Abstract
Determining the provenience of archaeological objects relies on the so-called “provenience postulate,” namely, that sources of these objects are more compositionally distinct from each other than they are internally variable. For ceramics, it can be relatively straightforward in geologically heterogeneous environments to determine where vessels were produced, and whether they were traded or not. In geologically homogeneous regions, this can be far more complicated. In this study, we mineralogically and chemically compare Bronze Age ceramics (primarily Middle Bronze Age) from five archaeological sites on the Great Hungarian Plain to a large regional clay sample. The Great Hungarian Plain is comprised almost entirely of Pleistocene loess deposits, yet prior compositional studies have identified patterned variability between ceramics from different sites. Our results show that chemical variation in the region is continuous and clinal, making it difficult to strictly apply the provenience postulate to identify distinct production locations. However, we show that this clinal chemical variability can be used to make broad statements about whether most ceramics at any given site were produced relatively locally or were obtained from further distances (c. 50 km or more). We show that while production at most of our study sites was likely relatively localized, in one instance (the tell at Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár), many ceramics may have been obtained from other Bronze Age communities, including those in the Körös River drainage.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Ceramic sourcing is a well-established method within archaeology used to determine the location of production and model systems of exchange (Arnold et al. 1991; Glascock et al. 2004; Hein and Kilikoglou 2020; Mommsen 2001; Neff 2002). However, the ability to identify imported vessels and distinguish these from locally produced vessels, and indeed, the ability to even define a relatively geographically restricted local range of production depends on how well the so-called “provenience postulate” as first formally defined by Weigand and colleagues (1977: 24) applies: “namely, that there exist differences in chemical composition between different natural sources that exceed, in some recognizable way, the differences observed within a given source.” For some materials like obsidian, it is relatively straightforward to identify geographically constrained and geochemically distinct sources, sample this naturally occurring variability, and then compare archaeological obsidian objects to known sources (Glascock 2020). Ceramic sourcing, in contrast, is complicated by the near ubiquity of clay containing deposits in most environments as well as natural processes (erosion, water transport, etc.) that can mix materials from multiple geological formations. Additionally, cultural and technological choices during manufacture (levigation, tempering, clay mixing) can alter the compositional profile of a ceramic from that of the geological background (Hein and Kilikoglou 2020; Neff et al. 2003). Perhaps because of these complications, many ceramic compositional studies do not attempt to systemically evaluate how well the provenience postulate may apply in a particular setting. Instead, ceramics are analyzed from one or more sites in an attempt to interpret compositional patterning and distribution in terms of a more general understanding of local geology as well as the relative abundance of different compositional signatures at different sites. In geologically diverse regions, or when clear compositional differences can be identified between different types of ceramics or assemblages, this approach may be sufficient to provide relatively conclusive answers as to where ceramics might have been produced and whether they were moved from place to place in the past. However, in many geological environments, particularly ones that are relatively homogeneous, it may be more important to systematically evaluate the nature of geochemical and/or mineralogical diversity that exists in the natural environment to understand why chemistry patterns the way it does in archaeological ceramics, to understand whether it is possible to identify “non-local” ceramics, and to understand the geological scale at which ceramics may appear to be “non-local.”
In this paper, we report on combined geochemical and mineralogical study of Bronze Age ceramics from four tell sites and one cemetery on the Great Hungarian Plain (GHP). The compositional signatures obtained for the ceramics are compared to those belonging to a large number of clay samples collected from surrounding areas of the GHP. We contribute to answering questions about the level and type of socioeconomic connections at sites in the region during different periods of the Bronze Age. This is particularly the case for the large tells that were founded or reoccupied (after initial Late Neolithic occupation) during later Early Bronze Age (EBA) and remained occupied until the end of the Middle Bronze Age (MBA). In one view, these tells were the centers of polities ruled by powerful chiefs who controlled areas of surrounding countryside, supported attached craft specialists, and engaged in wide-ranging exchange to obtain valuable goods including metals, elaborately decorated pottery, horses, and other materials (e.g., Kristiansen and Larsson 2005; Németi and Molnár 2012). In another view, later EBA and MBA communities were largely localized, agrarian, and organized much as they had been during the preceding Neolithic and Copper Age. Craft production, meanwhile, was also localized and occurred in a wide range of social contexts and site types (Kienlin 2015). Examining whether communities obtained ceramics from further afield or primarily relied on ceramics produced within a narrow region can also provide some insight into the scale over which people fostered social connections. The GHP is a relatively homogeneous geological area, with surface deposits consisting entirely of late-Pleistocene and early Holocene loess and reworked loess, albeit surrounded by diverse geological formations of the surrounding Carpathian and Apuseni Mountain ranges (Bosq et al. 2023; Földváry 1988). Prior compositional studies of materials from Late Neolithic and Copper Age sites have identified patterned chemical differences between ceramics from different areas of the GHP (Duwe et al. 2020; Earle et al. 2011; Meyer et al. 2016; Michelaki 2006; Riebe 2021), suggesting that chemical variability is present between clays as well, but the geological mechanisms that drive variability in ceramics, and the scale over which differences are present, have not been systematically explored. We address the following related issues through a study of Bronze Age ceramics and regional clay samples:
1) How well does the provenience postulate hold in this homogenous sedimentary basin, i.e., can “non-local” ceramics actually be identified with confidence, and what is the geographic range over which they might be identified?
2) If it is possible to identify transported ceramics, what is the geographical range over which ceramics were obtained?
3) Were ceramics at Bronze Age sites on the GHP regularly obtained from larger distances, or were they largely locally produced?
Ceramic sourcing and the “provenience postulate”
Sourcing, which we broadly define as identifying the place of extraction and/or production for an archaeological artifact, requires that some specific compositional (whether mineralogical or chemical) “signature” can be identified related to production from a particular raw material or at a specific location, and that any such signature differs sufficiently from the composition of objects produced from other sources or at other locations—the provenience postulate as first formally defined by Weigand (1977) and colleagues. What constitutes a source is however highly material specific, and for any given material, may also depend on a variety of geological, economic, historical, and cultural factors. For some materials, sourcing entails comparing archaeological objects to a well delimited set of possible geological sources that are geographically discrete, and there are few if any cultural or environmental factors that can alter the composition between original extraction and recovery from the archaeological record. For other materials, however, the provenience postulate holds to varying degrees, and the concept of “source” can be far more complicated. Glass or metals for instance, may combine materials from multiple geological sources, and the actual geographical distribution of these raw materials may be relatively large (e.g., Ceglia et al. 2019; Radivojević et al. 2019).
Applying the provenience postulate to ceramics is challenging due to a variety of factors. Firstly, clays are widely available from most geological environments, and therefore, it is nearly impossible to delimit geographically what is meant by a geological “source.” Ceramics are also composite objects that may incorporate multiple different plastic and non-plastic constituents (some naturally occurring in clayey raw materials, other deliberately added by potters), while levigation, firing, use, and post-burial environment may further alter the mineralogical or chemical composition of archaeological ceramic objects (Hein and Kilikoglou 2020; Neff et al. 2003). While for other materials, production evidence (lithic debitage, metal or glass slag, kilns, etc.) often preserves in archaeological contexts, evidence for ceramic production may only be archaeologically visible in relatively intensive and specialized industries that use more elaborate technologies (substantial kilns, for instance) or that operate at sufficiently high volumes to generate substantial other evidence of production (wasters, for instance). Low intensity ceramic production may leave little to no direct evidence, or may only be identified in isolated instances (Rice 1987), and it may therefore also be difficult to delimit a cultural definition of what constitutes the source of some particular type of ceramic or paste recipe (Arnold et al. 1991; Druc 2013).
While provenience studies of other material classes (obsidian, chert, metal) often rely on extensive surveys of potential raw material sources to build baseline compositional databases against which archaeological materials can be compared (e.g., Glascock 2020; Radivojević et al. 2019), the use of comparative clay samples in archaeological provenience studies remains relatively inconsistent. In part, this may reflect the broad availability of clays in most environments, and the inability in most cases to determine where potters specifically obtained clays from. There are examples of studies that have generated large comparative samples of clays from relevant regions (e.g., Golitko 2015; Neff and Bove 1999; Sharratt et al. 2009), however, many other studies rely on identifying different compositional types among archaeological ceramics, then making an argument for how this compositional variability relates to potential geological and cultural factors that may pattern variability. This may entail comparing ceramics from different regions or areas to each other (e.g., Blomster et al. 2005), analyzing small numbers of clay samples (e.g., Golitko and Terrell 2012), or else using the relative frequency of samples included in different compositional signatures to argue for local (more frequent) versus non-local (less common compositional signatures) production (the so-called “criterion of abundance”) (e.g., Levine et al. 2013). Petrography may allow for more informed conclusions, as mineralogy can often be linked back to specific geological formations or rock types even without comparative geological samples. For chemistry, however, it is difficult if not impossible to make suggestions about the source of ceramic raw materials based only on compositional data.
In highly geologically diverse environments (particularly ones with strong areal rather than stratigraphic/vertical differentiation in geology/mineralogy/chemistry), the relative distribution of ceramic chemical types may provide strong evidence for why compositional differences exist, and where particular compositional types or signatures likely originated from (e.g., Bishop et al. 1988). In relatively geologically homogeneous environments, however, patterned chemical and/or mineralogical variability may still be found in studied archaeological ceramics (e.g., Bartlett et al. 2000; Riebe 2021), but understanding why this patterning exists, how spatially patterned it might be, and how geological variability may intersect with socioeconomic patterning (i.e., where production actually takes place) may prove highly challenging based on archaeological data alone (Arnold et al. 2000). Without understanding the baseline variability in clays, conclusions about whether ceramics were “local” to a particular site, or acquired from greater distances may rest on unfounded assumptions, including the relative geographical distance over which the provenience postulate may or may not apply. In such instances, intensive survey of potential raw materials may be required to understand the compositional variability that ancient potters sampled in acquiring raw materials for potting before any conclusions can be reached about the archaeological relevance of compositional differences to archaeological questions about economy, production, trade/exchange, or transfer of ideas and techniques. Our study region consists of homogeneous Quaternary deposits, yet prior studies of archaeological ceramics have identified patterned chemical variance in ceramics from sites in different portions of the GHP. We combine petrographic and chemical data with an intensive examination of geochemical variability in clays to examine how well the provenience postulate might apply to Bronze Age ceramics recovered on the GHP, and to what extent it might be possible to identify the transfer of ceramics between sites or areas of the GHP.
Map of portions of the Carpathian Basin and surrounding regions showing Middle Bronze Age stylistic/cultural units (approximate boundaries represented by shaded white lines, redrawn after Fischl et al. 2013), and the location of sites from which ceramics were analyzed as part of the Bronze Age Körös Off-Tell Archaeology (BAKOTA) project. Sites (Black circles): (1) Békés Jégvermi-kert (Békés 103) (2) Békés-Várdomb (3) Vésztő-Mágor (4) Túrkeve-Terehalom (5) Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár. Clay sampling locations are indicated by white circles. Shaded colors indicate different geologic units—tan areas are Quaternary deposits. All site coordinates can be found in supplemental table S1, while a full geological legend is presented in supplemental figure S1. Geological data taken from Drummer 1998 and Pawlewicz et al. 2003
The Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin
The Carpathian (Pannonian) Basin (Fig. 1) comprises much of the modern territory of Hungary, as well as low-lying areas of the surrounding countries, and is roughly bounded by Carpathian and Apuseni Mountain ranges. The Great Hungarian Plain (GHP) is a particularly low-relief portion of the eastern Carpathian Basin to the east of the Danube River, but also geomorphologically includes portions of western and northern Romania and the northern Serbian Banat region. Much of the GHP is relatively swampy, although this varies by region and landform, so that some areas like the Maros alluvial fan are drier than lower lying areas like the Körös drainage. The region is crossed by a number of major river systems originating in neighboring mountain ranges, most significantly the Tisza and Maros, but also a number of smaller rivers.
During the later Early Bronze Age, after c. 2200 calBC, numerous tell settlements, some originally occupied during the Late Neolithic, were either founded or reoccupied. Tells eventually stretched across most of the GHP (they are not present west of the Danube or in mountainous regions off the GHP) during the ensuing Middle Bronze Age and extensive excavations have been carried out at a number of these sites (Fischl and Reményi 2013; Gogâltan et al. 2020; Staniuk 2021). These tells vary in size and structure, but most are surrounded by ditches of some sort or artificial moats (expanding existing natural river courses in many cases), and some are surrounded by large flat settlements as well. Tells have been argued to represent the centers of small polities ruled by emergent political and military elites who controlled trade in valuable goods (including bronze, amber, and horses), sponsored attached craft specialists, and drew on the produce of nearby flat settlements (e.g., Fischl and Reményi 2013; Gogâltan 2016; Nicodemus et al. 2015). Kienlin (2015, 2020), in contrast, suggests that this view of tells imposes models more appropriate to the Late Bronze Age (LBA) and Iron Age onto MBA communities. He notes that MBA tells are barely larger than those occupied during the Neolithic and contain little evidence for centralized administration or elite residences. These tells were on present evidence largely abandoned after 1500 calBC (but possibly as early as 1700 calBC), although disturbance of upper tell levels, limited 14C dating in many cases, and issues with regional ceramic chronologies make this process difficult to understand in many areas of the GHP (Daróczi et al. 2022). Flat sites and cemeteries were likely still occupied into the LBA (Kienlin 2015; Parditka et al. 2019; Staniuk 2021), while population may also have shifted further south into the Serbian Banat into so-called “megaforts” as climatic conditions changed (Molloy et al. 2023).
The occupation and peak period of tell settlement also corresponds to the greatest elaboration of what has been termed “baroque” designs on ceramics. These MBA vessels, although stylistically variable across the GHP (see Fig. 1 for cultural-historical stylistic regions, although the utility of these is now questioned), generally have incised and channeled decorations including bosses, elaborate spiraled motifs, and possible cosmological symbology (see Fig. 2; Bóna 1975; Sofaer 2013; Szeverényi et al. 2021). In the Maros area, Michelaki (2006, 2008; see also O’Shea 1996) argues for the production of elaborate decorated vessels as a specialist craft associated with metalworking. However, most extent studies of MBA ceramics have found limited direct evidence for wide scale transport of ceramics between regions or communities (e.g., Earle et al. 2011; Kreiter 2007; Michelaki 2006). Kreiter (2007) found little evidence for significant changes in production technology during the Bronze Age, and mineralogical and technological studies of Bronze Age pots suggest a relatively low-intensity production organization (Golitko et al. 2021; Kreiter 2007; Michelaki 2008).
The central portion of the eastern GHP where the work reported here is focused, roughly the region of the Körös and Berettyó river systems, is one of the wettest areas of the GHP. During the MBA, this is the southern half of the Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex (OFCC) (Fischl 2018), or Gyulavarsánd style, which extends southwards to the edge of the Maros Fan, westward to the Körös-Tisza confluence, and northwards to the edge of the Plain (Fazecaș and Gogâltan 2020). In the Körös drainage itself, only a handful of tells are known (Kovács 1988). Duffy’s research (2014), focusing on tell–non-tell relationships in the Lower Körös region, found no evidence of redistribution or regional consolidation of political power, and little social differentiation between tells and open settlements, questioning at least the broad applicability of common assumptions about MBA societies. Further north, in the Berettyó river valley, tells provide more evidence of prestige goods and craft specialism, and are less commonly associated with flat settlements (Máthé 1988; Dani 2012).
Prior chemical and petrographic studies of ceramics from the GHP
The GHP (Fig. 1) would appear to be an unpromising place to conduct ceramic sourcing work—the surface geology of most of the GHP consists of deep Pleistocene loess deposits (Bosq et al. 2023; Földváry 1988). In poorly drained areas (known locally as Puszta), this loess is relatively unaltered, however, in lower, better drained areas, this loess has been reworked into more clay rich deposits (Duffy 2014). Most of these areas were drained and canalized by the Habsburg Empire during the 18th and 19th centuries, so that current hydrology does not represent the situation during prehistory (Gyucha et al. 2011). The surrounding mountains however are highly geologically diverse (Fig. 1), and contain a variety of sedimentary, volcanic, and metamorphic formations which may contribute to the composition of reworked loessic deposits on the GHP itself (Földváry 1988; Riebe 2021).
Despite this overt lack of geological variability, a number of prior compositional studies of pottery from this broad loessic region have identified patterned chemical variability in ceramics from different areas of the GHP. For example, Michelaki (2006) used INAA to study two sites in the Maros drainage, Kiszombor-Új-Élet Tsz (a tell dating to the early Maros phase of the EBA, c. 2600 − 2000 calBC) and Klárafalva-Hajdova (a tell dating to the Late Maros/MBA, c. 2000 − 1700 calBC). While noting (Michelaki 2008: 360–361) that at a macroscopic level, the majority of sherds were made from “fine, non-calcareous clays with a ubiquitous presence of small mica (muscovite) particles,” ceramics from the two sites differed based on concentrations of transition metals. While some ceramics identified as non-Maros stylistically (including EBA Makó sherds and Gyulavarsánd sherds) also differed chemically (as did a handful of Maros style sherds), other stylistically “non-local” sherds (Transdanubian Encrusted Ware in this case) appeared chemically “local.”
As part of the broader Benta Valley project, Earle, Kreiter, and colleagues analyzed a number of sherds from Százhalombatta-Földvár and nearby Bronze Age communities. Petrographic analysis identified the use of three basically different clays (non-calcareous, calcareous, calcareous with foraminifera), with long-term stability between the EBA and LBA in these production methods, suggesting possible continued traditions of multiple potting groups, but with numerous potters working. Based on minor differences in chemical concentration (measured by INAA), ceramics from down-valley sites (near the Danube) could be distinguished from up-valley sites, with limited overlap between the two identified chemical signatures. In this case, there was little evidence for movement of ceramics, although highly localized movement of pottery (on the order of 10 km or less) could not be ruled out (Earle et al. 2011; Kreiter et al. 2007).
A recent study of ceramics from the Serbian site of Corneşti-Iarcuri by petrography, XRD, WD-XRF, and PXRF also identified patterned chemical variability. This site began as a MBA flat settlement that developed into the largest known LBA “mega-fort” in the Pannonian Basin. While all studied ceramics appeared petrographically “local,” (including the addition of “local” looking grog temper), chemical analysis identified minor differences between MBA and LBA ceramics from the site. Comparison to ceramics from other regional sites also produced evidence for potential movement of pots between Corneşti-Iarcuri and smaller outlying sites, as well as a number of chemical outliers that might have come from greater distances (Meyer et al. 2016).
While not focused on Bronze Age ceramics, two studies of ceramics have also been carried out that focus on the Körös drainage and surrounding regions of the GHP. Riebe (2021; see also Riebe and Niziolek 2015) examined a large corpus of Late Neolithic (Tisza and Herpály) ceramics by LA-ICP-MS, as well as a number of sediment samples collected from the immediate vicinity of the studied sites. While finding minor variability between individual sites, Riebe was able to distinguish combined pottery groups associated with sites in the Körös, Berettyó, and Tisza River drainages, primarily via subtle differences in Mo and W concentrations. Her study suggests that about 8–10% of ceramics were transported between these drainages, although limited to c. 70–80 km (ceramics did not move between the Berettyó and Tisza drainages).
A similar study at Early Copper Age (Tiszapolgár) sites in and around the Körös drainage by Duwe and colleagues (Duwe 2005; Duwe et al. 2020) also identified differences between pottery from different portions of the central GHP. Using a combination of INAA and LA-ICP-MS on ceramic, clay, and daub samples, they were able to distinguish ceramics from sites in the Körös drainage from those recovered at Battonya-Vertán (further south near the edge of the Maros fan) and link these sites to local sediment samples. Their INAA measurements were also compared to Michelaki’s (2006, 2008) data from the Maros region, suggesting that these samples were significantly chemically different from those recovered in the Körös drainage. Based on these results, they proposed that sediments are relatively homogeneous on scales of c. 35–50 km, but that transport of ceramics beyond this range can be identified. For instance, they suggest that a number of outlier samples from sites in the Körös were imported based on differences in Sn an Sc concentrations, and suggest two-way movement of ceramics between the Körös drainage and the Battonya area.
Petrography has also been performed on ceramics from several Bronze Age sites on the GHP, but generally, beyond identifying the use of a number of “local” looking clays, it has proven difficult to conclusively identify the movement of ceramics via mineralogy. Petrographic analysis of ceramics from the Benta Valley failed to identify mineralogical differences between chemically “core” local ceramics and chemical outliers, although ceramics from sites nearer to the Danube had higher frequencies of volcanic mineral grains that might have been incorporated into local loessic sediments by riverine transport (Earle et al. 2011). In a large-scale study of ceramics from the MBA tell settlement of Kakucs-Turján, stylistically “non-local” ceramics did not appear mineralogically different from presumed local Vatya style ceramics (Staniuk et al. 2022). In a broad-scale study of ceramics from EBA, MBA, and LBA sites, Kreiter (2007) was able to identify a number of different paste types based on the relative frequencies of mineral grains, however, the ubiquity of common mineral types (quartz, muscovite) across sites made it difficult to compellingly identify non-local ceramics. He did find evidence that near the edges of the GHP, mineralogy is likely to reflect input from surrounding geologies. For instance, ceramics from Füzesabony-Öregdomb, near the base of the northern Carpathians, contain a wider range of minerals including feldspars and igneous/pyroclastic rock fragments. In a study of ceramics from the central GHP dating to the Later Copper Age and EBA and MBA, Parsons (2012) found little evidence for change in basic paste preparation, although noting that MBA ceramics were less variable than during earlier periods and more frequently incorporated grog. He was unable to identify systematic site by site differences in mineralogy.
Collectively, these studies suggest that while mineralogy may be relatively undifferentiated across the GHP, there is patterned geochemical variability despite the relative homogeneity of surface sediments. Both Riebe (2021) and Duwe and colleagues (2020) suggest that geochemical differences may pattern by river drainage, possibly owing to transport of sediments out of different geologies in surrounding mountain ranges. Both studies also suggest that there is insufficient variability at shorter distances or within river drainages to allow distinction of production location or movement of vessels. However, there remain a number of questions regarding the ability to conclusively distinguish locally produced from imported vessels, and how well the provenience postulate applies on the GHP. For instance, it should be noted that Riebe had to remove samples from each of her drainage specific chemical groups in order to produce “core” groups that strictly obeyed the statistical expression of the provenience postulate, typically evaluated by calculating Mahalanobis distance-based probabilities of group membership (Neff 2002). Additionally, in both studies, sample sites are located in geographically distinct clusters, which may also contribute to an impression of discontinuous variability across the GHP from a chemical and statistical standpoint. Adding in geographically intermediate sites might create substantially more overlap and reduce the ability to conclusively distinguish between different widely spaced regions of the GHP. In other words, it is possible that these studies are sampling distinct regions of what is actually a broad continuum of chemistry, producing the false impression of geochemically distinct regions between which movement of ceramics can be identified.
In an attempt to address these issues, in this study, we rely on a much larger set of clay samples collected across the GHP between the Tisza River and the Hungarian-Romanian border to address how much actual variability exists in sediments, over what scales geochemistry varies, and to what degree there exists discontinuous variability between different river drainages or areas of the GHP that might allow for a strict application of the provenience postulate. Ceramics from five Bronze Age site assemblages are then evaluated relative to this variability to assess whether production was likely to be largely local, or whether we can identify ceramics that might have been acquired from further distances.
Materials and methods
Sample and sample assemblages
Our sampling was designed to include assemblages of well dated materials from major Gyulavarsánd tell sites and a sizable collection from Békés Jégvermi-kert, the only known cemetery from the southern area of the OFCC. This site was the focus of the BAKOTA (Bronze Age Körös Off-tell Archaeology, now part of the Körös Consortium) project under which this study was undertaken. Sampling from tell sites and initial sampling at Békés Jégvermi-kert was undertaken in 2013. During this initial round, we sampled ceramics from MBA contexts at the tell sites whereas the selection of ceramics from surface collections at Békés Jégvermi-kert focused on both the settlement and cemetery areas of the site. Twenty fineware ceramics (typically burnished and thin-walled) from each site were selected, primarily on the basis of having recognizable MBA Gyulavarsánd decorations including channels, bosses, and triangular incised decorations (see Fig. 2). This sample also encompassed a variety of vessel forms, including urns (Fig. 2a and b), jars, mugs/cups (Fig. 2c and i), and bowls (Fig. 2e and h). There are a handful of vessels included in our sample with stylistic features more common in other regions of the GHP and beyond (Fig. 2l and m). An additional five coarseware (often rusticated or brushed) sherds (Fig. 2k) were also selected from each site from the same contexts as fineware samples, typically fragments of storage vessels or cooking pots (Table 1). Subsequently, additional ceramics were sampled from burial contexts at Békés Jégvermi-kert following excavations there. These samples were chosen to sample burial vessels (urns, mugs/cups, and bowls) from major phases of cemetery usage. In total, 198 vessels were selected for chemical analysis from four major tell sites (Békés-Várdomb, Vésztő-Mágor, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály, Túrkeve-Terehalom) and the cemetery at Békés Jégvermi-kert. 103 vessels were separately selected for petrographic analysis from the cemetery—67 of these vessels were included in our chemical analyses (see supplemental data tab “Ceramics”). Petrographic analysis was not carried out on samples from the four tell sites.
Selected ceramic vessels analyzed in this study. (a) and (b) burial urns, Békés Jégvermi-kert; (c) cup, Békés-Várdomb; (d) vessel fragment, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár; (e) “Swedish Helmet” bowl, Békés Jégvermi-kert; (f) vessel fragment, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár; (g) biconical vessel, Túrkeve-Terehalom; (h) bowl, Békés-Várdomb; (i) cup/mug, Békés Jégvermi-kert; (j) jug, Vésztő-Mágor; k) brushed coarseware, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár; l) “ansa lunata” jug handle, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár; m) bowl with Wietenberg type decorations, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár
Archaeological context of ceramic samples
Békés-Várdomb
The tell at Békés-Várdomb, and its adjacent occupation areas, was excavated over several seasons during the 1950s (Banner 1956; Banner and Bóna 1974). This site cluster is now under study by members of the Körös Consortium (these results are as of yet unpublished). All samples analyzed in this study derive from the 1950s excavations. The Várdomb tell and surrounding flat settlement are estimated to have housed approximately 500 people (Duffy et al. 2013). There is no evidence of an earlier Late Neolithic settlement. New unpublished radiocarbon dates from the northern part of the cluster (Békés-Városerdő-dűlő) place the occupation in the 1900 − 1600 BCE range (Parditka, in prep).
Vésztő-Mágor
Vésztő-Mágor is a 3.9 hectare tell surrounded by a meander loop of the ancient Sebes-Körös, topped by medieval monastery and highly disturbed by 19th century construction. The tell was excavated between 1972 and 1976 and then again in 1986 (Hegedűs and Makkay 1987; Makkay 2004), while ongoing recent work by the Körös Consortium (from which our samples derive) has focused on producing a more reliable chronology for the site and conserving profiles excavated in the 1980s (Gyucha et al. 2015; Parkinson et al. 2018). The tell has a significant Late Neolithic component, with shorter occupations during the Middle Neolithic and Early-Middle Copper Age. The only Bronze Age date with known contextual information places the dated context between 1875 and 1745 calBC (68.2%) (Duffy et al. 2019a; Table S2, Figure S1). Additional unpublished dates place the site in the 1900 − 1600 BCE range (Duffy and Parditka, in prep.)
Túrkeve-Terehalom
Túrkeve-Terehalom, located along a paleo-channel of the Hortobágy-Berettyó, is one of the most extensively investigated tell settlements in the Gyulavarsánd area. The site was systematically excavated over ten field seasons between 1985 and 1995, and then again in 2004. The site contains c. 10 m of stratified deposits divided into eleven distinct levels. The site is located at the border of stylistic traditions, and the excavators note similarities in the ceramic assemblage to Hatvan, Perjámos (early Maros), and Füzesabony styles in addition to more typical regional styles including Gyulavarsánd during the MBA (Csányi and Tárnoki 1992). An extensive set of 14C dates were recently published from Túrkeve-Terehalom as part of the “joinTime” project. These dates indicate that the tell was first settled between 2014 − 1907 calBC, and abandoned around 1600 calBC or slightly thereafter. Our samples come from the 1985-95 excavations, and are derived from the MBA levels 3,4,5, 6, and 6 A, and thus date to between c. 1830 − 1753/1712 calBC (Daróczi et al. 2022).
Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár
This tell (and associated flat settlement) is the eponymous site of the Late Neolithic Herpály culture, and was reoccupied during the Middle Bronze Age. The Bronze Age layers at Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár are thin and poorly preserved in some areas, but four layers have been identified. The ceramics in our sample derive from levels 3 and 4, described as Ottomány B (4) and Gyulavarsánd (3) by the excavator. Available radiometric dates fall between 2020 and 1430 calBC (Raczky et al. 1992; Staniuk 2021), however, the exact stratigraphic context of these dates is unpublished, the dates have large error margins, and disturbance of upper levels at the tell may also complicate interpretation of the Bronze Age chronology (Máthé 1992).
Békés Jégvermi-kert Lipcsei Tanya (Békés 103)
Békés Jégvermi-kert is the only Bronze Age cemetery known from the Lower Körös area but is also associated with a small settlement area. Between 2011 and 2019, 83 graves were excavated. Most consist of cremations placed into ceramic urns, but there are also a few scattered cremations, as well as inhumation burials (Paja et al. 2016; Williamson et al. 2021). Based on survey results and the total area of the cemetery, it is estimated that c. 2500 burials may be present (Duffy et al. 2014, 2019a). Radiometric dating and stylistic analysis of burial ceramics suggests four primary phases of use at the cemetery spanning the EBA, MBA, and early stages of the LBA, as well as short hiatus in use during the early MBA. Most would describe the ceramics of Phases 3 (1880 − 1600) and 4 (1600 − 1280 calBC) as Otomani-Füzesabony or Gyulavarsánd style, decorated with typical “baroque” motifs including spirals, bosses, prows, channels, and chevrons (Duffy et al. 2019a). It should be noted that the absolute dates associated with phase 4 are late relative to the types of ceramics found in those burials. At tell settlements on the GHP, these styles represent the primary and terminal phases of MBA occupation and date no later than c. 1700/1600 calBC.
Clayey raw material sampling
During 2015, 2016, and 2018, we carried out a broad areal survey of clayey raw materials (henceforth “clays”) on the GHP between the Tisza River and Romanian border, with several additional samples opportunistically collected west and north of Lake Tisza, south of Budapest, and on the Romanian side of the Maros River near the tell at Pecica “Şanţul Mare” (Fig. 1). Samples were collected from cores drilled from a depth of c. 1 m using an Oakfield soil probe and after neglecting the upper 25 cm of soil horizon in order to avoid any recent anthropogenic disturbances. We focused primarily on paleomeanders of old stream and river channels that were cut off from the regional hydrology during the 18th and 19th centuries, both because these sediments proved to be far more clay rich than comparable non-stream and riverine sediments, and because we hoped to avoid the effects of 20th century industrial pollutants and fertilizers which might be concentrated in agricultural areas and modern canalized stream and river courses. Clays were evaluated in the field via the production of coils to informally assess how suitable they might be for ceramic production. We noted that most stream and river clays were highly plastic and could be used to produce coils with little need for further processing. Samples taken from Puszta were generally siltier and more difficult to form coils from than clays collected from reworked Holocene deposits. We also include clay samples collected and analyzed by Riebe (2021) as part of her study of Late Neolithic ceramics. These were largely sampled onsite rather than in stream channels, and are primarily “meadow clays” formed by repeated movement of the water table through loess deposits. A total of 98 clay samples were chemically analyzed (see supplemental data tab “Clay chemistry” for full sample information), while a subset of 33 of these clay samples collected in the vicinity of Békés Jégvermi-kert were also analyzed petrographically (see supplemental table S3).
Methods
Optical petrography was carried out at the Hungarian National Museum (Budapest) and followed standard methods of thin-section production and analysis of texture and mineral inclusions as reported by Kreiter (2007). Inclusion relative abundance, size categories, sorting, and roundness of the components were determined based on a slightly modified version of the guidelines of the Prehistoric Ceramic Research Group (2010). Inclusion relative abundance was coded as rare (1–2%), sparse (3–9%), moderate (10–19%), common (20–29%), very common (30–39%) and abundant (40% <). Inclusion size was coded as very fine (< 0.1 mm), fine (0.1–0.25 mm), medium (0.25–1 mm), coarse (1–3 mm) and very coarse (> 3 mm). Clay samples were prepared for petrographic analysis by first removing larger inclusions and impurities, adding water, and forming small briquettes. The briquettes were fired in a Nabertherm L15/12/320 type electric kiln in an oxidizing atmosphere at 750 °C, with a heating time of one hour and a soaking time of three hours. This temperature was selected to prevent transformation of carbonates as these were present in ceramic samples (Kreiter 2007), which could distort the visibility of calcareous non-plastic inclusions. Standard 30 μm thin sections were then prepared from these fired briquettes.
For chemical analysis, clean broken edges were selected on ceramic samples, in some cases using cut edges produced for thin-sectioning. Clays were dried, manually disaggregated, large mineral and organic inclusions were removed, and samples were then finely powdered in an agate mortar. 5 g of material from each sample was then rewetted using ultra-pure deionized water, formed into a briquette, and fired at 800 °C for one hour. LA-ICP-MS was performed at the Field Museum Elemental Analysis Facility (EAF, Chicago, USA) using procedures reported elsewhere (Golitko 2015; Riebe 2021; Riebe and Niziolek 2015). Concentrations were calculated against NIST standards 610, 612, and 679 using the sum-normalization procedure first published by Gratuze and colleagues (2001). New Ohio Red Clay (NORC) was run as a quality assurance standard with each run, and resulting average values and relative standard deviations are reported in supplemental table S2. All measurements on ceramic and clay samples can be found in the supplemental data.
Results of compositional analyses
Petrography
The analyzed ceramics were divided into six fabric groups based on the density and size of inclusions. The summary of these fabrics is presented in Table 2. The basic raw materials represented in these six fabric groups are however very similar in terms of the type of non-plastic inclusions.
Fabric 1 (n = 61)
This fabric is very fine grained, although fine inclusions are also present. All vessels were tempered with grog; its amount is rare to moderate. The majority of inclusions are very fine quartz and white mica (muscovite), and to a lesser degree feldspars (potassium feldspar, plagioclase). Occasionally very fine polycrystalline quartz could also be observed. Accessories are rutile, titanite, leucoxene, tourmaline (green), zoisite/clinozoisite, epidote, pyroxene, green and brown hornblende, actinolite (?), garnet (colorless), zircon, chloritized biotite, chlorite (?), and opaque minerals.
Fabric 2 (n = 1)
This fabric is similar to Fabric 1, however it contains calcareous inclusions (carbonate clasts, but the clay matrix is non-calcareous). The majority of inclusions are very fine quartz and white mica (muscovite), and to a lesser degree feldspars (potassium feldspar, plagioclase). Rare very fine polycrystalline quartz was also observed. Accessories are rutile, tourmaline (green), zoisite/clinozoisite, epidote, pyroxene, green hornblende, garnet (colorless), opaque minerals and altered mafic minerals. The amount of grog tempering is moderate.
Fabric 3 (n = 36)
This fabric is very fine to fine-grained. It is similar to Fabrics 1 and 2 but contains more fine non-plastic inclusions. The ceramics were tempered with rare to sparse amounts of grog. The majority of inclusions are very fine to fine quartz, white mica (muscovite), while feldspars (potassium feldspar, plagioclase) are less frequent. Occasionally very fine polycrystalline quartz could also be observed. Accessories include rutile, leucoxene, tourmaline (green, yellowish brown, bluish green), zoisite/clinozoisite, epidote, pyroxene, green and brown hornblende, actinolite, garnet (colorless), zircon, opaque minerals, titanite and biotite.
Fabric 4 (n = 3)
This fabric is similar to Fabric 3, however it contains calcareous inclusions (carbonate clasts, but the clay matrix is non-calcareous). The amount of grog tempering is sparse to moderate. The types of inclusions are similar to the previous fabrics. The majority of inclusions are very fine to fine quartz, white mica (muscovite), and in lesser amounts, feldspar (potassium feldspar, plagioclase). Rare very fine polycrystalline quartz could also be observed. Accessories are rutile, titanite, leucoxene, tourmaline (green), zoisite/clinozoisite, epidote, pyroxene, green hornblende, brown hornblende, actinolite, garnet (colorless), zircon, apatite, picotite (?), opaque minerals, pyroxene (twinned), green hornblende and garnet (colorless).
Fabric 5 (n = 1)
This fabric is also similar to the previous fabrics, however it contains more fine non-plastic inclusions, and also calcareous inclusions—individual carbonate clasts appear and the clay matrix is calcareous. The majority of inclusions are very fine to fine quartz, white mica (muscovite) and lesser amounts of feldspars (potassium feldspar, plagioclase). Occasionally very fine polycrystalline quartz could also be observed. Accessories are rutile, tourmaline (green), zoisite/clinozoisite, epidote, pyroxene, green hornblende, garnet (colorless) and opaque minerals. The amount of grog tempering is sparse.
Fabric 6 (n = 1)
This fabric is very fine to medium-grained and tempered with sparse amounts of grog. It is a calcareous clay matrix, and also contains larger carbonate clasts in respect to the rest of the fabrics. The majority of inclusions are very fine to medium quartz, white mica (muscovite) and less abundant feldspars (potassium feldspar, plagioclase). Occasionally very fine polycrystalline quartz could also be observed. Accessories are rutile, tourmaline (green, blue), zoisite/clinozoisite, epidote, titanite, pyroxene, green hornblende, tremolite, garnet (colorless), zircon and opaque minerals.
The accessory minerals in each fabric group are very similar and they correspond with the mineral composition of the Fehér-Körös and Fekete-Körös rivers (Thamóné and Kercsmár 2000), which merge 15 km southeast of Békés Jégvermi-kert. The roundness of the mineral and rock fragments is also very uniform in the fabric groups: they are mostly angular or subangular, and only very rarely subrounded. Taking into account that feldspars commonly appear, the mineral and rock fragments found in the raw materials of the ceramics indicate an immature sediment. The analyzed ceramics are mostly very fine-grained (mostly below 0.1 mm), therefore with a polarizing microscope the separation of quartz and feldspar grains was challenging—there are very few and very small polycrystalline quartz grains present. The raw materials of the ceramics likely have been resedimented and mixed several times. Mixing is also supported by the carbonate content found in some fabric groups: calcareous matrix, mollusk shell fragments, biospheroid fragments and calcareous nodules were all recognizable among the calcareous inclusions.
Pores and voids are fairly similar among the analyzed ceramics: elongated pores, pores left after naturally occuring organic matter burnt off, and cracks around larger inclusions and between larger inclusions. Burnt off plant remains may leave behind carbonized remnants, and the pores sometimes have a reduced rim. The estimated volume of pores and voids is between 2 and 10%. The raw material of grog inclusions is similar to that of the incorporating ceramics, but in some cases grog inclusions also show compositions more similar to other fabric groups identified among the Békés Jégvermi-kert ceramics. Very rarely there are also grog inclusions whose fabric does not exactly match the fabrics of any examined sherds. Nevertheless, they do not differ radically, for example, they contain slightly larger mineral and rock fragments, or they may have a “cleaner” matrix containing hardly any inclusions. The optical activity of the raw materials of the analyzed ceramics depends on the firing temperature and the oxidizing and reducing nature of the firing and does not depend on the naturally occurring plant remains, since these are rare. Considering all the so far analyzed Bronze Age ceramics from Hungary (Kreiter 2007, 2009, 2020; Earl et al. 2011; Golitko et al. 2021; Szeverényi et al. 2021; Staniuk et al. 2022), no plant tempering has been identified, and the Békés Jégvermi-kert ceramics examined here correspond with these previous findings.
The raw materials (supplemental table S4) used to produce the vast majority of the studied ceramics closely resemble clay samples collected near Békés Jégvermi-kert (Fig. 3), however, it should be noted that when a particular clay sample resembles a ceramic sample or group of ceramics, this does not mean that they are identical, but rather that the particular clay sample is the closest match to the ceramics in terms of the type, size, and distribution of non-plastic inclusions. In some cases, clay samples resemble multiple petrographic ceramic groups, and we are not suggesting one to one correlation between particular vessels and particular clay samples. The results do however indicate that the degree of mineralogical variability in locally available clays is similar to that observed in ceramic samples, suggesting that the full range of ceramics from Békés Jégvermi-kert we studied could have been produced with relatively locally available raw materials. An earlier analysis of seven sherds from Túrkeve-Terehalom similarly indicates use of clays that could have been obtained locally on the GHP and specifically near to the site itself (Kreiter 2007). Overall, we identified no ceramics that appear to originate from significantly different geological environments than the GHP, and all plausibly could originate from very near to the site. The petrographic analysis also suggests little modification of clayey raw materials may have been undertaken by Bronze Age potters at Békés Jégvermi-kert beyond removal of very large inclusions and addition of grog temper.
Photomicrographs showing ceramics and clays to which they are the most similar. In some cases, multiple petrographic groups showed maximal similarity to the same clay sample. (1) Ceramic 103 (Fabric 1), urn. 1b. Clay 21. (2) Ceramic 21 (Fabric 2), urn. 2b. Clay 20. (3) Ceramic 89 (Fabric 3), storage vessel. 3b. Clay 9. (4) Ceramic 78 (Fabric 4), urn. 4b. Clay 10. (5) Ceramic 53 (Fabric 5), urn. 5b. Clay 10. (6) Ceramic 31, urn. 6b. Clay 10. All photomicrographs are at 40x magnification under XPL
LA-ICP-MS of ceramics
Our initial interpretations of ceramic chemistry followed statistical procedures widely utilized in ceramic compositional studies, which are in effect an attempt to statistically apply the provenience postulate to identify distinctive production signatures and then assess the likelihood that any given ceramic might have been drawn from a particular identified chemical distribution (Harbottle 1976; Neff 2002; Glascock and Neff 2003; Glascock et al. 2004). Prior to conducting further analysis of the data, we omitted a series of elements that were likely impacted by post-depositional alteration. In a prior study (Golitko et al. 2021), we noted issues particularly with ceramics from Békés Jégvermi-kert, which when excavated, were often covered with a whitish crust. This material proved to be composed of a variety of soil minerals and organic compounds cemented into a matrix of redeposited calcite, likely formed through annual wet/dry cycling in the surrounding burial matrix. Examination of compositional profiles in sherd cross-sections also identified alteration of concentrations of a number of potentially mobile elements (Na, Ca, Sr, Ba), which were also noted as being present at systematically higher concentrations than those present in ceramics from the four tell sites, where ceramics were likely less subjected to annual differences in moisture. We subsequently also noted potential issues with Mn and U concentrations and these elements were excluded as well. Sb and Hf were also excluded from consideration due to high error values measured on NORC. While W also had relatively high error, this element was retained as prior studies (Duwe et al. 2020; Riebe 2021) found significant variance in W values between different study site assemblages.
Remaining elemental values were then logged (base 10) to normalize the data and eliminate scaling differences between elements, after which we used cluster analysis, inspection of bivariate plots, and PCA (see supplemental figures S2, S3, and S4) to examine structure in the data (Neff 2002). Preliminary groups were then refined by calculation of Mahalanobis distance-based probabilities of group membership to remove outlier samples and assess the degree of statistical separation between chemical groups. Initial attempts to separate samples by site proved challenging, as did attempts to separate the sites by river valley. In the end, the most robust partitioning of samples that we could produce generated three chemical signatures (labeled A, B, and Cin Fig. 4) as well as a number of statistical outliers. The principal distinctions between these chemical groups can be seen on Fig. 4, comparing logged W and Mo concentrations. Group A is the largest of the chemical groups, and contains all non-outlier sherds from Békés Jégvermi-kert, Békés-Várdomb, Vésztő-Mágor, and the majority of samples from Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár. Group B contains seven sherds from Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár, and is characterized by lower W concentrations than Group A sherds. As noted, W measurements may have relatively high error that could cause dispersion of values, however, the measured error on NORC is insufficient to explain the difference between W concentrations in ceramics assigned to these two chemical groups, and W measurements were consistent across replicates measured on each individual sherd. Group C contains all non-outlier sherds from Túrkeve-Terehalom and is characterized by higher Mo concentrations than those present in Group A sherds. A number of sherds remain unassigned to these chemical groups, yet inspection of bivariate plots suggests that these are statistical outliers of these groups, not samples with chemistries divergent enough to suspect that they were imported from elsewhere. As can be seen on Fig. 4, these outlier samples generally hover around the fringes of the confidence regions for the chemical groups to which the majority of samples from their respective sites belong.
Bivariate plot of logged Mo and W concentrations in ceramics separated by chemical group. Ellipses represent the 90% confidence boundaries for each group. Outlier ceramics samples are indicated with sample names, and clay samples are represented by (x)
It should be noted that Groups A and C do not fully satisfy the provenience postulate in a formal statistical sense, as there is a substantial amount of statistical (and chemical) overlap between ceramics located near the compositional boundaries of these two groups (supplemental table S5). We could in principle have eliminated this overlap by omitting samples with high probabilities of belonging to both groups, then comparing these sherds to the more narrowly constrained “core” chemical-statistical regions of each group. However, given that Túrkeve-Terehalom is only c. 35 km from the nearest Körös drainage site (Vésztő-Mágor) included in Group A, and without a knowledge of how much clay chemistry varies on this order of distance, we felt it was equally likely that this degree of overlap could result from localized production at each site and no movement of ceramics. To more explicitly test these possible interpretations, we next explore chemical patterning in clay samples and how these compare to measured ceramics.
Clay variability and comparison to ceramics
Box-and-whisker plots of selected elements measured in clays showing statistically significant chemical differences between different stream/river drainages in the study area
We first grouped clayey samples by drainage system (with “Puszta” added as a category for all samples outside of a drainage basin). A MANOVA test using logged (base 10) elemental concentrations suggests that there are statistically significant chemical differences between some drainage basins on certain elements (Wilk’s test p=<<0.001). Some of the most significantly varying elements are shown as box-and-whisker plots on Fig. 5. Several trends are evident on these plots, for instance, relatively low Ni and Co concentrations in samples from the Zagyva-Tarna drainage near the northern boundary of our survey area. Cu concentrations in Zagyva-Tarna samples are relatively high, as are clays from the Danube and Maros drainages. Concentrations of Cs are consistently higher in samples from the northern portions of the GHP (Danube, Hortobágy, Zagyva-Tarna, Berettyó). Both Mo and W, associated with differences between some samples in this data set (and in Riebe’s (2021) earlier study of Late Neolithic ceramics) differs significantly between different drainages, and in particular, significantly higher W concentrations are measured in Berettyó clay samples compared to those taken from the Körös drainage. Puszta samples and samples from the Tisza are particularly variable, reflecting the large geographical distances between samples in these categories. These chemical differences could account for the ability to distinguish ceramics from sites in different drainages, as noted in prior studies, however, there is a substantial amount of overlap between concentrations in any pair of drainages for most elements, which could also account for observed overlaps in ceramics.
Geographic distances between samples compared to pair-wise Euclidean chemical distances for (a) clay samples, (b) for all measured ceramic samples compared to clay samples, The dotted lines represent the 1- and 2-sigma prediction bands derived from comparison of clay samples. On all plots, the black regression line represents the linear relationship for clays, while on b), the blue regression line represents the relationship for ceramics compared to clays. (c) shows the same but with ceramics divided by fineware (blue regression line) and coarseware (yellow line). (d) divides the ceramics by vessel type—cooking pots and storage vessels (yellow line), bowls (purple), jars/urns (blue), and mugs/cups (red). On c) and d), the y-axis scales have been adjusted for visual clarity
Another way to conceptualize the provenience postulate is as follows: chemical variability must demonstrate a discontinuous distribution so that a distinct boundary can be identified in compositions representing production in two different geographically discrete regions. If chemical variance is continuous, then distinctive profiles will only be identifiable in the event that ceramics are produced only in relatively distantly spaced communities or production centers. If variability is clinal, and ceramics are produced at widely distributed but relatively closely spaced communities, ceramic chemistry will also form a continuous distribution that will make it impossible to identify the compositional and statistical boundaries of production at one site, and to conclusively identify where a transported ceramic was actually produced. To examine the geographic distribution of chemical variance, we compare pair-wise Euclidean distances between the logged (base 10) chemical concentrations in clay samples to their corresponding pair-wise geodesic distances in kilometers. This comparison reveals a statistically significant linear increase in chemical distance with geographic distance, albeit that distance only explains about 20% of the total variance (R2 = 0.181, p < < 0.001) in chemical similarity (Fig. 6A, see supplemental table S6). In other words, the further apart two different clay deposits are, the more likely it is that they will display significant chemical differences, however, it is also possible to sample broadly chemically similar clays even at relatively large distances on the GHP.
This broadly clinal nature of chemical variability on the GHP makes it unlikely that pottery produced there will satisfy the provenience postulate in any strict form, excepting in a case where pottery is only produced in a handful of widely separated locations and it can conclusively be ruled out that ceramics were produced in any geographically intermediate locations. Even so, the wide range of concentrations found in clays at any given location makes it likely that even then, there will be overlap between the compositional and statistical space occupied by ceramics from any two production sites. This patterning helps explain the results of prior compositional studies, in other words, the ability to find consistent chemical differences between widely spaced sites, inability to distinguish pottery produced at proximal sites, and the degree of compositional and statistical overlap between ceramics from even widely spaced ancient communities.
That said, we propose that the clinal nature of chemical variability on the GHP can still be used to make some broad statements about the likely location of ceramic manufacture at different communities. In the event that the majority of ceramics at a given site are manufactured on site or at least within a relatively short distance of the site, comparison to clays should reveal a broadly similar linear relationship between pair-wise Euclidean chemical distance and geographic distance so long as tempering (Neff et al. 1988, 1989) or other processes (Hein and Kilikoglou 2020) do not substantially change the base paste composition relative to natural geochemical variability. Conversely, if ceramics were largely obtained from a more distant location, this relationship should diverge from that observed for comparisons of clay samples to each other. Treating all of the Bronze Age ceramics in our sample as local and comparing them to clay samples (Fig. 6B, supplemental table S6) does in fact show a linear relationship that is broadly similar to that for comparisons of clay samples to each other.
Divided by type, it is clear that coarseware vessels (storage vessels and cooking pots) almost exactly mimic the regression pattern between clays, suggesting very local production in our sample, as might be expected for these larger, less decorated vessels (Fig. 6C). Fineware diverges marginally from this pattern, however, dividing by specific vessel types highlights larger divergence from the expected “local” regression pattern for some vessel types (Fig. 6D). Mugs/cups and bowls in particular show greater than expected Euclidean distances relative to clays when compared to geographical distance, suggesting that these relatively small, and sometimes very elaborately decorated vessel types (e.g., Sofaer 2013) may have moved more frequently over larger distances. Urns/jars fall in between these other vessel categories and the coarseware/clay regression lines, suggesting that fewer of these vessels may have been transported over longer distances. However, it should be noted that while cups and mugs (and bowls to a lesser degree) were relatively widely sampled across our study sites, larger urns and jars in our sample derive almost entirely from funerary contexts at Békés Jégvermi-kert.
Comparison of ceramic-clay geographic distances and Euclidean chemical distances for Békés Jégvermi-kert, with the site in (a) its true geographical location, and at three fake geographical coordinates on the GHP: (b) c. 60 km east on the Körös past the confluence of its minor branches, (c) c. 80 km north near Jánoshida, and (d) c. 80 km south on the Maros fan in Romania. Regression lines are drawn only for ceramics assigned to chemical Group A, separated by coarseware (yellow) and fineware (blue)
While comparison of the pooled set of samples suggests that many of the vessels in our Bronze Age sample were locally produced (within a short distance of the sites from which they were recovered), we can gain a more detailed view by making this comparison on both a site-by-site basis and by dividing ceramic samples based on their assigned chemical group. For Békés Jégvermi-kert (Fig. 7), the relationship between Euclidean chemical distance and geographic distance (removing outlier samples from consideration) is similar to that for clay-clay comparisons (Fig. 7A), although again, coarseware fits the clay regression line marginally closer than fineware does. If the site is placed at a series of false coordinates on other parts of the GHP, these regression lines diverge from the expected chemical-distance relationship, particularly as the site is moved to large distances from its true location. This is particularly evident when the site is placed well to the north (Fig. 7C) or within the Maros fan (Fig. 7D). The difference is less pronounced when moving the site westwards but still within the broader Körös drainage (Fig. 7B), suggesting that chemical similarity may be greater within river drainages than when comparing across different drainages.
At three of the four other study sites (Békés-Várdomb—Fig. 8A, Vésztő-Mágor—Fig. 8B, and Túrkeve-Terehalom—Fig. 8C), the relationship between chemical distance and geographical distance for the major chemical group identified at each site is nearly identical to that for clays, again suggesting that many or even most of the ceramics at each of these three sites may have been produced in close proximity to each respective ancient community.
Comparison of ceramic-clay geographic distances and Euclidean chemical distances for (a) Békés-Várdomb (Group A ceramics), (b) Vésztő-Mágor (Group A ceramics), (c) Túrkeve-Terehalom (Group C ceramics), and (d) Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár (Group A and B ceramics). As in Fig. 7, the yellow line expresses the relationship between chemical and geographic distance for courseware, while the blue line expresses the same for fineware. For Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár ceramics, Group A ceramics are displayed in yellow and blue, while regression relationships for Group B ceramics are displayed in orange (coarseware) and purple (fineware)
Applying this same approach to the ceramics from Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár produces a very different result, however, suggesting the possibility that relatively few of the ceramics we sampled from there were produced locally. For comparisons of both Group A and Group B ceramics from the site to clays (Fig. 8B), the resulting regression relationship deviates significantly from that expected for local production from clays sampled from nearby in the Berettyó Valley. This is particularly the case for Group B ceramics. Moving the site to a variety of “dummy” geographical coordinates suggests that Group A ceramics are similar to clays from the Körös drainage (see supplemental figure S5), so that possibly many ceramics used there were acquired from communities in the Körös area. Notably, both coarse- and fineware ceramics appear “non-local.” That said, we have relatively limited numbers of clay samples from the Berettyó and northern GHP, which may bias our results as to how similar ceramics from Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár are relative to more local clays, and it remains possible that additional sampling in that area would make ceramics there appear more “local.” Group B ceramics do not match any of the clays in our current sample, and we are unable to suggest a likely production area or region for these. They might plausibly originate outside of the regions we have sampled, for instance in the Danube-Tisza interfluve, or further east on the Romanian portions of the GHP, or could originate from off of the GHP altogether and derive from a basically different geological background. This can only be resolved with further clay sampling and petrographic study of the ceramics themselves.
Mahalanobis distance-based group membership probabilities for clay samples relative to Group A ceramics from Békés Jégvermi-kert as a function of distance from the site. The blue line is a loess fit to the data
Having established that most ceramics were likely largely locally produced at four of the five study sites, we can also examine how the probability of group membership for clay samples relative to these ceramics—a common means of comparing clays to ceramic samples in archaeometric studies (e.g., Neff 2002; Riebe 2021)—varies with distance. Given the relatively small number of samples analyzed at most of the sites when compared to the number of elements we measured, we focus only on ceramics from Békés Jégvermi-kert, as the values for other sites might be artificially inflated by small sample size. Calculation of Spearman’s rho in this case indicates a significant negative correlation (ρ=-0.401, p < < 0.001) between distance and group membership probability, although the relationship is not linear. Plotting a loess fit line (Fig. 9) indicates that within c. 50 km, membership probabilities are relatively high on average and only weakly tail off with distance. Beyond this distance, there is a more rapid fall off in group membership probability with distance, but these probabilities remain non-negligible up to a distance of c. 100 km.
Discussion
Our results demonstrate that it is not possible to strictly apply the provenience postulate to ceramics within the bounds of the GHP, but also explain why prior ceramic compositional analyses in the region have found patterned variability despite the relative geological homogeneity of the region. Clays diverge chemically in a predictable fashion with distance, and as a result, potters sampling this geology to obtain clays are also likely to produce ceramics that became progressively less chemically similar the further apart these clays are. However, given that even relatively distant clays may still be chemically similar to one another, it is anticipated that a considerable degree of overlap will exist even between ceramics produced at relatively distant places. While we cannot provide an exact value for suggesting how far apart two potting communities would need to be before there would be minimal overlap between their respective ceramics, our results suggest that this distance might be something like 50 km, although potentially further for communities located within the same river drainage. This result is consistent with prior geochemical studies of ceramics on the GHP. From a statistical standpoint, clays up to 100 km from particular community might still show non-negligible similarities to ceramics. The inability to clearly define boundaries of chemical variability makes it nearly impossible to clearly identify where any particular ceramic vessel might have been produced on the basis of chemistry alone.
That said, the clinal nature of geochemical variance in this case can be used to make more general statements as to whether ceramics were largely locally produced (meaning within a c. 50 km area of the site), or were potentially primarily imported from elsewhere. This assumes of course that the ceramics were not produced using mixed clays (Ho and Quinn 2021) obtained from widely spaced areas of the GHP, or using finely ground grog from pottery obtained from larger distances. While we were able to avoid larger grog particles with laser sampling, it cannot be excluded that their presence as very finely ground material would influence our chemical measurements. Likewise, given the overall mineralogical similarity of clays from the GHP, it would be difficult to identify clay mixing. While none of the grog examined in thin-section was inconsistent with an origin on the GHP, this is not indicative of where on the GHP the grog may have originated from. As noted, there are several samples studied petrographically in which grog fragments differed texturally from the surrounding matrix (see supplemental data tab “Ceramic Petrography”). Either effect would presumably alter the expected relationship between chemical and geographic distance. We have no direct evidence for either practice, but cannot conclusively rule them out either. In the future, it might be useful to separately chemically analyze grog particles and surrounding matrix to see if any consistent differences are present.
Mineralogy minimally suggests that all studied ceramics from the Bronze Age cemetery at Békés Jégvermi-kert were produced on the GHP. Assuming that mixing of clays obtained from widely spaced sources, or addition of finely ground grog was not a common practice, then the combination of petrography and chemistry further suggests that the Békés Jégvermi-kert ceramics are likely to be local to the Körös drainage at a minimum. The mineralogical variability present in the samples is consistent with that observed in clays sampled within a few kilometers of the site, and only petrographic group 5 (one of the calcareous paste groups), shows any chemical variability relative to other ceramics by petrographic group (elevated W concentration—supplemental figure S6), and so could potentially reflect a marginally longer distance import. Tentatively, we would suggest that mineralogical variability in ceramics from Békés Jégvermi-kert primarily reflects sampling of naturally occurring variability in clayey materials from the vacinity of the site by potters there (or nearby), but that the clayey/fine fraction of these raw materials is broadly similar, thus explaining why petrographic groups 1–4 are all subsumed within chemical group A.
However, broadly speaking, the degree of resolution afforded by the geology of the GHP makes it difficult to distinguish whether any site in our study acquired ceramics from distances of c. 50–60 km or less, particularly if those sites are located in the same river drainage. While ceramics at the cemetery could for instance have been produced at the associated settlement, the Békés Jégvermi-kert cemetery might have drawn ceramics (and possibly people) from a very local (6–7 km) area, but also could have been used by people from further distances as well (e.g., Duffy et al. 2019a). There is little evidence to suggest significant changes in clay and/or ceramic acquisition between EBA, MBA, and transitional MBA-LBA contexts at the cemetery, as Group A ceramics characterize all of these periods. It should be noted that our sample from Békés Jégvermi-kert by and large focused on more typical looking vessels—there were some “non-local” looking ceramics found in some graves, but these were not included in the present study as they came from poorly preserved contexts. Some of these were associated with bronze objects as well (Parditka and Duffy 2023). Future sampling might focus on expanding the sample of ceramics that appear stylistically divergent relative to the majority of any given site assemblage to see if these ceramics on average diverge more from the expected chemical similarity-distance relationship than vessels with more typical forms and/or decorations.
Similarly, at three of the four tell sites included in our sample, we have no compelling evidence that ceramics were obtained from any great distance, and plausibly, the ceramics in our sample may have been produced very near to each tell. Of course, it is still possible that in each case, the tells drew ceramics from non-tell communities in their immediate vicinity, and so our data do not directly address the question of how tell communities related to their potential hinterlands. Moderate divergence between fineware and coarseware in terms of similarity to clays, as well as for particular vessels classes (mugs/cups and bowls in particular) also suggests that decorated fineware may have moved larger distances in relatively low volumes, however.
Conversely, at Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár, on the basis of our present data, many of the studied ceramics may have been acquired outside of the Berettyó Valley. Group A ceramics, comprising the majority of the samples analyzed from Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár, appear to better match compositional variability in the Körös drainage to the south, minimally 35 km away. That said, as the site is on the edge of our clay sampling region, it remains possible that similar clays could be found nearer to the site, perhaps further up the Berettyó drainage to the east. Group B, containing only seven vessels, appears to represent production somewhere outside of the area in which we have sampled clays. It should be noted that both chemical groups contain vessels with typical Gyulavarsánd type decorative motifs, for instance channels and spirals (Fig. 2D, assigned to Group B), while Group A also includes vessels with decorations that are uncommon in the OFCC region. For instance, the jug with an “ansa lunata” handle (Fig. 2L), a stylistic feature more common in the Maros area of the southern GHP (Bóna 1975), was assigned to Group A, as was a bowl with Wietenberg decorative elements (Fig. 2M), a style found to the east in Transylvania (Quinn et al. 2020). We cannot entirely rule out the possibility that these vessels were produced non-locally and transported to the tell, however, these results may indicate that a broader range of styles were produced on the GHP at times than traditional culture-historical boundaries suggest, or that potters from other regions at times moved to the GHP and introduced such stylistic elements.
We cannot conclusively rule out the production of some vessels locally at Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár based on our data, however, it is clear that the pattern at this tell diverges substantially from that at the other studied tell sites. Although our results are to a degree preliminary, they provide some support for emerging understanding of the diversity of practices at different tell sites and in different areas of the GHP during the later EBA and MBA, further suggesting that monolithic models of tell formation and occupation may need revisiting in light of differing regional trajectories in social and economic organization (e.g., Kienlin 2015). Ceramics may only have been produced in some areas of the GHP during the Bronze Age, and some tell communities may have acquired ceramics from elsewhere, while others produced or acquired them from lesser distances.
Our results also highlight the critical role that intensive clay raw material surveys may play in understanding geochemical and mineralogical variability in geologically homogeneous regions. While patterned variability exists in the ceramics in our study (and in prior geochemical studies on the GHP), the results of our clay survey and comparison to ceramics highlights the limits of applying the provenience postulate to ceramics produced there. It would prove difficult to conclusively identify transported ceramics on a sample-by-sample basis, as even at relatively geographically widely spaced points on the GHP, sampling the base geological variability in clays would likely produce a degree of compositional overlap between resulting ceramics (i.e., there is not more inter-source variability than intra-source variability in clays). This limitation may constrain the kinds of archaeological questions that can be addressed using ceramic sourcing on the GHP, but even so, a combined mineralogical and chemical approach may still yield useful data reflective of production location and technology within the limits imposed by the environment.
Conclusion
In this study, we examine the degree to which ceramic sourcing is possible in the very homogenous environment of the eastern Carpathian/Pannonian Basin—the Great Hungarian Plain. Our intensive survey of clays from the region suggests that geochemical variability exhibits a continuous clinal distribution, although impacted to a degree by river drainages. As a result, the provenience postulate underlying archaeological sourcing analyses—that more variability exists between identifiable sources than within them–cannot be strictly applied to ceramics produced there. However, our results do make interpretation of the patterned geochemical variability found in ceramics from the GHP both in our study and prior studies possible by delimiting the scale of variability and providing a means of determining whether ceramics from a given ancient community were largely locally produced or acquired from a distance beyond c. 50 km—what we might consider “geochemically local.” This scale of resolution does limit the kinds of questions that may be directly answered using compositional data, however, and other more traditional archaeological indicators of production or else fine-grained analyses of production techniques, stylistic elements, and so forth may be required to make any further arguments about what “local” means relative to the actual site by site locations of production and means of acquiring ceramics.
That said, a combination of mineralogical/petrographic analysis (to confirm production on the GHP vs. elsewhere) with chemical analysis can produce archaeological valid and useful results despite the overt difficulties of interpreting compositional data in an environment like the eastern Carpathian Basin. While our results provide a solid empirical basis for interpreting ceramic compositional analyses on the GHP regardless of time period, we have not as of yet sampled the entire expanse of the GHP and surrounding regions. Further clay sampling in the Danube-Tisza interfluve, Serbian Banat region, and along the northern and eastern fringes of the GHP in Hungary and Romania may help to further delimit where ceramics in our study were produced.
Our results suggest that the bulk of the ceramics we analyzed from four sites in or near to the Körös River drainage—the cemetery at Békés Jégvermi-kert, as well as the tell settlements at Békés-Várdomb, Vésztő-Mágor, and Túrkeve-Terehalom, can be considered predominately geochemically local. The majority of ceramics studied from the tell of Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár may be geochemically non-local, and many of these ceramics may have been obtained from the Körös region. Moreover, our data provide further evidence to suggest that social and economic structure was not uniform across the GHP during the florescence of tell settlements during the MBA, reinforcing this notion of emerging complexity and regional variability during the Bronze Age.
Data availability
All data are provided in a supplementary file included with the manuscript.
References
Arnold DE, Neff H, Bishop RL (1991) Compositional analysis and sources of pottery: an ethnoarchaeological approach. Am Anthropol 93(1):70–90
Arnold DE, Neff H, Glascock MD (2000) Testing assumptions of Neutron Activation Analysis: communities, workshops and paste preparation in Yucatán, Mexico. Archaeometry 42(2):301–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2000.tb00883.x
Banner J (1956) Research on the Hungarian Bronze Age since 1936 and the Bronze-Age settlement at Békés-Várdomb. P Prehist Soc 21:123–143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00017497
Banner J, Bóna I (1974) Mittelbronzezeitliche Tell-Siedlungen bei Békés. Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
Bartlett ML, Neff H, McAnany PA (2000) Differentiation of clay resources on a limestone plain: the analysis of clay utilization during the Maya Formative at K’axob Belize. Geoarchaeology 15(2):95–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6548(200002)15:2-95::AID-GEA1-3.0.CO;2-1
Bishop RL, Canouts V, De Atley SP, Qöyawayma A, Aikins CW (1988) The formation of ceramic analytical groups: Hopi pottery production and exchange. J Field Archaeol 15(3):1300–1600. https://doi.org/10.1179/009346988791974439
Blomster JP, Neff H, Glascock MD (2005) Olmec pottery production and export in ancient Mexico determined through elemental analysis. Science 307:1068–1072. https://www.science.org/doi/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1107599
Bóna I (1975) Die mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen. Archaeologici Hungariae, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
Bosq M, Kreutzer S, Bertran P, Lanos P, Dufresne P, Schmidt C (2023) Last glacial loess in Europe: luminescence database and chronology of deposition. Earth Syst Sci Dat 15:4689–4711. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-4689-2023
Ceglia A, Cosyns P, Shibille N, Meulebroeck W (2019) Unravelling provenance and recycling of late antique glass from Cyprus with trace elements. Archaeol Anthrop Sci 11:279–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-017-0542-1
Csányi M, Tárnoki J (1992) Túrkeve-Terehalom. In: Meier-Arendt W (ed) Bronzezeit in Ungarn: Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, pp 159–165
Dani J (2012) Fortified tell settlements from the Middle Bronze Age in the Hungarian Reach of the Berettyó Valley. In: Jaeger M, Czebreszuk J, Fischl KP (eds) Enclosed Space-Open Society. Contact and exchange in the context of Bronze Age fortified settlements in Central Europe. SAO/SPEŚ, Poznan and Bonn, pp 27–27
Daróczi T-T, Csányi M, Tárnoki J, Nagy F, Olsen J (2022) Túrkeve-Terehalom in the Eastern Carpathian Basin. Bronze Age multi-stratified site provides high-precision chronology with continental implications. Praehist Z 98(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/pz-2022-2024
Druc I (2013) What is local? Looking at ceramic production in the Peruvian highlands and beyond. J Anthropol Res 69:485–513. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/https://doi.org/10.3998/jar.0521004.0069.404
Drummer TD (1998) Generalized geology of the Former Soviet Union (geo1ec). U S Geol Surv. https://doi.org/10.5066/P9GUL0PQ. Accessed 12 April 2023
Duffy PR (2014) Complexity and autonomy in Bronze Age Europe: assessing cultural developments in Eastern Hungary. Prehistoric Research in the Körös Region, Archaeolingua, Budapest
Duffy PR, Parkinson WA, Gyucha A, Yerkes RW (2013) Coming together, falling apart: a multiscalar approach to prehistoric aggregation and interaction on the great Hungarian Plain. In: Birch J (ed) From prehistoric villages to cities: settlement aggregation and community transformation. Routledge, New York and London, pp 44–62
Duffy PR, Parditka GM, Giblin JI, Paja L, Salisbury RB (2014) Discovering mortuary practices in the Körös river basin, Hungary. Hungarian Archaeology. 2014, Autumn. https://www.hungarianarchaeology.hu/?cat=54
Duffy PR, Parditka GM, Giblin JI, Paja L (2019) The problem with tells: lessons learned from absolute dating of Bronze Age mortuary ceramics in Hungary. Antiquity 93:63–79. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.179
Duffy PR, Paja L, Parditka GM, Giblin JI (2019a) Modelling mortuary populations at local and regional levels. J Anthropol Archaeol 53:240–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2019.01.003
Duwe S (2005) Pots, daub, and neutrons: a pilot compositional analysis of Early Copper Age clay assemblages. La Tinaja 16:2–5
Duwe S, Parsons TA, Galaty ML, Hoekman-Sites H (2020) Elemental, mineralogical, and petrographic analyses of ceramics and daub. In: Parkinson WA, Gyucha A, Yerkes RW (eds) Bikeri: two Copper Age villages on the Great Hungarian Plain. Monumenta Archaeologica 46. UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp 245–262
Earle T, Kreiter A, Klehm C, Ferguson J, Vicze M (2011) Bronze Age ceramic economy: the Benta Valley, Hungary. Eur J Archaeol 14(3):419–440. https://doi.org/10.1179/146195711798356746
Fischl KP (2018) Settlement layouts, systems and structure of the Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex. Gesta XVII (2): 3–8
Fischl KP, Reményi L (2013) Interpretation possibilities of the Bronze Age tell sites in the Carpathian Basin. In: Anders A, Kulcsár G, Kalla G, Kiss V, Szabó GV (eds) Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on his 60th birthday. L’Harmattan, Budapest, pp 725–738
Fischl KP, Kiss V, Kulcsár G, Szeverényi V (2013) Transformations in the Carpathian Basin around 1600 B.C. Tagungen Des. Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 9:355–371
Földváry GZ (1988) Geology of the Carpathian Region. World Scientific, Singapore
Glascock MD (2020) A systematic approach to geochemical sourcing of obsidian artifacts. Sci Cult 6(2):35–47
Glascock MD, Neff H (2003) Neutron activation analysis and provenance research in archaeology. Meas Sci Technol 14:1516–1526
Glascock MD, Neff H, Vaughn KJ (2004) Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis and multivariate statistics for pottery provenance. Hyperfine Interact 154:95–105
Gogâltan F (2016) Building power without power? Bronze Age fortified settlements on the Lower Mureş Basin. In: Gogâltan F, Cordoş C (eds) Prehistoric settlements: Social, Economic, and Cultural aspects. Seven studies in the Carpathian area. Editura Mega, Cluj-Napoca, pp 87–114
Gogâltan F, Găvan A, Lie M, Fazecaş G, Cordoş C, Kienlin TL (2020) Exploring Bronze Age tells and tell-like settlements from the Eastern Carpathian Basin. Results of a research project. In: Blanco-González A, Kienlin TL (eds) Current approaches to tells in the prehistoric Old World. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 73–95
Golitko M (2015) LBK Realpolitik: an archaeometric study of conflict and social structure in the Belgian Early Neolithic. Archaeopress, Oxford
Golitko M, McGrath A, Kreiter A, Lightcap IV, Duffy PR, Parditka GM, Giblin JI (2021) Down to the crust: chemical and mineralogical analysis of ceramic surface encrustations on Bronze Age ceramics from Békés 103, Eastern Hungary. Minerals 11:436. https://doi.org/10.3390/min11040436
Golitko M, Terrell JE (2012) Mapping prehistoric social fields on the Sepik coast of Papua New Guinea: ceramic compositional analysis using laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry. J Archaeol Sci 39(12): 3568–3580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.037
Gratuze B, Blet-Lemarquand M, Barrandon J-N (2001) Mass spectrometry with laser sampling: a new tool to characterize archaeological materials. J Radioanal Nucl Ch 247(3):645–656. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010623703423
Gyucha A, Duffy PR, Frolking TA (2011) The Körös Basin from the Neolithic to the Habsburgs: linking settlement distributions with pre-regulation hydrology through multiple data set overlay. Geoarchaeology 26(3):392–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20350
Gyucha A, Yerkes RW, Parkinson WA, Sarris A, Papadopoulos N, Duffy PR, Salisbury RB (2015) Settlement nucleation in the Neolithic: a preliminary report of the Körös regional archaeological project’s investigations at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom and Vésztő-Mágor. In: Hansen S, Raczky P, Anders A, Reingruber A (eds) Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea. Chronologies and Technologies from the 6th to the 4th Millenium BCE. International Workshop Budapest 2012. Archäologie in Eurasian 31, Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, pp 129–142
Harbottle G (1976) Activation analysis in archaeology. Radiochemistry 3:33–72
Hegedűs K, Makkay J (1987) Vésztő-Mágor. In: Raczky P (ed) The late Neolithic of the Tisza region: a survey of recent excavations and their findings. Kosuth, Budapest, pp 85–103
Hein A, Kilikoglou V (2020) Ceramic raw materials: how to recognize them and locate the supply basins: chemistry. Archaeol Anthrop Sci 12:180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01129-8
Ho JWI, Quinn PS (2021) Intentional clay-mixing in the production of traditional and ancient ceramics and its identification in thin section. J Archaeol Sci Rep 37:102945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102945
Horváth T, Farkas-Pető, I Farkas, Mihály J, Péterdi B (2016) Füzesabony-Öregdomb Bronzkori Tell-Település Kőanyaga. Az Egri Dobó István Vármúzeum Évkönyve 2016:29–94
Kienlin TL (2015) Bronze Age tell communities in context—an exploration into culture, society and the study of European Prehistory. Part 1: critique. Europe and the Mediterranean. Archaeopress, Oxford
Kienlin TL (2020) Bronze Age tell communities in context—an exploration into culture, society and the study of European Prehistory. Part 2: practice. Social, Space, and Materiality. Archaeopress, Oxford
Kovács T (1988) Review of the Bronze Age settlement research during the past one and a half centuries in Hungary. In: Kovács T, Stanczik I (eds) Bronze age tell settlements of the great Hungarian Plain I. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 1. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest, pp 17–26
Kreiter A (2007) Technological choices and material meanings in Early and Middle Bronze Age Hungary: understanding the active role of material culture through ceramic analysis. BAR International Series, vol 1604. Archaeopress, Oxford
Kreiter A (2009) Késő bronzkori kerámiák makroszkópos és petrográfiai vizsgálata – Macroscopic and petrographic analysis of the Late Bronze Age pottery. In: Kvassay J (ed) Település- és temetőfeltárás Dunaszentgyörgy határában. A 6 sz. főút 121 + 650–124 + 800 km szakasza között, a rehabilitációs munkálatokat megelőző régészeti feltárások (2007) eredményei–Settlement and cemetery excavations at the borders of Dunaszentgyörgy. Results of the Archaeological Salvage Excavations (2007) between the 121 + 650–124 + 800 km sections of Highway No. 6. VIA. Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Kismonográfiák 1. Monographia Minor in Cultural Heritage 1, Budapest, Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Szakszolgálat, pp.88–114
Kreiter A (2020) Ceramic petrographic report. In: Staniuk R (ed) Kakucs-Turján. Tradition and practice. Study on pottery, chronology and social dynamic of the Hungarian Bronze Age. Studien Zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa–Studia Nad Pradziejami Europy Srodkowej Band/Tom 19, Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn, pp 447–458
Kreiter A, Bajnóczi B, Sipos P, Szakmány Gy, Tóth M (2007) Archaeometric examination of Early and Middle Bronze Age ceramics from Százhalombatta-Földvár, Hungary. Archeometriai Műhely 2007(2): 33–47
Kristiansen K, Larsson TB (2005) The rise of Bronze Age society: travels, transmissions and transformations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Levine A, Stanish C, Williams PR, Chávez C, Golitko M (2013) Trade and early state formation in the northern Titicaca Basin, Peru. Latin Am Antiq 24(3):289–308. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.24.3.289
Makkay J (2004) Vésztő-Mágor: Ásatás a szülőföldön. Békés Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága, Békéscsaba
Máthé MS (1988) Bronze Age tells in the Berettyó Valley. In: Kovács T, Stanczik I (eds) Bronze Age tell settlements of the Great Hungarian Plain I. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 1. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest, pp 27–122
Máthé MS (1992) Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár (die bronzezeitlichen Schichten Des für die neolithische Herpály-Kultur Eponymen Fundortes). In: Meier-Arendt W (ed) Bronzezeit in Ungarn: Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau Und Theiss. Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, pp 170–173
Meyer M, Daszkiewicz M, Schneider G, Bernbeck R, Heeb BS, Hegewisch M, Kohlmeyer K, Näser C, Polla S, Schultze E, Schweigert F, Warburton DA (2016) Economic space. On the analysis and interpretation of pottery production and distribution. eTopoi J Anc Stud 6:190–219
Michelaki K (2006) Household ceramic economies: production and consumption of household ceramics among the Maros villagers of Bronze Age Hungary. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1503, Archaeopress, Oxford
Michelaki K (2008) Making pots and potters in the Bronze Age Maros villages of Kiszombor-Új-Élet and Klárafalva-Hajdova. Camb Archaeol J 18(3):355–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774308000413
Molloy B, Jovanović D, Buyere C, Estanquiero M, Birclin M, Milašinović L, Šalamon A, Penezić K, Bronk Ramsey C, Grosman D (2023) Resilience, innovation and collapse of settlement networks in later Bronze Age Europe: New survey data from the southern Carpathian Basin. PLoS ONE 18(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288750
Mommsen H (2001) Provenance determination of pottery by trace element analysis: problems, solutions, and applications. J Radioanal Nucl Ch 247(3):657–662
Neff H (2002) Quantitative techniques for analyzing ceramic compositional data. In: Glowacki DM, Neff H (eds) Ceramic production and circulation in the greater Southwest: source determination by INAA and complementary mineralogical investigations. Monograph 44, The Cotson Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp 15–36
Neff H, Bove FJ (1999) Mapping ceramic compositional variation and prehistoric interaction in Pacific coastal Guatemala. J Archaeol Sci 26:1037–1051. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1999.0422
Neff H, Bishop RL, Sayre EV (1988) A simulation approach to the problem of tempering in compositional studies of archaeological ceramics. J Archaeol Sci 15:159–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(88)90004-0
Neff H, Bishop RL, Sayre EV (1989) More observations on the problem of tempering in compositional studies of archaeological ceramics. J Archaeol Sci 16:57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-4403(89)90056-3
Neff H, Cogswell JW, Ross LM Jr (2003) Supplementing bulk chemistry in archaeological ceramic provenance investigations. In: van Zelst L (ed) Patterns and process: a festschrift in honor of Dr. Edward V. Sayre. Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education, Suitland, pp 200–224
Németi J, Molnár Z (2012) Bronzkori Hatalmi központok Északnyugat-Erdélyben: a Nagykároly–Bobáld-tell. Bronzezeitliche. Machtzentren in Nordwest-Siebenbürgen: Der Tell Von Carei-Bobáld. Monographs from the Department of Archaeology, University of Szeged, Szeged
Nicodemus A, Motta L, O’Shea JM (2015) Archaeological investigations at Pecica Şanţul Mare 2013–2014. Ziridava Studia Archaeologica 29:105–118
O’Shea JM (1996) Villagers of the Maros: a portrait of an Early Bronze Age society. Plenum, New York and London
Paja L, Duffy PR, Parditka GM, Giblin JI (2016) Bioanthropological analysis of Békés 103 (Jégvermi-kert, Lipcsei-tanya), a Bronze Age cemetery from southeastern Hungary. Acta Biologica Szeged 60(2):183–192
Parditka Gy, Duffy PR (2023) From the ashes of Bronze Age fires: a framework for comparison across body treatments. J Anthropol Archaeol 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2023.101525
Parkinson WA, Gyucha A, Karkanas P, Papadopoulos N, Tsartisidou G, Sarris A, Duffy PR, Yerkes RW (2018) A landscape of tells: geophysics and microstratigraphy at two Neolithic tell sites on the Great Hungarian Plain. J Archaeol Sci Rep 19:903–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.07.002
Parsons TA (2012) Modeling late Copper Age demographics on the Great Hungarian Plain using ceramic petrography. J Archaeol Sci 39:458–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.10.001
Pawlewicz MJ, Williams AJ, Walden SM, Steinshouer DW (2003) Generalized Geology of Europe including Turkey (geo4_2l). U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.5066/P9C8ZY5Q. Accessed 12 April 2023
Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group (2010) The study of prehistoric pottery: general policies and guidelines for analysis and publication, 3rd edn. The Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group. https://www.prehistoricpottery.org/_files/ugd/b40101_48969801f0fd4147b24b935728c32ff7.pdf
Quinn CP, Ciugudean H, Bălan G, Hodgins G (2020) Rethinking time, culture and socioeconomic organization in Bronze Age Transylvania. Antiquity 94(373):44–61. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.231
Raczky P, Hertelendi E, Horváth F (1992) Zur Absoluten Datierung Der Bronzezeitlichen tell-kulturen in Ungarn. In: Meier-Arendt W (ed) Bronzezeit in Ungarn: Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, pp 42–45
Radivojević M, Roberts BW, Pernicka E, Stos-Gale Z, Martinón-Torres M, Rehren T, Bray P, Brandherm D, Ling J, Mei J, Vandkilde H, Kristiansen K, Shennan SJ, Broodbank C (2019) The provenance, use, and circulation of metals in the European Bronze Age: the state of debate. J Archaeol Res 27:131–185. https://link.springer.com/article/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10814-018-9123-9
Rice PM (1987) Pottery analysis: a source book. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Riebe DJ (2021) Redefining archaeological cultures: boundaries and interactions during the Late Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Prehistoric Research in the Körös Region, Archaeolingua, Budapest
Riebe DJ, Niziolek LC (2015) Investigating compositional variation of ceramic materials during the Late Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain—preliminary LA-ICP-MS results. Open Geosci 1:423–445. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2015-0044
Sharratt N, Golitko M, Williams PR, Dussubieux L (2009) Ceramic production during the Middle Horizon: Wari and Tiwanaku clay procurement in the Moquegua Valley, Peru. Geoarchaeology 24(6):792–820. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20288
Sofaer J (2013) Cosmologies in clay: Swedish Helmet bowls in the Middle Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin. In: Bergerbrant S, Sabatini S (eds) Counterpoint: essays in archaeology and heritage Studies in honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen. BAR International Series, vol 2508. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 361–365
Staniuk R (2021) Early and Middle Bronze Age chronology of the Carpathian Basin revisited: questions answered or persistent challenges? Radiocarbon 63(5):1526–1546. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2021.83
Staniuk R, Kreiter A, Kulcsár G, Jaeger M (2022) Uniform in diversity: typological and technological analysis of Bronze Age fine ware from Kakucs-Turján. J Archaeol Sci Rep 41:103332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103332
Szeverényi V, Kreiter A, Dani J, Gucsi L, Kiss V, Kulcsár G, Skoda P, Szathmári I (2021) The Middle Bronze Age Füzesabony pottery style of the Carpathian Basin. In: Vučković V, Filipović V, Stojanović B, Risch R (eds) Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project. Regional Museum of Paraćin, Paraćin, pp 49–70
Thamóné Bozsó E, Kercsmár Z (2000) A Körös-medence negyedidőszaki beszállítási irányainak változása a homokok ásványi összetétele és a tektonikai háttéresemények alapján—changes of transport direction into the Körös basin during the Quaternary. Földtani Közlöny 130(4):647–671
Weigand PC, Harbottle G, Sayre EV (1977) Turquoise sources and source analysis: Mesoamerica and the Southwestern U.S.A. In: Earle TK, Ericson JE (eds) Exchange systems in prehistory. Academic Press, New York, pp 15–34
Williamson KA, Danella EB, Ullinger J, Paja L, Giblin J (2021) Heads over tails? An exploration of anatomical arrangement within cremation urns from Bronze Age Hungary. Bioarchaeology Int 4(3–4):153–171. https://doi.org/10.5744/bi.2020.4002
Acknowledgements
The work reported here was funded by the United States National Science Foundation (BCS1226439, BCS1460820) as part of the BAKOTA project. Additional chemical analysis was funded by the Field Museum Elemental Analysis Facility via United States National Science Foundation funding (BCS1628026) and the Notre Dame Department of Anthropology. Duffy’s contribution was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany´s Excellence Strategy–EXC 2150–390870439. Many thanks to Julia Giblin, László Paja, Attila Gyucha, Laure Dussubieux, Ádám Balázs, János Dani, Alyssa McGrath, Craig Jensen, Ashley Cercone, Beth Grávalos, Emily Quarato, William Parkinson, William Ridge, and the staff of the Munkácsy Mihály Múzeum, who assisted with portions of the work reported here.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MG and AK wrote the main manuscript text; MG, DJR, and AK analyzed samples; PRD, GyP, and MG obtained research funding; MG, PRD, GyP, DJR, and AK conceptualized the research; MG and AK prepared the figures; MG, PRD and DJR obtained samples; all authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Golitko, M., Riebe, D.J., Kreiter, A. et al. Exploring the limits of the provenience postulate: chemical and mineralogical characterization of Bronze Age ceramics from the Great Hungarian Plain. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 16, 174 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-024-02076-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-024-02076-4