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

Tiszaug-Kéménytető (1876),

20 and Szécsény-Kerekdomb.

21 The excavations conducted on these sites —whose list is far from complete-, mark the first period of conscious settlement archaeology in Hungary: a period when the primary objective of research was the collection of various finds. Observations on the layout and organisation of the settlement, or its stratigraphie sequence are entirely lacking, and the previously selected finds themselves reached the private collection of the excavator —or occasionally of a museum —without any indication of their find context. Even though the International Archaeological and Anthropological Congress held in Budapest in 1876 can undoubtedly be regarded as a milestone in Hungarian archaeological research,

22 the techniques employed in the course of archaeological work did not become more refined in the following one and a half decades. Only the number of excavations grew. A proliferation of regional archaeological and local historical societies that established a number of smaller or larger collections and museums characterise this period. It is not mere chance, then, that the primary aim of excavation work remained the augmentation of these collections with new artefacts. It is hardly an exaggeration to state that most of the Bronze Age villages and major settlements that were later also intensively investigated had already been excavated in the last third of the 19th century.

23 A shorter or longer, often illustrated report of the results was published in a central journal or in a local publication. Thus, the experiences gained in the excavation of settlements gradually accumulated into the data base of scholarly summaries

24 and of the prehistoric chapters of the series Magyarország Vármegyéi és Városai (The Royal Counties and Cities of Hungary).

25 Extensive trenches were opened on a number of sites such as Lengyel,

26 Vattina (Vatin),

27 Benczurfalva-Dolány,

28 and Velemszentvid,

29 and the huge amount of finds brought to light on these excavations offered an almost complete picture of the material culture of their inhabitants. Nonetheless, archaeological practice at the close of the century did still not include the recording of settlement features, and the separation of finds according to layers and settlement features. It is thus hardly surprising that the mostly self-trained archaeologists did not perceive the possibilities for using the chronological evidence inherent in the excavation of multilayered sites. The publication of the finds was, more often than not, descriptive; analyses based on comparative studies and analogies were rare, for few scholars could boast an international perspective. The discussion and reconstruction of past lifeways, and the interpretation of any prehistoric feature was—as elsewhere in Europe—little more than speculation, not only because of the lack or misunderstanding of the factual data, but also as a result of the uncritical use of ethnographic and ethnologic analogies. This latter remained a standing companion to archaeological research for a long time

. Following the activities of Zsófia Torma who laid down the foundation of Neolithic research in Transylvania, of the archaeologists of that age only M. Wosinszky conducted his excavations with a precision far exceeding that of his contemporaries. Beginning with 1882, he directed the investigations at Lengyel, with the aim of full recovery. He cut through the ditches to investigate their structure, and he recognised the chronological value of the finds recovered from them. He published his results with detailed descriptions, maps and profile sections. At the excavations conducted at Gerjen-Várdomb he separated the finds according to layers.

30 Lajos Márton and Márton Roska were the first to circumscribe the principles and the practice of the first authentic settlement excavation in Hungary. Suffice it here to quote —without comment —a passage from one of Roska's reports of the excavations at Perjámos conducted between 1909 and 1911. "My basic aim during the 1909 campaign was to peel off the layers in the course of digging from top to bottom that the contents of each layer be kept separate. The boundary of each layer was defined according to the burnt, charred and stamped earthen patches and fireplaces. The vertical section only contains partial information on their position. Thus, one of the necessary preconditions to the precisity of these earth-peeling procedures is that the director of the excavation conduct the work in such a manner that the diggers only remove a little at a time, and that he stand beside the spade of the digger so that should a feature indicating a niveau appear he be able to record them and evaluate their indication in time."

31 In the same article Roska writes that with the Perjámos excavations he wished to offer provincial archaeologists an example "of the procedures to be employed in researches of similar nature."

32 To the great misfortune of archaeological research he hardly found any followers; neither did Lajos Márton who by 1908—1912, through his excavations at Tószeg, finally adopted an excavation technique based on the separation of real settlement features (house floors, fireplaces, etc.).

33 The more modern excavation techniques employed by L. Márton which combined the experiences of his predecessors (F. Rómer, M. Wosinszky) and his contemporaries (B. Posta, F. László, L. Bella) did not become a widespread practice. Historical events interrupted all advances in the field of more scientific excavations. After the difficulties of World War I archaeological work-similarly to numerous other activities —could only be continued under new, and in a certain sense, more difficult conditions in the country that had shrunk to one-third of its former size. The recuperation of Hungarian prehistoric research in the 1920s was also reflected by the qualitative changes in international contacts. A new element was added to settlement archaeology through the work of foreign specialists on several sites: E. A. van Giffen (with G. Bersu, L. Márton, F. Tompa and J. Hillebrand) at Tószeg in 1923, L. Clark (together with V. G. Childe, L. Márton and F. Tompa) in 1927, whilst Berettyóújfalu-Herpály was investigated by C. C. Clarke (together with L. Márton and F. Tompa). In 1928 G. Bersu and F. Tompa cut through the ditch at Lengyel; the last season of the