Burial Mounds, Circular Enclosures and Beyond. Complex Archaeological Investigation of Roman Period Tumuli in the Great Hungarian Plain Using Non-Destructive Methods (original) (raw)
Related papers
Non-Destructive Archaeological Investigations in the Sárvíz Valley Hungarian Archaeology
In the early 1990s the termination of the Hungarian Archaeological Topography (MRT) program conducted by the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA-RI) was a great loss for Hungarian archaeology, because with that national scale, uniform, and systematic surveys for archaeological site identification came to a standstill. Thereafter, although without any unified methodological and spatial framework, it was primarily pre-investment field surveys and various local research programs that provided possibilities for topographical investigations. Nevertheless, due to the rapid development of geographic information systems and remote sensing techniques, it is timely now to reconsider the potentials and frames of site identification. As one step of that long journey we investigated the archaeological heritage around Sárszentágota within the frames of a joint research program launched together with Czech, Polish, and Slovakian colleagues. We used the methods of sys...
Tumulus Culture Barrows in the Polish Lowlands. The case of the Cemetery in Smoszew
Tens of barrows of the Tumulus culture create a clearly visible element on the cultural landscape of the south western part of the Polish Lowlands. Paradoxically, the abundance of this category of archaeological source does not broaden our knowledge about the societies that left them behind. The majority of cemeteries were discovered, mapped and excavated mainly in the first half of the 20th c. Hence, the existing plans of sites are usually very schematic and inaccurate. In many cases excavators were careless and they neither recognized nor documented details of unearthed features.
Non-destructive Archaeological Investigations in the Sárvíz Valley
In the early 1990s the termination of the Hungarian Archaeological Topography (MRT) program conducted by the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA-RI) was a great loss for Hungarian archaeology, because with that national scale, uniform, and systematic surveys for archaeological site identification came to a standstill. Thereafter, although without any unified methodological and spatial framework, it was primarily pre-investment field surveys and various local research programs that provided possibilities for topographical investigations. Nevertheless, due to the rapid development of geographic information systems and remote sensing techniques, it is timely now to reconsider the potentials and frames of site identification. As one step of that long journey we investigated the archaeological heritage around Sárszentágota within the frames of a joint research program launched together with Czech, Polish, and Slovakian colleagues. We used the methods of systematic archaeological field walking, and based on that geophysics and aerial photography. One of our goals was to make the first, experimental steps towards the establishment of common methodological frameworks.
In Part One, we have outlined the evaluative system and preparation of preliminary archaeological documentation (henceforth: PAD), as well as the methodological possibilities of site-detection and analysis. In this part, we are going to address the difficulties due to professional, legal and other limitations, as well as failures resulting from these limitations or from other (subjective) factors. Nonetheless, we are on the opinion that the provision of preventive archaeology met the expectations set by legal regulations: heritage services prior to large-scale investments became plannable. Additionally, the results of excavations subsequent to the preparation of archaeological assessments significantly increased our knowledge on the potential archaeological sites, instigating several debates and considerations concerning methodological and theoretical aspects of archaeological prospection and site detection. DIFFICULTIES AND FAILURES The greatest difficulty in preparing PADs is when investigations substantiated by professional arguments cannot be carried out, or only partially. In Part One (Reményi, 2019), we outlined the practice of field-walking , and the limitations of aerial reconnaissence and geophysical surveys: field walking and aerial reconnais-sence are ineffective in built-up areas, or when the vegetation period is not suitable for observations to be made. The effectiveness of geophysical surveys is influenced by different limiting factors arising from soil conditions and the evenness of the surface: in case of uneven surfaces (e.g. ploughing), or when the area is much littered with metallic waste, the data from the magnetometer survey become too noisy and unreadable. Trial trenching faces similar difficulties. In those areas which had been built-up, paved, or dissected by public utility lines, it is generally not possible to carry out trial trenching, or it is unlikely to obtain representative data. In regard to these problems, § 39 Section 2 of the government decree no. 68/2018 underlines that trial trenching should take place only when unfavourable circumstances had been eliminated. However, in case of built-up areas this would imply the demolition of standing buildings. In the course of such projects-particularly when the respective buildings were cellared-it is already possible to find (and damage) cultural layers, including archaeological features, thus one would be able to clarify whether the demolition works pose a threat to the preservation of archaeological heritage, and there would be no need to subsequently schedule trial trenching. In these instances, the sole option-as proposed in PADs-is the excavation of the archaeological features which had been recovered during the demolition works. A similar situation occurs when the technology of the construction does not allow trial trenching, e.g. in case of railway renovations. Since the length of these interventions is minimized in order to avoid train stoppage, there is generally not enough time for trial trenching. However, archaeological features are likely to turn up during the replacement of old railways and banks, thus-with the exception of a few sites where there are already sufficient data available from earlier research-a watching brief is the method of assessment usually proposed. In most cases, this does not pose any practical problem for the archaeologists; however , as excavations within the frames of watching briefs cannot be planned in advance, the assessments would not significantly improve the planning process, but merely underline the risks involved concerning the preservation of archaeological heritage. The feasibility of PADs is only minimally or not influenced by weather conditions. When trial trenching is carried out in inappropriate seasons of the year, or in bad weather conditions, it is still possible to assess the risks involved. On the other hand, such conditions would not allow carrying out excavations according to desirable standards (Fig. 1).