Kovács Tibor - Stanczik Ilona (szerk.): Bronze Age tell settlements of the Great Hungarian Plain I. (Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 1; Budapest, 1988)

Tibor KOVÁCS: Review of the Bronze Age settlement research during the past one and a half centuries in Hungary

historical interpretation. The most valuable work from this period, both in terms of the completeness of the data base and its objectivity is BALÁZS ORBÁN's work (1868-1870) on the Székelyföld (Transylvania) which contains quite a lot of prehistoric information. These were successfully used by later research as exemplified by M. ROSKA's (1942) comprehensive catalogue of the prehistoric sites of Transylvania. 5 The hillfort settlement of Alcsút-Göböljárás-puszta (Vatya culture) was mapped by the Archduke Joseph Hapsburg, who also excavated the site in several campaigns (NOVÁKI 1952, 5-6; 1963, 3). Gomba-Várhegy (Hatvan and Vatya cultures; KALICZ 1968, 125-127; BONA 1975, 51) was investigated by F. KUBINYI in 1858. His publication of the results includes the first picture illustration of a prehistoric site (1861, 104-113). 6 The present-day building of the Hungarian National Museum-founded in 1802-was completed in 1847 and offered ample space for the augmentation of the archaeological collection. 7 The earliest of these museums and societies were to be found in Gyula (1865), Nyíregyháza (1867), Sopron (1867), Jászberény (1873), Székesfehérvár (1873), Kiskunhalas (1874), Kassa (Kosice, 1876), and Tiszafüred (1877). It is hardly surprising that the first ardent advocate of a network of local museums was Flóris Römer, the Founding Father of Hungarian archaeology. 8 RÓMER 1866. 9 RÖMER 1878. 10 The fust beautifully illus rated monographs of the prehistoric finds of Hungary were also published for this occasion HAMPEL 1876; HAMPEL- 'ESZÉDES 1876-1878. 11 PULSZKY's book (1883) *vas a pioneering study and an important contribution towards the —often debated-separation of a new phase, the Copper Age, in various regions of Europe. Even though the principles of selection in any monumental survey are often controversial, it must here be mentioned that G. DANIEL's (1982, 125) study reviewing the history of archaeology has only two Hungarian data: beside a brief mention of Aurel Stein's researches in India, the author stresses the epochal importance of Pulszky's monograph. 12 HAMPEL 1886-1896. 13 RÖMER 1878. 14 Two of the mounds lying beside the Early Iron Age settlement of Fehérvár csurgó, encircled by a ditch, was investigated by J. Pados in 1857 who, mistakenly, believed them to be of Hunnish origin (MÁRTON 1933, 26). Not much later F. RÖMER (1860, 68), too, visited "the renowned Cun anian mounds of Csurgó". In 1854 a few burials of the Hatvan culture were unearthed by J. ÉRDY (1854) at Bag-Peredűlö. A control excavation was carried out in 1961 on the site by N. KALICZ (1968, 110, 24), together with G. Bandi and the present author The graves uncovered then and later finds from this site are published by Judit Tárnoki in this volume.-In the same year J. ÉRDY (1861, 29-45) uncovered 12 burials of the Vatya culture at Budapest-Kelenföld (cp. also BONA 1975, 28-29, Fig. 1). For early excavat'ons see also note 5. 15 KUBINYI 1861, 84-101.-Foi- a survey of later excavations see PATAY 1954, 32; KEMENCZEI 1984, 101. 16 KUBINYI 1866, 190-191; TOMPA 1936, 66-69.-KALICZ 1957, 5-7, 53-55; KALICZ 1968, 127. 17 FOLTIN 1870, 36, 75.-KALICZ 1968, 119. 18 NYÁRY 1868, 266-267; PATAY 1954, 16-17; KALICZ 1968, 122; KEMENCZEI 1967, 252. 19 CSETNEKI JELENIK 1876, 78- 83, 277-283.-BANNER-BONA-MÁRTON 1957; BONA 1979-80, 83-84. 20 KOVÁCH 1876, 8-ll;CSÁNY'-STANCZIK 1982. 21 KOVÁCS 1988. 22 For an evaluation, see BANNER-BONAMÁRTON 1957, 4-8. 23 Suffice it here to quote Nag>

kőrös-Földvár: WAGNER 1879; CSALOG 1960; POROSZLAI 1988, and Gerjen-Várdomb: WOSINSKY 1891; WOSINSKY 1896, 409-434; SZABÓ 1988.-Cp. also notes 20 and 29. 24 HAMPEL 1886-1896; WOSINSKY 1904. 25 Twenty-four volumes of the se ies were published between 1896 and 1914. With the exception of Lajos Márton and András Jósa the prehistoric chapters were writte i by self-trained 'archaeologists'. Their data are still invaluable for they give an exhaustive list of the then known prehistoric sites including settlements of a given county.-The mülennary jubilee of the Hungarian conquest was celebrated with great pomp in 1896. n the course of the preparations for the celebration there was an increased interest towards historic relics - one of the reasons why arc íaeology became a sort of 'national pastime' by the turn of the century. 26 WOSINSKY 1882; 1896, 460-^ 76; TOMPA 1929, 47; 1936, 106. 27 MILEKKER 1897; 1905. 28 PINTÉR 1897; PATAY 1954, ;6, 32; KEMENCZEI 1984, 107, 120-121. 29 MISKE 1907; 1908. 30 WOSINSKY 1896, 409-434; BONA 1975, 111-112. 31 ROSKA 1913, 4.-Cp. also ROSKA 1914. 32 Beside Roska and Márton, F. László must be mentioned as an excellent settlement excavator. Cp. NOVÁKI 1963, 41-42. 33 Cp. BONA 1979-80, 86-88, 102. 34 ZOLTAI 1927, 47; BANNER-BONA-MÁRTON 1957, 24-25; KALICZ 1957, 55; BONA 1979-80, 84, 102. 35 C

HILDE 1929; TOMPA 1936. 36 MAROSI 1936. 37 VALKÓ 1932-1933; 1941.-ENDRÖDIFELD 1980. 38 BANNER 1928; 1929. 39 TOMPA 1936, 81, 99-100. 440 There are plans for publishing Tompa's observations and notes, as well as the finds collected at the begmning of the century around Sarkad. 41 A large part of the archaeological collection became mixed up during the siege of Budapest; their publication is now being prepared by Ildikó Szathmári. 42 TOMPA 1935a.-The drawings of the excavations conducted by F. Tompa (e.g. at Hatvan, Füzesabony and Bárca) were prepared by his colleague István Méri who later became a renowned specialist and excavator of early medieval sites. 43 TOMPA 1935b; 1936; 1942. 44 TOMPA 1936, 106; 1942, 63, 76, 93, 103-104, 117. 45 The publication of the old finds from Tószeg is exemplary in this respect: BANNER-BONA-MÁRTON 1957. 46 CSALOG 1952a; MOZSOLICS 1952; BÖKÖNYI 1952; REMÉNYI 1952; SÁRKÁNY - STIEBER 1952. 47 CSALOG 1952a.