Intensity, Size and Different Ways of Organising Space (‘Agency’ III)Organising Space (‘Agency’ III)

Diversity, different trajectories followed by our sites, and agency within the structural confines of such

tell-‘building’ communities have all been stressed throughout the entire discussion so far, and in the outer settlement part we encounter some prominent examples.

Starting on a macro scale, it has already been noted above that we obviously do see some differences among our sites in terms of the intensity of housing and other activities relegated to their respective peripheries. Novaj-Földvár is a good example that was already used above to argue that an enclosed tell or tell-like site in the Borsod region may well have existed without a major outer settlement to exploit. For despite some changes in soil chemistry and the distinctive greyish soil colour also familiar from other sites, in a zone c. 40 m wide in front of its ditch there is only weak evidence of true settlement activity from a couple of general ‘pit’ anomalies and just two or three badly preserved potential houses (fig. III-83 above).

As one moves further out from this zone there are hardly any ‘pit’ anomalies anymore. Since, unlike houses, such features are not prone to erosion and do not depend on heavy burning to become visible in magnetometry, the fact that they are largely absent implies a very limited size and intensity of occupation, if at all, in the surroundings of the tell or tell-like core of this site (Kienlin 2018a: 38–39).

Borsodivánka-Marhajárás may also belong to this group having less intense housing and occupation in the outer section of the site, although surface finds and at least some clusters of general ‘pit’ anomalies suggest that we may also see an effect of post-depositional changes (i.e. erosion) in this case (Kienlin/Fischl/Pusztai 2018b: 163–169). Erosion is also evident on the inner part of Tiszabábolna-Fehérló tanya where magnetometer data suggest extremely poor preservation, but among the surface finds concentrations of pottery and daub, plus fragments of grindstones, copper droplets etc. were still discernible and suggest the existence of spatially separated clusters of houses on the

‘island’. In this case, the question of an additional outer settlement beyond the artificial ‘island’ is unresolved for the time being. In the magnetometer data there are hardly any anomalies that one would tend to interpret in terms of archaeological remains, but a systematic surface survey to confirm or disprove this impression is currently impossible in this area due to grassland cover (Kienlin/Fischl/Pusztai 2018b: 251–257). By contrast, other sites obviously feature a much more intense use of their outer part, even though no houses are (readily) discernible in magnetometry, and the existence, therefore, of proper outside housing cannot be unambiguously proven. Mezőcsát-Laposhalom (fig.

III-106) and Szakáld-Testhalom (fig. III-108) fall into this group, and given the high density of general ‘pit’

anomalies, some of them surely Bronze Age, it is thought most likely that at least a couple of them indeed refer to the location of badly preserved tell period houses.

Besides overall intensity of housing and occupation, the size of the outer settlement as well is widely variable.

Given that we are sometimes talking about truly large areas, it was not even possible on every site to cover the limits of Bronze Age occupation or other activity as defined by the presence of general ‘pit’ anomalies by magnetometry.

So figure III-111 just aims to give an impression of the sometimes impressive size of the area surrounding the central tell or tell-like core where we still have anomalies or have surface finds, and can expect occasional housing or at least unspecified Bronze Age activity.¹⁷⁵ Emőd-Karola szőlők has already been introduced above and may illustrate this problem: At this site evidence of potential Bronze Age activity comes from the entire outer area covered by magnetometry with the exception of some low-lying stretches towards the Énekes/Rigós river, an area of c. 10.43 ha in total; if one tentatively includes the northern and western parts (with Bronze Age activity indicated by surface survey and rescue excavations) the entire area at some stage settled or otherwise used may have been up to 25 ha (fig. III-105). It is possible that at least in the far north and west Bronze Age surface finds are indicative of manure rather than proper occupation (compare Duffy 2014:

125–127), and that upon an expansion of magnetometry these outer margins would not feature anomalies anymore.

Yet, that still leaves us with really large areas of potential Bronze Age activity.

It is an important desideratum, therefore, that future research on our sites should develop a closer understanding just how large a contemporaneously settled (and/or otherwise used) area we may expect at any given time, and how the size and the intensity of the outer settlement may have developed in a long-term perspective. For the time being, different options have to be considered that are by no means exclusive but may occur on neighbouring sites. First, since we do have indications of the existence of distinct clusters within larger settled areas or on the opposite sides of rivers,¹⁷⁶ it is clearly possible that some Bronze Age tells may have developed from one among several other neighbouring nuclei, similar to what has been put forward for Late Neolithic Vinča sites (e.g.

Tringham/Krstić 1990a; 1990b: 582–586; Link 2006:

149–153 no. 34) or for the Bronze Age Körös region (fig.

III-112).¹⁷⁷ A constellation like this may be encountered at Emőd, with two rather close sites, the enclosed tell-like

175 However, the following should be borne in mind regarding the different quality of the data included: for some sites the outer limits have not been covered; the density of anomalies observed and of surface finds widely differs, as is potentially true of the function of the various parts of the outer ‘settlement’ (from more or less dense evidence of houses and true occupation to loosely defined activity areas); the chronology of the features seen requires further scrutiny; and on some sites there are other periods present than Bronze Age that may distort the picture etc. So figure III-111 really just provides an initial impression and cannot replace the detailed discussion in the catalogue of sites provided by Kienlin/

Fischl/Pusztai (2018b).

176 See Duffy (2014: 182–184) on the problem of telling apart distinct settlement loci or clusters of houses changing place through time from a large and truly simultaneously occupied outer settlement.

177 See Duffy (2014: 144–149, 203–206); previously, see already Banner (1974), Bóna (1974) and Jockenhövel (1990: 211–212 with fig. 1) on the evidence from Békés-Várdomb and its surroundings.

Bronze Age Tell Communities in Context

site of Nagyhalom and the apparently less long-lived one of Zsedény dűlő at a distance of c. 400 m south-east of Nagyhalom as the crow flies, but c. 20 m lower on a slight elevation in the surrounding marshland (fig.

III-113; Kienlin/Fischl/Pusztai 2018b: 179–188). In the Zsedény dűlő area small-scale systematic surface survey indicates Early Bronze Age (Hatvan period) occupation only. Magnetometer data shows general ‘pit’ anomalies and possibly points to some kind of demarcation, although certainly none as massive as at Nagyhalom. Given the rather poor chronological information obtained so far, this situation may be explained in different ways: It is possible that we see a relocation of a previous Hatvan period settlement from the plain to the hill. Alternatively, both sites coexisted some time during the Early Bronze Age, and since there are occasional surface finds all the way between them they may actually represent individual clusters of occupation within a larger settled area rather than truly distinct ‘sites’. Accordingly, at Borsodivánka Bronze Age finds have been recovered not only from the surroundings of the Marhajárás tell itself, but also from the far side (in terms of its premodern course) of the Rima river at a location called Szentistváni dűlő that in the meantime also features corresponding anomalies in magnetometry (fig. III-114; Kienlin/Fischl/Pusztai 2018b: 163–169). It is possible that rather than two distinct settlements (or the tell and its ’satellite‘) there are individual clusters – each of potentially slightly different lifespans – of one larger village, similar to the pattern proposed for Bronze Age settlement in the Körös region (Duffy 2014). Wherever

this model of a ‘clustered’ settlement applies, clearly the tell or tell-to-be is just one part of a larger settled area that may not have been particularly special for quite some time.

And the ‘outer’ settlement is not truly outside anything in a meaningful sense of the word, but rather may reflect the original condition and notions of life and settlement held in this community.

Alternatively, we clearly have to consider growth and possibly at some stage also mobility to account for exceptionally large outer settlement parts and/or rapid change in size – if we ever come close to documenting such processes by scientific dating. Expressly, this is not to advocate some abstract ‘centrality’ developing in the Borsod area, and certainly no ‘site hierarchy’. Furthermore, without positive evidence we should not expect anything like the entire outer part of Emőd-Karola szőlők outlined above to have been densely settled at any specific time.

Most likely something the size and structure of Emőd-Nagyhalom discussed below is much closer to what we normally should expect. Yet, we clearly have to be aware of differences in site size, and of the outer settlement in particular, either throughout or during certain phases only (fig. III-111) – and current work may be suggestive as to why such differences beyond organic growth might have occurred: We have seen above that the absolute lifespan of individual sites may have been different, and one would certainly not expect that all of our Borsod sites were established, grew and declined synchronously anyway (fig. III-73 above). It has been argued that we do not

Fig. III-111: Tentative comparison of the size of the central tell or tell-like part and the outer settlement of the sites examined for this study (in hectares); the size of the outer settlement included here is the outer area covered by magnetometry with potential evidence of Bronze Age activity; in some cases like

Emőd-Karola szőlők the actual size of the outer settlement or area otherwise used as indicated by surface finds may even have been larger; no distinction is made here between outer parts of the sites with unequivocal evidence of settlement activity (i.e. houses) and those with general ‘pit’ anomalies only,

possibly pointing to some other kind of activity.

Fig. III-112: Examples of Early to Middle Bronze Age settlements organised into distinct clusters from the Hungarian Körös region (after Duffy 2014: 148 fig. 7.3, 205 fig. 9.7).

Bronze Age Tell Communities in Context

feel that this invalidates our general argument about the importance of genealogy and architectural continuity on our sites. However, we certainly have to acknowledge the possibility that we may end up with a somewhat more fluid landscape than previously expected in terms of some sites starting somewhat later or coming to an end somewhat earlier etc., and an occasional gap opening in what we have so far considered to be a closely knit net of broadly comparable and largely contemporaneous sites throughout the Borsod landscape.

We have already seen households relocating between the various parts of our sites, and the number of on-tell versus off-tell households being adjusted. Now with the distinct possibility that some sites were less long-lived than others, potentially less ‘successful’ or for other reasons in decline, we may also see larger groups of households relocating, thus potentially adding – for some time only? – to the outer settlement of a neighbouring site, guided by kinship ties or some other pattern of preferential interaction during previous phases of coexistence. Emőd-Nagyhalom

Fig. III-113: Emőd. The neighbouring sites or clusters of Nagyhalom and Zsedény dűlő in magnetometry and the distribution of surface finds at Zsedény dűlő by weight (illustration: Klára P. Fischl).

with its remarkable ‘composite’ outer settlement and different patterns of relating households may be just such an example. This is definitely not to advocate historical concepts in the interpretation of archaeological data, and we most certainly see long-term stability and reference back to ancestral places as the single most important characteristic of the tell communities under consideration.

Yet, we clearly have to allow for the effect of contingent events on (settlement) structure if we want to come up with a realistic understanding of this way of life, the notions held of how and where to live on the one hand, and the occasional pitfalls that required deviation on the other, that come down to us as variability in the archaeological record.

Turning now to the group of sites where there is evidence of houses that enables us to distinguish different ways of organising social space, Emőd-Nagyhalom with its rather good level of preservation and explicitly ‘composite’

structure may serve as a starting point to shed some light on variability and the different outcomes of the social process as people settled in the surroundings of our Borsod tell sites.

The site of Emőd-Nagyhalom has already been repeatedly referred to above (see also Kalicz 1968: 118 no. 37;

Kienlin/Fischl/Pusztai 2018b: 179–188). It is situated close to the southern tip of an isolated hill, c. 600 m long and c. 25 m high above the surrounding Borsod plain and

Fig. III-114: Borsodivánka. Topographic situation according to the Second Austrian-Hungarian Military Survey with the different parts or clusters of the Bronze Age settlement (Marhajárás and

Szentistváni dűlő) (illustration: Klára P. Fischl).

Bronze Age Tell Communities in Context

former marshland (fig. III-109), and there is evidence from magnetometry and surface survey of a distinctly structured outer settlement that extends across almost the entire outer area covered with the exception of some of the steeper sections of the southern and eastern slope – comprising an area of almost 10 ha (figs. III-115 and III-116). The inner part of this zone, that has already been discussed above in conjunction with the partial backfilling of the site’s ditch, features two lines of concentrically arranged houses with their long sides oriented towards the tell-like centre of the site. Unlike the badly preserved core area, this zone at least in the south-west, north-west and north-east, features clearly discernible (burned) houses, c. 4.5–6 m wide and some 9–18 m long, whereby some of the longer ones may actually represent two overlying phases with a shift along the long axis. In addition, there are numerous accompanying more or less clearly bounded general ‘pit’

anomalies. Besides the orientation of its houses, this zone is also set apart from the wider outer settlement beyond by the distinctly reddish and grey patches of topsoil that relate to relocated material from the adjacent ditch and, broadly speaking, cultural layers building up in this zone (human induced soil formation processes, accumulated settlement debris and/or the remains of houses).

Beyond this inner ring of houses that in spatial terms make clear reference to the tell-like core of the site, there is a

wider outer settlement, that features distinct rows of more than 20 preserved (and burned) houses of broadly north-west to south-east orientation that extend up to c. 200 m north-east along the hilltop on which Emőd-Nagyhalom is situated as well as on its southern slope (figs. III-115 and III-116). This part of the site is set apart from the inner ring mentioned by its lack of corresponding distinctly coloured patches of topsoil or cultural layers, and by the different orientation of its houses as seen in magnetometry.

Both these findings may point towards a different origin, on-site tradition or identity of the occupants of this part of the outer settlement. The different orientation of their houses will certainly have favoured divergent patterns of movement and day-to-day practices etc. between both zones. On the other hand, the houses in the wider outer settlement in terms of construction details and their size of c. 4.5–5.5 m x 10–17 m do not systematically differ from the ones further inside. A couple of them are partly superimposed (i.e. multi-phase), and the surface finds indicate a Hatvan and Füzesabony period occupation of the area. So here too we see some tradition achieved, even though, judging from the lack of corresponding soil formation processes and no cultural layers accumulating, the overall stability of occupation seems to have been lower, and we may encounter greater residential mobility of households.

Finally, beyond the part(s) of the outer settlement with evidence of houses (plus, of course, interspersed general settlement pits), in the north of the site, in particular,

Fig. III-115: Emőd-Nagyhalom. Magnetometer data of the tell-like central part of the site and the outer settlement (greyscale plot;

data range [black to white]: +/- 10 nT).

Fig. III-116: Emőd-Nagyhalom. Interpretation of the magnetometer data showing the ‘composite’ structure of the outer settlement

(greyscale plot; data range [black to white]: +/- 10 nT).

there may be indications of a distinct ‘pit’-only zone of as yet unclear function (e.g. Fischl/Kienlin 2013: 8). Since whatever activities took place here clearly involved some kind of hole in the ground (i.e. the anomalies to be seen), we are confident that we are looking at more than just evidence of manure (e.g. Duffy 2014: 125–127, fig. 6.14) that may in fact account for the occurrence of occasional surface finds far beyond the limits of magnetically visible activity. Sections of special function or communal use besides broadly residential areas are clearly an option. From Vráble-Fidvár in Slovakia, for example, there is evidence of a separate storage area located between adjacent groups of houses (Bátora et al. 2009: 10; 2012: 114–115, 120), but there are other activities as well that may instead be carried out on the periphery of the settlement, such as aspects of livestock keeping, the processing of stocks or activities related to craft production. Evidence of pottery production such as clay extraction pits, for example, or the procurement of daub for house construction, may also come from a couple of weaker and less well defined

‘cloudy’ anomalies on the outer periphery of Emőd-Nagyhalom.

Based on the results of magnetometry in 2018 a systematic surface survey was carried out as part of the BORBAS project by Klára P. Fischl, whose results are summarised here, in three sections of the outer settlement deemed of particular importance to understand the development of occupation outside the central part of the site (Kienlin/Lie/

Fischl 2019: 213–223). Survey grid 1 is situated on top of the houses in the north-eastern section of the outer ring of houses running along the ditch; grid 2 is a bit further outside on top of a couple of houses that belong to the distinct lines of houses extending towards the north-east along the hilltop of Emőd-Nagyhalom; and beyond that there is grid 3 on top of a part of the outer ‘pit’-only zone postulated according to our magnetometer data. Each of these sections was covered by a grid of 50 x 50 m that was subdivided into smaller grids of 5 x 5 m from which the surface finds were collected according to the strategy previously established and applied by the BORBAS project (Fischl/Pusztai 2018). In addition, beyond that, for another 150 m towards the north, starting from grid 3 in the outer ‘pit’ area, surface finds were collected in a less

Fischl 2019: 213–223). Survey grid 1 is situated on top of the houses in the north-eastern section of the outer ring of houses running along the ditch; grid 2 is a bit further outside on top of a couple of houses that belong to the distinct lines of houses extending towards the north-east along the hilltop of Emőd-Nagyhalom; and beyond that there is grid 3 on top of a part of the outer ‘pit’-only zone postulated according to our magnetometer data. Each of these sections was covered by a grid of 50 x 50 m that was subdivided into smaller grids of 5 x 5 m from which the surface finds were collected according to the strategy previously established and applied by the BORBAS project (Fischl/Pusztai 2018). In addition, beyond that, for another 150 m towards the north, starting from grid 3 in the outer ‘pit’ area, surface finds were collected in a less