Cristian, Virag (szerk.): Neolithic cultural phenomena in the Upper Tisa Basin (Satu Mare, 2015)
Katalin Kovács: The Role of Bodrogzsadány int he Late Neolithic Evolution of the Bodrog Valley
Katalin Kovács Geographical condition of Bodrogzsadány Bodrogzsadány, presently called Sárazsadány, is located in north-eastern Hungary, on the southern slope of the Zemplén Mountains, on the right bank of the Bodrog River, about 20 kilometres from the Tokaj Mountain (Pi. 1:1). The village is situated at the confluence of the Zsadány Stream and the Bodrog River, on a relatively high point, at the edge of the plateau. The geographical and natural conditions of Bodrogzsadány may have been similar to the modern ones: there was a few kilometres-wide plateau at the foothill of the Zemplén, which was constantly destroyed by the river. A large floodplain extended in front of the plateau, unsuitable for human occupation.4 The only significant difference between the modern and Late Neolithic period was that the river running next to the settlement was not the Bodrog, but the Tisza with a much larger water flow. In the Holocene period the Tisza did not flow in its modern riverbed, it left the territory of Hungary at Záhony, turned westwards and headed towards the Zemplén via the settlements of Lelesz and Zétény. Here the river met the watercourses running from the north and moved southwards in the modern riverbed of the Bodrog River towards Tokaj.5 Thus, the Bodrog Valley meant the only natural connecting route between the Great Hungarian Plain and the northern areas in the Neolithic period and the Copper Age. The present channel of the Tisza developed much later, presumably during the early Bronze Age. Late Neolithic settlements at Bodrogzsadány There are three archaeological sites registered in the territory of the village (Pi. 1:2). The first is Bodrogzsadány-Templomdomb (“church mound”), which is situated on a small mound north of the confluence of the Zsadány Stream and the Bodrog River. Two graves were discovered there in 1940, which were presented to the Hungarian National Museum. On account of the two graves, József Petróczy carried out verifying excavations in 1941; he opened several small trenches at the top of the mound.6 Sándor Gallus also excavated the site in 1943. In 1951 Emilia Risztics conducted a short, three-day long excavation at different parts of the mound with little result.7 The finds of the site also attracted the attention of Ida Bognár-Kutzián, who carried out archaeological investigations on the mound in 1958. She published short reports about the finds.8 The second site, called Sárazsadány 002, was identified within the framework of the Upper Tisza Project on the opposite bank of the Zsadány Stream. The identified settlement was believed to be the Templomdomb site,9 which does not hold true, unless the two Late Neolithic settlements on both sides of the stream are interpreted as one site. The third site, Sárazsadány-Akasztószer, lies slightly farther away from the village to the south-east, along a streamlet at the bank of the former Tisza. In addition to her investigations at Templomdomb, Ida Bognár-Kutzián also conducted excavations here together with Nándor Kalicz and János Makkay in 1958. The excavations revealed, besides other archaeological cultures, a settlement belonging to the „Tisza-Herpály Group”, marked out by several pits and six inhumation graves. Further smaller excavations were conducted to collect material required for scientific analyses in 1979, 1983 and 1984.10 The site was researched by a field survey during the Upper Tisza Project in 1992, and finds were collected over a 23 hectare area. There is only one more similar settlement known in north-eastern Hungary that has such a large size, which 4 Schiel et al 2010, 34. 5 Lóki/Félegyházi 2004, 5-7; Schiel et al 2010, 31. 6 Gál-Mlakár 2010,26-31. 7 Gál-Mlakár 2010, 31-33. 8 Bognár-Kutzián 1959, 202; Bognár-Kutzián 1963, 410; Bognár-Kutzián 1966, 268-269; Bognár-Kutzián 1972, 12-13. 9 Chapman 1997, 158; Chapman et al 2010, 127. 10 Bognár-Kutzián 1959,202; Bognár-Kutzián 1963, 311, 415; Bognár-Kutzián 1972, Fig. 33. Ia-b; Bánffy 2008. 230
