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

Márta SZ. MÁTHÉ: Bronze Age tells in the Berettyó valley

where no traces of braced posts were found.

98 The wood remains from Bakonszeg and partly from Gáborján and Herpály rather suggest floors constructed of wooden planks since in the case of real log-houses the evenly spaced postholes in line with the assumed walls would have been unnecessary. A search for analogies in the ethnographic record would be fruitless since there is no data concerning the material (clay or planks) and construction of the floor in the houses with walls supported by posts interwoven with wattle-an d-daub. The postholes of Bronze Age houses are usually found among the wood remains. Had these wood remains been groundsels of true log-built walls similar to those described by ethnographic research, the postholes would not have pierced the timbers and penetrated into the occupation level, as in the case of certain structures of the Hatvan culture at Tószeg and Jászdózsa. The pierced "groundsels" were in fact halved timbers plastered into their place that served as wall foundations. It must have been easy to perforate the halved timbers which would account for the postholes on the surface.

99 Stanczik has correctly noted that this kind of foundation may well have been applied in order to counteract the instability of the ground caused by the levelled debris layer or a damp surface. Judging from the heavy posts noted in level 4 at Herpály the roof-supporting function of the walls must definitely be considered. Only at Herpály was the excavated area large enough to reflect major changes in architecture corresponding to the cultural sequence. In other cases significant differences between architectural remains (size, orientation, construction) cannot be clearly correlated with cultural change. Not all floor remains can be associated with houses, and smaller features such as sheds, storage rooms, stables, small attached utility buildings also have to be taken into consideration. A good example is level 3 at Bakonszeg with remains of a room with a plank floor attached to another construction with a plastered clay floor.

100 In view of these difficulties the architectural remains observed in the various soundings were not numbered —this was possible at Herpály only, even though it is far from certain that the features identified as houses had in fact functioned as such. Differences in "architectural style" can be noted between the lower and upper layers, but there is no uniform "pattern" as regards individual soundings, and neither do the recovered find assemblages change to a set "pattern". For example, Szilhalom yielded finds of one specific period, the Gyulavarsánd culture, and the remains uncovered on this site had belonged to a large house with wattle-and-daub walls and an interior row of posts. A similar house was, however, noted in an earlier layer at Bakonszeg. The upper layers are characterized by smaller houses similar to those in the Füzesabony area, although the floors are not so carefully plastered. The clay floors of Gyulavarsánd houses are less carefully constructed and often lack plastering. Only at Herpály was a floor plastered three times (level 3). The lack of a plastered floor can perhaps be attributed to plank floors within the wattle-and-daub or terre pisé houses. These plank floors survived but rarely. The lower levels (e.g. Herpály, level 4) contained remains of large houses corresponding to the Hatvan period in the Tisza region. The architecture of the Bakonszeg tell resembles that of the Békés settlement, but without log-houses.

101 A comparison of the Neolithic and Bronze Age layers clearly shows that considerably more clay was used in the Neolithic. This fact also tends to suggest that the Bronze Age builders preferred wood. Burials Most scholars generally agreed that the burials of the Otomani and Gyulavarsánd cultures would be inhumation burials. This appeared to be most probable in the case of the Gyulavarsánd culture as it was surrounded by groups practising this rite. But even this "fact" only became obvious following Bóna's first comprehensive study.

102 Earlier the myth of the urn cemetery at Pusztaszentjános (Síntion) —published by Hampel-had been widely accepted. As no other cemetery of the Gyulavarsánd or the preceding period had been known and since the sherds and vessels published by Hampel were mostly of Gyulavarsánd style the assumption seemed fairly logical.

103 The question is whether F. Rómer had found a cemetery in Szentjános at all.

104 The published material could not have come from urn graves—even though there have been no grounds for calling Rómer's reliability into doubt so far. Since no documents of the excavation have survived (but are, hopefully, still hidden somewhere) we have to examine the available data. Let us survey the available evidence. A. Alexandrescu carried out a rescue excavation on the site called Klastromdomb in the 50s and found a typical Gyulavarsánd settlement.

105 Roska mentions two sites,

106 similarly to the acquisitions register of the Hungarian National Museum. Roska appears to have mixed the data a little since the list of the finds from the allege'

1 urn graves found on the fields of Antal Lukács actually contains characteristic settlement finds; moreover, he mentions, even if only from hearsay, an urn grave cemetery from Klastromdomb. Ordentlich accepts Ham pel's and Roska"s data about the urn graves and assigned the finds to the Otomani III period-true enough, the sherd published by Hampel on PI. LXXV:3 comes from a Bodrogszerdahely type bowl. The Klastromdomb site is regarded as an unfortified settlement of the Otomani II period.

107 For the time being the urn grave cemetery seems to be fictitious since only secondhand information is available. Bader's comprehensive study, however, does not include Sfntion.

108 The question cannot be resolved until the recovery of new evidence for the presence of urn graves. The investigation of Rómer's unpublished documents could also be decisive. As regards the burial rite of the inhabitants of the tell, little is resolved by the publi cation of the Szilágy per