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 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, Ottomány, Füzesabony, Gyula­

The prehistoric landscape of the Carpathian
Basin was for over one and half millennia deter-
mined by stratified settlement mounds. Tell set-
tlements 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 thou-
sand years later, by communities of the Nagyrév,
* Anders Alexandra. ELTE BTK Régészettudományi Intézet,
H-1088 Budapest, Múzeum krt. 4/B.
anders.alexandra@elte.btk.hu
Czajlik Zoltán. ELTE BTK Régészettudományi Intézet, H-1088
Budapest, Múzeum krt. 4/B. czajlik.zoltan@elte.btk.hu
Csányi Marietta. Damjanich János Múzeum, H-5000 Szolnok,
Kossuth tér 4. csanyi@djm.hu
Kalicz Nándor. MTA Régészeti Intézet, H-1014 Budapest,
Úri u. 49. nkalicz@mail.datanet.hu
Nagy Emese Gyöngyvér. Déri Múzeum, H-4026 Debrecen,
varsánd and Perjámos cultures of the Early and
Middle Bronze Age, between 2500 and 1500 BC2
(Fig. 1). The Carpathian Basin marked the north-
ernmost 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 particu-
lar 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. tarnoki@djm.hu
1 Kalicz–Raczky 1987; Link 2006, 25–40; Raczky–Anders 2008,

Déri tér 1. nagy.emesegy@gmail.com 35–37; Raczky in press.

Raczky Pál. ELTE BTK Régészettudományi Intézet, H-1088 2 Bóna 1992; Gogâltan 2005.

Budapest, Múzeum krt. 4/B. raczky.pal@elte.btk.hu 3 Bóna 1992a, 9–10; Rosenstock 2009, 26–27.

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 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: Jászárokszállás-
Kopaszdomb, 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: Szolnok-
Tűzköves, 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 Tószeg-
Laposhalom, where they partook in a demon-
stration excavation, whose finds were displayed
in the Hungarian National Museum.4 These tells
were for a long time regarded as terramare settle-
ments5 and their excavation was modelled on the
investigation of Italian terramare sites.6 The tech-
nique 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 sec-
4 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,
tions are documented with drawings and photo-
graphs, and the finds are kept separately accord-
ing 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 expe-
riences 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 pre-
historic 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.
  8 László 1914.
  9 Banner–Bóna–Márton 1957.
10 L. Zoltai’s excavation report is only available in manuscript

12–13. 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-
nation 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 exhi-
bitions toured the major Hungarian museums
and several European cities in the 1980s and the
early 1990s. The exhibitions and the accompany-
ing 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 cat-
alogue 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 settle-
ments (although the finds displayed at the exhi-
bition were selected from the assemblages
brought to light on twenty-eight tell settle-
ments15). Both catalogues offered a detailed over-
view of the research results of the preceding dec-
ades 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 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 recon-
struction of houses and the rejection of earlier theories
according to which pits were used as habitations.
12 Banner–Bóna–Márton 1957, 22.
13 Tompa 1936, 47, 62. F. Tompa described the Neolithic settle-
ments at Herpály and Kopáncs (Hódmezővásárhely-
Kökénydomb) as tells, meaning that N. Vlassa was not the
first prehistorian to use this term in this sense. Cp. Gogâltan
2003, 223.
14 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).
15 Meier-Arendt 1992. The catalogue was also published in
French (Le bel âge du bronze en Hongrie, Budapest, s. a.).
16 Kalicz 1965.
17 Makkay 1982.
18 Kalicz 1968; Bóna 1975; Kovács 1988.
06AAetal.indd 149
In spite of these advances, a systematic survey
of Hungarian tell settlements or even their par-
tial 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 settle-
ments. The quality of the information on a par-
ticular site published in the two catalogues var-
ied: in addition to recently excavated, well-docu-
mented sites, there were many relatively well-
known 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, how-
ever, we have had to apply to various organisa-
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
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 pub-
lished. It is similarly typical that almost two decades have
passed since the appearance of these works before new sum-
maries 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
 150 alexandra anders et al.

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

 archaeological register of tell settlements in hungary 151
particular source. The systematic field survey
reports organised by the Archaeological Institute
of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and pub-
lished 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 settle-
ments of this type as artificial mounds with strat-
ified 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 tell-
like 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 uni-
form criteria. Each data sheet contained the fol-
lowing 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, mor-
phological description); (3) previous archaeolog-
ical research (research methods, location of pre-
vious 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 settle-
ments 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 bor-
rowed from ethnographic studies. In the case of
Bronze Age tells, it was sometimes unclear
whether a settlement was a fortification, a hill-
fort, 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 mor-
phological 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, Szarvas-
Kovácshalom, Szegvár-Tűzköves, Szolnok-Tűzköves,
Szentpéterszeg-Kovadomb suggests Neolithic tell settle-
ments, 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
during data collection was the quality of the
reports: precise, detailed descriptions and unin-
telligible, 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 sup-
posedly 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 Polgár-
Csőszhalom 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 fortifica-
tions or hillforts and/or open, single layer settle-
ments 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 extreme-
ly 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.
26 Makkay 1982, 128–130.
27 Raczky–Anders in press.
28 Kalicz 1968, 131–134; Kalicz–Kalicz-Schreiber 2006, 109–
112.
10/24/2010 10:11:42 AM
 152 alexandra anders et al.
Fig. 4. Tószeg-Laposhalom (photo by Z. Czajlik)
4. kép. Tószeg-Laposhalom (Fotó: Czajlik Z.)
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 con-
struction of a GIS database, which would enable
their accurate identification. This limited data-
base, containing less information than the data
sheets described above, was completed in 2001.
Its structure resembled that of the register of pre-
historic hillforts29 and contained only the infor-
mation 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 refer-
ences 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
29 Nováki–Czajlik–Holl 2006.
06AAetal.indd 152
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 morpholog-
ical features (extent, presence of an enclosure,
etc.), even in the case of sites for which excava-
tion 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 Emőd-
Nagyhalom 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 photo-
graphs of these sites.
The condition assessment survey of tell settle-
ments using aerial photography is near-complete
30 Nováki–Baráz 2000, 6, Figs 3–4.
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 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 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 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 Jászárokszállás-
Kopaszdomb are similarly threatened by ero-
sion.
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-Tűzköves, which
only exist in the archaeological literature because
they have virtually disappeared from the face of
Fig. 5. Szegvár-Tűzköves (photo by Z. Czajlik)
the earth. Even though the alarm over the destruc-
tion of the tells was sounded several decades 5. kép. Szegvár-Tűzköves (Fotó: 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 Tószeg-Laposhalom, or various build-
the Polgár-Bosnyákdomb site,32 begun in sum- ings are erected over the settlement mound, as at
mer 2007, where 2866 (!) burnt daub fragments Szegvár-Tűzköves34 (Fig. 5), where grain silos
were collected from a depth of 0–30 cm over a were built on the site. At Hort, the road leading
1 m2 large area. Floodwaters too pose a constant to Csány 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 2–5 m wide section has remained of the In addition to a precise site condition assess-
one-time Tószeg-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 Békés-Povád, and Bronze Age tells, among others at Berettyó­
where the settlement mound was likewise incor- szentmárton-Korhány, Polgár-Csőszhalom (Fig.
6), Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom (Fig. 7), Esztár-
31 Makkay 1982, 112, 116. Fenyvespart and Túrkeve-Terehalom.
32 Raczky–Anders 2009. The survey of the Bronze Age hillforts on the
33 Múzeumok a közösség építéséért – 2001. május 18. Tószeg-
northern fringes of the Great Hungarian Plain
Laposhalom megmentése – Museums: Building Community yielded an interesting observation. The aerial
– 18th May 2001. Tószeg-Laposhalom: Saving a classical
archaeological site in Hungary. Budapest. 34 Rezi Kató 2009, 91–92.

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

 154 alexandra anders et al.

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

 archaeological register of tell settlements in hungary 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 Emőd-
Nagyhalom, 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-Herpály-
Földvár 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 Nováki–Czajlik–Holl 2007, 38–39.
36 The magnetometric surveys by Apostolis Sarris in 2006
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 reconnais-
sance combined with sub-surface borings in
order to clarify the layer sequence would certain-
ly be necessary for each site. While the excava-
tion of each and every tell settlement is obviously
impossible (e.g. only 98 Bronze Age sites have
been archaeologically investigated), the excava-
tion 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.

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. 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 distin-
guish 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
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.

39 Raczky–Anders 2009. 2007.

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

 archaeological register of tell settlements in hungary 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, Berettyóújfalu-
Herpály. 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

 archaeological register of tell settlements in hungary 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 kultú-
rák korában. Ez a déli eredetű települési forma két ízben
is itt érte el elterjedési területének északi határát: a neoli-
tikumban 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 ősrégésze-
tével; 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 tószeg-
laposhalmi 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, katalógussze-
rű közlését tartalmazta volna, jóllehet a telleket a
Magyarországon hatályos örökségvédelmi és természet-
védelmi törvények kiemelten védendő területként hatá-
rozzák meg.
Kutatási programunk ennek a hiánynak a megszünte-
tése érdekében indult 1999-ben, az ELTE BTK Régészet­
tudományi Intézetének kezdeményezésére. Célunk a ma­
gyarországi tellek lehető legteljesebb adatbázisának lét-
rehozása volt.
A kataszter felépítésének első lépéseként a szakiroda-
lomból és a múzeumi adattárakból felgyűjtöttük a tellek-
re 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 érté-
kek is előfordulnak), míg a tellszerűeknél 1–2,5 m. Az
adatfelvétel űrlapok segítségével történt, előre egyezte-
tett szempontok alapján. Az adatgyűjtés ezen első szaka-
sza után kiértékeltük eredményeinket. Már ekkor ki-
derült, 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 bizo-
nyosodott 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 területé-
nek 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, horizon-
tális 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 el-
különíti 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 kultúrá-
ban például magasnak tűnik, a nagyrévi és hatvani kul-
túrákban 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 térinfor-
matikai 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. Tószeg-
Laposhalom esetében a 2001-es nagy tiszai árvíz idején
például gátat építettek a halom testébe, a falut meg-
védendő (4. kép). Korábban ugyanez történt Békés-Povád
neolit telljével is: itt a Körös-gátba építették bele a hal-
mot. 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 lelő-
helynél 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 párhuza-
mosan folyó vizsgálata. Ezek egy részénél (pl. Emőd-
Nagyhalom) a légi fényképezések alapján a földsánc léte
nem igazolható, viszont impozáns körárkuk révén a tel-
lek 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 tekinthe-
tő (Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár), vagyis a két telepü-
lési 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 bronz-
koriak közül 98 helyszínen került sor kisebb-nagyobb fel-
tárásra), néhány különösen indokolt esetben mégis szük-
séges lesz azt elvégezni. Reméljük, hogy még a tellek
végleges eltűnése előtt be tudjuk fejezni munkánkat.
10/24/2010 10:11:45 AM