A River Runs Through It: Landscape and

the Evolution of Bronze Age Networks in

the Carpathian Basin

John M. O’Shea

Journal of World Prehistory

ISSN 0892-7537
Volume 24
Combined 2-3

J World Prehist (2011) 24:161-174

DOI 10.1007/s10963-011-9046-6

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Science+Business Media, LLC. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you
wish to self-archive your work, please use the
accepted author’s version for posting to your
own website or your institution’s repository.
You may further deposit the accepted author’s
version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s
request, provided it is not made publicly
available until 12 months after publication.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
J World Prehist (2011) 24:161–174
DOI 10.1007/s10963-011-9046-6

ORIGINAL PAPER

A River Runs Through It: Landscape and the Evolution

of Bronze Age Networks in the Carpathian Basin

John M. O’Shea

Published online: 27 May 2011

Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The homogeneous and circumscribed character of the Carpathian Basin makes
it an ideal setting for examining the interplay of topography and resource distribution in the
development of Bronze Age social networks. Such networks include both systems of
settlement and land use, and the patterns of interconnection between communities and
regions that facilitate trade and exchange. Drawing on new excavations and increasingly
common radiocarbon dates within the region, the alteration in these networks from earlier
Copper Age and Neolithic patterns can be traced. It is suggested that the substantial river
systems of the region provided the principal axes for the movement of goods during the
Bronze Age and that control of these water routes was contested among neighboring
communities and polities. It is further argued that contrastive overland trade connections
also developed which, at least initially, transported distinct materials. Later, these overland
connections undermined and superseded the pre-existing riverine systems.

Keywords
Maros
Hungarian archaeology
Romanian archaeology

Introduction

A recurring theme in much of Andrew Sherratt’s writing is the interplay between resource
distribution and geography, and how these factors came to shape patterns of prehistoric
interaction and exchange. This fascination flowed naturally from Sherratt’s interest in the
macro-scale patterns of Europe during the Neolithic and Bronze Age, and from the for-
mative impact that the New Geography had on archaeological thinking at Cambridge
during the 1960s and ’70s (cf. Clarke 1977; Hodder and Orton 1976). The Carpathian
Basin provides an ideal laboratory for such research, in that it presents a long, well-
documented record of human occupation on a near featureless plain. This plain was sur-
rounded by a ring of mountains which contained an array of strategic and exotic raw

J. M. O’Shea (&)
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
e-mail: joshea@umich.edu

123
 Author's personal copy
162 J World Prehist (2011) 24:161–174

materials, including chert, fine-grained stone, and metal ores, all of which were entirely
absent from the plain.
Since much of Sherratt’s research was devoted to utilizing this Carpathian laboratory
(cf. Sherratt 1976, 1987), I will pick up his focus on Bronze Age trade within the Car-
pathian Basin and beyond to examine the role of waterways in shaping these developments.

Waterways

It is increasingly recognized by archaeologists that waterways exert a significant influence

on social interaction and the development of complexity, by virtue of their critical role in
prehistoric travel, navigation, boundary demarcation, and the transport of materials (cf.
Davison et al. 2006; Bell 2006; Westerdahl 2006). They provide a means of rapidly linking
populations in the absence of developed roads and infrastructure; waterways also served as
a means of transporting bulky and heavy materials like stones and ores that might other-
wise be impractical to move in volume. In the absence of accurate navigational charts, maps,
and writing systems, waterways also provided an important means of navigation, geo-
graphical reference, and description, which was as true for boreal forest hunter-gatherers
(cf. Lovis 2008) as for ancient states and empires (see for example Herodotus’ description of
the March of the Persian army: Selincourt 1981).
From a cultural perspective, waterways also possess a ‘yin/yang’ character, in that they
function both to hinder and to facilitate movement. As an obstacle, they present a barrier to
movement and serve as a natural boundary that can shape and delimit social interaction.
They can also serve to channel movement, endowing key locations such as fords or
narrows with special importance. In later times, this same effect is exerted by the location
of ferries and bridges.
As a conduit, waterways direct and speed the flow of people, goods, and information in
preferred directions and, by virtue of this, provide an important predictor and destination
for potential patterns of social contact and interaction. In this guise, waterways asym-
metrically modify the normal friction of distance and allow distant communities to interact
and participate in large social aggregates (cf. Howey 2007). As a conduit, waterways also
endow particular geographic locations, such as confluences, with special importance.
Locations where movement must necessarily be halted, as at dangerous rapids, portage
sites and river mouths (cf. Norder 2003), are also significant.
The location of settlement and of constructed markers and monuments can provide
important clues as to which aspect of the waterway was emphasized by a past culture (cf.
O’Shea and Milner 2002). To the extent that movement along waterways was of primary
importance, settlements will tend to be located in places suited to the monitoring and
control of movement, such as on promontories and at confluences. To the extent that rivers
and waterways served as boundaries or to hinder cross-country movement, settlement and
other construction should emphasize crossings and fords.

Waterways in the Eastern Carpathian Bronze Age

It has become fashionable to argue that archaeology should focus on human agency and the
ability of individuals in the past to essentially create their world through the manipulation
of symbols and ideas (cf. Hodder 2000). We are told that individuals create their envi-
ronment, and do not simply respond to it. If ever this was likely to be true, it would be in
the immense, flat lands known as the Great Hungarian Plain of the Eastern Carpathian

123
 Author's personal copy
J World Prehist (2011) 24:161–174 163

Basin. This Great Plain, extending some 400 km north to south, and 250 km east to west,
was known historically more for horses than people, and must surely approximate the
ultimate blank slate on which empowered individuals might work their full creative genius.
Yet all may not be as it appears. When one considers the development of settlement and
exchange systems from Neolithic to Bronze Age times, the shaping influence of the natural
environment, particularly the character and distribution of major waterways, is
unambiguous.
Given the geography of the Eastern Carpathian Basin, it is easy to understand why
waterways might play an important role in shaping settlement location and social inter-
action. Since the Plain is so flat, the numerous rivers that cross it tend to be broad,
meandering, and subject to frequent flooding (Kiss and Sipos 2007, p. 211). Low-lying
areas near rivers tend to be permanent or seasonal marshes, and covered large portions of
the region prior to canalization of the river systems in the nineteenth century (Deák 2005).
In the lower reaches of the Maros, for example, settlement up to medieval times occupied
isolated patches of high ground and assumed the appearance of virtual islands amid a great
marsh (Deák 2005, pp. 39–40). Finding land that would be above water year-round was a
major determinant in settlement choice.
Given the abundance of marshland and water, it seems that overland movement between
settlements, let alone across the region, would have been difficult, if not impossible, at least
during certain portions of the year. On the other hand, movement by water would have posed
few obstacles. Likewise the location of settlements, agricultural fields and animal grazing
would have all been strongly conditioned by the distribution of dry ground and by the reach of
seasonal flooding. Given these contradictory pulls, it would be expected that communities
focusing on overland connections would locate well back from the major water courses, while
those focused on water movement would be situated as close to the water courses as possible,
even with the greater risk of flooding. There are clearly many other factors that would have
entered into the settlement equation, such as the importance of riverine resources, the dis-
tribution of arable land, and defense. While these factors might influence settlement location,
they would have exercised less constraint on the other forms of markers and cultural con-
structions, which can also serve to assert and legitimize territorial and resource claims.
While the effects of rivers and wetlands are pervasive, they do not determine the pattern
of human interaction and trade within the region. Instead they provide an uneven playing
field on which varying cultural ‘solutions’ are played out. This is well-illustrated by
considering the way that exchange networks and interaction evolved in the Eastern Car-
pathian Basin from Neolithic to Bronze Age times.
The clearest evidence for earlier time periods, particularly the Neolithic, can be seen in
the distribution of lithic raw materials across the region. Biro (1998) has documented these
networks across the basin from the earliest Neolithic up through the Copper Age. Her
studies clearly illustrate the effect of waterways, and particularly their role in defining the
boundaries of the distribution networks (Fig. 1). Her analysis shows both how these net-
works changed over time, and how surprisingly stable and persistent they could be.
The Copper Age sees a significant shift in settlement organization, and also ushers in
major changes in the materials being transported through the exchange networks, with
metal now circulating in substantial quantities for the first time. The metals being trans-
ported included massive copper axes, as well as a range of smaller tools and ornaments.
Interestingly, although metal appears in quantity for the first time, it does not displace the
other strategic and exotic goods that since Neolithic times have moved through the net-
works, including large flint blades, obsidian, amber, and shell. From Copper Age burials, it
is clear that these other exotics continued to play an important role in burial assemblages as

123
 Author's personal copy
164 J World Prehist (2011) 24:161–174

Fig. 1 Density contours showing the distribution of Group V (northern flint) in Hungary during the Late
Neolithic (a) and the Copper Age (b). Diamonds represent the site assemblages included in the analysis.
Maps based on Biro (1998)

valuable objects and tokens of prestige (cf. Patay 1978). So while important, copper tools
and ornaments were among a variety of exotic goods in the exchange system.
Large structured cemeteries are also a feature of the Eastern Carpathian Copper Age,
and there is a strong suggestion that these mortuary sites were serving an important
territorial function that previously had been performed by the large tell settlements (cf.
Parkinson 2006). The location of these cemeteries on waterways and near fords may
suggest the importance of overland travel and trade during the Copper Age, a pattern that
would fit with the boundary role of waterways that is suggested by Biro’s data.
This is not to say that waterways were unimportant in the movement of goods during
these earlier times and, given the great variety of materials moving around the Plain at this

123
 Author's personal copy
J World Prehist (2011) 24:161–174 165

time, we should probably envision multiple pathways, both overland and by water, moving
people and exchange goods. Yet given the evidence of settlement and cemetery location, it
appears that overland routes were the more important.
What is clear, though, is that while the internal organization of settlement is radically
altered during the Copper Age, the changes in the exchange networks appear additive
rather than transformative, and the role of waterways as boundaries seems to continue more
or less unchanged.
Perhaps the most striking cultural phenomenon associated with the beginning of the
Bronze Age in the Eastern Carpathians is the crystallization of distinctive local cultures out
of what had been very widely spread Late Copper Age precursors (Machnik 1991). These
smaller social entities marked their identity redundantly through material culture and
funerary custom, distinguishing themselves both from neighboring groups and from the
earlier Late Copper Age complexes.
The beginning of the Bronze Age also sees a major shift in the content of the long-
distance exchange networks. Where in the Copper Age metalwork was merely one exotic
among many, the Bronze Age sees metals as the dominant item in long distance exchange.
Other materials continue to move, but the focus of trade and status demarcation is over-
whelmed by metalwork.
At the same time, two distinct patterns of metal acquisition and production become
apparent. On the one hand, there is the emergence of major production centers in the
northern, eastern, and southern Carpathian ore areas (cf. Jovanović 1986; Pare 1997;
Schalk 1998), which were responsible for the widespread distribution of many of the
standard ornament and implement types associated with the Bronze Age, such as neck
torques, axes and other heavy bronze ornaments. Yet, there is also good evidence for the
smelting of raw ores by local communities on the Plains, and of village level production of
metalwork (Papalas 2008).
The industrial, long-distance Bronze Age trade appears to have been entrepreneurial,
seeking out markets and exchange nodes, as witnessed by massive hoard deposits along
major waterways (cf. Bóna 1975). Village-level production tended to be more traditional
and circumscribed, although local smiths still had to solve the problem of how to acquire
raw materials.
While Papalas (2008) has stressed the utilitarian aspect of local bronze production, it is
clear that the acquisition of bronze was closely tied to the acquisition of prestige and social
standing. For example, the burial usage of metal during the Early and Middle Bronze Age
often reflects limits on the display and accumulation of bronzes. Indeed, one theme running
through the Bronze Age is the gradual breakdown of these sumptuary rules, which on the
one hand indicates an increasing social tolerance for the display of wealth and inequality,
but at the same time also denotes a changing status for metalwork, from prestige symbol to
bulk wealth (cf. O’Shea 1996, pp. 342–346). This latter transformation is largely com-
pleted by the Late Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin, where the pattern of industrial
production dominates, with a dual focus on weaponry and complex luxury goods, such as
metal cauldrons (cf. Mozsolics 1985).
It has long been assumed that the long-distance trade of metalwork moved along the
major river systems of the Danube, Tisza, and Maros, and there are good reasons for this
traditional belief. The distribution of metal finds and large hoards are both closely tied to
these major waterways. While some isolated metal finds may represent ‘water offerings’ of
the kind prominent in Western Europe (cf. Bradley 1990), the bulk of these large hoards
are more consistent with the caching of production runs. These, along with the so-called

123
 Author's personal copy
166 J World Prehist (2011) 24:161–174

founder’s hoards made up of broken implements, are both consistent with the entrepre-
neurial movement of goods.
The pattern of Bronze Age settlement also suggests that waterways had become a
strategic asset to control (cf. Kovács 1988). Most of the large tell settlements of the Bronze
Age are located adjacent to major waterways; furthermore, they often occur near critical
‘choke points’, such as confluences (Gyulavarsánd, Csongrád, Békés) or in strategic
‘overlook’ positions (Nagyrév, Tiszafüred, Tószeg, Pecica, Periam), which would have
enabled the inhabitants to monitor and potentially control movement up and down the river
systems. In locations where conditions made large settlements unviable, as in the swampy
region surround the Tisza-Maros confluence, the symbolic role of the settlement is per-
formed by elaborate funerary sites, as at the large cemeteries at Szöreg (Foltiny 1941) and
Tápé (Trogmayer 1975). The region also provides evidence to suggest that at many set-
tlements the inhabitants exploited their locations to act as middlemen in the long distance
flow of materials along these networks, and that access and control via waterways was
contested.

The case of the Bronze Age Maros river region

The specific evolution of Bronze Age networks can be illustrated by considering the region
of the Maros (Mureş) River. The Maros is a westward flowing tributary of the Tisza, which
has its source in the Eastern Carpathian Mountains in Romania, and runs approximately
725 km to where it joins the Tisza, near Szeged in southeast Hungary (Fig. 2). For the

Fig. 2 Distribution of rivers, resources and major Bronze Age cultural traditions in the Eastern Carpathian
Basin. Principal sites mentioned in the text are represented

123
 Author's personal copy
J World Prehist (2011) 24:161–174 167

purposes of the present discussion, the Hungarian portion of the river, including the
swampy Tisza confluence region, is referred to as the lower Maros, while the portion in
western Romania (once the river has exited the Carpathian Mountains) is termed the
middle Maros.
Although the beginning of the Bronze Age in the region has been somewhat clouded by
assertions relating specific ceramic forms to distinct cultural entities, these issues have now
been largely resolved due to the increased number of carbon dates (Gogâltan 1999; Raczky
et al. 1994; O’Shea 1992). In brief outline, the Bronze Age on the middle and lower
reaches of the Maros begins around 2800 BC with the appearance of complexes of new
ceramic styles and funerary customs associated with the Nagyrév and Maros (also known
as the Periam/Pecica culture and Pitvaros/Szöreg culture). The settlements of the Maros
Group tend to be located in the immediate vicinity and south of the river and the eastern
facies of Nagyrév tend to be concentrated north of the Maros, with a particular focus on the
middle reaches of the Tisza. These cultural traditions follow distinct, but similar, devel-
opmental trajectories for more than a thousand years until their final disappearance
between 1600 and 1500 BC. The later facies of the Nagyrév tradition is termed Vatya, and
exhibits a strong association with the area between the rivers Tisza and Danube.
By virtue of their large and tightly structured cemeteries and the renewed modern
excavation of their settlements, the organization of Maros society is comparatively well-
known, although many fundamental questions remain. Maros settlements up and down the
river system practiced a similar broad-based subsistence economy, exploiting the full range
of domestic plants and animals, along with the harvest of wild game and particularly fish.
The settlements vary from large ‘tells’ to small hamlets, but there is as yet no evidence for
a functional settlement hierarchy. Likewise, although the cemeteries present clear evidence
of the existence of hereditary social differentiation, and for the existence of intercom-
munity social offices, the integration of the Maros communities appears to have been
lateral, rather than hierarchical. The Maros settlement and burial evidence also suggests
that violence and warfare were relatively common features of Bronze Age life. Every
Maros settlement excavated to date has exhibited defensive works, typically ditches, and
the cemeteries present numerous examples of head wounds and an under-representation of
young adult males that has been associated with deaths away from the village (Farkas and
Lipták 1971; O’Shea 1996).
Just as the settlements and cemeteries present a view of societies poised somewhere
between classically ranked societies and more egalitarian societies, the material culture
provides a similarly ambivalent view. One hallmark of the Maros culture is the well-made
and highly burnished fine ware ceramics. Likewise, the Maros communities were active
participants in a developing Bronze Age trade in metalwork and other regional exotics
including, in addition to metalwork, faience beads, dentalium and columbella shell, gold,
amber and exotic fine ware ceramics.
Yet when these more highly valued items of material culture are considered in detail,
they suggest the existence of two distinct kinds of production and exchange systems.
Michelaki (2008) examined the technology and decision making in the production of
Maros fine ware ceramics. She found that while superficially very similar, the ceramics
produced at the settlements of Klárafalva and Kiszombor, separated by only 9 km, exhibit
distinct production processes, suggesting very localized traditions of ceramic production,
and perhaps specialization in ceramic fine ware production at only the community level.
The production and distribution of metalwork appears to follow a similar pattern. The
find of slag and casting residue at all of the excavated Maros settlements indicates that
local production of metalwork in the region was the norm. Papalas (2008) has shown that

123
 Author's personal copy
168 J World Prehist (2011) 24:161–174

this production exhibited local peculiarities suggestive of village production traditions,

similar to those observed by Michelaki for ceramics. At the same time, the Maros com-
munities were also participants in the long distance trade for standard Bronze Age metal
types that were being traded out of centers in the Slovakian ore-producing areas and
elsewhere. It is not clear, however, how the local production and exchange was integrated
with the long distance trade for exotic types, which underpinned, or was an essential
manifestation of, the status/prestige system.
Recent archaeological research on the Maros villages has clarified some of these issues,
while also underlining the significance of waterways in shaping these interactions. Two
findings provide a starting point. One is the recovery of raw ore at the settlement of
Klárafalva Hajdova (O’Shea n.d.; Papalas 2008), which supports the claim for local
smelting, and also suggests a supply network that not only transported the exotic finished
goods that might characterize trade partnerships and prestige exchange, but was also
capable of moving materials in bulk.
The second significant insight concerns the copper used by the Maros villagers. Papalas
(2008) has shown that they were indeed using copper derived from the upriver Transyl-
vanian sources. They were, however, also using metals derived from the southern and
northern Carpathian ore areas as well. These observations point to the Maros River as a
major trade corridor and carrier of both exotic and bulk materials. In historic times, salt and
timber were other important commodities moved by water from Transylvania to European
markets, with cities such as Szeged acting as major depots and distribution nodes. It seems
quite likely that bulk materials such as these may have moved along these same routes
from at least Bronze Age times.
Given the importance of the Maros River as a corridor for the movement of both exotic
and strategic materials, changes in Bronze Age settlement organization in the middle and
lower reaches of the river system take on particular significance. One striking change is the
consolidation of Maros settlement that occurs in the later phases of the sequence. Around
2000 BC, Maros settlements reach their greatest spread up and down the river system. In
the middle reaches of the Maros, communities such as the tell settlements of Pecica,
Periam, and Semlac are closely spaced up and down the high bank of the rivers. Yet by
1700 BC, settlement appears to coalesce into a small number of larger settlements. In the
middle reaches, Periam and Semlac are both abandoned, while the occupation of Pecica
continues. Likewise on the lower Maros, settlements such as Kiszombor, along with many
of the regional cemeteries, are abandoned, while Klárafalva continues to be used through
the end of the Maros sequence. Concurrent with this consolidation of settlement is the
intensification of metal production at Pecica.
During the same time that Maros settlement is nucleating at a few larger settlements,
control of the Maros corridor and access to the materials from Transylvania appears to
have been contested. A progressive spread of fortified settlements associated with the
Vattina complex from Serbia into the Maros region is observed (Bogdanović 1996;
Gogâltan 1996; Tasić 1984). A particular focus of these new settlements is the area near
Lipova, where the river emerges from the Carpathian Mountains via a narrow gorge (see
Draşovean 1999). Vattina settlements are also concentrated on strategic locations on the
rivers Timis and Bega. These rivers provide a potential alternative route to the southern
Tisza, which bypasses the settlements of the lower Maros.
While the processes underlying these changes are not yet well understood, the regional
geography, and particularly the characteristics of the river systems, do provide some useful
boundary conditions (Fig. 3). First, it is clear that bulk materials, such as ores or salt, could
realistically only be transported via the Maros Valley. These same materials are

123
 Author's personal copy
J World Prehist (2011) 24:161–174 169

Fig. 3 River networks in the Balkans. Dashed lines show primary routes to the Aegean and Black Sea
described in the text. Suggested land route to Central Europe through the Gyulavarsánd settlements is
represented by a solid arrow

inaccessible to the settlements and water networks on the south side of the mountains,
despite their close proximity ‘as the crow flies’, due to the steep mountain passes that have
to be transited. Second, the distribution of Maros group tells, and the clear and persistent
social marking of important nodes downstream on the Maros, as at the confluence with the
Tisza and at Ostojićevo (Girić 1989) located further down the Tisza, suggest that this
network was articulated for long-distance travel to the Tisza and beyond. One possible
scenario would see the Tisza route continue to the Danube, and then potentially to the
Morava and, with a short portage, into the Vardar, leading on to Thessaloniki and the
Aegean.
The Danube–Morava–Vardar link has long been of interest to prehistorians (cf. Bankoff
and Winter 1982), and was proposed by Childe in the 1930s (Childe 1939, pp. 85, 91) as a
primary link between Central Europe and the classical world. The concentration of Bronze
Age settlements around Nis (cf. Stojić 1996; Jocić 2004) further supports the contention

123
 Author's personal copy
170 J World Prehist (2011) 24:161–174

that this region was an important hub for the north–south movement of goods between
continental Europe and the Mediterranean. The apparent connections between the Morava
and the Maros were sufficient, in the days prior to carbon dating, to lead Bóna to propose
that the region was the source area for the original migration of the Bronze Age cultures
into the Maros region (Bóna 1965, pp. 61–62).
Yet this is not the only plausible water route connecting to the western Transylvanian
ore sources. If the river networks are considered more broadly, a second route to the
Danube is apparent. This route from central Romania focuses on the river Olt, then down
the Olt to the Danube. While this region has not received the same level of archaeological
attention (but see Ciugudean 1996), there are good reasons to suspect that this route to the
Danube would have functioned quite differently from the Tisza route. Connections moving
downstream from the Olt to the Danube would most probably have had as their ultimate
destination the Black Sea. Moving upstream on the Danube to reach the Morava, while
possible by either land or water, would have been difficult, since it would have entailed
moving against the full current of the Danube while transiting the gorge area of the Iron
Gates.
The water based exchange networks seem to have retained their significance after
settlement consolidation in the later stages of the Maros cultural sequence. Yet, there was
at least one important commodity that may not have followed this river based network, and
that is the domestic horse. Horse remains are known from the sites of the Eastern Car-
pathian Basin during the Copper Age (Bökönyi 1974; Sherratt 1982; Nicodemus and
Kovács in press), and appear to have been an important north and westerly moving trade
item during the Bronze Age, as witnessed by the dense concentration of horse remains
found on Csepel Island near Budapest, dating to the Early Bronze Age (cf. Kalicz-
Schreiber 1997). Horses are present in the faunal assemblages of all of the excavated
Maros settlements, and are particularly prevalent in the later Maros levels of the settlement
of Pecica Şanţul Mare (O’Shea et al. 2006; Nicodemus 2008).
The movement of horses along the major waterways would have posed significant
problems, particularly in the swampy lower reaches of the Maros, although the rafting of
livestock down the river would have remained a possibility. Yet, there are dry land areas
north of the Maros that could have provided overland routes to the northwest. Such
overland movement would shift the emphasis of travel and control from confluences and
choke points to ford locations along the Körös, Tisza, and Danube. Furthermore, since
horses themselves are capable of transporting bulk goods via wagons and carts, this
alternative overland exchange route had the potential to fundamentally reorient and
transform the entire trade system, thereby undermining long-standing strategic trade
locations along major waterways.
The dense concentrations of horse bone at Pecica Şanţul Mare, along with the common
occurrence of clay models of wheels and carts, suggest that this Bronze Age center was an
active participant in the emerging overland trade as well as in the pre-existing river
connections. The Gyulavarsánd settlements of the Körös (see below) are well known for
similar cart and wagon models. If Pecica functioned as a major node in both networks, it
might help clarify why settlement consolidated and expanded at this location, and explain
the intensification of both metal production and horse rearing.
The revitalized importance of this overland trade network would have fundamentally
altered the relationship between the Periam/Pecica settlements and the contemporary
Gyulavarsánd tell settlements on the Körös. These settlements are centered on the several
branches of the Körös River system, which runs roughly parallel to the Maros and flows
into the Tisza near the modern town of Csongrád. By virtue of their settlement locations

123
 Author's personal copy
J World Prehist (2011) 24:161–174 171

astride the overland routes to the major Tisza fords, the Gyulavarsánd communities would
have been in a position to control overland movement from the southeast to the northwest.
Consequently, the Pecica settlements may well have had intensive interactions of
various kinds with the northerly Gyulavarsánd groups, as well as with the southerly Vattina
peoples during this final stage of the Middle Bronze Age. It is perhaps not surprising,
therefore, to find fine wares of both southern and northern type occurring in the Maros
Valley settlements (cf. Bóna 1975) and to see classically executed Maros fine wares in the
settlements of the Vattina and Gyulavarsánd Groups. What is not clear, however, is the
nature of these interactions. The pattern of settlement location and fortification near Lipova
has the appearance of two cultures contesting control of the critical gorge area. There is as
yet no good evidence of the character of interaction between Maros and Gyulavarsánd
communities along this emerging overland route.
The Gyulavarsánd tells are imposing constructions in their own right, and like the
Maros settlements, had defensive ditches. These Körös River settlements quite likely also
had independent access to Western Carpathian copper and gold sources, and may also have
had access to local tin deposits. It seems unlikely that the Gyulavarsánd and Periam/Pecica
settlements, occupying parallel waterways that both are tributaries to the Tisza, would have
been involved in intensive interaction prior to this later phase of the Middle Bronze Age.
The tell settlements along the middle and lower Maros are occupied until around 1500
BC. This is also the time when the metalworking of the Middle Bronze Age gives way to
the impressive Late Bronze Age materials associated with Koszider, Gava, and Urnfield
(Kovács 1977). Yet, major settlements associated with these LBA metalworking com-
plexes are not known on the lower reaches of the Maros. This suggests that the Middle
Bronze Age networks were no longer functioning in a recognizable way by Late Bronze
Age times. The same physiographic constraints and potentials for water and overland
movement presumably still existed, but the Late Bronze Age networks appear to have
shifted so dramatically as to be unrecognizable.

Discussion

When thinking about problems in European prehistory, Andrew Sherratt’s first instinct was
to pull out a map. For elucidating Bronze Age trade in the Carpathian Basin, this approach
can take one quite far. While knowledge of the river systems and geography provides
important clues to the operation of this Bronze Age trade network, many aspects of this
complex system remain unclear and even contradictory. This network represents an
extremely long chain of movement and interaction, and there remain some questions
regarding the nature of the materials moving through the networks. From the perspective of
producers at settlements such as Pecica, it might seem that this trade network was the
ultimate ‘coal to Newcastle’ proposition, since the bronze sent down the Maros from the
Romanian sources would seem to be joining a flood of southerly flowing metalwork from
the Slovakian production centers, and to be traveling through the major South Carpathian
ore regions. Perhaps other materials, such as salt, timber, cloth or foodstuffs, were more
important commodities than some have appreciated, but we are handicapped by their
relative invisibility in the archaeological record. Or perhaps the sheer volume of materials
moving and being consumed in the later Bronze Age was simply far greater than anything
contemplated by anthropological models of prestige exchange. Likewise, with such large-
scale movement of materials down these river corridors, there must have been

123
 Author's personal copy
172 J World Prehist (2011) 24:161–174

Table 1 Changing character and scale of social networks during the Carpathian Basin Bronze Age
Earlier Bronze Age Later Bronze Age

Metalwork Prestige goods Wealth

Sumptuary rules Unrestricted acquisition
Production Local production Industrial production
Organization of trade Individual partnerships Commercial trade
Scale of trade Regional integration International integration

complementary flows of goods back up the system. What was moving back, and did it also
follow the waterways?
At the regional scale, it is to be expected that as trade/exchange and procurement routes
shift, so too will the strategic alliances and coalitions that allow travel and movement along
the routes. These will involve both changing patterns of interaction among adjacent groups,
as was described for the expected intensified interactions between the Pecica and the
Gyulavarsánd groups, and relations among more distant groups, which will probably
continue to be characterized by the interactions of a smaller number of individuals and
trade specialists in face to face partnerships.
Current field work is beginning to clarify which materials actually were moving through
these networks and in which directions. What remains is to determine how these con-
nections were organized, and what factors were responsible for the changes that can be
observed over the course of the Bronze Age and beyond. Recent insights relating to local
craft production and specialization may hold a key to some of these questions, as well as to
understanding the changes that occur over the course of the Bronze Age in the Eastern
Carpathian Basin.
An entire series of parallel and co-occurring shifts can be observed (Table 1), which
underlie the changing character of the social and economic roles of long distance networks
over the course of the Bronze Age. These changes suggest a major restructuring of social
relations, as well as a major change in the scale of entities being integrated. Yet while these
shifts can be documented in the archaeological record, the causal factors driving the
transformation remain elusive. Understanding these transformations remains the challenge
for future Bronze Age research. It is to be regretted that Andrew Sherratt will not be there
to share in the effort.

References

Bankoff, H., & Winter, F. (1982). The Morava valley project in Yugoslavia: Preliminary report, 1977–1980.
Journal of Field Archaeology, 9, 149–164.
Bell, C. (2006). The evolution of long distance trade relationships across the LBA/Iron Age Transition on
the Northern Levantine coast: Crisis, continuity, and change, BAR International S-2574, Oxford.
Biro, K. (1998). Stones, numbers, history? The utilization of lithic raw materials in the Middle and Late
Neolithic of Hungary. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 17(1), 1–18.
Bogdanović, M. (1996). Mittelserbien in der Bronzezeit und die Vattina-Kultur. In N. Tasić (Ed.), The
Yugoslav Danube basin and the neighbouring regions in the 2nd millennium B.C (pp. 97–108). Bel-
grade: Vršac.
Bökönyi, S. (1974). History of domestic mammals in central and eastern Europe. Budapest: Akadémiai
Kiadó.
Bóna, I. (1965). The peoples of southern origin of the early Bronze Age in Hungary. Alba Regia, 4–5,
17–63.

123
 Author's personal copy
J World Prehist (2011) 24:161–174 173

Bóna, I. (1975). Die Mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen. Budapest: Akadémiai
Kiadó.
Bradley, R. (1990). The passage of arms: An archaeological analysis of prehistoric hoards and votive
deposits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Childe, V. (1939). The dawn of European civilization. New York: Alfred Knopf.
Ciugudean, H. (1996). Epoca Timpurie a Bronzului ıˆn Centrul şi Sud-Vestul Transilvaniei. Bucharest:
Institutul Român de Tracologie Bibliotheca Thracologica XIII.
Clarke, D. (Ed.). (1977). Spatial archaeology. London: Academic Press.
Davison, K., Dolukhanov, P., Sarson, G., & Shukurov, A. (2006). The role of waterways in the spread of the
Neolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33(5), 641–652.
Deák, J. (2005). Landscape ecological researches in the western Marosszög (Hungary). Acta Climatologica
et Chorologica. Universitatis Szegediensis, 38–39, 33–46.
Draşovean, F. (Ed.) (1999). Repertoriul arheologic al Mureşului Inferior: Judeţul Arad. Timişoara: Bib-
liotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica XXIV.
Farkas, G. Y., & Lipták, P. (1971). Physical anthropological examination of a cemetery in Mokrin from the
Early Bronze Age. In M. Girić (Ed.), Mokrin The Early Bronze Age Necropolis I (Vol. 11,
pp. 239–271). Belgrade: Narodni Musej, Kikinda, Dissertationes et Monographie.
Foltiny, I. (1941). Das Bronzezeitliche gräberfeld in Szöreg, Dolgozotok, 17, Szeged.
Girić, M. (1989). Ostojićevo, ein bronzezeitliches gräberfeld. Praehistorica XV–XIV, Prague.
Gogâltan, F. (1996). About the early Bronze Age in the Romanian Banat. In N. Tasić (Ed.), The Yugoslav
Danube basin and the neighbouring regions in the 2nd millennium B.C (pp. 43–68). Belgrade: Vršac.
Gogâltan, F. (1999). Bronzul Timpuriu Şi Mijlociu Iˆn Banatul Românesc Şi Pe Cursul Inferior Al Mureşului:
Cronologia Şi Descoperirile De Metal. Timişoara: Editura Orizonturi Universitare.
Hodder, I. (2000). Agency and individuals in long-term processes. In M. Dobres & J. Robb (Eds.), Agency in
archaeology (pp. 21–33). London: Routledge.
Hodder, I., & Orton, C. (1976). Spatial analysis in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Howey, M. (2007). Using multi-criteria cost surface analysis to explore past regional landscapes: A case
study of ritual activity and social interaction in Michigan AD 1200–1600. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 34, 1830–1846.
Jocić, M. (2004). Prehistory of the Nis region. In D. Davidov & D. Pesic (Eds.), Archaeological treasures of
Nis from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages (pp. 77–87). Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Arts and
Sciences.
Jovanović, B. (1986). Early metallurgy in Yugoslavia. In R. Maddin (Ed.), The beginning of the use of
metals and alloys (pp. 69–79). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kalicz-Schreiber, R. (1997). Kora bronzkori temetkezések a Csepel-Sziget keleti partjan. Budapest
Re´gise´gei, 31, 177–197.
Kiss, T., & Sipos, G. (2007). Braid-scale channel geometry changes in a sand-bedded river: Significance of
low stages. Geomorphology, 84, 209–221.
Kovács, T. (1977). The Bronze Age in Hungary. Budapest: Corvina Press.
Kovács, T. (1988). Review of the Bronze Age settlement research during the past one and a half centuries in
Hungary. In T. Kovács & I. Stanczik (Eds.), Bronze Age tell settlements on the Great Hungarian plain
1. Budapest: Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae.
Lovis, W. (2008). Space, information and knowledge: Ethnocartography and North American boreal forest
hunger-gatherers. Paper presented at the Society for American Archaeology meeting, Vancouver.
Machnik, J. (1991). The earliest Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. Department of Archaeological
Sciences, Bradford University.
Michelaki, K. (2008). Making pots and potters in the Bronze Age Maros villages of Kiszombor Új-Élet and
Klárafalva Hajdova. Cambridge Archaeology Journal, 18(3), 355–380.
Mozsolics, A. (1985). Bronzefunde aus Ungarn. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Nicodemus, A. (2008). Summary faunal report. In O’Shea, J. and A. Barker, Report on archaeological
investigations at Pecica ‘Şanţul Mare’ 2008 Campaign. Bucharest: Report to Romanian Ministry of
Culture.
Nicodemus, A., & Kovács, Z. S. (in press). Early Copper Age animal economies of the Great Hungarian
Plain. In W. Parkinson, A. Gyucha, & R. Yerkes (Eds.), Bikeri: Two Copper Age villages on the Great
Hungarian Plain. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute.
Norder, J. (2003). Marking place and creating space in Northern Algonquian landscapes: The rock-art of
the Lake of the Woods region, Ontario. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
O’Shea, J. (1992). A radiocarbon-based chronology for the Maros group of southeast Hungary. Antiquity,
66(250), 97–102.
O’Shea, J. (1996). Villagers of the Maros: A portrait of an early Bronze Age Society. New York: Plenum.

123
 Author's personal copy
174 J World Prehist (2011) 24:161–174

O’Shea, J., Barker, A., Nicodemus, A., Sherwood, S., & Szentmiklosi, A. (2006). Archaeological investi-
gations at Pecica ‘Şanţul Mare’: The 2006 Campaign. Analele Banatului, S. N., Arheologie–Istorie,
XIV(1), 211–228.
O’Shea, J., & Milner, C. (2002). Material indicators of territory, identity, and interaction in a prehistoric
tribal system. In W. Parkinson (Ed.), The archaeology of tribal societies (pp. 200–226). Ann Arbor:
International Monographs in Prehistory Archaeological Series 15.
O’Shea, J. (Ed.) (n.d.). The Villages of the Maros: Excavations at Klárafalva Hajdova and Kiszombor Új
E´let. Memoir of the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, in prep.
Papalas, C. (2008). Bronze Age metallurgy of the Eastern Carpathian Basin: A holistic exploration. Ph.D.
dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Pare, C. (Ed.). (1997). Metals make the world go round: The supply and circulation of metals in Bronze Age
Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Parkinson, W. (2006). The social organization of early Copper Age tribes on the great Hungarian Plain.
BAR International S1573, Oxford.
Patay, P. (1978). Das Kupferzeitliche Gräberfeld von Tiszavalk-Kenderföld. Archaeologici Hungariae.
Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó: Fontes.
Raczky, P., Hertelendi, E., & Veres, M. (1994). La datation absolue des cultures des tells de l’âge du bronze
en Hongrie. In I. Bóna & P. Raczky (Eds.), Le bel âge du bronze en Hongrie. Pytheas, Budapest:
Centre archéologique européen du Mont-Beuvray.
Schalk, E. (1998). Ores, mining and metal production in the western Carpathians and their association from
the Bronze Age until the Medieval period. In B. Häsel (Ed.), Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit
Europas (pp. 257–260). Kiel: Oetker-Voges Verlag.
Selincourt, A. (trans.) (1981). Herodotus: The histories. New York: Penguin Books.
Sherratt, A. (1976). Resources, technology and trade. In G. Sieveking, I. Longworth, & K. Wilson (Eds.),
Problems in economic and social archaeology (pp. 557–581). London: Duckworth.
Sherratt, A. (1982). The development of Neolithic and Copper Age settlement in the great Hungarian Plain,
Part 1: The regional setting. Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 1(3), 287–316.
Sherratt, A. (1987). Patterns of trade and contact in Neolithic Europe. In G. Sieveking & M. Newcomer
(Eds.), The human uses of flint and chert (pp. 193–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stojić, M. (1996). Le Bassin de la Morava à l’âge de bronze et à la période de transition de l’âge de bronze à
celui de fer. In N. Tasić (Ed.), The Yugoslav Danube basin and the neighbouring regions in the 2nd
millennium B.C. (pp. 247–256). Belgrade: Vršac.
Tasić, N. (1984). Die Vatin-Kultur. In N. Tasić (Ed.), Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit das Karpatenbeckens
und Nordbalkans (pp. 59–82). Belgrade: Balkanolośki Institut Sanu.
Trogmayer, O. (1975). Das Bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld Bei Tápe´, Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae.
Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Westerdahl, C. (Ed.) (2006). The significance of portages. Oxford: BAR International S 1499.

123