Settlement Nucleation in the Neolithic: A Preliminary Report of the Körös Regional Archaeological...

129

Archäologie in Eurasien 31 – 08_Gyucha – Seite 129 – 27. 7. 15

Settlement Nucleation in the Neolithic: A Preliminary Reportof the Körös Regional Archaeological Project’s Investigations

at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom and Vésztő-Mágor

Attila Gyucha, Richard W. Yerkes, William A. Parkinson, Apostolos Sarris, Nikos Papadopoulos,Paul R. Duffy, Roderick B. Salisbury

Abstract

Compared to other parts of the Old World, nu-cleated, tell-based settlements emerged late inthe evolution of Neolithic villages in the Car-pathian Basin. This article presents the resultsof recent research conducted by the Körös Re-gional Archaeological Project and examines thelong-term trajectories of two tell-based settle-ments in the Körös Region of the Great Hungar-ian Plain. In this article, we describe the variousnon-invasive investigative techniques that wereemployed to reconstruct the organization of Neo-lithic tell-based settlements at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom and Vésztő-Mágor. These techni-ques include intensive, gridded, surface collec-tions, magnetometry, ground penetrating radar,electrical resistance tomography, hyperspectralspectroradiometry, and soil chemistry.

Introduction

In this chapter we present an overview of the re-search conducted by the Hungarian-AmericanKörös Regional Archaeological Project duringthe past few years at the Neolithic settlementsof Szeghalom-Kovácshalom and Vésztő-Mágor.The previous phase of our long-term researchprogram, which was established in 1998, exam-ined the socio-economic changes that occurredat the end of the Neolithic on the Great Hungar-ian Plain in the course of the excavations of twoEarly Copper Age (Tiszapolgár Culture) settle-ments.1 The current phase of our research fo-cuses on the emergence of Neolithic tells andthe microregional settlement networks asso-ciated with them. Here, we present an overviewof our research goals and the methodologicalframework of the project. We also discuss the re-sults of intensive surface collections, geophysi-cal surveys, and geochemical investigations atSzeghalom-Kovácshalom and Vésztő-Mágor be-tween 2010 and 2012.

Research goals

Unlike other parts of the Old World, such as theNear East and the southern Balkans, the move-ment of farmers onto the Great Hungarian Plain

at the end of the seventh millennium BC did notlead immediately to population aggregation andthe establishment of tells.2 Tells, which fre-quently were fortified and surrounded by hori-zontal sites, did not appear on the Great Hungar-ian Plain until the later phase of the MiddleNeolithic period, towards the end of the sixthmillennium BC. Many of these settlement com-plexes were inhabited for several centuries be-fore they were abandoned by the end of the LateNeolithic period, ca. 4500 calBC.3

Neolithic tells and their surrounding micro-regions on the Great Hungarian Plain are idealcandidates for archaeological investigationsaimed at understanding the emergence of so-cial institutions associated with population nu-cleation and long-term sedentism. Our researchdesign was developed to model the socio-eco-nomic processes that resulted in the formationof large nucleated sites – tells and surroundingvillages – and to gain a better understandingof how the decision to nucleate affected thesocio-cultural trajectories of Neolithic farminggroups.

Previous research on social organization andeconomic development in Neolithic societieshas been limited almost exclusively to excava-tions at tell sites in southeastern Europe. Since2010 we have been collecting data in the KörösRegion to test several different models that ex-plain the emergence of nucleated settlementsystems on many different geographic and socialscales. The competing models emphasize differ-ent causal factors, from human responses tochanges in regional environment and local hy-drology, to shifts in animal husbandry, the reor-ganization of ritual practices, and increased con-flict and warfare. Our investigations of theevolution of the tell-based settlement systemsat Szeghalom-Kovácshalom and Vésztő-Mágorin the Körös Region by means of multiple, inte-grated, data sources contributes to the develop-ment of a more general model that will help us togain a better anthropological understanding ofthe complex social dynamics that occurred inother tribal or middle-range societies that estab-

1 See Parkinson et al. 2010.

2 Parkinson/Gyucha 2012.3 Hertelendi et al. 1995; Hertelendi et al. 1998; Horváth1989; Kalicz 1986; Kalicz 2001; Kalicz/Raczky 1987; Mak-kay 1982.

130


Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea

lished sustainable subsistence systems duringcycles of settlement nucleation and dispersal.

The study area

The two tell-based settlements that have been thefocus of our research, Szeghalom-Kovácshalomand Vésztő-Mágor, are located on an ancientbranch of the Sebes-Körös River, in northern BékésCounty, Southeast Hungary, between the moderntowns of Szeghalom and Vésztő (Fig. 1–2).

The hydrology of the Körös River drainage wasmodified significantly by water regulation cam-paigns undertaken in the 19th century to de-crease the impact of regular floods, and to drainthe seasonal and permanent wetlands of the re-gion. The complex system of levees and new ca-nals has dramatically altered the ancient land-scape.4 As a result, the region today is nearly allindustrially farmed, and most archaeologicalsites are located in ploughed agricultural fields.

Since the late 1960s, northern Békés County hasbeen the focus of several intensive, systematicsurveys, which were carried out as part of theArchaeological Topography of Hungary project(Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája, hence-

forth MRT).5 Within an area of approximately3,800 km2, most of which (ca. 2,900 km2) fallsin the Körös Region, this program has documen-ted several hundred sites that date to the Middleand Late Neolithic periods.6

The tells: Szeghalom-Kovácshalomand Vésztő-Mágor

The two tells are located only about 7 km apartas the crow flies (Fig. 2). The smaller Szegha-lom-Kovácshalom tell is surrounded by an aban-doned channel of the Sebes-Körös River (Fig. 3).It covers an area of about 0.8 ha and rises ca.3.5 m above the terrain. Archaeological activ-ities at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom began in 1904,when the centre of the tell was excavated.7 Addi-tional excavations were conducted by Gy. Szeg-halmi in 1912,8 and later field work was carriedout by K. Bakay in 1969.9 Bakay’s excavationswere associated with the MRT project. These la-ter excavations exposed 300 m2 and 350 m2, re-spectively, and revealed a stratified Neolithic se-quence of 4–4.8 m in depth.

Fig. 1. Map of the CarpathianBasin showing the location ofthe Körös Regional Archaeo-

logical Project study area.

4 Gyucha et al. 2011.

5 Ecsedy et al. 1982; Jankovich et al. 1989; Jankovich et al.1998.6 Parkinson/Gyucha 2012.7 Darnay 1905.8 Szeghalmi 1913a; Szeghalmi 1913b.9 Bakay 1971.

131


A. Gyucha et al. – Settlement Nucleation in the Neolithic

The excavations also confirmed that the tell wasestablished during the Szakálhát phase of theMiddle Neolithic period, and occupation contin-ued until it was abandoned some time at the endof the Early Tisza phase or at the beginning of theClassical Tisza phase of the Late Neolithic peri-od. In addition to numerous settlement features,several Neolithic graves were also found duringthe excavations.

The MRT surveys revealed several contemporaryNeolithic sites in the vicinity of the Szeghalom-Kovácshalom tell (Fig. 3). A visit to Kovácshalomin 2008 suggested that the main occupationphase of these small sites dated to the Late Neo-lithic period.10

During prehistory the Vésztő-Mágor tell was sur-rounded on three sides by a meander loop of theancient Sebes-Körös River.11 It covers 3.9 hec-tares and rises to a height of nine meters. Thecentre of the tell was destroyed by the construc-tion of a wine cellar in the early 19th century. Thecellar became an archaeological museum in1982. Excavations of an Árpádian Age monasteryon top of the southern part of the tell began in1968 and continued throughout the 1970s.12

K. Hegedűs’ excavations from 1972 to 1976 fo-cused on the prehistoric stratigraphy of thetell.13 In 1986, J. Makkay dug a large trenchthrough the northern section of the tell to estab-lish an in situ archaeological exhibition.14 Thetell and its surrounding area have been a na-tional park since 1978.

Quantities of ceramics found at the bottom of thetrenches indicate that the occupation history ofthe site may have begun during the Early Neo-lithic. However, the earliest features identifiedduring the excavations date to the Middle Neo-lithic Szakálhát period. The latest Neolithic struc-tures were constructed during the Classical Phaseof the Late Neolithic Tisza Culture. After its aban-donment some time during the Late Neolithic per-iod, and followed by a hiatus in habitation, thetell was reoccupied during the Early and MiddleCopper Age. Then after another hiatus, it was re-settled during the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 1800–1400 BC).15 The construction of the monastery ontop of the tell began in the 11th century AD.

In contrast to Szeghalom-Kovácshalom, neitherthe MRT surveys nor other investigations re-corded Middle and Late Neolithic horizontalsites in the immediate vicinity of the Vésztő-Mágor tell.

Research methods

In our investigations at Szeghalom-Kovácshalomand Vésztő-Mágor, we employed the same multi-disciplinary data collection methods that we de-veloped during our studies of Early Copper Agesettlements in the earlier phase of the Körös Re-gional Archaeological Project.16 Field work at

Fig. 2. Map of the location of Szeghalom-Kovácshalom, Vésztő-Mágor and other prehis-toric sites in their immediate vicinity. Ancient palaeochannels – light blue; post-regula-tion canals – dark blue; Neolithic tell sites – red stars; Earlier Middle Neolithic (AlföldLinear Pottery phase) sites – red circles; Later Middle Neolithic (Szakálhát phase) sites –red triangles; Late Neolithic (Tisza Culture) sites – red squares; Early Copper Age (Tisza-polgár Culture) sites – green circles; modern towns – black circles (based on informationfrom Ecsedy et al. 1982).

Fig. 3. Map of the Szegha-lom-Kovácshalom micro-region showing the locationof ancient palaeochannelsand nearby Neolithic sitesidentified during the MRTsurvey. Numbers refer to theSzeghalom region site num-bers assigned in Ecsedy et al.(1982). Note the East–Westsegment of the modern,regulated Sebes-Körös Riverin the south.

10 Salisbury 2010.11 Frolking in press.12 Juhász 2000.13 Hegedűs 1977; Hegedűs/Makkay 1987.14 Makkay 2004.15 Hegedűs/Makkay 1987. 16 Parkinson et al. 2010.

132



Szeghalom-Kovácshalom and Vésztő-Mágor be-gan in the spring of 2010 and continued everyyear in four-week field seasons. The last fieldseason of the current phase of research tookplace in 2014. In this chapter we focus specifi-cally on the 2010–2012 seasons, and presentour methods and some preliminary resultsfrom our detailed topographic mapping, sur-face survey and gridded surface collections,geophysical remote sensing, and geochemicalsurveys.

Topographic mapping

A large part of our efforts has been dedicated tocreating detailed Digital Elevation Models(DEMs) of the two sites. These DEMs are criticalnot only for understanding the relations betweentopography and artefact densities and distribu-tions, but also for modelling local hydrology.The 1 : 10,000 topographic maps distributed bythe Institute of Geodesy, Cartography and Re-mote Sensing (Földmérési és Távérzékelési Inté-zet, henceforth FÖMI) of Szeghalom-Kovácsha-lom contains several errors, and the available50 cm contour interval was not sufficient for ourresearch. Topographic mapping was completedusing a Real Time Kinetic Geographic PositioningSystem (RTK-GPS) unit, which permits fastdatacollection with high accuracy and precision. Thehigh-resolution, 20 cm contour DEM that we cre-ated helped us to identify those areas that wouldhave been seasonally or perennially inundatedin prehistoric times. It also enabled us to relatethe variation in the distribution of surface arte-

facts and geophysical anomalies to subtle differ-ences in elevation across the sites (Fig. 4).

Surface surveys and collections

To examine the spatial and chronological rela-tions between the tell and the surrounding hori-zontal Neolithic settlement at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom, and to gain a better understand-ing of the occupation history of the microregion,we conducted surface surveys and intensivelycollected cultural material from gridded blockson the ploughed agricultural fields. An extensivesurvey and reconnaissance of the microregionwas carried out in a radius of ca. 10 km aroundSzeghalom-Kovácshalom and Vésztő-Mágor. Inthis territory all of the Neolithic and Copper Agesites identified in the MRT surveys were revisitedto verify their descriptions. We also searched forother Neolithic sites that may have been asso-ciated with the tells.

Beginning in 2010 we conducted surveys atSzeghalom-Kovácshalom to gain an overview ofthe spatial relationship between artefact scat-ters and sites around the tell. During our sys-tematic, intensive, surface collecting, areas withhigh artefact density were collected using 10 ×10 m gridded units; 20 × 20 m collection unitswere used, when there were only very low arte-fact densities (Tab. 1).

Members of the survey team collected all of thevisible surface artefacts within each gridded unitduring a 10–15 minute time interval. Daub was

Fig. 4. Map of the Szegha-lom-Kovácshalom settlement

complex showing detailedtopography and geophysical

anomalies. Toponyms areused to differentiate various

parts of the site.

133



weighed in the field, and only a sample was col-lected. By the end of the 2012 field season,gridded surface collections over 55 hectares ofploughed fields around the Szeghalom-Kovács-halom tell had been completed (Tab. 2, Fig. 9).Although the total distribution of surface arte-facts suggested that the full extent of the hori-zontal settlement was larger, systematic collec-tions were not conducted near the southern andwestern site boundaries due to the presence ofpastures, woodland, and the modern canal andlevees of the Sebes-Körös River. Artefacts fromgridded surface collections were sorted,weighed, cleaned and catalogued in the lab.The data then were integrated into ArcGIS to pro-duce overlaid datasets that could be used for ad-ditional analyses and interpretation. Since thetell and its surroundings, ca. nine hectares, arecovered with grass and woods, we were not ableto conduct similar gridded surface collections atVésztő-Mágor.

Geophysical remote sensing

Geophysical methods are non-destructive andinvolve measuring the physical properties ofsoils on or below the surface of an archaeologi-cal site in order to identify buried archaeologicalfeatures. Among geophysical techniques, mag-netic and soil resistance methods are most ef-fective and frequently used for mapping exten-sive areas containing architectural remains andactivity areas.17 The geophysical investigationsat Szeghalom-Kovácshalom and Vésztő-Mágorincluded an integrated suite of different ap-proaches, such as magnetometry, magnetic sus-

ceptibility, ground penetrating radar (GPR), elec-trical resistivity tomography (ERT) and hyper-spectroradiometry. Archival aerial and satelliteimages purchased from FÖMI and MoD MappingCompany (HM Zrínyi Térképészeti Kft.) were alsoincorporated in data analysis through a GIS re-mote sensing geodatabase.

Magnetic surveys use sensors (proton, caesiumor fluxgate magnetometers, or fluxgate gradi-ometers) to measure the total magnetic fieldstrength or the horizontal gradient of the totalmagnetic field or one of its components.18 AtSzeghalom-Kovácshalom and Vésztő-Mágor thevertical gradient of the local magnetic field wasmeasured by Geoscan FM256 and Bartington In-struments Grad601 fluxgate gradiometers. Thefield measurements were acquired in a systema-tic way by moving the instruments along south-to-north parallel transects 0.5–1.0 m apart with-in rectangular grids. The sampling interval alongeach line was 0.25 m. Within the three years ofgeophysical campaigns from 2010 to 2012, anarea of 36.5 hectares on and around the Szegha-lom-Kovácshalom tell was covered with magne-tometry (Fig. 5), while at the Vésztő-Mágor tell4.6 hectares were investigated in 2006 (Fig. 6).

Magnetic susceptibility measurements capturethe local fluctuations of the geomagnetic fieldthat are caused by contrasts in rock magnetiza-tion or by soils rich in magnetic oxides. Subsur-face targets with magnetic properties differentfrom those of the surrounding soil matrix changethe local magnetic field, and are logged as“anomalous” readings in magnetic surveys.

Year 10 × 10 s 20 × 20 s Units Collected Total Area (ha)

2010 1,210 38 1,248 13.6

2011 1,442 132 1,574 19.7

2012 313 492 805 22.8

Total 2,965 662 3,627 56.1

Table 1. Gridded surface units intensively collected at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom, 2010–2012.

Year Daub(kg)

CeramicN

Ceramic(kg)

BoneN

Bone(kg)

LithicN

Lithic(kg)

ShellN

Shell(kg)

GrStnN

GrStn(kg)

OtherN

Other(kg)

2010 854.2 29,418 331 2,085 15.2 809 5.7 1,143 1.6 443 62.2 1,280 269.8

2011 705.3 12,607 98.8 502 1.6 426 1.3 115 0.1 148 18.7 2,394 111.2

2012 173.1 1,999 26.5 135 1.3 45 0.6 78 0.1 18 4.1 655 34.9

Total 1732.6 44,024 456.3 2,722 18.1 1,280 7.6 1,336 1.8 609 85 4,329 415.9

Table 2. Materials collected in gridded surface units at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom, 2010–2012. The ‘Other’ category includes unmodified stones,seeds, slags, metals, bricks, as well as small finds such as bone tools, spindle whorls, loom weights and beads.

17 Clark 1990. 18 Sarris et al. 2013.

134



These readings are related directly to the mag-netic susceptibility of the geology/soils or cultur-al features.19

Samples from several soil cores taken from var-ious parts of the large horizontal site surround-ing the Szeghalom-Kovácshalom tell had beencollected and analysed during dissertation re-search by R. Salisbury.20 Amore extensive coringprogram was conducted at the site in 2011 bythe Körös Regional Archaeological Project. A to-tal of 247 cores were sampled at three loci overand around possible house structures (Fig. 7). Atotal of 201 samples from these cores were ana-lysed for magnetic susceptibility. The measure-ments were made with a dual-frequency sensorBartington Instruments MS2B. The subsequentspatial analysis, mapping and interpretationwere conducted within GIS.

Ground penetrating radar (GPR) surveys use highfrequency electromagnetic radiation for strati-graphic subsurface mapping. A high frequencyelectromagnetic radar signal is transmitted intothe ground, and the reflected waves are re-corded, thus creating a vertical depth sectionthat simulates the subsurface geological/strati-graphy structure.21 The Noggin Plus-Smart CartGPR system with 250 MHz antennas was em-ployed during the GPR surveys at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom and Vésztő-Mágor. The maximum

penetration depth of the system can reach 3–4 m below the surface depending upon the con-ductivity of the subsurface layers. However, theincreased humidity/conductivity of the soil atboth of the studied sites resulted in a maximuminvestigation depth of about 2–3 m. Measure-ments were carried out along parallel transectsseparated every 0.5 m apart with a sampling of5 cm along the transects, covering an area of26,000 m² at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom (Fig. 7).The goal was to examine the stratigraphy of thetell, to identify previous excavations trenchesfor further research, and to verify the results ofthe magnetometry surveys over daub structuresin various parts of the site. At Vésztő-Mágor4,000 m² were investigated by GPR, partly over-lapping the area of the magnetometry prospec-tion that was conducted in 2006 (Fig. 6).

Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) extractssectional or volumetric information for the sub-surface soil resistivity.22 An electrical current isintroduced into the ground via two electrodes,and the potential difference caused by the cur-rent flow through different types of features,soils, and sediments is measured. ERT can beused to detect geological and archaeologicalfeatures, such as walls, layers and other loca-lized structures with different electrical andelectrochemical properties, and it can providestratigraphic information as well as horizontalmapping at different depths.23

Fig. 5. The Szeghalom-Kovácshalom settlement com-plex with magnetic and GPR

anomalies. The dark greyarea indicates the area inves-tigated by magnetometry be-tween 2010 and 2012. The

map around the tell shows anoverlay of the map created byGy. Szeghalmi (1913). Topo-

nyms are used to differentiatevarious parts of the site.

19 Yerkes et al. 2007.20 Salisbury 2010.21 Sarris 2008.

22 Papadopoulos et al. 2011.23 Maillol et al. 2004; Papadopoulos et al. 2014.

135



At Szeghalom-Kovácshalom the pole-dipole elec-trode configuration was used to complete ERTsurveys along individual transects. The lines ranparallel to each other with an inter-line spacingof 10 m. The unit electrode distance along thelines was one meter. In order to examine thestratigraphy of the tell and its relations to the sur-rounding palaeochannel, and to investigate adistinctive daub structure in the North Field

(S81), more than 140,000 data points were col-lected from 47 lines at Szeghalom-Kovácshalomwith a combined length of over 5 km, which is in-deed the largest known ERT survey of a Neolithicsite in Europe (Fig. 7). The interpolated inversiondata were visualized as 2-D cross-sections and 3-D volumetric models representing the sequenceof the different stratigraphic layers (Fig. 8).

Fig. 6. Map of the Vésztő-Mágor tell showing the areainvestigated by magnetome-try (dark grey area) and GPR(colour area), and the identi-fied anomalies.

136



Experimental hyper-spectral measurements weretaken by a handheld GER 1500 spectroradiometerat both sites in 2011 to detect subsurface archae-ological features. This ground-based remote sen-sing technique can potentially identify crop spec-tral signatures by measuring their reflectivity inorder to create vegetation indices maps.24 AtVésztő-Mágor approximately 1,200 ground hy-per-spectral measurements were taken every 1 malong South–North transects spaced 2 m apart inWest–East direction, encompassing an area of2,600 m² in the northwestern part of the tell. Inthe northern section of the Szeghalom-Kovácsha-

lom site, measurements also were taken over alonghouse.

Soil Chemistry

Geochemical investigations were utilized to ex-plore the use of space and identify activity zonesat Szeghalom-Kovácshalom. An extensive coringprogram in 2011 was undertaken to ground truthinterpretations of magnetic anomalies, to assessstratigraphy, characterize sediments inside andoutside structures, and to collect samples formagnetic susceptibility, multi-element geo-chemistry and available phosphates (Fig. 7). Atthree loci and at several discrete points at Szeg-

Fig. 7. Map of the Szegha-lom-Kovácshalom settlementcomplex showing the location

of ERT transects, magneticsusceptibility, soil chemistry

and GPR grids.

Fig. 8. Volumetric 3-D re-sistivity display of the sub-

surface layers at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom tell.

24 Agapiou et al. 2010; Agapiou et al. 2012.

137



halom-Kovácshalom, cores were extracted with ahand-operated Oakfield soil sampler alongtransects and at grid points with spacing of20 m, 10 m, and 5 m. Because loci boundarieswere delineated through intensive surface col-lection and magnetic survey, the size of eachsampled area and the approximate location ofsubsurface features were known prior to coring.Samples were taken from within cultural layersand subsoil. Large undifferentiated horizonswere subdivided into arbitrary levels and multi-ple samples were taken. In cases where no cul-tural horizon was identified, samples were col-lected from the base of the plough zone or thetransition to the subsoil.

Multi-element ICP analysis were carried out on100 samples, and 150 samples were analysedfor available phosphates (Pav) using a ring chro-matography, or spot test, based on the methoddeveloped by H. Gundlach and modified byR. Eidt.25 Data collected from these multiplesources were integrated and mapped in the GISplatform. The resulting maps of artefact distribu-tions, geophysical anomalies and soil phos-phate concentrations were spatially correlatedwith one another, and were associated with dif-ferent types of subsurface features and activityareas.

Preliminary results

Based on the stylistic attributes of the recoveredceramics, it appears that the tell at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom and at Vésztő-Mágor were inhab-ited at the same time during the Neolithic peri-od, possibly for several centuries. Despite theircontemporaneity and close proximity, they exhi-bit striking differences in site organization andlayout.

Magnetic survey, GPR and soil coring suggestthat the Vésztő-Mágor tell (Fig. 6) may have beensurrounded by a system of three large ditchesand palisades, with a possible entrance in thenorthwest.26 Preliminary coring into the linearanomalies suggests that some of the ditchesmay exceed 4 m in depth. Structural similaritieswith other Neolithic fortifications led us to sus-pect that at least part of the ditch and palisadesystem at the Vésztő-Mágor tell was establishedduring this period.27 The number of geophysicalanomalies located outside the ditch and pali-sade system drops dramatically, suggesting thatthe Late Neolithic occupations were restricted tothe tell itself, and a substantial horizontal settle-ment was not established in the surrounding

area. The nearest recorded Late Neolithic site, asmall hamlet (Körösladány 16), is located ca.2.2 km away (see Fig. 2).28

This pattern contrasts starkly with that in Szeg-halom-Kovácshalom. The Szeghalom-Kovács-halom tell is significantly smaller than Vésztő-Mágor in both height and expanse. Although thegeophysical survey results do not indicate thatthere were any surrounding ditches or palisadesaround the tell, it may have been enclosed by alarge “moat”, which was formed by modificationof the ancient Sebes-Körös channel (Fig. 3–4).

The ERT surveys provided valuable informationabout the stratigraphy of the Szeghalom-Kovács-halom tell and its relation to the surrounding riv-er channel.29 The high resistivity values withinthe ERT data suggest that the maximum depthof the anthropogenic layers on the tell is 3.2 m,and that the thickness decreases to 0.5 m to-wards the edges of the tell. The low resistivity va-lues imply that the depth of the palaeochannel is2.5 m to the east, while to the north and west itsmaximum depth does not exceed 1.7 m (Fig. 8).This may reinforce the possibility that the shal-low channels were intentionally modified.

Geophysical prospection and gridded surfacecollections revealed that instead of several smal-ler settlements and/or hamlets (as indicated inthe MRT surveys), and also in contrast to thepattern at Vésztő-Mágor, the Szeghalom-Kovács-halom tell was surrounded by an extensive hori-zontal settlement during the Neolithic. The distri-bution of magnetic anomalies and the highsurface artefact densities indicate that the areasimmediately north, south and west of the tell onthe highest terraces of the ancient Sebes-KörösRiver formed the core of the settlement (Fig. 9–10). In these areas where occupation was denseand complex, a large number of rectangular, mul-ti-room longhouses were identified. These long-house structures were oriented Northwest–Southeast and measured ca. 17–28 m in lengthand ca. 7–10 m in width. Further, circular mag-netic anomalies might represent other types offeatures, such as pits, kilns and wells. Some ofthese features form clusters around the long-houses and may represent household groupswithin the core area of the horizontal settlement.

The investigations also revealed that isolatedlonghouses, similar in size and orientation tothose of the settlement core, were built 100–300 m to the east across the old river channelat lower elevations in the East Field and SouthField East. Isolated structures and features alsowere identified at lower elevations in the North

25 Gundlach 1961; Eidt 1973.26 Sarris et al. 2012.27 E.g. Raczky/Anders 2012; Schier 2008.

28 Ecsedy et al. 1982, 106.29 Papadopoulos et al. 2014.

138



Field and Far West Field. Based on our researchconducted between 2010 and 2012, the outerboundaries of the Szeghalom-Kovácshalom set-tlement complex enclose an area of ca. 70 ha(Fig. 4–5).

Stylistic studies on the ceramic assemblage fromthe surface collections indicate that the Neo-lithic village at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom was es-tablished during the transitional phase betweenthe Szakálhát and Tisza periods, and that it ex-

Fig. 9. Map of theSzeghalom-Kovácshalom

settlement complex showingthe geophysival anomalies,

the location of gridded inten-sive collection units and the

weight of ceramics withinthose units.

Fig. 10. Map of theSzeghalom-Kovácshalom

settlement complex showingthe geophysical anomalies,

the location of gridded inten-sive collection units and theweight of daub within those

units.

139



panded quickly during the Early Tisza phase ofthe Late Neolithic period. Occupation at the siteduring other periods was significantly more re-stricted. Scattered Alföld Linear Pottery, LateCopper Age Baden, and Roman Age Sarmatianceramic fragments were found in the South FieldWest, while fragments of a single Late BronzeAge urn were collected in the West Field. In thenortheastern part of the North Field, near the an-cient riverbank, small concentrations of LateBronze Age and La Téne sherds indicate ephem-eral use of the site during those periods. Occa-sional Árpádian Age ceramics evenly distributedon higher elevations may be associated with sys-tematic agricultural manuring activities duringthe 11–13th centuries AD.

The Neolithic surface artefact distributions anddensities support the patterns indicated in thegeophysical anomalies (Fig. 9–10). There wereno recorded anomalies in areas at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom, where artefact density was lowand where there were no surface finds. Clear rec-tangular anomalies associated with longhouseswere found below surface concentrations ofburned daub. Neolithic ceramic and bone densi-ties were highest on the elevated fields west ofthe old river channel (Tell, North Field, SouthField West, and West Field), where most of thelinear anomalies associated with longhousesand circular anomalies representing other settle-ment features were identified. However, densi-ties of artefacts were extremely low at lower ele-vations, particularly in the East Field and SouthField East, along the periphery of the settlementcomplex. The boundaries of these anomalies re-presenting possible longhouses are “fuzzy” andless clear than those in the core area. This sug-gests that structures in the low-lying areas mayhave been subjected to flooding and erosion fora long time. The very low number of ceramicsand concentrations of chipped and ground stonerecorded above or near longhouses in the EastField and South Field East imply that a more lim-ited range or different kinds of activities mayhave occurred at these locations, possibly dur-ing shorter occupations in dry seasons as com-pared to the core part of the settlement complex.Clusters of more numerous structures, and mod-erate density of surface artefact concentrations,particularly in the Far West Field, South FieldEast, and South Field Canal, also may representseasonally used hamlets or farmsteads thatwere set off from the core area of the outer settle-ment.

Although the Neolithic occupation of the settle-ment complex is dated to the Szakálhát/Tiszatransition and the Early Tisza phase, the chrono-logical relations between various settlementparts and individual features need to be re-solved through detailed analysis of radiocarbon

dates and diagnostic artefacts from our targetedexcavations at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom.

Three rectangular longhouse structures and theirimmediate surroundings in the North Field, EastField, and South Field West were subjected tosoil chemistry and magnetic susceptibility inves-tigations (Fig. 7). Spot tests for available phos-phates (Pav) in and around a large structure(S81) in the North Field showed that the highestconcentrations were away from the palaeochan-nel located to the east (Fig. 11). Moderate levelswere recorded in samples from within the houseand adjacent to its north end, while much higherPav values are seen to the northwest, which mayrepresent a midden or dump. The results of themulti-element ICP and magnetic susceptibilityanalysis show elevated phosphorus (P) and po-tassium (K)–values away from the palaeochan-nel, and elements related to wood burning andmeat or fish processing (e. g., Fe and Mg) be-tween the longhouse and the palaeochannel.These results are similar to those from other hor-izontal settlements in the Körös region.30

Pav values from the locus in the South Field Westwere high over the entire sampled area (20 ×16 m), matching Salisbury’s earlier results thatsuggested that this was the most intensively oc-cupied part of the settlement.31 The results ofmulti-element soil chemical and magnetic sus-ceptibility analysis of samples from this locationwere mixed and complex. However, structurewalls and possible hearths or food preparationareas may be indicated by elevated Fe, Mg, andP and frequency dependent susceptibility va-lues. At the third locus in the East Field, wherestructures may have been flooded, Pav values

Fig. 11. Map of a struc-ture (S81) in the North Fieldshowing interpolated phos-phate distribution and thelocations of soil samples.

30 Salisbury 2010; Salisbury 2012.31 Salisbury 2010.

140



around the isolated structure were low, whilehigh values were recorded in the samples frominside the longhouse. This pattern appears tobe different from the North Field. If this was notthe result of differential preservation or later de-position of refuse from another location by flood-ing, manuring or midden formation, it may be as-sociated with different activities that occurred atthe peripheral zone of the settlement complex.

Conclusion: Settlement nucleationin the Late Neolithic of the Körös region

Recent research conducted by the Körös Region-al Archaeological Project has focused on study-ing patterns of population aggregation and set-tlement nucleation on the Great Hungarian Plainat the turn of the sixth and fifth millennia BC. Weselected two nearby tells, Szeghalom-Kovácsha-lom and Vésztő-Mágor, and their microregions inthe centre of the Hungarian Körös River Region,for our multi-disciplinary, comparative investiga-tions.

Using data from extensive and intensive surfacesurveys and gridded surface collections, as wellas various geophysical and geochemical investi-gations, we identified a large nucleated Neo-lithic village at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom. Thesettlement complex includes intensively occu-pied household clusters directly north, south,and west of the “moat” that surrounded the cen-tral tell. In addition to a great number of othersettlement features, dozens of Northwest–Southeast oriented longhouses were recordedin this core settlement zone. The peripheral zoneof the settlement complex is characterized by in-dividual isolated longhouses, or smaller house-hold clusters located several hundred metersaway from the core settlement zone on lower ele-vations across the landscape. Our preliminaryresults indicate that farmsteads in these periph-eral areas may have been occupied only duringthe dry seasons, and/or that a more restrictedrange or other types of activities may have takenplace there than in the centre of the village near-by the tell.

The heavily occupied areas of the core settle-ment zone around the tell covers more than25 hectares, while the total area of the settle-ment complex extends over 70 hectares. Its ex-panse and the three-tiered layout and organiza-tion make the Neolithic village complex atSzeghalom-Kovácshalom stand out among itscontemporary settlements in southeastern Eur-ope. Although some artefacts from the MiddleNeolithic Alföld Linear Pottery and Szakálhátphases were recovered at the site, the expansionof the settlement complex seems to have oc-curred during the beginning of the Late Neolithic

Tisza phase. The lack of later Neolithic ceramicartefacts from both the earlier excavations ofthe tell and from our systematic surface investi-gations suggests that the rapid growth of thesettlement complex occurred before the begin-ning of the Classical Tisza phase.

Investigations at Vésztő-Mágor revealed a funda-mentally different layout. We found no evidencefor a surrounding horizontal settlement aroundthe tell, but we recorded a series of geophysicalanomalies that may mark the locations of a sys-tem of encircling ditches and palisades, whichwe suspect date to the Neolithic.

By integrating information from multiple, non-invasive datasets, our recent investigationshelped us to understand some of the variationin the process of settlement nucleation and po-pulation aggregation in agricultural societies inSoutheast Europe during the Neolithic. However,we do not yet understand why the Neolithic resi-dents of the large tell at Vésztő-Mágor all seemto have lived on the tell itself, while at Szegha-lom-Kovácshalom most of the inhabitants livedin a ‘horizontal’ village surrounding a smallertell. Further investigations at both sites are inprogress in order to compare them in more detailand to build more general models of how largetell-centred nucleated settlements formed, de-veloped sustainable socio-economic systems,and finally fragmented as their inhabitants dis-persed to smaller outlying sites at the end ofthe Neolithic period.

Acknowledgements

A draft of this article originally was presented atthe international workshop entitled “Chronolo-gies, Lithics, and Metals: Late Neolithic and Cop-per Age in the Eastern Part of the CarpathianBasin and in the Balkans” at the Eötvös LorándUniversity in Budapest, March 30 – April 1,2012. The workshop was organized by the Insti-tute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös LorándUniversity, the Eurasien-Abteilung des Deut-schen Archäologischen Instituts, and the Rö-misch-Germanische Kommission des DeutschenArchäologischen Instituts. We extend our thanksto Pál Raczky, Svend Hansen and Alexandra An-ders for organizing the workshop and inviting usto participate. We are especially grateful for theirpatience and willingness to accept our manu-script even at a very late date. The research dis-cussed in this article was funded with supportfrom the US National Science Foundation (BCS-1325112; BCS-1122468; OISE-1030436; BCS-1012374; BCS-0911336; BCS-0911336), theWenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Re-search (ICRG), the Center for National HeritageProtection at the Hungarian National Museum,

141



the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago,and Ohio State University. We dedicate this arti-cle to our friends and neighbours in Vésztő, whowelcome us each year with open arms and with-out whom we could not do our research.

References

Agapiou et al. 2010A. Agapiou/D. Hadjimitsis/A. Sarris/K. Themistocleous/G. Papadavid, Hyperspectral Ground Truth Data for theDetection of Buried Architectural Remains. LectureNotes in Computer Science 6436, 2010, 318–331.

Agapiou et al. 2012A. Agapiou/D. Hadjimitsis/D. Alexakis/A. Sarris, Obser-vatory Validation of Neolithic Tells (“Magoules”) in theThessalian Plain, Central Greece, using HyperspectralSpectroradiometric Data. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 39,5, 2012, 1499–1512.

Bakay 1971K. Bakay, A régészeti topográfia munkálatai Békés me-gyében 1969-ben. Archaeological topographical opera-tions in county Békés in 1969. Békés Megyei Múzeu-mok Közleményei 1, 1971, 135–153.

Clark 1990A. Clark, Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methodsin Archaeology (London 1990).

Darnay 1905K. Darnay, Szeghalmi ásatásról. Archaeologiai Értesítő25, 1905, 66–70.

Ecsedy et al. 1982I. Ecsedy/L. Kovács/B. Maráz/I. Torma, MagyarországRégészeti Topográfiája VI. Békés Megye Régészeti Topo-gráfiája: A Szeghalmi Járás (IV/1) (Budapest 1982).

Eidt 1973R. Eidt, A Rapid Chemical Field Test for ArchaeologicalSite Surveying. American Antiquity 38, 1973, 206–210.

Frolking in pressT. Frolking, Holocene hydrology, soil development andlandscape evolution of the Bikeri area in the Körös Ba-sin of Eastern Hungary. In: W. A. Parkinson/A. Gyucha/R. W. Yerkes (eds.), Bikeri: Two Early Copper Age Vil-lages (Los Angeles).

Gundlach 1961H. Gundlach, Tüpfelmethode auf Phosphat, angewandtin prähistorischer Forschung (als Feldmethode). Micro-chimica Acta 5, 1961, 734–737.

Gyucha et al. 2011A. Gyucha/P. Duffy/T. Frolking, The Körös Basin from theNeolithic to the Hapsburgs: Linking Settlement Distribu-tions with Pre-Regulation Hydrology Through MultipleData Set Overlay. Geoarchaeology 26,3, 2011, 392–419.

Hegedűs 1977K. Hegedűs, A Vésztő Mágori-dombi újkőkori és rézkoritemetkezések. Bölcsészdoktori disszertáció. Eötvös Lor-ánd Tudományegyetem (Budapest 1977).

Hegedűs/Makkay 1987K. Hegedűs/J. Makkay, Vésztő-Mágor, A Settlement ofthe Tisza Culture. In: L. Tálas/P. Raczky (eds.), The LateNeolithic in the Tisza Region (Budapest/Szolnok 1987)85–103.

Hertelendi et al. 1995E. Hertelendi/N. Kalicz/P. Raczky/F. Horváth/M. Veres/É. Svingor/I. Futó/L. Bartosiewicz, Re-evaluation of theNeolithic in Eastern Hungary based on Calibrated Radio-carbon Dates. Radiocarbon 37,2, 1995, 239–244.

Hertelendi et al. 1998E. Hertelendi/É. Svingor/P. Raczky/F. Horváth/I. Futó/L.Bartosiewicz, Duration of Tell Settlements at four Prehis-toric Sites in Hungary. Radiocarbon 40,2, 1998, 659–665.

Horváth 1989F. Horváth, A Survey on the Development of NeolithicSettlement Pattern and House Types in the Tisza Re-gion. In: S. Bökönyi (ed.), Neolithic of Southeastern Eur-ope and its Near Eastern Connections. InternationalConference 1987, Szolnok-Szeged. Varia ArchaeologicaHungarica 2 (Budapest 1989) 85–101.

Jankovich et al. 1989D. Jankovich/J. Makkay/B. M. Szőke, Magyarország Ré-gészeti Topográfiája VIII. Békés Megye Régészeti Topo-gráfiája: A Szarvasi Járás (IV/2) (Budapest 1989).

Jankovich et al. 1998D. Jankovich/P. Medgyesi/E. Nikolin/I. Szatmári/I. Tor-ma (eds.), Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája: X.Békés és Békéscsaba (IV/3) (Budapest 1998).

Juhász 2000I. Juhász, A Csolt nemzetség monostora. In: T. Kollár(ed.), A középkori Dél-Alföld és Szer (Szeged 2000)281–304.

Kalicz 1986N. Kalicz, Über das spätneolitische Siedlungswesen inUngarn. A Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve 13,1986, 127–137.

Kalicz 2001N. Kalicz, Zusammenhänge zwischen dem Siedlungswe-sen und der Bevölkerungszahl während des Spätneo-lithikums in Ungarn. – Connections between modes ofsettlement and population size during the Late Neolithicperiod in Hungary. In: A. Lippert/M. Schultz/S. Shen-nan/M. Teschler-Nicola (eds.), Mensch und Umweltwährend des Neolithikums und der Frühbronzezeit inMitteleuropa. Ergebnisse interdisciplinärer Zusamme-narbeit zwischen Archäologie, Klimatologie, Biologieund Medizin (Rahden/Westfalen 2001) 153–163.

Kalicz/Raczky 1987N. Kalicz/P. Raczky, The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Re-gion: A Survey of Recent Archaeological Research. In: L.Tálas/P. Raczky (eds.), The Late Neolithic of the TiszaRegion: A Survey of Recent Excavations and Their Find-ings (Budapest, Szolnok 1987) 11–30.

Maillol et al. 2004J. Maillol/D. Ciobotaru/I. Moravetz, Electrical and Mag-netic Response of Archaeological Features at the Early

142



Neolithic Site of Movilalui Deciov, Western Romania. Ar-chaeological Prospection 11,4, 2004, 213–226.

Makkay 1982J. Makkay, A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának újeredményei (Budapest 1982).

Makkay 2004J. Makkay, Vésztő-Mágor. Ásatás a szülőföldön (Békés-csaba 2004).

Papadopoulos et al. 2011N. G. Papadopoulos/P. Tsourlos/C. Papazachos/G. N.Tsokas/A. Sarris/J. H. Kim, An Algorithm for the Fast3-D Resistivity Inversion of Surface Electrical ResistivityData: Application on Imaging Buried Antiquities. Geo-physical Prospection 59, 2011, 557–575.

Papadopoulos et al. 2014N. G. Papadopoulos/A. Sarris/W. A. Parkinson/A. Gyu-cha/R. W. Yerkes/P. R. Duffy/P. Tsourlos, Electrical Re-sistivity Tomography for the Modelling of Cultural De-posits and Geomorphological Landscapes at NeolithicSites: A Case Study from Southeastern Hungary. Archae-ological Prospection 21, 2014, 169–183.

Parkinson et al. 2010W. A. Parkinson/R. Yerkes/A. Gyucha/A. Sarris/M. Mor-ris/R. Salisbury, Early Copper Age Settlements in theKörös Region of the Great Hungarian Plain. Journal ofField Archaeology 35,2, 2010, 164–183.

Parkinson/Gyucha 2012W. A. Parkinson/A. Gyucha, Tells in perspective: long-term patterns of settlement nucleation and dispersal incentral and southeast Europe. In: R. Hofmann/F. K.Moetz/J. Müller (eds.), Tells: Social and environmentspace. Proceedings of the international workshop “So-cio-environmental dynamics over the last 12,000 years:The creation of landscapes II (14–18 March 2011)”(Bonn 2012) 105–116.

Raczky/Anders 2012P. Raczky/A. Anders, Neolithic Enclosures in EasternHungary and their Survival into the Copper Age. In: F.Bertemes/H. Meller (eds.), Neolithische Kreisgrabenan-lagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung 7.–9. Mai2004 in Goseck. Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vor-geschichte Halle, Band 8, 2012, 271–309.

Salisbury 2010R. B. Salisbury, Settlements, Sediments and Space: APractice Approach to Community Organization in the

Late Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, State University of NewYork at Buffalo (New York 2010).

Salisbury 2012R. B. Salisbury, Soilscapes and settlements: remotemapping of activity areas in unexcavated small farm-steads. Antiquity 86, 2012, 178–190.

Sarris 2006A. Sarris, Technical Report: Geophysical ProspectionSurvey at Vésztő-Mágor (Vésztő 15) and Okány 16 (Fu-tás), Vésztő, Hungary (2006). In: Unpublished Report:Laboratory of Geophysical-Satellite Remote Sensingand Archaeo-Environment. Rethymno, Crete: Institutefor Mediterranean Studies, Foundation of Research andTechnology, Hellas (F.O.R.T.H.).

Sarris et al. 2013A. Sarris/N. Papadopoulos/A. Agapiou/M. C. Salvi/D. G.Hadjimitsis/W. A. Parkinson/R. W. Yerkes/A. Gyucha/P.R. Duffy, Integration of Geophysical Surveys, Ground Hy-perspectral Measurements, Aerial and Satellite Imageryfor Archaeological Prospection of Prehistoric Sites: TheCase Study of Vésztő-Mágor Tell, Hungary. Journal of Ar-chaeological Science 40, 2013, 1454–1470.

Schier 2008W. Schier, Uivar: A Late Neolithic-Early Eneolithic Forti-fied Tell Site in Western Romania. In D. Bailey/A. Whit-tle/D. Hoffman (eds.), Living Well Together? Settlementand Materiality in the Neolithic of South East and Cen-tral Europe (Oxford 2008) 54–67.

Szeghalmi 1913aGy. Szeghalmi, Ásatás a szeghalmi Kovácshalomban(Első közlemény). Archaeologiai Értesítő 33, 1913, 37–52.

Szeghalmi 1913bGy. Szeghalmi, Ásatás a szeghalmi Kovácshalomban(Második közlemény). Archaeologiai Értesítő 33, 1913,123–141.

Yerkes et al. 2007R. W. Yerkes/A. Sarris/W. A. Parkinson/A. Gyucha/M.Hardy/L. Catanoso, Geophysical and Geochemical In-vestigations at Two Early Copper Age Settlements inthe Körös River Valley, Southeastern Hungary. Geoarch-aeology 22, 2007, 845–871.

Settlement Nucleation in the Neolithic: A Preliminary Report of the Körös Regional Archaeological...

Documents

Transcript of Settlement Nucleation in the Neolithic: A Preliminary Report of the Körös Regional Archaeological...