Book 3: Settlement Patterns in the Zemplén Block: The Upper Tisza Project. Studies in Hungarian Landscape Archaeology. 9781407305646, 9781407336237

Citation preview

B A R

Studies in Hungarian Landscape Archaeology

Book 3: Settlement Patterns in the Zemplén Block John Chapman, Mark Gillings, Robert Shiel, Enikő Magyari, Bisserka Gaydarska and Chris Bond with contributions by József Laszlovszky, Steve Cousins, Denise Telford, Katalin Biró, Karen Hardy and David Brookshaw Illustrations by Sandra Rowntree and Chris Bond

BAR International Series 2088 2010

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

BAR  S2088 2010 CHAPMAN ET AL THE UPPER TISZA PROJECT BOOK 3: SETTLEMENT PATTERNS IN THE ZEMPLÉN BLOCK

9 781407 305646

The Upper Tisza Project

The Upper Tisza Project Studies in Hungarian Landscape Archaeology

Book 3: Settlement Patterns in the Zemplén Block John Chapman, Mark Gillings, Robert Shiel, Enikő Magyari, Bisserka Gaydarska and Chris Bond with contributions by

József Laszlovszky, Steve Cousins, Denise Telford, Katalin Biró, Karen Hardy and David Brookshaw Illustrations by

Sandra Rowntree and Chris Bond

BAR International Series 2088 2010

ISBN 9781407305646 paperback ISBN 9781407336237 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407305646 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 List of Tables Preface

(please see note below)

Chapter One: Introduction to the Upper Tisza Project John Chapman 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

1 - 14

The Upper Tisza Project – an outline Previous research on upland – lowland interactions Summary of Project fieldwork, excavation and analysis The creation of a Gazetteer Analytical Principles for fieldwalking data Summary

Chapter Two: The environment of the Zemplén Block Robert Shiel & Enikő Magyari

15 - 20

2.1 Introduction 2.2 Geology 2.3 Geomorphology 2.4 Topography 2.5 Climate 2.6 Soil 2.7 Vegetation 2.8 Upland basins 2.9 Open valleys 2.10 The Bodrog – Zemplén fringe 2.11 Conclusions

Chapter Three: Land use potential of the Zemplén Block Robert Shiel 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

21 - 31

Introduction The study area Land use potential in the Zemplén Block Suitability of the land types Overall land quality Change over time Summary

Chapter Four: The Gazetteer John Chapman, Mark Gillings, Denise Telford & Steve Cousins 4.1

Introduction 4.2 The Gazetteer Please note that the CD referred to above has now been replaced with a download available at www.barpublishing.com/additional-downloads.html

i

33 - 134

Chapter Five: Interpretation of prehistoric field survey data John Chapman, Mark Gillings, Katalin Biró & Karen Hardy

135 - 165

5.1 The definition of Multi-Community Zones in Block 3 5.2 General perspectives on fieldwalking data 5.3 MCZs in Block 2: the analysis of settlement patterns (including intra-site Analyses of Arka 001 and Fony 001 5.4 Lithic reconnaissance in the South Zemplén Mountains 5.5 Period syntheses in Block 3 5.5 Summary

Chapter Six: Interpretation of Early Modern forest prospection John Chapman & Mark Gillings 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Introduction Survey results Interpretations Summary

Chapter Seven: Summary of main results, Zemplén Block John Chapman & Mark Gillings 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7

167 - 176

177 - 187

Introduction Interpretative framework Individual site biographies Multi-Community Zones General perspectives on the Zemplén Block Long-term lowland – upland relationships in the study region Endwords

References

189 - 193

ii

List of Figures 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 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 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35

The Project study region Topographical map of the Zemplén Block GIS contour plan of the Zemplén Block (Mark Gillings) Project bilingual recording form Sketch plan of Site Erdőhorváti 020 Inter-quartile ranges by pottery number by Age, Block 3 Inter-quartile ranges by pottery number by Period, Block 3 Inter-quartile ranges for lithic collections by number and weight, Block 3 Location of main areas for pedological and land-use studies Land use in the Regéc – Mogyoróska Basin Land use in the Háromhuta valley Land use in the Erdőhorváti Basin Land use in the Sima – Baskó Basin Map 72 - sites Map 73 – sites and single finds Map 74 – sites Map 74 – single finds (Part 1) Map 74 – single finds (Part 2) Map 75 - sites Map 76 - sites Map 77 - sites Map 78 - sites Map 79 - sites Plan of Erdőhorváti 025 Map 80 - sites Plan of Erdőbénye 011 Plan of Erdőbénye 012 Plan of Erdőbénye 013 Plan of Erdőhorváti 026 Map 81 - sites Map 82 - sites Plan of Erdőbénye 015 Map 83 - sites Plan of Sima 003 Plan of Sima 004 Map 84 - sites Plan of Sima 002 Plan of Sima 005 Map 85 - sites Plan of Erdőbénye 018 Map 86 - sites Map 87 - sites Map 88 - sites Map 89 - sites Plan of Baskó 020 Map 90 - sites Plan of Baskó 010 Map 91 - sites iii

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 4.55 4.56 4.57 4.58 4.59 4.60 4.61 4.62 4.63 4.64 4.65 4.66 4.67 4.68 4.69 4.70 4.71 4.72 4.73 4.74 4.75 4.76 4.77 4.78 4.79 4.80 4.81 4.82 4.83 4.84 4.85 4.86

Plan of Baskó 015 Map 92 - sites Plan of Baskó 003 Map 93 - sites Plan of Baskó 014 Plan of Baskó 016 Plan of Baskó 017 Plan of Baskó 018 Map 94 - sites Map 95 - sites Map 96 - sites Map 97 - sites Plan of Baskó 005 Plan of Baskó 008 Plan of Baskó 013 Map 98 - sites Plan of Erdőhorváti 022 Plan of Erdőhorváti 051 Map 99 - sites Plan of Erdőhorváti 004 Plan of Erdőhorváti 050 Map 100 - sites Plan of Erdőhorváti 027 Plan of Erdőhorváti 035 Plan of Erdőhorváti 036 Plan of Erdőhorváti 037 Plan of Erdőhorváti 038 Plan of Erdőhorváti 039 Plan of Erdőhorváti 042 Map 101 - sites Plan of Erdőhorváti 020 Plan of Erdőhorváti 024 Plan of Erdőhorváti 031 Plan of Erdőhorváti 032 Plan of Erdőhorváti 034 Plan of Erdőhorváti 043 Plan of Erdőhorváti 044 Map 102 - sites Map 103 - sites Map 104 - sites Map 105 - sites General plan of Erdőhorváti 006 - 013 Plan of Erdőhorváti 006 Plan of Erdőhorváti 009 Plan of Erdőhorváti 010 Plan of Erdőhorváti 015 Plan of Erdőhorváti 016 Map 106 - sites Plan of Erdőhorváti 011 Plan of Erdőhorváti 012 Plan of Erdőhorváti 013 iv

4.87 4.88 4.89 4.90 4.91 4.92 4.93 4.94 4.95 4.96 4.97 4.98 4.99 4.100 4.101 4.102 4.103 4.104 4.105 4.106 4.107 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 5.14 5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18 5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 5.23 5.24 5.25

Plan of Erdőhorváti 014 Map 107 - sites Map 108 - sites Plan of Mogyoróska 002 Map 109 - sites Map 110 - sites Map 111 – sites & single finds Plan of Regéc 014 Map 112 - sites Plan of Fony 008 Plan of Fony 009 Plan of Regéc 013 Map 113 - sites Plan of Fony 003 Plan of Fony 004 Plan of Fony 006 Plan of Fony 010 Map 114 - sites Plan of Fony 002 Map 115 - sites Map 116 – sites & single finds Location of Multi-Community Zones (MCZs) and sites with gridded collections (A – Arka 001; B – Fony 001) Distribution of lithic raw material source sites, South Tokaj Mountains: 1 – Rátka 002; 2 – Rátka 001; 3 – Mád 006; 4 – Abaújalpár 002; 5 – Abaújalpár 003; 6 – Abaújalpár 001; 7 – Arka 001; 8 – Korlát 002; 9 – Korlát 001; 10 – Fony 001; 11 – Mogyoróska 001; 12 – Sima 001; 13 – Erdőbénye 006; 14 – Erdőbénye 008; 15- Mád 001; 16 – Olaszliszka 017; 17 – Tolcsva 001; 18 – Erdőhorváti 003 Size of lithic scatters, Block 3 Size of pottery scatters, Block 3 Size of monuments, Block 3 Size of all sites and monuments, Block 3 Discard intensity, Block 3 pottery scatters Discard intensity, Block 3 lithic scatters Size-intensity scores, Block 3 Neolithic pottery scatters Size-intensity scores, Block 3 Palaeolithic scatters Size-intensity scores, Block 3 post-Palaeolithic lithic scatters Symbols used for MCZ Maps MCZ 20: Upper Palaeolithic and Palaeolithic lithics MCZ 20: Post-Palaeolithic lithics, Early-Middle Neolithic and Bronze Age MCZ 20: Medieval/Post-Medieval, Post-Medieval and Post-Medieval/Early Modern MCZ 20: Early Modern, Early Modern/Modern and Modern MCZ 21: Palaeolithic and Post-Palaeolithic lithics MCZ 21: Middle Neolithic MCZ 21: Late Bronze Age and Bronze Age MCZ 21: Medieval, Post-Medieval and Modern Plan of surface collection grid, Arka 001 Arka 001: Middle Neolithic and Gritty Neolithic Arka 001: Copper Age, Bronze Age and Gritty Bronze Age Arka 001: Early Migration Period Arka 001: Early Medieval and Medieval v

5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 5.35 5.36 5.37 5.38 5.39 5.40 5.41 5.42 5.43 5.44 5.45 5.46 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 7.1

7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

Arka 001: Post-Medieval and Medieval Plan of surface collection grid, Fony 001 Fony 001: Middle Neolithic Fony 001: Gritty Neolithic Fony 001: Copper Age Fony 001: Late Bronze Age and Bronze Age Raw Material categories by number, Regéc 002 Raw Material categories by weight, Regéc 002 Raw Material categories by number, Olaszliszka 010 Raw Material categories by weight, Olaszliszka 010 Raw Material categories by number, Erdőhorváti 001 Raw Material categories by weight, Erdőhorváti 001 Raw Material categories by number, Baskó 001 Raw Material categories by weight, Baskó 001 Raw Material categories by number, Tolcsva 002 Raw Material categories by weight, Tolcsva 002 Distribution of techno-types, Erdohorvati 1 Distribution of techno-types, Olaszliszka 008 Distribution of techno-types, lithic Single Finds, MCZ 20 Distribution of techno-types, Baskó 001 Distribution of techno-types, Regéc 003 Percentage of holloways by number, Zemplén Block No. of hollways vs. altitude (masl), Zemplén Block Single and complex holloways vs. altitude, Zemplén Block No. of holloways vs. topographic location, Zemplén Block Holloway size, Zemplén Block Inter-village routes as suggested by the distribution of holloways, Block 3. Key: 1 – Tállya; 2 - Rátka; 3 - Mád; 4 - Erdőbénye; 5 - Sima; 6 - Baskó; 7 - Tolcsva; 8 - Erdőhorváti; 9 Komlóska; 10 - Arka; 11 - Korlát; 12 - Fony; 13 - Regéc; 14 - Óhuta. Holloway type vs. number, Zemplén Block Holloway type vs. width, Zemplén Block Holloway type vs. depth, Zemplén Block Holloway type vs. altitude, Zemplén Block Holloway type vs. topographic location, Zemplén Block Cultivation type vs. altitude, Zemplén Block Altitude vs. size of field system, Zemplén Block Size of scoops, Zemplén Block Settlement orientation, Zemplén Block Location map of important fieldwalking sites, Block 3: 1 – Erdőbénye 019; 2 – Erdőbénye 002; 3 – Erdőbénye 003; 4 – Erdőbénye 005; 5 – Erdőbénye 001; 6 – Baskó 001; 7 – Baskó 002; 8 – Regéc 019; 9 – Mogyoróska 009; 10 – Regéc 002 / 006 / 008; 11 - Regéc 003; 12 – Regéc 001; 13 – Mogyoróska 010; 14 – Óhuta 001; 15 – Komlóska 001; 16 – Erdőhorváti 001; 17 – Tolcsva 003; 18 – Tolcsva 004; 19 – Erdőhorváti 002; 20 – Olaszliszka 016; 21 – Olaszliszka 008; 22 – Olaszliszka 011; 23 – Tolcsva 002 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. vi

7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12

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

vii

List of CD Figures BOOK 3

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

Settlement patterns in the Zemplén Block

CD Fig. Preface.1

Újhuta manor house, AD 18th century

CD Fig. 1.1

Mt. Tokaj, from North East

CD FIG. 1.2

Zemplén Mountains, from West, vinity of Korlát

CD FIG. 1.3

Szeleta Cave, from interior

CD FIG. 1.4 The Szőllőszke obsidian source, Zemplín Mountains, S. E. Slovakia CD Fig. 2.1

The volcanic outcrop and castle, Boldogkőváralja

CD Fig. 2.2

The volcanic outcrop and castle, Boldogkőváralja

CD Fig. 2.3

The volcanic outcrop and castle, Boldogkőváralja

CD Fig. 2.4

Regéc Castle, from South West

CD Fig. 2.5 Bodrogköz

View from the SW Zemplén Mountains towards the Bodrog high terrace and the

CD Fig. 4.1

Chert-cobbled wall, village of Korlát

CD Fig. 4.2

Erdőhorváti 003 lithic raw material source

CD Fig. 4.3

Mád 001 lithic raw material source

CD Fig. 4.4

Rátka – Hercegkőves lithic raw material source

CD Fig. 6.1

Füzer Castle and its arable land, North Zemplén Mountains

CD Fig. 6.2

Interior valleys, Bükk Mountains

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

viii

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 2.1 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.1 6.2

Outline of long-term settlement sequence, North East Hungary Summary of Project fieldwork Summary of fieldwalking data, summer 1993 Data Sheet for KÖI Site Report for Olaszliszka 006 Project Gazetteer Site Record for Erdőbénye 015 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 3 Multi-Community Zones Temperature, rainfall and soil moisture deficit (CSMD) for Miskolc

The relative suitability of land use types in the Zemplén Block Areas of various land classes (ha) around each of the village sites, Zemplén Block Index of Block 3 sites by map extract Single Finds, Map 73 (Fig. 4.2) Single Finds, Map 74 (Figs. 4.4 – 4.5) Single Finds, Map 75 (Fig. 4.6) Single Finds, Map 76 (Fig. 4.7) Single Finds, Map 78 (Fig. 4.9) Single Finds, Map 79 (Fig. 4.10) Single Finds, Map 81 (Fig. 4.17) Single Finds, Map 103 (Fig. 4.74) Single Finds, Map 111 (Fig. 4.93) Single Finds, Map 116 (Fig. 4.107) Single Finds outside Map Coverage Multi-Community Zones in Block 3 Lithic raw material source sites outside Multi-Community Zones, Block 3 Other sites outside Multi-Community Zones, Block 3 Grouping of lithic raw material categories, Block 3 surface material Timelines for Block 3 Multi-Community Zones

Types of lithic raw material source Summary of earthfast features discovered in the Zemplén forests Holloways on Major routes, Zemplén Mountains

ix

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 x

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 Simán, 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 Felegyházi 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 Gábris 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 three communities: the villages of Boldogkőváralja and Regéc (1995) and the hamlet of Újhuta (1993), where we stayed at the local manor house (CD Fig. Preface.1). To all those who accommodated the teams and helped them to enjoy more fully the Hungarian spring / summer and village life, our profound thanks. 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. 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 xi

wine lakes, etc.): 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 1995: Győrgy Füleky; Rob Shiel; Keri Brown; Dave Passmore; Beth Rega; Stuart Sumiga; Magdi Vicze; Sandra Rowntree; Bas Davis; John Howie; Stašo Forenbaher; Andy Dunn; Steve Leyland; Bob Johnstone; Iam Lumley; Rachel Green; Caroline Ware; Ian Barnett; Kath Poyser; Sue Blakeley; Jamie Ashmore; Carla Sutton; Jo Padget; Daz Walker; AnaMaria Kovács; A. Koppany; G. Fenyes; E. Arval and J. Brigers. summer 1999: Sandra Rowntree; Steve Leyland; Steve Cousins; Leanne Stowe; Amelie RolandGosselin; Denise Telford; Dave Brookshaw and Zsolt Vágner. John Chapman

xii

Chapter One – Introduction to the Upper Tisza Project John Chapman of the Bodrogköz Block, we published a full introductory chapter on the philosophy of landscape archaeology, our theoretical framework and the full range of methodologies that formed the basis of the Project (Chapman et al. 2010a, Chapter 1). We do not wish to repeat those introductory remarks in this or in succeeding volumes but shall merely summarise a few key points about the way that the Zemplén Block, that forms the principal focus of this volume, interfaces with the other survey Blocks.

1.1 The Upper Tisza Project – an outline In this series of conventional books presenting the results of the Upper Tisza Project (Chapman et al., in prep. 2010a, b and c), it is our wish to follow the aims and objectives of the Project as formulated at its onset in 1991. In this hope, we follow the basic information about the Project as published in the single Project e-book, accessed as http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/projArch/uppertisza_b a_2003/index.cfm (Chapman et al. 2003). The umbrella

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. 1.1).

title of the e-publication was: “The Upper Tisza Project: studies in Hungarian landscape archaeology”. In the first conventional book, on the settlement patterns

Fig. 1.1 The Project Study Region

(1) the main valley of the river Tisza itself, with its characteristic low-lying flood-plain and adjacent extensive terraces of loess.

and including the high terraces of those two rivers. (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 (CD Figs. 1.1 - 1.2).

(2) the low-lying plain of the southern Bodrogköz, with its alluvial areas defined by the rivers Bodrog and Tisza 1

Fig. 1.2 The Zemplén Survey Block

Fig. 1.3 GIS contour plan of the Zemplén Block (Mark Gillings)

2

Within this study region, three principal research problems were selected as Project aims: • the definition and explanation of changes in the palaeo-environment, together with changes in regional economic potential, over the last 10,000 years; • 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.

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 integration of the detailed research questions arising out of the literature review (Chapman et al., 2010a, Chapter 1) 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. 2. 3.

the identification and mapping of a dated sequence of Late Pleistocene and Holocene palaeochannels in the lowland Survey Blocks. the provision of a dated long-term sequence of vegetational change, based upon sediment coring of palaeochannels. 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.

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

In this second book, we pay attention to all of the Project aims, as well as Objectives 3 – 5 and 8 - 9.

Calendar Years 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 Csőszhalom, 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 3

The chronological basis for the project’s research has been developed from the many recent 14-C dates made available for essentially lowland occupation sequences (Table 1.1). Because of the rarity of good organic preservation in the strongly acidic soil environments of the Zemplén Mountains, there are relatively few 14-C dates for this survey Block, necessitating reliance on the better-dated lowland sequence for proxy dating.

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.

1.2 Previous research on upland – lowland interactions

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.

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 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. In parallel with the Upper Tisza Project in the 1990s, 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.

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: CD Fig. 1.3); the Aurignacian (e.g., Istállóskő cave); the PavlovianGravettian 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 assemblages may date to either the Mesolithic or the Neolithic (p.c., K. Biró).

1.3 Summary of Project fieldwork, excavation and analysis

Although no Early Neolithic Körös 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

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).

4

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 Project fieldwork Only a limited range of Project field techniques were viable in the heavily forested Zemplén Mountains. In effect, this included intensive field walking in the piedmont and/or lowland zones to the West and South of the Zemplén; tacheometric survey of selected monuments; resistivity survey of selected sites and monuments;

1.3.1 Intensive field walking The type of field survey methods which can be utilised in any part of the study region depends upon the conditions 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 Block 1 was used in Block 3 (Fig. 1.4)

UPPER TISZA PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK FORM PARISH/HELYSÉG ………………………MAP/TÉRKÉPE ………FIELD NO/MEZŐ SZ………. SITE NO/LELŐHELY …………………………….. ……………………….. DATE RECORDED/DÁTUM ………./………../ 199…. RECORDED BY/FELVEVŐ ………………………………………………………… SURVEY/FELMÉRÉS ……………………………………………………………………………… EXCAVATION/ÁSATÁS ………………………………………………………………………..… BORING/FURÁS …………………………………………………………………………………… AERIAL PHOTOS/LÉGIFÉNYK …………………………………………………………………... GEOPHYSICS/GEOFIZIKA ……………………………………………………………………….. AGE/KORSZAK ……………………………………………………………………………………. PERIOD/KOR ………………………………………………………………………………………. SITE TYPE/JELLEGE ……………………………………………………………………………… SURVIVING FEATURES/MEGMARADT TELEP JELLEG …………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. SITE – MONUMENT SIZE/MÉRET ………………………………………………………………. LOCATION/HELYMEGJELOLÉS ………………………………………………………………... ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… TOPOGRAPHY/TOPOGRÁFIAI JELLEG ….……………………………………………………... ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… SURFACE SLOPE/FELSZINI LEJTÉS ….…………………………………………………………. AMOUNT OF EROSION/ERÓZIO 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 COORDINÁTA ……………………………………………………….. MAP Y COORDINATE/Y COORDINÁTA ……………………………………………………….. REF NO OF SAMPLE UNITS/MINTA REF. SZ. ………………………………………………….. REF NO OF PHTOS/FOTO REF. SZ. B + W/ F/F ………. COLOUR/SZINES ……………….. COMMENTS/MEGYJEGYZÉS

Fig. 1.4 Project bilingual recording form 5

scatter was defined and no surface collection was made. Then, depending on scatter size, one or more 10 x 10metre grids were laid out, from which total pick-up was made. A further 10-minute grab sample was collected from the whole site area, in order to sample diagnostic small finds and feature sherds which were not represented in the grid squares. The grid squares provided control samples for the scatter, while the grab sample was designed to provide extra information on site chronology for multi-period sites.

The Zemplén Block is characterised by entirely different conditions from the other two Blocks. Cultivation takes place in few areas of the Zemplén Hills, with its volcanic elevations and inter-montane valleys. The mapping of surface finds is made difficult by the extensive forest cover, with its thick carpet of leaf litter and debris. The identification of the sources of raw materials such as obsidian and the centres of primary processing was one of the main targets in this block, along with the investigation of the remains of prehistoric hillforts and Medieval castles in such areas. Medieval clearance generally involved much larger areas than at present and it was thus possible to identify the remains of former field-systems. The mapping of holloways in the forested areas could also offer important evidence for the reconstruction of ancient routes.

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 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 – 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 survey intensity for the summer 1993 season is presented below (Table 1.3):-

The varied characteristics of this Block illustrate the need for flexibility in the specific choice of techniques required to facilitate the recovery of maximum data in any given block. The basic field walking techniques in ploughed or harvested areas was line-walking by teams of five people walking at 10-metre spacing. This spacing was selected so as to ensure the recognition of a very high proportion of surface remains, whether scatters or single finds. Every single find and scatter which was identified was recorded on bilingual recording forms (Fig. 1.4). After the identification of a site, the size of the surface Types of Land

Investigation Data 8.4 km2

Ploughed area & vineyards walked Percentage of total ploughed area & vineyards

8.4%

Survey Intensity (person-days/km2)

17.8

Forested area walked

25 km2

Percentage of total forested area

33.3%

Survey Intensity (person-days/km2)

4.9 33.4 km2

Total area walked Percentage of survey block

19%

Survey Intensity (person-days/km2)

8.2

Table 1.3 Summary of fieldwalking data, summer 1993 which are more widely spaced than lowland artifact scatters.

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. The main discrepancies in intensity come about in Block 3, in both wheat fields and forests. So little of the area was ploughed for wheat that line walking was complex and difficult to achieve, requiring much more intensive coverage than in the lowland Blocks. Similarly, Zemplén forest survey is much more targeted on the landscape features, which require careful analysis when found but

1.3.2

Intra-site gridded and transect collection

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’. There is, for example, no reason to expect a high-intensity discard of Early Migration Period sherds on a site just because there is a high-intensity discard of Middle Neolithic pottery. 6

The discoveries in the woodland were also quite different from the finds made on the cultivated foothills. Under the relatively recent forest canopy lay a largely undiscovered landscape of Medieval to Early Modern date (cca. AD 1200 - 1800), with good preservation of earthwork features. Complexes of holloways were plentiful, while attempts to pond the mountain streams at small industrial sites were also present. There were scooped house terraces and platforms comparable to those found by Jobey in Northern Britain (Jobey 1978), not to mention field terracing, field systems, clearance cairns and quarries. Because these features were often slight and resembled the ubiquitous humps and bumps of British upland field survey, the technique of their recognition has been dubbed ‘humps-and-bumps’ survey.

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. The regular layout of 10 x 10 m or 20 x 20 m grid squares for total pick-up provides a better 2-dimensional picture of settlement spread; data can be readily entered into contouring programmes for exploratory data analysis. Intra-site collections was made on two sites in Block 3 – Arka 001 and Fony 001 (see below, pp. 147 - 155).

1.3.3 “Humps and bumps” survey While the techniques of intensive fieldwalking used in the lowlands were still viable in the plough-zone and vineyards which skirt the main Zemplén range, quite different approaches had to be developed for the densely forested hills with their deep leaf litter and loose rhyolitic scree. While some hillsides could be covered by walkers marching in parallel lines at 20 metre intervals, in many cases the only way through the vegetation was for loosely-spaced walkers to follow compass bearings targeted on defined topographic points.

The large number of such modifications to the landscape meant that it was impractical to make detailed measured surveys of these features. Instead, the Zemplén forest teams made a series of sketch-plans of over 100 such features [Fig. 1.5]. The sketch plans are oriented by compass and the dimensions of their features have been measured by pacing. The locations of these features have been plotted on the 1:10,000 maps to an accuracy of 10 m.

Fig. 1.5 Sketch plan of Site Erdőhorváti 020 In the general context of upland survey, a minor disappointment was the failure to find any new prehistoric hillforts or enclosures in the Central Zemplén. Only three were previously known, all on hills with "vár" (Hungarian for "castle") toponyms - close to the villages of Tolcsva, Erdobenye and Komloska (cf. Nováki et al. 2007). The negative evidence from the 1993 season is that hills without "vár" names did not appear to have earlier hillforts.

1.3.4 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 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 7

locations and modes of extraction, a geo-archaeological team spent two weeks prospecting lithic raw material sources in the South Zemplén mountains, using cartographic data from the Hungarian Geological Institute. Forty-six sources were recorded in this area (see below, pp. 155 - 6). On about half of these source sites, the team found on-site debris from bulk reduction of lithic material. These sites were typical of so-called "quarry" assemblages, with relatively low percentages of retouched pieces. Since the main aim of this part of the Project was the identification of primary and secondary geological lithic raw material sources, it was not felt appropriate for detailed or gridded collections of ‘culturally modified’ material. Thus, grab collection was used for sampling the artifactual deposits at these source sites. These grab collections are similar to the timed grab collections used as part of the sampling strategy on many ‘sites’ in intensive field walking. The results cannot be used in any formal statistical analysis of the survey data, nor in the calculation of inter-quartile ranges, but do provide a general impression of the surviving surface materials, especially the range of raw materials utilised at such places and, very occasionally, an indication through pottery deposition, of the date of at least some period(s) of deposition at these source sites.

few and far between in cultivated land. Defining orientations were recorded for all sites so as to provide 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 Project codirectors (JL) organised the re-survey of the monastic sites (Laszlovszky & Romhányi 2003, 375).

1.3.5 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. A total of three Zemplén Block sites was surveyed in summer 1993. The method used in the geophysical surveys undertaken in this season 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 (for full details, see Chapman et al., 2010a, Chapter 1.8.3.4)

1.4

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 1.4), using the site of Olaszliszka 006 in Block 3.

1.3.6 Survey of South Tokaj lithic raw material sources The Zemplén Mountains are well known for their lithic resources, not least the obsidian where they represent one of only two sources of this black volcanic glass known in south east Europe (cf. CD Fig. 1.4). To discover the main

1. Site Definition 1.County: Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén 2.Town / village name (Budapest district)2: Olaszliszka street, 2. Name of site Olaszliszka 006 3. Exact Site Location4 1. Type of map / map projection5: 1:10,000 map 2. Map Number: 99-332 3. Co-ordinates6:x (N-S): 32568 y (E-W): 82451 4. Height: 158 m 5. Land Registry Number 7: 6. Geographical Description (if necessary):. 7. Precision of information8: accurate to 10 m 4. Extent of Site 1. Length: 30 m 2. Width: 7 m 3. Diagonal length9: 30 m 5. Chronology of site finds10 Type: 8

house no.

Age:

Lithics Prehistoric 6. Site Status11: partly explored 7. Threats to Site12: vineyards 8. Type of Source13: fieldwalking 9. Type of Site Investigations14 year activity name comments 1993 fieldwalking UTP standard (1 quad) 10. Name of Museum housing finds: Herman Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc 11. Name/Address of Reporter / Date of Report15: UTP, Durham – ELTE; 28.08.1999 12. Additional Notes: 13. Name of Person filling out Record: UTP

Table 1.4 Data Sheet for KÖI Site Report on Olaszliszka 006 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 KOI 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 3 (Table 1.5).

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.

Erdőbénye 015 (Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén) (Map 70)(Plan B)

Basic Data:

Site Type: Holloway complex Type of map: 1:10,000 map Map Number: 99-313 Co-ordinates: x (N-S): 32900; y (E-W): 81895; Height: 215m; Precision of information: accurate to 10 m.

Investigation:

Forest survey, UTP, 1993

Extent of Site:

Length: 100 m; Width: 50 m; Diagonal length: 100 m;

Description:

Complex of five inter-linked holloways, parallel to a gulley

Chronological Data:

Recent

Management:

Site Status: partly explored; Threats to Site: erosion Name of Museum housing finds: Hermann Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc

Interpretation:

Recent Holloway complex in a valley

Table 1.5 Project Gazetteer site record for Erdőbénye 015 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 (Moroney 1951: 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

1.5 Analytical Principles for fieldwalking data 1.5.1 The inter-quartile range The same approach to the quantification of field data as was utilised in Blocks 1 and 2 was also used in the Block 3 fieldwalking (for full details, see Chapman et al., 2010a, Chapter 1.10). The principal measure used was 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 9

remains of different periods (Choyke 1981; Chapman et al., in press a, 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. 137 - 141). For now, it is important to provide a graphic representation of Block 3 variations in inter-quartile range by age and period (Figs. 1.6 - 1.7), using both sherd numbers and sherd weights. The same presentation is made of the overall lithics data (Fig. 1.8).

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 “MultiCommunity Zone”: see below, p. 137). In UTP Block 3, 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 wellknown discoveries of the Hungarian Archaeological Topography concerning the representability of material

Fig. 1.6 Inter-quartile ranges by pottery number by Age, Block 3

10

Fig. 1.7 Inter-quartile ranges by pottery number by Period, Block 3

Fig. 1.8 Inter-quartile ranges for lithic collections by number and weight, Block 3 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 Section 1.5.2). 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.

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. 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.

1.5.2 Interpretation of surface ceramic data The surface pottery density by component is presented in the main text of each Gazetteer, in terms of its 11

High-intensity discard is registered when one of the following discard patterns has been identified (Table 1.6): • • • •

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