Exploring socioeconomic relationships from surface survey ceramics: New methodologies from Bronze-Age Benta Valley, Hungary

Abstract

A Phase II survey team collected samples of ceramics from the Benta Valley in the western Carpathian Basin of Hungary to identify secondary (rural) sites, determine their extent and density, and investigate everyday economic and social routines. By comparing ceramic attributes such as function, decoration, and exterior finish, the authors argue that studies of ceramics from plow zone contexts can address nuanced questions of social and economic behavior played out on the landscape beyond what can be investigated in traditional excavations, which are principally focused on tell centers. The efficient, low-cost survey demonstrates the potential of plow zone archaeology in studies of socioeconomic relations within settlement systems. This micro-regional approach and the methods involved can be employed on other survey projects in Hungary and beyond, as rescue excavations across the region are becoming standard practice.

Keywords:

• Bronze Age Europe
• Hungary
• settlement pattern
• surface survey
• methodology
• ceramics

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the various members of the Benta Project who supported us and laughed with us up and down the Benta Valley. In particular, we would like to thank Dr. Timothy Earle for his direction, leadership, and kindness, as well as Magdolna Vicze and Kate Kanne for training on the ceramic assemblage and GIS (respectively). We would also like to acknowledge the various grants and institutions: the National Science Foundation (BCS #0542121), the Katherine L. Kreigbaum Fellowship at Northwestern University, the Undergraduate Summer Research Grant at Northwestern University, the Matrica Museum, Swedish Heritage Board, Northwestern University, and the University of Texas at Austin. We would also like to thank Drs. Gabriella Kulcsár, Viktória Kiss, Attila Kreiter, James Denbow, Samuel M. Wilson, Enrique Rodriguez-Alegría, Scott A. J. Johnson, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript.