Achaeometrical Research in Hungary II., 1988

PROSPECTING and DATING - György GOLDMAN - Júlia SZÉNÁSZKY: Topographic research on the neolithic settlements in Békés Sárrét

of them. We marked segments 2 x 2 m in size and 10 - 20 m apart within an area covering 200 x 150 m in the most significant, central part of the site. From each of these segments we gathered all finds or materials of possible archaeological significance. We also used proton-magnetometric examinations to help the gathering process (figure 1). It was thus possible to determine that occurrences at these sites were of minute intensity; presumably there is a series of holes or pits under the surface. These examinations did not provide information on the existence of ALP; that is to say, in this case, a negative result cannot lead to positive knowledge. In the absence of a considerable amount of mud-flakes, we can only come to the conclusion that if there was a house, it was not burned down. On the basis of the existing anomalies, surface examinations did not provide information on the presumed existence of houses between a series of pits or holes at the sites. Dévaványa had been inhabited as early as the ALP period as well as during the subsequent periods of the Szakáihát and Tisza cultures, so we also studied the interrelation between the periodization and changes in settlement at this place. These settlements were discovered by Dr Imre Bereczky during the 1930's. Following repeated reports, József Korek carried out verifying excavations in the middle of the settlement on the slopes of Szarka-halom in October 1959. Between 1979 and 1981 surface area, measuring approximately 1.5 x 0.5 km, was examined. In the case of sites covering large areas, we established a base-line from where a stream ran along a crack to the end, and along this, a systematic row of collecting segments were perpendicularly marked (figure 2, after SHERRATT, 1983.). We started in Kova-halom, which was the settlement's highest point. Here we built a 4 x 4 quadrangular surface collecting grid at distances of 20 m apart. We chose this site because our observation showed that settlement or habitation was densest at this point. From this so-called 9th line, we drew straight lines, three of which ran southwards, and four northwards. Just as we did along the Tarcsány-stream, we gathered all flint implements at intervals of 2 m on both sides of the 9th line. This method revealed that the dispersion of the remains or finds had a high concentration within a distance of 80 m from the edge of the terrace but it was of small and secondary concentration at a distance of 200 m. It had a continuous distribution up to a distance of over 300 m. We used one collecting line to help us determine the relative borders between the Szakáihát and Tisza cultures. Along such a line, we only collected decorated fragments. On the settlement, in areas divided into 50 x 100 m, we opened altogether nine small test areas. We examined cultural remains in surfaces measuring 2 x 2 m. After exploring the upper 50 cm, we reduced the exploration to areas to 1 x 1 m. The examination showed that at a distance of 200 m from the terrace, the remains cover a layer of 1.5 m thick, at 300 m the thickness is only 1 m. They disappear at distance of 500 m. Here we found natural sub-soil at a depth of 1 m. In order to examine the characteristics of bigger magnetic anomalies, we opened 2x2 m test areas so that we could further examine the results obtained through magnetic measurements. To our delight, houses of the Tisza culture were discovered at these points, within a depth of about 50 cm below the surface. This in itself meant that, the same method could be used to determine the nature of those houses found on the surface. Samples taken from the sites showed burned houses very well. This means that magnetic research in and of itself can give a clear picture of the sites' internal structure. The distributions of the surface finds or remains in reality show more than just present agricultural operations. On the contrary they reveal layers of settlements buried below the surface. Structural phenomena of surface remains or archaeological legacy that can be 14