Late Bronze Age sherds (UQ by both number & weight); discard of Arpadian sherds (+LQ by number, >LQ by weight). 2001: no finds made (field disked). Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc Interpretation a multi-period settlement, with highintensity discard in the Bronze Age (probably the Late phase), medium-intensity discard in the Middle Neolithic Bükk, and low-intensity discard in the Arpadian period.

Zalkod 002 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 57) (finds: Fig. 4.52/3 - 8)

Zalkod 003 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 57)

Zalkod 001 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 57)

Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 89-121; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 31831; y (E-W): 83063; Height: 100 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m.

Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter; Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 89-121; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 31865; y (E-W): 83074; Height: 94.5 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. 86

2001/Grab 2; =MQ by number, =UQ by weight, 2001/Grab 4). Lithic data: Chipped Stone: 162 pieces/ 4,280 g (well above UQ by No. & Weight); Materials:- NTL, STL, SO, TL, FHL, AL, HO, DNIESTR & OTHER; Technological Stages: 80 flakes, 25 blades, 31 cores, 4 pre-cores, 22 irregular/chunks; Ground & Polished Stone: four fragments of grindstone. Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; expansion of levee; Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc Interpretation a multi-period settlement, with highintensity discard in the Middle Neolithic (Bükk and Tiszadob), Late Neolithic, Copper Age, Late Bronze Age, medium-intensity discard in the Early-Middle Neolithic, Early and Middle Bronze Age, Late Bronze Age Gáva, Roman Imperial, Late Arpadian and Modern, lowintensity discard in the Late Migration Period/Arpadian, Late Medieval and Post-Medieval/Modern periods and loss of Early and Late Copper Age and Early Arpadian material. A large lithic assemblage, dominated by North and South Tokaj limnoquartzites and with emphasis on flake production, with many cores indicating local production.

Investigation fieldwalking, UTP, 1993: (standard: 1 quadrat); UTP, 2001 (2 quadrats & 4 grab samples) Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 110 m; Width: 200 m; Diagonal length: 180 m; Description: on East side of a small rise on the high bank above the floodplain of the Tisza, at Borzoka-dűlő. Chronological Data discard of Early-Middle Neolithic sherds (2/11 units: medium-density & loss); discard of Middle Neolithic sherds (10/11 units: >UQ by number, MQ by number & weight, 2001/Quad 1; =MQ by number & weight, 2001/Quad 2); discard of Middle Neolithic Bükk sherds (1/11 units: =UQ by number, >UQ by weight, 2001/Concentration) ; discard of Middle Neolithic Tiszadob sherds (1/11 units: =LQ by number & weight, 2001/Quad 1) ; discard of Pink Ware sherds (3/11 units: =LQ by number & weight, 1993/Quad 1; =LQ by number, =MQ by weight, 1993/Grab 1; =UQ by number & weight, 1993/Grab 2) ; discard of Late Neolithic sherds (5/11 units: =UQ by number, >UQ by weight, 2001/Quad 1; >MQ by number, UQ by number & weight, 2001/Grab 4) ; loss of Early Copper Age sherds; loss of Late Copper Age sherds; discard of undifferentiated Copper Age sherds (3/11 units: highdensity and low-density) ; discard of Early Bronze Age sherds (2/11 units: =MQ by number, UQ by both number & weight, 1993/Quad 1, 1993/Grab 1 and 2001/Concentration; MQ by weight, 2001/Quad 2; >UQ by number, >LQ by weight, 2001/Grab 3; >LQ by both number & weight, 1993/Grab 3 and 2001/Grab 2); scatter of Late Bronze Age – Early Iron Age sherds (1/11 units: low-density); discard of Imperial-period (AD 2nd – 3rd) sherds (=MQ by Number, LQ by Number & Weight, 1993/Grab); loss of Early Arpadian sherds; discard of Late Arpadian sherds (3/11 units: =LQ by number, MQ by number & weight, 2001/Grabs 2 and 3); discard of Arpadian sherds (4/11 units: =LQ by number & weight, 2001/Quad 1; >MQ by both number & weight, 2001/Quad 2; =MQ by number, >LQ by weight, 2001/Grab 1; >LQ by number, LQ by weight,

Zalkod 004 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 57) Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 89-121; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 31870; y (E-W): 83054; Height: 100 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. Investigation fieldwalking, UTP, 1993: (standard: 1 quadrat); UTP, 2001 (2 grab samples) Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 50 m; Width: 50 m; Diagonal length: 50 m; Description: on top and East slope of small rise in Gorbe Erre Jaro dűlő. Chronological Data discard of Middle Neolithic sherds (LQ by weight, 1993/Grab 1; LQ by number & weight); discard of two Late Medieval sherds (lowdensity); discard of Post-Medieval sherds (high-density); discard of Post-Medieval/Modern sherds (low-density). Lithic data: Chipped Stone: 5 pieces/ 40 g (< MQ by No. & Weight); Materials:- HO, STL & NTL; Technological Stages: 3 flakes, 1 blades, 1 ??. Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc Interpretation a multi-period settlement, with highintensity Post-Medieval discard and low-intensity discard in the Middle Neolithic, Bronze Age, Late Medieval and Post-Medieval/Modern periods. Minor prehistoric lithic discard.

Zalkod 005 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 57) (finds: Fig. 4.52/9) Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter; Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 89-121; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 31839; y (E-W): 83038; Height: 100 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. 87

Investigation fieldwalking, UTP, 1993: (standard: 1 quadrat); UTP, 2001 (2 quadrats, 2 grab samples and 1 whole pot) Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 100 m; Width: 60 m; Diagonal length: 60 m; Description: on a low rise on the high bank above the floodplain of the Tisza (Örveny-kőz) Chronological Data discard of Middle Neolithic sherds (low density in grab sample); discard of undifferentiated Copper Age sherds(low densities in both Quads); discard of undifferentiated Bronze Age (well above UQ by both numbers & weight); loss of one Late Bronze Age Gáva sherds (Quad 2); discard of Late Iron Age sherds (well above UQ by both Number & Weight, 1993 Grab 1); discard of Imperial-period (AD 3rd – early 5th) sherds (>UQ by Number & Weight, Quad 2); discard of pre-Hunnic (AD 390 – 450) sherds (>UQ by both Number & Weight, Quad 1); discard of Germanic (AD late 3rd – early 4th) sherds (one sherd, Quad 2; =MQ by Number, >MQ by Weight, 2001/Grab 1); discard of Migration Period sherds (MQ by number, >LQ by weight); discard of undifferentiated Bronze Age sherds (MQ by number & weight); discard of undifferentiated Bronze Age sherds (UQ by both number & weight, Quad 1; LQ by weight, Quad 1); discard of small Early Copper Age sherds (2/3 units: high-density by number, low-density by weight, Quad 1; low-density, Grab 2); discard of two Earlier Bronze Age sherds (LQ by number & weight, Quad 1); discard of undifferentiated Bronze Age sherds (2/3 units: =MQ by number, >LQ by weight, Grab 1; UQ by number & weight, Quad 1; UQ by number, MQ by number, >LQ by weight, Transect 1; >MQ by number, =LQ by weight, Tr. 3;UQ by Wt. – Quad 10; =UQ by both No. & Wt. – Quad 14; =UQ by No., >UQ by Wt. – Quad 23). Lithic data: 1 grindstone fragment. Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; road-widening; Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc Interpretation a multi-period settlement with a large high-intensity Late Neolithic component and less widespread medium-intensity Middle Neolithic and PostMedieval discard. High densities of lithic discard, with 17 raw material type represented, prominent being limnic quartzite and obsidian; the high percentage of pre-cores and debitage is typical of workshop debris.

Olaszliszka 001 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 68) Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter; Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 89-334; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 32334; y (E-W): 82511; Height: 111.5 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. Investigation fieldwalking, UTP, 1992: (standard: 1 quadrat); fieldwalking, UTP, 1993 (33 transects). Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 400 m; Width: 360 m; Diagonal length: 360 m; Description: on the top of Alsó-Mező hill, with a gully cutting the site from the South West; c. 200 m from the edge of the first terrace of the Bodrog. Chronological Data medium-intensity discard of Middle Neolithic sherds (3 Quads: =MQ by No., >LQ by Wt. – Quad. 30; >MQ by No., >UQ by Wt. – Quad. 23; MQ by Wt. – Quad. 4); wide range of discard intensities of Late Neolithic sherds (32 Quads: =LQ by No., LQ by Wt. – Quad 5; =LQ by No., LQ by No. & Wt. – Quads 27 & 33; UQ by No., >MQ by Wt. in Quad. 1); medium-intensity discard of Late Sarmatian (AD 4th – 5th) sherds, including one South Slovakian import (>MQ by No., well above UQ by Wt. in Transect sample). Lithic data: Chipped Stone: 5 pieces/ ?? g (< MQ by No., ); Materials:- HO, SO, OTHER; Technological Stages: 2 flakes, 3 pre-cores. Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc Interpretation a multi-period settlement, with highintensity discard in the Imperial and Late Sarmatian periods; a high concentration of daub in centre of settlement, associated with the presence of Middle Neolithic, Bronze Age and Late Iron Age material. Discard of a small prehistoric obsidian-dominated assemblage, with pre-cores suggesting local collection of raw material, if not production.

Olaszliszka 004 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 68) Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter; Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 99-334; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 32287; y (E-W): 82526; Height: 99 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. Investigation fieldwalking, UTP, 1993: (standard: 3 transect samples); Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 140 m; Width: 100 m; Diagonal length: 150 m; Description: in a gently sloping area (field name – Szepesi tanya) at the confluence of the Benyei-patak and the Bodrog floodplain, on the South bank of the Benyeipatak. Chronological Data medium-intensity discard of large Middle Neolithic sherds (=MQ by No., MQ by No., =UQ by Wt. in Transect 2); discard of undifferentiated Bronze Age and ? Migration Period sherds (in grab sample). Lithic data: Chipped Stone: 5 pieces/ 78 g (>LQ by No., ); Materials:- OTHER, HO; Technological Stages: 1 flake, 2 cores, 2 pre-cores. Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; stream erosion; Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc Interpretation a multi-period settlement with mediumintensity discard in the Middle Neolithic; high discard of Late Bronze Age Gáva finds, presence of Late Iron Age and loss of Migration Period material. Discard of production debris from a small prehistoric lithic assemblage.

Olaszliszka 003 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 68) Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter; Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 89-334; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 32368; y (E-W): 82592; Height: 101 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. Investigation fieldwalking, UTP, 1993: (standard: 1 quadrat); Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 120 m; Width: 30 m; Diagonal length: 110 m; Description: on gently sloping terrain, South East part of Alsó-Mező); set back 50 m from the edge of the first terrace of the Bodrog.

120

Fig. 4.40 Table 4.21 Single Finds (Fig. 4.40: Map 68) CODE 916 959 960 961 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978

XCOORD 32375 32361 32339 32345 32327 32363 32314 32342 32351 32329 32330 32312 32324 32344 32362 32335 32331 32320 32331 32337

YCOORD 82481 82524 82497 82512 82512 82518 82510 82502 82517 82522 82451 82515 82560 82509 82516 82497 82514 82519 82518 82526

MATERIAL LRM LRM POT POT LRM LRM POT LRM LRM LRM LRM LRM POT LRM POT POT LRM LRM LRM LRM

IDENTIFICA NOT REC CORE NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC CORE NOT REC NOT REC FLAKE CORE CORE FLAKE NOT REC CORE NOT REC NOT REC CORE NOT REC CORE NOT REC 121

TECHNO_INF

RETOUCHED

DATING UN UN LN NEO UN UN LBA UN UN UN UN UN LN UN LN MIG UN UN UN UN

REMARKS

X2 X2 X2 X3

979 981 982 982 983 984 985 986 988 997 1006 1036 1038 1039 1041 1042 1043 1048 1056 1061 1067 1077 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130

32352 32363 32309 32309 32354 32349 32324 32358 32341 32331 32322 32379 32369 32375 32363 32378 32322 32375 32369 32357 32362 32379 32342 32342 32342 32352 32354 32324 32327 32327

82522 82535 82507 82507 82531 82524 82505 82534 82524 82522 82560 82518 82570 82558 82558 82526 82530 82545 82558 82571 82532 82537 82502 82502 82502 82522 82531 82505 82512 82512

LRM POT POT POT LRM POT LRM LRM LRM LRM LRM LRM LRM LRM LRM LRM POT LRM LRM LRM LRM LRM LRM POT POT LRM LRM LRM LRM LRM

CORE PIPE NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC FLAKE NOT REC CORE CORES PRECORE FLAKE NOT REC NOT REC FLAKE FLAKE NOT REC NOT REC LUMP FLAKE FLAKE CORE NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC FLAKE FLAKE NOT REC NOT REC

122

RETOUCHED

POLISHED

UN UN LBA LN UN LM UN UN UN UN UN UN UN UN UN UN LN UN UN UN UN UN UN LBA LN UN UN UN UN UN

X2 STONE

X2

MAP 69 (Figs. 4.41 – 4.42)

Fig. 4.41

of which were found in over 20% of the units. The scale from most to least common is as follows:-limnic quartzite, obsidian, yellow quartzite, grey flint, yellowbrown chert, red hornstone, radiolarite, black flint, blackwhite hornstone, brown hornstone and brown-yellow quartzite. Pre-cores and debitage dominate the assemblage in most of the raw material classes, strongly suggesting a lithic production site, probably with some blanks and/or finished tools for export. 1 fragment of grindstone. Management Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: ploughing; Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc Interpretation a large, high-intensity Late Neolithic settlement with a major lithic production industry; presence of Middle Neolithic, undifferentiated Copper Age and Bronze Age material and some Medieval finds. The 10hectare geophysics plot, laid out in the middle of the densest Late Neolithic pottery scatter, indicated deeply buried rows of structures of 5 x 8m in dimension, probably with beaten earth floors.

Sárazsadány 001 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 69) (geophysics plot: Fig. 4.42) (finds:Fig. 4.54/1 9) Basic Data Site Type: surface scatter; Type of map: 1:10,000 map; Map Number: 99-341; Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 32755; y (E-W): 83090; Height: 106 m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m. Investigation excavation, Ida Bognár-Kutzian, 1958; inter-disciplinary sampling, Janos Makkay, 1983; fieldwalking and geophysics, UTP, 1992: (53 transects); Spatial Data Extent of Site: Length: 790 m; Width: 450 m; Diagonal length: 720 m; Description: on flat plateau above floodplain of Bodrog, with site divided by stream entering from South West. Chronological Data discard of Middle Neolithic sherds (1/105 units); discard of Late Neolithic pottery (93/105 units); discard of undifferentiated Copper Age sherds (1/105 units); discard of undifferentiated Bronze Age sherds (6/105 units); discard of Medieval sherds (2/105 units). Lithic Data more than 53 kg of lithics were collected in 1992, with over 40 raw material classes, 11

123

Fig. 4.42 Resistivity plot, Sárazsadány 001 (Clive Titman)

124

Fig. 4.43 Table 4.22 Single Finds (Fig. 4.43: Map 69) CODE 1165 1173 1181 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725

XCOORD 32752 32766 32749 32739 32731 32735 32735 32735 32735 32740 32737 32741 32738 32749 32749 32734

YCOORD 83060 83073 83100 83059 83062 83058 83064 83058 83058 83059 83070 83070 83074 83074 83071 83040

MATERIAL POT LRM POT LRM LRM LRM POT LRM POT LRM LRM POT POT LRM POT POT

IDENTIFICA NOT REC NOT REC PIPE NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC NOT REC

125

TECHNO_INF

PINK WARE

PINK WARE GRITTY GRITTY

DATING MED UN PM UN UN UN MN UN MN UN UN MN MN UN MO MN

REMARKS

MAP 70 (Fig. 4.44)

Fig. 4.44 sherds (2 Concentrations & 2 Transects: =LQ by No., >MQ by Wt. in Transect 1/1;