The Role of the Hernád Valley in the Settlement Structure of the Füzesabony Culture

13 Pages·0.968 MB·English

by  Fischl K.P.

The Role of the Hernád Valley in the Settlement
Structure of the Füzesabony Culture1
Klara P. Fischl, Miskolc
“Fortified settlement” and “defensive ters(Fig.2).Theotherspecificsettlement
structures” as technical terms raise some type of the Hatvan Culture was built on
theoretical problems. A few settlement promontories,wherethesettlementswere
typesandprotectivesystemformsfromthe protectedfromalmostalldirectionsbythe
early Bronze Age (according to the natural bluff. In such cases the artificial
Reinecke chronological system), found in ditchwasorientedtowardstheplateauand
theCarpathianBasincanbeclassifiedinto the externalunit was built on the plateau.
this category. The term “fortified settle- These settlements were surrounded by
ment” is generally used to describe struc- protectivenaturalsteepslopes,butnoarti-
turedsettlementsfoundalongknowntrade ficial walls (Fig. 2)2. The structures of the
routes,withrelativehighdensityofhandi- twoabovementionedsettlementtypesare
craftworks.Suchsettlements,surrounded actuallythesame,thedifferenceisbetween
with ditches, walls and/or palisades the utilization of the geographical condi-
(NOWACKI 2008), first appeared in the tions, and this is the reason for placing
RA2-B1 phase of the Bronze Age. The in- them into separate categories. In both
terpretationofthesesettlementstructures cases only one smaller part of the settle-
suggestedthatthefortifiedpartsservedas mentwasprotectedbyditches.Notaloca-
the dwelling places of the elite group tion has been found so far in Hungary,
emergingastheresultofsocialdifferentia- wheretheouterpartswereprotectedalso.
tion in the end of the early Bronze Age However,becausetheresearchesgenerally
(HÄNSEL1996; JOCKENHÖVEL1990). In this focusonthecoreofthesettlements(IPHI;
paperwepresentastudyontheareaofthe BRONZEZEIT IN UNGARN), surveys with dif-
Borsod Plain and the Hernád valley ferentapproachmaygainnewinformation.
(North-eastern Hungary, territory of the Until the present days aerial photos have
HatvanandFüzesabonycultures)(Fig.1). not showed any fortifications of the outer
More types of fortified settlements, inter- parts.Contrary,theHatvanCulturelocality
pretableinvariousways,werefoundinthis at Málé Kosihy/Ipolykiskeszi (Slovak Re-
area. public, further SK) contains a double line
The Hatvan Culture plain settlements, of ditches and a palisade around the outer
dated from the RA1 phase are character- settlement unit (TOCIK 1981; 1982,
ized by deep and wide ditches (KALICZ 406–407). Remnants or any other indica-
1984,194).Ditchessurroundthecentreof tion of walls or palisades have not been
the mostly tell settlement cores. Outside found in Bronze Age settlements in the
thiscircle,theexternalsettlementunitcan surveyedterritoryoftheexaminedtwocul-
befound,withusuallyonelayer.Theseset- tures. However, the presence of walls is
tlementsusuallywerebuiltonthebanksof supposedbyresearchers,becausebuilding
minorwatercourses,usingthenaturalpro- walls is one of the practical utilisation of
tectivefeaturesoftheriverbed,oreventhe thedirtdugoutfromtheditches.However
ditches were connected to the natural wa- in the case of Vcelince/Méhi (SK), the ar-
1 2
ThisstudyissupportedbyHumboldtscolarship. Thesetwotypesalsowereobservedinthesurvey
Thispaperisthewrittenversionofthepresenta- ofthesettlementsofOttományCulturealongthe
tionheldattheEAAConferenceinRivadelGarda riverBerettyóinHungary(DANI-P.FISCHL2009).
2009. Manuscript closed in 2010.
M. Jaeger/J. Czebreszuk/K.P. Fischl (eds.) Enclosed Space — Open Society. Contact and Exchange in the Context
39
of Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Central Europe. SAO/SPEŚ 9. Poznań–Bonn 2012.
Fig. 1. Location of the
examined area
chaeologists found that the soil extracted tionbetweentheinhabitantsorfunctional
from the ditches was graded on the outer demarcationofthesettlementparts.Since
side of the ditch (FURMÁNEK/MARKOVÁ thepartsprotectedbyditchesoftencontain
2001, 106). One must raise the question, severallayers,andhaveortell-likefeature,
whetherthesesettlementscanberegarded while the outer parts contain only one
asfortifiedonesornot.Ditchesalone–es- layer. The latter one is often declared as
peciallyderivingfromtheirsize–canhave subordinated to the tell settlement in
protectivefunction.However,itisalsopos- termsofsociallabourdivisionbasedonthe
sible, that the reason for dividing the set- exampleofthetellandsatelliteunitsfound
tlement derives from a kind of differentia- in the Vatya Culture (KOVÁCS 1982;
Fig. 2. Plain and promontory
type settlements with outer
parts
40 K.P.Fischl
VICZE/EARLE/ARTURSSON 2005). In this about 10 km from each other (Fig. 3). In
context the ditch between the two settle- myopinion,thesocietiesinthesetellsand
mentpartsmighthadrepresentedasepara- promontorysettlementswerenotdifferen-
tion line between two social groups. tiated significantly. Consequently I find
A dense network of the described dou- less appropriate the separative function of
blestructuredsettlements(innercoreand the ditches of social term.
outer settlement part) of the Hatvan Cul- The real tells with long and thick se-
turehasbeenfoundontheBorsodPlain.A quence of layers in the Carpathian Basin
series of settlements of similar size and werespreadwithinawelldefinedecologic
function were found, in the distances of zone: on the right banks of the Danube
Fig. 3A. The settlement
network of the Hatvan
Culture (RA1) on the Borsod
Plain. B. The settlement
network and cemeteries of
the Füzesabony Culture
(RA2) on the Borsod Plain
1 – Feldebrõ-Cserepes part;
2 – Szihalom-Földvár;
3 – Maklár-Baglyashalom;
4 – Novaj-Földvár;
5 – Bogács-Pazsagpuszta;
6 – Tard-tatárdomb;
7 – Tibolddaróc-Bérckút;
8 – Bükkábrány-Kálváriaoldal;
9 – Vatta-Testhalom;
10 – Harsány; 11 – Hernádné-
meti-Németi halom;
12 – Emõd-Nagyhalom;
13 – Egerlövõ-Szõlõpart;
14 – Gelej-Pincehát; 15 – Me-
zõcsát-Laposhalom; 16 – Sza-
káld-Testhalom; 17 – Sajószö-
ged-Aranyoshalom; 18 – Ti-
szalúc-Dankadomb;
19 – Szentistván-Fehérló tanya;
20 – Mezõcsát-Pástidomb;
21 – Mezõcsát-Oroszdomb;
22 – Tiszafüred-Ásotthalom,
23 – Ároktõ-Dongóhalom;
24 – Tiszakeszi-Szódadomb;
25 – Tiszakeszi-Bálinthát-Újte-
metõ; 26 – Polgár-Ásotthalom;
27 – Polgár-Kenderföld-Kiscsõsz-
halo, 28 – Muhi-Lapis-Bábaha-
lom; 29 – Nagycsécs-Testhalom;
30 – Hajõbába-Magastetõ;
31 – Mezõcsát-Harangdomb
The Role of the Hernád Valley in the Settlement Structure of the Füzesabony Culture 41
river, along the Tisza river and its bayous. toryofthePannonianforeststepperegion
Thedistributionoftellscoversthatpartof (SÜMEGI/BODOR2000,Fig.4)(Fig.4).The
theGreatHungarianPlain,whichprovides differences between the settlement types
sufficient geographical conditions for long are most probably caused by environmen-
term inhabitation. The thick sequence of tal circumstances. Of course there were
layersoftherealtellsrefertoapopulation other influencing factors present as well
thatlivedinthesameplaceforalongtime. (like metallurgy, trade, demography and
Oneofthebasisforlivinginthesameplace chronology too). The third settlement
for a long time is agriculturethat can pro- type,thegenerallysocalledfortifiedsettle-
vide food for long periods. The ecological mentisrepresentedbysettlementsbuiltin
conditions of such system were presentin mountainous areas with wall. Such settle-
the above described ‘ideal zone’. Within mentsoftheHatvanCulturewerefoundin
the‘idealzone’therealtellsettlementsap- the Cserhát Mountains, most of them are
peared in A1 period of Reinecke. This tell stillunexplored3.Theselocalitieswerenot
zone, however, does not cover the total connected to water courses, can be found
area of the so called tell cultures. On the high above the sea level, on peaks from
northern,mid-mountainareasoftheVatya, wherethesurroundingvastareascouldbe
Hatvan,andFüzesabonyculturestheclas- keptobserved.Itisnoteasytointerpretthe
sic tell settlements are almost absent. In signsoffortification,becausethemarksof
the mid-mountain valleys significant, the mountain settlements of the Baden
large, and intensively populated promon- Culturewerealsofoundintheselocalities.
tory and fortified settlements are known, InthevalleyofRiverHernádandonthe
which have a sequence of layers in their Borsod Plain the Hatvan Culture was re-
isolated core called inner fort. The border placed by the Füzesabony Culture at the
oftheterritoryofthetell,andthepromon- beginning of the RA2 phase4. The Hatvan
tory settlements overlaps with the north- settlementsarecoveredbytheFüzesabony
ern edge of the Great Hungarian Plain or ones in almost all cases. The Hatvan
the southern edge of the northern ditcheswerefilledatseverallocalities,and
mid-mountainarea,furtherwiththeterri- the new settlement, with a larger centre
Fig. 4. Correlation of tell
settlements and other sites of
the Hatvan Culture with the
vegetation zones of the
Carpathian Basin (after
SÜMEGI/BODOR2000
1 – Pannonian forest steppe re-
gion with its border line, 2 –
Submediterranean oak forest re-
gion, 3 – Mixed zone between
Submediterranean and Central
European forest region, 4 –
Balcanic oak forest region, 5 –
Central European oak forest re-
gion, 6 – Beech and coniferous
forests with their border line, 7 –
Northern border of the distribu-
tion area of Tilia tomantosa (Sil-
ver Lime)
3 Kalicz1968,andSzilviaGubapersonalcommuni- 4 TheHatvancultureseemstobeexistedindepend-
cation. ently in the Koszider period in the Nógrád hills,
Jászság and Tiszazug.
42 K.P. Fischl
againsurroundedbyditches,wasbuiltover sabony settlements found in between the
the previous one. These new settlements known localities. Surveying the evolution
werealsoaccompaniedbyouterparts,but of the settlements southwards from the
not much information is available about Kosice Basin, in the Hernád valley, then
the latter. In Ároktõ-Dongóhalom (FISCHL alongriverSajóandfinallyTiszarevealeda
2006)theonelayerHatvanCulturesettle- densechainofsettlementsandcemeteries,
ment, which was surrounded by a wide proving the inhabitance: Hernádnéme-
ditch,wascoveredbyamulti-layerFüzesa- ti-Németi halom, Hernádkak, Megyaszó,
bonysettlement,separatedbyadistinctive Felsõdobsza, Ináncs-Dombrét, Méra-Föld-
graded level. The ditch surrounding the vár(Fig.5)(KOÓS2002).Nodalpointssim-
core of the Füzesabony settlement en- ilartotheSlovakianexamplescanbefound
closed a much larger area than the size of at Polgár (Polgár-Kenderföld, Kiscsõszha-
the preceding Hatvan settlement. But lom; Polgár-Ásotthalom; DANI/MÁTHÉ/
ditches or palisades walls could not be SZABÓ 2003; DANI/SZABÓ 2004; SÜMEGI
found around the Füzesabony outskirts. 2009) and Tiszafüred in Hungary (Fig. 5).
The Füzesabony settlement network on The settlement network was undoubtedly
the Borsod Plain was much sparser than dense,thoughnotasmuchasitwasinthe
the precedent Hatvan had been, what also HatvanCultureperiod.Thisisendorsedby
means that not all of the Hatvan settle- the fact that not all of the Hatvan settle-
mentsweremaintainedbytheinhabitants ments has been covered by Füzesabony
(Fig. 3). However, the Füzesabony settle- ones. Supposedly the same structure can
ment centres are significantly larger. This be found in Slovakia and Poland.
process,whichleadtotheconcentrationof ThestructureoftheFüzesabonylocali-
the settlements, was a general one in that ties is similar to the Hatvan ones. Beside
period(RA2-B1).Asimilarprocesswasre- the well known tell type settlements e.g
vealedonTitelPlateaubyalong-termfield (KOVÁCS 1992). Füzesabony-Öregdomb
surveyproject.BytheRA2phaseonlyone (SZATHMÁRI 1992), Tiszafüred-Ásotthalom
settlement,Feudvarremainedinhabited,in (KOVÁCS 1992), Nižná Myš¾a/Alsómislye
a much larger size than before (FALKEN- (SK) is found on a promontory-like up-
STEIN 1998, 266–269). In Nizna Misla/Al- thrust, protected on only one side with a
sómislye(SK)theditchoftheearlyFüzesa- ditch and a wall. Košice/Kassa-Bárca (SK)
bonysettlementwasfilledandthelocation is supposed to be of the same kind. In the
was covered by a large late settlement, ly- caseoftheotherlocalitiesinSlovakia,par-
ing over even a cemetery from the Košt’a- allel use of ditches and walls can be ob-
ny-Füzesabonyage,andwassurroundedby served(NOVOTNÁ1995;MARKOVÁ2001;BE-
an earthen fortification with stone base TWEEN MYCENAE AND THE BALTIC SEA). In a
andwasprotectedbyaditch(OLEXA2003, classic sense of the word fortified settle-
Table V). mentareSpišskýŠtvrtok/Szepescsütörtök
The Füzesabony settlement network (SK)andTrzcinica(PL).Ontheonehand,
can be connected to river valleys: Tisza, the structure of the settlements, or rather
Hernád in Hungary and Slovakia and San say, the type of settlements, developed in
andDunajecinPoland(Fig.5).Offortified accordancewiththegeographicconditions.
settlements, we usually recall Spišský On the other hand, within this network,
Štvrtok/Szepescsütörtök (SK; VLADÁR nodal points, concentrating settlements
1975), Košice/Kassa-Bárca (SK; KABÁT canbeobservedinaboutevery100km:in
1955; TOCIK 1994), Nižná Myš¾a/Alsómi- Małopolska/Little Poland (Trzcinica, Jaslo,
slye(SK;OLEXA1982a;1982b;1983;1992; Sanok,Trepcza,Maszkowice,PL),inthePo-
2003) and similar examples from Slovakia prad Basin (Spišský Štvrtok/Szepescsütör-
andrecentlyPoland(forexampleTrzcinica; tök, Ve¾ká Lomnica/Kakaslomnic, Gánov-
GANCARSKI 1988; 1999a; 1999b; 2006); ce/Gánóc,SK)andintheKosiceBasin(Bár-
(summarize: NOVOTNÁ 1995; FURMÁ- ca at Košice/Kassa, Rozhanovce/Rozgony,
NEK/VELIACIK/VLADÁR 1999, 114–120; BE- Nižná Myš¾a/Alsómislye, SK) in Slovakia
TWEEN MYCENAE AND THE BALTIC SEA). Re- andinHungaryattheestuaryofriverSajó
searches usually focus on the settlements andTisza(districtofPolgár,H),andatthe
concentrated in river valleys and basins, southernmost point of the territory of the
while less attention is paid to the Füze- Füzesabony Culture (Tiszafüred, H) (Fig.
The Role of the Hernád Valley in the Settlement Structure of the Füzesabony Culture 43
5).Tellsettlementswithsignificantlythick obviously due to environmental and eco-
layershadbeenexploredinthementioned logical factors. This expansion area of the
junctions on the Hungarian Great Plain. Füzesabony Culture was fit to control a
GoingtotheNorthalongriverHernád,af- known trade route. After its first appear-
terleavingtheborderofthetellsettlement ance in the East-Slovakian Plain (BÁTORA
zone we can find, promontory-like places 1998) it changed the Košt’any Culture in
on bluffs and fortified settlements on the Košice Basin, then stretched to the
mountains.Thefunctionofthesethreedif- South along river Hernád to the Borsod
ferentlystructuredsettlementtypesissup- Plain and to the Great Hungarian Plain
posedtobethesamewithinthesettlement alongriverTisza.Atthesametimethecul-
network.Theirphysicalappearancediffers ture expanded on the North up to the
Fig. 5. Settlement structure
of the Füzesabony Culture
with archaeological sites in
Hernád valley
1 – Felsõvadász-Várdomb;
2 – Méra-Földvár;
3 – Ináncs-Dombrét;
4 – Felsõdobsza-Várdomb;
5 – Megyaszó; 6 – Hernádkak;
7 – Hernádnémeti-Németi ha-
lom; 8 – Köröm-Barna József
telke
44 K.P. Fischl
Poprad Basin, and later, during the North–Southconnectionsbesidesanexist-
Koszider period, through the Carpathians ing trade route along river Danube
toMałopolska/LittlePoland.Surveyingthe (towards Austria and Bavaria) are en-
external relations of this Culture, it be- dorsed by the range area of B1 type
comes obvious that there was a clear rela- disc-butted axes and axes of Køtìnov type
tionship between the expansion area and (DAVID2002,199–200,Karte5;2003,120,
the trade routes (SHERRAT 1993, Fig. 6). Abb. 8–10; 2006, Abb. 18; 2008, Abb. 18;
The route along river Hernád shows close ØÍHOVSKÝ 1992, 43–46, 49; STUCHLÍK 1988,
links to the routes along Oder and Elbe 320–321).Connectionstotheareaofriver
rivers, which is endorsed by the relations Oder are endorsed with halberds found in
found between objects from the IB phase thegravesB54andB115inthecemeteryof
and early II of the Northern Bronze Age Tiszafüred. An exact parallel of hybrids is
and the FüzesabonyCulture.Now we will known from Przećmino locality in North-
highlight one of the mostly known exam- west Poland (KOVÁCS1995; 1996, 92).
ples. Ontheotherhand,theFüzesabonyCul-
The expansion area of the Apa-Hajdú- ture was in connection with the Eastern
sámson type swords was concentrated partsoftheBalticSeathroughMalopolska,
around two cores. One core is located in valleys of San, Dunajec, Wisla and Warta
theUpperTiszaregion,theotheroneison rivers.Theseconnectionscanbeprovenby
the Eastern side of the Jütland Peninsula the Füzesabony influence found in the lo-
(Lastsummaryofthetypewithaspreading calities of the Trzciniec Culture in Poland,
map:BARTÍK/FURMÁNEK2004).Inthepres- with 3 zones. Polish experts found marks
ent study we do not aim at to intensively ofsettlingfromtheFüzesabonyCulturein
studytheconnectionsandthechronologi- the“A”zone.“B”and“C”zonesfallwithin
cal links between the Hajdúsámson-Apa, theTrzciniecCultureterritory.Inthesetwo
Fådrup,Sögel-WohldeandValsomagletype zoneswecanfindevidencesofmoreorless
metallurgies (first: HACHMANN 1957, intense import ceramics from Füzesabony
91–93, 134; new interpretation of this andMagyarádCultures,showingtheinter-
problem: VANDKILDE 1996, 224–225, 252, activelinkagesbetweenCultureslocatedto
256). However, projecting the finding the South of the Carpathians and further
placesoftheimportedorcopiedobjectsto areas(summarizedbyMAKAROWICZ1999).
amapshowstheobviousconnectionsand TheUpperTiszaregionwasamember
routesbetweenthetwoareas.Existenceof oftwofurthersystemsbesidestheCentral
Fig.6.Possibleinterpretations
oftheFüzesabonyCulture
relationswithinandoutside
oftheCore-periphery-margin
model
The Role of the Hernád Valley in the Settlement Structure of the Füzesabony Culture 45
andWestEuropeaninteractivezones.One ments,handicraftcentres,observercentres
wastheEastern,steppesystem,whichpro- andtribalcentres,atleasttwocanbefound
videdconnectionstoAnatoliathroughthe intheHernádvalley.Locatedinabout100
Circum-PontusregionandLowerDanube. km distance, handicraft maker and trader
TheotheronewasconnectedtotheAegean settlements can be found in the sites de-
region,includingtheMycenaeconnections scribed as important nodal points (Fig. 5,
(motifs, horse accessories) (LICHAR- seefurtherwithalittledifferentinterpreta-
DUS/VLADÁR 1996; DAVID 1996; 1997; tion KADROW 2002, Abb. 7). This is en-
2001;2007)5.Ofthethreeconnectionsys- dorsed by findings of metallurgical
tems, the Central and Western European artefacts,thelocationofsettlementsalong
onewasthemostimportantintheinternal traderoutes,andtheneighbourhoodofthe
development of the surveyed region. The Slovakian Ore Mountains as ore resource
above discussed Hatvan and Füzesabony (SCHALK1998).Thesmallersettlementslo-
culturesweremembersofacontinuousde- cated between these trades centres were
velopment that took place in Central and supposedly agricultural ones. Besides
West Europe between 2300/2100 and these,ineachsettlementsomekindofspe-
1600/1500 BC. This period is the Early cific protective fortification, built in har-
BronzeAge,theemergenceandtheriseof mony with the environmental conditions
the bronze-metallurgy in parallel with couldbefound.Becausethesmallersettle-
thesecultures.Theculturesandthemetal- ments are less explored, the observer unit
lurgicalindustries(thesocalledBlechkreis cannotbeclearlydelineated,andseparated
and Aunjetitz-metallurgy) kept connec- from the agricultural settlements. The ex-
tions,andasaresultofthis,wentthrough pression “tribal centre” also reflects my
averysimilarsocialevolution.InthisCen- opinionaboutthesocietyoftheculturein
tral and West European interactive space question. The settlement structure of the
the Carpathian Basin was an innovative Hatvan Culture in the RA1 phase —
centre in the period between 1700–1500 thoughtellsandfortifiedsettlementswere
B.C., representing strong connections to also present within this structure — does
theCentralandWestEuropeanregions,by notindicatetheexistenceofasignificantly
the means of the transecting trade routes. stratified society. In turn, the object find-
Thegeographiclocationofthefortifiedset- ings of the Füzesabony Culture from the
tlementsshowsconnectionwiththisroute RA2-B1phaseshowinternalstratification.
system. Theinternalanddefensivestructureofthe
Consequently the specific features Spišský Štvrtok/Szepescsütörtök (SK) lo-
within the settlement system can be ex- cality recalls the image of the developed
plainedwithgeographicandecologicalfac- Aegean–Anatolian central settlements, in-
tors(tellsettlementsontheplain,promon- cludinganacropolis,sacrifiedzone,crafts-
tory-like settlements on bluffs, fortified men zone, stone walls with ramparts and
settlements on the mountains). But this an external settlement part (JOCKENHÖVEL
lattertypeinterpretationrestrictstheterm 1990, 216, Abb. 4). Based on these facts
of fortified settlements to chronological and many other arguments (for example
andecologicalbordersandnarrowsitsus- development of sword making, motif vari-
age to the fortified settlements protected ety — spirals, lily chalices, golden objects;
with walls in the Koszider Period. On the see: BADER 1990; VLADÁR 1973; 1974;
otherhand,akindoffunctionaldifferences 1981; 1982; VLADÁR/BARTONEK 1977;
canbedetectedamonglocalitieswithinthe BOUZEK 1985; VULPE 2001; FURMÁNEK
category of fortified settlements. Anton 1997) the social system of Füzesabony
Tocik has alreadyour attentionto this dif- Culture is often said to be similar to the
ferenceaftersurveyingthesettlementnet- Mycenaean period. One of the biggest
works along Nyitra, Váh and Žitava rivers problems of the Aegean–Mycenaean link-
(TOCIK1982,411–415).Ofthefourcatego- ing system package is that it categorized
ries defined by him: agricultural settle- phenomenabelongingtodifferentchrono-
5 Wedonotdiscussherethewideliteratureofthe evolutionetc.)justthedemonstrablepartofthis
Otomani-Mycenae strong connection hypothesis topic.
(problem of swords, fortified settlements, social
46 K.P. Fischl
logical horizons into one group nologies,spreadoftinbronze,andthefor-
(LICHARDUS/VLADÁR 1996, 28). Moreover, mation of new long distance commercial
thepackagewasinterpretedasatruemem- connections.Theseallleadtoapopulation
ber of a South-North linkage system, explosion, the formation of specified
where the Southern part is the older and groups (craftsmen, traders), and to the
exemplary. separation of the elite. This process
A wrong explanation of the Core-Mar- reacheditspeakbytheendoftheRA2-B1
gin-Periphery system has already led to a period(REMÉNYI2005).Inotherwords:the
similar approach in the evaluation of the changesinthesettlementstructureandin
Füzesabony–Mycenae links (KADROW the social differentiation were not the re-
2007). This approach defined the Upper sults of Southern influence, but the out-
Tisza region and Transylvania as the raw come of the internal development of the
material resources for the Mycenaean in- Culturesintheregion.Obviouslytheexist-
dustry and trade, treating these as Periph- inglongdistancecommerciallinkagesand
ery zones of the Mycenae core area (Fig. impulses, including the linkages towards
6A).Consequentlytheseregionsweresaid theMediterraneanBasinwerealsopartsof
tobedependantonthecoreareaanditsso- this internal development.
ciety was described as if it was willing to Consequentlytheevolutionofthestrat-
followthecentralone.Thetrueinterpreta- ified societies in Central Europe and the
tiondefinestheUpperTiszaregionandthe CarpathianBasin,theappearanceofobject
related Central and West European areas groups indicating the presence of the elite
all belonging to the Margin Zone of this cannotbeconsideredtobebuiltonAegean
model (Fig. 6B), forming an individual in- and Mycenaean precedents. When the in-
teractive unit within the system, with its ternal status, economical level of a given
own development rhythm and slack link- community or society do not reach a level
age to the Aegean Sea system (Fig. 6C). thatcouldformthebaseofsimilardevelop-
According to our recent chronological ment, the social structure can not be
knowledge, the early Mycenae develop- changed due to the influence of external
ment,theso-calledShaftGravePeriodcan precedents.Furthermore,the rich internal
be dated from the 17th Century, and its structure of the society was confirmed by
bloom, the Palace Period took place in the concrete data — for example the royal
14–13thCentury6.Theprocessofsocialde- gravesorprestigemarkingobjectsfoundin
velopment and the related settlement de- theAunjetitzCulture,andprovethatit —
velopment in the Carpathian Basin and appeared in Europe before earlier than in
central Europe started in the 20th century. theAegeanregion.Palacebuildingevolved
Thepeakofthisprocesscoincidedwiththe significantly late after the Koszider period
appearance and the early stage of the My- —whichwastheperiodoffortifiedsettle-
cenae period. So the consecutive Aegean ments in Central Europe — on Pelopone-
development process can not be consid- ssos. Chronologically the latest, blooming
eredasthebaseoftheachievementsofthe phaseoftheearlyBronzeAge(RA2b-B1)is
precedentEuropeanprocesses.Apeakwas connected to the period of Shaft Graves,
detected in the development process in whichwasthestartingphaseoftheMyce-
Western and Central Europe in the end of naeandevelopment.Owingtotheinternal
theRA2periodandintheRB1period(ac- development discussed earlier, by the end
cording to the Hungarian terminology it of the early Bronze Age fortified settle-
was the Koszider period, taking place be- mentsdevelopedinawelldefinedecologi-
tween 1700–1500 BC). This development cal zone, that is usually mountainous area
started in the RA0-A1 period. There were (FISCHL/REMÉNYI, in press). Examples for
severalfactorsinthebackground:changes thesesettlementsareAunjetitz,Magyarád/
in the climate in the middle subboreal pe- Mad’arovce, Veterov and Füzesabony-
riod, richness of resources, agricultural Ottomány/Otomani regions (NOWACKI
overproduction, new metallurgical tech- 2008).Theserelativelyfewsettlementscan
6 Thereisnoplacetodiscussindetailthedifferent ogy).Thedatesareveryrough.Onlythemainpro-
chronological problems of the three areas cesses were coinsodered now.
(Aegean, Reinecke and Carpatian Basin chronol-
The Role of the Hernád Valley in the Settlement Structure of the Füzesabony Culture 47
be characterized by specialization, handi- reflect the development level of the given
crafts,metallurgyandlongdistancetrading society or region. In narrower sense, the
activities. The previously existing Hatvan evolution of fortified settlements was the
culturesettlements,assettlementsortells result of an internal development and the
fortifiedwithditches,aresupposedtohave environmentalfactors.Suchinternaldevel-
haddifferentroleinthesettlementsystem opment processes could have taken place
and in the ordinary life. The same can be withsimilardirectionsandoutcomesindi-
told about the agricultural settlements vidually in several geographic regions, in-
with similar technological features, pres- dependently from time and connections.
ent in the era of the development peak Development of the surveyed settlement
(RA2b-B1). typeisoneresultoftheseprocesses,which
As summary, it can be stated that, the endorses the statement that the develop-
fortification itself — or presence of any of mentofthetworegionscannotbeunam-
itsfieldelements—doesnotautomatically biguously linked.
References
BADERT.1990,Bemerkungenüberdieägäische derföld – Vorbericht über die Freilegung des
Einflüsse auf die alt- und mittelbronzezeitli- mittelbronzezeitlichen Gräberfeldes von Pol-
che Entwicklung im Donau-Karpatenraum. gár-Kenderföld, Majoros-tanya. Bibliothe-
In: Orientalische-Ägäische Einflüsse in der ca Marmatia 2, 94–96.
Europäischen Bronzezeit. RGZM Mono- DANI J./V. SZABÓ G. 2004, Temetkezési szo-
graphien 15, 181–205. kások a polgár határában feltárt középsõ
BARTÍK J./FURMÁNEK V. 2004, Schwert des bronzkori temetõkben. – Bestattungs-
Typs Apa aus der Ostslowakei. In: BÁTORA gebräucheindenFriedhöfenausdermittleren
J./FURMÁNEK V./VELIACIK L. (eds), Ein- Bronzezeit freigelegt in der Feldmark von
flüsse und Kontakte alteuropäischer Kultu- Polgár.M(cid:1)MO(cid:2)3, 91–119.
ren.FestschriftfürJozefVladárzum70.Ge- DAVID W. 1996, Der “Hajdúsámson-Apa
burtstag. Archaologica Slovaca Mono- Kreis”undderminoisch-mykenischeKreis.–
graphiae VI,Nitra, 255–278. Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis zwischen
BÁTORAJ.1998,ZurProblematikderAnfänge “Hajdúsámson-Apa-Stil”undcarpato-myke-
der Otomani-Kultur in der Ostslowakei. nischen Zierstil. In: ROMAN P. (ed.), The
Východoslovenský Pravek 5, 19–26. ThracianWorldattheCrossroadsofCivilisa-
BETWEEN MYCENAE AND THE BALTIC SEA. tion.ReportsandSummaries.The7thInter-
GANCARSKI J. (ed.), Between mycenae and nationalCongressofThracology. Bukarest:
thebalticsea.MiędzyMykenamiaBałtykiem. the Romanian Institute of Thracolog,
KulturaOtomani-Füzesabony–BetweenMy- 177–181.
cenaeandtheBalticSea.TheOtomani-Füzes- DAVIDW.1997,AltbronzezeitlicheBeinobjekte
abonyCulture.Krosno–Warszawa,2002. des karpatenbeckens mit Spiralwirbel- oder
BOUZEKJ.1985,TheAegean,Anatoliaandeu- WellenbandornamentundihreParallelenauf
rope: Cultural Interrelations in the Second der Peloponnes und in Anatolien in früh-
MillenniumB.C.StudiesinMediterrane- mykenischerZeit.In:ROMANP./DIAMANDI
an archeology XXIX. S./ALEXIANU M. (eds), The Thracian
BRONZEZEIT IN UNGARN. Meier-Arendt W. worldattheCrossroadsofCivilisations.The
(ed.),BronzezeitinUngarn.Forschungenin 7th International congress of Thracology.
Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Bukarest,247–305.
Frankfurt am Main, 1992. DAVIDW.2001,ZudenBeziehungenzwischen
DANI J./P. FISCHL K. 2009, A Berettyó-vidék Donau-Karpatenraum, osteuropäischen
középsõbronzkoritelljei.(Topográfiaimegk- Steppengebiet und ägäisch-anatolischem
özelítés)–DiemittelbronzezeitlichenTellsie- RaumzurZeitderMykenischenSchachtgrä-
dlungen des Berettyó-Gebiets. Eine topogra- ber unter Berücksichtigung neuerer Funde
phischeÜbersicht.TisicumXIX,103–118. ausSüdbayern.Anodos.StudiesoftheAn-
DANI J./MÁTHÉM./V. SZABÓ G. 2003, Aus- cient World 1, 51–80.
grabungen in der bronzezeitlichen Tell-Sied- DAVID W. 2002, Studien zu Ornamentik und
lung und im Gräberfeld von Polgár-Ken- Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotrfund-
48 K.P. Fischl