KÖZLEMÉNYEK SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Archaeologiai Értesítő 135 (2010) 147–160 © Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest DOI: 10.1556/ArchErt. 135.2010.6

KÖZLEMÉNYEK – SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Archaeological register of tell settlements in Hungary Alexandra Anders –Zoltán Czajlik –Marietta Csányi – Nándor Kalicz –Emese Gyöngyvér Nagy –Pál Raczky –Judit Tárnoki*

This paper presents the results of a research project, which was launched in 1999 by the Institute of Archaeological Sciences of the ELTE. Our main goal was to create a register of Hungarian tell settlements. First we collected all available information on tell settlements from the archaeological literature and various museum archives. Following this preliminary data filtering, fifty of the initial 161 Neolithic sites and 116 of the 224 Bronze Age sites were classified as genuine tells or tell-like settlements. After that we determined the accurate location and co-ordinates of the sites using aerial photography called for the construction of a GIS database. The destruction (by erosion, by flood, etc.) of the tell settlements can be monitored virtually from one day to the other. In addition to a precise site condition assessment, the project yielded fresh information about settlement layouts, such as the presence of enclosures. At some sites, aerial photography was followed by a magnetometer survey. Keywords: Hungary, Neolithic, Bronze Age, tell settlements, aerial photography, database, remote sensing Research history The prehistoric landscape of the Carpathian Basin was for over one and half millennia determined by stratified settlement mounds. Tell settlements were first established by the Tisza– Herpály–Csőszhalom communities of the Late Neolithic, spanning the period between 5100/5000 and 4500/4400 BC,1 and then again two thousand years later, by communities of the Nagyrév, * Anders Alexandra. ELTE BTK Régészettudományi Intézet, H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum krt. 4/B. [email protected] Czajlik Zoltán. ELTE BTK Régészettudományi Intézet, H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum krt. 4/B. [email protected] Csányi Marietta. Damjanich János Múzeum, H-5000 Szolnok, Kossuth tér 4. [email protected] Kalicz Nándor. MTA Régészeti Intézet, H-1014 Budapest, Úri u. 49. [email protected] Nagy Emese Gyöngyvér. Déri Múzeum, H-4026 Debrecen, Déri tér 1. [email protected] Raczky Pál. ELTE BTK Régészettudományi Intézet, H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum krt. 4/B. [email protected]

06AAetal.indd 147

Hatvan, Vatya, Ottomány, Füzesabony, Gyula varsánd and Perjámos cultures of the Early and Middle Bronze Age, between 2500 and 1500 BC2 (Fig. 1). The Carpathian Basin marked the northernmost distribution of this settlement type of south-eastern European origin: during the Neolithic, tells dotted the landscape along the Tisza, Körös, Berettyó and Maros rivers, while in the Bronze Age, tell settlements appeared along the middle reaches of the Danube too. The research of tell settlements, and in particular of the Bronze Age ones, is virtually coeval with Hungarian prehistoric research.3 Finds from these settlements have been known since the early 19th century. Tells made their entrée to

Tárnoki Judit. Damjanich János Múzeum, H-5000 Szolnok, Kossuth tér 4. [email protected] 1 Kalicz–Raczky 1987; Link 2006, 25–40; Raczky–Anders 2008, 35–37; Raczky in press. 2 Bóna 1992; Gogâltan 2005. 3 Bóna 1992a, 9–10; Rosenstock 2009, 26–27.

10/24/2010 10:11:40 AM

148 alexandra anders et al.

Fig. 1. Distribution map of the Neolithic (—) and the Bronze Age (- - -) tell cultures in the Carpathian Basin (after Raczky– Anders 2008, 36, Fig. 1 and Gogâltan 2005, 162, Abb. 1). Sites mentioned in the text: 1. kép. A neolitikus (—) és bronzkori (- - -) tell-kultúrák elterjedési területe a Kárpát-medencében (Raczky–Anders 2008, 36, Fig. 1 és Gogâltan 2005, 162, Abb. 1 nyomán). A tanulmányban említett lelőhelyek: 1: Békés-Povád, 2: Berettyószentmárton-Korhány, 3: Berettyóújfalu-Herpály, 4: Boconád-Alatka-puszta-Nagy legelő, 5: Emőd-Nagyhalom, 6: Erősd–Tyiszk-hegy (Ariuşd, RO), 7: Esztár-Fenyvespart, 8: Felsővadász-Várdomb, 9: Hódmező vásárhely-Gorzsa, 10: Hort, the road leading to Csány – Csány felé vezető út, 11: Jánoshida-Portelek, 12: JászárokszállásKopaszdomb, 13: Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom, 14: Kunfehértó, 15: Maklár-Baglyas, 16: Öcsöd-Kováshalom, 17: Pécska (Pecica, RO), 18: Perjámos (Periam, RO), 19: Polgár-Bosnyákdomb, 20: Polgár-Csőszhalom, 21: Szegvár-Tűzköves, 22: SzolnokTűzköves, 23: Tápé-Lebő, 24: Tiszainoka-Feketehalom, 25: Tószeg-Laposhalom, 26: Túrkeve-Terehalom, 27: Vésztő-Mágor

academy at an international congress held in Budapest: in 1876, the participants of the VIIIth International Archaeological and Anthropological Congress visited the settlement mound at TószegLaposhalom, where they partook in a demonstration excavation, whose finds were displayed in the Hungarian National Museum.4 These tells were for a long time regarded as terramare settlements5 and their excavation was modelled on the investigation of Italian terramare sites.6 The technique of tell excavations, from which modern excavation procedures evolved, were worked out in the early decades of the 20th century. Instead of proceeding downward according to spade spits, the settlement is “peeled away” from one settlement level or occupation phase to the next. The various settlement features and sec4

Banner–Bóna–Márton 1957, 4–6; Bóna 1992b, 102. 5 Bóna 1992b, 102; e.g. Erősd–Tyiszk-hegy: László 1914. 6 E.g. Tószeg-Laposhalom: Banner–Bóna–Márton 1957, 12–13.

06AAetal.indd 148

tions are documented with drawings and photographs, and the finds are kept separately according to levels. The investigations at Pécska and Perjámos by M. Roska,7 at Erősd by F. László,8 at Tószeg-Laposhalom by L. Márton9 and at Berettyóújfalu-Herpály by L. Zoltai10 were all pioneering excavations in this respect. The experiences gained during these excavations led to the formulation of a new theoretical framework. M. Roska must again be quoted, who challenged Luigi Pigorini’s terramare theory, arguing that the mounds represented the primary settings of prehistoric life and that these settlements, which grew higher as occupation levels were levelled and rebuilt, were a reflection of continuous sed 7

Roska 1912; Roska 1913. László 1914. 9 Banner–Bóna–Márton 1957. 10 L. Zoltai’s excavation report is only available in manuscript form. 8

10/24/2010 10:11:41 AM

archaeological register of tell settlements in hungary

entism.11 This new approach affected the designation of these stratified sites: Roska consistently called them settlements or mounds, while L. Bella described Tószeg as a settlement mound in a lecture given in 1915,12 and F. Tompa described these mounds as tells.13 A century after the 1876 conference, two exhibitions toured the major Hungarian museums and several European cities in the 1980s and the early 1990s. The exhibitions and the accompanying catalogues reviewing the findings of the recent research on tell settlements marked a major landmark in the research of the identical settlement type of two different periods. The catalogue on Neolithic tells, The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region, discussed five major tell settlements (Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa, Szegvár-Tűzköves, Öcsöd-Kováshalom, Vésztő-Mágor and Berettyó újfalu-Herpály), selected from among the 161 sites shown on the distribution map (of which only a small portion were genuine tells14), while the one on the Bronze Age, Bronzezeit in Ungarn, described the sixteen most important tell settlements (although the finds displayed at the exhibition were selected from the assemblages brought to light on twenty-eight tell settlements15). Both catalogues offered a detailed overview of the research results of the preceding decades and of the findings of the tell research project begun in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Few studies on Neolithic tell settlements had been previously available, the most notable being an article by N. Kalicz16 and a book by J. Makkay.17 The catalogue discussing Bronze Age tells could draw from several comprehensive studies in this field.18

11

12 13

14

15 16 17 18

06AAetal.indd 149

Roska 1912, 51–52, 56. The re-interpretation of these sites marked a major advance in Neolithic studies, comparable to the “discovery” of post-holes by Carl Schuchhardt in 1909 (Lichter 1993, 21), leading to the identification and reconstruction of houses and the rejection of earlier theories according to which pits were used as habitations. Banner–Bóna–Márton 1957, 22. Tompa 1936, 47, 62. F. Tompa described the Neolithic settlements at Herpály and Kopáncs (HódmezővásárhelyKökénydomb) as tells, meaning that N. Vlassa was not the first prehistorian to use this term in this sense. Cp. Gogâltan 2003, 223. Tálas–Raczky 1987. The catalogue was also published in German (Alltag und Religion. Jungsteinzeit in Ost-Ungarn, Frankfurt 1990) and in French (Les agriculteurs de la Grande Plaine Hongroise, 4000–3500 av. J.-C., Dijon 1991). Meier-Arendt 1992. The catalogue was also published in French (Le bel âge du bronze en Hongrie, Budapest, s. a.). Kalicz 1965. Makkay 1982. Kalicz 1968; Bóna 1975; Kovács 1988.

149

In spite of these advances, a systematic survey of Hungarian tell settlements or even their partial catalogue was lacking,19 even though the Cultural Heritage and Environmental Protection Law in Hungary defined tells as scheduled sites.20 Tells are not simply archaeological sites: many are also environmental refugiums with rare, ancestral flora and fauna associations. However, in the lack of an accurate register of these sites and their precise geographic location, their protection can hardly be implemented, especially if one is unaware of what exactly needs to be protected. The archaeological register of tell settlements A research project, in part inspired by the two aforementioned catalogues,21 was launched in 1999 by the Institute of Archaeological Sciences of the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest in order to remedy this situation. Our main goal was to create a register of Hungarian tell settlements. The quality of the information on a particular site published in the two catalogues varied: in addition to recently excavated, well-documented sites, there were many relatively wellknown sites, which had been investigated many decades earlier, as well as sites, to which there were but laconic references in the archaeological literature or in field survey reports.22 In view of the fact that some sites lay in nature conservation areas, the project was initially also funded by the Ministry of Environment. More recently, however, we have had to apply to various organisations for grants to continue our work. As a first step, we collected all available information on tell settlements from the archaeological literature and various museum archives, no matter how meagre the information value of a 19 Unfortunately

the situation is somewhat better only in a few other countries in Europe and Asia, affected by the need of systematically registering tell sites. Even in those countries the need for such registers has risen only recently (Menze– Ur–Sherratt 2006, 321; Gheorghiu 2008, 169). See e.g. for the Amuq’ plain in Antiochia (Sherratt 2006), for Early Neolithic sites in Bulgaria (Gatsov–Boyadzhiev 2009) and the more comprehensive survey of Eneolithic tells (Rosenstock 2009, CD-ROM Anhänge). It is remarkable that it took about two decades to have the two aforementioned catalogues published. It is similarly typical that almost two decades have passed since the appearance of these works before new summaries would written in this topic (Gogâltan 2003; Gogâltan 2005; Link 2006; Raczky in press). 20 For more details see: Baráz–Kiss 2007. 21 Tálas–Raczky 1987; Meier-Arendt 1992. 22 Kalicz–Raczky 1987a, 8–9; Bóna 1992.

10/24/2010 10:11:41 AM


Fig. 2. Tápé-Lebő (photo by Z. Czajlik) 2. kép. Tápé-Lebő (Fotó: Czajlik Z.)

Fig. 3. Maklár-Baglyas (photo by Z. Czajlik) 3. kép. Maklár-Baglyas (Fotó: Czajlik Z.)

06AAetal.indd 150

10/24/2010 10:11:42 AM


particular source. The systematic field survey reports organised by the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and published in the volumes of the Archaeological Topography of Hungary (MRT) was a great methodological support to our project. At this point, we had to decide what to regard as a tell settlement: we finally settled on defining settlements of this type as artificial mounds with stratified deposits having at least two distinct layers and a deposit thickness of 2.5–4 m in the case of genuine tells and of 1–2.5 m in the case of the telllike settlements (although the deposits of some Bronze Age tells did not accumulate to this height).23 Data collection was conducted with the aid of information sheets based on a set of uniform criteria. Each data sheet contained the following information: (1) geographic name (name of the site and its variants,24 together with the name of the nearest settlement and the county); (2) main characteristics (size, nature, age, morphological description); (3) previous archaeological research (research methods, location of previous excavation(s), research history, findings of earlier research, occupation levels of the tell, other occupation periods, name of the institution housing the finds from the tell, full bibliographic citations, and a field for various remarks). The data thus collected revealed that many sites had been wrongly categorised as tells and that in many cases, tell sites went by several names. As mentioned above, stratified settlements began to be designated as tells at a rather late date. Earlier, these settlements were described by various terms in 19th century and early 20th century archaeological literature, some of which have since faded from modern usage, some borrowed from ethnographic studies. In the case of Bronze Age tells, it was sometimes unclear whether a settlement was a fortification, a hillfort, or a tell, or perhaps each. In a few cases, there was hardly any reliable information on a particular site. Another difficulty encountered 23

Several definitions have been advanced regarding the morphological criteria of tells (e.g. Bóna 1975, 16–17; Kalicz– Racky 1987b, 15–16; Gogâltan 2003, 161; Link 2006, 10–14), from which we selected the broadest one. More recently: Rosenstock 2009, 234–239. 24 The name of a particular site often hints at its tell nature. For example the name of Öcsöd-Kováshalom, SzarvasKovácshalom, Szegvár-Tűzköves, Szolnok-Tűzköves, Szentpéterszeg-Kovadomb suggests Neolithic tell settlements, whose surface was strewn with flint, used for striking fires in ages before the invention of matches. The local names of settlement mounds often reflect their size and form, e.g. Nagyhalom, Emőd–Tószeg-Laposhalom, Túrkeve-Terehalom, Szécsény-Kerekdomb (Bóna 1992, 9).

06AAetal.indd 151

151

during data collection was the quality of the reports: precise, detailed descriptions and unintelligible, vague reports could be found among both 19th century publications and studies from the late 1990s. Results Following this preliminary data filtering, fifty of the initial 161 Neolithic sites (it is an important fact that more than 50 % belongs to the Herpály culture) and 116 of the 224 Bronze Age sites were classified as genuine tells or tell-like settlements. It means that roughly 160 settlements of this type can be reckoned within Hungary and these supposedly represent almost the prehistoric reality. The systematic overview of the major findings of previous research enabled the identification of a complex settlement system with three main tiers in the Neolithic. On the macro-regional level, we found that single layer settlements were the norm in the northern distribution of the Tisza– Herpály–Csőszhalom cultures (except the PolgárCsőszhalom tell), while tells and single layer, horizontal settlements both occurred in the south.25 On the micro-regional level, we found a pattern of a large central tell surrounded by smaller horizontal settlements in the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain,26 while on the intra-site level, were found the “symbiosis” of a tell and a single-layer settlement, with the two making up the site proper. On the latter sites, the two different settlement types were often separ ated by a ditch.27 The settlements of the Ottomány and Hatvan cultures represent similar triple structure (tell, horizontal settlement, ditch) in the Bronze Age.28 We found evidence for fortifications or hillforts and/or open, single layer settlements in the case of each of these Bronze Age cultures. The ratio of the latter settlement types varied, their proportion being high in the Vatya and Nagyrév cultures for example, and extremely low in the Hatvan culture. Based on the information gathered from the archaeological literature and various archival sources, we determined the accurate location and co-ordinates of the tell settlements. The high number of known tells and the diminishing funds at our disposal did not enable the personal inspection of each site, and therefore we sought a 25

Kalicz 1965, 36–37. Makkay 1982, 128–130. 27 Raczky–Anders in press. 28 Kalicz 1968, 131–134; Kalicz–Kalicz-Schreiber 2006, 109– 112. 26

10/24/2010 10:11:42 AM


Fig. 4. Tószeg-Laposhalom (photo by Z. Czajlik) 4. kép. Tószeg-Laposhalom (Fotó: Czajlik Z.)

06AAetal.indd 152

less costly non-destructive technique, which would yield accurate results. We finally decided on aerial photography, performed by Z. Czajlik using the non-oblique aerial imaging technique. The condition assessment survey of Hungarian tells using aerial photography called for the construction of a GIS database, which would enable their accurate identification. This limited database, containing less information than the data sheets described above, was completed in 2001. Its structure resembled that of the register of prehistoric hillforts29 and contained only the information necessary for geographic identification (a 1 : 10,000 topographical map, co-ordinates, height a.s.l., relative height, the area’s current cultivation patterns, the most important references in terms of topographical studies, date, etc.). The uniform criteria used for data collection to create a register of prehistoric hillforts and tell settlements proved extremely useful not only for

the actual aerial survey, but in other respects too. It became clear that the Bronze Age hillforts of the Hatvan/Füzesabony cultures in the foreland of the Northern Mountain Range can more likely be categorised as tells based on their morphological features (extent, presence of an enclosure, etc.), even in the case of sites for which excavation data was still lacking. Suffice it here to quote the enclosures observed at the Maklár-Baglyas and Boconád–Alatka-puszta–Nagy legelő sites, which can virtually only be seen on the aerial photographs;30 another case in point is the EmődNagyhalom site. Several examples can be quoted for an identical morphology: the enclosure around the well-known tell settlements at Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom and Felsővadász-Vár domb are clearly visible on the aerial photographs of these sites. The condition assessment survey of tell settlements using aerial photography is near-complete

29

30

Nováki–Czajlik–Holl 2006.

Nováki–Baráz 2000, 6, Figs 3–4.

10/24/2010 10:11:43 AM


and we are currently double-checking the data. This involves re-checking the information on the enclosures of the already known tell settlements and the field identification of earlier unknown enclosures identified from the aerial photographs (e.g. at Jánoshida-Portelek and Kunfehértó). We began the condition assessment survey of the tell sites in 2002, probably in the 24th hour. We have made aerial photos of fifty tell settlements, whose destruction can be monitored virtually from one day to the other. The greatest damage to these sites – and especially the telllike settlements – is the erosion caused by increasingly intensive arable farming, as shown by the photo made at Tápé-Lebő (Fig. 2), where the growth of maize is stunted along the edges of the tell owing to erosion. The Bronze Age tell at Maklár-Baglyas (Fig. 3) and JászárokszállásKopaszdomb are similarly threatened by erosion. Even though current legislation prohibits cultivation deeper than 40 cm on these sites, it seems that this protective measure is insufficient and the soil cover over the highest point of the tells diminishes from year to year. We also know of tell settlements, such as Szolnok-Tűzköves, which only exist in the archaeological literature because they have virtually disappeared from the face of the earth. Even though the alarm over the destruction of the tells was sounded several decades ago,31 no positive changes were forthcoming. Tells are usually covered with huge amounts of finds (potsherd, animal bones, intact and broken stone implements, burnt daub fragments), which become increasingly fragmented owing to continuous cultivation. The extent of destruction can perhaps best be illustrated by the excavation of the Polgár-Bosnyákdomb site,32 begun in summer 2007, where 2866 (!) burnt daub fragments were collected from a depth of 0–30 cm over a 1 m2 large area. Floodwaters too pose a constant threat to these settlements, as do the constructions of flood protection embankments. No more than a 2–5 m wide section has remained of the one-time Tószeg-Laposhalom tell (Fig. 4) owing to earlier floods and the flood protection embankment built at the time of the great Tisza flood in 2001 in order to protect the village.33 The same fate befell the Neolithic tell site at Békés-Povád, where the settlement mound was likewise incor31

Makkay 1982, 112, 116. Raczky–Anders 2009. 33 Múzeumok a közösség építéséért – 2001. május 18. TószegLaposhalom megmentése – Museums: Building Community – 18th May 2001. Tószeg-Laposhalom: Saving a classical archaeological site in Hungary. Budapest.

32

06AAetal.indd 153

153

Fig. 5. Szegvár-Tűzköves (photo by Z. Czajlik) 5. kép. Szegvár-Tűzköves (Fotó: Czajlik Z.)

porated into the embankment. Aside from erosion and floods, various human activities too contribute to the destruction of tell settlements. Very often, the modern village extends over the tell, as at Tószeg-Laposhalom, or various buildings are erected over the settlement mound, as at Szegvár-Tűzköves34 (Fig. 5), where grain silos were built on the site. At Hort, the road leading to Csány cuts through the settlement mound and only about one-quarter of the tell settlement has survived. In addition to a precise site condition assessment, the project yielded fresh information about settlement layouts. The presence of enclosures, previously documented at a few sites only, could be observed in the case of several other Neolithic and Bronze Age tells, among others at Berettyó szentmárton-Korhány, Polgár-Csőszhalom (Fig. 6), Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom (Fig. 7), EsztárFenyvespart and Túrkeve-Terehalom. The survey of the Bronze Age hillforts on the northern fringes of the Great Hungarian Plain yielded an interesting observation. The aerial 34

Rezi Kató 2009, 91–92.

10/24/2010 10:11:43 AM


Fig. 6. Polgár-Csőszhalom (photo by O. Braasch) 6. kép. Polgár-Csőszhalom (Fotó: O. Braasch)

Fig. 7. Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom (photo by Z. Czajlik) 7. kép. Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom (Fotó: Czajlik Z.)

06AAetal.indd 154

10/24/2010 10:11:44 AM


155

Fig. 8. Boconád-Alatka-puszta-Nagy legelő (photo by O. Braasch) 8. kép. Boconád-Alatka-puszta-Nagy legelő (Fotó: O. Braasch)

photos revealed that at some sites, such as EmődNagyhalom, the earthen ramparts documented earlier35 have vanished. The Bronze Age site at Boconád (Fig. 8) has a settlement mound clearly rising above the surrounding land, but instead of ramparts, it is ringed by one or more ditches, suggesting that the site is a tell settlement rather than a hillfort, as earlier believed. Some of the tells can more accurately be described as hillforts: the Berettyóújfalu-HerpályFöldvár site, for example, has a plateau divided by a ditch. In other words, the two settlement types cannot always be clearly distinguished from each other in the Great Hungarian Plain and the adjoining areas. The interpretation of some sites poses diffi culties. An enclosure was identified around the Vésztő-Mágor tell settlement, but it is uncertain whether the ditch dates from the Neolithic, the Copper Age or the Bronze Age.36 35 36

06AAetal.indd 155

Nováki–Czajlik–Holl 2007, 38–39. The magnetometric surveys by Apostolis Sarris in 2006 detected a triple ditch system around the tell, whose age was

At some sites, such as Polgár-Csőszhalom, Polgár-Bosnyákdomb,37 Berettóújfalu-Herpály (Fig. 9) and Vésztő-Mágor,38 aerial photography was followed by a magnetometer survey. We are aware that we have only taken the first few steps in realizing our goal. A field reconnaissance combined with sub-surface borings in order to clarify the layer sequence would certainly be necessary for each site. While the excavation of each and every tell settlement is obviously impossible (e.g. only 98 Bronze Age sites have been archaeologically investigated), the excavation of a few key sites would be necessary. A small sounding excavation was conducted at Polgár-Bosnyákdomb in 2007, in the course of which the structure of the ditch enclosing the tell was clarified. The almost 4 m deep ditch had a not determinable either (Gyucha 2009, 223). For the time being we do not know whether they are the same features detected in the aerial photographs or not. 37 Raczky–Anders in press. 38 Yerkes et al. 2007.

10/24/2010 10:11:44 AM


Fig. 9. Berettyóújfalu-Herpály (magnetometric survey by B. Székely, after Kalicz et al. 2010, 12) 9. kép. Berettyóújfalu-Herpály (Magnetométeres felmérés: Székely B., Kalicz et al. 2010, 12 nyomán)

V section and a homogenous, non-stratified fill.39 The investigation of other “problematic” sites would be necessary in order to establish the nature of the site for it is often difficult to distinguish between tells and hillforts based on their morphological traits alone. It is our hope that we can complete this project before tells entirely vanish from the landscape. Other artificial mounds, such as hillforts and burial mounds (kurgans and tumuli) dating from

39

06AAetal.indd 156

Raczky–Anders 2009.

various periods, are in need of similar protection as tells. While there is a greater public awareness of the endangered nature of these sites than that of tells, reflected by several professional and amateur movements to save these sites,40 the continued scientific registration of sites of this type is equally important.

40

E.g. Tóth A. 1999; Tóth A. 2004; Pásztor 2004; Tóth Cs. 2007.

10/24/2010 10:11:45 AM


157

BIBLIOGRAPHY Banner, J.–Bóna, I.–Márton, L. 1957 Die Ausgrabungen von L. Márton in Tószeg. ActaArchHung 9, 1–140. Baráz Cs.–Kiss G. 2007 (szerk.): „Ex lege” védett értékek. Források, lápok, barlangok, víznyelők, kunhalmok, földvárak. Bába kalács Füzetek 8, Eger. Bóna, I. 1975 Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südlichen Beziehungen. ArchHung 49, Budapest. 1992a Bronzezeitliche Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn. In: Meier-Arendt 1992, 9–39. 1992b Tószeg-Laposhalom. In: Meier-Arendt 1992, 101–114. Gatsov, I.–Boyadzhiev, Y. 2009 (eds): The First Neolithic Sites in Central/South-East Europen Transect. Early Neolithic Sites on the Territory of Bulgaria. BAR-IS 2048, Oxford. Gheorghiu, Dr. 2008 Cultural landscapes in the lower Danube area. Experimenting tell settlements. Documenta Praehistorica 35, 167–178. Gogâltan, Fl. 2003 Die neolithische Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken. Ein Überblick. In: E. Jerem–P. Raczky (eds): Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Budapest, 223–262. 2005 Der Beginn der bronzezeitlichen Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken: Chronologische Probleme. In: B. Horejs–R. Jung–E. Kaiser–B. Teržan (Hrsg.): Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hänsel von seinen Schülern gewidmet. UPA 121, 161–179. Gyucha A. 2009 A Körös-vidék kora rézkora. ELTE BTK, PhD értekezés, kézirat. Budapest. Kalicz, N. 1965 Siedlungsgeschichtliche Probleme der Körös- und der Theiß-Kultur. AASzeg 8, 27–40. 1968 Die Frühbronzezeit in Nordost-Ungarn. Abriß der Geschichte des 19.–16. Jahrhunderts v. u. Z. ArchHung 45, Budapest. Kalicz, N.–Kalicz-Schreiber, R. 2006 Befestigungsanlagen der frühbronzezeitlichen Hatvan-Kultur in Ungarn. In: A. Krenn-Leeb (Hrsg.): Wirtschaft, Macht und Strategie. Höhensiedlungen und ihre Funktionen in der Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Archäologie Österreichs Spezial 1, Wien, 107–124. Kalicz, N.–Raczky, P. 1987a Map of principal sites. In: Tálas–Raczky 1987, 8–9. 1987b The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region: A survey of recent archaeological research. In: Tálas–Raczky 1987, 11–30. Kalicz N.–Raczky P.–Anders A.–Kovács K. 2010 Amit az ősi tűz megőrzött. Képek egy újkőkori falu feltárásáról. Berettyóújfalu-Herpály. Budapest. Kovács, T. 1988 (ed.): Bronze Age tell settlements on the Great Hungarian Plain I. IPH 1, Budapest. László F. 1914 Ásatások az erősdi őstelepen. 1907–1912 (Fouilles à la station primitive de Erősd. 1907–1912). Dolg 5, 279–417. Lichter, Cl. 1993 Untersuchungen zu den Bauten des südosteuropäischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums. Internationale Archäologie 18, Buch am Erlbach. Link, Th. 2006 Das Ende der neolithischen Tellsiedlungen. Ein kulturgeschichtliches Phänomen des 5. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Karpatenbecken. UPA 134, Bonn. Makkay J. 1982 A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új eredményei. Az időrend és a népi azonosítás kérdései. Budapest. Meier-Arendt, W. 1992 (Hrsg.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiß. Budapest. Menze, B. H.–Ur, J. A.–Sherratt, A. G. 2006 Detection of Ancient Settlement Mounds: Archaeological Survey Based on the SRTM Terrain Model. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 27, 321–327.

06AAetal.indd 157

10/24/2010 10:11:45 AM

158 alexandra anders et al. Nováki Gy.–Baráz Cs. 2000 Őskori és középkori erődített telepek, várak Heves megye Mátrán kívüli területén (Befestigte urzeitliche und mittelalterliche Siedlungen, Burgen im Komitat Heves, außerhalb des Mátra Gebirges). Agria 36, 5–46. Nováki, Gy.–Czajlik, Z.–Holl, B. 2006 Kataster der prähistorischen Erdburgen Ungarns – Versuch einer umfassenden Datenerfassung zum Schutz des kulturellen, archäologischen und naturräumlichen Erbes. In: A. Krenn-Leeb (Hrsg.): Wirtschaft, Macht und Strategie. Höhensiedlungen und ihre Funktionen in der Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Archäologie Österreichs Spezial 1, Wien, 125–139. Pásztor E. 2004 Útikalauz. Földvárak és sírhalmok a Dunántúlon (Guide. Earthworks and Tumuli during the Bronz and Iron Ages in Transdanubia). Kecskemét. Raczky, P. in press Tell and Settlement in South-East Europe. The space–time context for the tell and non-tell settlements. In: Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe. Oxford. Raczky, P.–Anders, A. 2008 Late Neolithic spatial differentiation at Polgár-Csőszhalom, eastern Hungary. In: D. W. Bailey– A. Whittle–D. Hofmann (eds): Living Well Together? Settlement and materiality in the Neolithic of south-east and central Europe. Oxford, 35–53. 2009 Régészeti kutatások egy késő neolitikus településen – Polgár-Bosnyákdomb. Előzetes jelentés (Archaeological research at a Late Neolithic settlement – Polgár-Bosnyákdomb. Preliminary report). ArchÉrt 134, 5–21. in press Neolithic enclosures in Eastern Hungary and their survival into the Copper Age. In: Fr. Bertemes–P. F. Biehl–H. Meller (Hrsg.): Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa – Neolithic Circular Enclosures in Europe. Halle. Rezi Kató G. 2009 Szegvár-Tűzköves, avagy ami megmaradt… – Szegvár-Tűzköves or what remainds… In: Bende L.– Lőrinczy G. (szerk.): Medinától Etéig. Tisztelgő írások Csalog József születésének 100. évfordulóján. Szentes 2009, 91–102. Rosenstock, E. 2009 Tells in Südwestasien und Südosteuropa. Untersuchungen zur Verbreitung, Entstehung und Definition eines Siedlungsphänomens. Urgeschichtliche Studien 2, Remshalden. Roska M. 1912 Ásatás a pécska-szemlaki határban lévő Nagy Sánczon (Fouilles executes au Nagy-Sáncz dans la commune de Pécska-Szemlak). Dolg 3, 1–73. 1913 Ásatás a perjámosi Sánczhalmon. MKÉ 7, 81–122. Sherratt, A. G. 2006 Tellspotting: The Amuq’. Archatlas, February 2010, Edition 4. http://www.archatlas.org/Tellspotting/Amuq.php Tálas, L.–Raczky, P. 1987 (eds): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region. A survey of recent excavations and their findings: Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa, Szegvár-Tűzköves, Öcsöd-Kováshalom, Vésztő-Mágor, BerettyóújfaluHerpály. Budapest–Szolnok. Tompa, F. 1936 25 Jahre Urgeschichtsforschung in Ungarn 1912–1936. BRGK 24–25 (1934–1935) 27–127. Tóth A. 1999 (szerk.): Kunhalmok. „Ti vagytok a mi katedrálisaink”. Kisújszállás. 2004 A kunhalmokról – más szemmel. Kisújszállás–Debrecen. Tóth Cs. 2007 Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok megye kunhalmainak állapotfelmérése. Jászkunság 50, 42–59. Yerkes, R. W.–Sarris, A.–Frolking, T.–Parkinson, W. A.–Gyucha, A.–Hardy, M.–Catanoso, L. 2007 Geophysical and Geochemical Investigations at two Early Copper Age Settlements in the Körös River Valley, Southeastern Hungary. Geoarchaeology 22, 845–871.

06AAetal.indd 158

10/24/2010 10:11:45 AM


159

Magyarországi tell-települések régészeti katasztere Anders Alexandra–Czajlik Zoltán–Csányi Marietta–Kalicz Nándor– Nagy Emese Gyöngyvér–Raczky Pál–Tárnoki Judit A Kárpát-medence őskori képét több mint másfél év ezreden át a többrétegű települési halmok, azaz a tellek határozták meg. Először a késő neolitikumban, Kr. e. 5100/5000-tól 4500/4400-ig a Tisza–Herpály–Csőszhalom kultúrák idején, majd mintegy kétezer évvel később, a korai és a középső bronzkor időszakában, Kr. e. 2500–1500 között a nagyrévi, hatvani, ottományi és perjámosi kultúrák korában. Ez a déli eredetű települési forma két ízben is itt érte el elterjedési területének északi határát: a neolitikumban az alföldi folyóvidékeken, a Tisza, Körös, Berettyó és Maros mentén találhatók a tellek, míg a bronzkorban már a Duna középső szakaszának partját is benépesítik (1. kép). A magyarországi tellek – különösen a bronzkoriak – kutatásának története szinte egyidős a magyar ősrégészetével; a XIX. század első évei óta ismertek leleteik. Első bemutatásukra 1876-ban, a Budapesten megrendezett VIII. Nemzetközi Ősrégészeti és Antropológiai Kong resszuson került sor: a résztvevők ellátogattak a tószeglaposhalmi tellhez, ahol bemutató ásatáson vehettek részt. Az 1876-os konferenciát követően a két különböző korszak azonos településtípusának kutatásában az 1980-as és 1990-es évek elején megrendezett nemzetközi kiállítások és a hozzájuk kapcsolódó katalógusok (The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region; Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiß) hoztak döntő változást. Mindezen kutatástörténeti előzmények ellenére mégsem állt rendelkezésre olyan munka, amely a magyarországi tellek akárcsak részleges, katalógusszerű közlését tartalmazta volna, jóllehet a telleket a Magyarországon hatályos örökségvédelmi és természetvédelmi törvények kiemelten védendő területként határozzák meg. Kutatási programunk ennek a hiánynak a megszüntetése érdekében indult 1999-ben, az ELTE BTK Régészet tudományi Intézetének kezdeményezésére. Célunk a ma gyarországi tellek lehető legteljesebb adatbázisának létrehozása volt. A kataszter felépítésének első lépéseként a szakirodalomból és a múzeumi adattárakból felgyűjtöttük a tellekre vonatkozó – akár csak csekély forrásértékkel is bíró – összes adatot. El kellett döntenünk, hogy mit tekintünk tellnek. A tell meghatározásunk szerint legalább két rétegsorral rendelkezik, amelyek vastagsága valódi tell esetében 2,5–4 m (a bronzkori telleknél alacsonyabb értékek is előfordulnak), míg a tellszerűeknél 1–2,5 m. Az adatfelvétel űrlapok segítségével történt, előre egyeztetett szempontok alapján. Az adatgyűjtés ezen első szakasza után kiértékeltük eredményeinket. Már ekkor kiderült, hogy egy adott lelőhely sokszor tévesen szerepel tellként, vagy egy adott tell több néven is ismert. E szűrés után az eredeti 161 neolit lelőhely közül ötvenről bizonyosodott be, hogy tell vagy tellszerű, míg a 224 bronz-

06AAetal.indd 159

kori lelőhely közül 116-ról tudtuk ugyanezt igazolni. Világosan kirajzolódott az újkőkori települési struktúra háromszintű szerveződése: makroregionális szinten a Tisza–Herpály–Csőszhalom kultúrák elterjedési területének északi részén csak egyrétegű telepek fordulnak elő (kivéve Polgár-Csőszhalom telljét), míg délen telleket és egyrétegű telepeket egyaránt ismerünk. Mikroregionális szinten a Dél-Alföldön figyelhető meg az a jelenség, hogy egy-egy központi szerepű, nagyobb tellt kisebb, horizontális telepek sora vesz körül. Végül egy adott lelőhely szintjén a tell és a horizontális településrész együttesen alkotja a lelőhelyet, a két struktúrát gyakran árok is elkülöníti egymástól. A bronzkori ottományi és hatvani kultúrák esetében hasonló hármas települési szerkezet figyelhető meg. Mindegyik kultúra esetében találtunk adatot földvár vagy nyílt, egyrétegű telep meglétére is. Ezek aránya a tellekhez képest változó; a vatyai kultúrában például magasnak tűnik, a nagyrévi és hatvani kultúrákban viszont rendkívül alacsonynak. Helyszíni szemlére a magas költségek és a tellek nagy száma miatt sajnos nem kerülhetett sor, ezért állapotuk felmérésére a ferde tengelyű légi fényképezés módszerét választottuk. Ehhez a munkához szükség volt térinformatikai azonosításukra is. Mostanáig összesen ötven tell fölött sikerült repülést végeznünk. Pusztulásuk szinte napról-napra nyomon követhető. Ebben talán a legnagyobb szerepet az egyre intenzívebb mezőgazdasági termelés okozta erózió játs�sza (pl. Tápé-Lebő: 2. kép, Maklár-Baglyas: 3. kép). Hasonló károkat okozhat az árvizek partromboló hatása és az ezzel kapcsolatos árvízi védekező munkálatok. TószegLaposhalom esetében a 2001-es nagy tiszai árvíz idején például gátat építettek a halom testébe, a falut megvédendő (4. kép). Korábban ugyanez történt Békés-Povád neolit telljével is: itt a Körös-gátba építették bele a halmot. Az sem ritka, hogy a telleken falvak települnek meg, vagy különböző létesítményeket építenek rajtuk – Szeg vár-Tűzkövesen például siló épült (5. kép). Az állapotfelmérésen túl munkánknak tudományos jelentősége is van. Neolit és bronzkori tellek esetében egyaránt sikerült igazolni a korábban csak néhány lelőhelynél ismert körárkos struktúrákat – például Berettyó szentmárton-Korhány, Polgár-Csőszhalom (6. kép), Jász dózsa-Kápolnahalom (7. kép), Esztár-Fenyvespart és Túrkeve-Terehalom esetében. Érdekes összefüggésre világított rá az Alföld északi peremvidékén található bronzkori földvárak párhuzamosan folyó vizsgálata. Ezek egy részénél (pl. EmődNagyhalom) a légi fényképezések alapján a földsánc léte nem igazolható, viszont impozáns körárkuk révén a tellek közé is besorolhatók. Hasonló megfigyelést tettünk a korábban földvárként meghatározott Boconád esetében (8. kép), amely valójában széles árokkal vagy árkokkal övezett bronzkori tell.

10/24/2010 10:11:45 AM

160 alexandra anders et al. A tellek egy része ugyanakkor földvárnak is tekinthető (Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár), vagyis a két települési típus az Alföldön és a csatlakozó területeken nem választható el egymástól. Néhány tell esetében a légi felvételezések kiegészültek magnetométeres felmérésekkel – például Polgár-Csősz halom, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály (9. kép) és legújabban Polgár-Bosnyákdomb lelőhelyeken.

06AAetal.indd 160

Az eddig elvégzett munka csak egy hosszú út első néhány lépéseként értékelhető. Minden esetben szükség lenne helyszíni szemlére, rétegtisztázó fúrásokra. Bár illuzórikus lenne minden tellen ásatást tervezni (a bronzkoriak közül 98 helyszínen került sor kisebb-nagyobb feltárásra), néhány különösen indokolt esetben mégis szükséges lesz azt elvégezni. Reméljük, hogy még a tellek végleges eltűnése előtt be tudjuk fejezni munkánkat.

10/24/2010 10:11:45 AM

KÖZLEMÉNYEK SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Recommend Documents