Book 5: Upland Settlement in North East Hungary: Excavations at the Multi-Period Site of Regéc 95: The Upper Tisza Project Studies in Hungarian Landscape Archaeology 9781407305660, 9781407336268

Citation preview

Studies in Hungarian Landscape Archaeology

Book 5: Upland Settlement in North East Hungary: Excavations at the Multi-Period Site of Regéc 95 John Chapman, Magdolna Vicze, Robert Shiel, Steve Cousins, Bisserka Gaydarska and Chris Bond with contributions by Enikő Magyari, David Passmore, Denise Telford, Ferenc Gyulai, Edina Rudner, Keri Brown and Alan Biggins Illustrations by Sandra Rowntree and Chris Bond

BAR International Series 2090 9 781407 305660

B A R

2010

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

BAR  S2090 2010 CHAPMAN ET AL THE UPPER TISZA PROJECT BOOK 5: EXCAVATIONS AT THE SITE OF REGÉC 95

The Upper Tisza Project

The Upper Tisza Project Studies in Hungarian Landscape Archaeology

Book 5: Upland Settlement in North East Hungary: Excavations at the Multi-Period Site of Regéc 95 John Chapman, Magdolna Vicze, Robert Shiel, Steve Cousins, Bisserka Gaydarska and Chris Bond with contributions by

Enikő Magyari, David Passmore, Denise Telford, Ferenc Gyulai, Edina Rudner, Keri Brown and Alan Biggins Illustrations by

Sandra Rowntree and Chris Bond

BAR International Series 2090 2010

ISBN 9781407305660 paperback ISBN 9781407336268 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407305660 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 on page viii) List of Tables Preface Chapter One: Introduction to the archaeology of the South Zemplén Mountains and the Regéc Basin John Chapman & Magdolna Vicze 1 - 12 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

The Upper Tisza Project – an introductory outline Previous research on upland – lowland interactions Summary of Project fieldwork, excavation and analysis Upper Tisza Project research in the Zemplén Mountains Upper Tisza Project research in the Regéc Basin

Chapter Two: Site environment and land use Robert Shiel, David Passmore & Enikő Magyari

13 - 14

Chapter Three: Surface collection, phosphate analysis and sampling strategy John Chapman, Keri Brown & Alan Biggins

15 - 31

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

Introduction Surface collection Phosphate sampling Trench layout Summary

Chapter Four: The stratigraphic sequence John Chapman, Robert Shiel & Magdolna Vicze 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

33 - 102

Introduction “Natural” soil developments in the Regéc Basin The stratigraphic sequence Context types The zones The individual contexts Summary

Chapter Five The pottery

Magdolna Vicze & John Chapman

5.1 Introduction 5.2 Potparts distribution i

103 - 149

5.3 Sherd size and erosion analyses 5.4 Period studies 5.4.1 The Neolithic pottery 5.4.2 The Bronze Age pottery 5.4.3 The Migration Period pottery 5.4.4 The Medieval pottery 5.4.5 The Post-medieval pottery 5.4.6 The daub 5.5 Comparative studies and general conclusions

Chapter Six: The chipped stone

Steve Cousins & John Chapman

151 - 208

Denise Telford & John Chapman

209 - 210

6.1 Introduction 6.2 Non-deliberate wear aspects 6.3 Cortex 6.4 Used/Unused artifacts 6.5 Evidence of re-working 6.6 Raw material types 6.7 Tool types 6.8 Other surface modifications 6.9 Context summaries of associated lithics 6.10 Phases 6.11 Zones 6.12 Comparisons with other sites 6.13 Discussion and conclusions

Chapter Seven The small finds 7.1 The Ground Stone assemblage 7.2 Conclusions 7.3 Register of Ground Stone tools

Chapter Eight: The plant remains 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

211 - 212

Introduction Macrobotanical remains Charcoal remains Conclusions

Chapter Nine: Absolute dating 9.1 9.2 9.3

Ferenc Gyulai & Edina Rudner

John Chapman & Sarah Krywicky 213 - 214

Introduction Luminescence dating Summary

ii

Chapter Ten: Interpretation and summary John Chapman & Magdolna Vicze 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4

215 - 224

The regional context The dwelling sequence Social practices and seasonality Reasons for (non-) settlement

References

225 - 230

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

iii

List of Figures 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 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

Location map of Survey Blocks, 1991 – 1993 The Zemplén Survey Block GIS model of South Zemplén Mountains contours Location map of lithic raw material sources in the South Zemplén Mountains Distribution of known archaeological sites, South Zemplén Mountains Contour and land use map of the Regéc Basin Cadastral plan of fields in the Nyugati kertalja, 1995 Area for gridded collection and phosphate analysis

Contour plan of the site Inter—quartile ranges for Bronze Age pottery Inter—quartile ranges for chipped stone Inter—quartile ranges for Post-Medieval pottery

Surface densities of Neolithic pottery by Corrected Number Surface densities of Neolithic pottery by Corrected Weight Surface densities of Bronze Age pottery by Corrected Number Surface densities of Bronze age pottery by Corrected Weight Location of feature and/or large Bronze Age sherds Surface densities of chipped stone by Corrected Number Surface densities of chipped stone by Corrected Weight Location of large and/or rare types of chipped stone Surface densities of ground stone by Corrected Number Surface densities of ground stone by Corrected Weight Surface densities of Post-medieval pottery by Corrected Number Surface densities of Post-medieval pottery by Corrected Weight Surface artifact densities (per m2) by number and weight Phosphate analysis plots, based upon qualitative field analyses. Phosphate analysis plots, based upon quantitative laboratory analyses: (a) Rows E - F; (b) Rows J – K. Key to site plans and sections East and South sections, Trench 1 Harris Matrix, Trench 1. South section, Trench 2 Harris matrix, Trench 2 North section, Trench 3 South section, Trench 3 West section, Trench 3 Harris matrix, Trench 3 East, North and West sections, Trench 5 South section, Trench 5 baulk Harris matrix, Trench 5 North section, Trench 6 East section, Trench 6 Harris matrix, Trench 6 North section of Trench 7 East section of Trench 7 Harris matrix, Trench 7 Potparts by sherd numbers, East Zone vs. West Zone Datable pottery by sherd numbers, East Zone vs. West Zone Datable pottery by sherd weights, East Zone vs. West Zone iv

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 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 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

Decorated prehistoric pottery by (a) sherd numbers and (b) sherd weights, East Zone vs. West Zone Pottery erosion by Phase, East Zone vs. West Zone Sherd size by pottery numbers, East Zone vs. West Zone Chipped stone numbers by raw material, East Zone vs. West Zone Chipped stone weights by raw material, East Zone vs. West Zone Daub by numbers and weight Chipped stone numbers by raw material, East Zone vs. West Zone Plan of location of Contexts 104, 105, 106 and 107, Trench 1 Plan, Context 104, Trench 1 Plan & Section, Context 105, Trench 1 Plan & Section, Context 106, Trench 1 Plan of base of Context 107, Trench 1 Plan & Section, Context 108, Trench 1 Plan of Context 203 (first spit), Trench 2 Plan of Context 203 (second spit), Trench 2 Plan of Contexts 301, 302, 303 and 304, Trench 3 Plan of Contexts 301, 305 and 306, Trench 3 Plan of Contexts 301, 305 and 307, Trench 3 North - South section across Context 305, Trench 3 Plan of Contexts 502 – 504, 507, 606 and 607, Trench 5/6 Plan of Contexts 502, 503, 504, 505 and 507, Trench 5 Post-excavation plan of Context 503, with 504 and 511, Trench 5 Plan of Contexts 504 & 507, Trench 5 Plan of Contexts 508, 510 - 512 and 514 - 516, with section of Context 515, Trench 5 Plan of Contexts 508, 511 and 514, Trench 5 Plan of Contexts 508, 513, 514, 516 and 517, Trench 5 (a) Plan and (b) section of Context 516, Trench 5 Plan of base of Context 602, Trench 6 Plan of base of Context 603, Trench 6 Plan of base of Contexts 604 & 607, Trench 6 Plan of Contexts 606 and 607, Trench 6 Plan of Context 608, Trench 6 Plan of Contexts 702, 703 and 704, Trench 7 Plan of stone spread (Context 706) within Context 707, Trench 7 South West Section through Context 706, NW quadrant of Trench 7 North West Section through Context 706, NW quadrant of Trench 7 Depth of stratigraphic mixing through ploughing by Trench No. of co-efficients vs. damage score by Context Damage coefficients by Context Overall Damage Coefficients (ODCs) by Trench Distribution of Post-Medieval remains Distribution of Medieval remains Distribution of Early Medieval (Migration period) remains Distribution of Bronze Age remains Distribution of Middle Neolithic remains Distribution of Early-Middle Neolithic remains Potparts by Number and Period Potparts by Weight and Period Potpart analysis by Number for Neolithic contexts Potpart analysis by Number for Bronze Age contexts v

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 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 5.32 5.33 5.34 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 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19

Potpart analysis by Number for Early Medieval contexts Potpart analysis by Number for Medieval contexts Potpart analysis by Number for Post-Medieval contexts Overall distribution of sherd size Overall distribution of erosion stages Erosion profiles by period Erosion stages, Early-Middle Neolithic phase Erosion stages, Middle Neolithic Erosion stages, Bronze Age Erosion stages, Early Medieval period Erosion stages, Medieval period Erosion stages, Post-Medieval period Erosion stages vs. sherd size by period, Context 103: Middle Neolithic; Bronze Age Erosion stages vs. sherd size by period, Context 203: Middle Neolithic; Bronze Age; Medieval Erosion stages vs. sherd size by period, Context 603: Bronze Age Erosion stages vs. sherd size by period, Context 604: Bronze Age. Erosion stages vs. sherd size by period, Context 703:Bronze Age Surface colours for (a) total assemblage; (b) feature sherds; (c) non-feature sherds Fine wares and Coarse wares by selected Surface Colours Fine wares and coarse wares by filler: (a) absolute numbers; (b) percentages. Firing quality of fine wares and coarse wares by filler: (a) absolute numbers; (b) percentages Firing quality of fine wares and coarse wares by surface colour: (a) absolute numbers; (b) percentages Neolithic pottery, Regéc Neolithic pottery, Regéc Late Bronze Age sherd numbers by context Distribution of Late Bronze Age sherd types by context Late Bronze Age pottery, Regéc-95 Proportion of the three Late Bronze Age sherd types by individual context Daub weight by Context Daub mean weight by Context Types of patination by context Types of patination by context Proportion of broken and unbroken pieces by context Types of rolling wear by context Types of cortex by context Types of re-working by context Overall incidence of raw materials by number Overall incidence of raw materials by weight Incidence of tools and use, Western Zemplén obsidian (RM 2) Incidence of tools and use, Western Zemplén limnic quartzite (RM 3) Incidence of tools and use, Western Zemplén limnic quartzite (RM 4) Incidence of tools and use, Western Zemplén limnic quartzite (RM 5) Overall distribution of morphological categories Presence of cores by context Secondary categories by contexts with samples of more than 10 pieces Type of backing by context Types of burin-like point by context (a) types of Other Points by context; (b) Types of Borer Point by context. Types of re-knapping by context (a) types of retouch by context; (b) comparison of re-knapping and retouch by context vi

6.20 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24 6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 6.29 6.30 6.31 6.32 6.33 6.34 6.35 6.36 6.37 6.38 6.39 6.40 6.41 6.42 6.43

Use categories by contexts with samples larger than 10 lithic pieces Types of notches by context Types of shouldered piece by context Types of hinged fractures by context Production stages by selected Raw Material types No. of pieces per tool category vs. no. of Raw Material types Group discard categories by context (a) Number and (b) weight of lithics by Context as a percentage of the total assemblage Raw materials of lithics by number, Context 101 Tool and use categories, Context 101 Raw materials of lithics by number, Context 102 Tool and use categories, Context 102 Raw materials of lithics by number, Context 103 Tool and use categories, Context 103 Raw materials of lithics by number, Context 201 Tool and use categories, Context 201 Raw materials of lithics by number, Context 300 Tool and use categories, Context 300 Number of raw materials by Phase Incidence of morphological categories by Phase Distribution of Lithic Raw Materials by Zone Proportions of Lithic Raw Materials within Zones Production groupings by Zone Morphological Categories by number

vii

List of CD Figures

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

CD Fig. 1.1

Regéc Castle, from North West

CD Fig. 2.1

North West part of Regéc basin, from South

CD Fig. 2.2

South East part of Regéc basin, from West North West

CD Fig. 3.1

Regéc-95 site from West

CD Fig. 3.2

Processing of phosphate samples in the field lab.

CD Fig. 3.3

Quantified phosphate plot, Regéc-95

CD Fig. 4.1

Trench 3, from South

CD Fig. 4.2

East-facing section, Trench 3, from West

CD Fig. 4.3

Context 105 from North (scale is 20cm)

CD Fig. 4.4

Context 105 from South East

CD Fig. 4.5

Context 502: possibly part of cobbled surface North of Hut 1

CD Fig. 4.6

Contexts 503 / 504 Extension: part of stone foundation of Hut 1.

CD Fig. 4.7

Context 606 / 607: discontinuous stone wall defining the West end of Hut 1, from North West

CD Fig. 4.8

Context 606 / 607: detail of stones as part of the West end of Hut 1, from North West

CD Fig. 4.9

Context 606 / 607: detail of stones as part of the West end of Hut 1, from North West

CD Fig. 4.10 Context 607: cluster of stones forming part of South wall of Hut 1, from North West CD Fig. 4.11 Context 607A: pre-wall pit, from West CD Fig. 4.12 Context 703: remains of cobbled surface, from South CD Fig. 4.13 Context 704: stone feature, from South CD Fig. 4.14 Context 704: stone feature, from East CD Fig. 4.15 Context 704: detail of edge of stone scatter, from East CD Fig. 4.16 Context 704: detail of stone scatter after excavation, from East 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 2.1 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 7.1 7.2 8.1 9.1 9.2

Outline of long-term settlement sequence, North East Hungary Summary of Project fieldwork Types of lithic raw material sources Ceramic “associations” with lithic assemblages, Block 3 sites Areas of various land classes (ha) around each of the village sites. Key: percentage of total in brackets. Inter-quartile ranges for surface materials, Regéc 1995 survey Summary of surface collection, Regéc 1995 Size of excavation trenches Contexts by Trench and Phase Context group differences, Regéc-95 Potparts information, finds from Trenches 4 and 8 – 16. Potparts distributions for large groups, Trenches 10 and 16 Lithics in Trenches 9 – 11, 13 & 16 Damage Coefficients for Chipped stone, pottery and Other materials Pottery by period, numbers and weights, Regéc-95 Contexts studied for sherd erosion and fragmentation Potparts distribution by phase Cross-tabulations of core colour and fillers for Red Wares Cross-tabulations of core colour and fillers for Red-Brown Wares Cross-tabulations of core colour and fillers for Brown Wares Cross-tabulations of core colour and fillers for Grey Wares Frequency of incised motifs by vessel fabric Catalogue of Neolithic feature sherds Non-feature sherds by Surface Colour, Number and Weight Distribution of Late Bronze Age sherd types within contexts Proportions of Late Bronze Age sherd types by context Raw Material Type Occurrence by Number Raw Material Type Occurrence by Weight Sources and probable sources of the lithic raw materials deposited at Regéc Weight of individual cores Striking platforms of cores Striking platforms and butts of core rejuvenation flakes Striking platforms and butts of blades and blade segments Longitudinal, Diagonal and Squaring Re-knap Multiple uses of flakes, Context 102 Multiple blade tools, Context 102 Raw materials for ground stone implements, Regéc-95 Miscellaneous ground stone fragments, Regéc-95 Carbonised plant remains at Regéc-95 by context (no. of fragments) Results of luminescent dating, Regéc-95 Sample yields, Regéc-95

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 István 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. We are also immensely grateful to the co-director of the Upper Tisza Project, Dr. József Laszlovszky, whose support during the Regéc-95 season made fieldwork much easier, and to Dr. Magdolna Vicze, who acted as the principal Hungarian member of the excavation staff. 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 x

counties in which the UTP worked. Dr László Selmeczi (Déri Múzeum, Debrecen) and their staff (see below); Dr Peter Németh (Jósa András Múzeum, Nyíregyháza) and his staffm (Eszter Istvánovits, Katalin Kurucz and Katalin Almássy); and, particularly, for it was in his County that the excavations were completed, Dr László Veres (Herman Ottó Múzeum, Miskolc) and his staff (Drs Maria Wolf, Judit Kóos, Magdolna Hellebrandt and Dr Árpád Ringer). There are many other colleagues who may not have worked in the field with the UTP at Regéc 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 Pál Raczky for his overall support for the Project, 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 Bácskay 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. The Project is particularly grateful to Katalin Biró and Bálint Péterdi for their petrological report on ground and polished stone tools. 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. The UTP is very grateful to Yvonne Beadnell, Sandra Rowntree and Amélie 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 but, in particular, the village of Boldogkőváralja, who hosted our team in the summer of 1995. To all those who accommodated the teams and helped them to enjoy more fully the Hungarian summer and country life, our profound thanks. The UTP is also very mindful of the contributions of Lajos 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: 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. Koppány; G. Fényes; E. Arval and J. Brigers. summer 1999: Sandra Rowntree; Steve Leyland; Steve Cousins; Leanne Stowe; Amélie RolandGosselin; Denise Telford; Dave Brookshaw and Zsolt Vágner. John Chapman

xi

Chapter One – Introduction to the archaeology of the South Zemplén Mountains and the Regéc Basin In the first conventional book, on the settlement patterns 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. 2010). We shall not repeat our discussion of these issues in this volume, which is devoted to a report of the summer 1995 excavations at the site of Regéc-95, located in an upland basin in the South Zemplén Mountains.

1.1 The Upper Tisza Project – an introductory outline In this series of conventional books presenting the results of the Upper Tisza Project (Chapman et al. 2010, 2010a & 2010b), it is our wish to follow the aims and objectives of the Project as formulated at its outset 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”.

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 (Figs. 1.2 – 1.3).

(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: •

• •

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 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.

The integration of the detailed research questions arising out of the literature review (Chapman et al., 2010a) 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.

4.

5.

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. 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. The recovery of high-quality settlement pattern data for all periods from the Palaeolithic to

In this fourth book, we pay attention to all of the Project aims, as well as Objectives 6 and 7. 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.

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

Calendar Years 25,000 – 10,000 10,000 – 8,000 8,000 – 5,500 5400 – 5200 5300 – 5000 5000 – 4500 4500 – 3800 3800 – 3500 3500 – 2800 2800 – 2400 2400 – 1900 1900 – 1400 1400 – 800 800 - 300 450 - 1 BC

Roman Imperial Late Sarmatian - Early Migration Late Migration Period Migration / Early Medieval

AD 1 - 400 AD 400 - 550 550 - 1000 9th – 10th centuries

Cultural Affiliations Epigravettian, Eger group ? cf. Jászság group Szatmár II Early AVK and Bükk 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)

3

includes Huns (5th century) includes Avars (550 - 800)

Arpadian Arpadian / Medieval Late Medieval Late Medieval / Post-Medieval Post-Medieval Post-Medieval / Modern Modern

11th – 13th centuries 13th – 14th centuries 14th – 15th centuries 16th century 16th – 17th centuries 18th century 18th – 21st centuries

Table 1.1 Outline of long-term settlement sequence, North East Hungary

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 Zemplen in the Bronze Age, with the possible exception of hitherto undated enclosed sites and hill-forts. 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, previous research has suggested a pattern of episodic upland settlement, with intensive exploitation of local resources in certain periods (Upper Palaeolithic, Middle Neolithic and 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 the second descriptive volume of their holdings (or “Lithoteka II”: Biró et al. 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, emphasizing 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., the eponymous Szeleta Cave); 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). 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, originating is the Zemplén and SE Slovakian sources (Chapman 1986; WilliamsThorpe 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.

The prehistoric and especially the Bronze Age research of North East Hungarian hilly and mountain areas of the Upper Tisza region has long been the focus of interest (Kalicz 1968; Kemenczei 1984). Regardless of this, until recently very little was known about the Bronze Age societies, their settlement structure and ways of life in these areas in contrast to that from the Alföld region. This was due to the nature of the archaeological finds. The area was hardly inhabited during prehistory and in fact its first regular occupation occurred for a relatively short time during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age and 4

societies began to formulate. The relatively easy access to new artefacts and weapons of bronze affected both the life of the “farmers” and that of the “warriors”. The bronze workshops of the Gáva society due to their close proximity to the Transylvanian ore mining produced some of the most distinguished bronze finds and hoards of the Carpathian-Basin and began mass production for both local and export consumption (Kemenczei 1984; 1994; 2003; Mozsolics 2000). This exceptional rise and/or wealth facilitated the possibility and most probably the need to occupy and utilise hitherto unused lands or unexplored regions. During the time of the Gáva culture, ‘previously unexploited ecological zones, formerly uninhabited or sparsely populated areas were colonised’ (V. Szabó 2003, 164). Interestingly enough in spite of the well defined and well developed metallurgy and international communication system of the Gáva society its cemeteries and settlement structure are not known so well. Previously scholars mainly concentrated on the abundant and outstanding bronze products. Very few excavations directed by research questions were conducted on Gáva settlement and cemetery sites (references in detail see below). The inner structure of the society reflected in the archaeologically visible cemetery finds seems to conflict with that of what the bronze hoards and the communication systems imply. To be able to understand and acquire more insight into the beliefs and everyday life practices of this social group the settlement structures and other than the bronze finds need to be studied in detail. This kind of approach has been started within the last decade (V. Szabó 2002) and is supplemented with the potential that lies in the large rescue excavations. At the moment, a three-tier settlement hierarchy can be recognised, with large villages (extensive settlements) beside major rivers representing the highest level. The second tier of settlements comprise of clusters of hamlets or farmsteads along rivers and streams. The third level of settlements are the single farmsteads or campsites sporadically situated on remote areas. The prehistoric and especially the Bronze Age research of North East Hungarian hilly and mountain areas of the Upper Tisza region has long been the focus of interest (Kalicz 1968; Kemenczei 1984). Regardless of this, until recently very little was known about the Bronze Age societies, their settlement structure and ways of life in these areas in contrast to that from the Alföld region. This was due to the nature of the archaeological finds. The area was hardly inhabited during prehistory and in fact its first regular occupation occurred for a relatively short time during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age and after that again it became scarcely populated until Medieval times.

after that again it became scarcely populated until Medieval times. On a wider geographical level, archaeological research on the material culture, settlement structure and cemetery remains, leading to the study of social, economic and belief structures during the second phase of the Late Bronze Age, were not addressed with the exception of the two main publications mentioned above. However, the specific find group of bronze hoards is an exception (see all the relevant PBF volumes and the works of Mozsolics 1967; 1973; 1985; 2000). The term ‘Gáva’ as reference to a separate group of finds was first used by Amália Mozsolics in 1957 (Mozsolics 1957, 121). After that, almost 30 years passed until a comprehensive study could be compiled on this cultural complex by Tibor Kemenczei (Kemenczei 1984). Apart from some occasional publications of excavations (e.g., Patay 1976) it was this and other works by Kemenczei that established the basis for study of this cultural unit (Kemenczei 1982; 1982a; 1969; 1971; 1981). The publications of the relevant immense volumes of MRT in 1982, 1989, 1998, and other articles by Bóna (1993), Genito & Kemenczei (1990), Vicze (1996) and V. Szabó (1996) brought about a change and more detailed studies were directed at the social structure, settlement patterns, and economy of the Gáva cultural complex (see the most recent publication by V. Szabó 2007 with relevant references). The archaeological finds reflecting the cultural traditions of this society can be found over a large geographical region, including territories from Slovakia, Ukraine, and Romania but the detailed publications and study of these finds are just as few as in Hungary. One may mention that works by Demeterová (1986), Németi (1990), Vasilev-Aldea-Ciugudean (1991), Vasiliev (1995) and László (1972) shed some light on the remnants of this cultural complex in the relevant territories. During the first half of the Late Bronze Age, the extensive political and economical influence of the Urnfield society, together with some limited population movement, has brought about great changes throughout Europe. As a result, more and more so-called ‘international’ traits appeared in the archaeologically visible material of the local communities. An extensive network of interregional contacts, routes and communication were established. It was probably mainly supported by, if not primarily based on, the increased demand for bronze tools, weapons and artefacts. Wideranging networks of metal supply and trade routes were needed to meet the amplified requirements throughout Europe. In these eventful times, the communities of the Carpathian Basin experienced changes that affected both their inner social structure and their outside contacts. As a result, the western and northern part of the Carpathian Basin fell under the political and economical influence of the West European Urnfield cultures. The areas along and East of the River Tisza, occupied by the Gáva culture, became part of the South-East European cultural complex extending till the Pontic area in the East.

1.3 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).

This was the time when true and well pronounced hierarchy within the social structures of prehistoric 5

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) + 20 (KTB – BP) = 37 ground and polished stone artifacts

Table 1.2 Summary of Project fieldwork

In the following section, these issues will be put in sharper focus through an evaluation of what the Upper Tisza Project has and has not accomplished in the upland zone archaeology of the South Zemplén region. Later, finer detail still will be examined in a recapitulation of the archaeology of the Regéc Basin – the immediate social and ecological context in which the community of Regéc-95 was living and working.

material sources comprise a major resource in all the uplands of North East Hungary, the Zemplén included (Biró 1998: Biró & Dobosi 1991: 2000). The South Zemplén range includes a few of the very rare sources of South East European obsidian (Williams & Nandris 1977). In 1993, a total of 46 source sites were identified and mapped during the reconnaissance in the UTP Block 3 (Fig. 1.4). The collection of diagnostic material for the Lithoteka was completed for all sites and the material published (Biró & Dobosi 2000, 69-90: Sample Nos. 94/001 – 94/087). The source sites were characterised according to whether the source material was in primary (i.e. outcrop) or secondary position and according to the presence/absence of archaeologically diagnostic lithic discard (Table 1.3):-

1.4 Upper Tisza Project research in the Zemplén Mountains One of the real success stories of recent Hungarian archaeology has been the location and scientific characterization of the many lithic raw material sources of the upland zone (Chapman 2000: 18 - 19). Lithic raw

6

Fig. 1.4 Location of lithic raw material sources, South Zemplén Mountains and adjacent areas (after fieldwork by K. Hardy & K. Biró): 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.

Rock Type

Primary Source

Secondary Source

Total

Chipping Debris

HYDROQUARTZITE

5

11

16

5

LIMNOQUARTZITE

13

8

21

15

QUARTZITE

0

1

1

0

OPAL

3

0

3

1

GEYSERITE

1

1

2

0

PERLITE

1

0

1

0

OBSIDIAN

0

2

2

2

TOTALS

23

23

46

23

Table 1.3

Types of lithic raw material sources 7

An attempt has been made to distinguish between Palaeolithic and post-Palaeolithic pieces, on the basis of tool morphology. Accepting Simán’s (1995) caveat about dating and the subsequent need for caution, it was thought important to identify at sites where there is at least the possibility of discard of Palaeolithic lithics. The second group of lithics comprise those dating to postPalaeolithic periods. Setting aside pro tem the problematic assertion that any lithic remains can be

treated as “associated” with any ceramics deposited at the same site, it was thought useful in searching for structure within this large body of data to divide the Block 3 sites by pottery phasing, both for sites with and without lithics. The scarcity of Late Neolithic, Copper Age and Bronze Age deposition in the Zemplén Mountains means that the majority of surface lithics discarded on the same site as pottery are found with Middle Neolithic sherds (Table 1.4):-

PHASE(S) OF POTTERY DISCARD

SITE NAME

EARLY-MIDDLE NEOLITHIC

OLASZLISZKA 12

EARLY-MIDDLE NEOLITHIC + BRONZE AGE

TOLCSVA 2

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC

REGÉC 1 – 3, 6, 8 – 9, BASKÓ 2, ERDŐBÉNYE 2

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC + COPPER AGE + LATE BRONZE AGE

FONY 1

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC + BRONZE AGE

ARKA 1, ERDŐHORVÁTI 1, REGÉC 7

Table 1.4 Ceramic “associations” with lithic assemblages, Block 3 sites it has proved possible to reconstruct a monastic landscape of the AD 13-14th centuries (Belényesi 2004). Similarly, on one hilltop, an Early Modern vineyard enclosure was discovered and recorded – the first of its kind in Hungary (Chapman et al., 2010a).

While there is thus a high probability that surface lithics found in the Zemplén Mountain zone but “without” any ceramics can be dated to the Middle Neolithic, there is believed to be a small chance of a Bronze Age date also and an even lower probability of a Copper Age date. Lithics were found at 9 sites with only Neolithic pottery discard; two sites with Neolithic + Bronze Age pottery discard, and 12 without any ceramic discard at all. The problem of dating surface lithics found in the same scatters as prehistoric pottery is not unique to the upland zone but is also a major concern in survey Blocks 1 and 2 (Chapman et al. 2003; Chapman et al., 2010).

The discoveries in the woodland were also quite different from the finds made on the cultivated foothills. Under the forest canopy lay a hitherto largely undiscovered landscape of Late Medieval to Early Modern date (cca. AD 1600 - 1800), with good preservation of earth 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. The UTP is the first project to initiate a systematic investigation of these forested landscapes, which, though recent, are of prime importance to the region. Over one hundred feature complexes were identified and mapped (Chapman et al., 2010a).

The rarity of intensive arable cultivation in the upland basins and valleys has had one notably positive effect – the preservation of relict landscape features in intermontane valleys. This preservation takes two forms: survival of actual Medieval features and survival of features preserving traces of the original Medieval morphology. For the former, one may cite features such as the Medieval fishpond in the territory of Regéc castle (CD Fig. 1.1), now near the village of Mogyoróska. For the latter, narrow strip fields with a morphology akin to those known from Medieval Europe continue in cultivation in basins such as Regéc and Sima (for a similar, excellently preserved example outside UTP Block 3, see the Füzér basin, in North Zemplén). These survivals recall the distinction made by C. Taylor (1972) between “Zones of Destruction” and “Zones of Preservation” for the lowlands and the uplands of the British Isles respectively. Here in Hungary, while ploughzone scatters are extremely common, upstanding monuments are rare indeed in the Alföld Plain (an exception is the fortified earthwork site of Szabolcs castle: Chapman et al., 2010). The preservation of Medieval sites is so good in the Zemplén Mountains that

Before the excavations at Regéc-95, it was possible to define four phases of settlement (Fig. 1.5), with long gaps between, and four stages in the continuum of intensity of occupation in the South Zemplén region. Settlement was attested in the following four phases:

8

•

the Palaeolithic – most probably the Late but also possibly the Middle Palaeolithic

•

the Middle Neolithic

•

the Late Bronze Age

•

the Late Medieval period (castles, monasteries and villages) and onwards

Fig. 1.5 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. It is interesting to note the absence of Late Neolithic or Copper Age discard from UTP ceramic data is supported by a similar absence of lithic assemblages dating to these periods from this region in Biró’s (1998) analysis of Neolithic raw material trade and discard. This episodic, discontinuous pattern of occupation, separated by millennial gaps where no discard is attested at all, is characteristic of upland settlements in other parts of Europe. The important research question is the reasons for settlement in each of the actual phases of habitation and, equally, then reasons for a lack of habitation in the intervening phases. In terms of the intensity of occupation, there are, again, four sub-divisions: •

the establishment of permanent Late Medieval villages in upland basins such as Regéc, Sima, Baskó, Komlóska and Erdőhorváti; establishment of Post-Medieval villages related to the glass industry higher up in the hills (e.g. the Háromhuta complex)(Veres 1989); AD 17th and 18th century sedentism related to perhaps short-lived economic prosperity generated by the rapid growth in vineyards producing the Tokaj grape (Balassa 1991).

•

it is far less evident whether any of the prehistoric sites in the upland basins were established as permanent, all-year-round settlements; there is even a question-mark against permanent residence at any of the very small number of hillforts.

•

small-scale knapping of a variety of raw material categories was practised at many of the lithic raw material source sites, the larger of which must have subject to many visits over a lengthy period of time.

•

there are some minor lithic raw material source sites without any evidence of knapping debris, suggesting the likelihood of collection of lithic nodules for extended treatment.

The selected combination of these four strategies of dwelling at any particular period would have had a major impact on the group habitus, with important implications for the deposition and/or discard of material culture. An additional point of importance is that, in strong contrast to Blocks 1 and 2, there were very few sites in the Zemplén area with more than one phase/period of 9

discard. Within the upland area, multi-period discard was found at only six out of 18 sites, at an average of 1.7 phases per site.

1.5 Upper Tisza Project research in the Regéc Basin The Regéc Basin is one of the upland basins in the central part of the Zemplén Mountains, lying at altitudes of between 350m and 500m but mostly between 350 and 425m (Fig. 1.6). The Basin in fact comprises two basins and an upland stream leading to the Northern basin. The smaller basin lies near the village of Mogyoróska, the larger is dominated by the village of Regéc and the Puska-patak (Malom-patak) runs South through Regéc village. The Basin has six entrances – one each in the direction of Fony, Arka, Erdőhorváti, Háromhuta, Kishuta and Telkibánya. It is drained to the South West, via the Malom-patak, into the Tekerjes-patak just South of Boldogkőváralja. In comparison with much of the Zemplén, the basin is strikingly rich in springs, with an especially dense cluster close to Regéc Castle.

In this review of upland zone research activity, the archaeological research areas where significant progress has been achieved are clearly earthwork survey, forest survey, lithic raw material explorations and intensive fieldwalking wherever possible. There have been few excavations in the uplands and little dating evidence for what appears to be a sequence of episodic and discontinuous occupation, involving several discrete stages in the intensity and duration of occupation.

10

Fig. 1.6 Contour and land use map of the Regéc Basin (excavation site within rectangle NW of Regéc village; Regéc Castle NE of Mogyoróska village) and other upland fortresses. From the 18th century onwards, the castle of Regéc became a ruin (Jóo 1988).

It is dominated visually and strategically by the Medieval castle of Regéc (CD Fig. 1.1), constructed on a hill at an altitude of 624 m, as part of the stone castle rebuilding programme of King Béla IV after the first Mongol invasions of the mid-1240s. The castle survived the second Mongol invasion of 1285 an the head of the castle organization received the castle for his own heroic efforts. In the AD 14th – 16th centuries, the castle was owned by important noble families, such as the Drugeth, Brankovics and Zapolya families and, in the 17th century, was an important center of the Rákóczi family. After the war of independence led by Ferenc Rákóczi, the castle was confiscated by the Hapsburgs, who dynamited Regéc

Occupation of the Regéc Basin begins in the Palaeolithic at one site only - Regéc 002 - with a few unretouched blades and flakes which appear to be of Palaeolithic date (Chapman et al., 2010a, Fig. 5.17). There is intensification of discard in the Middle Neolithic, with evidence of the discard of Middle Neolithic pottery, usually with gritty temper, at seven sites in the Basin (Chapman et al., 2010a, Fig. 5.18). The patchiness of the visibility on what were often stubble rather than ploughed fields means that intensity measures were hard to define and the site sizes should be taken as minima. Only one of 11

the sites (Regéc 006) has a medium-sized scatter, with small minimal sizes for all the others. It was possible to measure discard intensity only at Regéc 007, a small, medium-intensity site. The majority of sites fall into two clusters – a group of four sites on the lower, more sheltered slopes West of the Puskas-patak and a pair of sites further East, near the unnamed tributary stream of the Puskas-patak. A single site lies in the upper reaches of the Puskas-patak, at an altitude of 525 masl.

village (Regéc 014). Within the Western fields, discard of Medieval sherds was registered as a presence at two sites – Regéc 006 and 007 (Chapman et al., 2010a, Fig. 5.20).

No Late Neolithic or Copper Age sites are known from the Basin, which appears to be re-occupied after a gap of almost 3,000 years in the Later Bronze Age. Only two sites are known with Bronze Age discard of unknown intensity – the Late Bronze Age site of Regéc 006 and the adjacent undifferentiated Bronze Age site of Regéc 007 (Chapman et al., 2010a, Fig. 5.19). These sites both fall within the area of the Middle Neolithic cluster West of Puskas-patak, on the lower slopes of the Basin.

Modern sherds were discarded at Regéc 001, at the same site where Post-Medieval sherds have been found. An additional two ceramic single finds are known from the Western Fields, near Regéc 007 (Chapman et al., 2010a, Fig. 5.20).

Discard of Post-Medieval sherds is recorded at two sites – one in the Western fields (Regéc 007) and one outside the Eastern fields (Regéc 001). A sole ceramic single find is known from the Western Fields, near Regéc 007 (Chapman et al., 2010a, Fig. 5.20).

A similar pattern of punctuated settlement is found in the Regéc Basin as in the Olaszliszka settlement cluster. There are long absences from the Basin between the Palaeolithic and the Middle Neolithic, the Middle Neolithic and the Late Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age and the Medieval period. However, the foundation of the castle and the monastic landscape in this area gave a stronger sense of continuity in the historic period than in prehistory, when no monuments were created in the Basin.

Post-Palaeolithic lithic scatters are known at all of the known sites in the Regéc Basin and, in many cases, define these sites. In addition, two source sites of geyserite are known – one near Regéc Castle, without lithic manufacturing debris, and one – Mogyoróska 001 – with lithic debitage (Chapman et al., 2010a, Fig. 5.17). Geyserite is, however, a raw material of minor significance for North East Hungary in later prehistory. While geyserite does occur in some sites in Block 3, none of the lithic scatters in the Regéc Basin contains any pieces made of this rare material. At the Mogyoróska 001 geyserite source, all of the debitage is made of South Tokaj limnoquartzites!

A consistent pattern of multi-period discard can be discerned in the Nyugati-kertalja – the strip fields West of the modern village of Regéc. These finds centered on the scatter at Regéc 006, whose occupation was summarized as a medium-size high-intensity post-Palaeolithic lithic scatter (late production and consumption stages ) with presence of Middle Neolithic, Late Bronze Age and Medieval pottery. This scatter was the only scatter in the Basin – and indeed in the whole of the South Zemplén Mountains – with surface pottery dating to all of the occupation phases attested by fieldwalking in Block 3. It was for this reason that the Project decided to make Regéc 006 the location of the summer 1995 excavation. Henceforth, the site became known as Regéc-95.

The greater visibility of lithics in even stubble fields ensured the recording of size and intensity measures for most sites. All of the eight sites but one are small, the exception being Regéc 006, with a high-intensity discard. Of the six other small scatters, two are high-intensity, three medium-intensity and one low-intensity. Every assemblage except for that of Mogyoróska 001 is dominated by Arka limnoquartzites, brought from 4 – 7 km away to the West. Four sites have generalised discard (Mogyoróska 001, Regéc 001, 003 and 007), while there is an emphasis on consumption at three others, with late production attested at only one of these sites. The lithic assemblages in MC 21 are more varied than in the Olaszliszka MCZ, both in raw materials and in châines opératoires. The dating of these scatters remains problematic, with Middle Neolithic and Late Bronze Age dates the most probable. There is a small number (n = 14) of lithic single finds in the Basin, all but one of which occur within 200m of the sites Regéc 006, 007 and 008. The sole exception is a single find 400m West of Regéc 002, on the Eastern fields (Chapman et al., 2010a, Fig. 5.17). The main Medieval field monuments are the Medieval castle (Mogyoróska 010), the second Pauline monastery (Regéc 013: Belenyési 2004), a newly-discovered fishpond and the strip fields East and West of the modern 12

Chapter Two – Site environment and land use Robert Shiel, David Passmore & Enikő Magyari pumpkins are grown for subsistence use, usually located in the narrow valley floors on alluvial soils.

The environment of the South Zemplén Mountains has been the subject of investigation in 1993 during the field and forest surveys of Block 3 (Chapman et al. 2010a). In the following, we present a summary of the results of those studies which are relevant to the Regéc-95 site. Since there is no direct palaeo-environmental evidence available from the Regéc Basin, the inferences drawn about changes to past conditions will have to be based upon the current environment, as observed in 1993 and 1995.

In the Northern part of the basin, round Regéc village, over 55% of the land is forest on land rising to over 700 m (CD Fig. 2.1). This woodland, predominantly oak and beech, rims three sides of the area, occurring on land whose slope varies from 1:9 to 1:2.2. In the centre of the area, 30% of the land is grassland or scrub, with little over 5% currently used for arable cropping. Most of the grass lies below 450 m on slopes of about 12% and tends to face to the South. The arable land tends to face South or West and is all below 425 m on slopes of UQ)

HIGH DENSITY

LOW DENSITY

The overall IQRs for each material with representative densities (i.e., excluding ‘Neolithic pottery’ and ‘Ground Stone’) are as follows (Figs. 3.4 – 3.6 and Table 3.1):-

Fig. 3.4 Inter—quartile ranges for Bronze Age pottery

Fig. 3.5 Inter—quartile ranges for chipped stone

18

Fig. 3.6 Inter—quartile ranges for Post-Medieval pottery

Material

n

Lower Quartile 2 4 20 35

Middle Quartile 3 6 35 60

Upper Quartile 7 12 90 220

Bronze Age pottery Uncorrected No. Bronze Age pottery Corrected No. Bronze Age pottery Uncorrected Wt. Bronze Age pottery Corrected Wt.

29

Chipped stone Uncorrected No. Chipped stone Corrected No. Chipped stone Uncorrected Wt. Chipped stone Corrected Wt.

44

3 6 25 50

5 25 80 281

10 61 200 625

Post-Med pottery Uncorrected No. Post-Med pottery Corrected No. Post-Med pottery Uncorrected Wt. Post-Med pottery Corrected Wt.

40

2 8 10 35

6 13 20 50

10 19 40 68

Table 3.1 Inter-quartile ranges for surface materials, Regéc 1995 survey values are broadly similar to the range of intra-site gridded IQRS from the Polgár Block (Chapman et al. 2003).

The range of values for the small sample of Neolithic pottery covers 1 – 4 sherds per grid square (Uncorrected number), 1 to 48 sherds per square (Corrected number), 5 – 70g per square (Uncorrected weight) and 10 to 635g per square (Corrected weight). The ground stone values are much lower, with 1 to 4 pieces per square (Uncorrected number), 1 to 7 pieces per square (Corrected number), 60 – 430g per square (Uncorrected weight) and 97 to 768g per square (Corrected weight).

The frequency of Neolithic sherds is limited to only 10 grid squares, in which there are only two cases of high values of Corrected numbers (Fig. 3.7) and three cases of high Corrected weights (Fig. 3.8). The Corrected numbers and weights show high internal consistency, with agreement in 9 / 10 cases (the exception is square JD, with a high weight and a low number count). The sherd distribution shows three small, low-density clusters (no higher than 0.5 sherds/m2), each no more than 50 x 20m, with gaps between the clusters of 50 – 180m. Cluster NEO 1 occurs in squares JK – KL, cluster NEO 2 in squares JD – KE and cluster NEO 3 in squares EF – FG. There are also three isolated squares with low values (DE, ZG and ZM), respectively 40m, 60m and 100m from the nearest cluster.

In terms of pottery values, the Neolithic values are the lowest of the three periods, except for the Weight, which is more or less equivalent to those of the Post-Medieval. The Bronze Age IQRs are the highest of the three, except for the Uncorrected number, where it is lower than for Post-medieval. Ground stone weights often approximate to 100g per fragment and thus are more standardized than the chipped stone values, were one large core can readily bias the weight values of the grid square. These IQR

19

Fig. 3.7 Surface densities of Neolithic pottery (Corrected Nos.)

Fig. 3.8 Surface densities of Neolithic pottery (Corrected Wts.)

20

Cluster BA 1: found in squares KC – JE, covering 130 x 20m, with Highest values in the core and a possible extension to the West to square JF. This cluster is represented in all four data sets. Cluster BA 2: found in squares JH – JK – KJ, covering 130 x 20m, with 1 square with Highest values, the rest being High. This cluster is represented in all four data sets, but with the Highest values in different squares and with a possible extension to KI. Cluster BA 3: a small cluster, found in squares DE – EC, covering only 35 x 20m. This cluster is found in all four data sets, but as smaller in two. Cluster BA 4: this cluster appears only in the Corrected data, in squares FF – EG, covering an area of 70 x 20m. One square has Highest values, with others as High; the Uncorrected data contains only Low and even some Lowest values.

The frequency of Bronze Age sherds is much wider than in the Neolithic, with discard in 31 grid squares (Figs. 3.9 – 3.10). This pottery occurs in 7 / 23 squares in transects D, E and F, in 22 / 28 squares in transects J and K, but only in 2 / 25 squares in transect Z – probably indicating the edge of the Bronze Age discard. There is a reasonably high level of internal consistency, with 10 /31 grid squares with the same IQR in all four measures, 9 cases with 2 IQR values (split 3 and 1), 8 cases with 2 IQR values (split 2 and 2), and four cases with 3 IQR values (split 2, 1 and 1). Thus, in 19 cases (or 62%), there is a clear pointer to a dominant IQR, while there is the considerable ambiguity of three IQR values in 13% of cases. The distribution of Bronze Age sherds shows a clearer degree of clustering than in the Neolithic, with three clusters and a possible fourth:-

Fig. 3.9 Surface densities of Bronze Age pottery (Corrected Nos.)

21

Fig. 3.10 Surface densities of Bronze Age pottery (Corrected Wts.) The relationship of the clusters to Neolithic clusters is variable: BA 1 overlaps with NEO 2, BA 4 overlaps with NEO 3, BA 2 partially overlaps with NEO 1, while there is only a single Neolithic sherd in the area covered later by BA 3. Thus, there is a reasonably strong element of spatial overlap through time, even though the time separating the two occupations is more than three millennia.

The distribution of the unusual Bronze Age sherds is striking (Fig. 3.11), with the majority falling within the BA 1 cluster and consisting of 8 records (rim, decorated body sherd, handle, lug, 1 Gáva sherd, 1 group of re-fired sherds and 2 large sherds). There are also four cases of isolated unusual sherds – in square JI (rim and handle)(= BA 2), JM (base)(not in a Bronze Age cluster), FF (base)(= BA 4) and DE (Gáva rim)(= BA 3). All but one of these feature sherds were discarded within a recognized Bronze Age cluster.

22

Fig. 3.11 Surface densities of large Bronze Age pottery (Corrected Nos.) High value in a tight core, with possible extensions to both East (High in JB) and West (High in JG). The other values represent variations on this cluster – smaller with Corrected numbers, different squares with Highests in Weights. Cluster CS 2: found in squares DA – EA –DG – EC, covering an area of 70 x 20m (Uncorrected numbers) OR 70 x 30m (both Corrected values), with a tight core of 6 Highests and 3 Highs and a possible halo of Lows to the North (squares FA – FC). The other measures produce similar clusters – Corrected numbers and weights suggesting a larger cluster, Uncorrected weights fewer Highests in the same area. Cluster CS 3: a possible low-density cluster of 5 Highs, found in squares ED – FD – EG, covering 130 x 20m. All the other measures produce similar clusters, but each with several Highests and one (Corrected weights) with a larger area. ? Cluster CS 4: a possible small, fourth cluster, covering 20 x 10m, is represented only in the Weight measures –in squares JI – KI, with a possible extension to the East (JG – JH) that would merge with the Western edge of CS 1. The high Weight measures indicate that this cluster comprises large sherds in a low-density cluster.

The frequency of the chipped stone discard is the equal highest of all materials (comparable only to Postmedieval pottery), occurring in 46 grid squares (Figs. 3.12 – 3.13). This material is found in 21 / 23 squares in transects D – E – F and in 23 / 28 grid squares in transects J and K – clearly the main focus of lithic discard. The paucity of chipped stone discard in transect Z, with only 2 / 25 squares, indicates the probable edge of the lithic discard zone. There is good internal consistency between the chipped stone data sets, with 15 /46 grid squares with the same IQR in all four measures, 17 cases with 2 IQR values (split 3 and 1), 7 cases with 2 IQR values (split 2 and 2), and 7 cases with 3 IQR values (split 2, 1 and 1). Thus, in 32 cases (or 70%), there is a clear pointer to a dominant IQR, while there is the considerable ambiguity of three IQR values in 15% of cases. The distribution of chipped stone indicates three more or less stable clusters but whose boundaries and therefore size varies with different measures. Cluster CS 1: found in squares JC – JF – KE, covering 70 x 20m (Corrected numbers) OR 160 x 20m (Uncorrected weight), with 4 Highest values and one

23

Fig. 3.12 Surface densities of lithics (Corrected Nos.)

Fig. 3.13 Surface densities of lithics (Corrected Wts.) 24

Cluster UA 1: found in three squares (JC – KC – JD) and consisting of 5 records (2 obsidian pieces, 1 blade, 1 core and 1 burnt flint). This area overlaps with BA 1 and lies on the edge of NEO 2. Cluster UA 2: found in three squares (JF – JG – KH) and consisting of 3 records (obsidian and rock crystal). This area lies on the edge of BA 2. Cluster UA 3: found in four squares (EA – EC – DB – DF) and consisting of 7 records (3 obsidian, 3 cores and 1 regular blade). This area partially overlaps BA 3 and coincides with one square with Neolithic pottery.

The relationship to previous clusters is variable. Cluster CS 1 overlaps with BA 2 and partly with NEO 1; cluster CS 2 is bigger than, but overlaps with, BA 3; cluster CS 3 partially overlaps with, but is bigger than, BA 4, and also overlaps with NEO 3; and cluster CS 4 partially overlaps with but is smaller than, BA 2, and also partially overlaps with NEO 1. Thus, three of the chipped stone clusters partially or fully overlap with both Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery scatters; it is only cluster CS 2 which has no matching Neolithic cluster. The distribution of large or rare lithics (Fig. 3.14) falls in three main clusters, with only a single isolate (square JA with a regular blade):-

Fig. 3.14 Surface densities of large &/or rare lithics (Corrected Nos.) The frequency of ground stone discard is low overall, with fragments in only 7 grid squares (Figs. 3.15 – 3.16). There are three High values and four Low values for both Corrected number and weight. These fragments form a linear group GS 1, found in squares KH – KK – JL, which corresponds well to NEO 1 and BA 2. There are

only two isolates (squares DC and JC) – the former falling within BA 4 and CS 2, the latter in BA 1 and CS 1. Thus, all surface ground stone falls within one or other Bronze Age ceramic cluster, while there is also some overlap of the main ground stone concentration with a Neolithic cluster.

25

Fig. 3.15 Surface densities of ground stone (Corrected Nos.)

Fig. 3.16 Surface densities of ground stone (Corrected Wts.)

26

The distribution of Post-medieval sherds indicates four possible clusters, only two of which (Clusters PM 3 and PM 4) are supported by three or more data sets. Cluster PM 3: found in squares JK – JM – KK, covering 70 x 20m, with four Highests and no Highs. This is supported by the other measures with only minor variations: more High values in the Corrected numbers and a larger area, with an extension to the East (square JJ) in the Corrected weights. Cluster PM 4: a low-density, linear concentration, found in squares DA – DG, covering 70 x 20m, with 2 Highs and 6 Lows. This is corroborated by the other measures, with some Highests and Highs in the Corrected numbers and weights. The possible cluster PM 1, found in squares JA – JF, KA – KD, is also found in the Corrected numbers but is not confirmed in either Weight measure. The same is true for the possible cluster PM 2, found in squares JH – JI and KI.

The frequency of Post-Medieval discard is as high as that of chipped stone, with discard in 46 grid squares (Figs. 3.17 – 3.18). The main concentration is in transects J and K, present in 26 / 28 squares, but it is also common in transects D – E – F in 14 / 23 squares (especially in transect D) but rare in transect Z, in only 6 / 25 squares. There is only a moderate level of internal consistency, with 13 /46 grid squares with the same IQR in all four measures, 10 cases with 2 IQR values (split 3 and 1), 14 cases with 2 IQR values (split 2 and 2), 8 cases with 3 IQR values (split 2, 1 and 1) and the only case on site of a grid square with four different IQR values (square JJ)! Thus, in only 23 cases (or 50%), there is a clear pointer to a dominant IQR, while there is the considerable ambiguity of three or more IQR values in 20% of cases. Since the Post-medieval pottery has the lowest figure for dominant IQR values and the highest value for ambiguous IQR values, this pottery produces the worst record of internal consistency for all the three periods.

Fig. 3.17 Surface densities of Post-Medieval pottery (Corrected Nos.)

27

Fig. 3.18 Surface densities of Post-Medieval pottery (Corrected Wts.) Although there is a millennial lapse of time since the last discard sequence, making even indirect connections between Post-medieval pottery discard and prehistoric pottery discard extremely improbable, it should be recorded that PM 3 partially overlaps with NEO 1, while PM 4 overlaps with NEO 2 and partially overlaps with BA 3.

In summary, the intra-site timed collection of artefacts from 74 10 x 10m grids, laid out in six East – West transects, has produced a valuable data set which brings a reasonable level of precision in the definition of the spatial location of past discard in all three main phases of the site occupation. The main results can be summarised below (Table 3.2):-

MATERIAL/PERIOD

NO. OF SQUARES PRESENT

NO. OF CLUSTERS

NO. OF ISOLATES

NEOLITHIC BRONZE AGE CHIPPED STONE GROUND STONE POST-MEDIEVAL

10 31 46 7 46

3 4 4 1 2

3 14 18 2 33

NO. OF SQUARES + DOMINANT IQR (%) 90 62 70 90 50

SPATIAL CORRELATION WITH OTHER CLUSTERS 2.5 / 4 5/7 2/2 2/4

Table 3.2 Summary of surface collection, Regéc 1995 There is a curious relationship between time, artifact density and internal consistency of survey data manipulation. The frequency of ceramic discard, as measured by the number of squares where ceramics are found, increases with time, with a Post-Medieval peak. This is particularly apparent in the increased number of isolates, which in the Post-Medieval distribution means a carpet of low-intensity discard over much of the site.

However, the number of squares with dominant IQRs falls with time, with the highest in the Neolithic period. While the meaning of this latter finding is not altogether clear, it is possible that the Concentration Principle (viz., the principle of making, using and discarding objects in the same place: Chapman 2000a) operated less strongly through time. There is a reasonably good correlation between Neolithic and Bronze Age clusters and lithic 28

clusters, whether of chipped or of ground stone, though this finding still falls short of a dated “association” between lithics and pottery.

3.3 Phosphate sampling Soil samples of no less than 5g were collected for phosphate analysis with a hand-augur at a depth of 0.30m from coring locations in eight East – West transects across the Regéc site. Twenty-two samples were collected at 10-m intervals on transects A, B, E, F, G and H, and 25 samples at 10-m intervals from transects J and K. Each sample was collected from the central point of the 10 x 10m grid square. The samples were divided between material for the field test and for the laboratory analysis.

Finally, the overall pattern of corrected artifact density/m2 for the site shows a high discard of lithics both by Number and Weight, with medium values for PostMedieval sherd numbers and Bronze Age sherd weight (Fig. 3.19). SURFACE ARTIFACT DENSITIES (NO/m2) 70 60

3.3.1 Field test

50

The field phosphate test was developed for use in the grassland environment of the Swiss Alps and adopted and enhanced by Schwarz (1967) for use on any kind of archaeological site. The method relies on the correlation between the proportion of phosphorus (P) in the soil and the strength of the molybdenum blue colour upon solution. There are three stages in the field test: (1) place 1g of soil in the middle of a filter paper; (2) add two drops of solution A (5g of ammonium molybdenate dissolved in 100 ml of cold water; with the further addition of 35 ml of nitric acid (density 1.2) after solution; (3) 30 seconds after (2), add two drops of solution B (ascorbic acid (0.5%).

40 30 20 10 0 BA U/NO BA C/NO

P-MED U/NO

P-MED C/NO

CS U/NO CS C/NO

SURFACE ARTIFACT DENSITIES (WT in gm/m2) 700 600

After several minutes, the blue colour from the phosphorus will be precipitated onto the filter paper (CD Fig. 3.1). The larger the diameter of the blue band around the sample, the stronger the phosphorus content: trace contents produce cca. 2 mm, a positive phosphorus content would produce cca. 10 – 15mm and a strong phosphorus reading would yield 20mm or more. There is also a correlation between the size of the blue ring and the intensity of the blue, although this is harder to distinguish. This field test yields cheap and rapid qualitative results, enabling ready comparison of a large number of soil samples.

500 400 300 200 100 0 BA U/WT BA C/WT

P-MED U/WT

P-MED C/WT

CS U/WT CS C/WT

Fig. 3.19 Surface artifact densities (per m2) by(a) number and (b) weight.

The results were recorded as one of three levels of phosphorus: 1 – low; 2 – medium; and 3 – high. These data were plotted against the fieldwalking grid (Fig. 3.20). While the vast majority of readings showed a medium level of soil phosphate, there were two clusters of low levels – a larger group at Grid Squares EF – EH + FG – FH and a smaller group at Grid Squares JF – KF. There was only a single grid square – JM – showing a high phosphate value but this lay adjacent to a square (KL) with a low reading. Thus the most useful result of the field phosphate tests was the differentiation between low and medium areas of soil phosphate.

In general, these data provide a well-defined set of spatial parameters for the choice of excavation trenches. The site spatial data base was then refined through the addition of phosphate analytical data from the field test and, later, from the lab test.

29

Fig. 3.20 Phosphate analysis plots, based upon qualitative field analyses. The different intensity of the resultant blue colour is then visually compared against a series of standardized solutions to yield a quantitative result, expressed as x mg of phosphorus / per 100g of soil.

3.3.2 Laboratory test The laboratory phosphate analysis was based upon the techniques outlined in Sieveking et al. (1973) for the detection of areas of occupation in the extensive flintmining site of Grime’s Graves. There are five stages in this test, which, although more complex, is based upon the same colorimetric principle as that of the field test:

The results of the laboratory test were plotted on a spatial plot of the investigated area (Fig. 3.21; CD Fig. 3.3). These plots showed a preponderance of phosphate values which were low in terms of the total range found on the site, together with two areas of high soil phosphate, just South of Grid Squares JA – JC (Fig. 3.20b) and just North of Grid Squares KC – KF. These areas were, unfortunately, not the same as showed up the high phosphate values in the field test (Fig. 3.19). A final comment was that the soil phosphate values at Regéc-95 were all much higher than those encountered at Grime’s Grave (Sieveking et al. 1973) – a confirmation of the long period of ploughing on the Western fields of the Regéc site, which probably started in the AD 14th century.

(1) weigh 1g (+/- 0.1g) of soil sample and place it in a glass vial; (2) add 5ml of hydrochloric acid; (3) leave the mixture to stand for 10 minutes to ensure complete solution of the spoil phosphate; (4) transfer 0.2ml of the aliquot of the supernatant solution to a 25ml volumetric flask; (5) add the molybdenum blue colour reagent.

Fig. 3.21 Phosphate analysis plots, based upon quantitative laboratory analyses: (a) Rows E - F; (b) Rows J – K. 30

3.4 Trench layout

The discovery of a small number of archaeological features in Trenches 1 – 3, in combination with the medium to high phosphate levels found in the field tests, suggested to the Project that the phosphate levels may indicate the location of Post-medieval or earlier fields. Therefore, a series of trench locations was selected on the basis of low phosphate values in conjunction with high artifact concentrations. The most likely area was therefore the area at JH – JI – KH – KI, which coincided with three clusters - BA 2, CS 4 and GS 1. Another reason for location of a trench in this area was that it was the centre of the 1993 surface scatter termed Regéc 007. Trench 5, 5 x 5m in area, was opened up 245 – 240m West of the baseline, in the North East corner of grid square JI. Soon after archaeological features were encountered, it was decided to extend the excavation area to the South (Trench 6, in the South East corner of grid square JI) and to the North East (Trench 7, located on the J/K boundary line 10m East of the North Eastern corner of Trench 5).

There were two stages in the decision-making process for the selection of the location of the trial trenches at Regéc. The first stage was based on information from the surface artifact collection and the field phosphate analysis. On this basis, locations were chosen from the first three trenches. The second stage utilized the results of the excavation of the first three trenches, in combination with data from the surface collection, the field phosphate tests and the quantitative laboratory phosphate analyses. There was only one constraint on trench location set by the local farmers – it was undesirable to excavate in potato fields. However, some potato fields had such low productivity that even this prohibition was not absolute. The decision to locate Trench 1 was based on the need to explore the stratigraphy in the area of the strongest cluster of high phosphate values. This was the zone near the East end of transects G, H and J. Thus a 5 x 5m trench was laid out near the highest point of the site, on fallow ground South of the potato fields, 40 – 45m West of the baseline and 15 – 10m South of the boundary line J/K. This trench corresponded to one cluster only – the possible Post-medieval cluster PM 1. The location of the next trench - Trench 2 - was based on the need to explore the area of the highest Bronze Age pottery concentration – cluster BA 1 - that also overlapped with clusters NEO 2 and CS 1, in the area KC – JF. A 5 x 5m trench was laid out in a poppy field West of the main potato fields, 130 – 135m West of the baseline and 7.5 – 2.5m South of the boundary line J/K. A third trench, 2 x 2m in area, was laid out to explore the medium phosphate levels in transect D, on fallow land 62 – 60m West of the baseline and 2 – 0m South of the Southern edge of transect D. This trench corresponded to the clusters BA 3 and CS 2 (CD Figs. 3.3 – 3.4)

A final group of nine 2 x 2m test trenches was opened up to the North of transect K, to explore the possibility of down-slope (Northward) erosion of material from the upper part of the site (Eastern part of transects J and K). Eight of these test trenches were 1 x 1m in area (trenches 8 - 15), while Trench 16 was 3 x 3m in area (Fig. 3.2).

3.5 Summary The decision-making processes leading to the selection of locations for the 16 trenches excavated at Regéc-95 were informed by five factors:- (1) the location of surface finds in the 1993 survey; (2) the results of the 1995 surface fieldwalking operation; (3) the results of the phosphate tests – both field tests and laboratory analysis; (4) the topography of the site and specific environmental issues (stream location, extent of erosion, etc.); and (5) the results of the excavation of the earlier trenches (Trenches 1 – 3) in relation to the phosphate results. This selection enabled coverage of most parts of the site and inclusion of higher-than-average densities of artifact scatters of all periods represented on site. An important methodological point concerns the replicability of the two types of phosphate test. The areas of high soil phosphate did not coincide in the two tests, creating interpretational difficulties for the excavators.

Before the completion of the excavation of Trenches 1 – 3, a fourth trench – the so-called “environmental trench” (Trench 4) - was laid out some 280m – 265m West of the baseline, with a width of 1m from the boundary line J/K. This trench was set in its location to enable an assessment of the colluviation of the Western-running slope of the site and to check on the possible existence of a North – South running stream in previous periods. The trench extended 5m to the West of the deepest point and 10m to the East of this suspected palaeo-channel. This trench was excavated to bedrock.

31

32

Chapter Four –The stratigraphic sequence 4.1 Introduction A total of sixteen trenches was excavated at Regéc-95, with the following dimensions (Table 4.1):-

Trench No

Size of trench (m)

Area of trench (m2)

1, 2, 6 and 7 5 16 3 4 8 – 15 TOTAL

Each 5m x 5m 6x4 3x3 2x2 15 x 1 Each 1 x 1

100 24 9 4 15 8 146m2

Table 4.1 Size of excavation trenches ground, and here there is an A/C ranker profile with bedrock at the base of the plough layer. The soil deepens rapidly away from this location and bedrock was not reached elsewhere. In fact the remainder of the site is relatively free of natural stones; the only ones appearing were small fragments of weathering andesite. Throughout the soils were dark coloured but mottling, suggesting drainage imperfection, was largely confined to weathering stones. Where stone concentrations appeared these were in archaeological contexts and appeared to have been imported to the site.

The trenches were all excavated by hand, using trowels and occasionally mattocks, with sparing use of picks for matrices composed of heavy clay. The recording system was based upon single-context recording, in which all of the cut features were given a separate context number from their fills. A standard 20-litre sample was taken from each context for dry-sieving and froth flotation, using a Cambridge Mark V seed machine (Jarman et al. 1972) Book 4: CD Fig. 1.8). All of the finds were washed, dried and sorted for counting and weighing by the end of the 1995 season. A representative selection of finds was illustrated by the 1995 drawing team, led by Sandra Rowntree, with additional finds illustration in 1999 (the Budapest lab drawing team, again led by Sandra Rowntree) and scanning and graphic design by the Newcastle Drawing Group, led by Sandra Rowntree and with the main input by Chris Bond.

Over parts of the site a darker subsurface A horizon was present which contained substantial amounts of artifacts and appeared to constitute an occupation layer. This lay beneath the shallow (~15 cm) modem topsoil. The upper A horizon was somewhat paler and lacked the well developed cubic structure of the lower horizon. This lower horizon has been undisturbed in modem times. The source of the accumulating topsoil would appear to be either wind or water erosion, though the gentle slopes would imply that the former was a more likely source. In either case, fine particles of silt size would be moved preferentially, and analysis will be necessary to confirm any differences. The site consists of fertile soil with few if any cultivation limitations other than climate - it is at over 300 m - and would grow a complete range of fruit, vegetables, cereals and herbage for which the climate is suitable; this range would include warm temperate crops such as walnut and grape. Although the soil over much of the site seems to have thickened slightly, that near the South end has probably been thinned by soil movement due to wind, water on tillage, but in the past the soil depths would not have been a limitation to cultivation. The site lies in the largest low-lying enclave of the whole Regéc basin and arable land extends far West beyond the area excavated.

There was a consistent trend in the stratigraphy of the majority of the 16 trenches, which was partly, if not largely, based upon the evolving Holocene development of the local soil cover. The zonal soil on the lower slopes of the Regéc Basin was the brownearth, while rankers were typical on the steeper slopes. The colour and texture differences of the brownearth sequence of C – B – A horizons make a major contribution to our understanding of the archaeological stratigraphy at Regéc. It is an understanding of the combination of “natural” soil developments and “cultural” interference in those developments which is the aim of this section to unravel.

4.2 “Natural” soil developments in the Regéc Basin (Robert Shiel) The site of Regéc-95 lies on a very gentle North West facing slope just to the West of the modern village site. The most northerly part of the site is in a depression from which water would move West towards the outlet stream. There is no modern stream near the site. Soils are thinnest at the South East extreme, which is also the highest

In conclusion, the soils of the two upland basin sites examined would present few management difficulties, and provide large areas of soils where the main problems 33

facings users would have been woodland clearance and climate, though the latter is not a severe limitation. Most of the land does not suffer from excessive waterlogging, and much is on a slight slope and is coarse enough textured to be easily cultivated. Compared with the loessderived soils West of Fony, the upland basins are of a lower arable potential, but the extra moisture in the uplands would have made the land more attractive to pastoralists. The archaeological site near Regéc is in an attractive location in terms of the soils around it. In fact, it is central to the best and most extension area of good quality land within the Zemplén hills.

4.3.2 Trench 1 The stratigraphic sequence in Trench 1 shows, for the most part, a “natural” soil development with two archaeological features and two probable non-cultural features (Figs. 4.2 – 4.3). The surface of the natural subsoil (Context 109) is cut by one feature – an irregular depression (Context 108) containing one Neolithic and two Bronze Age sherds, which is probably best interpreted as a tree-throw hole. The tree-fall could well have incorporated pottery from different phases into the resultant hole. Context 109 is also cut by a second feature but which originates from higher up in the stratigraphy. Thus, the first fill deposit to post-date the natural subsoil is Context 107, which is cut by a pit (Context 105), containing two Bronze Age sherds, which also cuts into the subsoil of Context 109, and a narrow gully (Context 106), containing a single Bronze Age sherd. It is possible that the “gully” is an animal burrow filled with local deposits that included Bronze Age material.

4.3 The stratigraphic sequence (John Chapman & Robert Shiel) 4.3.1 Introduction This account is based first on the stratigraphic sequences in each trench and then on the attempted correlations between trenches made in order to produce an overall site phasing. The plans and sections for specific Contexts are located in Section 4.6 of this chapter, after the relevant context description. The key to all of the illustrations in this chapter is presented below (Fig. 4.1):-

All of these features - the pit, the “gully” and the fill Context 107 – are sealed by an organic-rich soil Context 103, which represents the base of the plough-zone and possibly includes the vestigial remains of a thin occupation level. It is disturbed by the plough and contains material dating from the Neolithic to the Postmedieval. Context 103 also contains within it a concentration of stones that may represent a ploughdamaged hearth (Context 104), which can be dated only by the presence of three Chipped stone pieces and three ground stone fragments. The upper two fills represent the lower (Context 102) and the upper (Context 101) parts of the ploughsoil, both of which containing large quantities of pottery dating from the Neolithic to the Post-medieval.

Fig. 4.1 Key to site plans and sections

34

Fig. 4.2 East and South sections, Trench 1

35

Fig. 4.3 Harris Matrix, Trench 1

4.3.3 Trench 2 material – a mixture of 5 Neolithic and 7 Bronze Age sherds. Plough disturbance can first be detected in the second fill context (Context 203), with pottery ranging in date from Neolithic to Post-medieval. The lower (Context 202) and upper (Context 201) parts of the ploughsoil contained pottery ranging in date from Bronze Age to Post-medieval.

As far as could be detected, there were no archaeological features in any of the contexts in this trench, which therefore can be taken as a good example of a “natural” soil development (Figs. 4.4 – 4.5). There were no finds in the natural subsoil (Context 205), while the first postsubsoil fill (Context 204) contained only prehistoric

36

Fig. 4.4 South section, Trench 2

201 202 203 204 205 Fig. 4.5 Harris Matrix, Trench 2

37

one Neolithic sherd) cuts the pit, the fill and the subsoil. The main context in the lower ploughsoil (Context 302) contains only Late Bronze Age sherds, while one of the other related fills (Context 304) has a sole Chipped stone piece and the other (Context 303) is devoid of finds. The upper ploughsoil (Context 300) contains a mixture of pottery dating from the Neolithic to the Post-medieval. There is thus one example of a stratigraphic reversal (typologically later material in the stratigraphically earlier Context 305 compared to the LBA pottery in Context 302).

4.3.4 Trench 3 (CD Fig. 4.1 – 4.2) The complex stratigraphy of this small trench can be represented in terms of the natural subsoil (Context 301) with two main fill phases, both of which comprise parts of the ploughsoil, later than two features cut into the upper surface of the natural (Figs. 4.6 – 4.9) (CD Fig. 4.2). The natural is cut by a large shallow deposit (Context 305) containing mixed pottery with a date range of Neolithic to Post-medieval and a small pit (Context 307) devoid of finds. An animal burrow (Context 306) containing material derived from Context 305 (including

Fig. 4.6 North section, Trench 3.

Fig. 4.7 South section, Trench 3

38

Fig. 4.8 West section, Trench 3

300

302

=

303

=

304

306

307

305

301 Fig. 4.9 Harris Matrix, Trench 3 4.3.5 Trench 4 as follows:- basal natural subsoil (Context 400) with no finds; lower soil horizon B (Context 401) with Bronze Age and Post-medieval sherds; upper soil horizon B (Context 402) with only one Bronze Age sherd; and soil

The “environmental trench” contained a basic stratigraphy of four layers, with no obvious archaeological, cut features. The finds in this trench are 39

features; however, a single large piece of Chipped stone was found in the fill of the hollow 522/521.

horizon A (Context 403) with a mixture of sherds, dating from the Bronze Age to the Post-medieval.

The closely related fill deposits Context 508 and 511 have been cut by one sole feature – the earlier stone line (Context 513/512), in which a narrow linear trench has been cut, filled with sediments and capped with a stone line. The North end of this stone line has, in turn, been cut by a later post-hole (Context 516/515). This stone alignment extends into Trench 6 as Context 606.

4.3.6 Trench 5 The stratigraphy in Trench 5 proved to be the most complex on site, partly owing to the excavator’s tendency to make ever finer stratigraphic distinctions. In particular, different context numbers have, in most cases, been given to the cut of a feature and its fill (e.g., cut 510/fill 503 for a stone scatter). Nonetheless, three cut-and-fill cycles can be recognized below the ploughsoil in Trench 5, which therefore constitutes the most comprehensive stratigraphy anywhere on site (Fig. 4.10 – 4.12).

The third fill deposit (Context 507) is also the first to be associated with datable material – in this case, one Bronze Age sherd. This fill contains two archaeological features – the light structure termed Hut 1, comprising stone ‘walls’ (Context 510/503, with extensions 606 and 607 in Trench 6) and the stone scatter (Context 505), both of which are associated with Bronze Age sherds. A further two features cut the fill Context 507 – two hollows (Context 506, associated with Bronze Age pottery, and Context 509/508, devoid of finds).

The natural subsoil (Context 523) is not cut by any features but the fill deposit immediately overlying the natural (Context 514) is cut by four features, all of which appear to be archaeological. There are two post-holes (Contexts 520/528 and 525/524) and two irregular hollows (Contexts 517/517 and 527/526), both of which are re-cut by other features – 527/526 by the hollow Context 522/521 and 517/517 by the post-trench 519/518. No closely datable finds are associated with these

The uppermost part of the Trench 5 sequence comprises the ploughsoil, in which both the lower (Context 501) and the upper (Context 500) parts contain a wide range of pottery, dating from Neolithic to Post-medieval.

Fig. 4.10 East, North and West sections, Trench 5 40

Fig. 4.11 South section, Trench 5 baulk

41

Fig. 4.12 Harris Matrix, Trench 5 whose fill contained two Bronze Age sherds and was capped by part of Hut 1 (Context 607).

4.3.7 Trench 6

The organic-rich soils of the next two fill deposits (Contexts 604 and 603) are interpreted as the upper part of the surviving occupation layer; 604 contained 15 Neolithic, one Pink ware sherd and 94 Bronze Age sherds, while 603 contained eight Neolithic and 250 Bronze Age sherds.

There is a long sequence of fill deposits in Trench 6, most of which appear to be “natural” formations, with three cut features in the lower part of the trench (Fig. 4.13 – 4.15). Neither the natural subsoil nor the fill deposit immediately overlying it (Context 608) contain pottery but, in the second fill deposit (Context 605), one Neolithic and 16 Bronze Age sherds were found. Fill Context 605 was cut by two archaeological features – the stone alignment linking to Context 513/512 in Trench 5, in which no finds were made, and the pit (Context 607A)

The ploughsoil in this trench comprised the lower part (Context 602) and the upper part (Context 601), both of which contained pottery ranging in date from Neolithic to Post-medieval. 42

Fig. 4.13 North section, Trench 6

Fig. 4.14 East section, Trench 6

601 602 603 604 606

607 607a

605 608 609 Fig. 4.15

Harris Matrix, Trench 6 43

4.3.8 The light structure, Trenches 5 and 6 (Fig. 4.40)

4.3.9 Trench 7

It is only by juxtaposing the fills from Trenches 5 and 6 that the outline of a stone structure emerges (Fig. 4.40). This structure is defined by a thin, loosely made ‘wall’ some 18 - 22 cm in width and defining the West, South West and South East sides (Contexts 503, 606 and 607). Context 607, on the South East side of the ‘wall;’ is a more complex feature, perhaps some form of rectangular construction and the thickest part of the ‘wall’. There is no trace of a surviving ‘wall’ on the Eastern and Northern sides. The external dimensions of the structure are: 4.00m (North – South) by 1.90m. (East – West). The area enclosed (Context 504) measures 3.75m (North – South) by 1.40m (East – West). Contexts 502 and 507 comprise the areas forming the exterior surface North of the structure. We have decided to term this structure “Hut 1”, since it is the only structure which can be recognised at Regéc-95 with confidence. Hut 1 is a light structure of irregular oval form, somewhat smaller than 4m x 2m in exterior size. It is highly probable that many of the ‘wall’ stones have been disturbed by ploughing and/or erosion. All of the ceramics found in and near Hut 1 date to the Bronze Age. Since the only phase of the Bronze Age represented at Regéc-95 is the Late Bronze Age, this hut can be reasonably confidently dated to the LBA.

Trench 7 was not excavated to the natural subsoil but the deepest excavated Context (707) was close in texture and colour to those layers in other trenches which immediately overlay the subsoil. Three fill deposits are discernible in Trench 7, with stone features associated with two of them (Figs. 4.16 - 4.18). The fill deposit (Context 707) thought to lie immediately above the subsoil contains the stone scatter (Context 706), which is devoid of finds. The next fill deposit (Context 702) contains the stone alignment (Context 703), which contains seven Bronze Age and two Post-medieval sherds, and the stone scatter (fill Context 705: cut context 704), which contains two Bronze Age sherds. The upper part of the stones in the stone alignment (Context 703) have been damaged by the plough, explaining the presence of small quantities of Post-medieval pottery. The uppermost context is the ploughsoil (Context 701), which contains a wide range of pottery, dated from Neolithic to Post-medieval.

44

Fig. 4.16 (a) & (b): North section, Trench 7

45

Fig. 4.17 (a) & (b): East section, Trench 7 46

701

703

704

705

702

706 707 708 Fig. 4.18 Harris Matrix, Trench 7 The new phasing means that there are four rather than three phases of site occupation at Regéc, as follows:-

4.3.10 Trenches 8 – 16 Since the Harris matrices for these nine test trenches show a linear suite of contexts, each on top of the previous one, they have been omitted. The finds generally show the same pattern of Neolithic and/or Bronze Age sherds in the lower layers, with mixed Neolithic – Postmedieval pottery in the ploughsoil. Only Trench 16 contained a large enough sample of pottery for further detailed analysis.

Phase 1: The earliest cut features on the site are the main elements in this Phase – features cut into either the natural subsoil or into the fill deposit immediately overlying the subsoil. This Phase is so far clearly documented from Trench 5 alone, though without datable pottery. It is also possible that the pit, “gully”and treethrow hole (Contexts 105, 106 and 108 respectively) in Trench 1 belongs to this Phase, as well as the fill deposits (Context 608) in Trench 6 and (Context 707) in Trench 7, though all of these contexts may also date to Phase 2. The assignment of Contexts 105 and 106 would mean a firm date for this Phase in the Bronze Age, while 108 has Neolithic and Bronze Age material.

4.3.11 Comparisons, correlations and phasing The views expressed here represent a shift from the published preliminary site sequence (Chapman & Vicze 1996: 34 – 36) in which three “phases” were proposed in addition to two “episodes” which reflected undated cut features near the base of the Trench 5 stratigraphy. Although there was a concern that the fill of these cut features was similar to the matrix into which they were cut (p.c., K. Brown), in the majority of cases the Munsell colours for fill and matrix were different. Thus, the cut contexts defining the two early “episodes” stand as important, if small-scale, elements of the site occupation but they are incorporated into a separate Phase.

Phase 2: Cut features in early fill deposits constitute this Phase, which is well represented in Trenches 3, 5 and 6 and less prominently in Trench 7. The fill deposit (Context 204) in Trench 2 may belong to this Phase or to Phase 3. Datable pottery is found in Contexts 105, 106 and 108 (see Phase 1), as well as in Context 204 (Neolithic and Bronze Age), Context 305 (Neolithic to Post-medieval) and Context 306 (Neolithic only). The wide range of dating for the pottery of Context 305 indicates one of the most serious cases of 47

Phase 4: The final Phase of the site occupation comprises the discard of Medieval and Post-medieval pottery during an extended period covering several centuries. This Phase is well represented in all of the Trenches, especially Trench 5. The new elements of this stage concern the occurrence of Migration Period (Early Medieval) pottery as well as the much more clearly datable and expected Medieval pottery from the AD mid13th century – viz. the time of construction of Regéc Castle – and the later Post-medieval ceramics, all of them mixed with prehistoric pottery Neolithic and Bronze Age) from earlier Phases.

stratigraphic reversal on the whole site. This may have been caused by plough damage affecting the upper parts of Phase 2 or by severe soil erosion. Phase 3: The latest dark, organic-rich soil – the lower part of the A horizon - encountered before the Medieval and later ploughsoil. This Phase occurs in vestigial form in Trenches 1 and 2, in clearer form in Trenches 3, 5, 6 and 7. A mixture of datable pottery, ranging from Neolithic to Post-medieval, occurs in Contexts 103, 203, 702 and 703; only Bronze Age sherds occur in Contexts 302, 503 – 507, 607 and 704/705, with a mixture of Neolithic and Bronze Age sherds in only Contexts 603 and 604. The mixture of Post-medieval with prehistoric pottery indicates plough damage, sometimes severe, in the upper layers of this Phase. It is to Phase 3 of the sequence that we can date the only domestic structure on the site – the Late Bronze Age Hut 1 (comprising Contexts 503, 504, 606 and 607).

There is a small number of Contexts whose stratigraphic position cannot readily be resolved: Phases 1 or 2: 105, 106, 107, 108, 608, 707. Phases 2 or 3: 204. A list of contexts by Phase is given below (Table 4.2):-

TRENCH 1 2 3 5 6 7

PHASE 1 ? 105, ? 106, ? 107, ? 108 514, 517, 519/518, 520/528, 522/521, 525/524, 527/526 ? 608 ? 707

PHASE 2 ? 105, ? 106, ? 107, ? 108 ? 204 305, 306, 307 508/511, 513/512, 516/515

PHASE 3 103, 104

PHASE 4 101, 102

? 204, 203 302, 303, 304 510/503, 502, 504, 505, 506, 507

201 300 500, 501

605, 607A, ?608 706, ? 707

603, 604, 606, 607 702, 703, 704

601, 602 701

Table 4.2 Contexts by Trench and Phase few Neolithic and Bronze Age sherds and lithics in Context 204. Carbonised plant remains have been preserved in two cases – charred wood in Context 204 and cereal grains and one weed of cultivation in Context 107.

4.4 Context types The context types at Regéc can be divided into three general classes - (1) fill contexts (n = 17), (2) cut contexts (n = 16) and (3) stone features (n = 8), of which the most striking is Hut 1. The ploughsoil contexts will be excluded from this discussion because of their stratigraphically mixed finds.

Finds densities are even more variable in the intermediate fills, with no finds at all in Contexts 508/511 and 502, some Bronze Age sherds and a carbonized cereal grain and a weed of cultivation in Context 504, Neolithic and Bronze age sherds, a little Chipped stone and some small daub fragments in Context 605 and a large sample of over 100 sherds, mostly Bronze Age and some Neolithic, with some chipped and ground stone and many small daub fragments, in Context 604.

4.4.1 Fill contexts Fill contexts include a wide range of deposits located stratigraphically between the base of the plough-soil and the upper surface of the natural subsoil. The six Contexts comprising the first post-subsoil fills are 107, 204, 304, 514, 608 and 707. The six Contexts lying at the base of, and disturbed by, the plough-soil are 103, 203, 303, 507, 603 and 702. Fills stratigraphically between these two sets of fill layers (the “intermediate fills”) are found in only two Trenches – Trench 5 (Context 508/511 and 502) and Trench 6 (Context 605 and 604).

The fills that lie immediately below the plough-zone can be divided into those fills that have had a large quantity of finds concentrated by the action of the plough (cf. the Romanian term “plough-bed: Chapman & Monah 2004), and those with far fewer finds. In the first case, the date of the pottery ranges from Neolithic to Post-medieval (Contexts 103, 203 and 702) and there are many nonceramic finds – many Chipped stone pieces, a few ground stone fragments and variable quantities of daub

The post-subsoil fills generally contain few finds – none at all in the case of Contexts 514 and 608, one or two Chipped stone pieces in Contexts 107, 304 and 707 and a 48

finds by the plough. When containing datable finds at all, most of the cut features are associated with Bronze Age pottery, although two disturbed contexts (108 and 306) also contain a few Neolithic sherds.

(especially in Context 203). Charred wood has been preserved in Context 203 and a carbonized cereal grain in Context 702. Finds densities are more variable in the second case:- Context 303 has no finds at all, 507 has one Bronze Age sherd and one lithic and Context 603 contains only a few Neolithic and many Bronze Age sherds and a large quantity of daub.

4.4.3 Stone features Hut 1 is the most important structure in this group, comprising an interior stone-free area (Context 504) defined by a series of linear stone features (‘walls’)(Contexts 503, 606 and 607) (CD Fig. 4.6). The only pottery in association with Hut 1 is dated to the Late Bronze Age. In addition to the single probable hearth (Context 104), stone features may be divided into those with pretensions to linear shape – perhaps damaged stone wall bases – and those that form more ample scatters – perhaps damaged cobbled flooring surfaces. In addition to Hut 1, there are two linear features – Contexts 513/512 and 703 – and three stone scatters – Contexts 505, 704/705 and 706.

The finds in the post-subsoil and intermediate fills include both Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery, only rarely in sizeable quantities. The finds in the pre-ploughsoil fills are surprisingly varied; it is possible that any Medieval and later cultivation that occurred in the areas of Trenches 3, 5 and 6 may have been shallower than in other parts of the “Nyugati-kertalja”. 4.4.2 Cut features Cut features include a range of different shapes of cuts, from the well-defined post-hole (2 examples – Contexts 520/528 and 516/515) to the irregular probable tree-throw hole (Context 108), via pits (4 examples: Contexts 105, 307, 525/524 and 607A), irregular hollows (6 examples: Contexts 506, 509/508, 517, 519/518, 522/521 and 527/526) probable animal burrows (2 examples: Contexts 106 and 306) and a shallow depression (Context 305).

While one stone line is devoid of finds (Context 513/512), one other (Context 703) are associated with small quantities of Bronze Age pottery and a little lithics – chipped stone in the former, chipped and ground stone in the latter, together with a little daub. The stone scatters are equally poor in finds, with no finds at all in Context 706 and small quantities of Bronze Age pottery in Contexts 505 and 704/705. Lithics also occur in one scatter –both chipped and ground stone in Context 704/705, which has also preserved one carbonized cereal grain.

Finds are rare in this context group – only in Context 305 does one find a wide range of mixed pottery, dating from Neolithic to Post-medieval, with some Chipped stone pieces. There are no finds at all in eight contexts, mostly in Trench 5 but also in pit 307, while the two pits 105 and 607(A) contain a few Bronze Age sherds and some Chipped stone pieces. Pit 105 also contains some unidentified food remains and a little daub. The two hollows 506 and 522/521 contain one Bronze Age sherd and one lithic fragment respectively, while there is a little pottery in the two burrows 106 (Bronze Age and one carbonized cereal) and 306 (Neolithic and Chipped stone). The tree-hole 108 contains a fragment of charred oak-wood, possibly deriving from the tree itself, with one carbonized cereal grain and 3 sherds (1 Neolithic and 2 Bronze Age).

The single probable example of a hearth has preserved cereal grains and the fragments of “kasha”, in addition to chipped and ground stone fragments. Although finds densities are low, the stone features demonstrate a consistent association with pottery dated to the Bronze Age. The only later material – two Postmedieval sherds found in the stone line Context 703 – are most probably in a secondary position, since there were signs of plough damage on the upper surface of several stones in the stone line.

The cut features at Regéc-95 are very different from those pit features so common in the Neolithic and Bronze Age of the Alföld Plain, in which high densities of finds are typical (Chapman et al., 2010b). The only cut feature with many finds (Context 305) is very probably the result of stratigraphic mixing and artificial concentration of FINDS CLASS N POTTERY CHIPPED STONE GROUND STONE DAUB PLANT REMAINS

FILLS 17 */**/*** */**/*** */** */**/*** */**

In summary, there would appear to be rather few differences between the context groups that are smaller than the differences between individual contexts within their groups (Table 4.3):-

CUTS 16 */**/*** */** * */** */**

STONE FEATURES 8 */** */** */** */** */**

Table 4.3 Context differences, Regéc-95. Key:- *- none / ** - little / *** - lots. 49

Table 4.3 indicates the dominant frequency of various finds classes in the three context groups. It is noticeable that the absence of finds (coded *) is very frequent in this Table. Indeed, the main difference between context groups concerns the absence of ground stone finds in the cut features, which also contain only one example of daub finds. The fill contexts contain more finds variability than the other two context groups, as measured by the three finds classes with three values (none / little / lots). The only finds class with such variability of occurrence in the cut features is ceramics. There is no case of a finds class with such a variable occurrence in the stone features group. On the other hand, there is considerable similarity between the three context groups in respect of one finds class – that of plant remains – mostly because it is absent in the majority of all contexts. Chipped and ground stone frequencies are also similar in the fills and the stone features, with both finds classes being rare or absent in the cut features.

4.5.2 Pottery Although sizeable quantities of pottery were deposited in both Zones, the majority by number was excavated from the trenches in the Eastern Zone (57% or 2,010 sherds) but the majority of sherds by weight in the Western Zone (52% or 14.452 kg). These differences are summarized in the mean sherd weights of all pottery from each Zone – 9.4g in the Western Zone and 6.8g in the Eastern Zone. This difference is most probably related to the much higher frequencies of Post-medieval sherds, with their low mean sherd weight, in the Eastern Zone. In general terms, we are dealing with two ceramic sub-assemblages of broadly comparable size in each Zone. What is different, however, about the two pottery subassemblages is the distribution of Potparts, as calculated by sherd numbers (Fig. 4.19). Using the percentage breakdown of sherds in each Zone as the norm, it can be seen that higher-than-normal frequencies of Decorated Rims, Decorated Bodies and, especially, Handles and Lugs were discarded in the Eastern Zone, while the site norm applied to Undecorated Rims, Undecorated Bodies and Bases. There was no Potpart with a preferentially higher discard rate in the Western Zone !

The overall conclusion is that there is as wide a range of variability in finds class densities within each context group as between context groups. The cut features are poorer in several finds classes than the fills and the stone features – notably in ground stone but also in daub and chipped stone finds.

POTPARTS, ALL PERIODS, BY ZONE 100%

4.5 The zones

80%

The excavations at Regéc examined deposits from two main areas – the upper part of the site (the Eastern zone) and the lower part of the hillslope (the Western zone). It will be important to identify are any major differences between the structures and material culture of these two zones. The trenches located in the Eastern Zone are: Trenches 1 – 3 and 8 – 16; the trenches located in the Western Zone are: Trenches 4 – 7.

60% 40% 20% 0% L M O M BO /LU G SES TA RI C RI C B C C H TO BA DE N DE DE N DE U U

4.5.1 Contexts and structures

WEST EAST

Fig. 4.19 Potparts, All Periods, by Zone

Both zones exhibit examples of the same context groups but in differing frequencies. Apart from the similar frequencies of plough-soil contexts (n = 6 in each Zone), there are more fill contexts, cut features and stone features in the Western Zone (fills: 11 vs. 6; cut features: 10 vs. 6; stone features: 7 vs. 1). As regards fill contexts, the main difference between the Zones lies in the intermediate fills (those between the first post-subsoil fill and the base of the plough-soil), which occur in the Western Zone but not in the Eastern. In terms of cut features, the only post-holes occur in the Western Zone, pits are equally represented (n = 2), hollows are found more in the Western Zone (6 vs. 1) and possible animal burrows and the tree-hole occur only in the Eastern Zone. The only probable stone-lined hearth occurs in the Eastern Zone, while all of the stone linear features and scatters were found in the Western Zone. This indicates that the vast majority of archaeological features derives from the lower part of the site, in the Western Zone.

An important question is whether or not pottery of the various periods is equally distributed in both Zones. The data are presented here by sherd number (Fig. 4.20) and by sherd weight (Fig. 4.21). The most clear-cut difference is that all of the small sample of Early-Middle Neolithic sherds occur in the Eastern Zone. The majority of Medieval and Post-medieval sherds (by number and weight) occurs in the Eastern Zone, while the majority of Bronze Age and, especially, Migration Period sherds (by number and weight) occurs in the Western Zone. The picture is not so clear-cut for the Middle Neolithic sherds, for which higher frequencies by number occur in the Eastern Zone but equal frequencies by weight occur in each Zone. This result matches the Bronze Age and PostMedieval aspects of the pre-excavation surface fieldwalking data rather well (Chapman et al., 2010a), but it should be noted that neither Medieval nor Migration Period sherds were found on the surface of the site. 50

POTTERY NUMBERS BY PERIOD & BY ZONE

POTTERY WEIGHTS BY PERIOD & ZONE 100%

100%

80%

80% 60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

0%

E-M NEO

MN

BA

MIG

MED P-MED

WEST EAST

0%

E-M NEO

MN

BA

MIG

MED

P- TOTAL MED

WEST EAST

Fig. 4.20 Pottery numbers by Period and Zone

Fig. 4.21 Pottery weights by Period and Zone

A comparison of the discard data for decorated prehistoric sherds indicates a contrast between Neolithic and Bronze Age decorated pottery (Fig. 4.22). The majority of decorated Neolithic sherds (by number more than by weight) was discarded in the Eastern Zone, while Bronze Age decorated sherds (by number as much as by weight) were more frequently discarded in the Western Zone. This supports a chronological partition of the site into Zones of preferential discard which fluctuates with time – the Eastern Zone in the Neolithic, the Western Zone in the Bronze Age and, again, in the Migration Period, with a return to the Eastern Zone in the Medieval and Post-medieval periods.

The sherd size and erosion studies were extended for a zonal comparison but only for the larger samples of prehistoric pottery. The sample sizes of the later pottery groups were too small for such an analysis (Migration Period: 25 in the Eastern Zone, 0 in the Western Zone; Medieval – 32 in the Eastern Zone, 15 in the Western Zone; Post-medieval – 10 in the Eastern Zone, 8 in the Western Zone). The zonal sub-assemblages of Middle Neolithic sherds, including all sherd sizes, are broadly comparable in each Zone, except for the low frequencies of uneroded and minimally eroded sherds (E0 and E1) in the Eastern Zone (Fig. 4.23). This is a rather different picture in comparison to the Bronze Age sub-assemblages, where there is a moderate level of E1 erosion (cca. 25%) in the Eastern Zone and hardly any E1 erosion in the Western Zone (Fig. 4.24). The consequence of this is that both E2 and E3 erosion stages are less frequent in the Eastern Zone than in the Western Zone. A diachronic comparison indicates zonal divergences. While the Western Zone ratio of E2 to E3 is similar in the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, in the Eastern Zone, the big changes in the Bronze Age are marked by the jump in E1 values and the fall in E3 values, with E2 values maintaining a steady rate in the two periods (Figs. 4.23 – 4.24).

DECORATED PREHISTORIC POTTERY BY ZONE 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

WEST MN/NO

BA/NO

MN/WT

BA/WT

EAST

Fig. 4.22 Decorated prehistoric pottery by Number and Weight and by Zone

51

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC EROSION PROFILE, EASTERN ZONE

MIDDLE NEOLITHIC EROSION PROFILE, WESTERN ZONE

1% 3%

43% 47% 49%

E0

57%

E0

E1

E1

E2

E2

E3

E3

Fig. 4.23 Middle Neolithic erosion profile: (a) Eastern Zone; (b) Western Zone.

BRONZE AGE EROSION PROFILE, EASTERN ZONE

BRONZE AGE EROSION PROFILE, WESTERN ZONE

1% 24%

26% 38%

E0 49%

E0 62%

E1

E1

E2

E2

E3

E3

Fig. 4.24 Bronze Age erosion profile: (a) Eastern Zone; (b) Western Zone

A more detailed zonal comparison of Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery erosion profiles takes sherd size into account (Fig. 4.25). With the smallest sherd size (Body I), similar Neolithic erosion profiles are found in both Zones, except for the low frequency of E1 values in the Eastern Zone. With Neolithic Body IIA sherds, E2 values are higher than E3 in the Western Zone than the Eastern Zone but the only E0 values occur in the Eastern Zone.

Similar E2 : E3 ratios occur in the small samples of Neolithic Body IIB sherds, while a small number of the largest sherds (Body III) occur only in the Eastern Zone – itself a sign of good preservation. In summary, lower erosion rates for the Neolithic group occur in the Eastern Zone for sherd sizes Body I and III, in the Western Zone for sherd sizes Body IIA and IIB.

52

MN BODY I, EASTERN ZONE (n = 78)

MN BODY I, WESTERN ZONE (n = 13)

5%

41%

46% 54%

E0 54%

E0

E1

E1

E2

E2

E3

E3

MN BODY IIA, WESTERN ZONE (n = 16)

MN BODY IIA, EASTERN ZONE (n = 34) 3%

38% 50%

47%

E0

E0

62%

E1

E1

E2

E2

E3

E3

MN BODY IIB, EASTERN ZONE (n = 14)

MN BODY IIB, WESTERN ZONE (n = 6)

36% 50% 64%

50%

E0

E0

E1

E1

E2

E2

E3

E3

53

MN BODY III, EASTERN ZONE (n = 6)

33%

E0 67%

E1 E2 E3

Fig. 4.25 Middle Neolithic sherd size and erosion stages by Zone: (a) Body I, East Zone; (b) Body I, West Zone; (c) Body IIA, East Zone; (d) Body IIA, West Zone; (e) Body IIB, East Zone; (f) Body IIB, West Zone; (f) Body III, East Zone. As for Bronze Age erosion, the same pattern is found in all Body sizes (Fig. 4.26) – because of the higher incidence of E1 erosion in the Eastern Zone and its almost complete absence (except for 1% of Body IIA sherds) in the Western Zone, there are consequently

lower values of E2 and E3 erosion in the Eastern Zone in comparison with the Western Zone. This means that, for Bronze Age pottery, erosion rates are generally lower in the Eastern Zone compared to the Western Zone.

BA BODY 1, EASTERN ZONE (n = 212)

BA BODY IIA, EASTERN ZONE (n = 108)

1% 19%

24%

26%

33%

E0

E0

E1

E1

E2

E2

E3

49%

E3

48%

BA BODY I, WESTERN ZONE (188)

BA BODY IIA, WESTERN ZONE (n = 138) 1% 29%

46% 54%

E0

E0

E1

E1

E2

70%

E3

E2 E3

54

BA BODY IIB, EASTERN ZONE (n = 19) 11%

BA BODY IIB, WESTERN ZONE (n = 68) 18%

21%

E0

E0

E1

E1

E2

E2 82%

E3

68%

BA BODY III, EASTERN ZONE (n = 7)

E3

BA BODY III, WESTERN ZONE (n = 21) 5%

14%

5%

43%

43%

E0

E0

E1

E1

E2

E2

E3

90%

E3

Fig. 4.26 Bronze Age sherd size and erosion stages by Zone: (a) Body I, East Zone; (b) Body I, West Zone; (c) Body IIA, East Zone; (d) Body IIA, West Zone; (e) Body IIB, East Zone; (f) Body IIB, West Zone; (f) Body III, East Zone; (g) Body III, West Zone. Zone but hardly reaches 1% in the Western Zone. The wide variety of non-Arka Zemplén limnoquartzites and hydroquartzites is preferentially discarded in the Western Zone (by number and weight), while the frequency of lithics of uncertain or unknown source is more or less equal in both Zones.

4.5.3 Chipped stone In strong contrast to the balanced discard of pottery in each Zone, there is a major discrepancy between zonal discard rates of Chipped stone pieces, in favour of the Eastern Zone. Nine times the number of Chipped stone fragments have been discarded in the Eastern Zone than in the Western Zone (cf. 748 pieces with 81 pieces). The contrast is considerably reduced with the measurement of lithic weight: to approximately twice the weight in the Eastern Zone (cf. 3.26 kg with 1.68 kg).

Because of the preferential discard of lithics in the Eastern Zone, the use of absolute numbers and weights for zonal comparison necessitates careful comparison with site discard norms. When measured by numbers, all source groups are strongly and preferentially discarded in the Eastern Zone, varying from 75% to 95% of each respective raw material source group. The most frequent source group in the Western Zone is the Other Zemplén group (up to 30% by number), while obsidian, and especially Zemplén obsidian, is very rare in the Western Zone. By weight, the Arka limnoquartzite dominance is actually similar to the site norm (67% of lithics by weight in the Eastern Zone), while almost all obsidian occurs in the Eastern Zone and the surprisingly high frequency of 45% of Other Zemplén lithics is discarded in the Western Zone.

The proportional frequencies of different lithic raw material source groups by Zone indicates the strong predominance of Arka limnoquartzites in both Zones, no matter what measurement is used – numbers or weights (cf. 63% by number in the Eastern Zone with 70% in the Western Zone; 72% by weight in the Eastern Zone and 68% by weight in the Western Zone). Obsidian discard varies with Zone and by type of measurement. By number, the frequency of Slovakian obsidian is similar but Zemplén obsidian occurs much more in the Eastern Zone; by weight, obsidian amounts to 5% in the Eastern 55

The zonal differentiation of discard of the main lithic categories relates to the site norm of the discard of 90% of the lithics in the Eastern Zone. The three main groups of lithic categories concern production activities and the flakes and blade tools that are the end-product. Flakes and blades were produced in conformity to the Zonal norms in both Zones but there were more production remains than the Zonal norm in the Western Zone. By comparison, the more detailed, proportional consideration of lithic categories yields a varied pattern, in which primary and inner flakes and blades are proportionately more common in the Eastern Zone than the Western Zone, secondary and rejuvenation flakes and chunks were proportionately more frequently discarded in the Western Zone than in the Eastern Zone and there was parity among the cores and blade segments.

4.5.4 Ground stone The small sample of generally undifferentiated ground stone fragments was discarded more frequently in the Eastern Zone than in the Western Zone (by number, 14 vs. 8 fragments; by weight, 8.85 kg vs. 4.93 kg). 4.5.5 Daub The small collection of daub fragments amounts to a total of 493 fragments, weighing 0.7kg, with a site mean fragment weight of 1.5g. The daub was found in 22 contexts, 13 in the Eastern Zone and 9 in the Western Zone. Some 52% of the daub by number, 58% by weight, was found in the Eastern Zone. Most of the daub in the Eastern Zone derives from a single context – 203 – with over 200 highly comminuted fragments. Otherwise, the Eastern Zone contexts contain lots of small daub groups with low weights (Fig. 4.27). By contrast, the Western Zone contexts contain a “continuous” range of numbers/weights, from very small groups to mediumsized groups (up to 62 in number and 120g in weight).

DAUB NOS. vs. WTs, EASTERN ZONE 300

WEIGHT (g.)

250 200 150 100 50 0 0

50

100

NUMBER

150

200

250

DAUB NOS. vs. WTS, WESTERN ZONE 140

WEIGHT (g.)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

NUMBER

Fig. 4.27 Daub Numbers vs. Weights by Zone: (a) Eastern Zone; (b) Western Zone. 56

There are minor differences between the Zones in respect of daub remains and carbonized plant remains but sample sizes are insufficient to ensure that these differences are statistically significant.

The two Zones share very similar mean fragment weights – 1.5g in the Eastern Zone, 1.6g for the Western Zone. All of the small groups in the Eastern Zone have high mean weights (up to 5g), while the mean weights in the Western Zone are lower, ranging from 0.5 – 3.3g per fragment.

The most interesting question raised in the consideration of Zonal differences is, therefore, why the majority of the finds occurs in the Zone that has considerably fewer archaeological structural features. We shall return to this question in a general discussion. Now, we turn to a detailed presentation of each individual context.

4.5.6 Plant remains The carbonized plant remains form a compact group of small samples, with a total of 34 carbonised remains. Any patterns identified here may well be the result of sampling error or bias rather than a prehistoric dietary choice.

4.6 The individual contexts

There appear to some differences between the two Zones in respect of the plant remains. Far more unidentified Cerealia fragments have been preserved in the Western Zone. The only examples of 6-row barley were found in this Zone also, while barley grains unidentified to subspecies are found in the Eastern Zone. Conversely, emmer wheat has been found only in the Eastern Zone, while millet and green goosegrass occur in both Zones. The carbonized food remains - some of “kasha” – have been discarded in only the Eastern Zone.

This section is structured through a numerical (ascending) order of individual contexts, with information presented under the following headings:1. 2. 3.

4.5.7 Summary The main difference between the two Zones lies in the fact that the vast preponderance of archaeological features was excavated in the Western Zone – principally stone features, including Hut 1, but also cut features. This would lead one to suspect that the greater part of the finds would have been discarded in the Western Zone – but this is not the case! Broadly the same quantity of pottery was deposited in each Zone, with preferential discard of decorated sherds in the Eastern Zone, especially those dating to the Neolithic. There are strong diachronic differences in pottery discard, with all Early-Middle Neolithic sherds and the majority of Medieval and Postmedieval sherds in the Eastern Zone and the majority of Bronze Age and Migration Period fragments, not least decorated Bronze Age sherds, in the Western Zone. Erosion rates for Neolithic sherds vary according to body size – lower rates for the smallest and the largest sherds in the Eastern Zone, lower rates for medium-sized sherds in the Western Zone. By contrast, erosion rates for the Bronze Age assemblage are lower in the Eastern Zone for all sherd sizes.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

number, locational details, date, zone and type of context and name of excavator/ recorder; Description; Plan and/or section drawing where relevant; spot heights on plans and sections are recorded in the captions, relative to the Site Temporary Datum of 100masl, located near the highest point of the site in the Eastern Zone. Pottery information; Lithics information; Botanical information; Other finds information; Summary and interpretation.

The finds from the environmental trenches 4 and 8 – 16 are tabulated at the end of the list of individual contexts. Context 101 (Trench 1) Phase 4 East Zone Ploughsoil Stašo Forenbaher 2. Very dark brown surface layer consisting of turf and disturbed humus (A horizon: 10 YR 3/2) 3. For section, see Fig. 4.2. Top of Context 101: NW corner – 100.58m; NE corner – 100.69m; South East corner – 100.77m; South West corner – 100.69m. Base of Context 101: NW corner – 100.54m; NE corner – 100.60m; South East corner – 100.69m; South West corner – 100.64m. 4. 7 Bronze Age sherds/29g; 3 Medieval sherds/30g; 11 Post-Medieval sherds/65g; 5. Chipped stone – 87 pieces/408.5g: Arka LQ > obsidian: chunks, cores (some re-used), flakes with 2ndary > Primary cortex & Rejuvenation Flakes; inner flakes at site mean: complete & almost complete blades, with PBS and DBS: few poly-functional pieces; low Breakage rates but high Rolling Wear rate: most pieces unworked and unbacked; some scraper edges: little primary production; no ground stone. 6. No plant remains 7. No daub fragments. 8. Summary: the A horizon (ploughsoil) of Trench 1, containing a mixed, plough-disturbed ceramic assemblage.

The discrepancy between features and finds is even more pronounced for chipped and ground stone. The majority of lithics (the vast majority by number) occurs in the Eastern Zone - especially the obsidian and the ground stone - while Other Zemplén limno- and hydro-quartzites occur more frequently in the Western Zone. Both areas were used for the production of flakes and blades, with more inner flakes and blades in the Eastern Zone. Production débitage was regularly found in both Zones – primary flakes more in the Eastern Zone, secondary and rejuvenation flakes and chunks more in the Western Zone.

57

complete, with PBS > DBS – some poly-functional: Breakage rate very high, Rolling Wear damage very low: less than half the pieces re-worked: scrapers and lots of points (Borer > Burin-like > Other); ground stone – 1 grindstone fragment (450g) and 1 possible pestle fragment (150g). 6. No plant remains 7. 1 daub fragment/ 5g. 8. Summary: a surviving part of the B horizon, with mixed material from ploughing, including ceramics, chipped stone and ground stone.

Context 102 (Trench 1) Phase 4 East Zone Ploughsoil Stašo Forenbaher 2. Dark brown plough-disturbed humus with small stones (A horizon: 10 YR 3/3), more or less identical to Context 101. 3. For section, see Fig. 4.2. Base of Context 102: NW corner – 100.38m; NE corner – 100.46m; South East corner – 100.56m; South West corner – 100.45m. 4. 98 Neolithic sherds/ 365g: high proportion of Undec. Bodies, with a few Undec. Rims, Dec. Rims & Bodies & Undec. Handles & Bases; 61 Bronze Age sherds/ 470g: high proportion of Undec. Bodies, with a few Dec. Bodies, Undec. & Dec. Rims & Undec. Handles & Bases ; 58 Medieval sherds/ 152g: high proportion of Undec. Bodies, with many Dec. Bodies & a few Dec. Rims & Dec. & Undec. Handles; 123 Post-Medieval sherds/ 190g: high proportion of Dec. Bodies, with many Undec. Bodies & a few Dec. & Undec. Rims and Bases. 5. Chipped stone – 430 pieces/ 1579.5g; almost half of site assemblage by No., 30% by Wt.: Arka LQ dominant but limited number of Raw Mats used, incl. polyfunctional tools using specific rare Raw Materials: chunks, cores (some re-used), flakes + 2ndary > Primary cortex & Rejuvenation Flakes: more complete > almost complete blades, with PBS > DBS > MBS – lots of polyfunctional blades, esp. PBS: Breakage rate low, Rolling Wear rate very low: lot of pieces re-worked and retouched: scrapers > shouldered pieces > borer points > notched pieces > burin-like points; ground stone – 1 grindstone fragment (750g). 6. No plant remains 7. 6 daub fragments/ 20g; 1 slag fragment/ 5g. 8. Summary: the lower part of the A horizon, with a concentration of finds from the ploughing, consisting of mixed ceramic material (all periods) and a large lithic assemblage.

Context 104 (Trench 1) Phase 3 East Zone Stone feature Stašo Forenbaher 2. Concentration of stones, 0.7m x 0.8m and 0.05m thick, contained within Context 103, possibly the disturbed remains of a stone-built hearth. 3. For plan, see Figs. 4.28 - 29. 4. No sherds. 5. Chipped stone – 3 pieces/ 10g: 2 Arka LQ DBS and 1 rock crystal; ground stone – 3 grindstone fragments (400 g, 200g, 50g). 6. One fragment of Hordeum vulgare; two fragments of Triticum dicoccum and 2 fragments of barley-sized grain comprising cooked kasha.

Context 103 (Trench 1) Phase 3 East Zone Fill Stašo Forenbaher 2. Very dark brown fill, more compact than Context 102 and with increasing light flecks with depth (A horizon: 10 YR 3/2) 3. For section, see Fig. 4.2. 4. 2 Early-Middle Neolithic sherds/ 40g; 29 Neolithic sherds/ 200g; 24 Bronze Age sherds/ 185g; 1 Migration Period sherd/ 10g; 4 Post-Medieval sherds/ 25g. Fragmentation/erosion data: classic pattern of decreasing erosion with time, with sherd size increasing from Neolithic to Bronze Age but decreasing in Post-medieval. 5. Chipped stone – 52 pieces/ 325.5g; Arka LW dominant, but obsidian much higher than site mean: chunks, cores, flakes + 2ndary cortex > Primary cortex & Rejuvenation Flakes: lot of blades, almost complete >

Fig. 4.28 Plan of location of Contexts 104, 105, 106 and 107, Trench 1. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 - 100.31m; 2 – 100.33m; 3 – 100.39m; 4 – 100.38m; 5 -100.36m

58

Fig. 4.29 Plan, Context 104, Trench 1. Triangle: flint blade. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 100.49m; 2 – 100.48m; 3 – 100.46m; 4 – 100.38m.

Context 105 (Trench 1) Phase 1 or 2 East Zone Pit Stašo Forenbaher 2. Pit excavated into the subsoil, 0.7m in length, minimum of 0.7m in width (extends beyond Trench 1) and 0.2m in depth. Lower fill – brown - dark brown 10 YR 4/3; upper fill – dark brown 10YR 3/3. 3. For plan, see Fig. 4.30; for section, see Fig. 4.2; ; for Colour Photographs, see CD Figs. 4.3 – 4.4.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

59

2 Bronze Age sherds/ 20g. No chipped stone; no ground stone. One fragment of carbonized food remains, not cooked kasha (!). 2 daub fragments/ 10g. Summary: a small, oval pit dating to the Bronze Age, with sherds, daub and burnt food remains.

Fig. 4.30 Plan & Section, Context 105, Trench 1. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 100.32m; 2 – 100.14m; 3 – 100.35m; 4 – 100.07m; 5 – 100.31m.

Context 106 (Trench 1) Recent East Zone Burrow Stašo Forenbaher 2. Shallow elongated depression in the subsoil, 0.9m in length, 0.15m in width and 0.05m in depth, with very dark grayish brown fill 10YR 3/2. Possibly a rodent burrow. 3. For plan, see Fig. 4.31; for section, see Fig. 4.2. 4. 1 Bronze Age sherd/30g.

5. 6. 7. 8.

60

No chipped stone; no ground stone. Two fragments of Cerealia spp. and one fragment of Triticum dicoccum. No daub fragments. Summary: a probable animal burrow that has disturbed part of a Bronze Age layer, introducing one sherd and some food remains into the burrow.

Fig. 4.31 Plan & Section, Context 106, Trench 1. Context 107 (Trench 1) Phase 1 or 2 East Zone Fill Stašo Forenbaher 2. Very dark brown clayey fill, 10YR 3/2, more or less identical to Context 103 but with fewer finds. 3. For plan, see Fig. 4.32; for section, see Fig. 4.2. 4. No sherds. 5. Chipped stone – 1 piece/ 3g: one LQ blade; no ground stone. 6. One grain of Galium spurium, two fragments of Hordeum vulgare and one grain of Panicum miliaceum. 7. No daub fragments. 8. Summary: the lowest surviving part of the B horizon, with a few lithic remains, some carbonized food remains and a weed seed

Context 108 (Trench 1) Phase 1 or 2 East Zone ? tree hole Stašo Forenbaher 2. Irregular depression with dark brown fill, 10YR 3./3, cca. 1m in diameter. Possibly a tree hole ? 3. For plan, see Fig. 4.33. 4. 1 Neolithic sherd/10g; 2 Bronze Age sherds/20g. 5. No chipped stone; no ground stone. 6. Plant remains:- one grain of Panicum miliaceum; one fragment of charred oak (Quercus robur/petraea). 7. No daub fragments. 8. Summary: a probable tree-throw hole, into which has been washed some pottery, charred food remains and charred wood.

Fig. 4.32 Plan of base of Context 107, Trench 1. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 -100.15m; 2 – 100.32m; 3 – 100.19m; 4 – 100.29m; 5 – 100.19m.

61

Fig. 4.33 Plan & Section, Context 108, Trench 1. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 100.27m; 2 – 100.16m; 3 – 100.15m; 4 – 100.21m; 5 – 100.22m; 6 – 100.29m; 7 – 100.26m. Context 201 (Trench 2)

Context 109 (Trench 1) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Subsoil East Zone Fill Stašo Forenbaher Natural subsoil – dark yellowish brown, 10YR 4/4 – excavated in two test pits in NE and S. parts of Trench 1 No plan nor section. Top of Context 1009 – 100.26m – 100.29m. No sherds No chipped stone; weathered andesite fragment; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments Summary: the natural C horizon of this zone.

2. 3.

4.

62

Phase 4 East Zone Ploughsoil Keri Brown Fine, light very dark brown topsoil, 10YR 3/2. For section, see Fig. 4.4. Top of Context 201: NW corner – 97.7m; NE corner – 97.85m; South East corner – 97.74m; South West corner – 97.41m. 46 Bronze Age sherds/ 160g; 20 Migration Period sherds/ 105g; 82 Medieval sherds/ 390g: high proportion of Undec. Bodies, with many Dec. Bodies and a few Dec. Rims, Undec. Handles & Dec. & Undec. Bases; 104 PostMedieval sherds/ 206g: high proportion of Dec. Bodies, many Undec. Bodies and a few Dec. & Undec. Rims & Dec. Bases.

5.

6. 7. 8.

Context 203 (Trench 2)

Chipped stone –29 pieces/167g: almost ½ = Arka LW but only 1 obsidian and 1/3 = unrecognized: lot of Chunks, above site mean, no cores, flakes + Primary > 2ndary cortex & Rejuvenation Flakes: only segments – PBS > DBS > MBS: Breakage rate average but Rolling Wear damage well above site mean: lot of reworking – highest rate on site: medium scrapers and lot of Points (Other = Borer > Burin-like): little primary production here; ground stone - 1 grindstone fragment (150g). No plant remains 2 daub fragments/ 10g. Summary: the A horizon of Trench 2, with a collection of mixed ceramics and lithics from all periods disturbed by ploughing.

2. 3. 4.

Context 202 (Trench 2) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Phase 4 East Zone Ploughsoil Keri Brown Dark brown topsoil, 10YR 3/3, mixed with black soil from underlying layer No plan or section. 3 Bronze Age sherds/ 20g; 4 Migration Period sherds/ 25g; 4 Medieval sherds/ 22g. No chipped stone; ground stone – 4 grindstone fragments (3.55kg, 1.6kg, 950g & 750g). No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: the A horizon of Trench 2, with a small assemblage of mixed ceramics disturbed by ploughing.

5.

6. 7. 8.

63

Phase 3 East Zone Fill Keri Brown Black lower part of A horizon, 10YR 2/1 For plans, see Figs. 4.34 - 35; for section, see Fig. 4.4. 3 Early-Middle Neolithic sherds/ 40g; 90 Neolithic sherds/ 530g: very high proportion of Undec. Bodies, with a few Undec. & Dec. Rims, Dec. Bodies & Undec. Handles & Bases; 11 Pink Ware sherds/ 80g; 305 Bronze Age sherds/ 2.62kg: high proportion of Undec. Bodies and a few Dec. & Undec. Rims & Dec. Bodies; 21 Migration Period sherds/ 120g; 32 Medieval sherds/ 120g; 4 Post-Medieval sherds/ 20g. Fragmentation/erosion data: after Bronze Age, decreasing erosion with time; despite similar size profile, Neolithic & Bronze Age erosion is different with respect to size – larger Neolithic sherds have more severe erosion and less moderate erosion; larger Bronze Age sherds have the reverse – a new pattern. Chipped stone 17 pieces/ 123g; lot of Chunks (more than site mean), 1 core, very few cortexrich flakes and only 1 inner flake (very low): lots of blades (well above site mean) – complete > almost complete, PBS > DBS = MBS: high Breakage rate, but low Rolling Wear damage: high re-working index, combined with highest backing ratio on site: few scrapers but more points; ground stone – 2 grindstone fragments (650g, 250g). Plant remains: unidentified charred wood fragments. 209 rounded, weathered daub fragments/ 260g. Summary: the lower part of the A horizon, with mixed ceramics and lithics disturbed by ploughing.

Fig. 4.34 Plan of Context 203 (first spit), Trench 2. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 97.02m; 2 – 97.31m; 3 – 97.24m; 4 -97.22m.

64

Fig. 4.35 Plan of Context 203 (second spit), Trench 2. Context 205 (Trench 2)

Context 204 (Trench 2) 2.

3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

Phase 2 or 3 East Zone Fill Keri Brown Upper weathered surface of natural sub-soil, hard dark yellowish-brown soil, 10YR 4/4, the result of mixing of deposits from Contexts 203 and 205, including stonier soil in NW quadrant. For section, see Fig. 4.4. 1 Neolithic sherd/ 10g; 1 Pink Ware sherd/ 5g; 7 Bronze Age sherds/ 75g. Fragmentation/erosion data: more erosion in the Neolithic compared to the Bronze Age: larger Bronze Age sherds are less eroded. Chipped stone – 2 pieces/ 11g: 1 chunk and 1 LQ flake; no ground stone. Plant remains:- one fragment of charred oak wood (Quercus robur/petraea). No daub fragments. Summary: the C horizon of Trench 2, with weathering introducing small quantities of mixed ceramics and some chipped stone.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Subsoil East Zone Subsoil Keri Brown Natural bedrock, a yellowish-brown weathered andesite, 10YR 4/4. No plan or section. No sherds No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: the subsoil of Trench 2, with no finds.

Context 300 (Trench 3) 2. 3. 4. 5. 65

Phase 4 East Zone Ploughsoil Andy Dunn Dark brown loamy topsoil with angular stone inclusions. For sections, see Figs. 4.6 – 4.8. Top of Context 300: 98.1m. 2 Neolithic sherds/ 15g; 2 Bronze Age sherds/ 10g; 3 Medieval sherds/ 10g; 7 Post-Medieval sherds/ 35g. Chipped stone – 54 pieces/ 215g: diversity of Raw Materials, dominated by Arka LQ and

6. 7. 8.

some obsidian: Chunks, 1 core, flakes + Primary > 2ndary cortex, no Rejuvenation Flakes: complete > almost complete blades, with PBS > MBS > DBS: average Breakage rates, low Rolling Wear rates and low % of re-working: low scraper ratio, more points (Other > Borer); no ground stone. No plant remains 5 daub fragments/ 5g. Summary: the A horizon of Trench 3, with small quantities of mixed ceramics and lithics disturbed by ploughing.

Context 301 (Trench 3)

Subsoil East Zone Subsoil Andy Dunn 2. Mottled yellowish-brown compact subsoil. 3. For plans, see Figs. 4.36 - 38; for section, see Fig. 4.6 – 4.8. 4. No sherds. 5. Chipped stone – 2 pieces/ 9g: 2 LQ flakes; no ground stone. 6. No plant remains 7. No daub fragments. 8. Summary: the B horizon of Trench 2, with very scarce lithics

.

Fig. 4.36 Plan of Contexts 301, 302, 303 and 304, Trench 3. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 - 97.77m; 2 – 97.81m; 3 – 97.79m; 4 -97.82m.

66

Fig. 4.37 Plan of Contexts 301, 305 and 306, Trench 3. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 97.68m; 2 – 97.67m; 3 – 97.69m; 4 – 97.68m; 5 – 97.67m

67

Fig. 4.38 Plan of Contexts 301, 305 and 307, Trench 3. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 97.55m; 2 – 97.54m; 3 – 97.66m; 4 – 97.66m; 5 – 97.76m. 3. For plan, see Fig. 4.36; for sections, see Figs. 4.7 – 4.8 4. No sherds. 5. No chipped stone; no ground stone. 6. No plant remains 7. No daub fragments. 8. Summary: an organic-rich ‘cultural’ deposit but without objects.

Context 302 (Trench 3) 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

Phase 3 East Zone Fill Andy Dunn Very compact ashy grayish-black layer, with angular stones in SW quadrant, with horizontal roots along boundary with Context 300. For plan, see Fig. 4.36; for sections, see Figs. 4.6 – 4.8. 5 Late Bronze Age sherds/ 40g. Chipped stone – 17 pieces/ 43.5g: Chunks, no cores, no Primary Cortex flakes, 1 flake + 2ndary cortex & 1 Rejuvenation Flake: lot of blades (well above site mean), with complete blades, PBS > MBS: Breakage wear average, Rolling Wear lower than mean, few re-worked pieces: no scrapers but lot of points: no primary production here; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: small area of organic-rich deposit, probably part of a re-deposited “cultural” layer with a small quantity of finds – ceramics and lithics.

Context 304 (Trench 3) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Phase 3 East Zone Fill Andy Dunn Small, compact grayish-black area, 0.5 x 0.5m in area, probably a darker part of Context 302. For plan, see Fig. 4.36. No sherds. Chipped stone – 1 piece/ 10g: Arka LQ scraper on a flake; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: as Context 303.

Context 305 (Trench 3)

Phase 2 East Zone Fill Andy Dunn 2. Blocky brown cultural layer 3. For plans, see Figs. 4.38 - 39; for sections, see Figs. 4.6 – 4.8 & 4.39.

Context 303 (Trench 3)

Phase 3 East Zone Fill Andy Dunn 2. Compact grayish-black layer, 0.7 x 0.5m in area, similar to Context 302 but slightly darker. 68

5. 6. 7. 8.

4. 1 Neolithic sherd/ 10g; 2 Pink Ware sherds/ 20g; 2 Middle Bronze Age sherds/ 20g; 12 Late Bronze Age sherds/ 50g; 3 Migration Period sherds/ 15g; 3 PostMedieval sherds/ 20g. Fragmentation/erosion data: classic erosion pattern, decreasing with time; sherd size mixed – Neolithic + more large sherds than Migration Period or Post-Medieval; also, some of largest Neolithic sherds have severe erosion ! 5. Chipped stone – 20 pieces/ 83g: half = LQ, high proportion of obsidian (higher than site mean): no Chunks, no cores, few cortex-rich flakes, no Rejuvenation Flakes: a few blades (complete, almost complete & PBS): very low Breakage rate and Rolling Wear low, with no re-working: no primary production here; no ground stone. 6. No plant remains 7. No daub fragments. 8. Summary: preserved part of the ‘cultural layer’, with dense concentration of finds – ceramics and lithics.

No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: a possible pit but with a fill totally lacking in finds.

Context 500 (Trench 5) 2. 3.

4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

Fig. 4.39 North - South section across Context 305, Trench 3. Spot height, section datum (m. relative to site datum)- 97.67m. Context 306 (Trench 3) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Recent East Zone Burrow Andy Dunn Linear feature with dark brown fill 1.5m in length, 0.1 – 0.3m in width – probably an animal burrow. For plan, see Fig. 4.37. 1 Neolithic sherd/10g. Chipped stone – 5 pieces/ 3g; Arka LQ, obsidian and rock crystal: regular flakes and PBS; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: a probable animal burrow, into which has been moved one sherd and some chipped stone from their place of primary deposition.

Phase 4 West Zone Ploughsoil Andy Dunn Dark brown friable ploughsoil, 7.5YR 3/2 For section, see Fig. 4.10. Top of Context 500: NW corner – 94.26m; NE corner – 94.40m; South East corner – 94.17m; South West corner – 94.09m. 11 Neolithic sherds/120g: high proportion of Undec. Bodies, with a few Dec. & Undec.Rims & Dec. Bodies; 1 Pink Ware sherd/20g: an Undec. Body sherd; 45 Bronze Age sherds/510g: almost all Undec. Bodies, with one Undec. Rim, one Dec. Body and one Undec. Base; 5 Migration Period sherds/145g: four Undec. Bodies and 1 Dec. Body; 4 Early Medieval sherds/20g: 3 Undec. Bodies & 1 Dec.Body; 3 Medieval sherds/45g: 2 Dec. Bodies & 1 Dec. Rim; 16 Post-medieval sherds/50g: a majority of Dec. Bodies, with a few Undec. Bodies & 1 Dec. Rim. Chipped stone – 6 pieces/21.5g: 3 Arka LQ and 3 un-known: 1 micro-core, 3 regular flakes, 1 irregular flake and 1 PBS; no ground stone. No plant remains 2 daub fragments/ 5g. Summary: the A horizon of Trench 5, with material concentrated through ploughing to produce a large, mixed ceramic and lithic assemblage.

Context 501 (Trench 5) 2. 3. 4.

5.

Context 307 (Trench 3) Phase 2 East Zone ? pit Andy Dunn 2. Dark, compact semi-circular feature, 0.2m in length and minimum 0.1m in width, extending outside Trench 3. 3. For plan, see Fig. 4.38. 4. No sherds.

6. 7. 8.

69

Phase 4 West Zone Ploughsoil Andy Dunn Compact very dark gray level, 10YR 3/1, similar to the ploughsoil in Context 500 but more compact, darker and more organic. For section, see Fig. 4.10. 27 Neolithic sherds/ 320g; 210 Bronze Age sherds/ 2.115kg: high proportion of Undec. Bodies, many Dec. Bodies and a few Undec. Rims & Bases; 13 Migration Period sherds/ 30g; 25 Medieval sherds/ 90g; 16 Post-Medieval sherds/ 45g. Chipped stone – 10 pieces/466.5g: mostly Arka LQ: Chunks, no cores, all flakes inner: lot of blades, complete, PBS, DBS and MBS: much higher Breakage rate and Rolling Wear damage than site mean: few scrapers or points ; no ground stone. Four grains of Hordeum vulgare subspecies hexastichum and 12 fragments of Cerealia spp. 44 daub fragments/ 70g. Summary: part of the A horizon of Trench 5, with a similarly high concentration of sherds and lithics, as well as burnt food remains.

Context 502 (Trench 5) 2.

3. 4. 5.

Phase 4 West Zone Fill Andy Dunn Gritty dark grayish-brown, 10YR 4/2, very compact but thin layer in SW quadrant, containing small angular stones and defined along E edge by line of small angular stones (= Context 503). For plans, see Figs. 4.40 – 41; for Colour Photograph, see CD Fig. 4.5. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone.

6. 7. 8.

No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: a series of small, discontinuous concentrations of stone that may once have been more extensive and connected, perhaps forming a living surface. However, no finds were made on this surface. Taken together with Context 507, this appears to be the exterior space North of a light structure bordered by the stone lines Contexts 503, 606 and 607.

Fig. 4.40 Plan of Contexts 502 – 504, 507, 606 and 607, Trench 5/6. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 93.84m; 2 – 93.73m; 3 – 93.69m; 4 – 93.72m; 5 – 93.72m; 6 – 93.73m; 7 – 93.84m; 8 – 93.78m; 9 – 93.78m; 10 – 93.78m; 11 – 93.81m; 12 – 93.80m; 13 – 93.80m; 14 – 93.82m; 15 – 93.82m; 16 – 93.84m; 17 – 93.82m; 18 – 93.89m; 19 – 93.87m; 20 – 93.87m; 21 – 93.92m; 22 – 93.92m; 23 – 93.91m; 24 – 93.91m; 25 – 93.95m.

70

Fig. 4.41 Plan of Contexts 502, 503, 504, 505 and 507, Trench 5. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 93.78m; 2 – 93.75m; 3 – 93.80m; 4 – 93.70m; 5 – 93.80m.

more erosion in medium-sized sherds than in smaller or larger. 5. Chipped stone – 1 piece/ 1g: 1 unworked rock crystal; no ground stone. 6. No plant remains 7. No daub fragments. 8. Summary: the Eastern part of the Northern edge of the structure whose interior comprised Context 504. This Context links to Contexts 606 and 607 to form a thin foundation for a light superstructure, perhaps a windbreak, supported by at least two small post-holes.

Context 503 (Trench 5) 2.

3.

4.

Phase 3 West Zone Stone feature Andy Dunn Alignment of angular, tightly packed stones, running North – South, separating Contexts 502 from 504/507. 2m in length, 0.2m in width with some 10-cm gaps which may have been the place for stakes. Set in Context 510. For plans, see Figs. 4.40 - 44; for section, see Fig. 4.10; ; for Colour Photograph, see CD Fig. 4.6. 5 Bronze Age sherds/ 35g; 1 Bronze Age Pink Ware shed/15g. Fragmentation/erosion data:

71

Fig. 4.42 Post-excavation plan of Context 503, with 504 and 511, Trench 5. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 93.82m; 2 – 93.76m; 3 – 93.72m; 4 – 93.83m; 5 – 93.74m; 6 – 93.81m; 7 – 93.79m; 8 – 93.85m.

Context 504 (Trench 5) 2. 3. 4. 5.

Phase 3 West Zone Fill Andy Dunn Moderately compacted, almost stone-free brown “spongy” layer, 7.5YR 3/2. For plans, see Figs. 4.40 - 43 for section, see Fig. 4.10; for Colour Photograph, see CD Fig. 4.6. 14 Bronze Age sherds/ 55g. No chipped stone; no ground stone.

6. 7. 8.

72

One grain of Galium spurium and one grain of Hordeum vulgare subspecies hexastichum. No daub fragments. Summary: the interior living floor of the light structure 503/606/607, with few ceramics and a small quantity of burnt food remains. The main contrast with contexts outside the structure lies in the lack of stones on the living surface, with the exception of one or two flat, oval stones that may have supported inner vertical posts.

Fig. 4.43 Plan of Contexts 504 & 507, Trench 5. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 93.78m; 2 – 93.78m; 3 – 93.74m; 4 – 93.75m; 5 – 93.69m; 6 – 93.75m; 7 – 93.76m; 8 – 93.75m. Context 507 (Trench 5)

Context 505 (Trench 5) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Phase 3 West Zone Stone feature Andy Dunn Concentration of angular stones, of maximum size of 0.20m, covering an area of 0.50 x 0.50m. For plan, see Fig. 4.42; for section, see Fig. 4.11. 2 Bronze Age sherds/ 40g. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: a small area of stones, perhaps a paved area, associated with a few Bronze Age sherds.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Context 506 (Trench 5) 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Phase 3 West Zone Depression Andy Dunn Small depression in the SW quadrant, 0.76m in length and 0.40m in width, with very dark grayish-brown friable silty clay fill, 10YR 3/2. This deposit directly overlies the stone scatter Context 505. For plan, see Fig. 4.40. 1 Bronze Age sherd/ 20g. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: a shallow scoop ‘dug’ into the top of the paved area Context 505, also associated with very little Bronze Age pottery.

Phase 3 West Zone Fill Andy Dunn Compacted very dark gray clay, 10YR 3/1, with frequent angular stone inclusions and high grit content (weathered yellow andesite) For plans, see Figs. 4.40, 41 & 43; for sections, see Figs. 4.10 – 4.11. 1 Bronze Age sherd/ 10g. Chipped stone – 1 piece/ 2g: 1 Arka LQ inner flake; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: this clay layer forms part of the exterior space North of the light structure 503/606/607 and is bordered by lines or areas of stones to the South.

Context 508 (Trench 5) 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

73

Phase 2 West Zone Fill Andy Dunn Brown deposit, 10YR 3/3 with some orange mottling and gritty inclusions (weathered andesite). AD thinks that this is the fill for cut Context 525 but this is not supported by the plan data. For plans, see Figs. 4.44 – 4.46; for sections, see Figs. 4.10 - 11 No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: a living surface pre-dating the light structure 503/606/607, which is cut by several features - the foundation trench 510 for the Northern edge (303) of the light structure, a second foundation trench 513 and the post-hole 516.

Fig. 4.44 Plan of Contexts 508, gully 510, 511 - 512 and 514 - 516, with section of Context 515, Trench 5. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 93.87m; 2 – 93.81m; 3 – 92.80m; 4 – 93.74m; 5 – 93.76m; 6 – 93.75m; 7 – 93.78m; 8 – 93.76.

74

Fig. 4.45 Plan of Contexts 508, 511 and 514, Trench 5. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 93.77m; 2 – 93.84m; 3 – 93.79m; 4 – 93.78m; 5 – 93.79m; 6 – 93.60m; 7 – 93.67m; 8 – 93.81m; 9 – 93.76m; 10 – 93.78m.

Fig. 4.46 Sketch plan of Contexts 508, 513, 514, 516 and 517, Trench 5 (Spot heights after those on Fig. 4.45).

75

Context 513 (Trench 5)

Context 509 (Trench 5) Phase 2 West Zone ? pit Andy Dunn 2. Cut feature (? gully, ? pit), 0.5m in length, ?m in width and 0.11m in depth. AD claims the fill of this is 508 but Section 4.11 contradicts this. 3. For section, see Fig. 4.11. 4. No sherds. 5. No chipped stone; no ground stone. 6. No plant remains 7. No daub fragments. 8. Summary: a possible pit, with no finds in the fill.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Context 510 (Trench 5) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Phase 3 West Zone Foundation trench Andy Dunn Elongated, narrow cut feature, 2m in length, 0.2m in width and 0.1m in depth, filled by stone scatter Context 503. For plan, see Fig. 4.44; for section, see Fig. 4.10. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: the foundation trench for that part of the Northern edge of the light structure 503/606/607 designated Context 503.

Context 514 (Trench 5) 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Context 511 (Trench 5) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Phase 2 West Zone Fill Andy Dunn Compacted clayey loam matrix, 10YR 3/4, 1m in length, with small angular stone inclusions. Similar in texture to Context 508 but less stony. For plans, see Figs. 4.44 - 45; for section, see Fig. 4.10. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: similarly to Context 508, this is part of a living surface pre-dating the light structure 503/606/607 and also cut by two foundation trenches (510 and 513).

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Phase 1 West Zone Fill Andy Dunn Orange-brown sandy loam, 10YR 3/1, with some small gravel inclusions and a few large angular stones (up to 0.2m) in the NE quadrant. AD thinks that Context 524 is part of this context (???). For plans, see Figs. 4.44 - 46; for section, see Fig. 4.10. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: a living surface to the West of the light structure 503/606/607, stratigraphically earlier than Contexts 502 and 507.

Context 515 (Trench 5) 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Context 512 (Trench 5) 2.

Phase 2 West Zone Foundation trench Andy Dunn Cut for stone alignment Context 512; this may be the lower part of the cut feature Context 510 (the setting for the stone alignment 503). For plan, see Fig. 4.46; for section, see Fig. 4.10. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: as Context 512: part of the light structure 5023/606/607 or an earlier phase of this structure.

Phase 2 West Zone Stone feature Andy Dunn Alignment of small angular stones, 3m in length and 0.3m in width, in a loamy matrix, 10YR 3/2. This may be the same as the stone alignment Context 503 but it is offset from the line of 503 – or it may be an earlier phase of 503. These stones are set into Context 513. For plan, see Fig. 4.44; for section, see Fig. 4.10. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: part of the light structure 503/606/607 or an earlier phase of this structure, forming the Western edge of the structure.

Phase 2 West Zone Post-hole fill Andy Dunn Fill of large post-hole (cut = Context 516) at the end of the stone alignment Contexts 503/512. Friable light – mid-brown clayey loam fill, 10YR 3/2, with several angular packing stones. For plans of cut Context 516, see Figs. 4.44, 46 & 47; for section, see Fig. 4.44. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: part of the North-western corner of the light structure 503/606/607, as the largest post-hole associated with the structure.

Context 516 (Trench 5) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

76

Phase 2 West Zone Post-hole cut Andy Dunn Steep-sided cut for post-hole Context 515, 0.30m in diameter and 0.?m in depth. For plan, see Fig. 4.44, 46 & 47. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: the largest post-hole associated with the light structure 503/606/607 (see Context 515).

Fig. 4.47 Plan and section of Context 516, Trench 5. Spot height of section datum (m. relative to site datum) – 93.99m. Context 517 (Trench 5) 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Phase 1 West Zone Fill Andy Dunn Friable mid-yellow brown silty clay, 10YR 5/6 to 3/4, 0.75m in width and 0.05m in depth, mottled with frequent patches of mid-brown clay loam and containing small angular grit and medium-sized stones (up to 5cm). AD thinks this is mainly re-deposited natural as the fill of a large bowl-shaped hollow (???). For plan, see Fig. 4.46; for sections, see Figs. 4.10 – 4.11. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: possible re-deposited natural sediment, in terms of the subsoil of Trench 5.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Context 519 (Trench 5) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Context 518 (Trench 5) 2.

with moderate frequency of small angular stones and grit (up to 3cm). This is the fill of the cut Context 519. For section, see Fig. 4.10. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: fill of a possible foundation deposit running parallel to (? earlier than) the Western edge of the light structure 503/606/607.

Phase 1 West Zone Fill Andy Dunn Narrow North – South-running linear deposit of highly compacted dark gray-brown clay loam, 10YR 3/2, 0.2m in width and 0.2m in depth, 77

Phase 1 West Zone Linear cut Andy Dunn Steep-sided, linear cut containing fill Context 518 For section, see Fig. 4.10. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: cut of a possible foundation trench for a light structure (see Context 518 for the fill).

Context 524 (Trench 5)

Context 520 (Trench 5) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Phase 1 West Zone Post-hole cut Andy Dunn Cut for post-hole, with Context 528 as fill; 0.2m in diameter and 0.2m in depth. For plan, see Fig. 4.48. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: an apparently isolated post-hole with no associated dating evidence.

2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Context 521 (Trench 5) 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Phase 1 West Zone Fill Andy Dunn Fill of large cut Context 522, consisting of friable dark gray-brown silty clay loam, 10YR 3/2, 0.15m in width, containing moderate numbers of medium angular stones (up to 20cm). No plan or section. No sherds. Chipped stone – 1 piece/ 512g: 1 very large Arka LQ flake, cf. large chopper; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: a diffuse, irregular cut into Context 514, with minimal associated objects (1 worked flake).

Phase 1 West Zone Fill Andy Dunn Part of the fill of the cut Context 525, 0.65m in width, which AD thinks is part of Context 514. Orange-brown sandy loam, 10YR 3/1, with some small gravel inclusions and a few large angular stones. For section, see Fig. 4.10. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: possibly part of the living surface Context 514, with no associated finds.

Context 525 (Trench 5) Phase 1 West Zone ? pit Andy Dunn 2. Cut context filled by Context 508 in Eastern half of Trench 5. 3. For plans of Context 508, see Figs. 4.44 – 46; for section, see Fig. 4.10. 4. No sherds. 5. No chipped stone; no ground stone. 6. No plant remains 7. No daub fragments. 8. Summary: a possible pit cut into the living surface Context 514. Context 526 (Trench 5) 2.

Context 522 (Trench 5) Phase 1 West Zone ? pit Andy Dunn 2. Large cut with many and complex fills, including Context 521. 3. For section, see Fig. 4.10. 4. No sherds. 5. No chipped stone; no ground stone. 6. No plant remains 7. No daub fragments. 8. Summary: a large, irregular cut into living surface Context 514, with no associated finds.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Context 527 (Trench 5) Phase 1 West Zone ? pit Andy Dunn 2. Cut feature (? a pit) with fill as Context 526. 3. For section, see Fig. 4.10. 4. No sherds. 5. No chipped stone; no ground stone. 6. No plant remains 7. No daub fragments. 8. Summary: the fill of possible pit Context 526.

Context 523 (Trench 5) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Phase 1 West Zone Fill Andy Dunn Fill of cut Context 527 (? = pit); friable, very dark gray fill, 10YR 3/1, with occasional stone inclusions (up to 6cm). For section, see Fig. 4.10. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: a possible pit cut into the living surface Context 514.

Subsoil West Zone Subsoil Andy Dunn Natural subsoil – a “dirty” yellowish-brown matrix, 10YR 5/6, with frequent inclusions of weathered andesite fragments. For section, see Fig. 4.10. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: the C horizon for Trench 5, with no associated finds.

Context 528 (Trench 5) 2.

78

Phase 1 West Zone Post-hole fill Andy Dunn Fill of post-hole cut Context 520, consisting of friable brownish-yellow silty clay, 10YR 6/8, 0.75m in width and 0.05m in depth, mottled with frequent patches of mid-brown clay loam and containing several packing stones (up to 5cm).

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Context 602 (Trench 6) Phase 4 West Zone Ploughsoil Stašo Forenbaher 2. Ploughsoil very similar to Context 601: very dark grayish-brown, 10YR 3/2, containing some medium-sized stones (up to 10cm), with few finds in the SE quadrant but dense artifact distribution elsewhere. 3. For plan, see Fig. 4.49; for sections, see Figs. 4.13 – 4.14. 4. 91 Neolithic sherds/ 940g: high proportion of Undec. Bodies and a few Undec. Rims, Handles & Bases & Dec. Bodies; 5 Pink Ware/ 40g; 321 Bronze Age sherds/ 2.25kg: very high proportion of Undec. Bodies and a few Dec. Bodies, Undec. & Dec. Rims & Undec. Bases; 2 Bronze Age Pink Ware sherds/ 40g; 2 prehistoric sherds/ 60g; 59 Migration Period sherds/ 660g: very high proportion of Undec. Bodies and a few Undec. Rims; 13 Medieval sherds/ 50g; 3 Post-Medieval sherds/ 20g. 5. Chipped stone – 10 pieces/ 57g: 9 Arka LQ and 1 obsidian: no Chunks, no cores, no flakes + Primary cortex, but flakes + 2ndary cortex & Rejuvenation Flakes: no blades, only PBS and DBS: Breakage rate cf. site mean, high Rolling Wear damage and mostly unre-worked: 1 notch and 1 point; ground stone – 1 grindstone fragment (40g). 6. Three fragments of Cerealia spp. 7. 62 daub fragments/ 120g. 8. Summary: part of the A horizon of Trench 6, with a greater total of finds, concentrated by ploughing and covering all periods.

For plan of Context 520, see Fig. 4.48. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: fill of the post-hole Context 520, not containing any associated finds.

Context 601 (Trench 6) Phase 4 West Zone Ploughsoil Stašo Forenbaher 2. Very dark grayish-brown ploughsoil, 10YR 3/2. 3. For sections, see Figs. 4.13 – 4.14. Top of Context 601: NW corner – 93.99m; NE corner – 94.12m; South East corner – 93.77m; South West corner – 93.60m; base of Context 601: NW corner – 93.77m; NE corner – 93.90m; South East corner – 93.61m; South West corner – 93.45m. 4. 4 Neolithic sherds/ 60g; 7 Bronze Age sherds/ 80g; 4 Migration Period sherds/ 20g; 27 Medieval sherds/ 165g; 13 Post-Medieval sherds/ 65g. 5. Chipped stone – 3 pieces/ 21 g: 1 LQ core, 1 inner flake and 1 other of unknown source; no ground stone. 6. No plant remains 7. No daub fragments. 8. Summary: the A horizon of Trench 6, with a concentration of mixed ceramics and a few lithics disturbed by ploughing.

79

Fig. 4.48 Plan of base of Context 602, Trench 6. Dots – sherds. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 93.72m; 2 – 93.85m; 3 – 93.63m; 4 – 93.43m; 5 – 93.52m. Context 603 (Trench 6) 2.

3. 4.

Phase 3 West Zone Fill Stašo Forenbaher Very dark brown soil below the base of the ploughsoil, 10YR 2/2, containing some mediumsized stones (up to 20cm), with few finds in the SE quadrant but dense artifact distribution elsewhere. For plan, see Fig. 4.49; for sections, see Figs. 4.13 – 4.14. 8 Neolithic sherds/ 65g; 250 Bronze Age sherds/ 2.49kg: very high proportion of Undec. Bodies and a few Undec. Rims & Bases and Dec. Rims & Bodies. Fragmentation/erosion data: very

5.

6. 7. 8.

80

consistent size pattern – the larger the sherd, the less severe the erosion; the smaller the Bronze Age sherds, the more frequent they are. Chipped stone – 7 pieces/ 38g: 6 Arka LQ and 1 HQ (probably S Zemplén): 1 Chunk, 3 regular flakes, 3 PBS: high Breakage rate and Rolling Wear rate; ground stone – 1 grindstone fragment (1.5kg). No plant remains 52 daub fragments/ 60g. Summary: the B horizon of Trench 6, with plough disturbance affecting the mixed ceramic and lithic groups.

Fig. 4.49 Plan of base of Context 603, Trench 6. Dots – sherds. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 93.65m; 2 – 93.80m; 3 – 93.61m; 4 – 93.40m; 5 – 93.49m. Context 604 (Trench 6) Phase 3 West Zone Fill Stašo Forenbaher 2. Very dark brown soil, 10YR 2/2 which is identical to Context 603, which appears everywhere except in SE quadrant. 3. For plan, see Fig. 4.50; for sections, see Figs. 4.13 – 4.14. 4. 15 Neolithic sherds/ 130g; 1 Pink Ware sherd/ 20g; 94 Bronze Age sherds/ 1.25kg: high proportion of Undec. Bodies and a few Dec. Bodies, Dec. & Undec. Rims & Undec. Bases. Fragmentation/erosion data: size pattern variable – more small sherds in Bronze Age than Neolithic but more medium-sized sherds in

5.

6. 7. 8.

81

Neolithic than Bronze Age, with similar ratio of large sherds; Neolithic tendency to have more erosion in larger sherds, while the Bronze Age tendency is for decreasing erosion with increasing sherd size. Chipped stone – 8 pieces/ 428g: 5 Arka LQ, 3 unknown: 4 Chunks, 3 regular flakes and 1 PBS; ground stone – 1 rubber fragment (250g) & 1 grindstone fragment (1kg). No plant remains 42 daub fragments/ 20g. Summary: the B horiz\on of Trench 6, with further plough disturbance.

Fig. 4.51 Plan of base of Contexts 604 & 607, Trench 6. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 93.61m; 2 – 93.77m; 3 – 93.66m; 4 – 93.59m; 5 – 93.51m. 2.

Context 605 (Trench 6)

Phase 2 West Zone Fill Stašo Forenbaher 2. Very dark grayish-brown clayey soil, 10YR 3/2, containing some stones but few artifacts. 3. For sections, see Figs. 4.13 – 4.14. 4. 1 Neolithic sherd/ 20g; 16 Bronze Age sherds/ 100g. 5. Chipped stone – 2 pieces/11g: 2 Arka LQ regular flakes; no ground stone. 6. No plant remains 7. 6 daub fragments/ 20g. 8. Summary: the B horizon of Trench 6, with relatively few finds. Context 606 (Trench 6) Phase 2 West Zone Stone feature Stašo Forenbaher

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

82

Stone alignment composed of stones of 5 – 15cm, 0.5m in width and 0.2m in length (extending outside Trench 6), which continues the line of Context 503 (Trench 5). The soil matrix between the stones is similar to that of Context 605. For plans, see Figs. 4.40 & 4.52; for section, see Fig. 4.1; for Colour Photographs, see CD Figs. 4.7 – 4.9. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: the Southern edge of the light structure 503/606/607, linking up with Context 503 as the Western edge of the structure.

Fig. 4.51 Plan of Contexts 606 and 607, Trench 6. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 93.84m; 2 – 93.72m; 3 – 93.69m; 4 – 93.72m; 5 – 93.72m; 6 – 93.73m.. Context 607 (Trench 6) Phase 2 West Zone Stone feature Stašo Forenbaher 2. Stone scatter of medium-sized stones (5 – 20cm), -.7m in length and 1.2m in width, set in soil matrix similar to that of Contexts 604 and 605. At a lower level (= Context 607A), the stones continue as the fill of a pit cut into the natural subsoil. 3. For plans, see Fig. 4.40 & 4.51; for sections, see Figs. 4.13 & 4.14; for Colour Photographs, see CD Figs. 4.7 – 4.10. 4. 2 Bronze Age sherds/ 5g. 5. Chipped stone – 5 pieces/ 97g: all Arka LQ: 1 Chunk, 4 regular flakes: high Breakage Rate and Rolling Wear; no ground stone. 6. No plant remains 7. No daub fragments. 8. Summary: the South Eastern edge of the light structure 503/606/607, with some finds in the interior South Eastern corner of the structure, including Bronze Age ceramics and chipped stone.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

on the base of the pit. The pit is sealed with a layer of similar stones (immediately below Context 607). For plans of Context 607, see Figs. 4.51 – 52; for Colour Photograph, see CD Fig. 4.11. Finds as in Context 607. Finds as in Context 607; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: a pit cut before the construction of the light structure 503/606/607. It is probably premature to talk of a “foundation deposit” including sherds and lithics.

Context 608 (Trench 6) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Context 607A (Trench 6) Phase 2 West Zone Pit Stašo Forenbaher 2. Irregular pit cut into the natural subsoil, with sloping sides and a large quantity of angular and sub-angular rocks forming a rough “pavement”

83

Phase 1 or 2 West Zone Fill Stašo Forenbaher Very dark grayish-brown soil, 10YR 3/2, with a fair number of angular and sub-angular rocks, mostly near the base of the context. For plan, see Fig. 4.53; for sections, see Figs. 4.13 – 4.14. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: the B horizon of Trench 6, incorporating no finds.

Fig. 4.52 Plan of base of Context 608, Trench 6. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 93.69m; 2 – 93.43m; 3 – 93.54m; 4 – 93.66m; 5 – 93.62m; 6 – 93.37m; 7 – 93.33m; 8 – 93.24m; 9 – 93.42m; 10 – 93.43m; 11 – 93.41m; 12 – 93.42m; 13 – 93.33m; 14 – 93.29m; 15 – 93.33m; 16 – 93.40m; 17 – 93.45m. Context 609 (Trench 6) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Subsoil West Zone Subsoil Stašo Forenbaher Natural subsoil, a dark yellowish brown mottled clayey soil, 10YR 3/4 - 4/6. For sections, see Figs. 4.13 – 4.14. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: the C horizon of Trench 6. with no associated finds.

6. 7. 8.

Context 702 (Trench 7) 2. 3.

Context 701 (Trench 7) 2. 3. 4. 5.

2ndary, Rejuvenation and inner: low Breakage rate and average Rolling Wear; no ground stone. No plant remains 3 daub fragments/ 10g. Summary: the A horizon of Trench 7, with a small number of ceramic and lithic finds, disturbed by ploughing.

Phase 4 West Zone Ploughsoil Keri Brown Very dark grayish-brown ploughsoil, 10YR 3/2. For sections, see Figs. 4.16 – 4.17. 3 Neolithic sherds/ 20g; 7 Bronze Age sherds/ 130g; 14 Medieval sherds/ 65g; 48 PostMedieval sherds/ 130g. Chipped stone – 10 pieces/ 140.5g: mostly Arka LQ and unknown sources: all flakes – Primary,

4.

84

Phase 3 West Zone Fill Keri Brown Similar soil to Context 701, but slightly darker, 10YR 3/1. For plan, see Fig. 4.53; for sections, see Figs. 4.16 – 4.17. 13 Neolithic sherds/ 100g; 52 Bronze Age sherds/ 430g: very high proportion of Undec. Bodies and a few Undec. Rims & Dec. Bodies; 15 Medieval sherds/ 100g; 7 Post-Medieval sherds/ 30g. Fragmentation/erosion data: classic erosion pattern, decreasing with time; for shered size, both Neolithic and Bronze Age tendency for larger sherds to have less severe erosion.

5.

6.

Chipped stone – 9 pieces/ 136.5g: 7 Arka LQ, 1 HQ and 1 rock crystal: 2 chunks, 5 regular flakes and 1 almost complete poly-functional blade, + 1 other: scrapers and points; no ground stone. One grain of Panicum miliaceum.

7. 8.

23 daub fragments/ 50g. Summary: the A horizon of Trench 7, with finds concentrated by ploughing to form a mediumsized assemblage of sherds, lithics and some burnt food remains.

Fig. 4.53 Plan of Contexts 702, 703 and 704, Trench 7. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 99.265m; 2 – 99.285m; 3 – 99.285m; 4 – 99.475m; 5 – 99.48m; 6 – 99.535m; 7 – 99.485m. 8.

Context 703 (Trench 7) 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Phase 3 West Zone Stone feature Keri Brown Stone alignment composed of weathered andesite fragments, 2.8m in length and 0.3m in width, running near to the North edge of the trench. The stones are set in Context 702 and several of them have suffered plough damage. For plan, see Fig. 4.53; for Colour Photograph, see CD Fig. 4.12. 7 Bronze Age sherds/ 10g; 2 Post-Medieval sherds/ 15g. Chipped stone – 2 pieces/ 26.5g: 1 Arka LQ 2ndary flake and 1 obsidian PBS; ground stone – 1 small grindstone fragment (50g). No plant remains 4 daub fragments/ 5g.

Summary: a poorly preserved stone (? paved) surface, damaged by ploughing and with the likely removal of some stones by the plough. Some finds were deposited on or near this surface.

Context 704 (Trench 7) 2. 3. 4.

85

Phase 2 West Zone Stone feature Keri Brown Oval scatter of weathered andesite stones, 1.3m in length and 0.58m in width, with its fill as Context 705. For plan, see Fig. 4.53; for Colour Photographs, see CD Figs. 4.13 – 4.15. 2 Bronze Age sherds/ 10g.

5. 6. 7. 8.

5.

Chipped stone – 1 piece/ 24g: 1 Arka LQ 2ndary flake; ground stone – 1 grindstone fragment (1kg). One grain of Hordeum vulgare subspecies hexastichum. No daub fragments. Summary: an oval stone scatter, perhaps once better preserved and the size of a small hearth. The scant finds include ceramics, lithics and charred food debris (see Context 705).

6. 7. 8.

Context 706 (Trench 7) 2. 3.

Context 705 (Trench 7) 2. 3. 4.

Chipped stone – 1 piece/ 53g: 1 Arka LQ Rejuvenation flake with borer point; ground stone – 1 andesite grindstone fragment (740g). No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: the fill of stone scatter Context 704.

Phase 3 West Zone Fill Keri Brown Yellowish-brown - black gritty soil, 10YR 2/1, forming the fill of stone scatter Context 704. For plan of Context 704, see Fig. 4.54. No sherds.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Phase 2 West Zone Stone feature Keri Brown Shallow stone spread consisting of stone rubble set in Context 707. For plan, see Fig. 4.54; for sections, see Figs. 4.55 – 4.56. No sherds. No chipped stone; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: a possible stony surface but of diffuse and irregular form and with no associated finds.

Fig. 4.54 Plan of stone spread (Context 706) within Context 707, Trench 7. Spot heights (m. relative to site datum): 1 – 99.205m; 2 – 99.22m; 3 – 99.42m; 4 – 99.34m; 5 – 99.41m; 6 – 99.37m. 86

Fig. 4.55 South West Section through Context 706, NW quadrant of Trench 7. Section data (m. relative to site datum) – upper: 99.445m; lower – 99.475.

87

Fig. 4.56 North West Section through Context 706, NW quadrant of Trench 7. Section data (m. relative to site datum) – upper: 99.405m; lower – 99.44m. Context 707 (Trench 7) 2.

Phase 1 or 2 West Zone Fill Keri Brown Fill of stone spread Context 706, which extends both above and below the stone feature. A

yellowish-brown – black soil, 10YR 3/2, over 0.2m in depth, mottled with 10YR 4/4 (the colour of the natural subsoil).

88

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

For plan of Context 706, see Fig. 4.54; for sections, see Figs. 4.16 – 4.17, 4.55 – 4.56. No sherds. Chipped stone – 1 piece/ 8g: 1 Arka LQ Rejuvenation flake; no ground stone. No plant remains No daub fragments. Summary: the C horizon of Trench 7, with one artifact found in this ‘natural’ deposit.

CONTEXT 401 402 403

801 901 902 1001

1002 1003 1102 1301 1401 1402 1501 1601

1602

1603 1604

POTTERY (Date / No. / Wt.) BA /3/80g BA / 1 / 10g BA / 10 / 120g Mig. / 1 / 10g Med. / 2 / 10g Post-Med. / 3 / 37g Post-Med. / 2 / 20g Neo. / 2 / 10g BA / 88 / 1230g * Med. / 1 / 5g Post-Med. / 5 / 20g BA / 12 / 260g BA / 5 / 15g Neo. / 2 / 20g BA / 21 / 120g BA / 3 40g Post-Med. / 2 / 20g Post-Med. / 1 / 5g BA / 3 / 20g Post-Med. / 1 / 15g BA / 8 / 40g Med. / 18 / 70g Post-Med. / 55 / 100g Neo. / 65 / 670g Pink W. / 4 / 40g BA / 402 / 3.49kg* Med. / 2 / 10g Neo. / 12 / 80g BA / 68 / 460g* E. Med. / 2 / 15g Neo… / 16 / 140g

4.6.1 Trenches 4 and 8 – 16 The contexts from these trenches refer to pedological rather than archaeological features. In general, Unit -01 (e.g., Unit -01 in Trench 8 = Context 801) represents the topsoil (Phase 4), Unit -02 the pre-topsoil upper part of the B horizon (Phase 3), Unit -03 the lower part of the B horizon (Phase 2) and Unit -04 the earliest part of the B horizon (Phase 2). Finds from these Contexts are summarized below (Table 4.4), with potparts information for large contexts (Table 4.5) and lithics information (Table 4.6):-

CHIPPED STONE (No. / Wt.) 3 / 25g

GROUND STONE No. / Wt.)

DAUB No. / Wt.)

1 / 3g

2 / 3g 1 / 5g

1 / 2g 1 / 43g 2 / 298g

1 / 5g

1 / 1g

2 / 260g

2 / 2.5g

10 / 93g

16 / 20g

1 / 14g

8 / 20g

4 / 145g

Table 4.4 Potparts information, finds from Trenches 4 and 8 – 16 CONTEXT 1001

DATE / POTPARTS DISTRIBUTION Bronze Age: high proportion of Undec. Bodies and a few Dec. Bodies and Undec. Rims & Bases.

1601

Post-Medieval: high proportion of Dec. Bodies, many Undec. Bodies and a few Dec. Rims and Bases.

1602

Neolithic: high proportion of Undec. Bodies, many Undec. Rims and a few Dec. Bodies & Rims and Undec. Handles & Bases. 89

1602

Bronze Age: very high proportion of Undec. Bodies and a few Dec. Bodies & Undec. Rims and Bases

1603

Bronze Age: very high proportion of Undec. Bodies and a few Undec. Rims, Handles and Bases.

Table 4.5 Potparts distributions for large groups, Trenches 10 and 16. CONTEXT 901 902 1001 1102 1301 1601 1602 1603 1604

LITHICS 1 Arka LQ inner flake 1 S Zemplén LQ or HQ Rejuvenation flake 2 large, regular Arka LQ flakes Zemplén obsidian inner flake 1 Arka LQ inner flake and 1 PBS of unknown material 7 Arka LQ and 1 Zemplén obsidian: 5 Arka LQ and 5 of unknown origin: 3 Chunks, 6 regular flakes and 1 PBS: 9/10 pieces + cortex, probably from tool maintenance: low Breakage rate but high Rolling Wear damage: 1 Arka LQ inner flake = Point 3 Arka LQ and 1 LQ of unknown origin: 1 core, 2 regular flakes and 1 complete blade.

Table 4.6 Lithics in Trenches 9 – 11, 13 & 16 opposed to stratigraphic mixing, is in Trench 3, where a fill context with unmixed Late Bronze Age pottery (Context 302, with 5 sherds, weighing 40g) was found stratigraphically later than a fill context with ceramic mixing of four periods of manufacture, including later pottery and Late Bronze Age sherds (Context 305). However, it is equally possible that Context 302 – a slight layer whose thickness varied between 6 & 8cm – was reworked by the plough, which moved only the five LBA sherds there by chance.

4.7 Discussion The stratigraphies of all the excavated trenches make it clear that the soils and sediments on the Regéc-95 site are disturbed by at least three processes:- soil erosion and deposition; prehistoric and later dwelling practices; and Medieval and later cultivation practices, including ploughing. An outstanding question in the interpretation of the site is the probable extent of each of these forms of stratigraphic disturbance and the ways in which they are inter-related.

It is also important for this discussion to recall that there are 10 trenches – Trenches 5, 6 and 8 - 15 – where no evidence of pre-plough-soil stratigraphic mixing by the plough was observed; in two of them (Trenches 5 and 6), there were extensive excavations, which uncovered archaeological features. This suggests that the effects of Medieval and later ploughing were rather variable.

4.7.1 Post-depositional processes In the first instance, the upper parts of the trench stratigraphies can be use to define the vertical extent of plough-soil disturbance (Fig. 4.58). The plough-soil contexts of each trench – site Phase 4 - contains pottery dating from two up to five periods of manufacture (e.g., Context 502, with Neolithic, Bronze Age, Migration Period, Medieval and Post-medieval). But this ceramic mixing continues further down in the stratigraphy in most trenches. The mixing can often be as severe in those layers immediately below the plough-soil as in the plough-soil – viz., site Phase 3 – and, in one case, it is more severe (Context 203 contains pottery from six periods of manufacture - the same five periods as in Context 502 plus the Early-Middle Neolithic). Ceramic mixing in pre-plough-soil contexts can be observed in five other trenches – Trenches 1, 3, 4, 7 and 16. For example, at a depth of 0.15m below the surface, traces of plough damage were noted on the upper part of stones forming the remains of a linear feature (Context 703). The only case of a possible stratigraphic reversal, as

This point is confirmed by the variations in the depth below ground surface to which plough-related stratigraphic disturbance appears to continue according to the location of the trench: between a minimum of 0.08 – 0.15m in Environmental Trench 13 and 0.30 – 0.6m in Trench 3. Plotting of the depth of plough disturbance indicates a complex spatial pattern (Fig. 4.57), in which, with the exception of Trench 4, the greatest depths of disturbance occurred in the Eastern Zone archaeological trenches (Trenches 1, 2 and 3), with more shallow effects in the Western Zone (trenches 5, 6 and 7) and the least damage in the Environmental Trenches in the Eastern Zone (Trenches 8 – 16).

90

Fig. 4.57 Depth of stratigraphic mixing through ploughing by Trench discarded in contexts of preservation (e.g., the stone features in the Western Zone) or were also left on the coeval ground surface for further re-use and re-cycling.

One way to seek to understand the effects of soil erosion separate from ploughing is to consider the extent of ceramic mixing in the lower parts of the stratigraphies, which may be tentatively defined as “pre-ploughdisturbance” – mostly site Phases 1 and 2 and sometimes Phase 3. There are three Trenches – 1, 2 and 6 – in which such ceramic mixing has been identified, and a possible fourth in Environmental Trench 11.

A third process that can tentatively be identified at Regéc-95 is a combination of the effects of prehistoric dwelling practices and later cultivation. The fact that, in trenches where Neolithic sherds appear, they are sometimes absent from the lowest of the disturbed fill layers suggests that, there, a high proportion of Neolithic material culture has been removed from its “original” contexts. In the absence of plough-related disturbance, it may be suggested that the dwelling practices of the Bronze Age community led to certain stratigraphic displacement of Neolithic material culture, which still remained on the ground surface or was buried in shallow features, lost to the archaeologist – leading to the absence of Neolithic sherds in the deepest layers or ceramic mixing between Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery. Once removed from their original depositional contexts, the Neolithic sherds were further disturbed by the plough and differentially moved up the stratigraphy. It is proposed that this complex sequence of post-depositional disturbance may have occurred in Trenches 5, 7 and 10.

In each case, the number of Neolithic sherds falls below that of the Bronze Age sherds. There is no excavated example of a secure archaeological feature with only Neolithic sherds; since Context 306 is an animal burrow, the single Neolithic sherd probably derives from a mixed ceramic group in Context 305. It therefore seems likely that Neolithic dwelling practices at Regéc-95 left few substantial traces of the kind which produced preserved features for the archaeologist. Given the absence, or lack, of contexts of preservation, it seems safe to assume that Neolithic artifacts were discarded either on the contemporary ground surface or in shallow and/or ephemeral features. At the time of the re-settling of the site in the Bronze Age, any Neolithic artifacts still on or near the surface could have been collected, re-used or moved into other places for re-use or deposition. Once Bronze Age material culture was also discarded in the same places, there appears a mechanism for the production of ceramic mixing in pre-plough-soil layers. Artifacts from this secondary assemblage were either

Another interesting question concerns the status of the Early Medieval (Migration Period) pottery from the site. It is well known from the Alföld Plain that material from this period survives poorly on the surface, rarely 91

assemblage is more diagnostic of the Neolithic than of the Bronze Age (for discussion, see below, p. 208).

occurring in fieldwalking (Chapman et al. 2003). Here, at Regéc-95, there is an assemblage of 137 sherds but the question concerns their original context - whether from original features which have not been preserved or as a result of manuring practices as part of Early Medieval cultivation. No Migration Period sherds have been discovered in any contexts below the area of plough damage. In all but one of the six trenches where this pottery occurs, the sherds are found in the deepest layer of plough mixing, as well as often higher up in the plough-soil. However, in Trench 4, Post-medieval and Bronze Age sherds are found in the mixed pre-ploughsoil layer, with Early Medieval sherds occurring only in the plough-soil. The location of the Early Medieval sherds relatively close to their original stratigraphic positions suggests that stratigraphic mixing may not have been as severe for this assemblage as with the prehistoric pottery.

A field test of the Füleky hypothesis involved the excavation of environmental trenches upslope of the Eastern Zone trenches to try to locate any traces of a Neolithic occupation layer, no matter how disturbed and eroded. If the hypothesis were correct, the expectation would have been the discovery of the remains of a Neolithic occupation surface; the absence of such a cultural layer would undermine the hypothesis, probably fatally. For that reason, Trenches 8 – 15 were excavated (Fig. 3.2); in view of the high density of Bronze Age pottery in Trench 10, a further sondage (Trench 16) was excavated in the close vicinity, following auguring of the area surrounding Trench 10. It was also desirable to monitor the absolute heights of the environmental trenches, their surface heights as well as the heights of the base of the plough-soil, so as to check on the degree of slope and its relation to possible colluviation.

Another approach is to consider the sherd size and erosion data for the Early Medieval pottery assemblage. The erosion and sherd size profiles fit reasonably well into the diachronic sequence of profiles, so it is hard to evaluate whether the increased erosion and decreased sherd size in comparison with the Medieval pottery is the result of increased movement of the sherds whilst still in active use by the Early Medieval dwellers or whether the longer period over which these sherds were subject to plough damage had the effect of greater comminution.

The results from the environmental trenches indicate that the “Füleky hypothesis” may be rejected for the following reasons:1. there was no sign of any intact or even partial Neolithic occupation layer in the environmental trenches. Indeed, Neolithic pottery occurred in only three of the nine trenches – twice in contexts where it was mixed with Bronze Age pottery and Bronze Age with later pottery (Trenches 10 and 11) and only once in an immediately post-subsoil context (Context 1604: weathered andesite) with no other pottery, well stratified below a plough-soil which itself contained ceramic mixing (Trench 16).

Whatever the answers to these questions, and similar ones may be posed for the Medieval assemblage as well, there seems to be little doubt that the sharp decrease in sherd size and mean sherd weight, combined with a sharp decrease in the severity of erosion, means that the Postmedieval sherds arrived at their location across the site as a result of manuring practices carried out in or near the village of Regéc.

2. the tacheometric survey indicated that there was not sufficient slope for the development of processes of colluviation. 3. the soils and the bedrock on the Regéc-95 site were too well-drained for the onset of extensive colluviation.

4.7.2 The “Füleky hypothesis” One of the most stimulating attempts to combine archaeological and pedological results in an overall interpretation of the site history was produced by Professor Győrgy Füleky, a Gödöllő soil scientist, during a visit to the excavations. During a discussion of why there was no Neolithic “occupation horizon” at Regéc-95, what became known as the “Füleky hypothesis” was developed, namely that the dark black soil lying stratigraphically above the weathered andesite was an in situ development, while the dark brown and light brown soils lying higher up in the profiles were both colluvial units, washed in from areas higher than the site and indicating Medieval and Post-medieval environmental impact and/or agricultural intensification. There are two potential advantages of the Füleky hypothesis:- it provides a mechanism for explaining (1) the stratigraphic reversals in Trenches 1 and 3, whereby the number of Neolithic sherds exceeded that of Bronze Age sherds in the upper layers and the converse in the lower layers; and (2) the large quantities of chipped stone in the upper layers and its lower frequencies in the lower layers – a puzzling feature if it is assumed that a large chipped stone

4. there appears to be less evidence than previously thought for radical discontinuities between the underlying black soil and the two brown soils under investigation. The refutation of the Füleky hypothesis implies the acceptance of in situ developments of not only the lower black soil but also the medium and upper brown soils. There remains, therefore, the problem of the so-called stratigraphic reversals in Trenches 1 and 3. It has been proposed above (see pp. 95 - 6) that the movement of earth during Medieval and later ploughing could well have caused such a mixing. The presence of a protolynchet less than 10m to the West of Trench 2 should be noted, demonstrating the process by which plough action could have caused both the vertical and horizontal movement of small but cumulatively increasing quantities of soil.

92

calculated for each grindstone fragment. In fact, the range of indices was 1 - 14; there is no apparent relationship between the number of indices used and the final damage coefficient (Fig. 4.58).

4.7.3 Artifact wear and tear Another approach to the problem of site formation processes at Regéc-95 is the consideration of the indices of wear and erosion on the artifacts. Three classes of finds were considered – chipped stone, pottery and other materials (principally daub and ground stone). In addition, the presence of carbonized plant remains (seeds, food remains or charred wood) was highlighted as a potential indicator of special conditions of preservation. Each of the indices was coded for severity of wear/damage, as either ‘below site mean’, ‘site mean’ or ‘above site mean’. Thus, a heavily worn grindstone would score “3”, a small, badly eroded sherd would score “3/3”, while a large sherd with minimal erosion would score “1/1”.

DAMAGE COEFFICIENT vs. NO OF INDICES 16

NO OF INDICES

14

CS 1.7 1.7 2 0 2.7 0 2.3 2 2 1 3 2.7 1.3 2 2 0.7

10 8 6 4 2

The chipped stone specialist, Dr. Steve Cousins, noted three forms of damage to the Chipped stone – rolling wear, non-deliberate breaks and patination (see Chapter 6, pp. 151 – 153). Two further possible indices of damage were considered and rejected – re-working and multiple use – because these indices were not necessarily caused by time-dependent physical factors in the same way as the other three indices. The pottery from all of the contexts except the upper ploughsoil was coded for sherd size and erosion profile by Mr. Dave Brookshaw (see Chapter 5, pp. xxx – xxx). Grindstone fragments were coded for the extent of non-use-related damage and wear by Ms. Denise Telford (See Chapter 7, pp. xxx – xxx), while the main author made an assessment of the daub fragments. This gave a total of at least seven indices, with possibilities of many more, since separate ceramic indices were calculated for each period of pottery manufacture and, in view of their rarity, a separate figure was CONTEXT Con. 101 Con. 102 Con. 103 Con. 104* Con. 201 Con. 202 Con. 203 Con. 300 Con. 302 Con. 305 Con. 501 Con. 602* Con. 603 Con. 604 Con. 701 Con. 702

12

0 0

1

2 DAMAGE SCORE

3

4

Fig. 4.58 No. of co-efficients vs. damage score by Context The total of each context’s indices was divided by the number of indices to produce a single figure estimate of artifact damage and wear – the so-called Overall Damage Coefficient” (or “ODC”). While this value suffers from the obvious over-simplification of wear to individual materials, it does provide a useful figure for comparison of artifact damage between contexts. Moreover, for more detailed consideration, the damage coefficients for each material are also available (Table 4.7).

POTTERY 0 0 2 0 0 0 2.6 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.8 0 1.7

OTHER 0 1 1.3 2.3 1.5 2 2.3 3 0 0 0 2.5 3 1.7 2 3

Table 4.7 Damage Coefficients for Chipped stone, pottery and Other materials. Key:- * - presence of carbonized plant material

93

OVERALL 2.3 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.5 2 2.5 2.2 2 1 3 2.6 2 1.8 2 1.5

The results of the analysis indicate three groupings in the ODCs (Fig. 4.60):•

a Low grouping, consisting of Contexts 102, 305 and 702 (DCs of 1 – 1.5);

•

a Medium grouping, consisting of Contexts 103, 202, 302, 603, 604 and 701 (DCs of 1.51 – 2.2);

•

a High grouping, consisting of Contexts 101, 104*, 201, 203, 300, 501 and 602* (DCs of > 2.21).

DAMAGE COEFFICIENTS BY CONTEXT 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5

Co n. Co 50 1 n. Co 60 2 n. Co 20 3 n. Co 20 1 n. Co 10 4 n. Co 10 1 n. Co 30 0 n. Co 70 1 n. Co 60 3 n. Co 30 2 n. Co 20 2 n. Co 60 4 n. Co 10 3 n. Co 70 2 n. Co 10 2 n. 30 5

0

Fig. 4.59 Damage coefficients by Context

context’s ODC. It is clear that the ODC statistic is not easy to interpret.

The first general point is that it is rare to find agreement between the DCs for each material within any context (Fig. 4.59). The meaning of these apparent contradictions is still not clear to us. Another interesting point here is that these values produce no patterning in relation to either Trenches or Zones. Neither is there any relationship between the type of context and its ODC; while the only stone feature (Context 104) has a rather high ODC and the only cultural layer (Context 305) has the lowest ODC, there is no systematic difference between fill contexts and plough-soil contexts – by far the larger part of the contexts under study. Moreover, there is no apparent relation between the ODC of a context and its ceramic content; there is a wide range of ODC values for those contexts containing many periods of pottery manufacture (typically prehistoric – Medieval or Postmedieval). However, one regularity is that the three contexts with only prehistoric pottery (Contexts 302, 603 and 604) have similar medium-level ODCs. In addition, despite the variation in number of materials found in individual contexts (some with only Chipped stone, some with pottery and Other materials, etc.), there is no apparent relationship between this figure and the

It was found that the most useful way of examining the ODC data was in relation to the stratigraphic sequence of contexts in each Trench (Fig. 4.60). The general expectation was that the value of the ODCs would increase with time, mostly because it is hypothesised that the impact of Medieval and Post-medieval ploughing on artifacts was greater than that of the general rise in artifact wear and tear over the long millennia of postdepositional time. This expectation was met in three out of the five trenches for which data were available – Trenches 3, 6 and 7. However, a different pattern is seen in Trenches 1 and 2 – a high ODC in the earliest context with data, followed by a fall and then a further increase. The DCs by material indicate that heavily eroded grindstone fragments in Contexts 104 and 203 and highly comminuted daub in Context 203 were the main elements responsible for the high ODCs in these early contexts. It may therefore be proposed that, in Trenches 1 and 2, there was an early and severe impact on selected artifacts, especially in Contexts 104 and 203, which shows up in the relevant ODCs.

94

ODCs, TRENCH 2

ODCs, TRENCH 1

3

2.5

2.5

2

2 1.5

1.5 1

1

0.5

0.5 0

0 Con. 101

Con. 102

Con. 103

Con. 201

Con. 104

ODCs, TRENCH 3

Con. 202

Con. 203

ODCs, TRENCH 6

2.5

3

2

2.5 2

1.5

1.5 1

1

0.5

0.5

0

0 Con. 300

Con. 302

Con. 305

Con. 602

Con. 603

Con. 604

ODCs, TRENCH 7 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Con. 701

Con. 702

Fig. 4.60 Overall Damage Coefficients (ODCs) by Trench The distribution of Post-Medieval sherds encompasses the widest spread of all the periods on the site – an area of over 3 ha, or 270 x 120m (Fig. 4.61). The Post-medieval pottery distribution covers the whole area of both Eastern and Western Zones - indeed, this is the only period distribution where this happens. Only in three Environmental Trenches does Post-medieval pottery occur unmixed (Trenches 9, 14 and 15); generally, pottery of this date is found mixed with sherds of two or

4.7.4 Spatial distributions The starting-point for a third approach to the Regéc-95 site formation processes is the spatial distribution of pottery of differing periods according to the contextual “association” of pottery of other periods of manufacture. A reversal of the time sequence is necessary here, since it is important to define the effects of later periods upon earlier ones (cf. antecedent landscape archaeology: Zvelebil & Beneš 1997). 95

more other periods of manufacture, although Bronze Age and Post-medieval sherds occur together in two trenches (Trenches 4 and 7). Since we have concluded above (p. 96) that the Post-medieval assemblage derives from

manuring practices linked to agricultural intensification, the widespread distribution of this pottery means that we can expect disturbance from Post-medieval ploughing over all parts of the site.

Fig. 4.61 Distribution of Post-Medieval remains The distribution of Medieval sherds is not as extensive as that of the Post-medieval period but it still covers more

than half of the Eastern Zone, as well as all of the Western Zone – cca. 250 x 70m, or 1.75ha (Fig. 4.62).

Fig. 4.62 Distribution of Medieval remains 96

Bronze Age: (a) the area North of KE as far as Trenches 13 – 14. There is over 90% overlap between the Medieval and the Bronze Age distributions. This means that it is likely that most of the Bronze Age strata suffered from both Medieval and Post-medieval ploughing.

Medieval sherds occur in mixed assemblages in nine trenches, more often in the plough-soil than in the preplough-soil fills. They are also found in an unmixed assemblage in one Environmental Trench (Trench 8). The reduced size of the Medieval sherd distribution compared to the Post-medieval manuring spreads means that certain parts of the site may have been more directly exposed to Post-medieval plough damage, while others have suffered both Medieval and Post-medieval effects. Those periods and distributions with possible direct Post-medieval plough impact comprise:-

Neolithic: (a) FD – FF; (b) JJ – JK; (c) the area North of F – KG, as far as Trench 8; and (d) the small area between Trenches 16 and 11. There is a high degree of overlap, perhaps 85%, between the Medieval and the Neolithic distributions. This means that it is likely that most of the Neolithic features suffered from both Medieval and Post-medieval ploughing.

Migration Period:- (a) KF – KH; (b) JB/KB – JD/KD; (c) areas between Transect K and Trenches 8, 10 and 16; (d) GC/HC – GH/HG; and (e) possibly FB.

The distribution of Early Medieval (Migration Period) sherds is far smaller than that of the Medieval period (Fig. 4.63).

Fig. 4.63 Distribution of Early Medieval remains It covers an area of 215 x 50m, or 1 ha, including all of the Western Zone and the Southern part of the Eastern Zone. These sherds are found only in mixed ceramic groups, in six trenches. The absence of Early Medieval pottery discard in certain parts of the site is likely to indicate that any prehistoric layers found in such areas would be directly affected by Medieval (and possibly also Post-medieval) ploughing. Such areas and periods include:-

Bronze Age: (a) a large area covering GC – GG, HB – HH, JB – JE and KB – KE, and areas between Transects H and K; and (b) KG – KI and an area 60m to the North of these squares. This shows that much of the Bronze Age strata in the Eastern Zone would have been affected by Medieval ploughing but not such a large area in the Western Zone. Neolithic: (a) a large area covering GC – GG, HB – HH, JB – JE and KB – KE, and areas between Transects H 97

and K; and (b) KH – KI. This shows that many of the Neolithic features in the Eastern Zone would have been affected by Medieval ploughing but not such a large area in the Western Zone.

The distribution of Bronze Age sherds cannot be interpreted in a straightforward manner but depends upon their “associations” with pottery from other periods. Those trenches in which Bronze Age sherds occur without pottery from any other period provide a guide to the “unmixed Bronze Age” distribution (Fig. 4.65).

Fig. 4.64 Distribution of Bronze Age remains This distribution covers an area of 2.4ha, or 240 x 100m, covering most of the Eastern Zone and all of the Western Zone. There is a 90% overlap with the distribution of finds where Bronze Age sherds are found together with Neolithic sherds (the “mixed Neo/BA” distribution: Fig. 4.64); these points add a small area to the “unmixed BA” area on the hill-top in the Eastern Zone. Equally, a further small area in the Eastern Zone is added to these two distributions by points where Bronze Age pottery is

mixed with Neolithic sherds and those dating to other periods (the “BA/mixed” distribution: Fig. 4.64). The total Bronze Age distribution (the three aforementioned distributions added together) is only marginally larger than that of the total Neolithic distribution – the unmixed Neolithic + the mixed Neolithic – Bronze Age + the Neolithic/mixed distributions (Fig. 4.65).

98

Fig. 4.65 Distribution of Middle Neolithic remains But, as we shall see, the Bronze Age distribution is much larger than the area in which unmixed Neolithic pottery was found (Fig. 4.65) – a small area covering 75 x 20m, or 0.15ha, only in the Eastern Zone. This unmixed Neolithic distribution is only partially coincident with the

small area of 0.18ha (90 x 20m) in which the earliest pottery on the site – dated to the Early-Middle Neolithic period – has been found (Fig. 4.66). This very early pottery occurs only in the Eastern Zone, on the top of the hill.

99

Fig. 4.66 Distribution of Early-Middle Neolithic remains settlements (e.g., Polgár-10: Chapman et al., 2010b) - led Füleky to propose the hypothesis of an in situ development of the lowest soil unit above the andesitic bedrock, in contrast to in-washing of the middle and upper units into the lower parts of the site from the upper hill slopes, through colluvial processes triggered by Medieval or Post-Medieval arable intensification. This hypothesis implied the existence of an open surface – the top of the lowest soil unit – which would have been exposed to the elements for decades, if not centuries, before further pedological and forest development for some thousands of years (5th – mid-2nd millennia BC). This scenario would explain the missing Neolithic cultural layer in terms of post-Neolithic erosion of any Neolithic deposits, if indeed any such deposits had once occurred. The second implication of the Füleky hypothesis is that the vast majority of the prehistoric and Early Medieval artifacts found in the middle and lower soil units were in secondary position, washed in from their destroyed locations on the upper hill slopes in the Medieval or later periods. This scenario automatically rules out in situ prehistoric features in the middle and upper soil units.

It is clear from both the total Neolithic and the total Bronze Age distributions that the vast majority of deposits from both periods would have been subject to damage from later ploughing, whether Early Medieval, Medieval or Post-medieval. The mapping technique discussed here should be capable of providing an idea of the areas in which the three periods of ploughing have had a more severe impact. The use of these period distributions in the correct chronological order will be utilized in a later section to give an impression of the site’s diachronic biography (see Chapter 10).

4.7 Summary The interpretation of the Regéc-95 sequence and stratigraphy rests upon an integration of pedological and archaeological evidence, including information about depositional practices and post-depositional processes, inter alia land use. We start with the critical debate that has taken place over the formation of the three main soil units on site before the formation of the modern topsoil. The discussion moves to the sequence of dwelling practices that can be linked to each of these soil units before concluding with a brief consideration of the spatial distribution of those dwelling practices.

The pedological reasons for the rejection of the Füleky hypothesis have already been noted (see above, p. 92). Two archaeological observations may be added to these points. First, the hypothesis neither confirms nor denies the existence of a Neolithic cultural layer in the first place

The absence of a Neolithic “cultural layer” at Regéc – of the kind typically formed on lowland Neolithic 100

Mountains pre-Medieval, see Chapman et al., 2010a). The arrivals at, and departures from, the site would, in all probability, have been marked by deposits emphasizing these rites de passage - finds placed on the ground surface or in ephemeral, shallow pits and gullies. The total period of time over which visits were made to the site was not, however, necessarily short, given the deposition of pottery of the Early-Middle Neolithic phase as well as that of the main Middle Neolithic period. Perhaps a series of short seasonal visits over a century or two may have led to the site deposition in the Neolithic period.

– merely seeking to explain why it no longer exists. An alternative explanation of the “absence” is that there never was a Neolithic cultural layer, since upland dwelling practices in the Zemplén mountains differed substantially from those on coeval lowland sites. Secondly, a field observation of which Füleky was unaware at the time of his hypothesis-building is the existence of Hut 1, constructed in the middle soil unit and dated to the Late Bronze Age. This demonstrates that the middle soil unit could not have been washed in through colluviation in the Medieval or later periods. There is also a number of other stone-built features which, if not impressive in size, at least shows the existence of repeated modifications of the living surface throughout the Late Bronze Age. A combination of the topographical and pedological arguments against local colluviation at Regéc renders the Füleky hypothesis unsustainable and prompts the search for an alternative set of processes.

The gap between the Neolithic deposits and the Late Bronze Age occupation amounted to over three millennia. During this period, the assumed forest regeneration in the Regéc Basin would have largely protected the Neolithic land surface from erosion. The arrival of “new” settlers in the Late Bronze Age would have led to local removal of the forest cover, immediately causing some soil erosion and other disturbance of the Neolithic deposits. There is a 90% overlap in the areas of the site with contexts containing both “solely Bronze Age” and “mixed Neolithic + Bronze Age” pottery. This suggests that the construction of LBA stone features and the discard of LBA pottery on the current land surface would have readily led to mixing of Neolithic and LBA pottery. It may even have been the case that LBA dwelling practices led to the movement of most of the Neolithic pottery into secondary locations. Moreover, the limited distribution of Early Medieval finds meant that most of the area with Neolithic and Bronze Age finds would have been directly affected by Medieval ploughing. There are thus several factors – environmental, cultural and post-depositional – that could explain the widespread mixing of Neolithic and Late Bronze Age in pre-modern plough-zone contexts.

It has been argued that the similarities between the Munsell colours and contents of different Contexts forming the three main soil units (Table 4.xx) suggests that there were not such major discontinuities between these units. This suggests that processes of local soil development combined with the effects of cultural practices to create the different units in the excavated trenches. One objection to this scenario is the stratigraphic reversal occurring in Trench 3, where a fill containing unmixed Late Bronze Age pottery (Context 302) is stratigraphically later than a context with LBA and later pottery (Context 305). This local reversal may be explained away by Medieval or later plough movement of a layer of only 6cm. thickness. In any case, this single example is not sufficient to refute the entire scenario of in situ soil development, since extensive plough damage on the site is undisputed. There is extensive evidence for mixing of artifacts from more than one period in many contexts formed prior to the upper and middle soil units. While these findings do not cast doubt on Shiel’s claim that the middle soil unit (his lower A horizon) was undisturbed in modern times, it is clear that Medieval and Post-Medieval ploughing had a serious impact on the Early Medieval and prehistoric contexts. We conclude that all of the three main soil units were formed in situ, if heavily disturbed post-depositionally by various processes. We now turn to the dwelling practices that could have produced the surviving field evidence.

Bronze Age occupation at Regéc can be identified in Phases 2 and 3. There can be little doubt that the Late Bronze Age dwelling there was more intensive than that in the Neolithic period. The construction of a light oval hut using local stones for the ‘walls’ (Hut 1) suggests a seasonal, short-term structure that may have endured for one summer or several but hardly more than five years’ use. Although the additional stone structures – the linear features, stone scatters and possible hearth – have few associated datable finds, they are most likely to be associated with Late Bronze Age pottery than with finds from any other period.

The two occupation Phases that correlate with the lowest soil unit are Phases 1 and 2. Very few features occurred in Phase 1, consisting of shallow fill deposits, a pit and a possible gully, as well as a probable tree-throw hole. Their associated datable finds were also few in number, with either mixed groups of Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery or solely Bronze Age sherds. In the absence of a single Context with solely Neolithic pottery, it appears improbable that Neolithic dwelling at Regéc was intensive and long-lived. Rather, the suggestion is that the Neolithic features (if any!) and finds densities are consistent with a series of short-term, episodic occupations which were probably seasonal in nature (for the arguments for seasonal occupation of the Zemplén

The overall length of time over which the LBA groups returned to Regéc must have been substantial, to judge by the depth of soil that accumulated in the lowest and middle soil units. Organic preservation was so poor that no 14C dates have been obtained to date this period. But it can be proposed that the overall length of time could be counted in decades, if not centuries. The implication of a regular seasonal movement up into the hills for occupations lasting a maximum of a few months meant a regular social practice defining the annual character of the social groups. 101

sherds were discarded as a by-product of infield manuring from the village. The Post-Medieval sherd scatter was the most widespread of all periods represented on site, indicating that ploughing was equally extensive and covered a far wider area than the excavation site. The effects of six to eight centuries of ploughing on the deposits at Regéc-95 were severe enough to disturb the top 25 – 60cm of the sediments in every trench, concentrating finds from several periods into the upper soil unit.

A further 1,500 – 2,000 years passed before Early Medieval dwelling at the site. This is an important finding, since no Early Medieval pottery was found during the fieldwalking season in the Zemplén Mountains. As with the renewed LBA visits, the “new” occupants would have encountered a re-afforested landscape and their dwelling practices may well have disturbed the prehistoric features and surfaces. The Early Medieval pottery assemblage was concentrated in space and time. Finds have been made throughout the Western zone but over only part of the Eastern zone. The pottery was predominantly found within the middle soil unit, with not so much mixing with pottery of other periods as was found with the prehistoric finds. No stone-built features have been associated with Early Medieval pottery, even in mixed assemblages. In comparison with the Late Bronze Age occupation, it seems probable that the Early Medieval dwelling was more ephemeral, more episodic and perhaps represented a trial occupation in an area that had considerable strategic potential. The size and erosion patterns of the pottery assemblage are not consistent with a manuring scatter.

The spatial distribution of the six periods that can now be said to have deposited material culture on the Regéc site shows marked variation through time. The Early-Middle Neolithic deposition is restricted to part of the Eastern Zone, while the second phase of deposition - the Middle Neolithic – expands to cover both Eastern and Western Zones equally. However, the greater concentration of decorated sherds in Eastern Zone suggests more intensive deposition there. There is a change to the Western Zone for Late Bronze Age pottery, with a related deposition there of decorated Bronze Age wares. The preference for the Western Zone continues in the Early Medieval period but the manuring scatters of the Medieval and PostMedieval periods are widespread in both Zones. There is a strong preference for deposition of chipped stone in the Eastern Zone, by a factor of nine by numbers, falling to a factor of two by weight. This is matched by the overall ceramic contrast between the Eastern Zone, with a predominance of pottery by numbers and the Western Zone, with a predominance of pottery by weight. The finding of smaller numbers of larger artifacts, relative to the materials under consideration, is related to the preservation of far more stone-built features in the Western Zone than in the Eastern Zone, which , however, has by far the majority of objects by number. This will be a major question to explore in the specialist reports on artifacts that follow this chapter.

On current evidence, it is impossible to assess the length of time between the deposition of the Early Medieval sherds at Regéc and the Medieval foundation of the castle, associated monasteries and nearby village with its arable fields. The maximum time may be no more than three centuries but this may be as little as a hundred years, making it hard to quantify the extent of post-Early Medieval re-afforestation. But there can be little doubt that the formation of the Medieval village of Regéc led to the long-term cultivation of the Eastern and Western fields, at some point consolidated into strip-fields. There are no archaeological features which are associated with solely Medieval or Post-Medieval pottery in the site’s Phase 4. The best explanation of the erosional data and the sherd size patterning in both periods is that these

102

Chapter Five – The pottery 5.1 Introduction (JC) the site. Over 3,400 sherds, weighing a total of over 28 kg, were recovered from the excavations (Table 5.1):-

The pottery found at Regéc-95 comprises the largest quantity of material culture of all finds categories from

Numbers: Trench NEOLITHIC

Sieve

Weight (kg): Total

Trench

Sieve

Total

520

3

523

4.130

0.020

4.150

2115

28

2143

20.100

0.129

20.229

2

-

2

0.060

-

0.060

MIGRATION PERIOD

127

10

137

1.120

MEDIEVAL

144

29

173

1.259

0.080

1.339

POST-MEDIEVAL

397

47

444

1.072

0.091

1.163

3305

117

3422

27.741

0.375

28.116

BRONZE AGE ? PREHISTORIC

TOTAL

0.055

1.175

Table 5.1 Pottery by period, numbers and weights, Regéc-95 deposition (for the example of Polgár-10, see Chapman 2002; Chapman et al., 2010b). Here, potpart distribution is calculated by number and by weight for each period and by number only for individual contexts.

The sherds derive from six phases of deposition on the site, ranging from the Early-Middle Neolithic to the PostMedieval. There are relatively few contexts in which pottery from two or more periods is not mixed, indicating a high degree of stratigraphic uncertainty and postdepositional mixing. This problem is directly confronted in the previous chapter (Chapter 4). In the following sections, the pottery will be studied in terms of the representation of potparts and its size, fragmentation and erosion characteristics by period, before a series of specialist reports on the pottery by period experts. Unfortunately, the requisite specialists for the Migration Period, Medieval and Post-Medieval assemblages could not be found and publication of these sections of the report must be deferred till the future.

5.2.1 Diachronic analyses In the analysis of potparts by period by number, there is a general diachronic trend towards an increase in feature sherds, to a peak of 73% in the Post-medieval period (Fig. 5.1). Although there are rather more feature sherds in the Neolithic (20%) than in the Bronze Age, this is otherwise a fairly consistent trend. The converse of this trend is, clearly, a decrease in the frequency of Undecorated Bodies with time. Decorated Rims show a generally low frequency from the Neolithic to the Early Medieval period (1 – 2%), with an increase in the Medieval period (6%) and still higher in the Postmedieval (8%). The frequency of Undecorated Rims is generally higher than that of Decorated Rims from the Neolithic to the Early Medieval period but this preponderance is reversed in the Medieval and Postmedieval periods. The main component of the general diachronic increase in feature sherds is the increase in Decorated Bodies, starting at low levels in the Neolithic and Bronze Age (4%), rising to 9% in the Early Medieval, 15% in the Medieval and expanding because of the use of glazed techniques to a peak of 60% in the Postmedieval period. Handles, Lugs and Bases are rare throughout the sequence, running at 2 – 6%, with a peak in the Medieval period.

5.2 Potparts distribution (JC) The analysis of potparts forms a basic element of the study of ceramic deposition. The following potparts are recognised:- decorated and undecorated forms of Rims, Body sherds (Bodies), Handles/Lugs and Bases, with Unknown as a residual category. This gives the normal possibility for the representation of eight potparts in any context. The site norm of potpart distributions by period can be calculated and the result is used as a standard against which to compare the potpart distributions of each individual context. It has been proposed that any gross differentiation from the site norm requires a special explanation – perhaps in terms of specific postdepositional processes or as the result of structured 103

POTPARTS BY NO., NEOLITHIC

POTPARTS BY NO., BRONZE AGE

3% 1%

2%

10%

1%

1% 4% 4%

4% DECRIM UNDECRIM

DECRIM

DECBODY

UNDECRIM

UNDECBODY

DECBODY

UNDECHL

UNDECBODY

UNDECBASE

80%

POTPARTS BY NO., MEDIEVAL

POTPARTS BY NO., EARLY MEDIEVAL 1%

4%

UNDECBASE

90%

5% 1% 6% 2% 1%

9%

15%

85%

DECRIM UNDECRIM

DECRIM

DECBODY

UNDECRIM

UNDECBODY

DECBODY

UNDECHL

UNDECBODY

UNDECBASE

UNDECBASE

UNKNOWN

70%

POTPARTS BY NO., POST-MEDIEVAL 3% 1% 8%

1% DECRIM

27%

UNDECRIM DECBODY UNDECBODY DECBASE 60%

UNDECBASE UNKNOWN

Fig. 5.1 Potparts by Number and Period: (a) Neolithic; (b) Bronze Age; (c) Early Medieval; (d) Medieval; (e) Post-Medieval

When the diachronic distribution of potparts by weight is considered (Fig. 5.2), the general trend towards the increase in feature sherds is repeated, with values generally higher than those calculated by sherd numbers. Equally, the increase in Decorated Rims in the Medieval and Post-medieval periods is repeated (low values to 18%), as is the preponderance of Undecorated over Decorated Rims in the Neolithic to Early Medieval

periods and the reverse in the Medieval and Postmedieval periods. Decorated Bodies show the same steady diachronic increase as by sherd numbers. Handles, Lugs and Bases show the same low values in the Neolithic, Bronze Age and Early Medieval periods but there are much higher values in the Medieval and Postmedieval periods (respectively 18% and 15%).

104

POTPARTS BY WEIGHT, NEOLITHIC 2% 3% 6%

POTPARTS BY WEIGHT, BRONZE AGE

12%

4%

1% 5%

8%

6% DECRIM UNDECRIM

DECRIM

DECBODY

UNDECRIM

UNDECBODY

DECBODY

UNDECHL

UNDECBODY

UNDECBASE

71%

POTPARTS BY WEIGHT, BRONZE AGE 4%

1% 5%

UNDECBASE

82%

POTPARTS BY WEIGHT, EARLY MEDIEVAL 2% 1% 10%

8%

7% DECRIM

DECRIM

UNDECRIM

UNDECRIM

DECBODY

DECBODY

UNDECBODY UNDECBASE

82%

POTPARTS BY WEIGHT, MEDIEVAL 1% 3% 2%

12%

UNDECRIM 3%

DECBODY

37%

5%

UNDECBODY DECHLUG

24%

UNDECBASE

POTPARTS BY WEIGHT, POSTMEDIEVAL 3% 18% 12%

DECRIM

18%

UNDECBODY

80%

DECRIM UNDECRIM

20%

DECBODY

UNDECHL

UNDECBODY

DECBASE

DECBASE

UNDECBASE

42%

UNDECBASE

Fig. 5.2 Potparts by Weight and Period: (a) Neolithic; (b) Bronze Age; (c) Early Medieval; (d) Medieval; (e) Post-Medieval medieval (60% by number, 42% by weight) and a wider range of Handles, Lugs and Bases. This contrast may well express the type of pottery produced in these periods but it may well also indicate special post-depositional conditions, specific social practices, or both. We shall return to this question after a consideration of potpart distribution by individual contexts, which will be considered by period.

The methodological conclusion to these analyses is that analysis by sherd numbers is usually replicated by the analysis by sherd weights. For this reason, the potpart analysis for individual contexts is henceforth restricted to sherd numbers. The general conclusions from the diachronic potparts analysis is that the pottery at Regéc95 falls into two contrasting potpart distributions:- (1) a prehistoric and Early Medieval distribution, which are dominated by Undecorated Bodies, with a rarity of Handles, Lugs and Bases and a preponderance of Undecorated over Decorated Rims: and (2) a Medieval and Post-medieval distribution, where there are far more feature sherds, especially Decorated Bodies in the Post-

5.2.2 Analyses by period There are four contexts with Neolithic pottery samples large enough for a potpart analysis – 102, 203, 602 and 105

1602 (Fig. 5.3). All of the samples are dominated by Undecorated Bodies, ranging from 71% - 86%. There is a preponderance of Undecorated over Decorated Rims in each case, with the former especially high in 1602 (20%) and the complete absence of the latter in 203. decorated Bodies are found at a similarly low value (2 – 5%) in

each context, as are Undecorated Handles, Lugs and Bases – between 4% and 5% except in 203 (7%). All four Neolithic samples show a consistent pattern of potpart distribution, a conclusion supported by the minimal variation in the number of potparts – six in three cases and five in the fourth.

NEOLITHIC POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 102 3% 2% 5%

NEOLITHIC POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 203 3%2% 5% 8%

8% 5%

5%

DECRIM

UNDECRIM

DECBODY

DECBODY

UNDECBODY

UNDECBODY

UNDECHL

UNDECHL

UNDECBASE

77%

UNDECBASE

77%

NEOLITHIC POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 1602 3% 1% 1% 20% DECRIM

NEOLITHIC POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 602 7% 4% 2% 1%

UNDECRIM

UNDECRIM

4%

DECBODY

86%

DECRIM

UNDECRIM

DECBODY

UNDECBODY

UNDECBODY

UNDECHL

UNDECHL

UNDECBASE

UNDECBASE

71%

NEOLITHIC POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 1602 3% 1% 1% 20% DECRIM UNDECRIM 4%

DECBODY UNDECBODY UNDECHL UNDECBASE

71%

Fig. 5.3 Potpart analysis by Number for Neolithic contexts: (a) 102; (b) 203; (c) 602; (d) 1602. Bronze Age pottery is the commonest at the site and so it is not surprising to find that there are 10 contexts in which there are large enough samples for potpart analysis (Fig. 5.4). Each of the ten samples are dominated by Undecorated Bodies, ranging from 75% to 96%, with this category exceeding 90% in six samples. Only in context 102 is there a large number of feature sherds (25%).

There is a preponderance of Undecorated over Decorated Rims in nine out of the ten samples, with the former ranging from 3% - 7% and the latter from 0% (in 5 cases) – 3%. Only in context 604 is there an equal proportion of Decorated and Undecorated Rims! Decorated Bodies are rarely more common, with a range of 0% - 10% (in context 501) and a complete absence of this category in 106

context 1603. The Handles, Lugs and Bases are almost all Undecorated, with a frequency ranging from 0% (2 cases) to 6% (context 102). The number of potparts by context is more varied than in the Neolithic – as many as 7 parts in the largest sample (context 102), 6 parts (1 case), 5 parts (2 cases), 4 parts (5 cases) and 3 parts (1 case). But,

otherwise, the general pattern of the Bronze Age potpart profiles closely resembles those of the Neolithic period. Here, too, there is a consistent potpart distribution in all of the contexts, except for the number of potparts, and the pattern in each context matches the overall Bronze Age pattern characterized above.

BA POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 203

BA POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 102 3% 2% 2% 7% 3% 8%

1%

3% 4%

DECRIM UNDECRIM DECBODY UNDECBODY

DECRIM

UNDECHL

UNDECRIM

UNDECBASE

DECBODY 92%

UNKNOWN

75%

BA POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 602

BA POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 501 4%

2%

UNDECBODY

2%

10%

1% 3%4%

DECRIM UNDECRIM

UNDECRIM

DECBODY

DECBODY

UNDECBODY

UNDECBODY

UNDECBASE

84%

90%

BA POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 604 3% 1% 3% 1% 7%

BA POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 603 2%

UNDECBASE

1%4%2%

DECRIM DECRIM

UNDECRIM

UNDECRIM

DECBODY

DECBODY

UNDECBODY UNDECBASE

UNDECBODY 91%

85%

UNDECBASE

107

UNKNOWN

BA POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 702

BA POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 1001

2% 2%

2% 7%

2%

UNDECRIM UNDECRIM

DECBODY

DECBODY

UNDECBODY

UNDECBODY

96%

BA POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 1603

BA POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 1602 2%

1% 3% 1%

4%

93%

UNDECBASE

89%

UNDECRIM

UNDECRIM

DECBODY

UNDECBODY

UNDECBODY

UNDECHL

UNDECBASE

95%

UNDECBASE

Fig. 5.4 Potpart analysis by Number for Bronze Age contexts: (a) 102; (b) 203; (c) 501; (d) 602; (e) 603; (f)

604; (g) 702; (h) 1001; (i) 1602; (j) 1603. Since Early Medieval pottery samples are generally small, there is only one context (602) in which potpart analysis could be carried out (Fig. 5.5). Here, there are only two potparts represented – 95% Undecorated Bodies and the remainder Undecorated Rims. It is hard to accept that this is a representative potpart distribution, since Decorated Rims and Bodies also occur in the general Early Medieval sample (Fig. 5.1).

There are only two contexts in which there are large enough samples of Medieval pottery for a potpart analysis – 102 and 201 (Fig. 5.6). Although there is a wide variation in the frequency of Undecorated Bodies (63% and 75%), this category predominates in both contexts. There are no Undecorated Rims in either context – only a low percentage of Decorated Rims (3% 7%). Similar values occur for Decorated Bodies (16% – 18%), while there is a wider range of Handles, Lugs and Bases than in earlier periods. Decorated Handles/Lugs are found in this period for the first time (e.g., context 102) and the frequency of Bases reaches a high 10% for the first time (e.g., context 201). Six and seven potparts respectively are found. These characteristics follow the general pattern for Medieval ceramics, as discussed above (Fig. 5.1).

E MED POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 602 5%

UNDECRIM UNDECBODY 95%

Fig. 5.5 Potpart analysis by Number for an Early

Medieval context: (a) 602.

108

MED POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 102 2% 2% 3% 2% 16%

MED POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 201 1%

9%

1% 7% DECRIM

1%

18%

DECRIM DECBODY

UNDECBODY

UNDECBODY

UNDECHL

DECHLUG

DECBASE

UNDECHL

UNDECBASE

UNKNOWN

75%

DECBODY

UNKNOWN

63%

Fig. 5.6 Potpart analysis by Number for Medieval contexts: (a) 102; (b) 201. Three Post-medieval assemblages are large enough for potpart analysis – contexts 102, 201 and 1601 (Fig. 5.7). There is a range of high values for Decorated Bodies, from 54% to 73% but generally in line with the Postmedieval average of 60%, combined with a range of moderate values for Undecorated Bodies, from 17% to

17%

36%. There is a preponderance of Decorated over Undecorated Rims in all three contexts. No Handles or Lugs occur in any of then three contexts, which are, however, rich in Bases, both Decorated and Undecorated. These contexts show a generally consistent pattern, which closely matches that of the overall Post-medieval sample. POST-MED POTPARTS BY NO., 1% CONTEXT 201 10% 6% 3%

POST-MED POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 102 2% 5% 2% 1%

21%

DECRIM

DECRIM UNDECRIM

UNDECRIM

DECBODY

DECBODY

UNDECBODY

UNDECBODY

DECBASE

DECBASE UNDECBASE

73%

59%

UNKNOWN

POST-MED POTPARTS BY NO., CONTEXT 1601 5%

5%

36% DECRIM 54%

DECBODY UNDECBODY DECBASE

Fig. 5.7 Potpart analysis by Number for Post-Medieval contexts: (a) 102; (b) 201; (c) 1601. The consideration of the potpart profiles of individual contexts by period indicates a general consistency between contexts and a close match between individual

context and general pattern. This finding supports the notion that the contrasting pattern of potpart distributions is related more to the specific pottery production of each 109

period rather than to specific social practices or postdepositional circumstances. We now turn to the analysis of sherd size and erosion to see if these analyses can shed more light on the deposition of pottery at Regéc-95.

laboratory season. It was possible to complete measurements for the total sample of pottery from all contexts below those of the ploughsoil (Phase 4). This meant that 1,024 body sherds (or 30%) were coded for sherd size and erosion out of the site assemblage of over 3,400 sherds. This meant that the very small number of measurable rim and basal sherds was excluded from the analysis. With the exclusion of Phase 4 (plough-soil) contexts, sampling was restricted to 16 contexts (Table 5.2).

5.2.3 Sherd size and erosion analyses (JC & DB) The measurement of sherd erosion and fragmentation was carried out by David Brookshaw in the summer 1999 Context

Period represented (n = total number of sherds coded)

103

Early-Middle Neolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Migration Period, Post-medieval (n = 60) Bronze Age (n = 2) Bronze Age (n = 1) Neolithic, Bronze Age (n = 3) Early-Middle Neolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Migration Period, Medieval, Post-medieval (n = 454) Neolithic, Bronze Age (n = 9) Neolithic, Bronze Age, Migration Period, Post-medieval (n = 23) Bronze Age (n = 6) Bronze Age (n = 2) Bronze Age (n = 2) Neolithic, Bronze Age (n = 268) Neolithic, Bronze Age (n = 97) Bronze Age (n = 2) Neolithic, Bronze Age, Medieval, Post-medieval (n = 85) Bronze Age, Post-medieval (n = 8) Bronze Age (n = 2)

105 106 108 203 204 305 503 504 505 603 604 607 702 703 704

Table 5.2 Contexts studied for sherd erosion and fragmentation Large (Class III)(cf. Buko 1990, Ryc. 2). The size range of each class is as follows:-

The Regéc-95 sample was studied conjointly for sherd size and erosion, since the two were found to be closely related. The notion that sherd size is an important primary characteristic of a ceramic assemblage has been recognised for some time, particularly in the work of the Polish Medieval pottery specialist, Andrzej Buko. Buko (1987, 1990) has devised a range of indices for the measurement of Medieval pottery (see below for erosion), which allow him to compare and contrast individual contexts or context groups according to the values of these indices. An example is the way in which Buko has demonstrated that the ceramics in the fill of the first and second fortification ditches in the Medieval town of Sandomierz were derived from different places because of their differing size characteristics (Buko 1987).

I (Small)

11 – 28mm

IIA (Medium)

29 – 45mm

IIB (Large)

46 – 62mm

III (Very Large)

63 – 79mm

The only problematic aspect of this technique was discovered empirically: the inclusion of only two or three very large sherds in a sample of 20 – 30 sherds led to a distortion of the results. Removal of these sherds from the analysis led to a second set of results which could be compared to the first – and often produced a more useful result for comparative purposes. This problem arose with Context 203, in which there were two sherds whose surface size exceeds 100mm. Exclusion of these sherds from the overall analysis made this context more comparable to the others.

This approach was followed for the Regéc-95 pottery, with one major difference. The specific technique used to measure Medieval vessel size was the number of vessel parts included in the sherds (e.g., Buko 1987:Fig. 5). Since the profiles of the majority of vessels are not so highly developed, a simple size measurement was preferred – viz. the largest measurement across the surface of the sherd. The use of the inter-quartile range led to the definition of four size categories: Small (Class I), Medium (Class IIA), Large (Class IIB) and Very

The study of the erosion of sherd fractures is a second field of research highly developed by Andrzej Buko (1987, 1990). Buko has defined four typical stages of erosion on Medieval glazed sherds, ranging from uneroded sherds with glaze intact or locally worn to 110

sherds with well-rounded sherds with the original shape uncertain (Buko 1990, Ryc. 1). As with sherd size, Buko (1990) uses sherd erosion profiles to define deposition patterns at the site of Storvagan, in the Lofoten Islands. The basic logic is the more eroded the sherd, the longer it has been on an active living surface, with abrasion and comminution from the elements and cumulative damage from other cultural practices. Conversely, the more rapidly the sherd is incorporated into a context of preservation, such as a pit, the less likely the sherd would suffer high-level erosion.

The results of the sherd size and erosion analysis are initially presented for the whole site and then for each period. Later, we shall examine sherd size and erosion profiles by context. One first result of interest, however, concerns the site sample by period. This is the mean sherd weight for each period:Neolithic 7.9g Bronze Age 9.4g Early Medieval 8.5g Medieval 7.7g Post-medieval 2.6g

In the case of the Regéc-95 sample, four erosion stages were defined by David Brookshaw in his 1999 analysis, following Buko’s four stages:• • • •

Given that the sample sizes for each period are reliably large, this result can be relied upon. The general similarity in mean sherd weight for the first four periods is, in many ways, surprising, given the results of the fragmentation analysis (below). The strong contrast in the much lower mean sherd weight for the Post-Medieval period indicates a different pattern of deposition, related perhaps to a different pottery-making technology or to different depositional or post-depositional conditions – in any case, a far smaller size for most Post-Medieval sherds.

Stage E0: uneroded Stage E1: sherd has sharp, well-defined edges Stage E2: sherd is becoming rounded, with local wear on body surface Stage E3: well-rounded sherd with the original shape uncertain

There were no major technical problems with the application of the method to the sample sherds. The main difference in the Regéc-95 sherd size analyses in comparison to those carried out for the Polgár-10 sample (Chapman et al., 2010b) is that the former has a multiperiod ceramic assemblage, while the latter’s sample is almost entirely restricted to the Neolithic period. This characteristic enables diachronic analysis of the Regéc-95 sample. This is particularly useful in contexts where pottery dating to two or more periods is found together.

The sherd size and erosion profiles for the site indicate that a general inverse relationship between size and number – that is to say that the smaller the sherd size, the more common the sherd (Fig. 5.8). The commonest sherd size is the Small body size (41%), closely followed by the medium-sized sherds (36%). In comparison, the second most severe erosion stage is the commonest, with half of the total sample being thus affected (Fig. 5.9). There are very low frequencies of uneroded sherds and relatively little stage-1 erosion, compared to over 1/3 of the total sample affected by the most severe erosion. TOTAL EROSION STAGES

TOTAL SHERD SIZES 10%

2%

13%

36%

41%

BODY 1

0

BODY 2A

1

BODY 2B 36%

12%

50%

BODY 3

Fig. 5.8 Overall distribution of sherd sizes

2 3

Fig.5.9 Overall distribution of erosion stages

The erosion profiles for each period indicate the chronological development of erosion profiles (Fig. 5.10). At each end of the trajectory, the Neolithic erosion profile is dominated by E2 and E3, with no E0 or E1, while the opposite is true of the Post-medieval pottery. In between, the first E1 erosion is found on Bronze Age sherds and

the first uneroded sherds belong to the Medieval period. E3 erosion continues on into the Medieval period but only at very low frequencies, while E2 erosion exhibits a gradual but irreversible decline from the Neolithic to the Medieval, where it finally disappears. 111

Middle Neolithic Erosion Stages

Early-Middle Neolithic Erosion Stages

Bronze Age Erosion Stages 2%

0

39% 42%

1 2

61%

3

Early Medieval Erosion Stages

0

0 56%

1 2

2

3

3

Post-Medieval Erosion Stages

Medieval Erosion Stages 2%

4%

1

26%

24%

30%

45%

66%

0

0

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

48%

55%

0

Fig. 5.10 Erosion profiles by Period: (a) Early-Middle Neolithic; (b) Middle Neolithic; (c) Bronze Age; (d) Early Medieval; (e) Medieval; (f) Post-Medieval

A more complex story is told by the erosion profiles of the different sherd sizes (Figs. 5.11 – 5.16). With the size I sherds, the Middle Neolithic assemblage is dominated by E2 and E3 erosion, with neither E0 nor E1 present; the reverse is true of the Post-medieval assemblage. E1-type erosion first appears on Bronze Age sherds – a period

when E3 > E2 erosion; the impression is that there was more erosion on Bronze Age size I sherds than on Neolithic sherds of this size. In the Migration Period, E1 erosion exceeds E2 for the first time, while, in the Medieval period, the first uneroded sherds appear but all four erosion stages are represented (E1 > E2 > E0 > E3).

EROSION PROFILE, BODY II A, EARLY-MIDDLE NEOLITHIC

EROSION PROFILE, BODY IIB, EARLY-MIDDLE NEOLITHIC

0

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

Fig. 5.11 Erosion stages by sherd size, Early-Middle Neolithic

112

EROSION PROFILE, BODY I, MIDDLE NEOLITHIC

EROSION PROFILE, BODY II A, MIDDLE NEOLITHIC

37%

39% 0

0

1

61%

63%

2 3

1 2 3

EROSION PROFILE, BODY III, MIDDLE NEOLITHIC

EROSION PROFILE, BODY II B, MIDDLE NEOLITHIC

43% 0 57%

50%

50%

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

Fig. 5.12 Erosion stages by sherd size, Middle Neolithi EROSION PROFILE, BODY II A, BRONZE AGE

EROSION PROFILE, BODY I, BRONZE AGE

2%

1%

35% 42% 0 57%

0

1

63%

2 3

1 2 3

EROSION PROFILE, BODY III, BRONZE AGE 5% 8%

EROSION PROFILE, BODY II B, BRONZE AGE 4% 25%

0 1

0

2

1

3

2 71%

87%

3

Fig. 5.13 Erosion stages by sherd size, Bronze Age 113

EROSION PROFILE, BODY I, MIGRATION PERIOD

EROSION PROFILE, BODY IIA, MIGRATION PERIOD 10%

40% 0 60%

50%

1

0 1

40%

2

2

3

3

EROSION PROFILE, BODY II B, MIGRATION PERIOD

0 1 2 3

Fig. 5.14 Erosion stages by sherd size, Early Medieval

114

EROSION PROFILE, BODY I, MEDIEVAL 5%

EROSION PROFILE, BODY II A, MEDIEVAL

9%

18%

23% 41%

63%

0

0

1

1

2

2

3

41%

EROSION PROFILE, BODY II B, MEDIEVAL

3

EROSION PROFILE, BODY III, MEDIEVAL

25% 33%

0

0

1 75%

67%

2 3

1 2 3

Fig. 5.15 Erosion stages by sherd size, Medieval EROSION PROFILES, BODY II A, POST-MEDIEVAL

EROSION PROFILE, BODY I, POST-MEDIEVAL

38%

50%

50%

0

0 62%

1

1

2

2

3

3

Fig. 5.16 Erosion stages by sherd size, Post-Medieval A clear pattern appears in the study of medium-sized (IIA) sherds – with only one exception, each period has a less severe erosion profile than with the Small (I) sherds. In the Neolithic, there are even more E2 examples than on the Small sherds and therefore a fall in E3 erosion. In the Bronze Age, as well as the first appearance of E1 erosion, E2 sherds strongly predominate over E3 sherds. The E0 erosion stage makes its appearance in the Medieval period, when E1 = E2 and E3 disappears. Finally, there is much more E0 than E1 in the Post-

medieval assemblage. The exception to this pattern of decreasing erosional severity is the Migration Period, which, despite its dominance of E1 over E2, has a renewed appearance of E3, where there was no such stage recorded on Small sherds. The pattern of a decreasingly severe erosional profile in the Large sherds compared to Medium-sized sherds is well established in all but one of the periods. The E1 erosional stage makes its appearance in the Bronze Age, 115

together with a strong predominance of E2 over E3, more so than with the Medium-sized sherds. In the Migration Period, both E2 and E3 erosion disappears and only the E1 stage is found. In the Medieval period, E2 drops out and E0 not only appears for the first time in this size range but it far exceeds the E1 levels, far more so than with the Medium-sized sherds. The only exception to the general pattern is the Middle Neolithic assemblage, in which E3 erosion increases in comparison with Mediumsized sherds and E2 decreases.

severity of erosion - first by period and secondly with increasing sherd size. While there is a single exception to this trend in the Migration Period assemblage (Mediumsized sherds), the Neolithic assemblages constantly reverse the second trend, so that there is a strong trend towards increasing erosion with increased sherd size. The other significant trend concerns sherd size – the inverse relationship between sherd size and frequency. This trend is important when seeking an interpretation of the overall pattern of sherd size and erosion variability.

Very Large sherds occur in only three periods – the Middle Neolithic, the Bronze Age and the Medieval. In the Middle Neolithic assemblage, E3 erosion reaches a peak, showing higher values than in any smaller sherd grouping! In the Bronze Age group, there is a strong predominance of E2, at 87%, far higher than in the Large sherds, and with very little E1 or E3 erosion. Lastly, the Medieval assemblage is dominated by E0, with some E1 but the difference between them is less than with Large sherds – perhaps the result of a small sample size. Hence, the Bronze Age demonstrates a far less severe erosion profile than with the Large sherds but the Neolithic erosion profile is more severe than with the Large sherds. Thus, the overall erosion profiles of the sherd sizes indicates two general trends towards the declining

At this stage, it is now possible to turn to the individual site contexts for a consideration of the sherd size and erosion profiles of their constituent ceramic groups. It is important to recall that a diachronic pattern can often emerge, since sherds from two or more periods occur in most of the contexts. Context 103 (Fig. 5.17) 2 Early-Middle Neolithic = both Large + E3; 29 Middle Neolithic + inverse relationship between sherd size and numbers, E2 = E3; 24 Bronze Age + inverse relationship between sherd size and numbers, with more E2 than E3 than E1; 1 Early Medieval = 1 Small + E1; 4 Postmedieval + 3 small and 1 medium, E0 = E1.

Erosion Stages, Neolithic Body I

50%

50%

0

Erosion Stages, Neolithic Body IIA

50%

50%

0

1

1

2

2

3

3 Erosion Stages, Neolithic Body III

Erosion Stages, Neolithic Body IIA

33% 50%

50%

0

0

1

1 67%

2 3

2 3

116

Erosion Stages, Neolithic Body III

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body I 13%

13%

33% 0 1 67%

2 3

74%

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body IIA

43% 57%

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body IIB

0

0 1

0 1 2 3

100%

1

2

2

3

3

Fig. 5.17 Erosion stages vs. sherd size by period, Context 103: (a)- (d) Middle Neolithic; (e) – (g) Bronze Age.

Interpretation: A classic pattern of decreasing severity of erosion with time, with sherd size increasing from Neolithic to Bronze Age but then decreasing in Postmedieval. With the Neolithic sherds, size has no effect on the severity of erosion, whereas the smaller Bronze Age sherds suffered from more severe erosion.

Context 108 1 Neolithic = Small + E2; 2 Bronze Age, one Small + E2 and one Very Large + E3. Context 203 (Fig. 5.18) 3 Early-Middle Neolithic, with 1 Large & 2 Very Large, E3 > E2; 94 Neolithic + inverse relationship between sherd size and numbers, with E2 > E3 > E1; 301 Bronze Age + inverse relationship between sherd size and numbers, with E2 > E1 > E3 > E0; 21 Migration Period, with equal numbers of Small & Medium sherds and a few Large sherds, with E2 > E1 > E3 > E0; 32 Medieval + inverse relationship between sherd sizeand numbers, with E2 > E1 = E3 > E0; 3 Post-medieval, 2 Small and 1 Medium, all + E0.

Context 105 2 Bronze Age, one Small + E2 and one Very Large + E3. Context 106 1 Bronze Age = Small, with uncertain erosion status.

117

Erosion Stages, Neolithic Body IIA

Erosion Stages, Neolithic Body I

17%

33%

67%

0

0

1

1

2

2

83%

3

20%

59%

1 100%

2 3

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body IIB

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body IIA

2%

39%

0

3

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body I

14%

7%

0

0

0

1

1

1

2

2

73%

3

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body III

3

Erosion Stages, Medieval Body I 3% 10%

0 100%

Erosion Stages, Neolithic Body IIB

2

86%

3

Erosion Stages, Medieval Body IIA 20%

37%

1 2

50%

3

0

0

1

1

2 3

80%

2 3

Fig. 5.18 Erosion stages vs. sherd size by period, Context 203: (a)- (c) Middle Neolithic; (d) – (g) Bronze Age; (h) –(i) Medieval. Interpretation: Typical inverse relationship between sherd size and frequency (smaller the sherds, the more they are); erosion profile is similar until Post-medieval when only uneroded sherds; although the Neolithic and Bronze Age size profiles are similar, there is a different erosion pattern with respect to sherd size – in the Neolithic, larger sherds show an increase in E3 and a decrease in E2, with the reverse in Bronze Age sherds. The Bronze Age pattern reflects the introduction of a high-fired burnished ware as the principal Late Bronze Age Gáva fine ware, whose surface was sufficiently burnished to resist water-borne erosion (see below, p. 141).

Context 305 5 Neolithic, two Medium, one Large and two Very Large, with E2 > E3; 12 Bronze Age, with 7 Small, 3 Medium & 2 Large, E2 = E3; 3 Migration Period, 1 Small & 2 Medium, E1 > E2; 3 Post-medieval, all Medium and with E0 > E1. Interpretation: a mixed set of sherd sizes, with some Neolithic sherds larger than Early Medieval or Postmedieval; a classic erosion pattern of decreasing erosion with time, although some of the largest Neolithic sherds have severe erosion. Context 503 6 Bronze Age, with 2 Small, 1 Medium and 3 Large, and E2 > E3.

Context 204 2 Neolithic, ONE Small and one Large, both + E3; 7 Bronze Age, 2 Medium, 2 Large and 3 Very Large, with E2 > E1 > E3.

Interpretation: similar to Context 305, insofar as there is more erosion in the medium-sized sherds than in larger or smaller.

Interpretation: the Neolithic sherds are more eroded than the Bronze Age sherds, although the larger BA sherds suffer less from erosion.

Context 504 2 Bronze Age, one Small and one Large, both + E2. 118

Context 505 2 Bronze Age, one Small and one Very Large, both + E2.

Context 603 (Fig. 5.19) 9 Neolithic, mostly Small and some Medium, with E2 > E3; 259 Bronze Age + inverse relationship between sherd size and numbers, with E2 > E3 and one + E1.

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body IIA 1%

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body I

31%

42% 58%

0

0

1

1 68%

2

2

3

3

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body IIB 18%

82%

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body III 10%

0

0

1

1

2

2

90%

3

3

Fig. 5.19 Erosion stages vs. sherd size by period, Context 603: (a) – (d) Bronze Age.

Interpretation: a very consistent pattern of erosion with respect to sherd size for the Bronze Age – the larger the sherd size, the less serious the erosion.

Context 604 (Fig. 5.20) 15 Neolithic, with 4 Small, 9 Medium & 2 Large, E2 = E3; 82 Bronze Age + inverse relationship between sherd size and numbers, with E2 > E3.

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body IIA

Bronze Age Body 1

18%

43% 57%

0

0

1

1

2

82%

3

2 3

119

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body IIB

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body III

23%

77%

0

0

1

1 100%

2

2

3

3

Fig. 5.20 Erosion stages vs. sherd size by period, Context 604: (a) – (d) Bronze Age.

Interpretation: the Neolithic size profile is rather mixed but a clear inverse profile for the Bronze Age; there are more Small sherds in the Bronze Age than in the Neolithic, the reverse for Medium sherds and equal for Large sherds; in the Neolithic, the tendency is for more severe erosion on larger sherds, while Bronze Age sherds show a tendency for less erosion, the larger the sherd. There are differences in size/erosion relationships between the two periods but not as great as in Context 203.

Context 607 2 Bronze Age, one Small sherd with E3, 1 Very Large sherd with E2. Context 702 (Fig. 5.21) 11 Neolithic, with 3 Small, 4 Medium and Large, with E2 + E3; 52 Bronze Age + inverse relationship between sherd size and numbers, with E2 > E3 and only 1 E1; 15 Medieval, with 6 Small, 2 Medium, 4 Large and 3 Very Large, with E1 > E0; 7 Post-medieval, 6 Small and 1 Medium, with E0 > E1.

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body I

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body IIA 31%

37% 0

0

1

63%

1 69%

2 3

2 3

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body III

Erosion Stages, Bronze Age Body IIB 14%

33% 0

0

1 86%

1 67%

2 3

2 3

Fig. 5.21 Erosion stages vs. sherd size by period, Context 703: (a) – (d) Bronze Age.

120

Age erosion profiles. This pattern may be explained by a similar rate of burial of sherds into their depositional environment whatever their date of production.

Interpretation: size patterns are mixed for the Neolithic, Medieval and Post-medieval, but an inverse pattern for the Bronze Age; a classic erosion pattern of decreasing erosion with time; for the first time, a Neolithic size/erosion similar to that of the Bronze Age, in which the larger the sherd, the less severe the erosion.

An assessment of the dialectical relationship between sherd size and erosion profile allows some interesting points to be discussed, mostly for Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery. The most distinctive pattern that can be discerned is a predominantly Bronze Age pattern, in which the larger the sherd size, the less severe the erosion. This pattern characterizes four Bronze Age groups, in Contexts 203, 603, 604 and 702. The most likely explanation of this pattern is that larger fragments are more rapidly incorporated into their depositional matrix because of their size, whereas smaller fragments may spend more time on the living surface because they are less of a hindrance to movement around the living area. This pattern is related to the overall site pattern of decreasing erosion with increasing sherd size. A contrasting pattern is found in three small Neolithic groups, in Contexts 203, 603 and 604, whereby more severe erosion typifies both smaller and larger Neolithic sherds but not medium-sized fragments. It is hard to find an adequate explanation for this size-related phenomenon. A third pattern, found in only one Context in a Neolithic group (Context 103), is that sherd size has no effect at all on the severity of erosion.

Context 703 7 Bronze Age, with 3 Small, 2 Medium, 1 Large and 1 Very Large, with E2 > E3;1 Post-medieval = 1 Small + E1. Context 704 2 Bronze Age, 1 Small + E3, 1 Very Large + E2. General interpretation Only eight out of the 16 contexts for which size/erosion analyses have been completed have samples of sufficient size for the drawing of any conclusions; this was not possible for Contexts 105, 106, 108, 504, 505, 607, 703 and 704. Three types of interpretation can be proposed for contexts in which there are sherds dating to two or more periods – for sherd size profiles, for erosion profiles and for the relationships between sherd size and erosion. There are two contrasting patterns of sherd size at Regéc95:- an inverse pattern, in which the smaller the sherd, the more of them there are; and a mixed pattern of sherd sizes. The former is the more common, especially with Bronze Age pottery, where it occurs in five cases (Contexts 103, 203, 603, 604 and 702), but this is also found with Neolithic groups (2 cases: Contexts 103 and 203) and with one Medieval group (Context 203). This pattern echoes the overall site pattern in sherd sizes.

The contrast between the two patterns is particularly strong in Context 203 but it should not be overemphasized, or reified into a chronological marker, since there is one small Neolithic group (Context 702) which follows the “Bronze Age” pattern and two Bronze Age groups (Contexts 103 and the small 503) which are closely related to the “Neolithic” pattern and one small Bronze Age (Context 305) with tendencies towards a “Neolithic” pattern.

The mixed pattern is more typical of the Neolithic groups, where it occurs three times, in Contexts 305, 604 and 702. This pattern never occurs with large Bronze Age samples (there is a suggestion of this in the small Context 503 group) and only once with Medieval and Postmedieval groups (both in Context 702).

Putting these data together with the type and Phase of each of the eight contexts in question (mostly Phase 3 fills, with the exception of 305, a Phase 2 cultural layer, and 503, a Phase 3 stone feature), there appears to be no strong correlation between the patterns of the ceramic groups by sherd size, erosion profile and size/erosion relationships with the Phase of the context or with its type. The patterns found in the two different contexts – 305 (Phase 2) and 503 (the only stone feature) are also found in some of the Phase 3 fills. But the variability in the Phase 3 fills for each aspect of ceramic patterning is as great as in the total variability of the sample. Thus, Phase 3 fill contexts comprise both mixed and inverse sherd size profiles, both diachronic-change and nodiachronic-change erosion profiles, both the “Neolithic” and the “Bronze Age” pattern of size/erosion relations for both Neolithic and Bronze Age groups. The most useful aspect of these complex relationships is to use the context-based results for “local” rather than “global” explanations of depositional and post-depositional histories. These data would appear to present a strong case for taking “local histories” very seriously at Regéc95.

Equally, there are two different patterns in erosion profiles of contexts with sherds dating to two or more periods (hence the exclusion of Context 503, which has only Bronze Age sherds). The classic pattern – and one that is expected from first principles - is one in which the severity of the erosion decreases with time: this occurs in five contexts with small samples (103, 204, 305, 604 (with a limited trajectory from Neolithic to Bronze Age) and 702). This principle is expected on a site with as much stratigraphic mixing as Regéc-95, since the longer a sherd is in circulation, the more likely it is to have suffered from severe erosion. This circumstance is most likely to have affected those strata just below the base of the plough-zone, in which stratigraphic mixing owing to the plough had still occurred. The counterfactual pattern is one in which the severity of erosion remains the same through time: this occurs in only two contexts - Context 203, with Neolithic, Bronze Age and Medieval data, and Context 603, when comparing the small Neolithic sample with the Bronze 121

variant on Neolithic fabrics (n = 25). The potparts distribution of the Neolithic assemblage by context and phase is presented below (Table 5.3; see also Figs. 5.1 – 5.2). This shows a strong predominance of undecorated body sherds (80%), with only the undecorated rim sherds represented at 10%. The low proportion of decorated sherds – totaling only 4% - makes this an assemblage that is much harder to relate to other Neolithic ceramic styles than is usually the case in the Alföld Plain.

5.4 Period studies 5.4.1 The Neolithic pottery (JC) The Neolithic pottery sample from Regéc-95 comprises a total of 523 Neolithic sherds, weighing 4.15 kg. Three types of Neolithic pottery have been deposited:- EarlyMiddle Neolithic sherds (n = 5), Middle Neolithic sherds (n = 493) and Neolithic Pink Wares – a technological CONTXT 102 103 103 108 203 203 203 204 204 300 305 305 306 500 500 501 601 602 602 603 604 604 605 701 702 1001 1102 1602 1602 1603 1604 TOTALS

TOTAL

PHASE

98 29 2 1 90 11 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 11 1 27 4 91 5 8 15 1 1 3 13 2 2 65 4 12 16 523

NEO NEO SZA NEO NEO PINK SZA NEO PINK NEO NEO PINK NEO NEO PINK NEO NEO NEO PINK NEO NEO PINK NEO NEO NEO NEO NEO NEO PINK NEO NEO

DEC RIMS 5 1 2

UNC RIMS 8 5 2 1 4

DEC BODIES 5 2

UNDEC BODIES 75 20

UNDEC HANDLES 3

82 10

UNDEC BASES 2 1 2 1

3 1 1 1 1 2

1

2 5 1 4 3 2

1 1 2 2 1

8 1 20 3 77 5 5 12 1

1

7

3 11 2 2 46 2 10 14 415

1

1 1 1

5

16

1 2 1

13 1

3

1 10

54

2 23

Table 5.3 Potparts distribution by phase permit an estimated reconstruction of the rim diameter means that an analysis of vessel size is not possible. The judgment based on this small sample suggests a preference for the deposition of parts of small vessels, with few large pots on site. This problem cannot be addressed with recourse to the estimated diameters of base sherds, since no estimates are possible at all. No estimate of the minimum number of vessels can therefore be attempted here. The issue of sherd size and small overall sample size means that most analyses will be conducted at a fairly general level.

The high degree of fragmentation of the entire assemblage is an important factor that should be borne in mind in considering the limitations of the analyses attempted here. Because of the high proportion of small sherds, the Regéc assemblage has been recorded at two levels of detail at the end of the Neolithic pottery report: (a) a full description of every feature sherd (n = 96: Table 5.9 pp. xxx - xxx) and a summary of the numbers and weights of each surface colour of undiagnostic sherds (Table 5.10: p. xxx). The fragmentation of the assemblage extends to a majority of the rim sherds. The fact that only nine out of 64 sherds are large enough to 122

feature is the striking pink colour found usually on the exterior but also sometimes (as in Sherd Cat. No. 25) on the interior of the vessel. The mechanism for producing such a colour difference has not yet been established. In all other respects, Pink wares resembled other Middle Neolithic fabrics and shapes, although no Pink ware sherd was decorated in this assemblage.

There is an unbalanced frequency of the three forms of Neolithic pottery found at Regéc, with very few EarlyMiddle Neolithic sherds and slightly more Neolithic Pink Wares in comparison to the vast preponderance of generic Middle Neolithic sherds. The five Early-Middle Neolithic sherds are characterized by their coarse fabric, usually pebble filler and well-fired core. In the absence of decoration (the case at Regéc), they can be distinguished from other pottery by the occasional traces of organic (plant) filler and by their remarkably coarse surface. Pink wares have been found in the Middle Neolithic and the Earlier Bronze Age in Upper Tisza Project sites in the plains (Chapman et al., 2003; 2010). The main defining

One theme that can be studied with this Neolithic assemblage is the range of surface colours, whether represented overall, for feature sherds and for undiagnostic sherds (Fig. 5.21).

SURFACE COLOURS, ALL SHERDS (n = 488) 0% 1%

6% 13% Ash-grey Brown

40%

Dark Grey Light grey Pink

15%

Red Red-Brown Yellow

3% 22%

SURFACE COLOUR, FEATURE SHERDS (n = 96) 1% 18% 26% Ash-grey Brown

8%

Dark Grey Light grey Pink Red

14% 24% 9%

123

Red-Brown Yellow

SURFACE COLOURS, NON-FEATURE SHERDS (n = 392) 1%

4% 14% Ash-grey Brown Dark Grey

43%

Light grey

15%

Pink Red Red-Brown

2% 21%

Fig. 5.22 Surface colours for (a) total assemblage; (b) feature sherds; (c) non-feature sherds The clear overall picture is a community who use and deposit light-faced wares, fired in an oxidizing atmosphere to red, red-brown or brown, twice as frequently as they use dark-faced wares, fired in a slightly reducing atmosphere, to light or dark grey. This conclusion is just as valid for feature sherds and nonfeature sherds. However, at a more detailed level, there are several important differences between the surface colours of the feature and non-feature sherds. There are

more pink and brown feature sherds than non-feature sherds, while the reverse is true for red-brown and grey surfaces. Another form of cultural preference related to colours concerns the surface colours selected for fine or coarse wares (Fig. 5.23). Here, the range of surface colours in the comparison was restricted by sample size.

COARSE & FINE WARES BY SURFACE COLOUR 25 20 15 FINE 10

COARSE

5 0

GREY (n = 21)

RED (n = 23)

RED-BROWN + BROWN (n = 39)

Fig. 5.23 Fine wares and Coarse wares by selected Surface Colours There was a clear preference for coarse vessels in lighter, oxidized colours, while darker, reduced colours were used more frequently for the fine wares.

The same sherd fragmentation issue complicates the recognition of shape types, not to mention shape subtypes, in the manner possible for the Polgár-10 pottery assemblage (Chapman et al., 2010b). The use of the 124

typological framework used for the Polgár-10 Middle Neolithic pottery assemblage in this analysis indicates the presence of the following types at Regéc:

as well as huge variability in two other aspects of potterymaking: the filler used for these vessels and the specific firing conditions.

Sub-type a3 Sub-type b1 Sub-type b3 Sub-type c2 Sub-type d2

The pottery can be broadly divided into two categories fine wares and coarse wares – through varying surface treatments. Fine wares tend to have thinner vessel walls and smoothed surfaces, while any burnishing that may once have been present has been removed through postdepositional erosion. There is also the tendency to have finer filler but, as we shall shortly see, this is not necessarily always the case. There is also a tendency for more frequent decoration of fine wares. By contrast, coarse wares tend to have unsmoothed surfaces, thicker vessel walls, coarser filler and less decoration. There are six instances of sherds with interior smoothing – three with fine exterior surfaces and three with coarse exterior surfaces; the interior smoothing would have decreased liquid permeability. There are also six examples of sherds with different exterior and interior colours, suggesting poorly controlled firing conditions rather than experiments with surface colour. Additional forming processes by way of the addition of lugs or handles are rare at Regéc, with six examples – three in fine and three in coarse fabrics. There are four horizontal lugs (Fig. 5.28/4 - 5) and two horizontally perforated handles (Fig. 5.27/17). Two of the vessels with lugs are differentiated from other pottery, once by interior smoothing and once by the use of a yellow surface colour unique at the site.

Carinated bowl (e.g., Fig. 5.28/8) Open dish (e.g., Fig. 5.27/1-2, 6) Straight-sided dish (e.g. Fig. 5.27/5) Straight-sided jar (e.g., Fig. 5.27/7) everted-rim flask (e.g., Fig. 5.27/3, 14) (not present at Polgár-10)

Clearly distinguishable rim sherds from the following Polgár-10 shape sub-types were absent from this assemblage: a1 rounded bowls; a2 necked bowls; b2 rounded dishes; c1 hole-mouth jars; d1 necked flaks; e1 necked amphorae; and f1 colanders (see Chapman et al., 2010b: Figs. 7.3a – 7.3c). This is not the same thing as concluding that these sub-types were absent from Regéc95, insofar as sherds from open and necked bowls may indeed be present but unrecognizable through fragmentation. But the overall impression is that the Regéc Neolithic assemblage is more narrowly based on certain sub-types of bowls, dishes, jars and flasks than was the case with the much larger assemblage at Polgár10. In particular, there were no sherds from the larger storage- jars or amphorae, suggesting a lack of long-term storage capacity. Despite extensive environmental fieldwork in the Regéc Basin, no source of clay has been found to match the ceramics deposited at the excavation site. We are therefore not in a position to contribute to the discussion of where the vessels used and deposited at Regéc were actually made. The study of the diagnostic sherds indicates contrasts in the surface treatment of the vessels,

FILLER

RED

FINE SAND COARSE SAND PEBBLES

2

RED + BROWN

RED + GREY

REDGREYRED

The variability found in filler and firing conditions can be demonstrated by creating cross-tabulations of fillers used vs. core colours produced for each of four main surface colours – red, red-brown, brown and grey (Tables 5.4 – 5.7).

RED + DARK GREY

REDBROWN + BROWN

1

BROWN

LIGHT GREY

1

2

4

1

4

1

1

1

1

1

RED-BROWN

LIGHT GREY

FINE SAND COARSE SAND PEBBLES

1

3 3

LIGHT GREY + RED 1

Table 5.5 Cross-tabulations of core colour and fillers for Red-Brown Wares 125

1 4

Table 5.4 Cross-tabulations of core colour and fillers for Red Wares FILLER

DARK GREY

DARK GREY 2 5 8

FILLER

FINE SAND COARSE SAND PEBBLES

RED + BROWN

RED + DARK GREY

REDGREYRED

REDBROWN

REDBROWN + DARK GREY

BROWN

BROWN + DARK GREY

LIGHT GREY

1 1

1

1

1

DARK GREY 1

1

1

2

2 1

1

3

Table 5.6 Cross-tabulations of core colour and fillers for Brown Wares FILLER FINE SAND COARSE SAND PEBBLES

RED-BROWN 1 1

LIGHT GREY 3 3

GREY 1

DARK GREY 2 5 8

Table 5.7 Cross-tabulations of core colour and fillers for Grey Wares of visits to the site, each one by a different community or sub-group, or to a wide range of different on-site functions intended for the vessels.

It is important to note that, following Doran & Hodson (1975), these cross-tabulations are not presented a a means of establishing fabric types. Instead, their use is in highlighting variability in pottery-making, with no categorical exclusions (viz., the association of one filler type with only one core colour) in samples of more than one sherd. This pattern is very striking in its diametric opposition to more specialized making, such as the Barnhouse example from Late Neolithic Orkney, where each house made vessels according to a specific recipe of clay and filler (Jones 2002). The Regéc pattern of a very wide spread of co-associations between the desired firing technique and the filler used to improve vessel performance (Braun 1983) may relate to the multiplicity

There would be an expectation that a similar form of cross-tabulation for fine and coarse wares would indicate some differentiation between these two categories, perhaps related to a functional division of these essentially small vessels between cooking and serving. The first expectation – that different filler was incorporated into fine wares and coarse wares – was generally met, with a predominance of fine sand for fine wares and a shared dominance of coarse sand and pebbles in the coarse wares (Fig. 5.24).

FINE & COARSE WARES BY FILLER 25 20 15

FINE WARES COARSE WARES

10 5 0

FINE SAND

COARSE SAND

PEBBLES

126

FINE & COARSE WARES BY FILLER 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%

PEBBLES

20% 10%

COARSE SAND

0% FINE WARES

COARSE WARES

FINE SAND

Fig. 5.24 Fine wares and coarse wares by filler: (a) absolute numbers; (b) percentages.

One rapid means of assessing the quality of firing is by examination of the extent of colour variation in the vessel core. A total of fourteen different colour combinations is known from Regéc (for listing by vessel surface colour, see Tables 5.4 – 5.7). The presence of a single colour across the whole of the core (n = 6 colours) has been interpreted as a consistent firing temperature that has produced a well-fired vessel. Conversely, a mix of colours in the core – especially a light – dark – light ‘sandwich’ – has been used to infer incomplete firing (n = 8 varieties, including ‘red – grey – red’ sandwiches). The expectation would be that ‘appropriate’ temper, as defined above, would have been used in vessels where the intention has been a superior firing. The crosstabulation of well-fired / poorly-fired vessels against filler types (Fig. 5.25) shows a pattern that broadly meets this expectation.

However, decisions over the kind of filler included were by no means clear-cut, with pebbles used in as much as 20% of all fine wares and fine sand found in 10% of coarse wares. At the more detailed level of fine and coarse wares by surface colour, the ratio of ‘appropriate’ fillers (viz., fine sand for fine wares, coarse sand or pebbles for coarse wares) to ‘inappropriate’ fillers (e.g., pebbles in fine wares, fine sand in coarse wares) was far higher for the coarse wares than for the fine wares (highest coarse ware ratio: 16:1 for red coarse wares; highest fine ware ratio: 1.8:1 for grey fine wares). This suggests that, if there have not been many misclassifications by the archaeologist, there was a wide range of fillers which were deemed proper for clay + filler recipes for fine wares and a much tighter choice for coarse wares. This finding sits uneasily with general assumptions about the more conservative nature of coarse ware pottery-making in comparison to fine ware production.

127

FIRING QUALITY OF FINE & COARSE WARES BY FILLER 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

FINE SAND COARSE SAND PEBBLES

WELLPOORLYWELLPOORLYFIRED FWs FIRED FWs FIRED CWs FIRED CWs

FIRING QUALITY OF FINE & COARSE WARES BY FILLER 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

PEBBLES COARSE SAND FINE SAND

WELLFIRED FWs

POORLYFIRED FWs

WELLFIRED CWs

POORLYFIRED CWs

Fig. 5.25 Firing quality of fine wares and coarse wares by filler: (a) absolute numbers; (b) percentages. There is a far higher proportion of pebble filler in poorlyfired fine wares than in well-fired fine wares, suggesting some effort to match the aesthetic and utilitarian aspects of the better-quality vessels, perhaps for use in serving food and drink. Conversely, the inclusion of coarse sand and pebbles in broadly similar proportions for the poorlyfired coarse wares indicates that filler type, as well as vessel wall thickness, were the main techniques used to overcome thermal shock were these pots used for cooking, rather than a higher firing temperature and a longer period in the bonfire. `

An examination of these data for the various surface colours indicates a striking pattern (Fig. 5.26). The vast majority of well-fired fine wares were grey vessels, while all of the poorly-fired coarse wares were light-faced in colour. Poorly-fired fine wares were more frequently light-faced than grey in colour, while there were slightly more grey wares in well-fired coarse wares than lightfaced vessels. These findings summarise the Regéc Neolithic pottery assemblage in terms of the relationships between pottery categories, firing, filler and surface colour.

128

FIRING QUALITY FOR FINE & COARSE WARES BY SURFACE COLOUR 30 25 20 15

LIGHT-FACED WARES

10

GREY

5 0

WELLPOORLYWELLPOORLYFIRED FWs FIRED FWs FIRED CWs FIRED CWs

FIRING QUALITY FOR FINE & COARSE WARES BY SURFACE COLOUR 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

GREY

WELLFIRED FWs

POORLYFIRED FWs

WELLFIRED CWs

LIGHTFACED WARES

POORLYFIRED CWs

Fig. 5.26 Firing quality of fine wares and coarse wares by surface colour: (a) absolute numbers; (b) percentages

One characteristic of the Regéc Neolithic pottery assemblage is the paucity of decorated sherds (n = 22 or 4%). Only two decorative techniques have survived on the often eroded sherds: incision (Fig. 5.27/11) and impression. Incision is by far the more common, with 20 sherds, while only two impressed sherds were identified – one with horizontal and vertical rows of dots (Fig. 5.28/1) and one with a ‘maggot’ motif (Fig. 5.28/10). The incised motifs identified are shown below in descending order of importance (Table 5.8):

TYPES OF INCISED MOTIF Oblique lines rectilinear linear Oblique zone chevron curvilinear ‘V’ on shoulder

FREQUENCY

FINE WARE

COARSE WARE

6 6 3 2 1 1 1

4 5 2 1 1 1 0

2 1 1 1 0 0 1

Table 5.8 Frequency of incised motifs by vessel fabric

129

regional Late Alföld Linear Pottery groups – Tiszadob and Bükk – suggesting that the time passing between the multiple seasonal visits to the site covered a century or two – between 5500 and 5300 Cal BC. The vessels whose fragments were deposited at the site were, for the most part, small in size and showing a limited shape range; while only five vessel shapes were represented, it is possible that other vessels were deposited as undecorated body sherds. The rim data shows no large vessels suitable for storage, with the inference that most vessels were concerned with cooking or serving food and drink. Several vessels with smoothed interiors were presumably used for carrying / holding liquids.

This suite of seven motifs, in an assemblage of 523 sherds, contrasts with the total of 100 decorative motifs classified at Polgár-10 in an assemblage of 16,467 sherds (Chapman et al., 2010b). Although this statistic makes Regéc look richer in motifs per 100 sherds (Regéc: 1 motif every 75 sherds; Polgár-10: 1 motif per 165 sherds), this conclusion does not take account of the high frequencies of some incised motifs. Thus, the proportion of decorated sherds at Polgár-10 is 16%, four times higher than at Regéc. All of the relatively simple motifs in this assemblage are common in the Middle Neolithic of Eastern Hungary, although the motifs are so simple that few similar sherds have been published. Thus, the impressed decoration of rows of dots (Fig. 5.28/1) lacks the usual accompanying lines but still has a good parallel in the Bükk assemblage from Boldogkőváralja – Tekerjes-patak (Kalicz & Makkay 1977: Tafel 99/4, 19). Similarly, part of the complex oblique linear pattern near the rim of the Tiszadob vessel from TiszavasváriKeresztfal (Kalicz & Makkay 1977: Tafel 54/1 – 2) provides a close match for the complex incised oblique zone (Fig. 5.27/11). What little can be said is that the parallels for the Middle Neolithic decorative motifs are most readily found in Late Alföld Linear Pottery groups such as Bükk and Tiszadob. This finding makes good geographical sense, since these are the two AVK subgroups closest to the Regéc site.

The Regéc vessels were made from a wide range of ‘clay + filler’ recipes, with a tendency for fine wares to have fine sand filler and a strong tendency for coarse wares to have coarse sand or pebble filler. There are, however, exceptions to every ‘rule’ differentiating fine from coarse wares, indicating that the way that pottery was used to categorize people and society relied much more strongly on cross-cutting modes of categorization than oppositional modes of categorization. Bonfire firing is highly probable for such a variable assemblage, as is seen particularly in the relations between the mode of firing and the preferred filler. There were strong preferences for the surface colours of pottery. While most well-fired fine wares were grey in colour, all poorly-fired coarse wares had a light-faced colour (red, red-browns and browns). Light-faced wares were more common than grey wares in poorly-fired fine wares, while the reverse was true for well-fired coarse wares. Taking the quality of firing into account, as well as the fine / coarse ware division, there was a reasonably good match between the most appropriate fillers and the colour and firing quality of many vessels.

In summary, the small, highly fragmented and severely eroded assemblage of Neolithic pottery from Regéc-95 was dominated by undecorated body sherds, with decoration occurring on only 4% of sherds. There were three components in the assemblage: a large group of Middle Neolithic AVK sherds, a small number of Middle Neolithic Pink Wares and an even smaller number of Early-Middle Neolithic sherds. The decoration on the Middle Neolithic sherds has parallels with two of the

130

Fig. 5.27 Neolithic pottery, Regéc-95.

131

Fig. 5.28 Neolithic pottery, Regéc-95

132

133

134

135

136

137

CONTEXT 102 102 102 102 103 103 103 203 203 203 203 500 500 500 501 501 501 601 601 601 602 602 602 602 603 603 604 604 604 701 701 701 702 702 702 702 1001 1102 1602 1602 1602 1602 1602 1602 1603 1603 1603 1603 1604 1604 1604 1604

EXTERNAL COLOUR Ash-grey (eroded) Red – brown (eroded) Dark grey (eroded) Light grey (eroded) Dark grey Red – brown Light grey Light grey Ash-grey Dark grey Red – brown Red Red – brown Light grey Red Red – brown Light grey Red – brown Red Light grey Red Red – brown Light grey Pink Red Red – brown Red Red – brown Dark grey Light grey Dark grey Red – brown Dark grey Red – brown Red Brown Red Red Pink Red – brown Brown Red Light grey Dark grey Red – brown Dark grey Red Brown Red Red – brown Brown Dark grey

NUMBER 2 27 22 23 8 6 6 16 2 7 64 3 1 1 4 10 4 1 1 1 42 26 5 4 1 4 1 7 4 1 1 1 2 4 4 1 2 2 2 15 9 15 1 6 2 2 3 3 6 4 1 2

Table 5.10 Non-feature sherds by Surface Colour, Number and Weight

138

WEIGHT (g.) 5 75 125 67 30 80 20 65 5 30 240 40 5 10 30 130 45 10 5 5 440 230 30 40 5 20 2 50 35 2 2 10 20 40 25 10 5 10 25 180 100 165 5 60 10 30 40 25 35 25 5 25

5.4.2 The Bronze Age pottery (Magdolna Vicze) The Bronze Age pottery of Regéc can be assigned to a specific time frame and social group called the Gáva . CONTEXT TOTAL RIMS DEC BODIES 101 10 3 3 102 61 5 5 103 24 3 201 46 2 203 305 12 13 204 7 1 302 5 305 14 403 10 1 500 45 1 1 501 210 8 20 503 5 1 504 14 1 1 601 7 602 321 13 14 603 250 13 4 604 94 6 7 605 16 1 701 6 702 52 1 5 703 7 1001 88 6 2 1002 12 1003 5 1102 21 1601 8 1602 402 10 16 1603 68 1

cultural complex (Kemenczei 1984). This social unit is part of the composite Late Bronze Age social complexes on the eastern side of the Carpathian Basin within the time frame of Hallstatt A2 - B (Kemenczei 1984; V. Szabó 2003; 2004a). UNDEC BODIES 4 47 21 42 279 6 5 14 9 42 178 4 12 7 288 229 80 14 5 46 7 78 11 5 21 7 373 64

HANDLES

BASES

2

2 2 1

1 4

1

6 4 1

1 1 2 1

1

1 3 2

Table 5.11 Distribution of Late Bronze Age sherd types within contexts SHERD NUMBERS BY CONTEXT

450 400 350

NO.

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1 2 3 1 3 4 2 5 3 0 1 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 10 10 10 20 20 20 30 30 40 50 50 50 50 60 60 60 60 60 70 70 70 10 0 10 0 10 0 11 0 16 0 16 0 16 0 CONTEXT

Fig. 5.29 Late Bronze Age sherd numbers by context 139

occasional/accidental quartzite pieces in the temper, the wall thickness varies between 0.6 and 2.5 cms. The surface both inside and outside is smoothed and has brownish (sometimes speckled with yellow, dark brown or black patches) colour. In some cases, the inside smoothing is more thorough and even. There is an almost greasy feeling to the touch. Traces of probable burned soot on some pieces could be identified on the outside of these pot types. Functionally, they were categorized as cooking vessels. It was an interesting observation that some of the larger bowl fragments had traces of cooking on them as well. The third type of vessel is characterised by a coarse fabric, coarse surface and yellowish brown, orange colour, the wall thickness of these sherds varies between 1.1 - 2.6 cms. These were identified as coarse storage vessels (V. Szabó 2002; 2004a). A very large portion (over 85 %) of the pottery finds are undecorated body fragments of these three types. It is significant to note that their distribution within the excavation contexts is in general dispersed regularly, with one-third deriving from each type. The almost complete lack of diagnostic sherds and fine ware fragments is surprising and will be discussed later.

At Regéc, the quantity and quality of the pottery finds is considerably less in comparison to other known settlement sites of this social entity (e.g., Kemenczei 1971; 1982; 1984; Genito & Kemenczei 1990; Vicze 1996; V. Szabó 1996; 1999) (Table 5.11; Fig. 5.29). Thus, for this analysis, the bulk of the material was divided into three types according to their material, surface treatment, and colour. Type one is characterized by: fine fabric with sand and finely ground limestone temper; the surface on the outside is smoothed and is black in colour, the inside is light brown or yellowish brown and slightly smoothed, wall thickness varies from 0.7 to 2.8 cms. This black and yellow pottery is one of the most characteristic products of the Gáva potters. Generally the black outside surface is well polished, the traits of which could be noted on just a few pieces at Regéc. The smooth, shiny surface and the even black colour which penetrates deeper than just the exterior of these vessels requires highly specialised knowledge from the potter. In general, urn-shaped vessels, most probably for special storage, and table ware were made from this fabric and with this technique (V. Szabó 2002; 2004b). Type two is identified with coarser fabric, without sand and slightly larger limestone grains with CONTEXT 102 103 203 500 501 602 603 604 702 1001 1602 1603

TYPE 1: BLACK AND YELLOW FINE 4 94 12 38 95 46 28 8 12 121 11

TYPE 2: BROWN SMOOTHED SURFACE 19 1 86 16 35 101 147 30 20 19 139 14

Table 5.12 Proportions of Late Bronze Age sherd types by context

140

TYPE 3: YELLOWISH BROWN COARSE 24 20 89 14 105 92 36 22 22 47 113 39

SHERD TYPES BY CONTEXT 100% 80% 60%

Type:3 Type:2

40%

Type:1

20%

16 03

16 02

10 01

70 2

60 4

60 3

60 2

50 1

50 0

20 3

10 3

10 2

0%

CONTEXT

Fig. 5.30 Distribution of Late Bronze Age sherd types by context 1602, 1603, 102 and 103 can be discussed together as they lie close to each other on the Eastern side of the studied area. They could be influenced by the same geographical, geological or morphological features. The ceramics from context 500 is a surprise, especially if we compare the material from the nearby contexts of 501, 602, 603, or 604. The archaeological finds from these contexts do not show this degree of erosion. The explanation for this anomaly could be that the finds from context 500 are from the plough soil - hence their greater erosion. Ploughsoil contexts are usually disregarded in this study, but the number of sherds from context 500 and the preceding context 501 made its inclusion obligatory. It is interesting to note that the surface of the type one sherds - i.e. the fine pottery - has been affected by percolation considerably less, implying that those sherds are more resistant to natural erosion than the other pottery types. The reason for this higher resistance in all probability lies in the burnishing or, in some cases, polishing of the ceramic surface of these vessels.

The overall condition and composition of the Bronze Age ceramic finds from Regéc can be considered to be surprisingly poor on more than one account. The physical state of the finds indicates affects of intense natural erosion, the visible trace of which is quite different from that of fragmentation and abrasion. The intensity of the natural erosion on the sherds was observed by studying their surface conditions. In general, all the finds show traits of natural degradation but some of the contexts have a higher degradation status than others. For example, the sherds from Contexts 102, 103, 201, 203, 500; 1602, 1603, 1001, 1002 are the most eroded ones. The surface of these finds are very gritty to the touch, the grinded limestone pieces used for temper literally stand out from the surface of the ceramic pieces. This was most probably caused by the effects of percolating water. It seems that the archaeological finds from the above mentioned contexts had been exposed to a higher degree of waterinduced stress than the remainder of the material. The intense erosion on the ceramics of contexts 1001, 1002,

141

Fig. 5.31 Late Bronze Age ceramic finds, Regéc-95: Context 203 – 3; Context 602 – 2, 5 – 7; Context 603 – 8, 11 & 13; Context 604 – 9 & 12 (counter); Context 1001 – 1 & 4; Context 1602 – 10. 142

Similar pieces are known from all Gáva sites (e.g., Gyoma 133: Vicze 1996; Nagykálló: Kemenczei 1982; Tiszacsege: V. Szabó 2004b; Prügy: Kemenczei 1984; Poroszló-Aponhát: Patay 1976). They are also widespread in Szabó’s comprehensive work (V. Szabó 2002: Figs. 28, 29). The few channelled, grooved black burnished pieces of fine ware have to be noted here (Fig. 5.31/8 - 11). This decorative feature and surface treatment is one of the most characteristic attributes of Gáva pottery (Kemenczei 1984; V. Szabó 2002). The fact that none of the typical decorative motives – like horizontal or vertical grooving encircling knobs, necks or shoulders, garland or half circles facing upward or downward, incised lines and brushed patterns (ample examples can be found in any of the above mentioned publications, but especially in Kemenczei 1984) – could be recognised or identified underlines the observation made earlier. The extremely poor and unrepresentative nature of the ceramic finds from this site is without parallel! The overall composition of the finds is inferior to any of the known and/or published sites. Even sites known from surface collections only have more decorative or diagnostic sherds (e.g., Kemenczei 1971; 1984; Nepper & Sz. Máthé 1973; Dani 2005a; 2005b). It has been suggested that the later Gáva potters have reduced the proportion of decorated vessels with time (Kemenczei 1984, 64; Vicze 1996, 29, 31-33). Based on this, it could be assumed that this site dates to a very narrow timeframe from the later or second phase of the Gáva cultural complex. This explanation, although quite simplistic and one-sided (based mainly on the missing decorations) could still be considered, however it still does not elucidate the general lack of other diagnostic sherds. The overall ceramic finds seem to betray careful selection with the aim of removing any sherd with a characteristic feature bearing any resemblance to their original shape.

The almost complete lack of decorated, diagnostic and small fine ware sherds is striking (Table 5.11). In total, there are 38 rims derived from three or four different vessel types (Fig. 5.31). The majority are tiny bowl rims. From the total amount of rims, ten pot rims were found out of which the diameter of six could be reconstructed, coming from contexts 602 (3 pieces), 603, 604, 702, 203 (one each) and trenches 10 (2 pieces) and 16 (1 piece) (Fig. 5.31/1, 4 – 7). The pots belong to the typical, wellknown pottery types of the Gáva cultural complex: types XI and XII in V. Szabó’s work (V. Szabó 2002, Figs. 2829, Table: 225). They can be found on every site of this society (e.g., Poroszló-Aponhát: Patay, 1976; Gyoma 133: Genito & Kemenczei 1990; Vicze 1996; Polgár M31, M3-29: V. Szabó 2007; Prügy: Kemenczei 1984). There is only one more recognisable vessel type, the simple inverted-rimmed bowl that could be identified at Regéc-95. There are altogether six pieces which represent this vessel, deriving from Contexts 203, 702, 603, 604 and 1001. Three out of the six sherds belong to small bowls and are the only ones embodying the table ware category at this site, measuring 2 cm by 1-2 cm (Fig. 5.31/8). It has already been noted that one of the larger bowl pieces has traits of soot on its outside, which is interesting as these vessels were considered to be used at the table as table wares (Fig. 5.31/3). Three small, almost unrecognisable fragments of cups (no type identification is possible) came to light from Contexts 102 and 602. Altogether four small fragments of loop handles were found, only one of them coming from a cup (Context 102). The others could belong to smaller pots or bowls but none of them has fine surface finish, so they could come from cooking or storage vessels. Similar is the case with most of the so-called decorated pieces of pottery. These decorations are small horizontal knobs and fingerpressed ribs found on the upper shoulder or neck part of the cooking and/or storage pots (Fig. 5.31/1, 4, 6 &13).

CONTEXT 102

Type:CONTEXT 603 3 28%

Type: 1 9%

Type: 3 51%

Type: 2 40%

Type: 2 37%

143

CONTEXT 103 Type: 1 35%

Type:2 5%

Type:3 95%

CONTEXT 1001

CONTEXT 604 Type: 3 32%

Type: 1 15%

Type: 1 33%

Type: 2 24%

Type:2 40%

CONTEXT 500

CONTEXT 1603 Type: 1 17%

Type: 3 61%

Type:1 16% Type:3 44%

Type: 3 61%

Type: 2

CONTEXT 702

Type: 1 29%

Type: 3 33%

Type: 2 22%

Type: 2

Fig. 5.32 Proportion of the three Late Bronze Age sherd types by individual context. Left hand column – Eastern contexts – 102, 103, 1001 and 1603; right hand column: Western contexts- 603, 604, 702 and 500 used for stocking different subsistence products. A similar division within Gáva settlement ceramics was used by V. Szabó (2004a: 2004b). It has already been mentioned that the ceramic surfaces coming from the Eastern side of the study area (Trenches 1, 10 and 16) show heavy natural erosion marks also reflected in the ODC study (see above, pp. 93 – 95 & Figs. 4.60 - 61). Although test pits 10 and 16 were left out from other aspects of investigation, the composition of Contexts 1001 – 1002 and 1601 - 1603 was analysed. On average, these contexts had 60 % coarse storage vessels, with 20 % or less fine storage pots. Similar or even more distinct is the material from Contexts 102 and 103. In this trench which had traces of a probable hearth, the large majority of the sherds represented coarse storage vessels. Following an East-West direction in the discussion of the pottery composition, the next Contexts under discussion are 201 and 203. The general condition of the sherds still show intense surface erosion, although less severely than in areas on the hill-top. The proportion of the pots seems to be divided evenly, with a slightly higher number of sherds coming from cooking vessels. Trench 7 has a 4044 % division of cooking and coarse wares and 16 % of sherds from fine storage ceramics. There is a somewhat higher proportion of cooking pots over the fine and coarse storage vessels in Contexts 604 (37 %) and 603 (64 %), with 35 % of fine storage vessels in Context 604 and 20 % in Context 603. Similar results are found in Trench 5 with Context 500, where the proportion of the pottery types is 29-38-33 % (Table 5.12; Figs. 5.30 & 5.32).In the topsoil of Trench 6 (i.e. Context 602), the material is divided evenly around 33 % among all three types of sherds. In these cases, the several periods of

Interpretation The understand or interpretation of the unusual Bronze Age ceramic assemblage from Regéc-95 led to an assessment of the distribution, fragmentation and the proportions of the different types of sherds. It is hoped that they will give some indications of the use of space within the site and at the same time shed some light on the small community that lived there. This more detailed study was based upon all contexts with more than ten Bronze Age sherds. Trenches 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, and 16 had contexts that met this requirement. It is important to note that all contexts were considered from these Trenches even if the assemblage came from Phase 4 or from the plough soil (e.g., Context 500). The reason for this is that, even if the top layers experienced the most disturbance and mixture over time, their composition and even their position may shed some light on Bronze Age use activities and discard. The basic distinction into three types pottery was applied here, according to which the black burnished sherds are categorized as fine storage vessels, most probably used within houses (V. Szabó 2004a). A further division identified cooking wares, with brownish, orange colour, surfaces both inside and outside displaying smoothing and with some traces of soot and grease. Some of the cooking jars with recognisable profiles (e.g., Fig. 5.31/4, 6) present the same colour and surface treatment. The third category included sherds with coarse surfaces, yellowish-brown colour and a minimal smoothing on the outside only (Fig. 5.31/1, 5). These sherds are identified as deriving from coarse storage vessels, most probably 144

completely stored and processed inside houses. The high proportion of cooking pots in Trenches 6 and 7 indicate that the final food processing area could be situated close to this spot. The inference may be made that the location of this activity area is Hut 1, located in Trenches 5 and 6. There is also the discovery of the sole ceramic single find from Regéc-95 – a fired clay counter from Context 604 that been ground down from a sherd (Fig. 5.31/12). The presence of grinding stone fragments – not forgetting the fact that they could very well be re-utilised Neolithic finds – seems to establish the interpretation that regular food preparation activities took place at this site (see below, Chapter 7). Despite the poverty of feature sherds and the composition of the ceramic finds at this site, nevertheless it is very probable that we can still identify a short occupation phase of one small Gáva community belonging to one complex household. The coarse and main storage area for this community would have been situated on the East side of the site, while the food preparation and the storage of pre-prepared subsistence products were located on the West side, some 100-150 meters away.

post-depositional disturbance cannot be left out of consideration. Interestingly enough, the composition of the sherds in Context 501 is 59 % coarse storage and 2021% of fine storage and cooking pots. Before assessing the implications of the pottery distribution, the question of the reverse abrasion character of the Bronze Age sherds requires consideration here. It has been demonstrated that the majority of sherds from other periods showed a simple correlation between sherd size and extent of abrasion - i.e. the larger the sherd, the more eroded it gets. The reverse abrasion process of the Bronze Age sherds especially in Contexts 203 and 603 can be explained by the fact that the number and size of the fine storage vessels and the cooking pots are slightly larger than that of the coarse storage vessels. Thus, the type which is more prone to erosion occurs in a smaller quantity. It has already been noted that the fine smoothing and polishing of the surface of these vessel types strengthens and creates a more resistant surface than that of the coarse storage pots. It is also important to note that the Bronze Age potters of this time were specialised craftsmen who were able to make excellent, well-fired ceramics with non-organic temper. Thus, this pottery is more resistant to external physical stress than that of the Neolithic.

It is interesting to note that, at Regéc-95, no features that resemble the typical Gáva settlements were identified. No large pits or pit complexes were excavated. There could be several reasons for this, which could be sufficient reasons alone and together as well. One is the fact that the natural bedrock is situated close to the surface and the community inhabiting this area did not want to invest so much time and effort, especially considering that stone was not the natural building raw material of this society (Kemenczei 1984; V. Szabó 2002). The second explanation could be that the site was a small temporary settlement, where such permanent features as extensive storage or debris pits were not required for that period of dwelling. Up till now, such sites with similar size and topographical locations of the Gáva society have not been excavated (V. Szabó 2004a), so we have no knowledge whether the settlement elements observed at Regéc are the general types of this kind of habitation areas or specific to this site alone. This can be answered only with the help of future excavations of similar sites.

Summing up these data, a fairly clear distinction can be made between the Eastern (upper) and the Western (lower) side of the site regardless of the extensive erosion and abrasion on the pottery. In the course of this argument, it is important to note that post-depositional disturbances and later site occupations did not, in my opinion, distort the spatial variations of the pottery scatter. The composition, the quality and the quantity of the ploughsoil sherd distribution fits with those of the in situ context groups beneath. In this way, it can be said that, although post-depositional activities had affected the remaining archaeological material, the basic composition or statistics to some extent may reflect the original use of space. On the East side (Trenches 1, 10 and 16) of the site, the incidence of coarse storage vessels from all contexts is double that from the Western side. At the same time, the number of fine wares is minimal from the Eastern contexts and implies a primary function of storage for this area of the site. It has been suggested elsewhere that the dominant occurrence of the coarse storage vessels might indicate a difference between household and farmstead depositional areas of a settlement (V. Szabó 2004a: 142-43; 2007). Significantly, and in accordance with this logic, there is a slight predominance of cooking pot sherds and a relatively larger number of black burnished pieces in the Central and Western areas (Trenches 2, 6 and 7), some 30 to 170 m away. Similar distinctions within the spatial distribution of finds was observed at Polgár 29, Gyoma 133, Csongrád-Sertéstelep, and HódmezővásárhelyKenyere ér (V. Szabó 2002; 2004a; 2007). It has been suggested that the location of a once-active household could be identified with these occurrences. The wellmade black burnished pots were used to store and serve fluids and/or staple food that were completely or almost

Published and well-documented remains of houses and outer buildings of the Gáva cultural complex are rare and, in most cases, their presence could be implied from indirect signs only. In some instances, houses built from wattle and daub have been found but only on long-settled areas with dense occupation remains (Patay 1976; Kemenczei 1982; V. Szabó 2004a). In general, most probable daub disintegrated into the soil or, in case of damage, was removed together with the top soil. These would still not explain the few and shallow post-hole remains. It has also been suggested that log structures for houses might have been in use (Kemenczei 1984; V. Szabó 2002). Even from the few available data, it is clear that structures and houses have a wide variety of sizes, ranging from 3.5 m x 5 m at Doboz to 6 m x 10 m at Poroszló. The hut found at Regéc-95 could very well be fitted among the diverse inner settlement structures of the Gáva society. But so far, in the Trans-Tisza region, such 145

from the main valley-oriented communication routes. Until now, only one plausible site representing this category has been published (V. Szabó 1996; 2004a). Nevertheless it is more than probable that this site type would be included among the many dispersed Gáva sites discovered in the course of extensive field surveys (Torma 1982; Jankovitch et al. 1989), intensive field surveys (Chapman et al. 2003; Chapman et al, in press a and b) and rescue archaeology (e.g., Komlóska, Bodrogkisfalud, Mezőzombor, Zalkod: RKM 1999; 2000; 2002, 2004).

application of stones in buildings is unique. This could be explained by the fact that, at the moment, there are no research excavations concentrating on the upland areas situated far from the main prehistoric trade and communication routes. With the advance of large-scale rescue excavations, we can expect a considerable increase in our understanding and knowledge of Gáva building structures. Every year of the last decade, the archaeological reports are abundant with references to house or other structural remains (e.g., RKM 2007: 16, 108, 109; 2005: 279; 2004: 190, 278), their publications will form the basis for our further understanding.

The Late Bronze Age habitation remains at Regéc-95 imply that this site represents the third category of settlement types of the Gáva social entity, i.e. a dispersed, isolated hamlet. The geographical, geological and ecological surroundings of Regéc-95 represent the best example of previously sparsely inhabited, remote areas the occupation of which is one of the characteristics of the Gáva settling practice. The size of the site, formed by one household with no substantial pit-features or other remains, also suggests that we are dealing with a small, short lived hamlet-like settlement. The relatively low number of sherds, their poor condition and the minimal occurrence of diagnostic sherds point to the possibility that the inhabitants took all useable pots, vessels and maybe even larger cracked pieces when they moved away. On the other hand, this notion, together with the very low quality of the remains, might indicate that the community once living there were members of the poorest farming members of the society at large. They valued and salvaged all substantial pots and pot-parts especially that of the well-made fine wares - together with all their other valuables. One of the most remarkable outcomes of the Upper Tisza Project is that it gave us the possibility to investigate a site like this with complex methods and approaches. The excavation at Regéc-95 has resulted in detailed knowledge about the archaeological remains left behind by a particular segment of a prehistoric society that normally lies outside the focus of research.

The finds, features and contexts all indicate that the material uncovered at Regéc-95 has been left by a small community that inhabited the site for a short period. Very few settlements of the Gáva cultural complex have been excavated and/or published thoroughly (Kemenczei 1982; 1982a; Patay 1976; V. Szabó 2002; 2004a; 2007; Vicze 1996). It is clear that, during this phase of the Late Bronze Age, there has been a change in the occupation tradition of the society. This is the first time for several centuries, if not two millennia, that marginal and new environmental zones have been inhabited (Kemenczei 1984; V. Szabó 2003; 2004a, 149-150). The territorial extent of this society is quite large and includes all the Trans-Tisza Region, the Bodrogköz, East Slovakia and Transylvania (Kemenczei 1984, abb. 2; Furmánek et al 1991; László 1972; Bader 1978; Bóna 1993, 86; V. Szabó 2003, 164). In the North – in the Bodrogköz and Southeast Slovakia – and among the hills, areas have been reoccupied or used for the first time since the Middle Neolithic, just as at Regéc-95 (Kemenczei 1984; V. Szabó 2002). The case is similar on the Plain as well, where previously unexploited ecological zones, such as areas some distance from the valleys and meadows of rivers and streams, are inhabited for the first time (V. Szabó 2004a, 149). Nevertheless, beside this extension of occupied territories, the principal larger settlements and local centres remained by the chief river routes, with the expansion of only small communities leaving scarce habitation traces into formerly uninhabited or sparsely populated areas (V.Szabó 2002a, 150; MRT 1982; 1998). The more recent studies on Gáva settlement hierarchy (V. Szabó 1996; 1999; 2002; 2004a) seeks to identify a suite of three occupation types. To the first category belong the large, long-inhabited settlements, with dense household features and abundant archaeological material, such as Poroszló-Aponhát, Baks (V.Szabó 2004a). The second type is the smaller dispersed settlements, with more than three household units scattered along elevated areas beside and in between meadows. The majority of the recently excavated and published settlements represent this type, such as Polgár M3-1, and -29, Gyoma 133 and two sites near Hódmezővásárhely - Tápé-Kemeshát and Csongrád-Sertéstelep (V. Szabó 1996; 2004a; Vicze 1996). The third category has remains of three or fewer households; these are the sites situated furthest away

5.4.3 The daub (JC) Excavations at Regéc-95 produced a small quantity of highly comminuted daub. A total of 493 fragments was retrieved from 22 Contexts, in all weighing 0.733kg (Fig. 5.33). Only one Context – 203 – produced a lot of daub and these were very small fragments. The overall site mean weight of the daub fragments was 1.5g, which is extremely small in comparison with the quantities of daub excavated at Neolithic Polgár-10. When the conclusions from the experimental house building at Cucuteni, Moldavia, is that over 500 kg of clay is required to construct an 8 x 5m house (Cotiugă & Cotoi 2004), then the extent of the erosion and comminution of daub at Regéc-95 may be realized.

146

DAUB WEIGHT BY CONTEXT 300

WEIGHT (g.)

250 200 150 100 50 0 203 602 501 603 702 1603 1602 605 604 102 701 201 105 1601 1001 901 703 500 305 300 103 801 CONTEXT

Fig. 5.33 Daub weight by Context The mean weight by context produced an interesting set of results (Fig. 5.34), mainly in demonstrating an inverse relationship between mean weight and the number of daub fragments. Those Contexts with mean weights of 5g had rather low quantities of daub, never exceeding 10 pieces. While there are some Contexts with low mean

weights that also have few fragments, in general Contexts with larger numbers of daub fragments have lower mean weights. This is especially true of Context 203, with a large number of fragments and a mean weight of just over 1g.

DAUB MEAN WEIGHTS BY CONTEXT 6

WEIGHT (g.)

5 4 3 2 1 0 CON.CON. CON. CON.CON. CON. CON.CON. CON. CON.CON. CON.CON. CON. CON.CON. CON.CON.CON. CON. CON.CON. 103 105 201 305 901 1001 1601 102 605 701 500 1603 702 602 501 801 703 1602 203 603 300 604

Fig. 5.34 Daub mean weight by Context remained in situ, since there is a total absence of daub from the contexts defining and surrounding Hut 1.

It is often possible on Hungarian Neolithic sites to identify the locations of houses by the differential deposition of large quantities of daub. However, this is not possible at Regéc-95, where the daub occurs in such small quantities and in such small fragments that only two conclusions are possible:- (1) the original daub fragments have been subject to strong processes of postdepositional degradation; and (2) it is probable that the structures from which the daub derives were relatively flimsy and perhaps as solid as the Early Neolithic houses from Ecsegfalva 23 (Carneiro & Mateiciucová 2007). It is, however, rather striking that any wattle-and-daub superstructure on the drystone wall bases of Hut 1 has not

5.4.4 Comparative studies and general conclusions (MV & JC) Since no specialist study has been made of the Early Medieval, Medieval and Post-Medieval pottery, the final section in this chapter will be devoted to a comparison of the Early-Middle and Middle Neolithic groups and the Late Bronze Age Gáva assemblage. The main points of similarity and contrast are summarized below (Table 5.13). 147

VARIABLE

NEOLITHIC ASSEMBLAGE

Cultural component Network parallels Sherd size and fragmentation

Middle Neolithic AVK, with a little Pink Ware and even less Early-Middle Neolithic Bükk and Tiszadob groups Small sherds; high fragmentation

Erosion of pottery surface Size of vessels Shape Types Fabric Types – Fine Wares

Severe Small Six shape types Grey, with finer filler

Fabric Types – Medium Wares Fabric Types – Coarse Wares Frequency of decoration Variety of decoration Extent of pottery differentiation

Light-faced, with coarser filler Low (4%) Low compared to other sites Little

Storage vessels Cooking vessels Serving vessels Spatial differentiation on site

Not present Present Present Not detected

Mode of occupation

Deposition over several seasons by small group

LATE BRONZE AGE ASSEMBLAGE Whole assemblage identified as Gáva Site within the Gáva network Small – medium sherds; medium fragmentation Severe, especially in Eastern part Small – medium Three shape types Black or Yellow Burnished or polished Brown Yellow-Brown or Orange Low (over 4%) Very low compared to other sites Much more – including specialist firing of Black Burnished Ware Many present Many present Many present More cooking vessels in Western part; more storage vessels in Eastern part Short-term dwelling by one complex household

Table 5.13 Comparison of Middle Neolithic and Late Bronze Age pottery assemblages and a high level of burnishing, if not polishing. Similar polishes in Late Neolithic Vinča ceramics have been shown to be the result of vitirification, indicating firing temperatures of over 1,200oC (Kaiser n.d.). However, the expectation that erosion-resistant black burnished ware should yield many more decorated sherds than other wares has been shown to be false, showing that there is a limit to the explanatory value of post-depositional processes.

It is easy, and correct, to characterise both of the two main pottery groups as impoverished versions of much wider assemblages best represented in their entirety on lowland Alföld sites. The small numbers of shape types, the low percentage of feature sherds and decorated sherds and the narrow range of decorative motifs in comparison with other decorated assemblages – all of these traits support the conclusion of an impoverished upland variant in both occupation phases. But it is worth considering the two principal reasons for this ‘impoverishment’:- postdepositional processes and social practices.

The idea that social practices influenced assemblage impoverishment is as obvious as it is persuasive. This notion is based on the seasonality of the occupations in each period, the small size of the social groups involved, as well as the narrow range of practices carried out each day by the social group. The expectation would be that such occupations would have produced a narrower range of deposition, including ceramic deposition, than on a year-round, lowland hamlet occupation such as Middle Neolithic Polgár-10 (Chapman et al., in press b) or a village occupation such as Late Bronze Age PoroszlóAponhát (V. Szabó 2004a). The less diverse range of social practices by smaller numbers of persons would have led to less social signalling, as marked by decorated ceramics, than on larger lowland settlements. The range of vessel shapes would have been smaller at Regéc-95 than on lowland agglomerations because of the restricted range of activities for which they were necessary.

We have demonstrated the range of post-depositional processes – not least water-borne erosion – that have damaged both assemblages. These processes were particularly damaging because of the paucity in either period of ‘fill’ contexts of deposition, which would normally have provided a better preservational environment for fragile sherds. The removal of the surfaces of vessels to such an extent that the inorganic filler projects above the remaining surface (see above, p. 145) is an indication that severe erosion has indeed removed many elements of pottery decoration. A further post-depositional process concerning sherd fragmentation, which has affected both assemblages, is re-deposition. This process has led to a reduction in sherd size, making it difficult to identify vessel shapes and minimizing the number of complete profiles. The only ware that has resisted such fragmentation and erosion is Late Bronze Age black burnished ware, whose harder surface was produced by firing at higher temperatures

So far, we can demonstrate a range of similar constraints on impoverished assemblages from both periods. But it is 148

processes that could account for this spatial difference. This difference suggests a stronger spatial structuring of the Late Bronze Age occupation at Regéc-95 than in the Neolithic, where a series of seasonal occupations where perhaps less structured in terms of deposits of arrival and departure. In the Late Bronze Age, storage of perhaps cereals was focused on the higher and drier part of the site, some distance up the slope from the small stream flowing into the Regéc patak, while cooking, storage of special foodstuffs and consumption were located on the more sheltered downslope part of the site.

important, at this juncture, to recall the differences between the assemblages and their implications for dwelling at Regéc-95. There is a clear difference in the level of specialised pottery-making between the two groups, with distinguishable fine wares, medium fine wares and coarse wares in the Late Bronze Age and a lack of intermediate medium fine wares in the Neolithic. In addition, the Late Bronze Age fine wares are much finer than the Neolithic fine wares, with evidence of extremely good control of firing conditions and firing temperatures, probably in a kiln. These factors make it all the more puzzling that there is a narrower range of rim shapes in the Late Bronze Age than in the Neolithic, even though Neolithic vessels are smaller and there is no evidence for storage vessels in the latter. However, Late Bronze Age fabric types may tell a different story, with coarse and fine storage, liquid-holding vessels and serving pottery all represented. In view of the importance of storage in the emergence of sedentary and complex societies (refs: xxx 19xx; xxx 199x), the absence of ceramic storage in the Neolithic occupations at Regéc-95 may suggest short-term settlement indeed, although the use of organic bags of leather or hemp cannot be excluded.

In summary, the depositional environment – especially the paucity of pits – provided an ideal opportunity for water-borne erosion processes to damage or destroy the surface of many sherds from both periods, as well as to movement of sherds leading to fragmentation. There can be no doubt that these are both important factors in limiting the variability of the Regéc-95 assemblage. However, the occurrence of decorated black burnished ware with decoration indicates that some specialised Late Bronze Age wares could survive such processes, indicating that their rarity cannot be explained by postdepositional factors. The social practices involved in the two main occupations – the short, seasonal dwelling, the small group size and the limited range of social practices - were responsible for many of the ‘impoverished’ aspects of the ceramics. The occurrence of spatial differentiation in the Late Bronze Age occupation, in contrast to its absence in the Middle Neolithic, suggests a greater commitment to place insofar as it is accompanied by a hut with drystone-walled foundations.

Perhaps the most significant difference between the two assemblages at Regéc-95 is the spatial differentiation attested in the Late Bronze Age pottery. The combination of more cooking and serving vessels and fewer storage pots in the Western area, near Hut 1, and the converse in the higher Eastern area, outlines a pattern of intra-site variation in social practice that is absent in the Neolithic occupation. It is hard to imagine post-depositional

149

150

Chapter Six – The Chipped Stone Steve Cousins and John Chapman 6.1 Introduction

6.2 Non-Deliberate Wear Aspects

The Regéc collection comprises 829 individual pieces, weighing just over 5 kg. The vast majority of this assemblage was excavated by hand; however, dry-sieving of a 20% sample of all contexts led to the recovery of 82 pieces (or 10% of the total sample). The pieces have been recorded individually and as units from each excavation context. The assemblage derives partially from sealed contexts but for the most part from modern plough-soil, so will have been subjected to lateral down-slope shift as occurred at Arka, on the Western fringe of the Zemplén Hills (Chapman et al., 2010a) but perhaps to less exposure to patination, wear and damage. Nonetheless, the understanding of depositional and post-depositional processes derived from the investigation of the site stratigraphy (see Chapter 4 above) means that we cannot expect anything but a lithic assemblage disturbed to an unknown degree. Since it is vital that we understand the mechanics of lithic deposition and post-depositional changes, we shall begin with these aspects of the material. The first aspects of the assemblage will give some idea of the amount of disturbance the artifacts have received in the modern and ancient plough-soils. These aspects include wear, patination, breakage, rolling wear and evidence of reworking. We then turn to aspects of the lithic assemblage more directly concerned with human choice and cultural selection.

Patination, Breakage and Rolling Wear are three aspects that would be expected to show some kind of pattern related to relative age of the contexts or may simply indicate those contexts most heavily affected by ploughing (either modern or ancient), or exposure. 6.2.1 Patination (Fig. 6.1) As expected, patination occurrence was generally low. Overall, 150 artifacts (18% of the site total) had normal levels of patination, and only an additional 14 (1.7%) had heavy patination. Peaks occurred in Contexts 201, 203 and 701 (where over 40% of the total artifacts in the context had patination), plus in Contexts 501, 602 and 1602 (25-30%). However the generally low number of artifacts in most contexts and the variability in artifact numbers made comparisons difficult. Heavy patination was recorded in Contexts 102 (5 pieces), 300 (2 pieces), 302 (1 piece), 601 (1 piece), 603 (1 piece), 604 (1 piece), 607 (1 piece), 703 (1 piece) and 705 (1 piece), 14 pieces in total. There were low occurrences of patination in Contexts 300, 302 and 305 in particular, plus generally low numbers in 101 and 102. All the tools with patination may purely be a background noise of older artifacts, or old artifacts could have been brought to the site for reuse. If patination is only found on limited, mainly dorsal, parts of the artifact, this could indicate that the tool was made from an old, re-used, patinated core or that the core had been extracted from an old, exposed quarry face. It can also mean that the tool has lain undisturbed in the same position exposed to the sun for a long period.

OCCURENCE OF PATINATION 100%

% OF TOTAL

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

Heavy

5 7 9 2 0 2 0 7 7 0 32 24 1/8 2/4 3/5 0 1/2 0 3/1 0 0/5 0 2/1 0 5/1 0 1/1 0 2/1 0 1/1 02/ 0 0 1 3 3 2 3 5 1 7 2 6 10 16 CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

Si

te

Light Possible None

Fig. 6.1 Types of patination by context. Key: X-axis - context number (number of lithic pieces) 151

6.2.2 Breakage (Fig. 6.2) peaks of 20-40% in Contexts 103, 203 and 300. The lowest percentages occurred in Contexts 101, 305, 701 and 1602.

Around 149 artifacts (18% of the site total) showed signs of breakage, with the main peaks of 40% in Contexts 501 and 602 (two contexts with only 10 artifacts in them),

FREQUENCY OF BREAKAGE

% OF TOTAL

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2 4 7 0 7 0 0 2 5 7 9 2 /2 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /5 /8 /1 /2 /5 43 / 2 5 2 2 1 1 0 1 3 1 3 2 0 0 3 60 30 50 70 16 30 10 10 20 20 10 CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

Si

te

Broken Unbroken

Fig. 6.2 Proportion of broken and unbroken pieces by context 6.2.3 Rolling Wear (Fig. 6.3) artifacts in Contexts 201, 501, 602 and 1602 and between 10-20% in Contexts 101, 305 and 701. Low, belowaverage, percentages of rolling wear was recorded from Contexts 101, 102, 103, 203, 300, and 302. An additional 76 of the artifacts (9.2% of the site total) had aboveaverage possible rolling wear, in Contexts 102, 201,203 and 501.

Only 71 of the artifacts (8.6% of the site total) displayed probable or definite signs of rolling wear. Only eight (1% of the site total) had heavy (level 3) wear, and occurred only in Contexts 102, 201, 300 and 306. 63 of the artifacts (7.6% of the site total) had probable or light rolling wear (level 2), that occurred on over 20% of the

ROLLING WEAR 100%

% OF TOTAL

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0 0 7 0 7 2 9 7 2 5 24 32 3/5 0 1/2 0 3/1 0 0/5 0 2/1 0 5/1 0 1/1 0 2/1 0 1/1 02/ 1/8 2/4 0 0 6 7 5 3 3 2 3 2 1 1 16 10

CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

te Si

Heavy Probable Possible None

Fig. 6.3 Types of rolling wear by context higher amounts of non-deliberate wear and which did not. However, the picture produced is far from clear, It would be assumed that those contexts with high amounts of ploughing disturbance or exposure would have high occurrences of the three wear factors. Unfortunately, this does not occur, with most of the contexts having mixed results that would often cancel each other out. Despite

6.2.4 General Conclusions on Non-Deliberate Wear Overall, artifact damage and patination appears to have been most common in Contexts 201, 203, 501, 602, 607, 705 and 1602, and very low in 305. Comparison of the pattern of occurrence of these three aspects was expected to reveal a clear pattern of which contexts generally had 152

two trenches and with deeper soil may explain these results.

these mixed results, three types of Context can be recognised: (1) contexts with slightly higher amounts of wear; (2) contexts with both high and low wear; and (3) contexts with a predominance of lower wear. There are also a few contexts that definitely have high or low occurrences of wear, as well as contexts with only low numbers of artifacts (fewer than 10) which often displayed signs of patination. These may represent the reuse of older artifacts.

Lithic numbers were too low from Trenches 4 and 5 to be significant, although Context 501 displayed high occurrences of wear. Non-deliberate wear is also generally high in Trenches 6 and 7. Since these trenches and Trench 5 are located near the bottom of the slope, the high quantities of wear may be due to the downslope movement of artifacts in the plough soil.

These results show that, within Trench 1, Contexts 101, 102 and 103 all have mixed occurrences of both high and low amounts of non-deliberate wear. However, there appears to be slightly lower occurrences from Contexts 101 and 103 than 102- findings consistent with their interpretation as the three parts of the recent ploughsoil.

6.3 Cortex (Fig. 6.4) The nature of limnic quartzite, with its frequent cortexfilled hollows, renders problematic any statistics on the occurrence of cortex. Around 64% to 71% of the artifacts had a little or no cortex. 6.4% of the assemblage probably had cortex but only 22.3% definitely had cortex.

Contexts 201 and 203 in Trench 2 both have high amounts of non-deliberate wear and patination. If these contexts are generally thin soils on the edge of a change in slope, then this may be due to increased erosion, wear and exposure.

No strong spatial patterning was observed in the distribution of cortex on lithics but higher occurrences of artifacts with or probably with cortex were found in Contexts 103, 203, 300, 302, 305, 602, 701 and, particularly, in 1602.

Trench 3 displays a similar mixed pattern to Trench 1, although more contexts are involved and the occurrence of wear is generally lower, especially with depth. The location of this trench further downslope from the last

100%

FREQUENCY OF CORTEX

% OF CONTEXT TOTAL

80% 60% 40% 20% Definite Cortex

0% 4 2 0 0 0 7 7 2 7 9 2 5 /2 /1 /1 /1 /1 5/1 /5 /1 /2 /8 4 3 3/5 2 / 1 2 1 2 0 3 1 1 0 2 70 16 60 50 30 30 30 20 20 10 10 10 CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

Si

te

Probable Possible No Cortex

Fig. 6.4 Types of cortex by context that many of these artifacts had in fact been used but so briefly, or in such a way, as not to leave any obvious evidence on what is a very hard material. Non-use appeared to be higher in some smaller contexts than in larger ones. It is possible that this represents small-scale tool manufacture or “on-site” reworking.

6.4 Used/Unused Artifacts The lithic assemblage was studied with a hand-lens, but without microscopic analysis, to gain information on the more obvious forms of use wear. Overall, 54.6% of the total assemblage was recorded as not having use damage, which is a sizeable proportion of the site total. It is likely 153

102 and 103, as well as at slightly lower levels in Contexts 303 and 302. Higher numbers of re-worked artifacts were recovered from Contexts 201, in particular, 203 and 602. There were only four Contexts with more than 10 artifacts in which no reworked material was recovered: 305, 501, 701 and 1602. The variability in quantities of these reworked artifacts is curious and may relate to small, individual concentrations, possibly even the results of a single individual action.

6.5 Evidence of Reworking (Fig. 6.5) A total of 83 of the artifacts (10% of the assemblage) appeared to have been, or probably had been, reworked after patination. As such, reworked, or probably reworked, material occurs in a number of contexts, mainly although not exclusively those with more than ten artifacts. Reworked artifacts were recovered at background levels (10% of context total) in Contexts 101,

FREQUENCY OF RE-WORKED LITHICS 100%

% OF TOTAL

80% 60% 40% 20% Definite

CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

te Si

10 1/ 85 10 2/ 43 2 10 3/ 52 20 1/ 29 20 3/ 17 30 0/ 52 30 2/ 17 30 5/ 17 50 1/ 10 60 2/ 10 70 1/ 10 16 02 /2 4

0%

Probable Possible None

Fig. 6.5 Types of re-working by context

In summary, the removal of cortex prior to tool use was an important goal for the Regéc knappers. About a half of the assemblage shows signs of tool use through visual (hand-lens) examination, with presumably low-intensity use for the remainder. There is some evidence for the collection of older tools for use on or near the site, with half of the patinated tools showing use wear after patination.

It is an interesting fact that similar levels of reworked material were recovered from different depths within individual trenches and at different quantities within close distances. In particular, except for a few unusual artifacts, the only concentration of reworked material occurs on the top of the hill. It is curious that Trench 1600 contains no reworked material but is close to Trenches 200 and 300 which do. This appears to be relate to small, discrete concentrations, which have perhaps been mixed with earlier or later contexts by ploughing and bioperturbation.

A small selection of lithics are illustrated below to represent the main types of lithic attributes found at Regéc (Fig. 6.6).

154

155

Fig. 6.6 Lithic types: (a) 1 – Other point; 2 – piercer point; 3 – burin point; 4 – complete, unretouched blade; 5 – proximal blade segment with notches on one edge; (b) 1 – irregular complete blade; 2 – proximal blade segment with retouched edges; 3 – distal blade segment with retouch on two edges; 4 – Other point on dorsally trimmed flake; 5 –bifacially-worked core with 6 bladelet scars and cortex on third face; 6 – unifacially worked core with 4 bladelet scars.

6.6 Raw Material Types (Tables 6.1 – 6.3 & Figs. 6.6 – 6.7) 6.6.1 Raw material sources

number, Table 6.1 & Fig. 6.7a; 79% by weight, Table 6.2 & Fig. 6.7b). With the exception of obsidian and rock crystal, the remainder of the raw material was deposited in very small quantities. There was a small number of pieces unidentified to rock type.

By far the bulk of the raw material at Regéc, either by number or weight, was made up of limnic quartzite or was probably limnic quartzite (as much as 72% by 156

RAW MATERIAL TYPES BY NUMBER

% OF SITES TOTAL

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

ite an it e it e al idi rtz rtz p s a a /O Ob Qu Qu LQ c i nic n Lim Lim ?

l e e ta HQ z it z it s t / t r r y r a LQ ua qu kC oq o c r r d d Ro Hy Hy ?

Fl

int

r he t O

RAW MATERIAL DISTRIBUTION BY WEIGHT (g.) 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 ian zite s id art b u O Q nic m i L

? LQ

al Op / LQ

zite /HQ ar t LQ u q dro Hy

? HQ

ck Ro

al ys t r C

Fig. 6.7 Overall incidence of raw materials (a) by number; (b) by weight

157

r he Ot

158

159

The probable main raw material sources for the assemblage are listed below (Table 6.3). The map RM NO. RM 1 RM 2 RM 3 RM 4 RM 5 RM 7 RM 8 RM 9 RM 16 RM 17 RM 23 RM 24

locations of most of these sources are shown above (Fig. 1.4).

SOURCE or PROBABLE SOURCE(S) OF REGÉC LITHICS

Slovakian obsidian (Szőllőszke) Zemplén obsidian (Erdőbénye) Fony (93 RM LQ17), Korlát (Arka, 93 RM LQ19), Erdőhorváti (L86/034) Erdőbénye (93 RM LQ14), Fony (93 RM LQ17), Korlát (Arka, 93 RM LQ19) Korlát (Arka, 93 RM LQ19) road from Abaújszántó & Erdőbénye 600m from Simájmetos? (93 RM LQ12), Ediajilt Kft. (93 RM LQ13), Erdőbénye (93 RM LQ14), NW of Vilyvitány (93 RM LQ21); Fony & Hejce, North Tokaj (Biró) road from Abaújszántó & Erdőbénye besides Aranyos Patak (93 RM LQ11), Megyaszó Teklinka vőlgy (93 RM OP1), N of Erdőbénye (93 RM OP3) Ediajilt Kft. (93 RM LQ13), over Fürdas Patak N of Mád (93 RM HQ6) Korlát (Arka) Mád-below Őz (Ősz) hegy (93 RM HQ4), past Sima, on East side of road to Baskó (93 RM Q1a); North Tokaj (Biró) Slovakia?, North Zemplén? (not local to Regéc?); Rock Crystal ?

Table 6.3 Sources and probable sources of the lithic raw materials deposited at Regéc The principal source area of raw materials is almost certainly the Western Zemplén area, and in particular the neighbourhood of Arka, with cca. 72% of the total number of artifacts probably coming from sources there. Most of the other identified material sources were from reasonably close sources. These include only around 0.1% from Erdőbénye, across the mountains to the South, as well as a few pieces from other Southern Zemplén sources, including potentially material from Mád (0.36%) and Abaújszántó (0.1%). There was also potentially material from the North Zemplén (Nyíri, 0.1%) and even the Mátra range to the West (0.1%). 6.6.2 Patterns of Tool Use by Raw Material Type

TOOLS & USE, ZEMPLEN OBSIDIAN (RM 2)

4% 11%

Edge Use

6%

Cutting Edge Burinlike Point

0%

42%

6%

Borer Point

0%

Pecker/Hammer

9%

Other Point Anvil Crush

4%

The following patterns of use for different tool types are presented for the most common raw material types. The definitions of the technical tool use categories can be found below (see Section 6.7, pp. Xx - xxx).

Piercer Point

6%

Scraper Edge 12%

Notch Shoulder

Fig. 6.8 Incidence of tools and use, Zemplén obsidian (RM 2)

RM 1 & 2 (Fig. 6.8) A total of 91 pieces of obsidian was deposited at Regéc: five that were probably Slovakian obsidian (Regéc RM 1.1; 0.6% of the site total) and 86 pieces of Zemplén obsidian (Regéc RM 2; 10.4%) Zemplén obsidian was thus the fourth most common material type on site by number and the seventh by weight. This shows that the bulk of the obsidian probably came from local Zemplén sources. Although obsidian only makes up 11% of the total number of artifacts on site, they are the most common single identified material type after the three common varieties of limnic quartzite.

Obsidian was used for a variety of purposes and examples of most tool types were found in this material. Not surprisingly, none of the tools made from obsidian had been made into hammer/pecker points or anvil crush. The most common signs of tool use were for edge use (50% & 42.6%), although cutting edges (13%), borer points (9.3%), scraper edges (50% & 5.6%) and notches (11%) were also relatively common. The bulk of the obsidian comes from Trench 1 (66% of all the obsidian), although Trench 3 contained a far higher proportion of obsidian compared with all the other raw materials within it. Nearly 25% of the tools in this trench were made of obsidian. It may be of some significance that both trenches were located on the top of 160

the hill, although Trenches 2 and 16 - located between the above trenches - contained few pieces of obsidian. Thus Trenches 1 and 3 may indicate two separate concentrations, possibly discard areas.

Fig. 6.10 Incidence of tools and use, Western Zemplén limnic quartzite (RM 4) RM 5 (Fig. 6.11) This was the final material type in which examples occurred in all tool/use categories (except for Anvil Crush). Again, because of the variety of tools it was used for, the percentages are generally low but are relatively high for Edge use, Cutting Edges, Burin-like Points, Borer Points and Other Points (the most common at 28.9%).

RM 3 (Fig. 6.9) There were examples from all of the different tool/use categories, in such an even spread that no one category was above 20%. Those categories that were relatively high included Edge Use, Cutting Edges, Piercer Points, Other Points and Scraper Edges.

TOOLS & USE, W ZEMPLEN LIMNIC QUARTZITE (RM 5)

TOOLS & USE, W. ZEMPLEN LIMNIC QUARTZITE (RM 3)

10%

13%

4%

10%

13% Edge Use

5%

Cutting Edge 11%

0%

Cutting Edge 13%

Edge Use

5%

Piercer Point

Burinlike Point

Borer Point

Piercer Point

13%

Pecker/Hammer

Borer Point 4%

1%

Pecker/Hammer Other Point

14%

19% 2%

Scraper Edge

1%

Cutting Edge Burinlike Point Piercer Point Borer Point Pecker/Hammer

12%

Other Point Anvil Crush

0%

Scraper Edge 4%

11%

Shoulder

RM 9 This raw material group has an identical tool/use type range to RM 8 but in different proportions, with Edge Use and Scraper Use being the most common.

Edge Use

2%

Notch

RM 8 Tools made from RM 8 occur in only half the tool/use categories, constituting the most common types: Scraper Edges (33.3% the most common), Cutting Edges and Other Points (both at 22.2%), as well as lower numbers of Edge Use and Borer Points.

14%

25%

Scraper Edge

RM 7 A wide variety of tool types were made from RM7. Because there are fewer categories attested, the percentages are resultingly higher. Occurrence was highest for Edge Use and Borer Point (both at 26.7%) but there are also lower numbers of Burin-like Points, Piercer Points, Other Points and Scraper Edges.

TOOLS & USE, W ZEMPLEN LIMNIC QUARTZITE (RM 4)

10%

11%

Anvil Crush

Fig. 6.11 Incidence of tools and use, Western Zemplén limnic quartzite (RM 5)

RM 4 (Fig. 6.10) There were examples of tools in this material from all categories except Anvil Crush. As with RM 3, because of the even spread of use of this material, the actual percentages are generally low but there were relatively higher numbers of Edge Use, Piercer Points, Borer Points and particularly Scraper Edges (25.9%).

9%

29%

4%

Fig. 6.9 Incidence of tools and use, Western Zemplén limnic quartzite (RM 3)

4%

12%

Anvil Crush

Shoulder

9%

Other Point

Notch

6%

Burinlike Point

Notch

RM 10 This raw material type has a much more limited range of pieces with use type evidence, being restricted to Cutting Edge, Burin-like Points, Pecker/Hammer Points, Other Points, Scraper Edges and Notches. There is, therefore, some suggestion that its use was restricted to items requiring some strength. RM 16

Shoulder

The use of this material appears to have been limited to relatively fine but strong edges and points, with

161

pieces with Edge Use, Piercer Points (most common at 40%), other Points and Scraper Edges.

RM 36 The only piece with any use evidence on it of this raw material type was for Edge Use.

RM 17 This material was used for all tool/use categories except for Cutting Edges, Piercer Points and Notches. This suggests that this material was not suitable for fine perforating or cutting work.

In summary, the assemblage is dominated by West Zemplén limnic quartzites (over 70% by number and weight), with some Zemplén obsidian, Slovakian rockcrystal and small quantities of Slovakian obsidian, North and South Zemplén and even Mátra limnic quartzites. The limnic quartzites from the most frequent raw material categories were generally used for the full range of tool uses, while other, less frequent limnic quartzites were used for a narrower range of activities. There is thus little sense of specialised use of specific limnic quartzites. The collection and use of the local, Zemplén obsidian in preference to the higher-quality Slovakian type, may well be related to the routes used to move between Regéc and the lowlands. Obsidian tool use is broad, including edge use as well as cutting edges, boring, scraping and notching.

RM 20 Only a few pieces of this raw material had evidence of use type and appear to have been restricted to cutting, shoulder and point work, with pieces in the following tool/use categories only: Cutting Edge, Burin-like Points, Piercer Points, Borer Points and Shoulder Points. RM 23 The 20 pieces of rock crystal comprised 1.8% of the total number of artifacts and have been sourced to Slovakia, although surface examples of unworked rock crystal were found in the Baskó Basin in the UTP 1993 field survey (Chapman et al., 2010a). RM 24 Although this is the tenth most common material by number, none of the pieces displayed any tool or use category features, with no evidence for re-working in any way.

6.7 Morphological categories (Fig. 6.12)

RM 32 This category contained a variety of miscellaneous, generally coarse, unidentified raw materials, some at least appearing to have been derived from natural local soil deposits. It is interesting that the only pieces with evidence of tool/use were for two tools – viz., Borer Point and Pecker/Hammer Use – which reflect the natural coarseness of the material.

Most pieces in the assemblage could be placed in one of the 12 morphological categories, or an unclassified category (Fig. 6.12). There were only a few unclassified pieces represented in the project database. The ‘uses’ implied by the terms used (e.g., ‘scraper’, ‘point’) have been defined in terms of morphology and wear traces visible to the naked eye.

DISTRIBUTION OF MORPHOLOGICAL CATEGORIES 35 % of Site Total

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Un

if i ss a cl

ed

le bb e P

re Co

F

s ke la

ry da n ir m P co Se y ar

F

s ke la

r ne In Re

es ak l F

n io at n ve ju

es ak l F

k ts ts ts so un en en en h r ly C m m a m e g g g d rn Se Se Se ke o a e de de de Fl la la la ad l B B B B id al al e M st im i et l x D p o m Pr Co k un h C

Fig. 6.12 Overall distribution of morphological categories

162

material types. Twelve of the cores were made on limnic quartzite, while only three were made on obsidian. Eight of these cores appear to have been re-used (and three also retouched) after their use as cores: as scrapers, hammers, peckers and piercers. The nature of the raw materials does not readily show light use, so it is possible that other cores may also have been re-used. Only one core appears to have been reworked post-patination

6.7.1 Cores Just 19 artifacts are recorded as cores (Fig. 6.13), making up only 2.3% of the total number of artifacts. The cores were found in Contexts 101, 102 (most) 103, 203, 300, 500, 601 and 1604. These were made from a variety of different materials (RM 1.1, RM 2, RM 3, RM 4, RM 5, RM 7, RM 8, RM 17, RM 32, RM 36, and RM 38), all but two (RM 36 and RM 38) from the most common raw

INCIDENCE OF CORES 100%

% OF TOTAL

80% 60% 40% 20%

10 1/ 10 8 5 2/ 43 10 2 3/ 5 20 2 1/ 2 20 9 3/ 1 30 7 0/ 5 30 2 2/ 1 30 7 5/ 1 50 7 1/ 1 60 0 2/ 1 70 0 1 16 /1 0 02 /2 4 Si te

0%

CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

Definite None

Fig. 6.13 Presence of cores by context The weight of these cores varied between 6g and 62g, with the majority weighing between 10g and 29g (Table 6.4).

Context 101 102 103 203 300 500 601 1604 TOTAL

Raw Material Types 6 10 18 20 29 1 1 1 1 1 1

40

46 1

62

Unknown

1

5

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2 1 1 9

1

Total 3 8 1 1 1 2 1 1 18

Table 6.4 Weight of individual cores It should be noted that 21 chunks and other artifacts were classified as exhausted cores (or 2.6% of the total assemblage).

platforms (perhaps relating to blade production; see below), all in Contexts 102 and 103. Two of these were on obsidian cores and the other was on limnic quartzite. There was also a single flat platform in Context 203, viz., a platform created by a single blow across the obsidian core. Also within Context 102, there was a single flat flaked platform, in limnic quartzite, which appeared to have been created by taking a number of blows to create the platform. Finally within Context 102 there was a single flaked platform from a limnic quartzite core.

When recorded, there appears to be a pattern in the number of core striking platforms (Table 6.5). Within Contexts 101, 300 and 1604, cores had two or more striking platforms but, in the rest of Trench 1 and the remainder of the site, cores with only one striking platform were recorded. This may be of chronological significance. There were three artifacts with faceted 163

Table 6.5 Regéc; - Core Details Rough Flaked Platform

Rough Platform

Flaked Platform

Flat Flaked Platform

Flat Platform

Faceted Butt

No. Removal Strike RM Type

Context 101

4

2

Side Scraper, Hammer/Pecker

101

5

2+

101

17

2+

102

2

102

3

1

102

3

1

102

5

102

7

1

102

8

1

102

8

1

103

1.1

1

203

2

1

300

32

2 or 3

Possibly Palaeolithic, reused as Hammerstone

500

32

1

Tiny core

601

36

1

Small heavily patinated core

1604

5

2

Probably also rejuvenation flake, minor edge wear

Hammer Point use √

Proximal end wear, scraper

Piercer use √ √

Blade removals

√ Proximal scraper wear √

Some edge use √

3

Total

Some retouch & use

1

Removals from 1 side only

1

1

0

0

Table 6.5 Striking platforms of cores The lack of butt information on rejuvenation flakes stems from the fact that many were formed from core tips (Table 6.6). Table 6.6 Regéc; - Rejuvenation Flakes with Butt Details, or Strike Directions Recorded Rough Flaked Platform

Rough Platform

Flaked Platform

Flat Flaked Platform Flat Platform

Faceted Butt

No. Strike Directions

RM Type

Context

Comments

√

101

2

101

5

2

1 old patinated surface

102

2

Many

Dorsal removals

102

2

3

Scraper edge retouch & use, lot of cortex

102

4

1

Heavy side scraper wear

102

5

1

√

Light edge damage + possible damaged Borer end

164

102

32

1

Core tip, possible Borer wear

103

5

1 mostly

Core tip?, post patination damage, pointy

201

9

1

Triangular section, thick bladelike

301

4

2

Core tip, minor tip damage

500

29

2

Core tip

601

13

2

Chunky with scraper reuse

602

5

1

Minor retouch, reworked post patination

603

3

1

Chunky tip of core

604

3

1

Chunky, removals from only 1 part

604

36

2

607

5

1

702

5

1

902

13

1001

5

1

Core bottom, some edge wear

1604

5

1

Core tip retouched & worn Borer + minor edge wear

Total

21

√

Old core with some edge use Core tip

1

1

0

√

Triangular section, some edge + tip wear

√

Little scraper edge wear

3

0

0

Table 6.6 Striking platforms and butts of core rejuvenation flakes

were all from a *02 context, suggesting a similar place in the site sequence. There was one obsidian rejuvenation flake in Context 101 that had a faceted butt. Within Context 604, there was one limnic quartzite rejuvenation flake with a flat platform.

As with the cores, we find that most of the rejuvenation flakes within Context 101 appear to have two or more strike removal directions. However, in Contexts 300 and 1604, there were either no rejuvenation flakes recorded or in the case of the one from 1604 there appeared to be only one direction of removal. Of the five rejuvenation flakes from Context 102 that have the number of removal directions recorded, two have three or more removal directions and three have only one removal direction recorded. This is more mixed than the core details shown above but does help to support the idea that cores at this site were generally only made with a single striking direction. Flaked platforms were the most common platform type found on rejuvenation flakes, from Contexts 102, 702 and 902 but the presence of only three pieces reduces the significance of this finding. They were all made from limnic quartzite but came from three different contexts, spread over the site. However, these

The blades and blade segments (Table 6.7) offered more butt information recorded but lacked striking direction data. The vast majority of blades with production technique information displayed came from Context 102, with additional information from Contexts 300 and 501. Of the blades or segments from 102, seven had faceted butts on a variety of limnic quartzites and obsidian, two had flat platforms on obsidian and limnic quartzite, one had a flat flaked platform on limnic quartzite and there was a flaked platform on limnic quartzite. The other three pieces from Contexts 300 and 501 all had faceted platforms and were in obsidian and limnic quartzite.

165

Proximal

102

2

√

All but distal

102

3

√

Proximal, small scraper, squared, some invasive retouch

102

3

102

4

√

Proximal, double edged side scraper

102

5

√

Proximal, reworked shouldered points

102

5

√

Proximal, retouched natural notching

102

5

102

5

102

17

300

2

√

Proximal

300

5

√

All but distal

501

3

√

Proximal, roughly retouched edge

Total

14

10

Rough Flaked Platform

√

Rough Platform

2

Flaked Platform

102

Flat Flaked Platform

2

Flat Platform

102

Faceted Butt

RM Type

No. Strike Directions

Context

Comments

√

Complete, edge wear + backing retouch, distal end scraper

√

Proximal, fine point

√

Proximal, edge + point retouch

√

All but distal, 1 edge with burinlike reknap √

2

Proximal

1

1

0

0

Table 6.7 Striking platforms and butts of blades and blade segments

6.7.2 Flakes Regular Flakes Regular flakes make up 53.2% of the total assemblage and the single most common major tool category.

secondary flakes than inner ones (Fig. 6.12), suggesting that this was not a site on which initial reduction of raw material chunks was common. Flakes were less common in Trenches 5 and 9, which was also reflected in the rejuvenation flakes. There were only 48 primary (5.8% of site total), 104 secondary (12.6%) and 73 rejuvenation (8.8%) flakes in the collection.

Primary, Secondary and Rejuvenation Flakes Primary, Secondary and Rejuvenation flakes can indicate tool production on a site where their numbers are relatively high. At Regéc, there were fewer primary and

166

Almost Complete Blade Proximal Missing Almost Complete Blade Distal Missing Chunk

SECONDARY CATEGORY NUMBERS 70 60

Mid Blade Segment

% OF TOTAL

50

Distal Blade Segment

40

Proximal Blade Segment Complete Blade

30

Rejuvenation Flake 20

Inner Flake Secondary flake

10

Primary Flake

0 101/85

102/432

103/52

201/29

203/17 300/52 302/17 305/17 501/10 CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

602/10

701/10

1602/24

Site

Unidentified

Fig. 6.14 Secondary categories by contexts with samples of more than 10 pieces flakes, as would be expected if this were a settlement site. They were recovered in varying numbers in most contexts but were generally in low numbers or absent in deeper contexts. They were absent from Contexts 104 and 107; 204; 304, 306; 403; 503; 603, 604 and 605; all of Trench 7 except for 701; 902; and 1001. Their proportions are either close to the site average or lower in all contexts except Context 305 (59%) and 701 (40%).

Primary, secondary and rejuvenation flakes were concentrated in Contexts 101, 102 and 103 (none in 104 and 107), also 201 and 203 (none in 204)(Fig. 6.14). There are a few such flakes in Trench 6, where they appear to be at least as common, if not more common, than inner flakes. By percentage, the highest proportions of primary flakes within individual contexts occur in Contexts 201 (17% of context total), 305 (12%) and 701 (20%). There are high proportions of secondary flakes in 103 (22.6% of context total), 300 (15%), 602 (30%) and 701 (20%). There is a scatter of rejuvenation flakes through out the site, with strong representation in Contexts 101 (11.8% of context total), 201 (13.8%), 203 (17.6%), 602 (20%), 701 (20%) and 1602 (20%). Their highest frequencies occur in Contexts 101 and 102 but are absent from Context 300, despite the sample size. They are almost entirely absent from the rest of Trench 3, with the exception of single finds from 301 and 302, and from Trench 5, except for a single piece from Context 500.

6.7.3 Débitage (Primary Category 4) Débitage can reflect production or retouching activities, although, without looking at the mean artifact size, it is difficult to suggest which. There were 50 pieces of débitage collected (6.1% of the site total) but only from Contexts 101, 102 and 500, despite the dry sieving of all contexts. This may be of importance as it could indicate that minor tool modification and retouch only occurred on site at a later date in the site sequence and/or only in these two areas. The lower frequencies of débitage than would be expected from a production site suggests that the tools were produced elsewhere and that these pieces were from re-sharpening, deliberately brought to the site, or result from breakage, although some of these pieces were also probably used afterwards.

The high numbers of secondary flakes reflect the nature of limnic quartzite, which often includes areas of rough cortex, generally due to fossil inclusions, which make it uncertain as to whether they are secondary or inner flakes. The high proportions of secondary to primary flakes also reflects the frequency of pieces with only a little cortex on them.

Débitage occurred in a variety of raw materials, mainly RM types 3, 4 16 and 17.

Most of the rejuvenation flakes appear to have had some kind of working and/or use, so probably do not necessarily represent on-site tool production or repairs.

6.7.4 Chunks There were 61 chunks from a variety of contexts, mainly of coarser materials, comprising 7.3% of the assemblage (Fig. 6.14). There were peaks in RM 5, RM 17 and RM 32 (the last with undifferentiated and unidentified pieces, probably including natural, unworked material). They can be considered to be discarded material unsuitable for further working or naturally occurring material close to the site. They may also have been used as hammer and anvil stones. They were dispersed over a range of contexts and are most common in 101 and 102 but there were few in Trenches 3, 5 and 7 – 16, with the exception

There appears to be no particular flake tool type made of only one or two raw material types but, instead, a generalised relationship between raw materials and flakes types. Inner Flakes Inner flakes (Fig. 6.14) were more common across all contexts and most appear to have been worked and/or used. There were 256 (31.1%) artifacts classified as inner 167

with the rest of the blade used as a somewhat shorter knife or sickle. The higher frequency of sub-types 6/6 and 6/10 could be another indicator of the removal of proximal ends to make additional blades longer than the medial and distal blade segments.

of 1602. Their frequency is high if Regéc is not considered to be a production site but many probably reflect the random occurrence of local naturally-derived material in the topsoil. Flaked chunks

Sub-type 6/6s were common in Trenches 1, 2 and 3 and in all contexts except the lower levels, with smnall numbers in other parts of the site, except for the late contexts in Trenches 5 and 6. Similarly, except for a few odd examples, sub-type 6/7 occurred in the late contexts in Trenches 1, 2 and 3. Sub-type 6/6 occurred within context proportions close to the site average but were more frequent in Contexts 103 (19% of context total), 203 (23.5%), 302 (29.4%), 501 (20%) and 602 (20%). Subtypes 6/7 and 6/8 were so rare that no spatial distinctions were meaningful.

Only 9 artifacts (1.1% of site total) were classified as flaked chunks, derived from Contexts 101, 102, 603 and 1001. There were three ways of making chunks: (a) detachment from a larger chunk; (b) split by a flaking action; and (c) removal of flakes from a chunk mostly for shaping. This material can also include pieces tested to see their suitability as a core and then discarded when found unsuitable (tested pre-cores). As such, this category merges into cores, hammerstones and anvilstones, the latter two generally being chunks on which hammer and anvil crush was visible. The low numbers of flaked chunks on the site is not surprising if Regéc was not a raw material quarrying site, as the bulk of waste material would have been left at the production site.

Only the proximal blade segments (‘6/6’) were made on a range of raw material types in any significant numbers. They were most commonly made in RM 2 (obsidian), 3 and 5 (both very common limnic quartzites) but also on many other different materials: 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 20, 26, 30, 32, 34, 38, 40, 43 and 45. Sub-type 6/7 was recorded from only a few raw materials: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 18.

6.7.5 Blades 30.2% of the artifacts were classified as blades (Fig. 6.14), made on a variety of materials but mainly on the more common Raw Material types.

There were only 13 artifacts (1.6% of the site total) classified as Medial Blade segments (6/8s), which were recovered in small numbers, mainly from Trenches 1 and 3. In this part of the site, where Medial Blade segments were mainly used as sickle segments rather than as projectile components, the scarcity of pieces probably indicates that little or no arable production occurred on site. This constraint would be expected if the site was a domestic one and sickle segments were more frequently lost in the fields “off-site”. Medial Blade segments are recorded from a few raw materials types: 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 17 and 41.

Complete or Almost Complete Blades Complete Blades (Sub-type 6/5) and Almost Complete Blades (Sub-types 6/10 & 6/11) represent knife and sickle blades. Almost complete blades have one end or the other missing, either through deliberate or accidental breakage. These blade types were fairly common, with 41 (5% of site total) complete blades, 29 (3.5%) almost complete blades (Sub-Type 6/10) but only three (0.4%) Sub Type 6/11 - a total of 73 (8.9%) in the assemblage. They are made from a variety of different raw material types: 1.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, 20, 39 and 45.

The finding that medial and distal blade segment numbers tend to have a higher relative frequency in contexts with smaller samples suggests periods of agricultural activity on and over the site, in addition to continued intensive domestic occupation.

They derive mainly from the higher levels of Trenches 1, 2 and 3, which may represent centres of any domestic activity (meat or bone working). Or this finding may be of chronological significance, with blade knives and sickles being uncommon in earlier Phases and/or on other parts of the site.

6.7.6 Burnt Unidentified. Very little of the material was classified as burnt unidentified (1.2%), which is surprising for a domestic site.

Blade Segments (Sub-types 6/6, 6/7 and 6/8) There were 129 (15.7%) proximal segments (6/6) represented (Fig. 6.14). These were the most common blade type and could indicate a certain amount of secondary processing of long blades to make sickle segments on site, with the removal of the unwanted proximal ends. The medial blade segments (sub-type 6/8: 14 or 1.7%) would then have been lost or discarded “offsite” in the field. But the presence of 33 distal end segments (sub-type 6/7: 4% of the assemblage) suggests that the occupants were mainly removing bulbar ends,

6.8 Other surface modifications (use attributes) Many of the features discussed below imply certain functions. However, these are functions inferred from tool morphology. The actual usage of tools requires a microwear analysis and the paucity of secure contexts 168

made this unrealistic. We continue to make the assumption of a close relationship between morphology and function.

natural backing took two forms: pieces with cortex and pieces with a specific shape suitable for backing. A total of 15.6% of the artifacts appear to have had deliberate backing by retouch or re-knap. Only 0.7% probably had both natural and deliberate backing, and these occurred only in Contexts 102, 300, 603 and 1602.

6.8.1 Backing (Fig. 6.15) Nearly 68% of the pieces were not obviously backed in any way and half of those with backing are naturally backed (making up 15.9% of the site assemblage). The

INCIDENCE OF BACKING BY TYPE

50 40 30 20 10 0 te Si

70 1/ 10 16 02 /2 4

60 2/ 10

30 5/ 17 50 1/ 10

30 2/ 17

20 3/ 17 30 0/ 52

no obvious backing

10 1/ 85 10 2/ 43 2 10 3/ 52 20 1/ 29

% OF TOTAL

100 90 80 70 60

CONTEXT WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

Deliberate Backing natural backing Natural & Deliberate

Fig. 6.15 Type of backing by context

In some smaller contexts, the frequency of backed pieces reached 50% but the small samples make any significance unlikely. There was very little backed material in Trench 1 in general, or in Trench 2, with the exception of Context 203. Curiously, within Trench 2 we have both Context 201 with the highest percentage of unbacked material (79%), and Context 203, which had the highest percentage of deliberate backing on the site (47%).

6.8.2 Burin-like Points (Fig. 6.16) Burin-like Points are a type resembling the burin feature found on some Palaeolithic tools. However, the similarity of this feature does not mean that the material is Palaeolithic, rather the result of parallel techniques used on the site raw materials. At Regéc, this type is uncommon, with only 34 examples (4% of the site total), deposited in Contexts 101, 102 (most), 103, 201, 302, 306 and 403, with possible occasional examples in Contexts 203 and 501. This suggests some restriction of activities using these points to a limited part of the site but not necessarily a temporal constraint. The rarity of this feature outside Trench 1 makes it possible that other examples were moved via ploughing action from the area of Trench 1.

169

INCIDENCE OF BURIN-LIKE POINTS 100%

% OF TOTAL

80% 60% 40% 20%

Multi Points Multi Points?

0%

te Si

10 1/ 10 8 5 2/ 43 10 2 3/ 5 20 2 1/ 29 20 3/ 1 30 7 0/ 5 30 2 2/ 1 30 7 5/ 1 50 7 1/ 10 60 2/ 1 70 0 1/ 16 1 0 02 /2 4

Burinlike Point

CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

1 probable possble None

Fig. 6.16 Types of burin-like point by context

Only four of the artifacts had, or probably had, more than 1 burin-like point - all within Context 102.

might have introduced into the site at a slightly later date than the much more common Borer Point.

Burin-like Points were made from a limited number of generally common raw material types: 2 (8.8%), 3 (17.6%), 4 (5.9%), 5 (52.9%), 7 (2.9%), 10 (2.9%) 17 (5.9%) and 20 (2.9%). This range of material types is similar to that found for most other point types. With the exception of piercers, points share RM 5 as the most common type.

6.8.3 Piercer Points (Fig. 6.17a)

There remains the possibility that this type of point is only a variation on general points (Borer or Other Point) and their similarity to Palaeolithic Burin Points may be chance or due to the nature of the raw materials used.

Piercer points were found on a similar but more limited range of common raw material types than Burin-like points: 2 (4.1%), 3 (46.9%), 4 (20.4%), 5 (12.2%), 7 (4.1%), 16 (8.2%), 20 (2%) and 38 (2%). Interestingly, RM 3 was the most common material type rather than RM 5, which was more common with most other point types.

Piercer points were rare, with only 50 pieces recorded from a limited number of contexts: Contexts 102 (all of them except 5 pieces), 103, 203, 300, 305, 703 and 1601. Only 10 points showed a form with more than 1 point – all in Contexts 102 and 305.

Strangely, there were no Borer Points from Context 101, despite their high relative frequency in the trench. Therefore, it may be proposed that Burin-like Points

170

INCIDENCE OF OTHER POINTS

100%

% OF TOTAL

80%

60%

40%

20%

Multi Points Multi Points? Other Point

10 1 10 /8 5 2/ 43 10 2 3/ 5 20 2 1/ 2 20 9 3/ 1 30 7 0/ 5 30 2 2/ 1 30 7 5/ 1 50 7 1/ 1 60 0 2/ 1 70 0 1/ 16 1 0 02 /2 4 Si te

0%

CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

1 probable possble None

BORER POINTS 100%

% OF TOTAL

80% 60% 40% Multi Points

20%

2 Points Borer Point

10 1 10 /8 5 2/ 43 10 2 3/ 5 20 2 1/ 2 20 9 3/ 1 30 7 0/ 5 30 2 2/ 1 30 7 5/ 1 50 7 1/ 1 60 0 2/ 1 70 0 1 16 /1 0 02 /2 4 Si te

0%

CONTEXT WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

1 probable possble None

Fig. 6.17 (a) types of Other Points by context; (b) Types of Borer Point by context. As with the Burin-like Points, the evidence from borer points appears to indicate this type of activity mainly took place on the hilltop, with their presence in a variety of contexts suggesting an extended period of activity. As with Burin-like Points, they were absent from Context 101.

6.8.4 Borer Points (Fig. 6.17b) Borer Points were rare overall but more frequent than most other point types, with a total of 56 (6.8% of assemblage) artifacts with or probably with this point type. They occur in a wide range of contexts (102, 103, 201, 203, 300, 302, 305, 602, 607, 705, 1602 and 1604), mainly on the Eastern zone. There were only seven artifacts with or probably with multi-borer points, found in Contexts 102, 103, 305 and 602.

Borer Points occurred on a fairly wide range of materials, presumably because no particular standard of fineness was required. Borer points were most common on RM 5 (30.4%), fairly frequent on RMs 2, 3, 4 and 7 and also occurred on RMs 6, 8, 9, 13, 17, 32, 34, 35 and 40.

171

Not surprisingly, these points were found on a wide variety of materials but shared their commonest raw material – RM 5 - with most other point types. They also occurred fairly frequently on RMs 3 and 4, occurring also on RMs 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 21, 27, 37 and 47. The generalised selection of raw materials suggests that this category of point is closely related to the Borer Point category.

6.8.5 Peckers and hammer points (Fig. 6.17a) Pecker points and Hammer points were rare, with Pecker Points only being recorded in Contexts 101 and 102 and Hammer Points only in Contexts 101, 103, 300, 501 and 604. No multipoint Peckers or Hammers have been observed. This suggests that tool production was only a minor activity on the site or that these pieces had been used for tool production elsewhere and later brought to site for other purposes.

6.8.7 Re-Knap (RK)(Fig. 6.18) and Retouch (RT)(Fig. 6.19a - b)

These two point types occurred on six durable raw material types: 3, 4, 5, 10, 17 and 32.

In most contexts, there were more unworked or unretouched artifacts than worked ones. Overall, nearly half of the assemblage (48%) was classified as being worked (i.e. retouched, re-knapped, or both). The unworked material represents débitage and pieces that did not need further modification. This demonstrates that a high proportion of the site assemblage was re-worked in some way.

6.8.6 Other Unspecified Points (Fig. 6.17a) Other unspecified points were the most common point type recorded from the Regéc assemblage, with around 95 (11.5%) of the artifacts having or probably having points on them. They occur in a variety of contexts in Trenches 1, 2 and 3 but were also recorded in Contexts 602, 603, 702, 1601, 1602 and 1603. Multiple Points only occurred in Contexts 101, 102, 103, 203 and 300. However, such points were absent from the majority of Contexts.

Over 28% of the artifacts recovered had or probably had evidence of being re-knapped (i.e. had further flakes removed). This was concentrated in Contexts 102, 103, 203, 300 and 701. The percentage of re-knapped artifacts was low in Contexts 101, 201 (possibly), 302, 305 and 501.

TYPES OF RE-KNAPPING

100%

% OF TOTAL

80% 60% 40% 20% RKed

te Si

10 1/ 10 8 5 2/ 43 2 10 3/ 5 20 2 1/ 29 20 3/ 1 30 7 0/ 52 30 2/ 17 30 5/ 1 50 7 1/ 10 60 2/ 1 70 0 1/ 1 16 0 02 /2 4

0%

CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

Probably RKed Possible RK No RK

Fig. 6.18 Types of re-knapping by context Material with evidence of retouch was recovered at similar levels, with nearly 29% of the artifacts with definite or probable retouch. This was concentrated in Contexts 102, 201, 203, 300, 501 and particularly in 602.

A reasonable amount of retouched material was also recovered in Contexts 101, 103, 302, 305 and 701. It was low in Context 1602.

172

INCIDENCE OF RETOUCHED

% OF TOTAL

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

RTed

10 1/ 8 10 5 2/ 43 2 10 3/ 52 20 1/ 29 20 3/ 17 30 0/ 52 30 2/ 17 30 5/ 17 50 1/ 10 60 2/ 10 70 1/ 1 16 0 02 /2 4 Si te

Probably RTed Possibly RTed

CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

UnRTed

COMPARISON OF RETOUCH AND RE-KNAPPING 100%

% OF TOTAL

80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

te Si

10 1/ 85 10 2/ 43 2 10 3/ 52 20 1/ 29 20 3/ 17 30 0/ 52 30 2/ 17 30 5/ 17 50 1/ 10 60 2/ 10 70 1/ 10 16 02 /2 4

Both RK & RT RT Only RK Only None

Fig. 6.19 (a) types of retouch by context; (b) comparison of re-knapping and retouch by context exhibiting signs of both techniques. The variations in proportions of these different techniques will be discussed within individual context below.

Overall, it seems that retouched material was more evenly spread throughout the contexts than re-knapped material. It might be argued that the re-knapping technique occurred less frequently on material from earlier contexts but this is not strictly true as these are often the contexts with low numbers of artefacts, therefore less likely to have re-worked material. Also, not all the early levels in the trenches can be dated to the same age as others. A similar pattern could be argued for retouched material, since its frequency in earlier levels seems to be slightly higher.

It was observed that some of the flakes and blade segments had received a form of re-knap that split the artifact longitudinally or diagonally, or that the artifact had been squared via a similar re-knapping technique. This technique appears to have been applied as a form of major reshaping and/or backing. There were some 50 artifacts with these or similar techniques applied to them, with 29 of these receiving longitudinal re-knap (one of these was re-knapped longitudinally twice), only three artifacts with diagonal re-knap and eight pieces with squaring re-knap. The rest of the pieces had various combinations of the techniques.

Another way of looking at the material is to examine those artifacts that have, or probably have, re-knap only, retouch only, or have both re-knap and retouch (Fig. 7.19b). The results are only slightly different, with 19% of the artifacts having re-knap only, 19% of the artifacts having retouch only and a further 10% of the artifacts 173

Table 6.8a Regéc: Longitudinal, Diagonal & Squaring Re-knap Flakes Context

102

103

Primary

1

1

1

Secondary

3

1

1

Inner

10

Rejuvenation

2

203

300

3

302

401

403

607

1001

1601

1602

Total 3

1 1

1

1

6 1

17 2

Re-knap Type Longitudinal

11

Longitudinal & Diagonal

2

Diagonal

1

3

14 2

1

1

3 0

Diagonal & Side Squaring

1

2

1

1

1

7

1

Squaring & Diagonal Snapped Longitudinally

1

1

1

1

0

Diagonal Snap Total

16

2

0

5

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

28

1001

1601

1602

Total

Table 6.8b Regéc: Longitudinal, Diagonal & Squaring Re-knap Blades & Blade Segments Context

102

103

203

300

302

401

403

607

1

Complete Blade 1

1

1

Proximal

13

1

1

1

18

Distal

2

2

Only Distal Missing

1

1

Re-knap Type Longitudinal

14

1

1

16 1

Longitudinal & Diagonal Diagonal

1

1

1

1

3 0

Diagonal & 174

Side Squaring

1

1

Squaring & Diagonal

0

Snapped Longitudinally

0

Diagonal Snap

1

Total

16

1 1

2

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

Table 6.8c Regéc: Longitudinal, Diagonal & Squaring Re-knap; - Raw Material Types. Flakes RM Type

2

3

Primary

1

1

4

5

8

10

32

38

40

1

Secondary

3

2

1

Inner

4

5

6

1

Rejuvenation

7

Total 3 6

1

1

17

1

2

Re-knap Type Longitudinal

1

2

Longitudinal & Diagonal

5

3

1

1

2

1

14

1

3

3

Diagonal

3 0

Diagonal & Side Squaring

2

Squaring & Diagonal

1

2

3

7 1

1

Snapped Longitudinally

1

0

Diagonal Snap Total

1

8

8

8

2

1

1

29

Table 6.8d Regéc: Longitudinal, Diagonal & Squaring Re-knap; - Raw Material Type. Blades & Blade Segments RM Type 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 32 38 40 Total 1

Complete Blade Proximal

9

6

1 1

175

1

1

18

22

1

Distal

1

2 1

Only Distal Missing

1

Re-knap Type 7

Longitudinal

1

Longitudinal & Diagonal

5

1

1

1

16

1

1

1

2

Diagonal

1

Diagonal & Side

1

1

Squaring

1

1

Squaring & Diagonal

0

Snapped Longitudinally

0

1

Diagonal Snap Total

0

10

1

8

1 0

0

1

0

1

1

22

Table 6.8 Longitiudinal types of re-knap …: (a) flakes; (b)blades & blade segments; (c)flakes by raw material; (d) blades and blasé segments by raw material.

When looking at the raw materials used for these reknapping techniques (Table 6.18c – d), we find a fairly limited range of types. Only one of the pieces was made from obsidian (RM 2), the rest were from common limnic quartzites, except for occasional artifacts made from RMs 10, 38 and 40. Of the regular flakes, most were made from RMs 3, 4 and 5. The pattern for blades and blade segments was very similar, except that there was only one piece using RM 4.

The techniques were found spread over a number of contexts, with no particular temporal or spatial pattern. Although most of the regular flakes with these techniques were inner ones, the overall range of flake types used shows no particular preference(Table 6.18a). Half of all the flakes in this group had longitudinal re-knap but all of these, with the exception of three pieces from Context 300, were from Context 102. All the rest of the regular flakes with these techniques appear to have been spread randomly throughout the site.

Overall, there does not seem to be any overall chronological or spatial pattern in the distribution of these forms of re-knap.

Of the blades and blade segments showing these forms of re-knap, most were proximal segments but they are generally the most common type of segment on site anyway (Table 6.18b). They were most common in Context 102 but the rest of the blade and segments types appear to show a wide distribution across site contexts. Over half of the blades and blade segments had been splint longitudinally, especially in Context 102. There was less squaring re-knap than with the regular flakes but the rest of the techniques appear to be widely spread over the site.

6.8.8 Edge Use (Fig. 6.20) Only around 12% of all artifacts had signs of Edge Use or Edge Damage, through knife, sickle, or scraper use. Edge Use was recorded on pieces made from a wide variety of raw material types but mostly from the more common types. They were most common on RMs 2 (23.7%), 3 (21.6%), 4 (11.3%) and 5 (20.6%) but they were also found in small numbers on RMs 1.1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21, 22, 36 and 37.

176

Unclassified

INCIDENCE OF MORPHOLOGICAL CATEGORIES

% OF TOTAL

60

Unretouched

50

Use Damage

40

Miscellaneous Retouch or Reknap Side Scraper

30

End of Blade Scraper

20

Backing Retouch 10 Composite Tool 0 4 0 0 0 7 7 2 7 9 2 5 32 /2 1/1 2/1 1/1 5/1 2/1 0/5 3/1 1/2 3/5 1/8 02 2/4 70 60 30 50 30 30 20 20 10 10 16 10

Si

te

Retouch, Re-knap & Use Exhausted Core

CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

Fig. 6.20 Morphological categories by contexts with samples larger than 10 lithic pieces (or 30.4%) classified as End Scrapers of various kinds: nine Distal End Scrapers (11.4%), eight Proximal End Scrapers (10.1%) and seven Unspecified End Scrapers (8.8%). There were also two “Thumbnail” scrapers – one each from Contexts 101 and 304.

Cutting Edge Very few appear to have definite cutting Edges (knives and sickles), although almost any flake and blade could have been used for cutting.

Unspecified Scrapers were mainly recovered from Context 102, with occasional examples from Contexts 101, 103, 203, 300 and 702. Side or Edge Scrapers were also mainly recovered from Context 102, with others from Contexts 101, 103, 201, 501, 902 and 1601. Most of the Unspecified End Scrapers also came from Context 102, with only single occurrences in Contexts 201 and 702. Distal End Scrapers also mainly came from Context 102, with rare pieces from Contexts 201, 203 and 401. Again, most of the Proximal End Scrapers were recovered from Context 102, with single artifacts from Contexts 101 and 300.

The range of raw materials associated with this feature was more limited than generic Edge Use, although the most common raw material types were the same, i.e. RMs 2 (11.7%), 3 (36.7%), 4 (13.3%) and 5 (26.7%). They were also recorded on RMs 8, 9, 10, 20, 27 and 41. This may reflect the range of materials capable of having a fine but strong cutting edge. 6.8.9 Scrapers As with Cutting Edges, virtually any flake could have been used briefly for scraping (which is why many flakes in the database have a 0.5 possible Scraper Edge definition). Definite Scraper Edges within the collection are surprisingly uncommon (Fig. 6.20), with only 79 (9.4%) artifacts having, or probably having, a single scraper edge, multiple scraper edges or an unspecified number of scraper edges. Of these, most occurred in Context 102. Regardless of the number of artifacts contained within a context, the occurrence of Scraper Edges is restricted to only a few contexts (101, 102, 103, 201, 203, 300, 304, 401, 501, 601, 702, 902 and 1601). Scraper edges were absent in the majority of contexts. This could be of some significance as they are concentrated in the Eastern Zone, with fewer examples, mostly in earlier contexts, in the Western Zone.

Scraper Edges were recorded on a wide variety of different raw material types but were mostly made from the more common raw material types. They were recorded most frequently on RMs 3 (28.2%), 4 (26.9%) and 5 (10.3%) but are also found on RMs 1.1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 22, 27, 28 and 40. 6.8.10 Anvilstones There were only two artifacts with probable signs of use as Anvilstones – one each in Contexts 102 and 501. These objects may have been brought onto the site with anvil crush already on them. If we were to disregard this explanation, the presence of anvilstones is suggestive of the idea that some tool production, even if restricted in duration, was carried out on the site.

Turning to scraper types, 31 (or 39.2% of all scrapers) were recorded as an unspecified type but were probably mainly Edge Scrapers. Of the remainder, 22 (or 27.8%) were recorded as Edge or Side Scrapers, with the latter limited to blades or blade segments. There were 24 pieces

One of these pieces was of raw material type RM3, the other of RM 17. 177

Only 31 pieces have evidence of notches ( or 4% of the assemblage (Fig. 6.21). These were confined to Contexts 101, 102 (most), 300, 302, 305 and 602. This suggests that the occurrence of notches on the artifacts is not accidental, as occurrence is limited to the Eastern Zone, except for one piece in Context 602. Their occurrence in later contexts also suggests that they were in use in a later period of the occupation.

6.8.11 Notches There are two basic types of utilised notches, naturally occurring (in limnic quartzite due to cavities formed by fossils) and artificial. The two categories merge and are often difficult to distinguish from unused natural inclusion hollows. Notches could be used for a variety of scraping/shaving activities involving what is effectively a small spoke-shave; arrow straightening would be one possibility.

INCIDENCE OF NOTCHES BY TYPE 100%

% OF TOTAL

80%

60%

40%

20%

More than 1 More than 1? One

te Si

70 1/ 10

50 1/ 10

30 2/ 17

20 3/ 17

10 3/ 52

10 1/ 85

0%

CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

1 probable possble None

Fig. 6.21 Types of notches by context.

were formed as the result of notch breakage. There are only 42 pieces (5.1% of the assemblage) with, or probably with, this feature, deposited in Contexts 102 (most), 103, 201, 300, 302, 305 and 602 - an almost identical range to that of the Notches. Their absence from Context 101 and low numbers elsewhere suggests the restriction of activities involving the use of this feature to a very limited area.

Except for a few pieces of obsidian, notches were only recorded from artifacts made from limnic quartzite or material that was probably limnic quartzite. These were on most common of raw material types, RMs 2 (19.4%), 3 (29%), 4 (22.6%) and 5 (19.4%), as well as occurrences of RMs 6, 10 and 12. 6.8.12 Shouldered Points (Fig. 6.22)

Shouldered Points were made from the most common raw materials, RMs 3 (40.5%) and 5 (35.7%) but using small numbers of RM 2, 4, 11, 13, 17, 20 and 38.

Shouldered Points are similar to Notches, and are often formed by a natural notch having one side removed and/or by the creation of a re-knapped burin-like point. There is also a possibility that some of these shoulders

178

INCIDENCE OF SHOULDERED POINTS BY TYPE 100%

% OF TOTAL

80% 60% 40% More than 1

20%

More than 1? 0%

One

8 5 32 5 2 2 9 1 7 5 2 1 7 1 7 1 0 1 0 1 0 24 te 1/ 2/4 0 3/ 0 1/ 0 3/ 0 0/ 0 2/ 0 5/ 0 1/ 0 2/ 0 1/ 02/ Si 0 3 5 6 7 16 3 2 3 1 10 1 2 CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

1 probable possble None

Fig. 6.22 Types of shouldered piece by context collection, this was impractical to record as much of the limnic quartzite material showed little or no obvious rippling.

6.8.13 Hinged Fractures (Fig. 6.23) Hinge fractures represent a knapping blow that was weak, or at a bad angle. They are rare in this assemblage, with only 27 (or 3.3%). This may indicate that generally only the better flakes were arriving on site. Ripple size on the surface of flakes and blades made from flint can indicate the type of hammer used. In the case of the Regéc

Hinge fracture occurred in low numbers in Contexts 101, 102, 103, 201, and 702. The only context within which a higher frequency was found (30%) was in Context 602 but there were only ten artifacts within this context.

INCIDENCE OF HINGE FRACTURES

10 1 10 /8 5 2/ 43 10 2 3/ 5 20 2 1/ 2 20 9 3/ 1 30 7 0/ 5 30 2 2/ 1 30 7 5/ 1 50 7 1/ 1 60 0 2/ 1 70 0 1 16 /1 0 02 /2 4 Si te

% OF TOTAL

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

CONTEXTS WITH 10 OR MORE ARTEFACTS

Present Absent

Fig. 6.23 Types of hinged fractures by context 6.8.14 Summary probably locally collected; (2) primary decortification flakes; (3) secondary decortification flakes; (4) cores; (5) core rejuvenation flakes; (6) inner flakes; (7) débitage; (8) unmodified blanks; (9) re-knapped tools; and (10) retouched tools.

In summary, the Regéc assemblage shows most of the main stages in the châine opératoire of lithic production for limnic quartzites and almost all for obsidian. These can be divided into 10 stages: (1) unmodified chunks, 179

Six Raw Material types have a large enough sample to make an analysis of the production stages meaningful. All of the ten stages except the first (chunks) were represented in Zemplén obsidian. This indicates that all of the obsidian lumps collected from the Erdőbénye area were either utilized on site or taken away with the departure of the occupying group. This is, not, however the case with the five limnic quartzite types (RM Types 3 – 5, 17 and 32), all of which were represented in all of the ten production stages. These results show that limnic quartzite was being worked extensively at Regéc.

However, there are contrasts in the frequencies by which the various stages are represented (Fig. 6.24). Knapping of Zemplén obsidian (RM 2) related mostly to the later stages of the châine opératoire - blank and tool production. By contrast, the earlier stages dominated limnic quartzite knapping to varying degrees, with RM 3 showing an even division between the three stages, RM 4 dominated by cores, core rejuvenation flakes and inner flakes, RM 5 with equal frequencies of pre-blanks and blanks + tools and RMs 17 and 32 with very little but chunks, primary and secondary decortification flakes.

GENERALISED DISCARD GROUPS BY RAW MATERIAL 100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

Blanks & Tools

0%

Pre-Blank RM 2

RM 3

RM 4

RM 5

RM 17

RM 32

Pre-core

Fig. 6.24 Production stages by selected Raw Material types. Key: Pre-Core = chunks, primary and secondary decortification flakes; Pre-Blank = cores, core rejuvenation =flakes, inner flakes and débitage; Blanks and Tools – as stated The cores range in weight between 6g and 62g, mostly between 10 and 29g. Most have a single striking platform, though several of these have been facetted for blade production – a feature marked on proximal blade segments. There is a selection for complete blades and proximal blade segments over medial and distal segments – both made primarily on limnic quartzite and obsidian. A feature of the Regéc assemblage is the very low proportion of burnt pieces.

NO. OF PIECES PER CATEGORY vs. RM TYPES

NO OF RM TYPES

25

There is a strong concentration of lithics in the Eastern zone, applying to all of the tool types and many other lithic categories. However, while primary and secondary decortification flakes have been mostly deposited in the Eastern zone, inner flakes are found equally divided between the Western and Eastern areas, suggesting that blank-finishing activities were common throughout the site. A scattergram of the relationship between the number of pieces in a morphological (tool) category and the number of Raw Material types from which examples of this category were made (Fig. 6.25) indicates a generally linear relationship, with more Raw Materials used for larger categories. The sole exception is the complete blade category, made of fewer Raw Materials than expected. This is the only example of a slight shift away from a generalized strategy of raw material utilisation, in which even obsidian is sometimes used for notched pieces and scrapers.

20 15 10 5 0 0

50

100 150 200 NO. OF PIECES

250

300

Fig. 6.25 No. of pieces per tool category vs. no. of Raw Material types Within this generalized pattern, there is, however, considerable variation between production discard, blade discard and flake discard between Contexts (Fig. 6.26). While noting the small sizes of these groups, this does suggest a low level of local differences in lithic practice at Regéc. 180

GROUP CATEGORIES BY CONTEXT 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

1 70

(n

=

) 12

02 16

(n

=

) 10 1 20

(n

=

) 29 2 60

(n

=

) 12 3 20

(n

=

) 19 3 10

(n

=

) 51 1 10

(n

=

) 82

) ) ) E 6) 17 17 51 IT 41 = = = S L = (n (n (n AL (n 5 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 3 3 10

Blades Flakes Production

Fig. 6.26 Group discard categories by context contexts in the hill-top trenches showing markedly variable deposition. The overall pattern is presented by number and weight for all of the contexts at Regéc (Fig. 6.24a - b):

6.9 Context summaries of associated lithics The distribution of lithics deposited at Regéc is heavily skewed in favour of the Eastern Zone, with certain

NUMBER OF LITHIC PIECES BY CONTEXT 50 45 40

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 101 101DS 102 102DS 103 103DS 104 107 201 201DS 203 204 204 DS 300 300DS 301 302 304 305 305DS 306 306DS 401 403 500 501 503 507 521 601 602 603 604 605 607 701 702 703 704 705 707 901 902 1001 1102 1301 1601 1602 1603 1604

% OF TOTAL

35

CONTEXT NO

181

WEIGHT OF LITHIC PIECES BY CONTEXT

30 25 % OF TOTAL

20 15 10 5

101 101DS 102 102DS 103 103DS 104 107 201 201DS 203 204 204 DS 300 300DS 301 302 304 305 305DS 306 306DS 401 403 500 501 503 507 521 601 602 603 604 605 607 701 702 703 704 705 707 901 902 1001 1102 1301 1601 1602 1603 1604

0

CONTEXT NO

Fig. 6.27 (a) Number and (b) weight of lithics by Context as a percentage of the total assemblage

6.9.1 Trench 1

RAW MATERIALS, CONTEXT 101

Context 101 (Figs. 6.28 –6.29) This context had the second highest number of lithic artifacts (10.5% of total), although some other contexts had a higher percentage of the total by weight. The percentage of the total number of artifacts and that of the total weight of artifacts (7% of total) in this context is very similar.

Obsidian Limnic Quartzite LQ?

12%

10%

2% 2% 3%

Most of the artifacts (54) were made from limnic quartzites but there was a relatively high number of obsidian tools (9) and two pieces of Slovakian rock crystal (Fig. 6.28). There were odd numbers of all other raw material types. Most of these raw materials appear to have come from local western Zemplén sources (Arka), with no artifacts apparently coming from eastern or northern Zemplén sources, although around 2.3% of the material probably came from the south. A further 3.4% of the material appears to have come from Slovakia.

LQ/OP LQ/HQ Hydroquartzite

6%

HQ?

2%

Quartz Crystals Flint 63%

Other

Fig. 6.28 Raw materials of lithics by Number, Context 101. In terms of tools and use (Fig. 6.29), this context contained 3 artifacts designated as being Cores (3.5% of context total). One of these cores also appeared to have been used as a Side Scraper and as a Pecker/Hammer (RM4), another (RM17) had also been used as a Pecker/Hammer.

182

Just over 1% of the material was burnt unidentified, which is the site average. Most of this material was probably recovered through dry sieving.

MAIN CATEGORIES, CONTEXT 101 Pebble

4% 2% 4% 2% 12%

10%

Core Primary F 2ndary F Inner F

5%

Rejuv. F Chunks 11%

Complete B 38% 12%

PBS DBS

Only two artifacts had primary cortex and only eight had secondary cortex, which is lower than the site average. This suggests a lack of primary artifact production on site during this late phase. However, despite the aboveaverage number of rejuvenation flakes (10), such low numbers cannot be taken as evidence for primary on-site tool production. When combined with the relatively high number of irregular flakes and chunks, this might suggest a certain amount of on-site tool finishing work. 36.5% of the artifacts were inner flakes, which is close to the site average.

MBS

Artifact Breakage was relatively low in this context, which is surprising considering that it is the modern plough-soil. Despite low breakage rates, the Rolling Wear percentage (10.6%) was slightly higher than average. This probably relates to plough damage within the soil and the low breakage rates may relate to the size of artifacts. Small artifacts may be turned and rolled, large pieces are more likely to be bashed or caught between rocks in the soil. The size of stones within the plough-soil may be another factor.

Fig. 6.29 Tool and use categories, Context 101 The context contained a below-average (32%) number of regular flakes. One regular flake (RM 17) was a chunky unused End Scraper, which had a double break and had been re-knapped with a Burin-like Point. A surprisingly high number of irregular flakes were recovered from this context (31%), due to the quantities of dry sieved material. One of these irregular flakes (RM4) had been re-knapped and retouched to form a point that also had two other unused points.

Re-worked artifacts were at a slightly higher than average level but not high enough to be significant.

Only seven (8%) of the artifacts had a primary classification as Chunks but this was above-average for the site. However, 12 (14.1%) of the artifacts had a secondary classification of chunk (this includes Cores and Flaked Chunks, etc.), which is also well above the site average.

The majority of the artifacts within this context were unworked and, of those that were worked, more were retouched rather than re-knapped, although there were four artifacts with both techniques applied. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of these artifacts had no obvious Backing (91.8%). Of the tiny remainder, nearly 6% had Deliberate Backing and 2.4% had Natural Backing.

22% of the artifacts were classified as Blades, which was below-average for the site. Of these, only two were Complete Blades (below-average) and one of these (RM 2 obsidian), with use damage, was thick and triangular in section, with two cutting edges. Only two were Almost Complete Blades (with only the distal part missing). There were ten Proximal Blade Segments (only a little below site average), three Distal segments. One of the proximal blade segments (RM 6) had heavy damage on both edges and probably had been used as a scraper. It also had two notches (perhaps for hafting?) on opposite edges. Another proximal segment (RM 2 obsidian) had microburin-like retouch that had left a notch and a burinlike point. Yet another proximal segment (RM 3) was small and burin-like with a cutting edge and a burin-like point. Only two mid-blade segments were recorded and one of these (RM 41) was well made and very attractive but its two cutting edges did not appear to have any use damage.

Within this context, there were four Burin-like Points (4.7% of the context total), as well as two other pieces that may have had these points. One of the pieces (RM17), re-knapped as a Burin-like Point, was also an unused End Scraper. Although low in absolute numbers, the incidence of Burin-like Points was relatively high compared with the site total. Strangely, there were no Borer Points in this context, despite their high relative frequency in the trench. There was also a lack of artifacts in the Other Points category (only one multipoint tool, an irregular flake). The number of artifacts with Scraper Edges (9, or 10.6% of the context total) was close to the site average, although there were another 14 pieces (16.5%) that could possibly have been used as scrapers. None had more than one scraper edge. Most of these were either Side/Edge or Unspecified Scrapers but there were two Proximal End Scrapers and a “Thumbnail”.

2.4% of the artifacts were Unclassified, which was above-average, probably due to dry sieving.

183

There were only two Notched artifacts within this context but one of them was one of only four pieces recovered with more than a single notch. Surprisingly, there were no artifacts with a Shouldered Point feature on them.

coming from the South West (Abaújszántó1), 0.2% from the east (Erdõhorváti) and 0.2% from the north (Nyíri2). Only around 0.7% of the raw material (obsidian) appears to have come from Slovakia.

In summary, the lithics deposited in Context 101 constituted a large group, dominated by limnic quartzites with some obsidian pieces. All of the three major stages were found there, including sometimes re-used cores and a lot of débitage. The frequency of scarpers was at the site mean, while that of blades was lower than site mean. The original associations of this lithic group remain unclear, since this Context represented the upper part of the plough-zone, which included pottery from all site periods.

In terms of tools and use (Fig. 6.31), a surprisingly high number of Cores were recorded (9) but these only represented 2.1% of the context total. Five of these cores showed signs of being re-used as a new tool after core usage, and as such could be considered to be a new noncore tool type. One (RM 5) had been re-used for pecking or bashing and another (RM 38) had been re-used possibly as a piercer and a shouldered point. One other core had also been used as a piercer (RM 3) and two others had scraper wear. One of these core/scrapers (RM 2) has some proximal end wear and a faceted butt, while the other (RM 8) also had proximal scraper wear.

Context 102 (Figs. 6.30 – 6.31) This context has the highest number of lithic artifacts from the site, with 52% of the site total, although it only has around 28% of the total weight of artifacts. This may be due to the average size of artifacts being relatively small, with several of them being derived from dry sieving. Because of the high number of artifacts compared with the rest of the site, it is not surprising that the numbers tend to be close to the site average.

MAIN CATEGORIES, CONTEXT 102

4% 1% 17%

2%

Pebble 7%

Core 12%

Rejuv. F Chunks

10%

Complete B PBS

5%

Obsidian

10%

2%

MBS

Fig. 6.31 Tool and use categories, Context 102 Nearly 56% (240) of the artifacts were classified as regular flakes, which is close to the site average. Because of the large number of artefacts, it was thought that this collection of regular flakes deserved a closer look (Table 6.9). Of these, 72 (17% of the context total, 30% of all the regular flakes) appeared to have two or more functions. That is an individual tool that has more than one functional feature recorded for it. 45 of the pieces within Context 102 had two functions recorded (see table below), a further 27 artifacts had more than two features recorded.

LQ/HQ Hydroquartzite HQ? Quartz Crystals Flint

66%

35%

Limnic Quartzite

LQ/OP 20%

DBS 7%

LQ? 2%

2ndary F Inner F

Again the majority of artifacts were made from limnic quartzite (288) but there were also high occurrences of all other raw material types, including Obsidian (41) and Slovakian rock crystal (9) (Fig. 6.30). RAW MATERIALS, CONTEXT 102

Primary F

Other

Fig. 6.30 Raw materials of lithics, Context 102 Although a much wider range of potential raw material sources applies to this context, the bulk of the material appears to come from local western Zemplén sources (Arka area). Most of the other material appears to come from other parts of the Zemplén hills, including around 2% from Southern Zemplén, a further 0.2% possibly

1 2

184

The only occurrence of material potentially from this source The only occurrence of material potentially from this source

Scraper Edge

Notch

Shoulder

1

Anvil Crush

1 1

Other Point

2

2 2

4 1

1

1

1

1

5

1 1 1 1

4

3

Shoulder

Notch

Shoulder

1 1

1 1

Scraper Edge

Anvil Crush

Other Point

Pecker/Hammer

Borer Point

Piercer Point

Burinlike Point

Edge Use

Type

Notch

Scraper Edge

Anvil Crush

Other Point

Pecker/Hammer

Borer Point

Piercer Point

Burinlike Point

Cutting Edge

Edge Use

2

Edge Use Cutting Edge Burinlike Point Piercer Point Borer Point Pecker/Hammer Other Point Anvil Crush Scraper Edge Notch Shoulder

Edge Use Cutting Edge Burinlike Point Piercer Point Borer Point Pecker/Hammer Other Point Anvil Crush Scraper Edge Notch Shoulder

Pecker/Hammer

2

4 1 2

Borer Point

1

Piercer Point

Cutting Edge

2

Burinlike Point

Edge Use

Type Edge Use Cutting Edge Burinlike Point Piercer Point Borer Point Pecker/Hammer Other Point Anvil Crush Scraper Edge Notch Shoulder

1 1

1 1

1

2

Table 6.9 Multiple uses of flakes, Context 102: (a) Comparison of two features; (b) Edge Use and two other Functions; (c) Cutting Edge and two other functions. 185

had a roughly flaked platform and the flakes appear to have been removed from the core in one direction. Another rejuvenation flake (RM 7) had received a backing longitudinal re-knap. It also had borer point wear and a post patination piercer point and other retouch. One rejuvenation flake (RM 4) had had both surfaces retouched (illustrated?); it had heavy pecking damage and the distal end had been retouched into an End Scraper/Piercer. Yet another rejuvenation flake (RM 7) had two or three Piercer Points and two rough Borer Points, with invasive retouch. Another rejuvenation flake (RM 4) appeared to have been used as a combination knife/scraper/piercer. One last piece, also a rejuvenation flake (RM 4), appeared to have been used as a chopper and a scraper and also had a used Shouldered Point.

Table 6.9 shows that there is a wide variation of combinations in flakes displaying two-features but there is a tendency towards tools with Edge Use and Point or Scraper Use3. There is also a trend towards Cutting Edges and point or Scraper Use in a similar way. In addition, there are several tools recorded with having more than one Other Point feature and tools with Other Points and Shouldered Points4. Regular flakes with more than two features from within Context 102 are very variable in feature combinations. However, for example, those pieces with three features recorded on them display a similar pattern of Edge Use or Cutting Edge presence and Point Use or Scraper Edges, to that seen above.

The raw materials used for these (Table 6.9c) were of some interest as they were from a limited number of RM types. The table demonstrates that those double-featured tools made from RMs 2 and 4 were in similar numbers to the site average for the occurrence of those raw materials. However, most of the other double-featured tools generally occurred at higher than average frequencies for their RM (by number) and this may indicate a preference for the use of these materials in specific tool construction. In addition, except for RMs 5 and 10, all the doublefeatured tools are at higher than average by weight levels and that all the tools with triple or higher numbers of features, were all higher than the site average occurrence of these RM types Only 5% of the context’s artifacts were classified as being Irregular Flakes and were mainly derived from dry sieving. This is much closer to the site average than Context 101.

Some individual multiple feature regular flakes in Context 102 are of particular note. For example, one knife (RM 3), also had a natural shouldered point and, probably, another worn point. A worn scraper (RM 3) with evidence of edge use (so probably not actually a multiple use tool?), was retouched into a lunate. One unusual piece that was in the shape of a pointed doubleended triangular pyramid, on one end was a worn piercer. Another piece (RM 16) with an Other Point at each end (probably) was rod-like. One tool (RM 10) was probably a scraper that had re-knapping and an edge with shallow retouch and a retouched notch. One multiple tool (RM 3) had a re-knapped Burin-like Point, a worn re-knapped knife-edge and retouched piercer points. One of the obsidian (RM 2) flakes that has been drawn had a worn point and a notch. A particularly complex piece (RM 3) had two re-knapped and retouched shouldered piercer points, as well as pecking and scraper use. Another piece with pecking damage to its dorsal ridges and edges (RM 3), also had a retouched Notched Shouldered Burin-like features and backing re-knap. One thick triangular sectioned flake (RM 3) had a thick point, a slight shouldered point and invasive retouch, similar to socalled Fabricators typical of the British Neolithic or Bronze Age (REF: xxx 19xx). Another triangular sectioned flake (RM 3), had a snub-nosed retouched point and edge (probably scraper) wear. One multiple tool (RM 3) was a scraper/borer that also had a notch, which had been heavily retouched especially on the ventral surface. One flake (RM 4) had natural notches and shoulders but had received slimming re-knap. It had a faceted butt and had come from an old exposed quarry surface or an old patinated core. One complex piece (RM 5) had edge use, a retouched Burin-like Point, a Borer Point and probably a Shouldered Point. One flake (RM 5) was chisellike and had wear on its cutting edges. One bladelike regular flake (RM 9) with a damaged cutting edge, was also a used End Scraper. Another interesting complex flake (RM 27) consisted of a retouched concave Distal End Scraper, which also had some re-knapping (backing?) along with edge and point wear. A rejuvenation flake (RM 5) had light edge damage and possibly a damaged borer end. It

Nearly 4% of the artifacts were thought to be Chunks, which is below-average for the site. Nearly 32% of the artifacts were classified as Blades, which is close to the site average and is higher than Context 101. Of these, twenty-four (5.6% of the context total), were Complete Blades, and seventeen (3.9%) were Almost Complete Blades with only their distal end missing. There were also two blades with only their proximal ends missing. Over 16% (71) of the artifacts consisted of Proximal Blade Segments (which could indicate “on-site” blade finishing), with eighteen (4.2%) Distal Segments and only five (1.2%) Medial Blade Segments. All of these numbers were close to the site average. Multiple function blades can also be considered in detail (Table 6.10).

3 Although in effect those scrapers with edge use are often indicating the same edge, so are not really double feature tools. 4 Which in effect can often be derived from point breakage.

186

1

Shoulder

1 1 1

Notch

Scraper Edge

1

Anvil Crush

Other Point

Pecker/Hammer

1 1

Borer Point

Piercer Point

Burinlike Point

2

2 1 2

1 2

1 1

1

1

1

3 1 Shoulder

Notch

Scraper Edge

Anvil Crush

Other Point

Pecker/Hammer

Borer Point

Piercer Point

Burinlike Point

Cutting Edge

Edge Use Edge Use Cutting Edge Burinlike Point Piercer Point Borer Point Pecker/Hammer Other Point Anvil Crush Scraper Edge Notch Shoulder

Cutting Edge

Edge Use

Type Edge Use Cutting Edge Burinlike Point Piercer Point Borer Point Pecker/Hammer Other Point Anvil Crush Scraper Edge Notch Shoulder

2 2

1 1 Shoulder

Notch

Scraper Edge

Anvil Crush

Other Point

Pecker/Hammer

Borer Point

Piercer Point

Burinlike Point

Edge Use

Type Edge Use Cutting Edge Burinlike Point Piercer Point Borer Point Pecker/Hammer Other Point Anvil Crush Scraper Edge Notch Shoulder

1 1

1

Table 6.10 Multiple blade tools, Context 102: (a) Comparison of two features; (b) Edge Use and two other Functions; (c) Cutting Edge and two other functions. 187

Four almost complete blades (only distal end missing) from Context 102 should also be described. One (RM 11) had edge and tip wear, along with heavy retouch to make various points and shoulders. Another with edge damage (RM 5) had piercer/borer retouch, as well as distal end scraper retouch. A third (RM 3) had knife/scraper re-knap and shouldered point re-knap (which was broken). The fourth (RM 3) looked a little like a “Stanley Knife” with a point.

One of the main differences between the double function regular flakes and double function blades is that the occurrence of Shouldered Points appears to be less prominent and there are less signs of Point Use but this may be the result of a small sample. There also appears to be less emphasis on Edge Use and more on Side Scraper usage. Those blade/segments that display more than two functions seem to follow a similar pattern. When considering multiple function blades as a whole, it is surprising to find that there are only four pieces with double cutting edges (although most of these have other functions as well). This is presumably due to the need to have some kind of backing along one of the long edges to allow pressure to be applied to the cutting edge, or prevent the blade from cutting into a handle. Seven of the blade/segments have one or more notches on their edges. This could have been for the hafting of these tools into a handle.

One final piece from Context 102 with multiple functions was an almost complete blade (RM 4, with only the proximal end missing). It had a triangular section, edge use and a distal end scraper. Within Context 102, there was a much more limited range of raw materials used for blades and blade segments with multiple functions than the regular flakes with similar functions. The main peaks were in RM 5 but there were a high percentage of artifacts in RM 3 for those blades/segments with three or more features.

As with the regular flakes from Context 102, its collection of blade/segments with multiple functions also contains some pieces worth commenting on. One complete blade (RM 3) was a notched shouldered pointed piercer. Three other complete blades were thick and chunky with triangular sections. One (RM 4, with a fossil) appeared to have been used as a knife and as a pecker. Another (RM 17) had been used as a proximal end scraper but also had had its distal end retouched and re-knapped to form a point. The other (RM 5) was thick and chunky shouldered borer with backing and slimming re-knap. These are similar to the fabricators described above. Two other complete blades (both RM 2 obsidian, and both drawn) had slightly different usage. One had edge wear and two cutting edges, it had handle retouch. The other (which had been struck from a flat platform) had edge wear and backing retouch, as well as a retouched distal end scraper.

Although both sample sizes for the regular flakes and blades/segments are small and, despite the percentages of the regular flakes being lower because there is a wider range of material types, it is still useful to compare the two sets of percentages. There is a much higher percentage of multifunction blades/segments being made from obsidian (RM 2), which is hardly surprising, however the other comparisons are mixed. There was a lower percentage of blades/segments with two functions in RM 3 but a higher percentage of blades/segments, than regular flakes, in the same material, with more than three functions. The two percentages for double function tools were similar for RM 4 but there were no blades with more than two functions in this raw material, as opposed to the regular flakes, where there were six artifacts in this type. The occurrence of all multifunction blades/segments in RM 5 was higher than for similar regular flakes. The numbers for RM 7 and RM 17 are for both flakes and blades are low and therefore similar in percentages. These results show a distinct preference for striking blades from obsidian and RMs 3 and 5.

Of the proximal blade segments recovered from Context 102, a surprisingly high number (23) appeared to have two or more functional features. One (RM 5) had one edge as a knife and the other had backing retouch that also formed a burin-like point. Another (RM 5) had been diagonally snapped to produce a point and also had burinlike point retouch. One (RM 4, with a faceted butt) with edge use, was a double-edged side scraper. Yet another (RM 5) had one damaged (knife?) edge and the other had been reworked to a shoulder and burin-like point. One (RM 5) had been split longitudinally and had side scraper retouch, as well as a little borer wear. Two other proximal end segments (both RM 3) had been snapped off from the rest of the blade and then had been snapped again longitudinally; both had two used edges and a single cutting edge. One used complex piece (RM 5) had been retouched and had one borer point and a possible burinlike or shouldered point. An obsidian (RM 2) proximal segment had edge wear, plus a retouched proximal shouldered point and side notch. A further proximal segment (RM 3) appeared to have been from a large flake or blade; it was a combined scraper/knife/piercer.

A total of 29 (6.7%) artifacts had primary cortex and 51 (11.8%) had secondary cortex, both of which are close to the site average (not surprisingly), along with a belowaverage number of rejuvenation flakes (29 (6.7%)). Although this context contained the highest number of artifacts with these features, their overall proportion still suggests a lack of primary artifact construction on site during this phase. 34.5% of the artifacts were inner flakes, which is close to the site average. Artifact Breakage is close to the site average, which is not surprising considering that the context contains half the site total. Breakage numbers are relatively low, which may suggest little plough damage but with enough ploughing to have caused some breakage. The low levels 188

There were 18 single Notched lithic artifacts within this context, as well as a further six tools with or probably with more than one notch. Even though this only represents 4.7% of the context total, they make up the vast majority of these features on the site collection.

of rolling wear damage (2%)presents a pattern opposite to that in Context 101. This would suggest very little disturbance of the artifacts, so this may contradict my claim of plough damage Reworked artifacts were at a slightly higher than average level but not high enough to be significant.

33 of the artifacts had a Shouldered Point feature on them, and at 7.8% of the context total, this represents a reasonable high number of the pieces within this context.

More than half of the artifacts within this context displayed signs of being worked after knapping. It is surprising to see similar numbers of re-knapped or retouched artifacts and those on which both techniques were applied.

In summary, the lithics deposited in the lower ploughzone Context 102 constituted the largest lithics group on site, with over 50% of all lithics deposited and showing a clear predominance of Western Zemplén limnic quartzites over obsidian. There are, therefore, hardly any lithic categories that do not conform to the site mean! All three general production stages are represented, with a wide range of morphological types, including a higherthan-average total of pieces with multiple ‘functions’ (e.g., scraper and edge functions, or point and scraper modification or edge and scraper functions). This also occurs with blades and blade segments, especially in Raw Materials 2 (obsidian) and 4 (Arka limnic quartzite). This group has probably been combined through ploughing from several previously distinct contexts, since ceramics from all site periods are also present.

Despite the fact that so many of the artifacts were reworked, over 70% of the artifacts had no obvious backing. Of those with backing a similar 50/50 pattern of deliberate and natural backing occurred (both at 14.6%), a further 0.5% had both natural and deliberate backing. Within this context, there were sixteen pieces with single Burin-like Points (3.7% of the context total), as well as few (between 1 and 7) other pieces that may have had these points. Despite being the highest number of artifacts with this feature on the site, the occurrence of this feature here is relatively low and is close to site average. There were a further four artifacts with, or probably with, multiple burin-like points, and was the only occurrence of this feature on site.

Context 103 (Figs. 6.32 – 6.33) This context had the fourth highest number of artifacts (52), although some other contexts had a higher percentage of the total by weight due to the weight of individual artifacts. The ratio between the percentage of the total number of artifacts (6.2%) and the total weight of artifacts (5.8%) in this context is very similar.

A fairly high number of artifacts had Borer Points on them, with 23 (5.3% of the context total) having a single borer point and a further 4 (0.9%) artifacts with multiple borer points. These are similar but higher proportions to the Burin-like Point occurrence.

The range of raw material types in this context is much more restricted than in Contexts 101 and 102 (Fig. 6.32). Although the bulk of the artifacts are made from limnic quartzite (34), one fifth of the total are obsidian; this is much higher than the site average.

The highest numbers of tools from the Other Points category occurred within this context. There were 58 tools (13.4% of the context total) with or probably with a generalised point and a further 8 (1.9%) with or probably with multiple points. This is a far higher percentage than any of the other point categories but may simply reflect the raw material types used near this context. This context contained over half of the site total of artifacts with Scraper Edges. In all, there were 46 pieces with or probably with, single scraper edges and two more artifacts with or probably with more than one scraper edge (one of only four contexts with multiple scraper edged artifacts). Despite the high number of artifacts affecting the site total, there were 11.1% of the artifacts within this context with scraper edges, which above the site average (9.4%), showing a concentration of scraping activities within this context. There were also a further 70 artifacts (16.5%) that could have been used scrapers. The majority of the types of scrapers were unspecified but there were 10 Side/Edge Scrapers, five unspecified End Scrapers, six Distal End Scrapers and five Proximal End Scrapers.

189

Obsidian

RAW MATERIALS, CONTEXT 103

Limnic Quartzite LQ?

10%

20%

2% 2%

LQ/OP LQ/HQ Hydroquartzite HQ? Quartz Crystals Flint

66%

Other

None of the artifacts were recorded as Irregular Flakes, even with dry sieving.

. 6.32 Raw materials of lithics, Context 103 A lower amount of raw material than in Contexts 101 and 102 appears to be local Western Zemplén sources (Arka area), with a more restricted range of types. Around 7% of the raw materials appear to come from less specific South and East Zemplén sources, along with several other non-specific Zemplén sources. The lower amounts of Arka material and the higher amounts of non-local or specific sources may be of significance, perhaps with less of the Arka quarries being in production during the time of deposition.

Nearly 2% of the artifacts were Chunks, which is below the site average. Some 36% of the tools were classified as Blades, which is slightly above site average. Only two of the blades were complete but there were five blades with only the distal end missing. Three of these had multiple functions recorded on them. One obsidian artifact (RM 2 obsidian, drawn) had a single cutting edge but was unusual as the opposite edge being backed via blunting rather than retouch. It had heavy edge and ridge damage, possibly due to hafting. The second (RM 4) had probable edge use and one end had been re-knapped to form a small worn borer point. There were ten (18.9%) Proximal Segments, along with three (5.7%) Distal Segments but no Medial Blade Segments. Three of the proximal blade segments in Context 103 were recorded as having more than one function. One of these (RM 2 obsidian, drawn) had minor edge damage and distal end ventral retouch to form a hook. The other two were in RM 5. One had a cutting edge and edge use and had a shoulder point. The other was bent, with burin-like retouch and it appeared to have been nibbled to form a slight point. One of the distal blade segments (RM 5) was pointed at both ends. It had single edge and tip wear, and moreover had been retouched to form a single point.

In terms of tools and their use (Fig. 6.33), two of the artifacts were recorded as Cores, and one of these (RM 1.1 obsidian) had a single faceted platform, with the flakes or blades being removed from only one direction, down from this platform. This core had also had some edge use. MAIN CATEGORIES, CONTEXT 103

Pebble

4% 6% 20%

Core

2%

Primary F 23%

2ndary F

Nearly 6% of the material was classified as being ‘burnt unidentified’, which is much higher than the site average.

Inner F Rejuv. F Chunks

Only one artifact had primary cortex and twelve (22.6%) had secondary cortex, the second being above site average but there were only four rejuvenation flakes. Again, this suggests a lack of primary artifact production on site during this phase. Despite this, a higher-thanaverage number of artifacts had cortex, due to cortex on blades and chunks.

Complete B

14% 4%

19% 8%

Nearly 52% of the artifacts were recorded as Regular Flakes, which is close to the site average. Nine of these pieces had more than one use feature recorded on them. Four of these were secondary flakes, three in RM 4 and one in RM 3. The latter artifact had edge use plus possible retouch to form a fine piercer; the other three were scraper/borers. Three other multifunction artifacts were regular inner flakes in a variety of materials. One (RM 13) had received slimming retouch to form a scraper edge, with a Borer Point and a Shoulder Point. Another (RM 5) had a burin-like hook and edge use. The third was bladelike, with a burin-like retouch and fine distal borer wear. Two other regular flakes form Context 103 were rejuvenation flakes in RMs 21 and 5. The latter artifact had been re-used as a very heavy scraper. It was partly patinated (with no removal scars) and multidirectional removal scars. This may suggest that the artifact had lain partly exposed for many years or it came from an old core or from an old exposed surface.

PBS DBS

Fig. 6.33 Tool and use categories, Context 103 190

Only 18.9% of the artifacts were inner flakes, which is well below the site average and is probably due to the high number of pieces with secondary cortex, as well as the higher proportion of blades.

higher than the site average. Although this context lay at the base of the plough-zone, it is likely that part of the sediment constituted an earlier living surface, perhaps related to the high frequencies of blanks and tools.

This context had one of the highest percentages of broken artifacts, which is of some interest, considering the depth of the deposit. It is possible that this context was a plough-soil in the Late Bronze Age or in the Medieval period.

Context 104 There were only three unbacked artifacts in this context, two Blades of limnic quartzite (probably from the Arka area) and 1 Slovakian rock crystal. Both of the blades were Distal End Segments and neither had any signs of additional adaptation.

In contrast, the rate of Rolling Wear on the artifacts is relatively low, perhaps relating to the size of the artifacts or the type of plough employed.

Context 107

Reworked artifacts were at a slightly higher-than-average level but not high enough to be significant.

This context was made up of only one complete unbacked limnic quartzite blade, which was unworked and probably of local origin.

Slightly over half of the artifacts within this context were unworked, and those that were worked had similar percentages of both re-knapped and retouched material. There was also one artifact displaying both techniques.

General comments on Trench 1 Trench 1 contained the highest number of artifacts and had significant amounts of obsidian and Slovakian rock crystal. The bulk of the material was of local origin, probably from the Arka area, with small numbers of artifacts made from other, less local or non-specific sources.

We find a 50/50 pattern of backed and unbacked material but only 19.2% of the fact artifacts had deliberate backing but 30.8% of the artifacts had natural backing. Within this context, there were four Burin-like Points (7.7% of the context total). Although low in absoluter numbers, this is relatively high compared with the site total.

Levels of patination were generally close to the site average but were absent from the deepest contexts. The fact that Breakage rates are higher in deeper contexts, comparing Contexts 101 and 103, is curious, especially as Rolling Wear is generally low at depth. It can only be assumed that this relates to the size of artifacts and/or type of plough used in the past.

Although there were only 7 tools with Borer Points, these represent 13.5% of the context total, a relatively high number of artifacts from within this context. There was one other artifact that had multiple borer points. Three of the artifacts were categorised as having the Other Point type of point, and another tool had multiple other points. These tools represented 7.7% of the context total, which taken together with the other point types indicated possible activity involving piercing or boring, etc.

Reworked artifacts were at a slightly higher than average level but not high enough to be significant. They were absent at lower levels. An interesting pattern was observed in the percentages of worked (retouched and re-knapped) material within this trench. They were rare in Context 101 and more frequent in Contexts 102 and 103, while worked material was absent from Contexts 104 and 107. There was also a changing emphasis between retouch and re-knap within the trench. In Context 101 there was more retouch, in Context 102 there were equal amounts of each technique, along with material displaying both techniques, while in Context 103 there were equal numbers of retouch and reknap.

Within this context, there were only five artifacts with Scraper Edges but this still represents 9.6% of the context total and is a little above the site average. There were a further nine pieces which could have been used as scrapers (17.3%). This may represent similar scraping activities to those recorded in Context 102. All the scrapers were either unspecified or Side/Edge Scrapers. Although none of the pieces had a Notch on them, three of them had a Shoulder feature that appears to be related.

The amount of backing occurring on artifacts increased with depth within the trench (ignoring Contexts 104 and 107) but also the pattern of backing changed emphasis towards natural rather than deliberate backing.

In summary, the lithics deposited in Context 103 consisted of a large group, dominated by limnic quartzite but with a higher percentage of obsidian than usual. There is an emphasis on blanks and tools in this group, with regular flakes and blades deposited at higher rates than the site mean. The incidence of burnt pieces is also

There was a relatively high number of pieces with Burinlike Points and Borer Points from within the main contexts of this trench. This may indicate a concentration 191

of activities requiring these tool types, perhaps over a long period of time.

MAIN CATEGORIES, CONTEXT 201

The number of artifacts displaying generalised Other Points, when taken together with the other point types, indicates possible activities involving piercing or boring, etc. throughout the periods of activity of this trench. There is also some evidence to suggest that the burin-like point was uncommon elsewhere on the site and that this type of point was introduced into use at a slightly later date than the general borer category.

Pebble 7%

3%

Core 18%

Primary F 2ndary F

14% 10%

Complete B

17% 17%

6.9.2 Trench 2

Nearly half of the artifacts in this context were made from limnic quartzite, however nearly a third of them were of unidentified materials. There was only one piece of obsidian (Fig. 6.34).

17%

6%

There were no Irregular Flakes recorded. 17% of the artifacts were recorded as Chunks, which is far higher than average. One of these (RM 22) had slight wear along a narrow edge and had possibly been used for scraping.

Obsidian Limnic Quartzite LQ?

24% of the artifacts were classified as Blades, which is below-average and none of these were complete or nearly complete. Four of the Blade Segments were Proximal Ends, two were Distal Ends and one was a Medial Blade Segment.

LQ/HQ

2%

MBS

Fig. 6.35 Tool and use categories, Context 201

LQ/OP

2%

PBS DBS

14%

Context 201 (Figs. 6.34 – 6.35)

6%

Rejuv. F Chunks

Similarly, scraping activities appear to have been concentrated within this area over a period of time.

RAW MATERIALS, CONTEXT 201

Inner F

Hydroquartzite

None of the unidentified’.

HQ? Quartz Crystals 59%

material

was

classified

as

‘burnt

Five (17%) of the artifacts in this context had primary cortex (which is above-average) but only three artifacts had secondary cortex, and there were only four rejuvenation flakes. Again, this does not appear to provide evidence of significant “on-site” tool production. One regular primary flake (RM 4) had a worn heavy borer point, so in effect was being re-used. Two of the rejuvenation flakes were of note. One (RM 3) had some retouch, a cutting edge and some light edge wear. The other (RM 17) was an old patinated core tip, with a damaged tip and post patination edge damage, showing re-use.

Flint Other

Fig. 6.34 Raw materials of lithics, Context 201 Most of the raw material is of local types, probably from Arka, with one piece, significantly, possibly coming from the Matra Mountains and two possibly from South Zemplén sources.

Only five (17.6%) of the artifacts were inner flakes, which is well below the site average.

Turning to tools and their use (Fig. 6.35), over 58% of the artifacts within this context were classified as being Regular Flakes, which is slightly above site average. One of these (RM 3) possibly had a reworked proximal end forming a scraper edge and also had a distal end light borer point.

A much higher number of artifacts (62%) had Patination in this context than average (18%), although there were no heavily patinated ones. This may have been to increased exposure of the artifacts at some time in the past (recent and/or distant) or the artifacts could have been brought to site from a more exposed place.

192

Nearly 12% of the artifacts were classified as being Chunks, which is twice the site average.

Despite Breakage rates being close to the site average, Rolling Wear rates are far higher than average at 27.6%, with a further 6.9% of the artifacts in this context having heavy rolling wear.

This context was unusual insofar as it is dominated by Blades/Segments; nearly 53% of the artifacts were classified as such, which is well above the site average. Of these, two were complete blades and one of these (RM 3, drawn) had various backing re-knap and knife edge sheen indicating that it had probably been used as a sickle – the only example from the site. Another artifact was an almost complete blade (RM 5) with only its proximal end missing (which were generally rare on site). It had minor post-patination use or damage and the tip was missing. The patination suggests that this was an old blade that had been picked up and re-used at a later date. There were also four Proximal end segments, a Distal segment and one Medial Blade segment. One of the proximal segments (RM 5) had received minor retouch and had at least two unused minor points. Another (RM 40) appeared to have been split longitudinally and had been used as a scraper/borer after retouch and re-knap. The Distal Blade Segment (RM 8) had a retouched tip and edge damage. The number and types of blades and segments suggests the possibility of agricultural activity near the context.

This context had the highest percentage of reworked, or probably reworked, pieces on the whole site, at over 27%. Slightly more than half the artifacts within this context were unworked. 20% displayed re-knap only; nearly 27% had retouch only and there were none using both techniques. Over 79% of the artifacts were unbacked, of the remainder 17.2% had deliberate backing and 3.4% had natural backing. Only one of the artifacts had a Burin-like Point but a further four had, or probably had, a Borer Point, which at 13.7% of the context total is of some significance. Four of the artifacts within this context were classified as having Other Points, which represents 13.8% of the context total. Within this context there were only three artifacts with, or probably with, Scraper Edges (very close to the site average). There was one Side/Edge Scraper, one Unspecified End Scraper and one Distal End Scraper. There were a further 22 pieces that may have been used as scrapers.

Only one piece had primary cortex and there were three rejuvenation flakes but there were no artifacts with secondary cortex. One of the rejuvenation flakes (RM 3) appeared to have been trimmed from an old blade core and had been struck off the core at right angles to the old blade scars. It had received some re-knap after being removed from the core and had at least two Other Points.

Although none of the pieces had a Notch on them, one had a Shoulder feature that appears to be related.

There was only one Inner Flake recorded, which is unusual.

In summary, the lithics deposited in the upper ploughzone Context 201 comprised a small group, dominated by limnic quartzite but with a high proportion of unidentified pieces. All of the main production stages are represented, but with an emphasis on pre-core and pre-blank production. The proportions of regular flakes and blades are lower than the site mean, while the highest proportion of re-worked pieces is found there.

A much higher number of artifacts (47%) had Patination in this context than average (18%), although there were no heavily patinated ones. This may have been to increased exposure of the artifacts at some time in the past (recent and/or remote).

Context 203

Breakage rates within this context are relatively high at 29% but Rolling Wear rates are slightly lower than site average, at nearly 6%.

Eleven out of the seventeen artifacts in this context were of limnic quartzite and there was only one piece of obsidian.

The percentage of reworked material within this context was also high at nearly 24%.

Most of the material was of local western Zemplén sources (Arka area), while one of the artifacts appeared to come from a Southern Zemplén source.

More of the artifacts within this context were worked rather than unworked. Some 25% of the artifacts displayed re-knap only, a further 25% displayed retouch only and 6.3% of the artifacts displayed both techniques.

One Core was recorded.

Nearly 53% of the artifacts had no obvious backing, with the rest of the artifacts only displaying deliberate backing (at 47.1% the highest from any context on site). The lack of naturally backed material and such high numbers of deliberately backed artifacts is interesting.

29% of the context assemblage were recorded as Regular Flakes, which is well below-average. There were no Irregular Flakes recorded.

193

Although Burin-like Points are very low in number within this trench, there is a slightly higher concentration of Borer Points and Other Points, which complements the activities proposed for Trench 1.

One of the pieces possibly had a Burin-like Point and one had a Borer Point. Only one of the artifacts was classified as having an Other Point, although two others were classified as having multiple Other Points. Despite such low numbers, this still represents some 17.7% of the total trench sample.

Even allowing for the smaller number of artifacts within this trench, there still seems to be a reasonable number of pieces with Scraper Edges, indicating similar activities to Trench 1 even if at a lower level of intensity. However, the high numbers of blades and blade segments also suggest the possibility of agricultural activities in the near vicinity of this trench.

There were only two pieces with Scraper Edges and three other pieces with possible scraper edges within this context, which is close to the site average. One of the scrapers was of an unspecified type and the other was a Distal End Scraper.

6.9.3 Trench 3

One of the artifacts was recorded as a Core.

Context 300 (Figs. 6.36 – 6.37)

In summary, the lithics deposited in this small group from Context 203 were dominated by limnic quartzite and showed more ‘blanks + tools’ than usual, especially blades and blade segments. The context is part of the post-subsoil build-up of cultural deposit but with plough damage in the upper part.

This context had the third highest number of lithic artifacts (53), with an above-average range of material types although 60% of the tools were made from limnic quartzite and nearly 17% were of obsidian. There were also two pieces of Slovakian rock crystal (Fig. 6.36). RAW MATERIALS, CONTEXT 300

Context 204

Obsidian Limnic Quartzite

There were only two unbacked artifacts in this context: one limnic quartzite primary flake and one unidentified chunk, both from an uncertain source. Neither of these artifacts displayed any signs of being retouched or reknapped.

LQ? 4% 6%

General observations, Trench 2

6%

17%

LQ/HQ

4% 2% 2%

Within the Trench 2, Patination was far higher than average but was absent from the lowest context (204), as was heavy patination. The fact that Context 203 also had a high percentage of artifacts with patination may suggest that artifacts within this context were exposed to light for some time before being buried by Contexts 202 and 201.

LQ/OP

Hydroquartzite HQ? Quartz Crystals Flint 59%

Although a smaller number of artifacts are involved, again there appears to be a pattern of a higher percentage of Breakage in a deeper context than in the modern plough-soil (i.e. higher rates in Context 203 than Context 201).

Other

Fig. 6.36 Raw materials of lithics, Context 300 More than half of the raw materials appear to have come from local sources (the Arka area), with two artifacts coming potentially from a Southern Zemplén source and the Rock Crystal artifacts coming from Slovakia.

The pattern of Breakage and Rolling Wear is very similar to that seen in the Trench 1. Reworking of artifacts was relatively high (by percentage) although the numbers were still small, and absent from the lowest level (Context 204).

Turning to tools and their use (Fig. 6.37), one Core was found within the context (RM 32, drawn), it was thought to possibly be Palaeolithic but had probably been brought to the site at a later date as it had probably been re-used as a hammerstone. This core had had flakes removed from two or three different directions.

The numbers of deliberately backed artifacts within this trench increases with depth (ignoring Context 204), and there is a dominance of deliberate over natural backing.

194

with much cortex on blades and chunks. One of the regular secondary flakes (RM 3) was squarish through reknap and had a used cutting edge.

MAIN CATEGORIES, CONTEXT 300 Pebble 2% 4%

6%

There were 18 (34%) inner flakes, which is close to the site average. Two of these (both RM 5) had two or more apparent functions. One had been re-knapped to form various other points and the other had a retouched tip and a side point, as well as a shouldered point. Another regular inner flake from Context 300 (RM 4) had evidence of re-use. Initially it had been retouched as a scraper but had then been re-knapped longitudinally to form a borer point, later broken. One other inner flake (RM 12) had a used edge and a retouched notch.

Core Primary F

8%

2ndary F 16%

16%

Inner F Rejuv. F Chunks Complete B

10%

PBS

Breakage was only slightly above site average; although Rolling Wear rates were low.

DBS

4% 34%

MBS

The percentage of reworked material within this context, considering its close proximity to Trenches 1 and 2, is relatively low. This suggests that the spread of reworked material found in Trenches 1 and 2 covered a limited area.

Fig. 6.37 Tool and use categories, Context 300 Over 56% of the artifacts were Regular Flakes, which is close to the site average.

Slightly over 41% of the artifacts within this context were unworked, 25.5% had re-knap only and 23.5% had retouch only. There were a further five artifacts that displayed both techniques.

There were no Irregular Flakes recorded. There were three Chunks.

Nearly 52% of the artifacts had no obvious backing and there was a 50/50 division between the rest of the artifacts as to deliberate (23.1%) or natural backing (21.2%). There were two further artifacts that probably had both natural and deliberate backing.

Some 34% of the context assemblage consisted of Blades, which is also close to the site average. These included three Complete (5.7%) and two Almost Complete Blades; the latter both only had their distal ends missing. One of the almost complete blades (RM 9) had some edge and point wear.

Three of the artifacts (5.7%) had, or probably had, Borer Points, whereas seven artifacts (13.3%) had or probably had one or more features classified as being an Other Point.

Some 15% (8) of the artifacts were Proximal Blade Segments (site percentage average). Also there were two Distal Segments and three Mid-Blade Segments, this might be an indicator of agricultural, rather than intensive domestic activity. One of the proximal segments (RM 5) in Context 300 had been retouched to form more than one Shouldered Point. Another proximal segment (RM 3) had been re-knapped diagonally to form two worn Other Points, there was also other possible wear. One of the distal segments (RM 5) was slightly curved and rodlike with a small amount of retouch along the inner curve, which sounds as if it may have been Mesolithic. One of the medial blade segments (RM 2, obsidian) had received heavy use along one cutting edge; this encourages the idea that agricultural activity took place within this vicinity.

There was only one Single Edged Scraper and one probable Multiple Edged Scraper. One was of an Unspecified type and the other was a Proximal End Scraper. Within this context, there were five other possible scrapers. This is far lower than the site average. Three of the pieces had or probably had Notches on them, while another had more than a single notch. These three artifacts represent 7.6% of the context total (well above the site average of 4%). This is one of the few contexts containing artifacts with this feature One of the pieces had a Shoulder feature on it.

None of the material was classified as burnt unidentified. In summary, the lithics deposited in the upper ploughzone Context 300 constituted a large group, dominated by limnic quartzite but with a higher proportion of obsidian than usual. All of the three principal production stages were represented, including a Palaeolithic piece re-used as a core but no core rejuvenation flakes. Regular flakes, blades and proximal blade segments were all at the site

One of the artifacts was unclassified. Four (7.5%) of these artifacts were classified as being primary flakes and eight (15%) as secondary but there were none recorded as rejuvenation flakes. Overall, over 40% of the artifacts had, or probably had, cortex on them, 195

Over 56% of artifacts within this context have been unworked. Only 18.8% of the artifacts had re-knap only, with retouch being more common at 25%. There were no pieces with both techniques.

mean but there were no burnt pieces. This is a mixed group, judging by the ceramics which date form all periods of the site occupation. Context 301

Nearly 59% of the artifacts had no obvious backing, with 17.6% showing deliberate backing and 23.5% natural backing. There were no examples of both deliberate and natural backing.

This context only contained two regular limnic quartzite flakes, probably of local origin. One of these was an inner flake and the other was a rejuvenation flake. One of these artifacts had evidence of re-knap. Both were probably unbacked.

Only one of the pieces within this context had a Burinlike Point but three had Borer Points, which at 17.6% of the context total is significant. A further two artifacts were classified as having an Other Point.

Context 302 Although there are only 16 artifacts in this context, the raw material make up is interesting as nearly half are, or probably are limnic quartzite and 37% of the pieces are of obsidian.

One of the artifacts had a Notch and this is one of the few contexts containing artifacts with this feature. In summary, the lithics deposited in the small Context 302 – the lower plough-zone - comprised more limnic quartzite than obsidian but a higher proportion of the latter than usual. There was a patchy representation of the main production stages, no doubt owing to the group’s small size, but with a much higher proportion of blades and blade segments than the site mean.

Around 40 to 50% of the material appears to have come from Western Zemplén sources (Arka area), with two artifacts apparently coming from the Southern Zemplén. None of the artifacts were unclassified or recorded as being pebbles or cores.

Context 304

Over 29% of the artifacts were classified as being regular flakes, which is well below-average.

There was only one local (Arka) regular, retouched, secondary, limnic quartzite flake found in this context, which probably had natural backing. This piece was a single-edged “Thumbnail” Scraper.

There were no irregular flakes recorded. Two artifacts were recorded as Chunks.

Context 305

Nearly 59% of the assemblage consisted of Blades, which is well above site average. This included four Complete Blades, six Proximal Segments and one Medial Blade Segment. Two of the complete blades (both RM 2) had signs of minor edge use and both had received retouch, one to form a hook and burin-like point and the other to form a proximal notch. One of the proximal segments (RM 2) also had minor edge use and a knapped hooked point. This might indicate increased agricultural activity in the vicinity of this trench.

Of the 20 lithic artifacts in this context, nearly half were of limnic quartzite and 35% of the lithic material was of obsidian. There were also three objects made of Slovakian rock crystal. None of the artifacts was unclassified or recorded as being a pebble or a core. Over 76% of the artifacts were regular flakes, which is above site average but the context is relatively small.

None of the artifacts recovered were primary flakes but one was a secondary flake and another was a rejuvenation flake. Despite this, over 41% of the artifacts had, or probably had, cortex on them, with much cortex on blades and chunks.

There were no irregular flakes recorded. No Chunks were recorded.

Only three of the artifacts were recorded as inner flakes and one of these (RM 3), with some edge damage, had received squaring re-knap to form a borer.

There were only four Blades or Blade Segments recovered, although this percentage is not significantly lower than the site average. This demonstrates how slight variations within the smaller contexts can give apparently varied percentage results. There was one Complete Blade and one Almost Complete Blade with only the distal end missing. The latter piece (RM 3) had been re-knapped at each end to form borer points, with one of these tips showing signs of use. In addition, there were two Proximal Blade Segments.

The Breakage rate was very close to the site average and Rolling Wear was slightly lower than site average. There were only a limited number of reworked artifacts in this context.

196

One of the artifacts within this context had been retouch, as deliberate backing.

Only two of the artifacts were recorded as primary cortex flakes and only one as a secondary flake. There were no rejuvenation flakes.

One of the pieces had a Burin-like Point. Ten (58.8%) of the artifacts were described as inner flakes. One of these (RM 3) had been re-knapped to form two slight shouldered points and it also had a used borer point. Another inner flake (RM 20) had been heavily reknapped with a worn heavy piercer point, an Other point, a knife-edge and a shouldered point.

Summary, Trench 3 Trench 3 contained significant amounts of obsidian and Slovakian rock crystal. There were generally low numbers of artifacts with Patination, and occurrence decreased with depth, despite being on an exposed aspect.

Breakage rates within this context were very low; although Rolling Wear damage was slightly higher than site average.

The pattern of Breakage seen in Trenches 1 and 2 is reversed in this trench, with higher rates of breakage in the upper contexts, reflecting the greater amount of modern plough damage.

Reworked artifacts were absent from this context. 47% of the artifacts within this context were unworked. Over 29% had re-knap only and over 23% had retouch only. There were no examples with both techniques applied.

The percentage of Rolling Wear recorded increased with depth.

Similarly, 47% of the artifacts had no deliberate backing, with over 29% having deliberate backing and 23.5% having natural backing.

Reworking was generally lower or absent from contexts within this trench, as was backing.

Two of the artifacts had Borer Points and another had Multiple Borer Points; this is of some significance as it represents 17.7% of the context total.

Burin-like Points have been generally absent from this trench but there were a reasonable number of Borer Points, suggesting that the extension of an activity typical of Trench 1, while practices which involved the use of burin-like points did not.

One of the artifacts had a Notch and this is one of the few contexts containing artifacts with this feature.

The Scraper activities seen in Trenches 1 and 2 appear to have faded out at this point on the hilltop.

One of the pieces had a Shoulder feature that appears to be related.

6.9.4 Trench 4

In summary, the lithics deposited in Context 305 constituted a small group with more limnic quartzite than obsidian, though the proportion of obsidian was higher than the group mean. The group was dominated by regular flakes at much higher than site mean and with few indications of pre-core or pre-blank activity. Although cutting the ‘natural’, this Context contained mixed ceramics, from Neolithic to Post-Medieval, suggesting that the lithics could also have been derived from several episodes of deposition.

Context 401

Context 306

Context 403

This context contained an unusual mixture of raw materials but, as there were only 5 artifacts, no real statistical significance can be attached to this. Two artifacts were of obsidian and there was one rock crystal. One other derived from local (Arka) sources, with the fifth of non-specific Zemplén origin.

This context only contained a single local (Arka) limnic quartzite Proximal Blade Segment. This blade segment had been re-knapped probably as a Burin-like Point.

There were only two regular, inner, flakes in this context both were of local (Arka) limnic quartzite. One of these artifacts had evidence of both re-knap and retouch (as backing) while the other was unworked. One of the flakes had two heavily damaged edges, which had possibly been retouched, also had a damaged heavy other point and two cutting edges. The other piece was a single edged Distal End Scraper.

Summary, Trench 4 Very few lithic artifacts were recovered from the environmental trench - all of limnic quartzite.

Of the actual tools, three were regular flakes (two inner and one primary) and the other was an obsidian proximal blade segment.

All three artifacts were patinated and they had probably been washed down slope as colluvium. Breakage and Rolling Wear were not a factor in these contexts, 197

presumably because they are in the valley bottom and sealed by colluvium.

60% of the artifacts within this context were unworked. The other 40% displayed signs of retouch only.

6.9.5 Trench 5

Half of the artifacts had no deliberate backing, of the rest two had deliberate backing and three had natural backing.

Context 500 One of the pieces possibly had a Burin-like Point. One piece had a single edged Side/Edge Scraper.

There were only six artifacts in this context, half of which were limnic quartzite and the others were unidentified. The limnic quartzites appear to have come from local (Arka) sources.

None of the artifacts was unclassified or recorded as being pebbles or cores. In summary, the lithics deposited in the lower ploughzone Context 501 was a small group dominated by limnic quartzites and with a proportion of blades and blade segments much higher than site mean.

One of the artifacts was a tiny Core, with removal scars running in only one direction. Three of them were regular flakes, one was a secondary flake and one was a rejuvenation flake that had been a core tip with removal scars from two different directions. There was also one old patinated inner flake with dorsal removal scars.

Context 503 The only lithic material from this context was one Slovakian Rock Crystal.

There was one irregular flake recorded, with a rough ventral surface and a smooth angled dorsal.

Context 507

There was also one Proximal Blade Segment.

The only lithic material in this context was one unworked, unbacked, regular, inner, flake of local (Arka) limnic quartzite.

None of the artifacts within this context displayed any evidence of re-knap or retouch. Only one artifact probably had natural backing.

Context 521

Context 501

This context has a significant percentage of the total amount of lithic artifacts by weight (9%) but this is due to only one large, unworked, unbacked, regular, inner, limnic quartzite (RM 4) flake. This was of a raw material type possibly coming from anywhere in the Zemplén but it was most probably of local (Arka) origin. It had signs of use on at least three edges and probably one Cutting Edge; it can be described as a Big Chopper. There was some Rolling Wear on this artifact but no Breakage.

This context has a significant percentage of the total amount of artifacts by weight (8%), which is unusual, as there were only ten artifacts in this context, most of these appear to have been of local (Arka) origin Only three of the tools were regular (inner) flakes, representing 30% of the assemblage, which was well below the site average. One of these was possibly actually a rejuvenation flake and had some retouch and crushed ridges, so may have been an anvilstone.

Summary, Trench 5 Very few lithic artifacts were recovered and most were of limnic quartzite but there was a scatter of other raw materials, including one piece of obsidian and one Slovakian Rock Crystal.

Two of the artifacts were recorded as Chunks: one of these (RM 32) was a large quartzite Hammerstone, while another was a grindstone fragment.

Patination, in all contexts was high, even where there were only one or two artifacts.

Half of the context total consisted of Blades, which was well above the site average but the small sample has to be remembered. There was one Complete Blade, two Proximal Segments, one Distal Segment and a single Medial Blade Segment. The Complete Blade was broken during excavation and had knife-hafting retouch.

Breakage and Rolling Wear tend to be higher in the upper contexts, presumably due to ploughing action. Reworking was absent from all contexts within this trench and Backing was also mostly absent within this trench.

None of the artifacts were primary, secondary, or rejuvenation flakes. 40% of the artifacts were Broken and 30% of the artifacts had signs of Rolling Wear. Both of these rates are far higher than average. 198

Half of the artifacts had no obvious backing, four had deliberate backing and one had natural backing.

6.9.6 Trench 6 Context 601

One of the artifacts was classified under the Other Point category.

There were only three unworked artifacts in this context: one piece of limnic quartzite or hydroquartzite and two unidentified pieces.

One of the artifacts had a Notch and this is one of the very few contexts containing artifacts with this feature. One of the pieces had a Shoulder feature that appears to be related.

One of the artifacts was a small, old, heavily patinated Core, with removal scars in only one direction and another was an unused regular inner flake. The final piece was a chunky rejuvenation flake with removal scars in two directions. It was apparently of Southern Zemplén (Mád area) origin, with a single Scraper Edge of an unspecified type

Three of the pieces had Hinge fractures.

All three artifacts were probably unbacked.

In summary, the lithics deposited in the lower ploughzone Context 602 comprised a very small group, dominated by limnic quartzite and with a higher proportion of regular flakes than in the site mean.

Context 602

Context 603

There were only ten artifacts in this context: one piece of obsidian and nine pieces of limnic quartzite. All the limnic quartzite artifacts were of material types that could have come from almost anywhere in the Zemplén but were most likely to have a local western Zemplén (Arka area) origin.

Of the seven lithic artifacts in this context, six were of limnic quartzite, which appear to have come from general or western Zemplén sources but are most likely to have come from the Arka area. The other was probably of hydroquartzite and probably came from a Southern Zemplén (Mád) source.

Six of the artifacts were classified as regular flakes, approximating to the site mean.

Three of the artifacts were recorded as being regular flakes, one was a Chunk and the other three were Proximal Blade Segments.

There was also one chunky end of core rejuvenation flake and three Blade Segments recorded. Two of the latter were Proximal Segments, one of which had a small area of backing retouch along half of blade. The third piece was a Distal Segment (RM 3, drawn) that had been retouched as a side borer point prior to patination. After patination it had been reworked with retouch to form a slim borer point.

None of the artifacts were recorded as primary flakes but there was one secondary flake and two rejuvenation flakes. There were no inner flakes. 40% of the artifacts were Broken but there was no Rolling Wear damage. Two of the seven artifacts had evidence of re-knap.

None of the artifacts was recorded as primary flakes but three were secondary flakes and two were rejuvenation flakes. Overall, 40% of the artifacts had, or probably had, cortex. One of the regular secondary flakes (RM 4) had a used knife-edge with two areas of heavy backing retouch.

Most of the artifacts had no obvious backing but there was one each with probable deliberate backing, probable natural backing, and probably both natural and deliberate backing.

Only two of the artifacts were classified as inner flakes. One of these (RM 4) had some use wear, as well as dorsal retouch and other retouch forming a shouldered notch.

One of the artifacts was classified under the Other Point category. Context 604

Breakage was close to site average at 20% but Rolling Wear, also at 20%, was higher than site average.

Five of the eight lithic artifacts from this context were or probably were of limnic quartzite and three were unidentified. This context consisted of a significant percentage of the total amount of artifacts by weight (7%), presumably due to the size of the artifacts. Three of the artifacts appear to be of local Western Zemplén (Arka) origin and one was probably from a Southern Zemplén source.

Reworking was high within this context at 20% but this reflected only two artifacts. None of the artifacts were unclassified or recorded as being pebbles or cores. Only three of the artifacts within this context were unworked. Two had re-knap only but half of the lithics had retouch only. None had both techniques applied.

Three of the tools were classified as regular flakes, and four as Chunks, which is above-average but deriving 199

from a small sample. One artifact was recorded as a Proximal Blade Segment.

6.9.7 Trench 7 Context 701

None of the artifacts were recorded as primary flakes but one was a secondary flake and two were rejuvenation flakes. There were no inner flakes.

This context consisted of ten regular flakes, mostly made of limnic quartzite, with the other raw material types being of little importance or certainty. 70% of these artifacts were of raw materials that could have come from anywhere within the Zemplén or the western Zemplén but were probably of a local (Arka) origin, with another piece probably coming from the southern Zemplén (Mád).

Two of the artifacts was Broken, with Rolling Wear damage on one half. Two pieces had evidence of re-knap only and one had received retouch only.

There were two primary, two secondary and two rejuvenation flakes. Overall, 40% of the artifacts had, or probably had, cortex. Such a high proportion of production waste may suggest low levels of tool production in this area during this phase but the size of the sample diminishes its significance. There were four inner flakes.

Most of these artifacts had no obvious backing, of the others one had definite deliberate backing and two probably had natural backing. In summary, the lithics deposited in Context 604 comprised a very small group, mostly limnic quartzite and with more chunks than regular flakes and a sole proximal blade segment.

Breakage was low at 10%, and Rolling Wear was close to site average also at 10%.

Context 605

There was no reworked material in this context.

Both of the unworked lithic artifacts from this context could have come from anywhere in the Zemplén but probably came from a local (Arka) origin. Both were regular limnic quartzite flakes. Both were recorded as secondary flakes but this may have been due to cortex filled hollows. Both probably had natural backing.

60% of the artifacts had no signs of being worked. 30% had re-knap only and 10% had both re-knap and retouch. None had retouch only. Four of the artifacts probably had natural backing; none of the others had any deliberate backing.

Context 607 In summary, the lithics deposited in the upper ploughzone Context 701 comprised a very small group, dominated by limnic quartzites and with discard of early production stages (‘pre-core’ and ‘pre-blank’).

There were only five limnic quartzite artifacts in this context, most of which were or probably were of local (Arka) origin, although they were of types that could have come from anywhere in the Zemplén (particularly the West). One of the pieces may have come from a Southern Zemplén source.

Context 702 Of the nine lithic artifacts from this context, seven were of limnic quartzites of general or western Zemplén types, which were probably from local (Arka) sources, another was probably of Southern Zemplén hydroquartzite and there was one Slovakian Rock Crystal.

Four artifacts were regular flakes, while one was a Chunk. Three of the flakes were inner flakes and one was a rejuvenation flake.

Five of the tools were regular flakes, two were Chunks and one was an Almost Complete Blade with only its bottom third missing. This blade (RM 3) had a used Knife Edge and End Scraper retouch.

Breakage and Rolling Wear was rather high within this small sample. One artifact only had retouch on it and another had both retouch and re-knap. Only one artifact had deliberate backing.

There was one primary, two secondary and two rejuvenation flakes. Again, such a high proportion of production waste may suggest a low level of tool production in this area during this phase. The regular primary flake (RM 3) had a pointed Cutting Edge. There were no inner flakes.

One artifact had a Borer Point, which was the only example of this type of feature within the trench.

There was a little Breakage and Rolling Wear on the artifacts within this context.

200

Context 902

There was one artifact with re-knap only, one with retouch only and one displaying both techniques.

The only lithic artifact from this context was an unworked, regular rejuvenation flake probably of Southern Zemplén limnic quartzite or hydroquartzite (RM 13). This artifact had a little edge wear and a single edged Side/Edge Scraper, with probably natural backing. It had been struck from an unfaceted (flaked?) platform.

Three of the artifacts probably had natural backing the rest had no obvious backing. Two of the artifacts were classified under the Other Point category. Two of the artifacts had, or probably had Single Scraper Edges, one was of an unspecified type and the other was an unspecified End Scraper.

6.9.9 Trenches 10 - 16

In summary, the lithics deposited in Context 702 constituted a very small group, dominated by limnic quartzites and with discard of early production stages (‘pre-core’ and ‘pre-blank’). These finds can most probably be dated to the Late Bronze Age.

This context has a significant percentage of the total amount of artifacts by weight (5%) but this is due to only two large regular flakes of general or Western Zemplén limnic quartzite of probably local (Arka) origin.

Context 1001

One of the pieces was a regular secondary flake (RM 3), with an angled re-knap, a used cutting edge and heavy damage to one of the other edges. The other artifact was an unworked rejuvenation flake (RM5). Both probably had natural backing.

Context 703 Of the two lithic tools recovered from this context, one was a regular heavily patinated limnic quartzite secondary flake of a general Zemplén, probably local (Arka) origin, with squaring re-knap. The other was a Proximal Blade Segment of general Zemplén obsidian (RM 2), with minor edge damage and retouch to form a tiny piercer point.

Context 1102 Only one unworked piece of lithic material was recovered from this context, which was a regular inner flake of general Zemplén obsidian It probably had no backing.

Context 704 Context 1301 The only lithic artifact from this context was an unworked, regular, limnic quartzite, secondary flake probably of local western Zemplén (Arka). It probably had natural backing.

Only two unworked pieces of lithic material were recovered from this context, one of which was an unworked regular inner flake of probable local western Zemplén (Arka) limnic quartzite (RM5). The other was a Proximal Blade Segment of an unknown material type or origin (RM32).

Context 705 The only lithic artifact from this context was an unworked, regular rejuvenation flake probably of local Western Zemplén (Arka) limnic quartzite (RM 3). It had two levels of Patination and had received damage after the formation of the more recent patination. It had a heavy Borer Point and probably had natural backing.

Neither of these artifacts appear to have been backed. Context 1601 Of the eight lithic artifacts in this context, all are or probably are of limnic quartzite, except for one proximal blade segment of general Zemplén obsidian. Of the limnic quartzite tools, one is a Distal Blade Segment and the others are regular flakes. All of the artifacts are of the material that has a general or Western Zemplén origin but are probably, mostly, from local (Arka) sources.

Context 707 The only lithic artifact from this context was a retouched, regular rejuvenation flake probably of local Western Zemplén (Arka) limnic quartzite. It probably had natural backing.

There were no primary flakes but there were two secondary ones and two rejuvenation flakes. Such a high proportion of production waste might suggest a low level of on-site tool production. There were also two inner flakes, one of which (RM 16) had post-patination Scraper Edge retouch to two edges, as well as backing retouch and some edge crushing.

6.9.8 Trench 9 Context 901 The only lithic artifact from this context was a reknapped, regular inner flake of a general Zemplén, probably local (Arka) limnic quartzite. This artifact was probably deliberately backed.

Two of the artifacts were re-knapped only and three were retouched only. 201

Context 1603

Three of the artifacts probably had no obvious backing, two probably have deliberate backing, one definitely had deliberate backing, and the other two probably had natural backing.

Only one unworked, unbacked, regular, inner flake of local, Western Zemplén (Arka) limnic quartzite was recovered from this contextIt was classified under the Other Point category.

One of the artifacts was classified under the Other Point category.

Context 1604 Of the two Side/Edge Scrapers, one had a Single Scraper Edge and the other had Multiple Scraper Edges.

There were four lithics recovered from this context, three of these were of general Zemplén probably local (Arka) limnic quartzite and the other was of a limnic quartzite from a less certain source.

Context 1602 Of the ten artifacts in this context half are of unclassified raw materials of uncertain origins and the others are of general or Western Zemplén limnic quartzite but probably all of them are from local (Arka) sources.

One of the artifacts was classified as a Core (RM 5): it had removal scars in two different directions, and was probably also rejuvenating another core. There was also minor edge wear.

Half of the assemblage consists of regular flakes, of which two were secondary flakes, two were inner flakes and two were rejuvenation flakes. One of the regular inner flakes (RM 8) was bladelike and had a triangular section. It had been reworked to form a heavy borer point and also had two worn cutting edges.

There was also a regular secondary flake, a regular rejuvenation flake and a complete blade. The rejuvenation flake (RM 5) was a core tip with flake scars, indicating that they had been removed from only one direction, presumably prior to the creation of the new platform when this flake had been removed. It had been retouched to form a borer point, later worn, and had some minor edge wear.

There were also three Chunks, an Almost Complete Blade (RM4) with only its distal end missing and a Proximal Blade Segment (RM3).

Two of the other artifacts had received re-knapped only and one of the artifacts had been deliberately backed.

Overall, nearly 90% of the artifacts had or probably had cortex. This could represent a low level of local tool production, although it is more likely that this represents tool maintenance.

6.10 Phases (Figs. 6.38 – 39)

Breakage within this context was a little lower than average, although Rolling Wear was relatively high at 30%.

Phase 1 lithics are very scarce, amounting to three Western Zemplén limnic quartzites - one blade segment and two regular flakes.

70% of the lithic artifacts within this context were unworked. 20% had re-knap only and 10% had retouch only.

In Phase 2, the number of lithics deposited increases to 30, with a small dominance of Western Zemplén limnic quartzite over Slovakian raw materials (obsidian and rock crystal). There is a marked dominance of the late production stage (‘blanks and tools’) over the early stages of production, including blades, blade segments and several types of points. There may well be many Neolithic lithics in this Phase but with an currently unidentifiable Bronze Age admixture through stratigraphic disturbance.

Half of the artifacts had no obvious backing and of the rest 40% had natural backing and 10% had natural and deliberate backing. Three of the artifacts (30% of the context total) had borer points, which is a significant amount of the context total. One of the artifacts were classified under the Other Point category.

The total number of lithics in Phase 3 increases yet again, to 121. Western Zemplén limnic quartzites dominate strongly, with much less obsidian and one rock crystal piece. There is a relatively even distribution between the ‘pre-core’ stage, the ‘pre-blank’ stage and the ‘blanks and tools; production stage. Production is aimed mainly at regular blades and blade segments, and, to a lesser extent, regular flakes, with a wide range of retouched point types, scrapers and multi-functional tools made on both blades and flakes. The majority of this Phase most

In summary, the lithics deposited in Context 1602 comprised a very small group, dominated by limnic quartzites and with discard of early production stages (‘pre-core’ and ‘pre-blank’). This group can probably be dated to the Late Bronze Age.

202

probably dates to the Late Bronze Age, although very few lithics are associated with Hut 1.

summary of the lithic groups in these contexts since most contexts fall within the site’s heavily disturbed postMedieval plough-zone.

The vast majority of lithics were discovered in Phase 4 contexts but there is little chronological point in a RAW MATERIAL SOURCES, PHASE 3 LITHICS (n = 121)

RAW MATERIAL SOURCES, PHASE 2 LITHICS (n = 30) 7%

15%

15% 31%

2%

2%

23%

Obsidian Rock Crystal

3% 13%

Obsidian

7%

Rock Crystal

Western LQ

Western LQ

Southern LQ

Southern LQ

South or East LQ

South or East LQ Zemplen LQ

Zemplen LQ

23%

Unidentied

Unidentied

59%

Fig. 6.38 Number of raw materials by Phase: (a) Phase 2; (b) Phase 3 MORPHOLOGICAL CATEGORIES BY PHASE Chunks PDF SDF

PHASE 3 (n = 121)

Inner Flakes CRFs Cores Blades PHASE 2 (n = 30)

Blade Segments Burnt Unidentified 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fig. 6.39 Incidence of morphological categories by Phase One of the most important tasks of the lithic analysis of the Regéc-95 assemblage has been a differentiation between Neolithic and Bronze Age pieces, whether by raw material, technology or morphology. This goal has remained unfulfilled, for four reasons. The first is the poor stratigraphic resolution of on-site contexts – a problem inherent to the upland site. The vast majority of finds derived from mixed plough-zone deposits, with only a single undisturbed Context containing more than 10 lithics (Context 305: 17 pieces). The second reason concerns the common re-use of older material by later groups dwelling at Regéc. Thirdly, the long-lasting use of similar techno-typological features provides a problem even on sites with better post-depositional conditions of preservation (e.g., Korlát: Simán 1995).

6.11 Zones (Figs. 6.40 – 43) The preferential disposal of lithics in the Eastern zone is the primary spatial characteristic of the assemblage. Nine times more lithics were excavated in the Eastern zone (n = 750) than in the Western zone (n = 79). While it could be argued that once knapping became as social practice associated with the top of the hill and on the upper slopes, this became part of the spatial habitus, or accepted daily practice (Bourdieu 1977), of the successive communities living at Regéc. The continuation of the practice over time, despite long gaps between occupations (e.g., the three and a half millennia between the Middle Neolithic and the Late Bronze Age occupations), may be related to the availability of lithic raw materials resulting from earlier episodes of knapping or discard. However, later 203

similar proportions, with Zemplén obsidian more frequent in the Eastern zone and Other Zemplén limnic quartzites more common in the Western zone (Fig. 6.41).

long-term practices do not necessarily explain beginnings. The founder effect cannot be simply related to the distribution of Neolithic discard (Fig. 4.67), since there are Neolithic sherds in the Western zone. It is possible that the pleasures of sitting on a hilltop with good views over the basin and a cooling breeze in the summer heat may explain the preference over the lower, Western zone, with a narrower viewshed and fewer summer breezes.

There is a slightly higher proportion of production discard in the Western zone than in the Eastern in comparison with the zonal totals (80:20: Fig. 6.42), while there is an even higher proportion of blade and flake discard in the Eastern zone (90:10: Fig. 6.42). A more detailed examination of morphological categories (Fig. 6.43) shows similar proportions in each zone for primary decortification flakes, cores and all of the three blade segments. There were more chunks, inner flakes and blades discarded in the Eastern zone, while the converse is true for secondary decortification flakes and core rejuvenation flakes. In cutting across the three major production groupings, these differences do not appear to obey the logic or structure of the châine opératoire and may be considered as the result of long-term stochastic processes, with different knapping activities occurring on different seasonal visits.

Taking this massive discrepancy in the quantity of lithic discard into account, we may then consider the extent to which practices of raw material selection, knapping and use were different in the two zones. A comparison of the proportions of raw materials in both zones shows that the highest proportion of Raw Material types in the Western zone is ‘Other Zemplén’ sources, followed by Slovakian obsidian (Fig. 6.40). The lowest proportion in the Western zone is Zemplén obsidian. An examination of the lithic raw materials discarded in each zone shows that Slovakian obsidian and Arka limnic quartzite are used in

LITHIC RAW MATERIALS BY NUMBER AND ZONE

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

WEST SO

ZO

ARKA

OTHER Z UNKNOWN

TOTAL

Fig. 6.40 Distribution of Lithic Raw Materials by Zone LITHIC RAW MATERIALS BY NUMBER, EASTERN ZONE 2% 19%

13%

3% SO ZO ARKA OTHER Z UNKNOWN

63%

204

EAST

LITHIC RAW MATERIALS BY NUMBER, WESTERN ZONE 17%

2% 4%

7% SO ZO ARKA OTHER Z 70%

UNKNOWN

LITHIC RAW MATERIALS BY WEIGHT, EASTERN ZONE 17%

1% 4%

6% SO ZO ARKA OTHER Z 72%

UNKNOWN

LITHIC RAW MATERIALS BY WEIGHT, WESTERN ZONE 16%

16%

SO ZO ARKA 68%

OTHER Z UNKNOWN

Fig. 6.41 Proportions of Lithic Raw Materials within Zones: (a) Western zone by number; (b) Western zone by weight; (c) Eastern zone by number; (d) Eastern zone by weight

205

LITHIC GROUP CATEGORIES (NUMBERS) BY ZONE 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Production

Flakes

Blades

TOTAL

WEST EAST

Fig. 6.42 Production groupings by Zone

MORPHOLOGICAL CATEGORIES, EASTERN ZONE (n = 750) 2% 4%

2%

6%

16%

Core 12%

1st Flakes 2ndary Flakes Inner Flakes Rejuv. Flakes

10%

Chunks Blades PBS

7%

33% 8%

DBS MBS

206

MORPHOLOGICAL CATEGORIES, WESTERN ZONE (n = 79( 1% 3%

3% 4%

Core

14% 18%

1st Flakes 2ndary Flakes

3%

Inner Flakes Rejuv. Flakes

13%

Chunks Blades 22% 19%

PBS DBS MBS

Fig. 6.43 Morphological Categories by number: (a) Eastern zone; (b) Western zone

1997), with a lithic workshop near the mine (Migal 1997); and several Lausitz flint assemblages, including sickle inserts from the site of Szuminka 7 (Mazurek 1997), settlement groups (Kurgan-Przybylska 1997) and cemetery grave good assemblages (Piotrowska 1997; Mogielnicka-Urban 1997).

6.12 Comparisons with other sites and regions The complex issue of dating the constituent parts of the Regéc assemblage to either the Middle Neolithic or the Late Bronze Age means that typological and/or technological analogies from other sites could potentially be of some value in addressing this question. However, this comment raises an underlying question of the extent to which Bronze Age communities continued to utilise lithic raw materials on the scale, or intensity, of that found in the Neolithic and, to a lesser extent, in the Copper Age.

In the Lower Danube basin, Sirakov (1998) identified a small Late Bronze Age Coslogeni assemblage (n = 42 pieces) from a site near Tutrakan (Alexandrov et al. 1998), noting that although there was no superblade production, the basic technologies found in the Late Copper Age had continued into use in the Late Bronze Age with the use of similar raw materials. Equally, Sirakova (2001) studied a much larger lithic assemblage from the Osum valley, near Nikopol (n = >6,000 pieces), deposited in a layer dated by 14C to 2200 – 1500 BC – viz. Middle Bronze Age. More than 90% of the poieces represented knapping debris on local and meso-local lithic sources. As at Tutrakan, the focus of the industry at this workshop was on medium-length blades.

An awareness of the possible importance of flintknapping in the Bronze Age of Central and Eastern Europe has been a recent phenomenon. Sirakov (1998: 25) neatly summarises the problem of perception: “the widely spread and uncritically accepted concept of decay of the flint knapping during the Bronze Age“ – a concept that Sirakov predicts “will turn out to be wrong”.

It cannot be doubted that other Bronze Age sites with lithic assemblages will be identified in the future, both in Hungary and Romania, Serbia and Croatia and other countries in Central and Eastern Europe.

There is no country in which Sirakov’s prediction has turned out to be more justified than Hungary. Doctoral research on lithic assemblages from large-scale motorway rescue excavations are in progress and these results will surely confirm Sirakov’s prediction in detail. There is now good evidence of Bronze Age lithic utilisation from regions both North and South east of the Alföld Plain.

Once the possibility of Bronze Age lithics can be confidently asserted, the second issue is the extent to which typological and technological differences can be established between earlier and Bronze Age assemblages (e.g., Simán 1999). At this stage, we find ourselves unable to make progress with this question. The finer temporal discrimination of Neolithic, Copper Age and Bronze Age lithic technology and typology must remain as an issue for a future research agenda.

In Poland, a monograph on Bronze Age flint-working was published over ten years ago (Lech & Piotrowska 1997). This volume includes details of the Middle and Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age flint mine at Wierzbica – Zele (Lech & Lech 1997); a Late Bronze Age flint mine at Rybniki, near Białystok (Sałaciński 207

more than a few hundred grams, was collected for each summer visit. The formation processes of such an assemblage mean that, while we can infer general conclusions from the total number of tools left at the end of the occupations, the annual contribution of lithic discard to the total may well have been relatively limited. The alternative is that annual lithic discard was greater, but with fewer summer visits. The analysis of raw materials with morphological categories and use attributes shows a generalised pattern of exploitation – the larger the sample of raw material types, the larger the number of categories.

6.13 Discussion and conclusions It is beginning to be clear that the discard at Regéc was the outcome of many seasonal visits to the site, over periods spanning perhaps as little as years, or decades, or perhaps as long as hundreds of years, and in two major periods – the Middle Neolithic and the Late Bronze Age. We are unable to discern the intensity of lithic production at Regéc because of the high proportion of material recovered from plough-zone or plough-disturbed contexts (over 80%). It is possible that lithic use was often rather restrained, given the small quantities of lithic discard (viz., fewer than 10 pieces) in all of the undisturbed contexts except one, including the Late Bronze Age Hut 1. In addition, the re-use of lithics discarded in the Neolithic by Late Bronze Age site dwellers makes the estimation of the intensity of lithic utilisation in the Neolithic problematic. It is improbable, for example, that only three lithic pieces were used in Phase 1 of the site occupation. The steady increase in lithic discard from Phase 1 to Phase 3 suggests a trend in the growing importance of lithics, with its increasing emphasis on Western Zemplén limnic quartzites. The other change from Phase 2 to 3 lies in a broadening of production from late-stage discard to include equal representations of the main discard stages – production, flakes and blades. The goal of lithic practices at Regéc was the production of blades, blade segments (especially proximal blade segments) and regular flakes. The resultant assemblage is not readily categorised in terms of classic types (cf. the Upper Palaeolithic type-list of Denise de SonnevilleBordes (1960)). Instead, the pieces have a series of attributes, such as retouched edges, re-knapped edges, scraper edges, cutting edges, six forms of points, notches and anvils. These attributes occurred singly or, more frequently, in combination with other attributes. It is the multi-functional nature of the Regéc assemblage that is striking. The question of whether multi-functional attributes were made at the same time on a piece or in a succession of uses has been investigated through the analysis of patination. On the basis that over half of the patinated pieces have traces of re-working, it would seem that there as been considerable re-use of tools in later ‘episodes’. It seems more likely that the pieces were left, as curated pieces and possibly for a long time, at Regéc for future summer visits. There is also the probability that lithics discarded during the Palaeolithic occupation were re-used in later prehistory and re-discarded at Regéc.

These comparisons show that the net result of such visits was a pattern of spatial discard in which there was a major difference in the quantities of lithic production and use between the Eastern and Western zones, as well as a series of minor variations between the two zones. These variations concerned the selection of raw material (e.g., more Zemplén obsidian in the Eastern zone, more Other Zemplén limnic quartzite in the Western zone), in the significance of ‘pre-core production’ (proportionately greater than for flake and blade discard in the Western zone) and in some of the morphological categories. The great quantitative difference between the two zones outweighs the minor variations between the two zones in terms of what was happening at the site over the long term. These repeated social practices of collecting, knapping and using lithics much more on the hilltop and the upper hill slopes than on the lower slopes near the stream became part of the habitus for successive residents – practices reinforced by the more ready availability of ‘old’ lithics on the hilltop. These continued, spatially directed practices emerged as a form of the creation and maintenance of social memory at the Regéc-95 site, which had wider cultural implications than simply for the knapping of limnic quartzite and obsidian.

In addition to the collection of lithics from the Regéc Basin, the summer occupants of the site collected lithics from many other places, with the possible exchange of a few objects from the Mátra Mountains and South East Slovakia. It seems most probable that, on their way to the Regéc Basin during the late spring, the mobile groups would have collected Carpathian 1 obsidian from the Erdőbénye area, as well as limnic quartzites from the Western Zemplén, in particular the Arka sources. The quantities of raw materials collected cannot be demonstrated but, on a minimal effort principle, it seems probable that a small quantity of material – perhaps no 208

Chapter Seven – The single finds stone remains to be exhaustively defined but petrological thin-sectioning by Dr. K. Biró and Dr. B. Péterdi (Budapest), as well as visual identifications by the lithics team, indicate the presence of the following rock types (Table 7.1):-

7.1 The Ground Stone assemblage All of the single finds from Regéc-95 but one (a ceramic disc) fall into a single technological type – the ground stone artifact. The range of raw materials for ground SF NO. M76 M78 P13 P9 P10 P36

Table 7.1

CONTEXT 102 202 103 203/1 203/2 604/1

MODE OF IDENTIFICATION Petrological thin-sectioning Petrological thin-sectioning Visual Visual Visual Visual

RAW MATERIAL TYPE Pyroxene - andesite Pyroxene - andesite Sandstone Granite Granite Granite

Raw materials for ground stone implements, Regéc-95

In the absence of any complete tools, a total of 19 ground stone fragments has been identified. Only two of these have sufficient surface area preserved to make even a tentative identification as to type. DT/R4 (Context 604) has a curved face that is compatible with a fragmentary pestle or rubber. DT/P13 (Context 103) is most likely to be a handle for a pestle. By comparison, two tool fragments from the Regéc Basin can probably be W Mm 70

identified to form –a fragment of a basalt ground stone axe from Regéc 003/Quad 1 and an almost complete andesite saddle quern from Regéc 002/Grab 2. The remaining 17 pieces may be classified as miscellaneous ground stone fragments, as follows (Table 7.2):-

Context

Ref. No

102

DT/M76

L mm 140

Th. mm 40

Wt. (g.) 750

Wear/ Damage Level 0

103

DT/M69

160

15

450

Level 0

103

DT/P13

83

45

2

104

DT/M71

35

30

15-30

104

DT/M72

70

55

30-50

104

DT/M70

85

75

30

400

201

DT/M45

65

50

25

150

202

DT/M77

140

175

35

1,600

Level 2

202

DT/M78

100

120

80

3,550

Level 0

202

DT/M79

75

105

950

Level 0

202

DT/M80

80

750

Level 0

25

Level 2 200

Level 0 Level 0 Level 0

209

Description Middle grindstone fragment, with both faces flat and worn (especially the lower face); possible signs of axe grinding and polishing from shallow grooves on upper face. Shallow middle grindstone fragment with chipped and fragmented lower face and smooth, worn upper face Triangular pestle handle (??), with lower flat surface and upper surface with a triangular depression. Very small grindstone fragment with two angled faces. Very chipped and fragmented grindstone fragment, with two faces or edges (too damaged to tell). End fragment of grindstone, with very flat upper face and badly chipped elsewhere. Small middle fragment of grindstone, with plough damage , otherwise badly chipped and fractured all over. Shallow middle grindstone fragment, with both faces smooth and worn; possible signs of axe grinding and polishing from shallow grooves on upper face. End fragment of grindstone, with extensive plough and other damage; lower face with iron staining, calcareous staining elsewhere. Middle fragment of grindstone, with convex upper face. Middle fragment of shallow grindstone, with

203/1

DT/M9

55

48

203/2

DT/M10

150

50

603

DT/M5

70

90

604

DT/M37

110

60

604

DT/R4

60

44

703

DT/M82

30

20

22

50

Level 0

704

DT/M40

75

85

55

1,000

Level 0

1102

DT/M81

100

75

20

350

Level 0

Table 7.2

35

75

250

Level 0

650

Level 1

1,500

Level 1

1,000

Level 1 Level 2

extensive chipping and fracturing. Small middle grindstone fragment, very worn and with chipped edges Shallow grindstone fragment with flat faces, the lower face angled and less worn, and chipped side edges. Heavy middle fragment of pestle, with heavily worn outer edge and others edges chipped; flat upper face and worn underside End fragment of grindstone, with flat upper and lower faces both smooth and very worn. Pestle/rubber? One face is curved, the other flat and with more use-wear Small, heavily worn and highly weathered grindstone fragment. Large end grindstone fragment, with very worn upper and lower faces, which have calcium deposition End fragment of very weathered grindstone, with two smooth and worn faces (especially the lower face).

Miscellaneous ground stone fragments, Regéc-95

There is a clear patterning in the chronological distribution of the ground stone fragments – with a preponderance in Phase 3 (12 examples), fewer in the Phase 4 plough soil (6 examples), only one example from a Phase 2 context and none at all from Phase 1 contexts. The sole Phase 2 example was placed in the stone scatter 704, which also contained Bronze Age pottery and a few lithic pieces. Eight of the Phase 3 fragments derive from fill deposits – two with Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery (603 and 604), the remainder with pottery ranging from Neolithic to Post-medieval (103 and 203). Four fragments were deposited in stone features – three in the stone concentration 104 – possibly a hearth - in which there was no pottery but charred seeds and the remains of a fragment of cereal cake (see below, Ch. 8), and one in the stone alignment 703, which contains a mixture of Bronze Age and Medieval pottery. There are no grindstone fragments associated with the Late Bronze Age Hut 1. Of the ground stone fragments in the plough soil, all were “associated” with pottery of a variety of dates (usually Neolithic – Post-medieval).

7.2 Conclusions With the exception of a Late Bronze Age ceramic counter (Fig. 5.31/12), the ground stone fragments described above constitute the only single finds made at the Regéc95 excavation. The incomplete state of all the pieces, as well as the worn and chipped condition of the vast majority, indicates the depositional environment was on a succession of Neolithic and Late Bronze Age living surfaces, on which they were exposed to erosion and reuse from the Bronze Age onwards and plough damage from Medieval times onwards. There were more middle than end fragments of grindstones, with several too worn for identification. The assumption is made here that these heavy stones were brought to Regéc-95 from somewhere in the Zemplén Mountains for a clearly defined purpose but that purpose is unclear. There are two grindstones with traces of grooving characteristic of axe grinding or polishing. Otherwise, the local cultivation of cereals would require grinding facilities for further processing but it is equally likely that these grindstones would have been used to process pigments or salt.

Thus, ground stone deposition shows no specific pattern, with discard of stones of equally varied sizes and weights in stone features, in fill contexts or in the plough soil. There is a reasonably strong link between ground stone and Bronze Age pottery, in one Phase 2 context and in several Phase 3 contexts. The link between ground stone fragments and the discard of plant remains is weak, with the exception of the possible hearth context 104, where a large fragment, weighing cca. 1kg, was found near the three charred seeds and the piece of “kasha”. Otherwise, no clear functional links may be readily demonstrated between ground stone items and other material culture.

210

Chapter Eight – The plant remains site environment. This hypothesis is supported by the identification of several New World species (e.g., common amaranth, Amaranthus retroflexus). Such remains have not been taken into consideration during the identification stage of the research. However, carbonized seeds and fruits are undoubtedly coeval with the site occupations. Most of these remains derive from cereals or their associated weed fauna. Their burnt surfaces are matte but partly shiny and sometimes spongy, as a result of corrosion. The majority of the remains are fragmented. It is likely that a major amount of grain was destroyed and the left-overs were deposited in the pits. During the course of burning, the grain-rich upper strata of the pits was completely oxidized, while grain deposited in the deeper layers was carbonized slowly, in an indirect reducing atmosphere, until it reached the state of charcoal.

8.1 Introduction (JC) The following reports on the charred botanical remains are based on froth flotation of standard 10-litre samples excavated by hand from a variety of contexts at Regéc95. A total of 42 samples was given to Dr. Ferenc Gyulai for identification of charred seeds and fruits, as well as to Dr. Edina Rudner for charcoal analysis.

8.2 The macrobotanical remains (FG, translated by Alice Choyke) The seeds and fruits found in these samples were separated from the rest of the residue and sorted using a stereo binocular microscope. Depending upon their state of preservation, these seeds and other plant parts were identified to different taxonomic levels. During the course of the identification, each piece of archaeobotanical material was compared to a reference collection of modern seeds and fruits.

Charred plant remains were recovered, mostly by flotation, from a total of 10 contexts, the richest context being Context 501 (Table 8.1). Cereals were represented by chaff from six-row barley (Hordeum vulgare subsp. hexastichum), chaffless emmer wheat (Triticum turgidum subsp. dicoccum) and equally chaff-less polished millet (Panicum miliaceum). Millet is characterized by a short reproduction cycle, it needs little attention and can even be sown twice per annum. Fragments of many cereal grains (Cerealia spp.) were also found but the heavy fragmentation made it impossible to identify them to species. Of the identifiable weeds, Galium spurium (green goosegrass) must have been a weed (Secalieta sp.) of autumn-sown cereals, such as 6-row barley or emmer.

A total of 53 species was determined from the 42 samples, deriving from 874 seeds and fruits, two pieces of cereal meal (“kasha”) and one fragment of unidentifiable food remains. The majority of plant materials recovered from the flotation samples were noncarbonized remains of seeds and fruits. Since contexts at this site have not been continuously covered by water since prehistoric times, these finds are thought to be the remains of modern or recent plants that reflect the recent Context

104

105

106

107

108

501

504

602

702

704

Cerealia spp.

x

x

2

x

x

12

x

3

x

x

Tr. dicoccum

2

x

1

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

H. vulgare hexastichum

x

x

x

x

x

4

1

x

x

1

H. vulgare

1

x

x

2

x

x

x

x

x

x

P. miliaceum

x

x

x

1

1

x

x

x

1

x

Galium spurium

x

x

x

1

x

x

1

x

x

x

“Kasha”

2

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Food remains

x

1

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Associated pottery

x

BA

BA

x

BA

N-PM

N-PM

BA

N/BA N-PM

Table 8.1 Carbonised plant remains at Regéc-95 by context (no. of fragments). Key:- N – Neolithic; BA – Bronze Age; N-PM – Neolithic to Post-medieval

211

The phasing of these samples indicates that charred remains are probably found in each Phase:- four contexts of either Phase 1 or 2 (105 – 108), four Phase 3 contexts (104, 504, 702 and 704) and two Phase 4 (plough-soil) contexts (501 and 602). The pottery associated with the Phase 1 / 2 species is Bronze Age at the latest, with one Neolithic/Bronze Age mixed context (108); two Phase 3 contexts have only Bronze Age pottery (504 and 704), while the third has a mixture from Neolithic to Postmedieval. Thus, it is realistic to date the majority of the charred plant remains to the Bronze Age, including examples of all three cereals – emmer, 6-row barley and millet, as well as the crop weed green goosegrass and the unidentified food remains. It is tempting to date the fragment of “kasha” to the Bronze Age as well, on stratigraphic grounds, despite the absence of associated pottery in context 104.

crystallized on its surface under the influence of heat. This fragment must be the remains of a single piece of meal. All three fragments can be dated to the Bronze Age.

8.3 The charcoal remains (ER) Charcoal remains could be identified in the following four out of the 42 samples, the remainder containing small charred seeds:Context 108: Phase 1 or 2, Eastern Zone, probable treehole. Single fragment of Quercus robur/petraea, possibly from a fallen tree (?). Context 203 (2 samples): Phase 3, Eastern Zone, fill Many unidentifiable small fragments of charcoal with one larger piece; unidentifiable because either not charred or very charred.

The type of context in which the charred remains were found is varied, with two stone concentrations (104 and 704), three cut features (one pit (105), two depressions (106, 108)) and three fills (107, 504 and 702), as well as the two plough-soil contexts. The charred remains in Context 104 would support the excavator’s interpretation of the stone feature as a disturbed hearth. The single barley seed found in the stone scatter 704 was probably trapped there by accident. The same may well have been true of the two cereal fragments and one emmer fragment in Context 106, which is possibly a rodent burrow, and the single millet seed found in Context 108, most probably a tree-hole. The fragment of unidentified food remains may well have been placed deliberately in pit 105. It is surprising that any charred remains survived in the fill and ploughsoil contexts.

Context 204: Phase 2 or 3, Eastern Zone, fill. Single fragment of Quercus robur/petraea. The only species to be identified in the Regéc-95 samples is Quercus robur / petraea. Two of the contexts where charred wood is found are fill contexts, probably dated to the Bronze Age, while the third context (108) is likely to represent a tree-throw hole. Perhaps the charred wood identifies the fallen tree species!

8.4 Conclusions (JC)

The presence of the aforementioned cereal species at Regéc-95 does not permit far-reaching conclusions concerning the agricultural knowledge and skills of their prehistoric inhabitants. It is a fact, however, that both sixrow barley and emmer wheat are very characteristic of crop cultivation in the Bronze Age. Both species require constant care and attention, i.e., they are indicators of a sedentary way of life. Millet was rare in the Neolithic period in Central Europe but became much more common in the Bronze Age (Gyulai 2001). It is my view that the charred plant materials analysed here contains members of an “autochthonous palaeo-biocoenosis” – i.e., the remains of locally grown cereals and their associated weeds.

The results of the analysis of the flotation samples from Regéc-95 indicate four main conclusions: (1) there is evidence from cereal weeds for the local cultivation of two autumn-sown cereals – emmer and six-row barley – as well as the cultivation of millet. All three species are commonly found in the Bronze Age of Central Europe (Gyulai 2001). (2) the care and attention necessary for the cultivation of the emmer wheat and the six-row barley indicates seasonal occupation for autumn sowing in at least Phases 1 / 2 and 3, when the weeds of cultivation and grains were deposited. (3) there are two examples of cooked barley meal, known as “kasha”, as well as one other example of unidentified food remains – all from Bronze Age contexts. (4) Sporadic use of the local oak timber is attested for firewood, although it is possible that one oak charcoal sample derived from a tree-fall.

Finally, an unparalleled find must be mentioned which offers important evidence concerning the use of cultivated cereals. Macroscopic studies have shown that the two carbonized fragments of food, with a grain size similar to that of barley, from Context 104, originates from cooked “kasha”. This spongy, charcoal-like substance broke off from a larger piece of organic material; its fracture surface exhibits holes and cracks. . The coarse, porous structure closely resembles that of cooked “kasha”. Another piece of carbonized substance, of similar size, was found in Context 105. The surface of this fragment is shiny due to the fatty acids that 212

Chapter Nine – Absolute dating John Chapman & Sarah Krywicky 9.1

of 90-150~m quartz inclusions. This feasibility study indicates that these samples are not suitable for thermoluminescence dating, due to an unacceptable level of aliquot–to-aliquot scatter in the measurements. Optical dating, however, show some potential and provisional dates have been evaluated for three of the samples tested (Table 9.1). Recent work on optical dating undertaken in this laboratory has refined the optical dating procedures and the use of these procedures would be expected to significantly improve the precision of the ages. Further work on these samples using the new procedures would require preparation of more quartz inclusions from additional pottery sherds (Murray & Roberts 1988).

Introduction

In the absence of organic remains suitable for 14-C dating, the alternative approach of luminescence dating was attempted, using pottery from a single excavation context.

9.2

Luminescence dating

Four pottery sherds from context 602 were selected for testing. The yield of suitable minerals from the pottery was poor, with typically 200mg of pottery required to give 1mg Age (years) Lab. Ref. Age (years) Dur98OSL.qi 222-5 -7 -10

4020 ± 680 ± 120 2100 ± 420 ± 440 5740 ± 1240 ± 1280

Lab. Ref.

Palaeodose (Gy)

Dur98OSL qi 222-5 -7 -10

Table 9.1

12.09±2.01 6.33 ± 1.27 16.90±3.58

4020 ±680 120 ±120 2100 ±420 ±440 5740 ± 1240 ± 1280

Dose rate (mGy/a)

3.oo±0.10 3.01 ±0.10 2.94±O.10

Luminescence Date1 2020BC ±680 ± 120 100BC ±420 ± 440 3740 BC ± 1240 ± 1280

Water Water Dose rate components (%) Uptake of content pottery of soil (%) (%)

β

57 57 56

y

38 38 39

cos.

5 5 5

17 16 17

10 10 10

Results of luminescent dating, Regéc-95

1

The luminescence age is determined from the Age Equation: Luminescence Age (years) = Palaeodose (Gy) Dose rate (Gy/year) 9.2.1 Technical details of sample preparation 90-150 μm quartz inclusions were extracted from the pottery using standard techniques (Aitken 1985). The inclusions were further purified by density separation using solutions of sodium polytungstate of density 2.62 gcm-3 and 2.67 gcm-3. The yields, as indicated in Table 9.2, were low.

The luminescence age and date is given with associated errors at the 68% level of confidence. The first error term is the random error and should be used when comparing individual luminescence dates; the second error is the overall error which should be used when comparing luminescence dates with independent dating evidence. Sample Ref

Weight of crushed pottery (g)

222-3 222-5 222-7 222-10

5.38 9.08 7.75 6.64

Weight of 90–150 μm Weight of pottery quartz inclusions required to yield 1 (mg) mg 90-l50 μm quartz inclusions (mg) 25 220 42 220 42 180 14 470

Table 9.2 Sample yields

213

Yield of 90-l50 μm quartz inclusions 0.46 0.46 0.54 0.21

1 1

1 ±

9.2.2 Palaeodose

9.2.3 Dose rate

Measurements were made in a Risø TL/OSL-DA-12 automated reader. Laboratory beta doses were administered by a calibrated 90Sr/90Y beta source mounted on the reader and green (420 - 530 nm) optical stimulation provided by a filtered halogen lamp. The optically stimulated luminescence was detected by an EMI photomultiplier with two Hoya U340 filters, which isolate the blue/uv luminescence from the stimulating green light A Kopp 5-60 filter was used for thermally stimulated luminescence measurements.

Laboratory measurements using beta TL dosimetry (Bailiff 1982) and thick source alpha counting were used to calculate the dose rate from both the pottery sample and the burial medium. No radon loss was detected using thick source alpha counting of sealed and unsealed samples of the pottery and secular equilibrium has been assumed. The gamma dose rate used in the age determination was calculated from laboratory measurements.

Thermoluminescence measurements normalised by aliquot weight showed an unacceptable degree of scatter in the data and it was not possible to evaluate a palaeodose for any of the four samples.

9.3

Summary

These early tests using luminescence dating techniques were disappointing, insofar as no usable archaeological dates were obtained. More recent developments of optically-stimulated luminescent dating have provided more reliable dates from a range of samples (BøtterJensen et al. 2003).

Tests were made using optically stimulated luminescence utilising a multiple aliquot additive procedure analogous to that described by Aitken (1985) for thermoluminescence. Each aliquot was normalised by exposure to ls stimulating light before any additive doses were administered. Following irradiation, aliquots of 2225 and 222-10 were preheated to 180°C while aliquots of 222-7 were preheated to 240°C.

214

Chapter 10 – Interpretation and summary 10.1

geyserite, near Mogyoróska – a lithic raw material not very often utilized in Zemplén prehistory.

The regional context

The site of Regéc-95 was one of a number of surface scatters discovered in the Regéc Basin in the Upper Tisza Project’s 1993 survey season in the Zemplén Mountains of North East Hungary. The primary reason for its selection as a target for excavation in 1995 was the discard there of pottery dating to all of the three periods believed to be the post-Palaeolithic foci of upland settlement, as well as a high density of surface lithics and Modern pottery. In addition, there was a distinct clustering of single finds of various kinds near the group of four prehistoric scatters located on what the Regéc villagers termed their ‘nyugati kertalja’ (or Western gardens). In contrast to many of the surface scatters found during the Zemplén survey, two-thirds of which were represented by one phase of pottery discard, Regéc-95 (or Regéc 006 in 1993 terminology) was perhaps a ‘place’ with a long history of dwelling, even if the dwelling episodes were separated by millennial-long gaps. The rationale underlying those dwelling phases, and the absences at other periods, will be an important goal of our enquiry.

There were potentially many specific locales where prehistoric and later occupants may have chosen to dwell but the fact that the Regéc-95 site was the only locale with three phases of discard made it in some way special. We can identify four features which attracted settlers – two general and two specific. Many locales in the Regéc Basin shared access to widespread South- and Westfacing slopes and the well-drained brown earths of the Basin. There are also several places with a similar topographic profile – a low hill with gentle slopes on two sides. There were, however, two features which distinguished the Eastern side of the Basin. The stream that runs through the modern village of Regéc – Regéci patak - is the largest in the Basin and maintains summer flow better than other streams, even if at a much reduced rate. The site lies only 150m from this stream. The second feature is largely concealed by the Medieval castle of Regéc, which was built on an imposing dolerite outcrop. This outcrop would have been visible best from the Eastern part of the Basin and would have acted as a marker in relation to which settlement could have been planned. Bradley (2000) has demonstrated the importance of striking natural features, such as rock outcrops, springs and waterfalls, in influencing site location. The dolerite outcrop, later to be exploited as the platform on which to build the Medieval castle, would have attracted settlers to the Eastern part of the Basin as much as did the stream.

The Regéc Basin was an area with several distinct advantages over other parts of the Central Zemplén massif. It was a sheltered basin, rich in springs that provided good drinking water. Entrances into the basin were easily controllable at three points, each with a col and some at commanding heights (e.g., the Eastern col, at 425 masl). The soils of the Basin were predominantly well-drained and deep brown earths, whose acidity stemmed from their origin as weathering products of the underlying andesites. Even more importantly, the Basin had large areas of relatively flat soil, which was for the most part South- or West-facing. Those areas of alluvial soils which were potentially of high fertility were restricted to narrow zones in direct association with the streams of the Basin, thus being suitable only for narrow gardens. Shiel has argued that the land use potential of the Regéc Basin were second only to the lower slopes of the Southern Zemplén. Their advantages were principally for arable cultivation, which was hindered in two respects – the short growing season, from early May to the end of September and the increased frost risk in such basins. The second factor also militated against fruit trees and nut trees. With forest clearance, there was excellent potential for spring, summer and autumn pasture over the whole zone. Another key resource for settlers in upland basins was wild mammals. The hunting of red deer, roe deer and wild boar provided dietary diversity as well as the opportunity to develop a hunting ideology of brave men (usually men!) conquering mighty beasts in practices altogether more heroic than picking hazel nuts. A constant risk to all of these practices was the high risk of snow fall in the winter, which probably limited all-yearround occupation until after the prehistoric period. The only lithic resource in the Basin was a source of

One of the aims of the Upper Tisza Project was the definition of key changes in the palaeo-environment and the impact of these changes on human dwelling. Unfortunately, we have made little headway with this aim in either the Zemplén survey season (1993) or in the Regéc-95 excavation season (1995). The Project has been unable to locate sediments which preserved pollen for vegetational history and human impact studies, while obstacles in dating local valley sequences have made it hard to interpret them in terms of long-term environmental change. If what is observable today is assumed to represent those resources available to past populations, how was the Basin settled over the seven millennia since the earliest ceramic deposition?

10.2

The dwelling sequence

The interpretation of the stratigraphy at Regéc-95 sought to combine insights from the ‘natural’ soil sequence with those from archaeological features. The result is the definition of four Phases of dwelling. The first occupation Phase correlated with the lowest soil unit – a black, organic soil. Very few features occurred in Phase 1, consisting of shallow fill deposits, a pit and a possible gully, as well as a probable tree-throw hole. Their associated datable finds were also few in number, with 215

counted in decades, if not centuries. The implication of a regular seasonal movement up into the hills for occupations lasting a maximum of a few months meant a regular social practice defining the annual character of the social groups.

either mixed groups of Neolithic and Bronze Age pottery or solely Bronze Age sherds. In the absence of a single Context with solely Neolithic pottery, it appears improbable that Neolithic dwelling at Regéc was intensive and long-lived. The arrivals at, and departures from, the site would, in all probability, have been marked by deposits emphasizing these rites de passage - finds placed on the ground surface or in ephemeral, shallow pits and gullies. The total period of time over which visits were made to the site was not, however, necessarily short, given the deposition of pottery of the Early-Middle Neolithic phase as well as that of the main Middle Neolithic period. Perhaps a series of short seasonal visits over a century or two may have led to the site deposition in the Neolithic period.

A further 1,500 – 2,000 years passed before Early Medieval dwelling at the site. This is an important finding, since no Early Medieval pottery was found during the fieldwalking season in the Zemplén Mountains. As with the renewed LBA visits, the “new” occupants would have encountered a re-afforested landscape, as well as a second phase of brown earth formation. Their dwelling practices may well have disturbed the prehistoric features and surfaces. The Early Medieval pottery assemblage was concentrated in space and time. Finds have been made throughout the Western zone but over only part of the Eastern zone. The pottery was predominantly found within the middle soil unit, with not so much mixing with pottery of other periods as was found with the prehistoric finds. No stone-built features have been associated with Early Medieval pottery, even in mixed assemblages. In comparison with the Late Bronze Age occupation, it seems probable that the Early Medieval dwelling was more ephemeral, more episodic and perhaps represented a trial occupation in an area that had considerable strategic potential. The size and erosion patterns of the pottery assemblage are not consistent with a manuring scatter.

The gap between the Neolithic deposits and the Late Bronze Age occupation amounted to over three millennia. During this period, weathering of the local andesitic rock would have led to the development of a brownearth over the Neolithic black soil – a development helped by the assumed forest regeneration in the Regéc Basin, which would have largely protected the Neolithic land surface from erosion. The arrival of “new” settlers in the Late Bronze Age would have led to local removal of the forest cover, immediately causing some soil erosion and other disturbance of the Neolithic deposits. There is a 90% overlap in the areas of the site with contexts containing both “solely Bronze Age” and “mixed Neolithic + Bronze Age” pottery. This suggests that the construction of LBA stone features and the discard of LBA pottery on the current land surface would have readily led to mixing of Neolithic and LBA pottery. It may even have been the case that LBA dwelling practices led to the movement of most of the Neolithic pottery into secondary locations. Moreover, the limited distribution of Early Medieval finds meant that most of the area with Neolithic and Bronze Age finds would have been directly affected by Medieval ploughing. There are thus several factors – environmental, cultural and post-depositional – that could explain the widespread mixing of Neolithic and Late Bronze Age in pre-modern plough-zone contexts.

On current evidence, it is impossible to assess the length of time between the deposition of the Early Medieval sherds at Regéc and the Medieval foundation of the castle, associated monasteries and nearby village with its arable fields. The maximum time may be no more than three centuries but this may be as little as a hundred years, making it hard to quantify the extent of post-Early Medieval re-afforestation. But there can be little doubt that the formation of the Medieval village of Regéc led to the long-term cultivation of the Eastern and Western fields, at some point consolidated into strip-fields. There are no archaeological features which are associated with solely Medieval or Post-Medieval pottery in Phase 4. The best explanation of the erosional data and the sherd size patterning in both periods is that these sherds were discarded as a by-product of infield manuring from the village. The Post-Medieval sherd scatter was the most widespread of all periods represented on site, indicating that ploughing was equally extensive and covered a far wider area than the excavation site. The effects of six to eight centuries of ploughing on the deposits at Regéc-95 were severe enough to disturb the top 25 – 60cm of the sediments in every trench, concentrating finds from all periods into the upper soil unit.

Bronze Age occupation at Regéc can be identified in Phases 2 and 3. There can be little doubt that the Late Bronze Age dwelling there was more intensive than that in the Neolithic period. The construction of a light oval hut using local stones for the ‘walls’ (Hut 1) suggests a seasonal, short-term structure that may have endured for one summer or several but hardly more than five years’ use. Although the additional stone structures – the linear features, stone scatters and possible hearth – have few associated datable finds, they are most likely to be associated with Late Bronze Age pottery than with finds from any other period.

The studies of sherd size, weight and erosion showed several clear diachronic trends. The first concerned mean sherd size - a complex measure of discard and postdepositional practices – which remained remarkably similar from the Middle Neolithic to the Medieval period (between 7.7 and 9.4g/ per sherd). The big fall in the Post-Medieval period has been attributed to manuring

The overall length of time over which the LBA groups returned to Regéc must have been substantial, to judge by the depth of soil that accumulated in the lowest and middle soil units. Organic preservation was so poor that no 14C dates have been obtained to date this period. But it can be proposed that the overall length of time could be 216

practices in the infield of Regéc village. Secondly, there was a steady decline in erosion values with time, from the highest, in the Middle Neolithic, to the lowest, in the Post-Medieval assemblage. This was the expected pattern but it is no less gratifying to see that, even in upland archaeology, expectation is sometime confirmed. The third point is that the relationships between sherd size / erosion and the Regéc phases, zones and context types showed no strong relationships at all. This was more a question of ‘local discard histories’ than of the grand sherd narrative!

10.3

Social practices and seasonality

The upland setting of Regéc-95 in the heart of the Zemplén Mountains offers both constraints and affordances on the social practices of those dwelling there. Seasonal climatic variations, cooler and wetter weather and the shorter growing season in comparison with the lowlands combined with the lack of significant lithic or mineral resources within the Regéc Basin to constrain settlement through much of prehistory. However, the expansion of the range of cultivated cereals in the Bronze Age (Harding 1989) to allow the cultivation of sub-optimal soils may have increased the accessibility of the flat, well-drained, South- or West-facing, relative fertile brownearths of the Basin. In addition, significant lithic resources lay less than 10km from the site and the summer pasture was of higher quality than in the lowlands. There would have been a tension between the potential advantages and restrictions on dwelling in the Regéc Basin, requiring constant negotiation by lowland groups with the possibility of moving into the uplands on at least a seasonal basis.

The spatial distribution of the six periods that can now be said to have deposited material culture on the Regéc site shows marked variation through time. Plotting the extent of pottery discard by phase, we can demonstrate that the Early-Middle Neolithic site covered 0.18ha in the Eastern zone, overlapping with the 0.15ha area, also in the Eastern zone, where Middle Neolithic pottery was found unmixed with later materials. However, the overlap between Neolithic and Late Bronze Age pottery was 90% of an area of 2.4ha – covering all of the Western zone and part of the Eastern zone. There was a contraction of site size in the Early Medieval period to 1ha, in all of the Western zone and the Southern part of the Eastern zone. The manuring discard area expanded in the Medieval period to 1.75ha, again covering all of the Western and part of the Eastern zones. An even wider manuring spread, at 3ha, occurred in the Post-Medieval period – the only period in which discard occurred over all of both zones.

In the Middle Neolithic, the paucity (some would say the absence!) of features and finds densities are consistent with a series of short-term, episodic occupations which were probably seasonal in nature. The natural features of the Eastern side of the Regéc Basin proved a strong attraction to these early settlers, who could orientate themselves with reference to the striking dolerite outcrop. The intensity of occupation is hard to measure because of the uncertainties of attributing (m)any lithics and ground stone tool fragments to these occupations. The ceramic evidence of a wide variety of clay ‘recipes’, each with a suite of different fillers, suggests many people contributed to the overall assemblage, perhaps on different visits. The infrequency of decorated ceramics suggests that their role in social signalling was much lower than in lowland villages. The absence of storage vessels militates against long visits, while the cooking and serving vessels and a few internally-burnished pots for the transport of liquids would have sufficed for shortterm visits. The Project’s failure to find any clay sources to match the Middle Neolithic pottery means that we are unable to support the notion of local pottery-making, even if on-site bonfire firing seems the most likely production technique. It seems unlikely that groups visiting Regéc would have carried large numbers of vessels with them from the lowland zone.

The Eastern zone, covering the top of the low hill and its upper slopes, often shows contrasts with the Western zone, comprising the lower hill slopes above the small stream to the West of the site. Although Middle Neolithic pottery showed generally similar patterns of potpart discard in each zone, the greater concentration of decorated sherds in the Eastern Zone suggests more intensive deposition there. There is a contrast between the Eastern and the Western Zone in the Late Bronze Age, with coarse storage pottery dominant in the Eastern zone and a preference for fine, decorated storage and cooking wares in the Western zone. There is a strong preference for deposition of chipped stone in the Eastern Zone, by a factor of nine by numbers, falling to a factor of two by weight. While there is more balanced representation of early, middle and late stages of production in the Eastern zone, there is an emphasis on early (pre-core) production stages in the Western zone. This is matched by the overall ceramic contrast between the Eastern Zone, with a predominance of pottery by numbers and the Western Zone, with a predominance of pottery by weight. The apparent paradox of the discovery of most features in the Western zone and most artifacts in the Eastern zone may be partly explained by the finding of smaller numbers of larger artifacts near the stone-built features in the Western Zone, in contrast to the far larger numbers of smaller objects in the Eastern Zone. This raises an important issue that requires explanation in the wider context of social practices occurring over time at the site.

Given the improbability that the number of lithic items found with only Neolithic pottery (n = 3!) represents the total assemblage, the only conclusion is that there would have been an unknown number of Neolithic chipped stone pieces from an unknown variety of sources. The ratio of 4:1 in favour of Bronze Age pottery over Neolithic pottery by number (5:1 by weight) may be used to suggest the ratio of lithics discarded in the Middle Neolithic, even if many ‘Neolithic’ pieces were subsequently re-used in the Late Bronze Age. More positively, any Neolithic group moving into the central 217

upland dwelling sites were created as a result of these visits. Alternative strategies for the collection of lithic raw materials were put in place, as in the Late Neolithic use of lithic processing sites on the fringe of the Zemplén Mountains. A good example is the site of Sárazsadány 001 (Chapman et al., in press), where almost one hundred kg of lithics were found on the ploughzone – mostly from the early (pre-core) stages of production. Not only in lithic procurement but in many aspects of their lifeways, there was a tendency for Late Neolithic communities to centralize their social practices in specific places of great significance – especially North Alföld tells such as Polgár-Csőszhalom (Raczky et al. 1997: 2002: 2007). Indeed, the choice of tell lifeways reinforced the centralising tendencies of Late Neolithic communities and the emphasis on few rather than many places. Perhaps it was inevitable that the focus on special places led to the marginalization, or at least the diminution in place-value, of other places. It would appear this process resulted in the marginalization of places such as Regéc. Even though feasting on venison and wild boar meat is well attested at Csőszhalom (Schwartz 2002), the source of that meat was scarcely as remote as the Zemplén Mountains.

Zemplén Mountains would have passed close to, if not paid actual visits to, a number of lithic raw material sources, including the South Zemplén limnic quartzite sources and the dispersed Erdőbénye obsidian source, all demonstrably utilized at Regéc. If the groups approached the Regéc Basin from the West, they would have been close to the Western Zemplén limnic quartzite sources, not least the preferred Arka source. The small quantities of lithic raw materials required for a summer visit to the Regéc Basin – perhaps no more than 1 kg - may have been reduced still further by on-site curation at the end of previous visits and by the availability of discarded lithics in the Basin from earlier times. The evidence of lithic multi-functionality, as shown by multiple attributes suggesting different tool functions, is consistent with such re-use of older items, whether curated or collected. The curation of such heavy items as grindstones and pestles and mortars is highly probable, with the discovery of complete grindstones at other sites in the Regéc Basin. The occurrence of small numbers of lithics from further afield – in particular, Slovakian obsidian and rock crystal and Mátra limnic quartzite – may have arrived at Regéc through inter-group exchange or direct procurement. Such pieces may well represent a small part of the total raw materials collected for use in the lowlands when the Regéc groups descended from the hills before the first snowfall. There is very strong evidence that Middle Neolithic communities in the Alföld Plain made extensive use of Slovakian obsidian, with less use of rock crystal and Mátra limnic quartzites (Biró 1998). While some of the Slovakian obsidian may have been transported down the Bodrog valley, upland movement into the central Zemplén Mountains from the Szőllőszke area is equally possible.

The diametrically opposed process of settlement dispersion defines the Early and Middle Copper Age of Eastern Hungary, not least in the North East – a settlement preference that may be thought to favour dwelling in remote places such as Regéc. Indeed, there is Early Copper Age settlement in upland Transylvania, close to the Munţii Metaliferici, (e.g., xxxeşti: BognárKutzian 1972) and occasional Middle Copper Age ‘outpost’ sites in the Drina valley in Eastern Bosnia, possibly related to the procurement of copper (e.g., Višesava – Jovin Breg: Zotović 1972; Chapman 1981). Virág (2003) has also identified the Copper Age as the first period when the copper resources of the North Zemplén Mountains were utilized – especially those at Telkibánya. But the surface discard from such sites have not yet been encountered in the Zemplén Mountains, possibly because of the paucity of diagnostic sherds from these two phases even in lowland surveys. If the same problem is almost insurmountable for the Late Copper Age of the Alföld Plain, where settlements coeval with the mortuary barrows are almost unknown (for an exception, see Makkay 2007), one can hardly expect the identification of Late Copper Age settlements in the Zemplén region. Moreover, if the links between Alföld mortuary barrows and the steppe zone to the East are accepted (and this author for one does not accept them!), avoidance of hilly areas would be in keeping with a steppe landscape orientation.

Thus, the outlines of a Middle Neolithic seasonal round may be sketched in, though this sketch inevitably lacks many telling details. Short-term visits in the spring, summer or autumn by small groups of people living for the most part in the Alföld Plain created a sense of annual structure of practice, which led to a small number of material deposits on the hilltop at Regéc as well as on the lower slopes. The routes to the uplands took in a variety of lithic raw material sources, especially in the Western and Southern Zemplén. The discovery of a hoard of limnic quartzite blade blanks in a Bükk vessel at Boldogkőváralja (Vértes 1965) – not far from the Arka sources - emphasizes the connections between the Regéc Basin and the Hernád valley in this period. These connections are further referenced by the admittedly small number of decorated pots, with their motifs finding close analogies in the Bükk and Tiszadob sub-groups of the Alföld Linear Pottery group. Bükk During the Late Neolithic, Copper Age and Early – Middle Bronze Age, there was no sign of material discard in the central Zemplén Mountains (Chapman et al., in press a). This is not to say that groups in these periods did not make seasonal visits to the hills to collect lithic raw materials (Biró 1998) or copper and to make use of summer pastures: simply to emphasise that no active

The re-emergence of regular tell-dwelling in the Early Bronze Age led not to such a strong settlement nucleation as in the Late Neolithic, for many small coeval EBA sites (‘homesteads’) are known (Chapman et al., 2003). Some of these Bronze Age tells, located in the Hernád valley, to the West of the Zemplén Mountains, constitute the Northernmost tells in the entire Eurasian distribution. Nonetheless, the development of sites in exactly the same 218

The spatial differentiation of Eastern from Western zones should not be over-stressed, since some of the practices proposed for the hill-top zone would have benefited from structures that have not survived there or were never there in the first place. It is important to underline that, by analogy with analysis of the fabric types of lowland assemblages, Late Bronze Age body sherds at Regéc showed a wider range of vessel functions – especially coarse storage – than those represented in the rim sherd sub-group. The difference in ceramics discarded in the two zones have been interpreted as the coarse storage of products on the hill-top, with some cooking pots and few decorated fine storage vessels. The coarse storage vessels were found near the hearth, with its preserved fragments of ‘kasha’ (cereal cake) and grindstone fragments. However, there were many cooking vessels and some coarse storage vessels in the Western zone and it is only the high proportion of fine storage and serving vessels that distinguished the Western from the Eastern zones. The use of the hill-top for general storage was presumably predicated upon the cooling summer breezes rather than its location as the most exposed part of the site. But this storage would have been more effective if protected even by light structures, of which no traces have been found. The most significant association was surely the discard of the pottery with most traces of social signaling – the fine black burnished wares – near Hut 1, even if, interestingly, not inside this structure! Although the vast majority of lithics and ground stone fragments were discarded on the hilltop, the smaller assemblage in the Western zone would have supported daily practices around the hut. Another tantalising finding in a small archaeobotanical assemblage is the differences in species of cereal in each zone: six-row barley in the Western zone, emmer wheat and millet in the Eastern zone. It is curious that the only identified hearth, with its evidence for food-preparation and cooking, was located on the hilltop, rather than near Hut 1. The simplest explanation is diachronic – viz., the hearth was used during those summer visits when Hut 1 was not in use.

place for long enough for the formation of mounds must imply a strong attachment to a small number of special places. It may be thought that short-term ‘satellite’ sites would have formed an effective means of gathering lithic raw materials and copper from the Central Zemplén Mountains for the tell-dwellers of the Hernád and Bodrog valleys. However, the logistics of short-term hunting trips directly from sites on the upland fringes were presumably more attractive for the collection of lithics and copper at the same time as haunches of venison and wild boar steaks. In this sense, the Early and Middle Bronze Age procurement strategy echoed that of the Late Neolithic. In the Late Bronze Age, there is the first evidence for the construction of hill-forts in the Zemplén Mountains (Nováki et al. 2007), to complement the settlement of upland basins such as Regéc. While there are few details available on the construction practices of the hill-forts, the excavation of ditches and the formation of ramparts covered circuits of up to 1 km: the length of the circuit at the Tolcsva hill-fort was 2,500m, that of Komlóska 340m and that of Erdőbénye 900m. This is broadly comparable to the small dry-stone-wall-built hill-forts of the Dalmatian Bronze Age, which required building for 6 – 26 person/years (Chapman et al. 1996: 158 – 175 & Fig. 122). Whatever the season of occupation at these sites, and it is assumed not to have include the winter, the hillforts constitute a serious engagement with the upland zone and a new departure in terms of high-status sites formerly restricted to the lowlands. The hill-forts lie some 10 - 13km from the Regéc site, so it is possible that the Regéc settlers may have been primarily related to the hillfort groups rather than primarily to a lowland community. Many of the comments on the Middle Neolithic occupation at Regéc (see above, pp. 216 - 217) can be echoed for the Late Bronze Age settlement, especially with regards to the continued movement and multifunctional use of lithics. In addition, there is little evidence to suggest that the Late Bronze Age occupation was much larger than that of the Middle Neolithic. However, the Late Bronze Age occupation differs from that of the Middle Neolithic in several significant ways – in type of features and internal differentiation of structures, finds and practices, as well as quantity of finds.

While it is impossible to make an accurate assessment of the absolute numbers of lithics in use in the Middle Neolithic and Late Bronze Age periods of occupation at Regéc, the ratio of pottery discarded in each period gives a broad approximation. The discard of four times the number of sherds in the Late Bronze Age than in the Neolithic (five times by weight) could be used for the period ratio of lithics, as well as to suggest either more visits in the later period or longer visits or more intensive social practices. There is also the weight of discarded pottery – 20kg for the Late Bronze Age alone and four times the total weight of discarded lithics. If the 5kg of lithics were brought to the site in 20 visits, with 250g of limnic quartzite carried up to Regéc each time, we may estimate that vessels weighing 1kg were also carried. The most probable vessel types for transport from the lowlands would have been small, and thus light, cups and bowls in the fine black burnished wares that would have required the presence of a specialist potter if made in the Regéc Basin. But these estimates are complicated by factors such as the portability of vessels on a journey to

The existence of a structure – Hut 1 – suggests a level of occupational duration greater than that seen in any of the Middle Neolithic visits to the site. The small size of the oval hut and its flimsy dry-stone wall base indicates a light, temporary, seasonal structure that may have been hard-pressed to survive the winter hail- and snow-storms of the uplands. Nonetheless, Hut 1 was a home for a family, perhaps for several visits. Other stone features included a hearth, interestingly in the Eastern Zone, as well as linear stone features dividing up the site and cobbled areas for more secure surfaces. There are also cut features, including shallow pits and post-holes, though the latter do not form a pattern. These modifications to the site suggest a longer-term commitment to place than was found in the Neolithic. 219

There are no such taphonomic complications with the identification of Sarmatian pottery in fieldwalking: it is one of the commonest finds in Alföld field surveys (Chapman et al. 2003: in prep). The research into Sarmatian pottery in the Alföld Plain indicates a settlement network even denser than in the modern period (Vaday 2003). This makes the absence of Sarmatian pottery from the Zemplén Mountains a clear negative rather than merely the absence of evidence. The occurrence of grey coarse wares similar to that of Sarmatian coarse pottery in the Hernád valley (Chapman et al., 2010a) suggests an interest in the routes towards upland mineral sources rather than an interest in the places and resources of the Zemplén Mountains per se.

the uplands, the likelihood of local making of coarse wares, the breakage rate at the site and the feasibility of curating vessels on site for a future visit rather than carrying them down to the lowlands again. For these reasons, the discard rate at upland sites may have been lower than on lowland sites, raising the possibility of more visits than had previously been suggested. The overall conclusion from Late Bronze Age ceramic evidence was that the assemblage was discarded by a complex household in a short occupation phase – to which we would now add perhaps a series of short occupation phases. While the impoverishment of this upland assemblage was seen in the paucity of feature sherds, especially fine ware channeled decoration, this was attributed partly to post-depositional erosion but also to the restricted range of social practices carried out in short summer visits. The dwelling of a small number of hillforts in the Zemplén Mountains may have provided the springboard for further seasonal settlement in the Central Zemplén area but this may also have been related to longer-term settlement in the Hernád or Bodrog valleys. The seasonal round of the Late Bronze Age groups may have echoed that practiced in the Middle Neolithic, but with a greater degree of attachment to Regéc than in the earlier period, as shown by the autumn sowing of cereals. The return to Regéc in the spring for the harvesting of wheat, barley and millet completed the annual cycle of fertility and provided for at least part of the group’s dietary requirements. The last act of the summer – early autumn occupation was the planting of the seeds for next year’s crop – a commitment to future return as strong as anything else in the Zemplén Mountains.

The Germanic peoples of the Alföld Plain are welldocumented from mortuary evidence (Tóth 2003) but there is minimal evidence for their presence in the Zemplén Mountains. One example is the chance discovery of a Hunnic grave near Tolcsva (HOM records). This apparent absence may also be related to the taphonomic problems in locating Early Medieval scatters, which are easier to locate in fieldwalking than Copper Age or Iron Age scatters but with fewer diagnostic sherds than in the Neolithic, Bronze Age or Sarmatian period. The discovery of a small assemblage of Early Medieval pottery at Regéc was both unexpected and interesting and we look forward to a detailed study of the ceramics. After the arrival of the Hungarian tribes in AD 895, there was a massive landscape transformation in the whole of ‘Hungary’. This was the period of the formation of the nucleated village through the replacement of most dispersed settlements (Laszlovszky 1999). However, there is no undisputed evidence for the settlement of the Regéc Basin until after the Mongol invasions of the 1240s. The establishment of a Medieval castle, a village with a strip field system, fishponds and two Pauline monasteries in the Regéc – Óhuta area coincided with the foundation of Medieval villages in the other upland basins. These occupations marked a turning point for the Zemplén Mountains, with the establishment of demonstrably permanent settlements in all of the core upland basins in the AD 13th or 14th centuries. This brought a higher population density to the upland zone than had ever existed before and, in so doing, brought a number of communities into closer relations with the surrounding forests and their potential resources than had previously been the case. The economic influence of the castle and the Pauline monasteries is undoubted (for more details, see Chapman et al., in press a). the rises and falls of the castle and its elite owners were doubtless paralleled in the economic changes in the village of Regéc and the intensity of land use in the Basin.

The next, long absence of settlement in the Regéc Basin lasted from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the Early, viz., pre-Conquest Medieval period (AD 5th – 9th centuries). In view of the increased difficulties in locating Iron Age field scatters in the uplands in comparison with those in the Alföld Plain (Chapman et al 2003), there is an argument that there were Iron Age sites in the Zemplén Mountains but that their remains could not be identified in the field. The chance discovery of a Scythian grave in a sand-hill near Tolcsva shows a sight Early Iron Age presence (HOM records). However, a strong argument against this view is the absence of evidence for Iron Age use of the few Zemplén hillforts (e.g., Tolcsva: Nováki et al. 2007: 134 - 5) in contrast to hillforts in the Bükk Mountains (e.g., Miskolc - Bükkszentlászló: Kemenczei 1966`). The best-dated pollen sequence from the North Alföld lowlands (viz, Sarló-hat: Chapman et al. 2009) indicates major forest clearance in the Iron Age but there would still have remained a partially wooded landscape which could have sufficed in timber for charcoal production for the iron production of that period. As for the Late Copper Age, the links between Alföld elite burials and the steppe zone to the East (if accepted: for extended discussion with new vegetational evidence, see Chapman et al. 2009) would make the avoidance of hilly areas in keeping with a steppe landscape orientation.

10.4 Reasons for (non-)settlement We are now in a position to examine the long-term changes of the settlement of the Zemplén area in terms of motivations. Before the founding of a permanent community at Regéc in the AD 13th or 14th century, we can characterize two contrasting ways in which lowland 220

discussion of the implications of the secondary products revolution, Sherratt (1981) contrasted Early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik networks, consisting of widely spaced local clusters of sites often 30 km apart, with Late Neolithic Corded Ware networks, whose presumed dispersed homesteads (the evidence derives predominantly from mortuary barrows) were located on interfluves as well as main valleys and which were rarely more than 15km one from another. For Sherratt, these dense networks, rich in connectivity and personal contacts between sites, made exchange much more dynamic and frequent. Is this logic apposite for the various phases of upland settlement?

communities visited the uplands on a seasonal or longer basis and one additional mode of non-engagement:Mode 1: In the Middle Neolithic and Late Bronze Age, upland seasonal settlement was developed in addition to settlement of the upland fringes; Mode 2: In the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, short-term trips for the collection of lithic resources and copper were made from long-term settlements on the upland fringes, without any traces of upland settlement. Mode 3: an absence of engagement (viz., long centuries with very little human presence in the Central Zemplén core – perhaps during the two millennia from 1000 BC to AD 1000).

It is important to recall that, in the late 6th millennium BC, the first clear evidence for farming is found in Northern Hungary and regions across the Carpathians. This, then, is a period of enormous cultural and social flux, in which new identities were formed on farming sites and new or deeper relationships were extended to foraging communities than in earlier times. Whether or not the extension Northwards of farming was accomplished or accompanied by large numbers of new settlers, the effect of beginning cultivation and animal husbandry in new areas meant the creation of networks linking new to established settlements to the South to ensure kinship support in times of hardship or risk. It was in the context of settlement expansion that short-term sites in Carpathian intra-montane basins may have become important. In addition, in the established Middle Neolithic period, there is indisputable evidence for trans-Carpathian exchange in the form of ceramic networks (principally the exchange of Bükk decorated fine wares: Kalicz & Makkay 1977) and two-way exchange of lithic raw materials, tool blanks or finished tools. Thus, Carpathian obsidian, some from the Erdőbénye area, was discarded on Linearbandkeramik sites in Little Poland (e.g., Olszanica: Milisauskas 1986), while chocolate and Kraków Jurassic flint from Southern Poland was discarded on Alföld Linear Pottery sites (e.g., Balsa – Feckse part and Tiszaföldvár – Téglagyár: Biró 1998: 38 - 41). Since the distance across the Carpathians in a practicable route (rather than as the crow flies!) was cca. 130km, the exchange required either community-tocommunity (or down-the-line) exchange (Renfrew 1975) or a lengthy procurement expedition involving up to two weeks (cf. Helms’ (1993) long-distance specialists). The absence of settlements in intra-montane basins such as Regéc would have meant potentially hazardous long trips into the uplands without the safety of a local community or the pleasures of social interaction around a home fire. Even if the quantities of materials, whether pottery or lithics, was small, there was a demonstrable advantage in including upland seasonal sites in an extensive transCarpathian exchange network.

We can pose six questions about the preferences which communities expressed for each mode of interaction with the uplands, or indeed its total absence: was exploration important in upland settlement?; was upland settlement strategic for linking lowland zones separated by extensive uplands?; did upland settlement reflect an intensification of raw material procurement?; was animal management, whether hunting of transhumance, important for either preference?; was the place-value attached to the settlements different for these two strategies?; and were the long-term fluctuations in climate and environment specially propitious to certain modes of practice? The punctuated settlement of the Zemplén Mountains is characteristic of the use of uplands in many parts of Europe. The apparent abandonment of the uplands for perhaps millennia created the necessity of the recolonisation or re-settlement of intra-montane basins such as Regéc – a phenomenon that occurred in each occupation phase at Regéc. Especially in the period of the first farmers but also in later phases, there is an important practice of exploration of new terrain, in which settlements are located strategically to explore the areas around them. The need for bases for exploration does not provide the motivation for moving into the uplands per se but it does contribute an initial factor in choosing places with good access to a wide range of adjacent terrain. In the case of the Middle Neolithic occupation in particular, those natural features which characterize the Eastern side of the Basin (see above, p. 215) – the hill with its gentle slopes, the access to fertile land, the Regéc stream and the dolerite outcrop opposite the site – must have played an important part in the decision to settle in that particular place. At first sight, it may be thought that concerns with strategic locations and networks would have been proper to later periods, characterized by a need for overt military dominance or extensive overland bulk trade. However, this is not necessarily true, since middle- and longdistance exchange networks typified many, if not most, periods in prehistory (Chapman 2008). The logistical question of the means whereby the materials were moved over distances up to 1,000 km points to the importance of the social network supporting the exchange. In his

In the Late Bronze Age, there was a sharp rise in the quantity and often quality of bronzes in circulation. Both Kristiansen (1998), on a continental scale, and Kemenczei (1984), on a regional scale, have identified Gáva bronze workshops in the rather vaguely-defined 221

therefore difficult to identify the network factor as a key variable in the absence of upland seasonal settlement.

‘Upper Tisza area’ as producing some of the most desirable sheet bronze prestige goods in the Carpathian area – workshops on a par with those of Transylvania and whose products reached as far as Northern Europe (Kristiansen 1998). It is thus incontrovertible that the local and regional Gáva networks were embedded in and nested in wider trans-continental exchange networks which made bronze one of the key elements in Late Bronze Age exchange. In regional terms, the Gáva network of ceramic production was extensive to the South and South East of the Zemplén Mountains and graded into the ceramic distribution known as Kyjatice in Southern and Eastern Slovakia (Kemenczei 1984: 40 57). To the extent that the flow of goods along these networks was almost certainly much greater than in the Middle Neolithic, the logistical rationale behind the existence of settlement nodes in upland basins was even more persuasive than in the Neolithic. Szabó (2004a) has emphasized the expansive nature of Gáva settlement networks, in site locations where no other groups until the Medieval period would show much interest (interfluves, upland basins).

We have commented earlier upon the complementarity of raw materials in the lowland and upland zones in the Balkans and the Carpathians (Sherratt 1972; Chapman et al., in press a). One of the basic assumptions of the study of such exchanges is the higher probability of upland seasonal settlement with increasing intensity of the use of upland resources. In prehistory, such intensification can be measured by temporal fluctuations in the absolute or relative quantity (weight) of upland resources in comparison with lowland resources as found in lowland sites (e.g., lithics in the Late Neolithic: Biró 1998). Viga (1990) has provided an account of the wide range of upland resources that were moved into the Alföld Plain in the Medieval period and later. The most important resources were stone, minerals, wood and textiles. It is a sine qua non of Hungarian Neolithic and Copper Age studies that the uplands ringing the Alföld Plain supplied all of the lithic raw materials for lowland settlements in all periods (Biró 1988). The variations found concerned changes in the preferences for specific lithic raw material sources but the basic notion of upland supply of lowland settlement remains unchallenged. The basic sequence of Alföld Plain lithic supply from the Early through Middle to Late Neolithic reflects an increase in quantity (weight) of material procured, with a decline in quantity in the Copper Age and still further in the Early Bronze Age (Sherratt 1987). The assumption of upland settlement for peaks of lithic exploitation is clearly refuted for the Late Neolithic, in which the permanent settlements on the Zemplén fringes provided satisfactory lithic supplies, as well as for the Middle Neolithic, if for opposite reasons (upland settlement at a time of much less intensive lithic collection). One of the important results of the Regéc excavation is the demonstration beyond reasonable doubt of a flourishing Late Bronze Age lithics industry. It is thus possible that this production showed an increased intensification after the decline in Early – Middle Bronze Age lithic production, thereby matching the prediction of upland seasonal settlement.

The same argument does not appear to be strong in the Early Medieval period, when there is less evidence for trans-Carpathian exchange networks. This suggests another reason for the Early Medieval settlement expansion from the lowlands into the Zemplén Mountains, albeit it in a restricted manner, after the absence of upland occupation in the Iron Age and Roman Imperial periods. But the same cannot be said for the Arpadian period re-settlement of upland areas, with the extensive use of Carpathian forested uplands by royal families and other elites before AD 1200, co-terminous with the establishment of counties based upon elite castle centres in the 11th and 12th centuries (Rady 2000: 19; Szabó P. 2005: 88). This period was not so much a period of land colonization as administrative colonization, with the royal household’s reach extending further into the uplands with time. In these centuries, the economic system relied upon a network of upland, as much as lowland, settlements to organize the areas at the time of royal visits. After its establishment, the administration and control of upland regions would have been inconceivable without the continuation of dominant, strategically located central places, such as Regéc Castle.

As mentioned above, (p. 225), there was a major increase in the quantity of bronze in circulation in Late Bronze Age Europe and the Carpathian region was no exception. Insofar as Zemplén Mountains copper had been used as early as the Copper Age (Virág 2003), there is a likelihood of increased exploitation in the Late Bronze Age but there is still no analytical data to support this claim. Even if there are no copper sources in the Regéc Basin, the site lies only 10 km due South of the Telkibánya copper area, across two major mountain cols. The Regéc location is thus more likely to be a node in a metals network than a production site per se.

Thus, in each phase of upland settlement, there were logistical reasons why settlement in the Regéc Basin (Mode 1) could have made an important contribution to the creation or consolidation of trans-Carpathian networks. While this claim is not the same as proof positive that such contributions were indeed made, the network aspect of upland settlement cannot be readily discounted, even in the Neolithic. However, the two periods when Mode 2 lowland – upland interaction is proposed are not noticeable for their narrow, regional exchange networks. There was a distinct trans-Carpathian component in the lithic exchange networks of the Late Neolithic (Biró 1998), as much as in the bronzework of the Early and Middle Bronze Age (Harding 2000). It is

The importance of wood as a resource can be considered in two ways: wooden objects made in the uplands as specialist manufacture; and structural timber required for lowland building in periods when the Alföld Plain was 222

maintain a strong hunting preference on lowland tells in the Late Neolithic. Thus, lowland hunting may well have flourished to the extent that it vitiated the need for upland hunting in the Neolithic or Bronze Age. Nonetheless, it would be unwise to ignore the Medieval textual evidence for royal hunting forests in the Hungarian Mid-Mountains (Rady 2000). Once again, although hunting practices may have represented a minor factor in the decision to settle seasonally in the Regéc Basin, they could not be regarded as a significant factor until the Medieval period.

almost or completely treeless. In the case of the former, we do not have the preservation necessary to consider exchange or trade in prestige decorated woodworking until the Modern period (Viga 1990: 306). The Sarló-hat pollen diagram from near Tiszagyulaháza, has a welldated forest history, indicating moderate arboreal pollen representation (up to 30%) through much of the Medieval period (Magyari 200x). This suggests that the timber trade started late in the AD 2nd millennium, with the use of rivers such as the Tisza and the development of timber-yards along those rivers (Viga 1990: 306).

These rather criticial assessments leave us with what is at first sight a more nebulous concept – the notion of placevalue. Chapman has defined this in terms of the cumulative value that attaches to a place as it is used for a succession of social practices, each identified with a specific person (1998). Unless one accepts that the later groups dwelling at Regéc were behaving to some extent like archaeologists, by the recognition of earlier occupations through the discovery of their surface remains, it is indeed hard to imagine cumulative placevalue adhering to a place whose occupation phases were separated in each case by over two millennia. The complete absence of above-ground features presents a further hindrance to this notion. The alternative way of evaluating place-value at Regéc is to consider its evolution within each occupation phase, leaving the possibility of inter-millenial value as an outside chance.

Thus, the motive of moving lithic raw materials from the uplands to the lowlands does not provide a sound explanation for either Mode 1 or 2 settlement. The relatively generalized information we have for the movement of copper and the subsequent trade in bronzework in the Late Bronze Age suggests a network explanation for settling the Regéc Basin rather than for direct exploitation of Zemplén Mountains copper. The relationships between human communities, animal species and the landscape can be approached with two social practices in mind: hunting and transhumance. Once again, the argument of increasing intensity of practice(s) would be expected to provide preferential grounds for upland settlement in the Zemplén Mountains. The fatal limitation of an upland region of acidic soils is taphonomic – the near-total disappearance of animal bone materials in the brown earths, as was found at Regéc. Thus, there is no direct evidence for either hunting or transhumance at the site. Recent evaluations of the (usually indirect) evidence for transhumance practices in prehistory (Biagi & Nandris 1994; Bartosiewicz & Greenfield 1999) have moved towards more caution than in earlier studies (e.g., Chapman 1981). The merely seasonal differentiation of animal pasture by lowland and upland areas may still be regarded as suggestive but, unless backed up by some direct evidence for the seasonally specific discard of animal products, is now considered as necessary but insufficient for the case for transhumance. There is currently no phase of Alföld prehistory in which intensity of lowland settlement could be used to support transhumance on the grounds of insufficient lowland pasture. Sites such as Regéc would have been ideal testing grounds for the transhumance thesis given better preservation of animal bone, since the seasonality of settlement is well-established.

In the Middle Neolithic, the seasonal visits to the site served to frame the annual calendar of the settlers, dividing the year into two main parts with further differentiation of the two parts through climate and weather conditions as well as seasonally diverse social practices. A good example of the latter is Sørensen’s ethno-historical account of the annual cycle of activities connected with food production within an AD 17th century farming community in Jämtland, Sweden (Sørensen 2000: 110 – 111 & Fig. 6.1). While the list of 104 activities would never be repeated at Regéc, the structuring of the calendar and daily life is based upon the same principle in a short-term seasonal site. A timespan of a few years, or at maximum a decade, would have been sufficient for the development of the Regéc habitus - an unspoken set of structured and structuring ideas of what is appropriate practice at this time and in this place (Bourdieu 1977). A similar structure of regular social practice would have crystallized through each of the later cycles of seasonal occupations. Through its being unspoken, the habitus has considerable power over the development of place-value. An example would be the location of an early group of settlers on the hill-top or on the higher or lower hill slopes – an initial choice that guided and structured future decisions about the details of site location. There are also outstanding incidents and moments of drama – whether comedy or tragedy – which are rapidly assimilated into the place where they ‘took place’ and which assume a focal point in the group collective memory. In an echo of the term ‘landmark’, Chapman (1997) has called these incidents ‘timemarks’ – examples may include the hunting of a great bear by a group of valiant Late Bronze Age hunters or the day that

The question of whether a preference for hunting could have influenced upland Modes 1 or 2 is initially stymied by the taphonomic problems mentioned for transhumance. However, indirect ideological evidence for hunting as a prestigious male activity related to warring in the Bronze Age (Kristiansen 1998; Treherne 1995) means that this practice may have been a significant factor in the seasonal settlement at Regéc. However, it is highly unlikely that the vast bulk of hunted animals whose bones were discarded in the tell ditches at Csőszhalom (Schwartz 2002) had been killed in the mountains, with the implication that the Alföld woodlands were sheltering sufficient wild mammals to 223

counties. However, the major logical weakness with this factor is that there were major Mode 2 periods, such as the Late Neolithic and the Early – Middle Bronze Age, with equally strong evidence for trans-Carpathian exchange networks but lacking in Mode 1 upland settlement. If we turn to the significance of raw material extraction for use primarily in lowland settlements, there is poor correlation between the use of seasonal upland settlement and the intensity peaks in the use of lowland lithics. Thus, the intensity of lithic utilization in the Middle Neolithic, with its upland settlement, is demonstrably lower than that of the Late Neolithic, with no upland settlement visible. While the intensity of bronze usage was higher in the Late Bronze Age than in the Early – Middle Bronze Age, Regéc was some distance from the Telkibánya copper sources, fulfilling more of the role of a node in an extensive network than a primary producer site. While current data do not permit the evaluation of the diachronic significance of transhumance, the Medieval period provides best evidence for the importance of hunting in upland settlement, although the ideology of the mighty hunter – warrior may well have developed by the Late Bronze Age. In all dwelling phases at Regéc, the habitus which emerged from a sequence of seasonal occupations was important for the continuation of settlement but this concept is not helpful in explaining the initial motivation for moving onto the site. There may well have been timemarks which kick-started the occupations but their identification remains difficult. Finally, there is no correlation at all between the generalized time-spans of the four occupations and phases of warmer or, indeed, cooler climate as inferred from the GRIP cores.

the first triplets were born to a Neolithic mother. While it should not be expected that the development of the habitus of a dwelling phase would occur at the outset of an occupation, the occurrence of a timemark may well have triggered settlement at a particular specific spot closely associated with this dramatic event. Unfortunately, archaeologists rarely have access to such Braudelian ‘évènements’ (i.e., events), especially in prehistory. However, the construction of a monument such as the first Pauline monastery in the Regéc Basin or Regéc Castle itself are self-defining timemarks, often with documentary evidence to record such stirring events. The final consideration concerns long-term environmental fluctuations. It would be interesting to discover correlations between climatic fluctuations and the adoption of Modes 1, 2 or 3 practices in respect of the Zemplén Mountains. The availability of Greenland icecore data from the GRIP cores provides a precisely dated sequence which can be used in this comparison (e.g., Johnsen 2002). The Middle Neolithic date range (5300 – 5000 BC) encompasses a period of relative instability, with no high peaks or deep troughs. It follows a century of higher temperatures and precedes a steep peak datable to the Hungarian Late Neolithic (c. 5000 BC). Within the Late Bronze Age time-span of 500 years (1400 – 900 BC), there is also a series of peaks and troughs, with a lower mean temperature value than that of the Middle Neolithic period. In the Early Medieval occupation (AD 500 – 1000), the troughs are lower than in the Late Bronze Age but some years are much hotter than the warmest Late Bronze Age years. The construction of Regéc village and the castle in the AD 13th century took place 150 – 200 years before the onset of the Little Ice Age but in a cooler phase than that which favoured Late Antique populations in Western Hungary and Sarmatian tribes in Eastern Hungary. Taking the relatively imprecise relative dating of the occupation phases at Regéc into account, the picture presented is one where there are no obvious climatic trends correlated with the upland occupations.

Thus, it is currently impossible to propose a single-factor explanation for the multiple occupation of the Regéc site and the selection of preferred Mode of engagement with the uplands through the last eight millennia. After ruling out environmental affordance, five factors remain which may have some significance as motivating the modes of engagement. The contributions of each factor undoubtedly changed through time and with social context, with lithics in the Middle Neolithic, bronze in the Late Bronze Age and royal hunting in the Medieval period representing the greatest differences in time and the importance of exploration and the significance of habitus as forming lasting, if temporally variable, foundations for settlement. Upland settlement was an important part of Carpathian prehistory and early history and, while the Upper Tisza Project has raised its research profile and contributed to the explanations for its punctuated settlement, there is still some way to go before we can claim to have reached a full understanding of the underlying rationale behind when communities settled in the uplands or on the upland edge or largely, if not completely, ignored the hills.

In conclusion, the use of Regéc as a base for the exploration of wider parts of the Central Zemplén Mountains may have been an initial factor in each phase of occupation given the long periods of abandonment of the uplands prior to each dwelling phase. The use of the site in an initial phase of (re-)settlement does not, however, explain the motivation behind the settlement in the first place. The importance of locating upland seasonal settlements in key nodes of wider exchange networks resonates with some Mode 1 phases, especially the Middle Neolithic and Late Bronze Age occupations at Regéc, if less so with the Early Medieval phase. An early phase in the establishment of such networks – equivalent to a phase of exploration, perhaps colonization or even re-settlement – may well have been of considerable importance in the Middle Neolithic, coeval with the spread of farming across the Carpathians into Poland, Slovakia and Czech Republic. It was also important in the Arpadian period, with the administrative colonization of Hungary necessary for the formation of the initial 40 224

REFERENCES Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg megye monográfiája I. kötet. Nyíregyháza, 63-137. BØTTER-JENSEN, L., MCKEEVER, S. W. S. & WINTLE, A. G. 2003 Optically stimulated luminescence dosimetry. Amsterdam: Elsevier. BOURDIEU, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BRADLEY, R. 2000 An archaeology of natural places. London: Routledge. BRAUN, D. 1983 Pots as tools. In Moore, J. A. & Keene, A. S. (Eds.) Archaeological theories and hammers. London: Academic Press, 108 - 134. BUKO, A. 1987. L’utilisation de la poterie dans l’analyse des processus de stratification. In Chapelot, J., Glime, H. & Pilet-Lemieres, J. (Eds.) Fabrication – commercialisation – utilisation. Caen: Société d’Archéologie Mediévale, 23-32. BUKO, A. 1990. Wykorzystanie zjawiska eroziji ceramiki w analyzach procesow formowania sie stanowisk osadniczych. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne XLII: 349-359. CARNEIRO, A. & MATEICIUCOVÁ, I. 2007 Daub fragments and the question of structures. In Whittle, A. (Ed.) The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. Varia Archaeologia Hungarica XXI. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology, 255 - 286. CHAPMAN, J. 1981 The Vinča culture of South East Europe. Studies in chronology, economy and society. BAR International Series I-117. Oxford: BAR. CHAPMAN, J. 1986 Technological and stylistic analysis of the Early Neolithic chipped stone assemblage from Méhtelek, Hungary. In: Biró, K. T. (Ed.) International conference on prehistoric flint minig and lithic raw material identification. Sümeg. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, 31-52. CHAPMAN, J. 1997 Places as timemarks – the social construction of landscapes in Eastern Hungary. In Chapman, J. & Dolukhanov, P. (Eds.) Landscapes in Flux. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 137-162. CHAPMAN, J. 1998 Objects and places: their value in the past. In Bailey, D. W. (Ed.) The archaeology of prestige and wealth. BAR International Series 730. Oxford: BAR, 106-130.

AITKEN, M. J. 1985 Thermoluminescence Dating. London: Academic Press. ALEXANDROV, S., SIRAKOV, N., PETKOV, E. & GAYDARSKA, B. 1998 Trial excavations of a Bronze Age site near Tutrakan, North-East Bulgaria. Archaeologica Bulgarica II/3: 7-30. BADER, T. 1978. Epoca Bronzului în Nord-Westul Transilvaniei. Cultura pretracică şi tracică. – Die Bronzezeit in Nordwestsiebenbürgen. Bucureşti: xxx. BAILIFF, I. K. 1982. Beta-TLD apparatus for small samples. PACT 672-76. BALASSA, I. 1991 Tokaj-Hegyalja szőlője és bora. Tokaj. BARTOSIEWICZ, L. & GREENFIELD, H. J. (Eds.) 1999. Transhumant pastoralism in Southern Europe. Series Minor 11. Budapest: Archaeolingua. BELÉNYESI, K. 2004 Pauline monasteries in the Zemplén-Hegyalja region. Miskolc: Hermann Ottó Múzeum. BIAGI, P. & NANDRIS, J. (Eds.) 1994 Highland Zone exploitation in Southern Europe. Monografie de Natura Bresciana no. 20. Brescia: Museo Civico di Scienze Naturale BINTLIFF, J. & GAFFNEY, V. 1988 The Ager Pharensis / Hvar Project 1987. In: Chapman, J. C., Bintliff, J., Gaffney, V. & Slapšak, B. (Eds.) Recent developments in Yugoslav archaeology. BAR International Series 431. Oxford: BAR, 151-175. BIRÓ, K. 1988 Distribution of lithic raw materials on prehistoric sites. An interim report, Acta Archaeologia Hungarica 40: 251-274. BIRÓ, K. 1998. Lithic materials and the circulation of raw materials in the Great Hungarian Plain during the Late Neolithic period. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum. BIRÓ , K. & DOBOSI, V. 1991 Lithoteca. Comparative raw material collection of the Hungarian National Museum. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. BIRÓ, K. & DOBOSI, V. 2000 Lithoteca II. Comparative raw material collection of the Hungarian National Museum. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. BOGNÁR-KUTZIAN, I. 1972 The Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár culture in the Carpathian Basin. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. BÓNA, I. 1993. A honfoglalás előtti kultúrák és népek. – Cultures and people before the Conquest Period.

225

CHAPMAN, J. 2000. Tensions at funerals. Mortuary archaeology in later Hungarian prehistory. Budapest: Archaeolingua CHAPMAN, J. 2000a. ‘Rubbish-dumps’ or ‘places of deposition’ ?: Neolithic and Copper Age settlements in Central and Eastern Europe’. In Ritchie, A. (Ed.) Neolithic Orkney in its European context. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute, 347-362. CHAPMAN, J. 2002. Neolithic pottery at Polgár-10 (Hungary): measuring the habitus”. Documenta Praehistorica XXIX: 127-144. CHAPMAN, J. 2008 Approaches to trade and exchange in earlier prehistory (Late Mesolithic – Early Bronze Age). In Jones, A. (Ed.) Prehistoric Europe. Theory and practice. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 333-355. CHAPMAN, J., GILLINGS, M., SHIEL, R. & BOND, C., 2010 Settlement patterns in the Bodrogköz Block. BAR International Series 2087 Oxford: BAR Publishing. CHAPMAN, J., GILLINGS, M., SHIEL, R. & BOND, C., 2010a Settlement patterns in the Zemplén Block. BAR International Series 2088. Oxford: BAR Publishing. CHAPMAN, J., GILLINGS, M., SHIEL, R. & BOND, C., 2010b Lowland settlement in North East Hungary: excavations at the Neolithic settlement of Polgár-10. BAR International Series 2089. Oxford: BAR Publishing. CHAPMAN, J., MAGYARI, E. & GAYDARSKA, B. 2009 Contrasting subsistence strategies in the Early Iron Age? – new results from the Alföld Plain, Hungary, and the Thracian Plain, Bulgaria. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28/2: 155-187. CHAPMAN, J. - SHIEL, R. - BATOVIĆ, Š. 1996 The changing face of Dalmatia. Archaeological and environmental studies in a Mediterranean landscape. Society of Antiquaries Research Monograph. London: Leicester University Press. CHAPMAN, J., SHIEL, R., PASSMORE, D. & MAGYARI, E. 2003 The Upper Tisza Project: studies in Hungarian landscape archaeology. E-ref. http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/projArch/upperti sza_ba_2003/index.cfm CHAPMAN, J. & VICZE, M. 1996 Prehistoric and later settlement and exploitation of the Zemplén Mountains. Upper Tisza Project 1995. Archaeological Reports for 1995 (Durham and Newcastle): 34-40. COTIUGĂ, V. & COTOI, O. 2004 Parcul arheologic experimental de la Cucuteni. In Petrescu-Dîmboviţa, M. & Văleanu, M-C. (Eds.) Cucuteni – Cetăţuie. Monografie arheologică. Piatra Neamţ: Centrul Internaţional de Cercetare a culturii Cucuteni, 337-350.

DANI, J. 2005a The Hortobágy in the Bronze Age. Varia XIX: 283-300. DANI, J. 2005b The Pocsaj area in the Bronze Age. Varia XIX: 301-318. DEMETEROVÁ, S. 1986 Počiatky Gávskej Kultúry na Východnom Slovensku. – Die Anfänge der Gáva-Kultur in der Slowakei. Slovenská Archeologia 34: 97131. DORAN, J.D. & HODSON, F.R. 1975 Mathematics and computers in archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. FURMÁNEK, V., VELIAČIK, L. &VLADÁR, J. 1991. Slovakia in the Bronze Age. Bratislava: Veda, Vydavatesstvo Slovenskej Akadámie Vied. GENITO, B. & KEMENCZEI, T. 1990 The Late Bronze Age Vessels from Gyoma 133, South-East Hungary. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungaricae: 113-125. GYULAI, F. 2001 Archaeobotanika. Budapest: Jószöveg Kézikönyvek. HARDING, A. F. 1989 Interpreting the evidence for agricultural change in the Late Bronze Age in Northern Europe. In Nordström, H.-Å. & Knape, A. Bronze Age studies. Stockholm: Statens Historiska Museum, 173-181. HARDING, A. F. 2000 European societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HELMS, M. W. 1993 Crafts and the kingly ideal. Art, trade and power. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. JANKOVICH, B. D., MAKKAY, J. & SZŐKE, B. M. (Eds.) 1989 Békés megye régészeti topografiája. Magyarórszag Régészeti Topografiája 8, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. JARMAN, H. N., LEGGE, A. J. & CHARLES, J. A. 1972 Retrieval of plant remains from archaeological sites by froth-flotation. In Higgs, E. S,. (Ed.) Papers in economic prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 39-48. JOBEY, G. 1978 Unenclosed platforms and settlements of the later 2nd millennium BC. Scottish Archaeological Forum 10: 12-26. JOHNSEN, S. J. 2002 The Greenland ice core records. ESF-HOLIVAR Workshop, Lammi, Finland, April17th-20th 2002. JONES, A. 2002 Archaeological theory and scientific practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univerrsity Press. JÓO, T. 1977 A regéci vár. A Miskolci Herman Ottó Múzeum Közleményei 16: 29-35. 226

KAISER, T., 1992 The pottery. In Tringham, R., Journal of Field Archaeology 19: 351-386. KALICZ, N. 1968 Die Frühbronzezeit in Nordost-Ungarn. Archaeologia Hungarica XLV. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. KALICZ, N. - MAKKAY, J. 1977 Die Linienbandkeramik in der Grossen Ungarischen Tiefebene. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. KEMENCZEI, T. 1966 Koravaskori bronz raktarleletek a miskolci múzeumban. Hermann Otto Múzeum Évkönyve 6, 49-107. KEMENCZEI, T. 1969 Újabb bronzleletek Borsod megyéből. – Recent bronze finds from Borsod County. Hermann Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve VIII: 27-68. KEMENCZEI, T. 1971 A Gáva-kultúra leletei a miskolci múzeumban. – Funde der Gáva Gruppe in Miskolcer Museum. Hermann Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve X: 31-87. KEMENCZEI, T. 1981 Das spätbronzezeitliche Urnengräberfeld von Alsóberecki. Folia Archaeologia 32: 69-94. KEMENCZEI, T. 1982 Die Siedlungsfunde der Gáva-kultur aus Nagykálló. Folia Archaeologia 33: 73-95. KEMENCZEI, T. 1982a Der spätbronzezeitliche Burgenbau in Nordungarn. In Beiträge zum bronzezeitlichen Burgenbau in Mitteleuropa, Berlin: Zentralinstitut für Alte Geschichte und Archäologie, Nitra: Archeologický Ústav Slovenskej Akadémie Vied, 273-278. KEMENCZEI, T. 1984 Die Spätbronzezeit Nordostungarns. Archaeologia Hungarica LI. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. KEMENCZEI, T. 1994 Late Bronze Age Workshops: Centers of Metallurgy. In: Kovács, T. (ed) Treasures of the Hungarian Bronze Age. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 52-63. KEMENCZEI, T. 2003 Bronze Age Metallurgy. In Visy, Zs. (ed) Hungarian Archaeology in the Turn of the Millenium. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage, 167-174. KRISTIANSEN, K. 1998 Europe before history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KURGAN-PRZYBYLSKA, M. 1997 Problem interpretacji występowania materiałów wyrobów krzemiennych na stanowiskach grupy górnośląsko-małopolskiej kultury łużyckiej. In Lech, J. & Piotrowska, D. (Eds.) Z badań nad krzemienarstwem epoki Brązi i Wczesnej Epoki Żelawa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PAN, 239-248.

LÁSZLÓ, A. 1972 Cu privire la legǎturile culturii Gáva cu culturile contemporane din Bazinul Dunǎrii de Mijloc. – Zu den Beziehungen der Gáva Kultur mit den gleichzeitigen Kulturen des mittleren Donaubeckens. Centenar Muteal Oradea (1972): 173-184. LASZLOVSZKY, J. 1999 Field systems in Medieval Hungary. In Nagy, B. & Sebők, K. (Eds.) The man of many devices who wandered full many ways. János M. Bak Festschrift. Budapest: CEU Press, 432- 444. LECH, H. & J. 1997 Górnictwo krzemienia w epoki brązu i wczesnej epoce żelaza. Badania uroczyska “Zele” w Wierzbicy, woj. Radomskie. In Lech, J. & Piotrowska, D. (Eds.) Z badań nad krzemienarstwem epoki Brązi i Wczesnej Epoki Żelawa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PAN, 95-114. LECH, J. & PIOTROWSKA, D. (Eds.) 1997 Z badań nad krzemienarstwem epoki Brązi i Wczesnej Epoki Żelawa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PAN. MAGYARI, E. 2002 Climatic versus human modification of the Late Quaternary vegetation in Eastern Hungary. PhD Thesis. University of Debecen. MAKKAY, J. 2007 Endrőd 3/6: the Middle/Late Copper Age house. In Makkay, J. The excavations of the Early Neolithic sites of the Körös culture in the Körös valley, Hungary: the final report. Volume 1. The excavations: stratigraphy, structures and graves. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Quaderno 11, 84-92. MAZUREK, W. 1997 Krzemienne wkładki sierpowe typu Szuminka. In Lech, J. & Piotrowska, D. (Eds.) Z badań nad krzemienarstwem epoki Brązi i Wczesnej Epoki Żelawa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PAN, 185-204. MIGAL, W. 1997 Znaczenie przemyłsu nakopalnianego z Rybnik, woj. Białostockie, dla poznania krzemienarstwa epoki brązu w Polsce. In Lech, J. & Piotrowska, D. (Eds.) Z badań nad krzemienarstwem epoki Brązi i Wczesnej Epoki Żelawa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PAN, 129-144. MILISAUSKAS, S. 1986 Early Neolithic settlement and society at Olszanica. Ann Arbor: Memoirs of Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan No. 19. MOGIELNICKA-URBAN, M. 1997 Rola krzemienia w obrzędowości ludności kultury łużyckiej na przykładzie cmentarzyska w Maciejowicach, woj. siedlickie. In Lech, J. & Piotrowska, D. (Eds.) Z badań nad krzemienarstwem epoki Brązi i Wczesnej Epoki Żelawa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PAN, 277-288. 227

Żelawa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PAN, 259-276. RACZKY, P., ANDERS, A., NAGY, E., KURUCZ, K., HAJDÚ, Zs. & MEIER-ARENDT, W. 1997 Polgár-Csőszhalom-dűlő. In Raczky, P., Kovács, T. & Anders, A. (Eds.) Utak a múltba. Az M3-as autópálya régészeti leletmentései. Budapest: National Museum & ELTE, 34-43. RACZKY, P., DOMBORÓCZKI, L. & HAJDÚ, Zs. 2007 The site of Polgár-Csőszhalom and its cultural and chronological connections with the Lengyel culture. In Kozłowski, J. K. & Raczky, P. (Eds.). The Lengyel, Polgár and related cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe. Kraków: Jagiellonian University and ELTE, 4970. RACZKY, P. et al. (16 authors) 2002 Polgár-Csőszhalom (1989–2000): summary of the Hungarian-German excavations on a Neolithic settlement in Eastern Hungary. In R. Aslan et al. (Eds.) Mauerschau: Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann. Remshalden-Grunbach: Greiner, 833-860. RADY, M. 2000 Nobility, land and service in Medieval Hungary. New York: Palgrave. RENFREW, C. 1975 Trade as action at a distance: questions of integration and communication. In Jeremy A. Sabloff, J. A. & Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (Eds.) Ancient civilization and trade. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 3-59. RKM 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007 Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon. – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary. Budapest. SAŁACIŃSKI, S., ZALEWSKI, M., MISIEWICZ, K. & POPIESLI, R. 1997 Epigoni górnictwa i przetwórstwa krzemienia – nowo odkryte kopalnie w Rybnikach, woj. białystockie. In Lech, J. & Piotrowska, D. (Eds.) Z badań nad krzemienarstwem epoki Brązi i Wczesnej Epoki Żelawa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PAN, 115 - 128 SCHWARTZ, C. 2002 Preliminary investigation of the bone assemblage. In Raczky, P. et al. (16 authors). Polgár-Csőszhalom (1989–2000): summary of the Hungarian-German excavations on a Neolithic settlement in Eastern Hungary. In R. Aslan et al. (Eds.) Mauerschau: Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann. Remshalden-Grunbach: Greiner, 853 - 856. SCHWARZ, G. T. 1967. A simplified chemical test for archaeological field work. Archaeometry 10: 57-63. SHERRATT, A. 1972 Socio-economic and demographic models for the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Europe. In

MOZSOLICS, A. 1957 Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte der grossen Wanderung. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 8: 119-156. MOZSOLICS, A. 1967 Spätbronzezeitliche Depotfunde aus Ungarn. Inventaria Archeologica, Ungarn 2. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. MOZSOLICS, A. 1973 Bronze und Goldfunde des Karpatenbeckens. Depotfundhorizonte von Forró und Ópályi. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. MOZSOLICS, A. 1985 Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte von Aranyos, Kurd und Gyermely. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. MOZSOLICS, A. 2000 Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Depotfundhorizonte Hajdúböszörmény, Románd und Bükkszentlászló. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Band. 17. Kiel: xxxx. MURRAY, A. S. & ROBERTS, R. G. 1998 Measurement of the equivalent dose in quartz using a regenerative-dose single aliquot protocol. Radiation Measurements 29: 503-515. NANDRIS, J. 1975 A reconsideration of the south east European sources of archaeological obsidian. Bulletin of the University of London Institute of Archaeology 12: 71-94. NEPPER, I. & SZ. MÁTHÉ, M. 1973 A Hajdú-Bihat megyei múzeumok régészeti tevékenysége 1969-1971. Leletkataszter. – Archaeological activities between 1969-1971 in Hajdú-Bihar county. Findlist. Deri Múzeum Évkönyve (1973): 35-54. NÉMETI, J. 1990 Contribuţii la cunoaşterea sfîrşitului epoci bronzului din nordvestul Romăniei. – Beiträge zur Erforschung der Spätbronzezeit in Nordwestrumanien. SCIV 41: 19-54. NOVÁKI, GY., SÁNDORFI, GY. & MIKLÓS, ZS. 1979 A Börzsöny hegység őskori és közepkori várai. Fontes Archaeologicae Hungaricae. Budapest. NOVÁKI, GY., SÁNDORFI, GY. & FELD, I. 2007 Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén megye várai az őskortől a kuruc korig. Magyarországe Várainak Topográfiája 1. Budapest – Miskolc: Hermann Ottó Múzeum. PATAY, P. 1976 Vorbericht über die Ausgrabungen zo PoroszlóAponhát. Folia Archaeologia 27: 193-207. PBF Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Frankfurt am Main. PIOTROWSKA, D. 1997 Problem wysętpowania materiałów krzemiennych na cmentarzysku kultury łużyckiej w Gąsawie, woj. bydgoskie. In Lech, J. & Piotrowska, D. (Eds.) Z badań nad krzemienarstwem epoki Brązi i Wczesnej Epoki 228

Clarke, D. L. (Ed.) Models in archaeology. London: Duckworth, 477-542. SHERRATT, A. 1981 Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the secondary products revolution. In Hodder, I., Isaac, G. & Hammond, N. (Eds.) Pattern of the past: studies in honour of David Clarke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 261305. SHERRATT, A. 1987. Neolithic exchange systems in Central Europe, in Sieveking, G. de G. and Newcomer, M. N. (Eds.) The human uses of flint and chert. Brighton: Harvester Press, 193-204. SIEVEKING, G. DE G., LONGWORTH, I. H., HUGHES, M. J., CLARK, A. J. & MILLETT, A. 1973. Phosphate survey, 192 - 199. In A new survey of Grime’s Graves. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39: 182-218. SIMÁN, K. 1995. The Korlát-Ravaszlyuyktető workshop site in North-Eastern Hungary (H 4).Archaeologia Polona 33: 41-58. SIMÁN, K. 1999 Bifaciális eszközök Korlát-Ravaszlyuk-tető lelőhelyen. A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve XXXVII: 29-44. SIRAKOV, N. 1998 Flint assemblages. Pp. 17 -26. In Alexandrov, S., Sirakov, N., Petkov, E. & Gaydarska, B. Trial excavations of a Bronze Age site near Tutrakan, North-East Bulgaria. Archaeologica Bulgarica II/3: 7-30. SIRAKOVA, S. 2001. Evidence for flint knapping tradition in North Bulgaria at the late prehistoric times. In Ginter, B., Drobniewicz, B., Kazior, B., Nowak, M. & Połtowicz, M. (Eds.) Problems of the Stone Age in the Old World. J. K. Kozłowski Festschrift. Kraków: Jagellonian University Institute of Archaeology, 333-342. SONNEVILLE-BORDES, D. DE 1960 Le paléolithique supérieur en Périgord. Bordeaux. SØRENSEN, M. L. S. 2000 Gender Archaeology. Cambridge, Polity Press. SVOBODA, J. 1989. Middle Pleistocene adaptations in Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 3: 33-70. V. SZABÓ, G. 1996 A Csorva-csoport és a Gáva-kultúra kutatásának problémái néhány Csongrád megyei leletegyüttes alapján. – Forschungsprobleme der Csorva-Gruppe und der Gáva-Kultur aufgrund einiger Fundverbände aus dem Komitat Csongrád. Mora Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve. Studia Archaeologica II: 9-109. V. SZABÓ, G. 1999 A bronzkor Csongrád megyében (történeti vázlat a készülő régészeti állandó kiállítás kapcsán), Múzeumi Füzetek Csongrád 2: 51-117.

V. SZABÓ, G. 2002 Tanulmányok az Alföld késő bronzkori történetéhez. A proto Gáva periódus és a Gávakultúra időszakának emlékei a Tisza-vidéken. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. V. SZABÓ, G. 2003 The Expanding World: Masters of Bronzeworking in the Carpathian Basin. In Visy, Zs. (ed) Hungarian Archaeology in the Turn of the Millenium. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage, 163-167. V. SZABÓ, G. 2004a Ház, település és településszerkezet a késő bronzkori (BD, HA, HB periódus) Tiszavidéken. – Houses, Settlements, and Settlement Structures in the Tisza Region of the Late Bronze Age (Periods BH, HA, HB). In Nagy, E., Hajdú, Zs. & Dani, J. (Eds.) MΏMOΣ II. Őskoros Kutatók II. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete. Debrecen: xxxx, 137-170. V. SZABÓ, G. 2004b A tiszacsegei edénydepó. Újabb adatok a tiszavidéki késő bronzkori edénydeponálás szokásához. – Das Gefäßdepot von Tiszacsege. Neue Angaben zur sitte der spätbronzezeitlichen Gefäßdeponierung in der Teißgegend. Mora Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve Studia Archaeologica X, Szeged, 81-112. V. SZABÓ, G. 2007 Freilegung und Rekonstruktion eines Brunnens in der Gemarkung von Polgár. Prehistoric Newsletter 7 (2005): 146-165. SZABÓ, P. 2005 and forests in Medieval Woodland Hungary. BAR International Series Oxford: BAR Publishing. 1348. TAKÁCS-BIRÓ, K. 1987 Chipped stone industry of the Linearband Pottery culture in Hungary. Archaeologia Interregionalis 24, 131-167. TAYLOR, C. C. 1971 The study of settlement patterns in pre-Saxon Britain. In Ucko, P. J., Tringham, R. & Dimbleby, G. W. (Eds.) Man, settlement and urbanism. London, Duckworth, 109 - 113. TESTART, A. 1982 The significance of food storage among huntergatherers: residence patterns, population densities and social inequalities. Current Anthropology 23: 523-537. TORMA, I. 1982 Békés megye régészeti topografiája. Magyarórszag Régészeti Topografiája IV/1. A Szeghalmi járás. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. TÓTH, A. 2003 Germanic peoples in the Great Hungarian Plain during the 5th century. In: Visy, Zs. (Ed.) Hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage, 293-294. 229

C., Dolukhanov, P. M. (Eds.) Landscapes in flux. Colloquenda Pontica 3. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 23-40.

TREHERNE, P. 1995 The warrior’s beauty: the masculine body and self-identity in Bronze Age Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 3/1: 105-144. VADAY, A. 2003 The peoples of the Barbaricum during the Roman period. In: Visy, Zs. (Ed.) Hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage, 267-270. VASILEV, V. 1995. Fortifications de refuge et établissements fortifiés du premier âge du fer en Transylvanie. Bibliotheca Thracologica XII, Bucureşti: xxxx. VASILEV, V., ALDEA, I. & CIUGUDEAN, H. 1991. Civilizaţia dacică timpurie în aria intracarpatică a României. Contribuţii archeologice: aşezarea fortificată de la Teleac. Cluj – Napoca: Editura Dacia. VERES, L. 1989 Magyar népi üvegek. Miskolc: Borsodi Kismonógráfiak 28. VERTÉS, L. 1965 The depot of silex blades from Boldogkőváralja. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica 17: 129-136. VIAZZO, P. P. 1989 Upland communities. Environment, population and social structure in the Alps since the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VICZE, M. 1996 The Prehistoric settlement at the site Gyoma 133. In Vaday, A. (Ed.) Cultural and Landscape changes in South-East Hungary 2. Prehistoric, Roman barbarian and Late Avar settlement at Gyoma 133 (Békés County Microregion). Budapest: Archaeolingua, 27-49. VIGA, GY. 1990 Árucsere és migráció Észak-magyarországon. Debrecen/Miskolc: Ethnica. VIRÁG, ZS. M. 2003 Early metallurgy in the Carpathian Basin. In: Visy, Zs. (Ed.) Hungarian archaeology at the turn of the millennium. Budapest: Ministry of National Cultural Heritage, 129-132. WILLIAMS, O. & NANDRIS, J. 1977 The Hungarian and Slovakian sources of archaeological obsidian: an interim report on further fieldwork, with a Note on Tektites. Journal of Archaeological Science 4/3: 207-219. WILLIAMS-THORPE, O., WARREN, S.E. & NANDRIS, J. 1984 The distribution and provenance of archaeological obsidian in central and eastern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 11/3, 183-212. ZOTOVIĆ, M. 1972 Dosadašnji saznova o arheološkog proslošti užičkog kraja. Užički Zbornik 1: 5-18. ZVELEBIL, M. & BENEŠ, J. 1997. Theorising landscapes: the concept of the historical interactive landscape. In: Chapman, J. 230