You are on page 1of 14

Archaeologiai rtest 135 (2010) 147160

Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest

DOI: 10.1556/ArchErt. 135.2010.6


Archaeological register of tell settlements in Hungary

Alexandra Anders Zoltn Czajlik Marietta Csnyi
Nndor Kalicz Emese Gyngyvr Nagy Pl Raczky Judit Trnoki*

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 ero-
sion, 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 settle-
ment 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 Hatvan, Vatya, Ottomny, Fzesabony, Gyula

varsnd and Perjmos cultures of the Early and
The prehistoric landscape of the Carpathian Middle Bronze Age, between 2500 and 1500 BC2
Basin was for over one and half millennia deter- (Fig. 1). The Carpathian Basin marked the north-
mined by stratified settlement mounds. Tell set- ernmost distribution of this settlement type of
tlements were first established by the Tisza south-eastern European origin: during the
HerplyCsszhalom communities of the Late Neolithic, tells dotted the landscape along the
Neolithic, spanning the period between 5100/5000 Tisza, Krs, Beretty and Maros rivers, while in
and 4500/4400 BC,1 and then again two thou- the Bronze Age, tell settlements appeared along
sand years later, by communities of the Nagyrv, the middle reaches of the Danube too.
* Anders Alexandra. ELTE BTK Rgszettudomnyi Intzet,
The research of tell settlements, and in particu-
H-1088 Budapest, Mzeum krt. 4/B. lar of the Bronze Age ones, is virtually coeval with Hungarian prehistoric research.3 Finds from
Czajlik Zoltn. ELTE BTK Rgszettudomnyi Intzet, H-1088 these settlements have been known since the
Budapest, Mzeum krt. 4/B. early 19th century. Tells made their entre to
Csnyi Marietta. Damjanich Jnos Mzeum, H-5000 Szolnok,
Kossuth tr 4.
Kalicz Nndor. MTA Rgszeti Intzet, H-1014 Budapest, Trnoki Judit. Damjanich Jnos Mzeum, H-5000 Szolnok,
ri u. 49. Kossuth tr 4.
Nagy Emese Gyngyvr. Dri Mzeum, H-4026 Debrecen, 1 KaliczRaczky 1987; Link 2006, 2540; RaczkyAnders 2008,

Dri tr 1. 3537; Raczky in press.

Raczky Pl. ELTE BTK Rgszettudomnyi Intzet, H-1088 2 Bna 1992; Gogltan 2005.

Budapest, Mzeum krt. 4/B. 3 Bna 1992a, 910; Rosenstock 2009, 2627.

06AAetal.indd 147 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 Gogltan 2005, 162, Abb. 1). Sites mentioned in the text:
1. kp. A neolitikus () s bronzkori (- - -) tell-kultrk elterjedsi terlete a Krpt-medencben (RaczkyAnders 2008, 36,
Fig. 1 s Gogltan 2005, 162, Abb. 1 nyomn). A tanulmnyban emltett lelhelyek:
1: Bks-Povd, 2: Berettyszentmrton-Korhny, 3: Berettyjfalu-Herply, 4: Bocond-Alatka-puszta-Nagy legel,
5: Emd-Nagyhalom, 6: ErsdTyiszk-hegy (Ariud, RO), 7: Esztr-Fenyvespart, 8: Felsvadsz-Vrdomb, 9: Hdmez
vsrhely-Gorzsa, 10: Hort, the road leading to Csny Csny fel vezet t, 11: Jnoshida-Portelek, 12: Jszrokszlls-
Kopaszdomb, 13: Jszdzsa-Kpolnahalom, 14: Kunfehrt, 15: Maklr-Baglyas, 16: csd-Kovshalom, 17: Pcska (Pecica,
RO), 18: Perjmos (Periam, RO), 19: Polgr-Bosnykdomb, 20: Polgr-Csszhalom, 21: Szegvr-Tzkves, 22: Szolnok-
Tzkves, 23: Tp-Leb, 24: Tiszainoka-Feketehalom, 25: Tszeg-Laposhalom, 26: Trkeve-Terehalom, 27: Vszt-Mgor

academy at an international congress held in tions are documented with drawings and photo-
Budapest: in 1876, the participants of the VIIIth graphs, and the finds are kept separately accord-
International Archaeological and Anthropological ing to levels. The investigations at Pcska and
Congress visited the settlement mound at Tszeg- Perjmos by M. Roska,7 at Ersd by F. Lszl,8
Laposhalom, where they partook in a demon- at Tszeg-Laposhalom by L. Mrton9 and at
stration excavation, whose finds were displayed Berettyjfalu-Herply by L. Zoltai10 were all
in the Hungarian National Museum.4 These tells pioneering excavations in this respect. The expe-
were for a long time regarded as terramare settle- riences gained during these excavations led to
ments5 and their excavation was modelled on the the formulation of a new theoretical framework.
investigation of Italian terramare sites.6 The tech- M. Roska must again be quoted, who challenged
nique of tell excavations, from which modern Luigi Pigorinis terramare theory, arguing that the
excavation procedures evolved, were worked mounds represented the primary settings of pre-
out in the early decades of the 20th century. historic life and that these settlements, which
Instead of proceeding downward according to grew higher as occupation levels were levelled
spade spits, the settlement is peeled away and rebuilt, were a reflection of continuous sed-
from one settlement level or occupation phase to
the next. The various settlement features and sec-
7 Roska 1912; Roska 1913.
4 BannerBnaMrton 1957, 46; Bna 1992b, 102. 8 Lszl 1914.
5 Bna 1992b, 102; e.g. ErsdTyiszk-hegy: Lszl 1914. 9 BannerBnaMrton 1957.
6 E.g. Tszeg-Laposhalom: BannerBnaMrton 1957, 10 L. Zoltais excavation report is only available in manuscript

1213. form.

06AAetal.indd 148 10/24/2010 10:11:41 AM

archaeological register of tell settlements in hungary 149

entism.11 This new approach affected the desig- In spite of these advances, a systematic survey
nation of these stratified sites: Roska consistently of Hungarian tell settlements or even their par-
called them settlements or mounds, while L. tial catalogue was lacking,19 even though the
Bella described Tszeg as a settlement mound in Cultural Heritage and Environmental Protection
a lecture given in 1915,12 and F. Tompa described Law in Hungary defined tells as scheduled
these mounds as tells.13 sites.20 Tells are not simply archaeological sites:
A century after the 1876 conference, two exhi- many are also environmental refugiums with
bitions toured the major Hungarian museums rare, ancestral flora and fauna associations.
and several European cities in the 1980s and the However, in the lack of an accurate register of
early 1990s. The exhibitions and the accompany- these sites and their precise geographic location,
ing catalogues reviewing the findings of the their protection can hardly be implemented,
recent research on tell settlements marked a especially if one is unaware of what exactly
major landmark in the research of the identical needs to be protected.
settlement type of two different periods. The cat-
alogue on Neolithic tells, The Late Neolithic of the
Tisza region, discussed five major tell settlements The archaeological register of tell settlements
(Hdmezvsrhely-Gorzsa, Szegvr-Tzkves,
csd-Kovshalom, Vszt-Mgor and Beretty A research project, in part inspired by the two
jfalu-Herply), selected from among the 161 aforementioned catalogues,21 was launched in
sites shown on the distribution map (of which 1999 by the Institute of Archaeological Sciences
only a small portion were genuine tells14), while of the Etvs Lornd University in Budapest in
the one on the Bronze Age, Bronzezeit in Ungarn, order to remedy this situation. Our main goal
described the sixteen most important tell settle- was to create a register of Hungarian tell settle-
ments (although the finds displayed at the exhi- ments. The quality of the information on a par-
bition were selected from the assemblages ticular site published in the two catalogues var-
brought to light on twenty-eight tell settle- ied: in addition to recently excavated, well-docu-
ments15). Both catalogues offered a detailed over- mented sites, there were many relatively well-
view of the research results of the preceding dec- known sites, which had been investigated many
ades and of the findings of the tell research decades earlier, as well as sites, to which there
project begun in the late 1970s and early 1980s. were but laconic references in the archaeological
Few studies on Neolithic tell settlements had literature or in field survey reports.22 In view of
been previously available, the most notable being the fact that some sites lay in nature conservation
an article by N. Kalicz16 and a book by J. Makkay.17 areas, the project was initially also funded by the
The catalogue discussing Bronze Age tells could Ministry of Environment. More recently, how-
draw from several comprehensive studies in this ever, we have had to apply to various organisa-
field.18 tions for grants to continue our work.
As a first step, we collected all available infor-
mation on tell settlements from the archaeologi-
cal literature and various museum archives, no
11 Roska 1912, 5152, 56. The re-interpretation of these sites matter how meagre the information value of a
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 recon-
struction of houses and the rejection of earlier theories 19 Unfortunately the situation is somewhat better only in a few
according to which pits were used as habitations. other countries in Europe and Asia, affected by the need of
12 BannerBnaMrton 1957, 22. systematically registering tell sites. Even in those countries
13 Tompa 1936, 47, 62. F. Tompa described the Neolithic settle- the need for such registers has risen only recently (Menze
ments at Herply and Kopncs (Hdmezvsrhely- UrSherratt 2006, 321; Gheorghiu 2008, 169). See e.g. for the
Kknydomb) as tells, meaning that N. Vlassa was not the Amuq plain in Antiochia (Sherratt 2006), for Early Neolithic
first prehistorian to use this term in this sense. Cp. Gogltan sites in Bulgaria (GatsovBoyadzhiev 2009) and the more
2003, 223. comprehensive survey of Eneolithic tells (Rosenstock 2009,
14 TlasRaczky 1987. The catalogue was also published in CD-ROM Anhnge). It is remarkable that it took about two
German (Alltag und Religion. Jungsteinzeit in Ost-Ungarn, decades to have the two aforementioned catalogues pub-
Frankfurt 1990) and in French (Les agriculteurs de la Grande lished. It is similarly typical that almost two decades have
Plaine Hongroise, 40003500 av. J.-C., Dijon 1991). passed since the appearance of these works before new sum-
15 Meier-Arendt 1992. The catalogue was also published in maries would written in this topic (Gogltan 2003; Gogltan
French (Le bel ge du bronze en Hongrie, Budapest, s. a.). 2005; Link 2006; Raczky in press).
16 Kalicz 1965. 20 For more details see: BarzKiss 2007.
17 Makkay 1982. 21 TlasRaczky 1987; Meier-Arendt 1992.
18 Kalicz 1968; Bna 1975; Kovcs 1988. 22 KaliczRaczky 1987a, 89; Bna 1992.

06AAetal.indd 149 10/24/2010 10:11:41 AM

150 alexandra anders et al.

Fig. 2. Tp-Leb (photo by Z. Czajlik)

2. kp. Tp-Leb (Fot: Czajlik Z.)

Fig. 3. Maklr-Baglyas (photo by Z. Czajlik)

3. kp. Maklr-Baglyas (Fot: Czajlik Z.)

06AAetal.indd 150 10/24/2010 10:11:42 AM

archaeological register of tell settlements in hungary 151

particular source. The systematic field survey during data collection was the quality of the
reports organised by the Archaeological Institute reports: precise, detailed descriptions and unin-
of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and pub- telligible, vague reports could be found among
lished in the volumes of the Archaeological both 19th century publications and studies from
Topography of Hungary (MRT) was a great the late 1990s.
methodological support to our project. At this
point, we had to decide what to regard as a tell
settlement: we finally settled on defining settle- Results
ments of this type as artificial mounds with strat-
ified deposits having at least two distinct layers Following this preliminary data filtering, fifty of
and a deposit thickness of 2.54 m in the case of the initial 161 Neolithic sites (it is an important
genuine tells and of 12.5 m in the case of the tell- fact that more than 50 % belongs to the Herply
like settlements (although the deposits of some culture) and 116 of the 224 Bronze Age sites were
Bronze Age tells did not accumulate to this classified as genuine tells or tell-like settlements.
height).23 Data collection was conducted with the It means that roughly 160 settlements of this type
aid of information sheets based on a set of uni- can be reckoned within Hungary and these sup-
form criteria. Each data sheet contained the fol- posedly represent almost the prehistoric reality.
lowing information: (1) geographic name (name The systematic overview of the major findings of
of the site and its variants,24 together with the previous research enabled the identification of a
name of the nearest settlement and the county); complex settlement system with three main tiers
(2) main characteristics (size, nature, age, mor- in the Neolithic. On the macro-regional level, we
phological description); (3) previous archaeolog- found that single layer settlements were the
ical research (research methods, location of pre- norm in the northern distribution of the Tisza
vious excavation(s), research history, findings of HerplyCsszhalom cultures (except the Polgr-
earlier research, occupation levels of the tell, Csszhalom tell), while tells and single layer,
other occupation periods, name of the institution horizontal settlements both occurred in the
housing the finds from the tell, full bibliographic south.25 On the micro-regional level, we found a
citations, and a field for various remarks). pattern of a large central tell surrounded by
The data thus collected revealed that many smaller horizontal settlements in the southern
sites had been wrongly categorised as tells and part of the Great Hungarian Plain,26 while on the
that in many cases, tell sites went by several intra-site level, were found the symbiosis of a
names. As mentioned above, stratified settle- tell and a single-layer settlement, with the two
ments began to be designated as tells at a rather making up the site proper. On the latter sites, the
late date. Earlier, these settlements were described two different settlement types were often separ
by various terms in 19th century and early 20th ated by a ditch.27 The settlements of the Ottomny
century archaeological literature, some of which and Hatvan cultures represent similar triple
have since faded from modern usage, some bor- structure (tell, horizontal settlement, ditch) in the
rowed from ethnographic studies. In the case of Bronze Age.28 We found evidence for fortifica-
Bronze Age tells, it was sometimes unclear tions or hillforts and/or open, single layer settle-
whether a settlement was a fortification, a hill- ments in the case of each of these Bronze Age
fort, or a tell, or perhaps each. In a few cases, cultures. The ratio of the latter settlement types
there was hardly any reliable information on a varied, their proportion being high in the Vatya
particular site. Another difficulty encountered and Nagyrv cultures for example, and extreme-
ly low in the Hatvan culture.
Based on the information gathered from the
Several definitions have been advanced regarding the mor-
phological criteria of tells (e.g. Bna 1975, 1617; Kalicz
archaeological literature and various archival
Racky 1987b, 1516; Gogltan 2003, 161; Link 2006, 1014), sources, we determined the accurate location and
from which we selected the broadest one. More recently: co-ordinates of the tell settlements. The high
Rosenstock 2009, 234239. number of known tells and the diminishing
24 The name of a particular site often hints at its tell nature. For
funds at our disposal did not enable the personal
example the name of csd-Kovshalom, Szarvas-
Kovcshalom, Szegvr-Tzkves, Szolnok-Tzkves,
inspection of each site, and therefore we sought a
Szentpterszeg-Kovadomb suggests Neolithic tell settle-
ments, whose surface was strewn with flint, used for striking 25 Kalicz 1965, 3637.
fires in ages before the invention of matches. The local names 26 Makkay 1982, 128130.
of settlement mounds often reflect their size and form, e.g. 27 RaczkyAnders in press.

Nagyhalom, EmdTszeg-Laposhalom, Trkeve-Terehalom, 28 Kalicz 1968, 131134; KaliczKalicz-Schreiber 2006, 109

Szcsny-Kerekdomb (Bna 1992, 9). 112.

06AAetal.indd 151 10/24/2010 10:11:42 AM

152 alexandra anders et al.

Fig. 4. Tszeg-Laposhalom (photo by Z. Czajlik)

4. kp. Tszeg-Laposhalom (Fot: Czajlik Z.)

less costly non-destructive technique, which the actual aerial survey, but in other respects too.
would yield accurate results. We finally decided It became clear that the Bronze Age hillforts of
on aerial photography, performed by Z. Czajlik the Hatvan/Fzesabony cultures in the foreland
using the non-oblique aerial imaging technique. of the Northern Mountain Range can more likely
The condition assessment survey of Hungarian be categorised as tells based on their morpholog-
tells using aerial photography called for the con- ical features (extent, presence of an enclosure,
struction of a GIS database, which would enable etc.), even in the case of sites for which excava-
their accurate identification. This limited data- tion data was still lacking. Suffice it here to quote
base, containing less information than the data the enclosures observed at the Maklr-Baglyas
sheets described above, was completed in 2001. and BocondAlatka-pusztaNagy legel sites,
Its structure resembled that of the register of pre- which can virtually only be seen on the aerial
historic hillforts29 and contained only the infor- photographs;30 another case in point is the Emd-
mation necessary for geographic identification Nagyhalom site. Several examples can be quoted
(a 1:10,000 topographical map, co-ordinates, for an identical morphology: the enclosure
height a.s.l., relative height, the areas current around the well-known tell settlements at
cultivation patterns, the most important refer- Jszdzsa-Kpolnahalom and Felsvadsz-Vr
ences in terms of topographical studies, date, domb are clearly visible on the aerial photo-
etc.). The uniform criteria used for data collection graphs of these sites.
to create a register of prehistoric hillforts and tell The condition assessment survey of tell settle-
settlements proved extremely useful not only for ments using aerial photography is near-complete
29 NovkiCzajlikHoll 2006. 30 NovkiBarz 2000, 6, Figs 34.

06AAetal.indd 152 10/24/2010 10:11:43 AM

archaeological register of tell settlements in hungary 153

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 Jnoshida-Portelek and Kunfehrt).
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 settle-
ments, whose destruction can be monitored vir-
tually from one day to the other. The greatest
damage to these sites and especially the tell-
like settlements is the erosion caused by increas-
ingly intensive arable farming, as shown by the
photo made at Tp-Leb (Fig. 2), where the
growth of maize is stunted along the edges of the
tell owing to erosion. The Bronze Age tell at
Maklr-Baglyas (Fig. 3) and Jszrokszlls-
Kopaszdomb are similarly threatened by ero-
Even though current legislation prohibits cul-
tivation 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-Tzkves, which
only exist in the archaeological literature because
they have virtually disappeared from the face of
Fig. 5. Szegvr-Tzkves (photo by Z. Czajlik)
the earth. Even though the alarm over the destruc-
tion of the tells was sounded several decades 5. kp. Szegvr-Tzkves (Fot: Czajlik Z.)
ago,31 no positive changes were forthcoming.
Tells are usually covered with huge amounts of
finds (potsherd, animal bones, intact and broken porated into the embankment. Aside from ero-
stone implements, burnt daub fragments), which sion and floods, various human activities too
become increasingly fragmented owing to con- contribute to the destruction of tell settlements.
tinuous cultivation. The extent of destruction can Very often, the modern village extends over the
perhaps best be illustrated by the excavation of tell, as at Tszeg-Laposhalom, or various build-
the Polgr-Bosnykdomb site,32 begun in sum- ings are erected over the settlement mound, as at
mer 2007, where 2866(!) burnt daub fragments Szegvr-Tzkves34 (Fig. 5), where grain silos
were collected from a depth of 030 cm over a were built on the site. At Hort, the road leading
1 m2 large area. Floodwaters too pose a constant to Csny cuts through the settlement mound and
threat to these settlements, as do the construc- only about one-quarter of the tell settlement has
tions of flood protection embankments. No more survived.
than a 25 m wide section has remained of the In addition to a precise site condition assess-
one-time Tszeg-Laposhalom tell (Fig. 4) owing ment, the project yielded fresh information about
to earlier floods and the flood protection embank- settlement layouts. The presence of enclosures,
ment built at the time of the great Tisza flood in previously documented at a few sites only, could
2001 in order to protect the village.33 The same be observed in the case of several other Neolithic
fate befell the Neolithic tell site at Bks-Povd, and Bronze Age tells, among others at Beretty
where the settlement mound was likewise incor- szentmrton-Korhny, Polgr-Csszhalom (Fig.
6), Jszdzsa-Kpolnahalom (Fig. 7), Esztr-
31 Makkay 1982, 112, 116. Fenyvespart and Trkeve-Terehalom.
32 RaczkyAnders 2009. The survey of the Bronze Age hillforts on the
33 Mzeumok a kzssg ptsrt 2001. mjus 18. Tszeg-
northern fringes of the Great Hungarian Plain
Laposhalom megmentse Museums: Building Community yielded an interesting observation. The aerial
18th May 2001. Tszeg-Laposhalom: Saving a classical
archaeological site in Hungary. Budapest. 34 Rezi Kat 2009, 9192.

06AAetal.indd 153 10/24/2010 10:11:43 AM

154 alexandra anders et al.

Fig. 6. Polgr-Csszhalom (photo by O. Braasch)

6. kp. Polgr-Csszhalom (Fot: O. Braasch)

Fig. 7. Jszdzsa-Kpolnahalom (photo by Z. Czajlik)

7. kp. Jszdzsa-Kpolnahalom (Fot: Czajlik Z.)

06AAetal.indd 154 10/24/2010 10:11:44 AM

archaeological register of tell settlements in hungary 155

Fig. 8. Bocond-Alatka-puszta-Nagy legel (photo by O. Braasch)

8. kp. Bocond-Alatka-puszta-Nagy legel (Fot: O. Braasch)

photos revealed that at some sites, such as Emd- At some sites, such as Polgr-Csszhalom,
Nagyhalom, the earthen ramparts documented Polgr-Bosnykdomb,37 Berettjfalu-Herply
earlier35 have vanished. The Bronze Age site at (Fig. 9) and Vszt-Mgor,38 aerial photography
Bocond (Fig. 8) has a settlement mound clearly was followed by a magnetometer survey.
rising above the surrounding land, but instead of We are aware that we have only taken the first
ramparts, it is ringed by one or more ditches, few steps in realizing our goal. A field reconnais-
suggesting that the site is a tell settlement rather sance combined with sub-surface borings in
than a hillfort, as earlier believed. order to clarify the layer sequence would certain-
Some of the tells can more accurately be ly be necessary for each site. While the excava-
described as hillforts: the Berettyjfalu-Herply- tion of each and every tell settlement is obviously
Fldvr site, for example, has a plateau divided impossible (e.g. only 98 Bronze Age sites have
by a ditch. In other words, the two settlement been archaeologically investigated), the excava-
types cannot always be clearly distinguished tion of a few key sites would be necessary.
from each other in the Great Hungarian Plain A small sounding excavation was conducted at
and the adjoining areas. Polgr-Bosnykdomb in 2007, in the course of
The interpretation of some sites poses diffi which the structure of the ditch enclosing the tell
culties. An enclosure was identified around the was clarified. The almost 4 m deep ditch had a
Vszt-Mgor tell settlement, but it is uncertain
whether the ditch dates from the Neolithic, the
Copper Age or the Bronze Age.36 not determinable either (Gyucha 2009, 223). For the time
being we do not know whether they are the same features
35 NovkiCzajlikHoll 2007, 3839. detected in the aerial photographs or not.
36 The magnetometric surveys by Apostolis Sarris in 2006 37 RaczkyAnders in press.

detected a triple ditch system around the tell, whose age was 38 Yerkes et al. 2007.

06AAetal.indd 155 10/24/2010 10:11:44 AM

156 alexandra anders et al.

Fig. 9. Berettyjfalu-Herply (magnetometric survey by B. Szkely, after Kalicz et al. 2010, 12)
9. kp. Berettyjfalu-Herply (Magnetomteres felmrs: Szkely B., Kalicz et al. 2010, 12 nyomn)

V section and a homogenous, non-stratified fill.39 various periods, are in need of similar protection
The investigation of other problematic sites as tells. While there is a greater public awareness
would be necessary in order to establish the of the endangered nature of these sites than that
nature of the site for it is often difficult to distin- of tells, reflected by several professional and
guish between tells and hillforts based on their amateur movements to save these sites,40 the
morphological traits alone. It is our hope that we continued scientific registration of sites of this
can complete this project before tells entirely type is equally important.
vanish from the landscape.
Other artificial mounds, such as hillforts and
burial mounds (kurgans and tumuli) dating from

40 E.g. Tth A. 1999; Tth A. 2004; Psztor 2004; Tth Cs.

39 RaczkyAnders 2009. 2007.

06AAetal.indd 156 10/24/2010 10:11:45 AM

archaeological register of tell settlements in hungary 157


Banner, J.Bna, I.Mrton, L.

1957 Die Ausgrabungen von L. Mrton in Tszeg. ActaArchHung 9, 1140.
Barz Cs.Kiss G.
2007 (szerk.): Ex lege vdett rtkek. Forrsok, lpok, barlangok, vznyelk, kunhalmok, fldvrak. Bba
kalcs Fzetek 8, Eger.
Bna, I.
1975 Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre sdlichen Beziehungen. ArchHung 49, Budapest.
1992a Bronzezeitliche Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn. In: Meier-Arendt 1992, 939.
1992b Tszeg-Laposhalom. In: Meier-Arendt 1992, 101114.
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, 167178.
Gogltan, Fl.
2003 Die neolithische Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken. Ein berblick. In: E. JeremP. Raczky (eds):
Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frhe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Sdosteuropa.
Festschrift fr Nndor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Budapest, 223262.
2005 Der Beginn der bronzezeitlichen Tellsiedlungen im Karpatenbecken: Chronologische Probleme. In:
B. HorejsR. JungE. KaiserB. Teran (Hrsg.): Interpretationsraum Bronzezeit. Bernhard Hnsel von
seinen Schlern gewidmet. UPA 121, 161179.
Gyucha A.
2009 A Krs-vidk kora rzkora. ELTE BTK, PhD rtekezs, kzirat. Budapest.
Kalicz, N.
1965 Siedlungsgeschichtliche Probleme der Krs- und der Thei-Kultur. AASzeg 8, 2740.
1968 Die Frhbronzezeit in Nordost-Ungarn. Abri der Geschichte des 19.16. Jahrhunderts v. u. Z.
ArchHung 45, Budapest.
Kalicz, N.Kalicz-Schreiber, R.
2006 Befestigungsanlagen der frhbronzezeitlichen Hatvan-Kultur in Ungarn. In: A. Krenn-Leeb (Hrsg.):
Wirtschaft, Macht und Strategie. Hhensiedlungen und ihre Funktionen in der Ur- und Frhgeschichte.
Archologie sterreichs Spezial 1, Wien, 107124.
Kalicz, N.Raczky, P.
1987a Map of principal sites. In: TlasRaczky 1987, 89.
1987b The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region: A survey of recent archaeological research. In: TlasRaczky
1987, 1130.
Kalicz N.Raczky P.Anders A.Kovcs K.
2010 Amit az si tz megrztt. Kpek egy jkkori falu feltrsrl. Berettyjfalu-Herply. Budapest.
Kovcs, T.
1988 (ed.): Bronze Age tell settlements on the Great Hungarian Plain I. IPH 1, Budapest.
Lszl F.
1914 satsok az ersdi stelepen. 19071912 (Fouilles la station primitive de Ersd. 19071912). Dolg 5,
Lichter, Cl.
1993 Untersuchungen zu den Bauten des sdosteuropischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums.
Internationale Archologie 18, Buch am Erlbach.
Link, Th.
2006 Das Ende der neolithischen Tellsiedlungen. Ein kulturgeschichtliches Phnomen des 5. Jahrtausends
v. Chr. im Karpatenbecken. UPA 134, Bonn.
Makkay J.
1982 A magyarorszgi neolitikum kutatsnak j eredmnyei. Az idrend s a npi azonosts krdsei.
Meier-Arendt, W.
1992 (Hrsg.): Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Thei. 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, 321327.

06AAetal.indd 157 10/24/2010 10:11:45 AM

158 alexandra anders et al.

Novki Gy.Barz Cs.

2000 skori s kzpkori erdtett telepek, vrak Heves megye Mtrn kvli terletn (Befestigte urzeitliche
und mittelalterliche Siedlungen, Burgen im Komitat Heves, auerhalb des Mtra Gebirges). Agria 36,
Novki, Gy.Czajlik, Z.Holl, B.
2006 Kataster der prhistorischen Erdburgen Ungarns Versuch einer umfassenden Datenerfassung zum
Schutz des kulturellen, archologischen und naturrumlichen Erbes. In: A. Krenn-Leeb (Hrsg.):
Wirtschaft, Macht und Strategie. Hhensiedlungen und ihre Funktionen in der Ur- und Frhgeschichte.
Archologie sterreichs Spezial 1, Wien, 125139.
Psztor E.
2004 tikalauz. Fldvrak s srhalmok a Dunntlon (Guide. Earthworks and Tumuli during the Bronz and
Iron Ages in Transdanubia). Kecskemt.
Raczky, P.
in press Tell and Settlement in South-East Europe. The spacetime 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 Polgr-Csszhalom, eastern Hungary. In: D. W. Bailey
A. WhittleD. Hofmann (eds): Living Well Together? Settlement and materiality in the Neolithic of
south-east and central Europe. Oxford, 3553.
2009 Rgszeti kutatsok egy ks neolitikus teleplsen Polgr-Bosnykdomb. Elzetes jelents
(Archaeological research at a Late Neolithic settlement Polgr-Bosnykdomb. Preliminary report).
Archrt 134, 521.
in press Neolithic enclosures in Eastern Hungary and their survival into the Copper Age. In: Fr. BertemesP. F.
BiehlH. Meller (Hrsg.): Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa Neolithic Circular Enclosures in
Europe. Halle.
Rezi Kat G.
2009 Szegvr-Tzkves, avagy ami megmaradt Szegvr-Tzkves or what remainds In: Bende L.
Lrinczy G. (szerk.): Medintl Etig. Tisztelg rsok Csalog Jzsef szletsnek 100. vforduljn.
Szentes 2009, 91102.
Rosenstock, E.
2009 Tells in Sdwestasien und Sdosteuropa. Untersuchungen zur Verbreitung, Entstehung und Definition
eines Siedlungsphnomens. Urgeschichtliche Studien 2, Remshalden.
Roska M.
1912 sats a pcska-szemlaki hatrban lv Nagy Snczon (Fouilles executes au Nagy-Sncz dans la
commune de Pcska-Szemlak). Dolg 3, 173.
1913 sats a perjmosi Snczhalmon. MK 7, 81122.
Sherratt, A. G.
2006 Tellspotting: The Amuq. Archatlas, February 2010, Edition 4.
Tlas, L.Raczky, P.
1987 (eds): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region. A survey of recent excavations and their findings:
Hdmezvsrhely-Gorzsa, Szegvr-Tzkves, csd-Kovshalom, Vszt-Mgor, Berettyjfalu-
Herply. BudapestSzolnok.
Tompa, F.
1936 25 Jahre Urgeschichtsforschung in Ungarn 19121936. BRGK 2425 (19341935) 27127.
Tth A.
1999 (szerk.): Kunhalmok. Ti vagytok a mi katedrlisaink. Kisjszlls.
2004 A kunhalmokrl ms szemmel. KisjszllsDebrecen.
Tth Cs.
2007 Jsz-Nagykun-Szolnok megye kunhalmainak llapotfelmrse. Jszkunsg 50, 4259.
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 Krs River
Valley, Southeastern Hungary. Geoarchaeology 22, 845871.

06AAetal.indd 158 10/24/2010 10:11:45 AM

archaeological register of tell settlements in hungary 159

Magyarorszgi tell-teleplsek rgszeti katasztere

Anders AlexandraCzajlik ZoltnCsnyi MariettaKalicz Nndor

Nagy Emese GyngyvrRaczky PlTrnoki Judit

A Krpt-medence skori kpt tbb mint msfl v kori lelhely kzl 116-rl tudtuk ugyanezt igazolni.
ezreden t a tbbrteg teleplsi halmok, azaz a tellek Vilgosan kirajzoldott az jkkori teleplsi struktra
hatroztk meg. Elszr a ks neolitikumban, Kr. e. hromszint szervezdse: makroregionlis szinten a
5100/5000-tl 4500/4400-ig a TiszaHerplyCsszhalom TiszaHerplyCsszhalom kultrk elterjedsi terlet-
kultrk idejn, majd mintegy ktezer vvel ksbb, a nek szaki rszn csak egyrteg telepek fordulnak el
korai s a kzps bronzkor idszakban, Kr. e. 25001500 (kivve Polgr-Csszhalom telljt), mg dlen telleket s
kztt a nagyrvi, hatvani, ottomnyi s perjmosi kult- egyrteg telepeket egyarnt ismernk. Mikroregionlis
rk korban. Ez a dli eredet teleplsi forma kt zben szinten a Dl-Alfldn figyelhet meg az a jelensg, hogy
is itt rte el elterjedsi terletnek szaki hatrt: a neoli- egy-egy kzponti szerep, nagyobb tellt kisebb, horizon-
tikumban az alfldi folyvidkeken, a Tisza, Krs, tlis telepek sora vesz krl. Vgl egy adott lelhely
Beretty s Maros mentn tallhatk a tellek, mg a szintjn a tell s a horizontlis teleplsrsz egyttesen
bronzkorban mr a Duna kzps szakasznak partjt is alkotja a lelhelyet, a kt struktrt gyakran rok is el-
benpestik (1. kp). klnti egymstl. A bronzkori ottomnyi s hatvani
A magyarorszgi tellek klnsen a bronzkoriak kultrk esetben hasonl hrmas teleplsi szerkezet
kutatsnak trtnete szinte egyids a magyar srgsze- figyelhet meg. Mindegyik kultra esetben talltunk
tvel; a XIX. szzad els vei ta ismertek leleteik. Els adatot fldvr vagy nylt, egyrteg telep megltre is.
bemutatsukra 1876-ban, a Budapesten megrendezett Ezek arnya a tellekhez kpest vltoz; a vatyai kultr-
VIII. Nemzetkzi srgszeti s Antropolgiai Kong ban pldul magasnak tnik, a nagyrvi s hatvani kul-
resszuson kerlt sor: a rsztvevk elltogattak a tszeg- trkban viszont rendkvl alacsonynak.
laposhalmi tellhez, ahol bemutat satson vehettek Helyszni szemlre a magas kltsgek s a tellek nagy
rszt. szma miatt sajnos nem kerlhetett sor, ezrt llapotuk
Az 1876-os konferencit kveten a kt klnbz felmrsre a ferde tengely lgi fnykpezs mdszert
korszak azonos teleplstpusnak kutatsban az vlasztottuk. Ehhez a munkhoz szksg volt trinfor-
1980-as s 1990-es vek elejn megrendezett nemzetkzi matikai azonostsukra is.
killtsok s a hozzjuk kapcsold katalgusok (The Mostanig sszesen tven tell fltt sikerlt replst
Late Neolithic of the Tisza region; Bronzezeit in Ungarn. vgeznnk. Pusztulsuk szinte naprl-napra nyomon
Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Thei) hoztak kvethet. Ebben taln a legnagyobb szerepet az egyre
dnt vltozst. Mindezen kutatstrtneti elzmnyek intenzvebb mezgazdasgi termels okozta erzi jts-
ellenre mgsem llt rendelkezsre olyan munka, amely sza (pl. Tp-Leb: 2. kp, Maklr-Baglyas: 3. kp). Hasonl
a magyarorszgi tellek akrcsak rszleges, katalgussze- krokat okozhat az rvizek partrombol hatsa s az
r kzlst tartalmazta volna, jllehet a telleket a ezzel kapcsolatos rvzi vdekez munklatok. Tszeg-
Magyarorszgon hatlyos rksgvdelmi s termszet- Laposhalom esetben a 2001-es nagy tiszai rvz idejn
vdelmi trvnyek kiemelten vdend terletknt hat- pldul gtat ptettek a halom testbe, a falut meg-
rozzk meg. vdend (4. kp). Korbban ugyanez trtnt Bks-Povd
Kutatsi programunk ennek a hinynak a megsznte- neolit telljvel is: itt a Krs-gtba ptettk bele a hal-
tse rdekben indult 1999-ben, az ELTE BTK Rgszet mot. Az sem ritka, hogy a telleken falvak teleplnek meg,
tudomnyi Intzetnek kezdemnyezsre. Clunk a ma vagy klnbz ltestmnyeket ptenek rajtuk Szeg
gyarorszgi tellek lehet legteljesebb adatbzisnak lt- vr-Tzkvesen pldul sil plt (5. kp).
rehozsa volt. Az llapotfelmrsen tl munknknak tudomnyos
A kataszter felptsnek els lpseknt a szakiroda- jelentsge is van. Neolit s bronzkori tellek esetben
lombl s a mzeumi adattrakbl felgyjtttk a tellek- egyarnt sikerlt igazolni a korbban csak nhny lel-
re vonatkoz akr csak csekly forrsrtkkel is br helynl ismert krrkos struktrkat pldul Beretty
sszes adatot. El kellett dntennk, hogy mit tekintnk szentmrton-Korhny, Polgr-Csszhalom (6. kp), Jsz
tellnek. A tell meghatrozsunk szerint legalbb kt dzsa-Kpolnahalom (7. kp), Esztr-Fenyvespart s
rtegsorral rendelkezik, amelyek vastagsga valdi tell Trkeve-Terehalom esetben.
esetben 2,54 m (a bronzkori telleknl alacsonyabb rt- rdekes sszefggsre vilgtott r az Alfld szaki
kek is elfordulnak), mg a tellszereknl 12,5 m. Az peremvidkn tallhat bronzkori fldvrak prhuza-
adatfelvtel rlapok segtsgvel trtnt, elre egyezte- mosan foly vizsglata. Ezek egy rsznl (pl. Emd-
tett szempontok alapjn. Az adatgyjts ezen els szaka- Nagyhalom) a lgi fnykpezsek alapjn a fldsnc lte
sza utn kirtkeltk eredmnyeinket. Mr ekkor ki- nem igazolhat, viszont impozns krrkuk rvn a tel-
derlt, hogy egy adott lelhely sokszor tvesen szerepel lek kz is besorolhatk. Hasonl megfigyelst tettnk
tellknt, vagy egy adott tell tbb nven is ismert. E szrs a korbban fldvrknt meghatrozott Bocond esetben
utn az eredeti 161 neolit lelhely kzl tvenrl bizo- (8. kp), amely valjban szles rokkal vagy rkokkal
nyosodott be, hogy tell vagy tellszer, mg a 224 bronz- vezett bronzkori tell.

06AAetal.indd 159 10/24/2010 10:11:45 AM

160 alexandra anders et al.

A tellek egy rsze ugyanakkor fldvrnak is tekinthe- Az eddig elvgzett munka csak egy hossz t els
t (Berettyjfalu-Herply-Fldvr), vagyis a kt telep- nhny lpseknt rtkelhet. Minden esetben szksg
lsi tpus az Alfldn s a csatlakoz terleteken nem lenne helyszni szemlre, rtegtisztz frsokra. Br
vlaszthat el egymstl. illuzrikus lenne minden tellen satst tervezni (a bronz-
Nhny tell esetben a lgi felvtelezsek kiegszltek koriak kzl 98 helysznen kerlt sor kisebb-nagyobb fel-
magnetomteres felmrsekkel pldul Polgr-Cssz trsra), nhny klnsen indokolt esetben mgis szk-
halom, Berettyjfalu-Herply (9. kp) s legjabban sges lesz azt elvgezni. Remljk, hogy mg a tellek
Polgr-Bosnykdomb lelhelyeken. vgleges eltnse eltt be tudjuk fejezni munknkat.

06AAetal.indd 160 10/24/2010 10:11:45 AM