In: Matija Črešnar – Marko Mele (eds). Early Iron Age Landscapes of the Danube Region.

Archaeolingua, Budapest, pp. 161-184.

Before and after: investigations of prehistoric land use

in relation to the Early Iron Age settlement and tumulus
necropolis on the Érd/Százhalombatta-plateau

by Zoltán Czajlik, Eszter Fejér, Katalin Novinszki-Groma, László Rupnik,

András Bödőcs, Rebeka Gergácz, Balázs Holl, András Jáky, Géza Király,
Gabriella T. Németh, Sándor Puszta and Bence Soós

Abstract
Located on the fringes of the Eastern Hallstatt culture, the tumulus cemetery at Érd/
Százhalombatta is one of the earliest identified archaeological sites in Hungary. The first
map of the site was drawn in 1847; the number of mounds registered at the time (122)
did not change substantially until the end of the 20th century. The aerial archaeological
investigations from 2001 and the magnetometer geophysical survey from 2012 led to the
identification of another 103 ring ditches. In the framework of the Iron-Age-Danube project
aerial archaeological and geophysical research were continued and complemented with
systematical field walkings. Not only the Early Iron Age tumulus field but also the Iron Age
settlement area was investigated. The results presented in this paper aim at giving an overview
on the land use in the periods of the Bronze, Iron and Roman Ages.

1. Introduction
The area around Százhalombatta has been known to archaeological research for
a long time: the fortified Bronze Age tell-settlement, the Early Iron Age tumulus
cemetery, the Celtic fortification, the Roman road and castellum are emblematic
archaeological features/peculiarities of the region. Over the past decades several
macro- and micro-scale investigations have contributed to our knowledge on the
occupation of the area.1
The expression százhalom (“hundred mounds”) in the name of the town of
Százhalombatta is attested in the form Zazholm at a fairly early date, around 1283,
in Simon Kézai’s chronicle, one of the most important medieval historical sources
of Hungary.2 Its Latin counterpart, centum montes, appears even earlier, in another
early medieval chronicle, the Gesta Hungarorum of the Anonymous Notary.3
The Érd/Százhalombatta tumulus cemetery (fig. 1) lies south of Budapest, in a loessy
area with a relative altitude of 100 m flanking the western Danube bank, north of
the Benta stream, the largest watercourse of the area flowing into the Danube. Due
to the bend of the river the Danube slightly cuts into the plateau, thus the area
between the water and the plateau is not suitable for regular land traffic. In the

1
Hungarian Archaeological Topographic Survey (MRT) (Dinnyés et al. 1986), the
Százhalombatta Archaeological eXcavation Project (SAX) and the Benta Valley Project
(Poroszlai 2000; Poroszlai/Vicze 2000; Poroszlai/Vicze 2005; Earle et al. 2010) investigated the
archaeological remains of the region. The latter project focused primarily on understanding
the Bronze Age network system in the Benta valley.
2
Szentpétery 1937, 149.
3
Szentpétery 1937, 95.
162 Zoltán Czajlik et al.

Fig. 1: Érd/Százhalombatta Early Iron Age tumulus field.

Aerial view from north (Zoltán Czajlik, April 27, 2018)

past 230 years, the road along the Danube surely did not lead up to the plateau,
avoiding this difficult section. The tumuli are located roughly parallelly to the river in
a north/south and northwest/southeast direction; earlier surveys indicated that the
site extended across a circa 50 ha large area measuring 1200 m × 400 m, which was
declared as a protected archaeological monument.

2. Previous research
Topographic research on the imposing burial mounds known to the medieval
chroniclers, who used them as a setting for various events of the Hungarian Conquest
period, began some 170 years ago, when János Varsányi prepared the topographic
map of the tumulus cemetery in 1847 (fig. 2).4 His map depicts 122 tumuli, the
location of which correlates surprisingly well with the mounds recorded during the
survey conducted by Dénes Virágh and István Torma around 140 years later, who
identified 123 barrows. Their map, the tumulus numbers of which has been used
ever since, was based on an aerial photograph made in 1953.5 Although the aerial
archaeological investigation of the well-known site lying fairly close to Budapest

4
Luczenbacher 1847, pl. 5.
5
Dinnyés et al. 1986, 228–231.
 Before and after: investigations of prehistoric land use 163

Fig. 2: The tumulus field on the 1847 map of János Varsányi (Balázs Holl)
164 Zoltán Czajlik et al.

Fig. 3: Tumulus 120 and its environs. Aerial photo of René Goguey (June 6, 1993)

has begun quite early, before World War II, the photos made by István Gersi in May
1934 were soon forgotten. D. Virágh and I. Torma were unaware of their existence at
the time of their survey; the pictures have only been recently identified among the
records kept in the Hungarian National Museum.6 The area south of the tumulus
cemetery was not built in at the time these photographs were made. Thus it was
expected that the remains of possible additional tumuli would be visible – however,
there were no soil marks or other features to indicate their presence.
Although several photos were made of the tumulus cemetery as a part of the
Hungarian-French aerial archaeological project (fig. 3),7 a systematic investigation
only began in 2001, as part of a research collaboration between the Institute of
Archaeological Sciences of the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest and the Matrica
Museum of Százhalombatta. The possibility that there were other archaeological
features in the cemetery in addition to the already known burial mounds and their
remnants were first conjectured during this project.8 A few burial mounds of the
tumulus cemetery were opened under the direction of the historian István Horváth
before 1843; later, in 1847, János Luczenbacher (Érdy) excavated four tumuli.9 In May
1866 Flóris Rómer investigated Tumulus 120; in 1872 Gyula Kereskényi opened two

6
Holl/Czajlik 2013, 27., fig. 2.
7
Goguey/Szabó 1995, 20., fig. 65.
8
Czajlik 2008.
9
Luczenbacher 1847.
 Before and after: investigations of prehistoric land use 165

mounds, and four years later, in 1876, another two mounds were explored by Elek
Csetneki Jelenik.10
Between 1978 and 1996 Ágnes Holport conducted the salvage excavation and
systematic research investigation of eight tumuli: in the case of Tumulus 118, she
identified the traces of the 19th century excavation. It proved impossible to conclusively
determine whether the other seven tumuli unearthed in the southern part of the
cemetery had been studied previously;11 it would appear that roughly 18 burial
mounds had been opened during the 19th–20th centuries. However the investigation
of the tumuli did not mean their complete excavation: in the 19th century, a trench
cutting across the entire mound was only opened in the case of Tumulus 120, while
the field documentation from the 20th century12 indicates that with the exception
of Tumulus 115, the investigations focused on the central part of the mounds. In
summary, this means that we have information on the structure of not more than
15% of the known mounds and that this information is essentially restricted to the
central burial zone.
Not all of the mounds have been raised over a wooden burial chamber; if there was one,
it was usually constructed on a 4-5 m × 4-5 m large clay floor. Stone rings were often
observed around the burial chamber, although these could equally well be interpreted
as the remains of the stone packing once covering the burial chamber.13 The remnants
of a low bank preserved to a height of 0.7 m which once encircled Tumulus 115 were
documented during the modern excavation;14 however, no ring ditches enclosing the
tumuli were observed in the case of the vanished tumuli and neither do the excavation
reports mention other possible features between the mounds.15

3. Methodology
The area of the Érd/Százhalombatta tumulus cemetery is owned by several persons,
who typically possess small fields, utilised variously: as ploughland, orchards and
gardens. This means that the investigation of the area can only be conducted in
several successive phases across smaller fields only, which are explored at a time
when conditions are more suitable for that particular area (fig. 4).
In the framework of the Hungarian-French aerial archaeological cooperation, and
later in connection with our own research programs, aerial photographs were
regularly taken of the mosaic-like cultivated area. The first geophysical surveys were
conducted between 2012 and 2014 thanks to them and to aerial photography,
the number of tumuli known from the necropolis area increased by 103 mound-
traces.16 The aggregation of the new data on the one hand increased the area of the
cemetery, but on the other hand it rebutted the earlier idea of dividing the cemetery

10
Dinnyés et al. 1986, 230.
11
Holport 1996.
12
Holport 1985.
13
Holport 1996, 40–41.
14
Holport 1996, 40–41.
15
Holport 1986; Holport 1996.
16
Czajlik et al. 2016, 65.
166 Zoltán Czajlik et al.

Fig. 4: Types of surface covers on the Érd/Százhalombatta plateau (László Rupnik)

 Before and after: investigations of prehistoric land use 167

Fig. 5: Systematic grid walkings on the southern part of the Érd/Százhalombatta plateau
(László Rupnik – Rebeka Gergácz, 2017–2018)
168 Zoltán Czajlik et al.

into two parts. In parallel with the topographic research, the Tumulus 64 and 49 were
investigated with test excavations in 2013–2016.17
In the framework of the IAD programme, the aerial photographical activity was
continued, based on which the magnetometer surveys were extended to new zones.
Until February 2019 aerial archaeological photography took place 12  times, and
magnetic mapping reached 50 ha in 30 working days between 2017–2018. In 2017–
2018 systematic grid walking survey was carried out 6 times, on a total of 17.54 ha
(fig. 5). Their main purpose was to gain more information about the southern edge
and the eastern side of the tumulus field, furthermore about the settlement area
connected to it, which are more difficult to survey with the above mentioned methods.
For the timing of our research, we had to constantly adapt to the current state
of the diverse cultivation areas, looking for ideal time windows not only for aerial
photography (clean air, good lighting and vegetation conditions), but also for
magnetometer surveys (low noise, preferably non-ploughed areas, orchards in
leafless periods) and field walking surveys (outside the vegetation period, under good
prospection conditions).
In connection with field work, we reviewed the First (1763–1787), Second (1806–
1869) and Third (1869–1887) Military (or Land) Surveys of the Habsburg Empire, and
a 330 ha terrain model based on the ALS in 2017 of the Érd/Százhalombatta loess
plateau. We conducted additional/experimental drone flights and gathered data
about the Bronze, Late Iron and Roman Age topography of the area.
In order to understand the formation of the Early Iron Age monumental landscape
and land use after the abandonment of the tumulus cemetery, a diachronic (that is,
to analyze not only the topographical relations of the Hallstatt necropolis, but also
the settlement and burial conditions of the periods before and after the Hallstatt
period) approach is necessary.

4. Bronze Age antecendents

The earliest prehistoric remains in the area belong to the Early Bronze Age. EBA
Nagyrév type material has been attested in the first layers of the Földvár tell settlement
situated on top of the loess plateau.18 In this period only a small settlement was
established on the hilltop, and as the results of the Benta Valley Project suggest, the
area adjacent to the tell also had a low population density.19 The material collected
during our systematic topographic survey does not allow us to safely outline the scope
of the EBA site, since the heavily fragmented pottery of Nagyrév and Vatya style are
very similar and difficult to distinguish from each other.20 Based on our investigations
carried out outside the Iron Age fortification we can agree on a restricted distribution
area of the EBA settlement. It has been assumed that the EBA people had not only

17
T. Németh et al. 2016.
18
Kovács 1969; Poroszlai 2000.
19
Earle/Kolb 2010, 72; Artursson 2010, 104. The estimated territory of the EBA site is around
2 ha.
20
Cf. the method of the Benta Valley Project: Earle et al. 2011.
 Before and after: investigations of prehistoric land use 169

used the natural protection of the hillside but they had already built an enclosure
around their occupation area.21
The tell site had been continuously settled until the end of the Middle Bronze Age. The
transition between the layers characterized by Nagyrév and Vatya type archaeological
material was uninterrupted. The largest part of the multi-layer site was accumulated
during the MBA. In this period the settlement was fortified with a ditch and a rampart. A
part of the Bronze Age fortification ditches could be identified during the exploration
drilling by András Varga.22 Based on this research and on the part of the fortification
that can be observed on the surface today it is an approximately W-E oriented ditch
running towards the loess wall sloping into the Danube on the east. Its W/NW section
cannot be traced due to a brickwork quarry. According to Varga’s examination on the
topography of the subsoil, not only the above mentioned ditch, but also a palisade
wall can be reconstructed. Furthermore, he was the first, who also draw attention to
the earlier inner ditch, presumably used by the first inhabitants of the site. Using the
results of the morphological survey Magdolna Vicze and György Füleky tried to clarify
the extent and the geomorphological structure of the Bronze Age settlement.23 It
became clear that the brick factory established at the end of the 19th century in
the vicinity of the tell destroyed at least two-thirds of the prehistoric site. Therefore
our aerial archaeological research conducted since 2001 was limited to the present
southern edge of the plateau, which was originally the northern part of the Bronze
Age settlement. For this reason to study the former extension of the site we have
to rely on old surveys and maps. Based on the Second Military Survey (1869) it can
be stated that the possible southernmost boundary of the prehistoric settlement(s)
was aligned with a network of gullies, in which the modern brick factory started to
extract clay and subsequently the whole area became one large quarry and field
(fig. 6). The fortified section was around 2.5 ha, but based on the distribution of the
collected ceramic material the occupation spread north across another 3 ha – within
the area which was enclosed later in the Iron Age.24 The fact, that MBA settlement
finds scatter in the area between the Iron Age rampart and the MBA fortification, and
also in the territory north of the Celtic rampart was already known, but high density
of MBA finds west from the long gully network could be identified only as the result
of new systematical topographic research. In this recently discovered area mostly
MBA and some LBA material was collected (fig. 7). Our investigations which focused
on the area outside the Late Iron Age fortification were also able to define a further
accumulation of MBA finds west of the tumulus cemetery. During our survey we
discovered here a destroyed grave, parts of a vessel and small amount (ca. 30 pieces)
of white cremated bones. Most of the bones belonged to the lower and upper limbs,
but some remains of the skull were also described. The anthropological research
proved that they are the cremains of a child (infans II, 8–14 years).25 Contemporary

21
Vicze 2005, 66–68.
22
Varga 2000, 78., fig. 2, 5.
23
Vicze 2001; Füleky/Vicze 2003; Vicze 2005, 67–68., fig. 3–4.
24
Poroszlai 2000; Vicze 2005, 66–68; Artursson 2010, 107, cf. also Vicze et al. 2005.
25
Anthropological analyses conducted by Mónika Merczi.
170 Zoltán Czajlik et al.

Fig. 6: Reconstructed extension of prehistoric settlements at Százhalombatta based on

the Second Military Survey (Zoltán Czajlik – László Rupnik)

burials are barely known in the micro-region, but other elements (settlements) of a
MBA network in the Benta valley are well known.26
After a 300–400 year long hiatus, the territory of the tell site was reinhabited during
the Late Bronze Age in the Urnfield Period. Since the remains of this period were
later destroyed by a Celtic settlement, only scatter finds and some excavated pits
relate to this phase. The occupied territory reached over 7.7 ha, but seemingly it
was less densely populated. Our survey has also proved the large extension of the
LBA occupation: a huge amount of LBA ceramic was collected mostly northwest
of the main Celtic rampart. In the territory of the tumulus cemetery some further
finds dated to the LBA or EIA were detected. The northern zone of the distribution
area of the LBA material approaches the nearest contemporaneous settlement and

26
During the excavation of the Early Iron Age tumulus 74, a cremation burial of the EBA
was unearthed in Százhalombatta (Holport 1980, 21). The grave we discovered is located
just a few hundred meters away from the published burial, close to the EBA-MBA site of
Százhalombatta-Tóth tanya (Dinnyés et al. 1986, 27/7; Vicze et al. 2005). Érd-Külső újföldek
(Dinnyés et al. 1986, 9/3), Érd-Belső újföldek (Dinnyés et al. 1986, 9/4) are the nearest
settlements (Dinnyés et al. 1986; Vicze et al. 2005; Earle/Kolb 2010, 71–76).
 Before and after: investigations of prehistoric land use 171

Fig. 7: Location of the MBA-settlement based on the grid collection

(Rebeka Gergácz – Katalin Novinszki-Groma – László Rupnik)
172 Zoltán Czajlik et al.

cemetery of Érd-Téglagyár.27 Other remains of the Urnfield Period are reported from
several sites alongside the Benta valley.28
In summary, we can say that the inhabited zone on the top of the Érd/Százhalombatta
plateau increased spectacularly during the periods of the Bronze Age and assumably
it also affected the landscape use of the later periods as well. An important ‘by-product’
of our research was, that proving the previous presumptions we could identify the
location of an EBA-MBA cemetery, which is situated at the edge of (and partially
under) the later tumulus field.

5. Data for the reconstruction of the Early Iron Age landscape

Based on previous research, the Early Iron Age settlement was on the higher part of
the plateau closed by ramparts. In the area of the clay extraction conducted by the
brick factory, five Early Iron Age pits were discovered during the rescue excavations
of Tibor Kovács and some further pits are known from the presently ongoing tell
excavation.29 The intensity and extent of the settlement are uncertain. The southern
extension may be indicated by the bronze statuette found next to the former brick
factory,30 and Gabriella T. Németh collected ceramic sherds indicating an Early Iron
Age settlement in the north, outside of the fortification as well. Early Iron Age finds
are also present in the material collected in this zone during systematic field walkings
(fig. 8). These settlement traces can also be followed in the west as far as the Middle
Bronze Age antecedents. On January 25 in 2018, a trace of a trench situated north of,
and running parallel to the Iron Age earthworks was recorded by aerial photography.
Therefore, the magnetometer surveys have been extended to this zone. As a result,
more traces of two or three (?) further ditches and/or ramparts in the same direction
could be observed. The newly identified linear phenomena mostly connect to the
long gully that borders the plateau in the west. Some of them have an uneven outline
and irregular course of natural origin, while the regularity of others refers to artificial
design. West of the trench systems, due to the enclosed gardens, neither geophysical
measurements nor field walkings can be carried out. However, it cannot be ruled out
that the western boundary of the prehistoric settlement zone was roughly the same
since the Bronze Age, and that this area (which can be defined with approximately
50-100 m precision) is also the eastern boundary of the Early Iron Age tumulus field.
Here again, the enclosed gardens make impossible the further research on this
question. But, in addition, based on some aerial images, it is considerable, that there
were lone burial constructs in this zone.31 The southern edge of the cemetery can
be drawn on the basis of the concordant data of aerial photography, magnetometer

27
Dinnyés et al. 1986, 9/21 site. The extension of Érd-Téglagyár site and its relation to the LBA
Százhalombatta-Földvár is less known, it could be the topic of further investigations.
28
Based on the results of the Hungarian Archaeological Topographic Survey (MRT, Dinnyés et
al. 1986) the closest sites are Érd-Külső újföldek (9/3), Érd-Belső újföldek (9/4), Érd-Országúti
dűlő (9/7), Érd-Akácos-dűlő (9/10), Érd-Hosszú-földek alja (9/13), Érd-Simonpusztai-dűlő
(9/16) (Dinnyés et al. 1986; Vicze et al. 2005; Earle/Kolb 2010, 76–77).
29
Kovács 1963, 11; Poroszlai 2000; Poroszlai/Vicze 2004.
30
Mozsolics 1954.
31
Czajlik et al. 2017, fig. 3.
 Before and after: investigations of prehistoric land use 173

Fig. 8: Location of the Early Iron Age settlement based on the grid collection
(Rebeka Gergácz – Katalin Novinszki-Groma)
174 Zoltán Czajlik et al.

Fig. 9: Reconstructed map of the Érd/Százhalombatta tumulus field based on

aerial archaeology, ALS and magnetometer geophysical surveys
(Zoltán Czajlik – Géza Király – Sándor Puszta – László Rupnik)
 Before and after: investigations of prehistoric land use 175

surveys and systematic field walkings; essentially it coincides the northern line of
today’s urban boundary of Százhalombatta. The situation is even clearer in the west:
with geophysical surveys, we have documented the lack of circular ditches indicating
tumuli at several distant zones. This edge of the cemetery was noticeably adapted to
the natural conditions, namely to an escarpment that can be easily tracked especially
on the ALS model. The northern end of the necropolis can also be well determined
by the results of aerial photography and magnetometer survey (fig. 9).
As a result of the mosaic surface cover, several smaller but important areas have
been left out, whose magnetometer survey had to be postponed until the autumn
of 2019. The systematic grid collection of surface finds should also be continued,
extending it as far as possible, to all areas where the magnetic anomaly map is
available or can be made in the future. It should be noted, that due to the mosaic
surface cover, modern roads and electric lines, a complete measurement of the
necropolis will not be possible in the future. Inevitably, there will be areas on which
we can only get information from archive materials – mostly aerial photographs. In
the quick evaluation of the raw anomaly map, compared to previous data and aerial
photography, we have determined the number of circles referring to mounds in 365.32
Although the anomaly map containing data processed from both geometric and
geophysical points of view has been completed in the meantime, we also need to
re-evaluate all aerial photographs in the next processing phase to produce a modern
map of the site. Therefore, for this publication, we have created a map with only
clearly visible circular structures in the magnetometer survey, supplemented by the
mounds visible on the ALS survey, but not accessible by geophysical methods. On
the map, these two data sources were marked with different colors, and the tumuli
with a built burial chamber on the basis of magnetometer measurements (fig. 9).
It has been mentioned earlier that prior to the application of modern site detection
methods, the tumulus field was divided into a southern, denser and a northern,
more sparsely occupied zone based on visually observable and on the archive aerial
photography of 1953 detected and assumed mounds. If we redraw the map of
the necropolis based on the circular ditches visible on the aerial photographs and
magnetometer anomaly maps, the above described grouping does not seem to be
tenable. As indicated in our previous study,33 the burial constructs were built not
intersecting but relatively close to each other, and there are no spatial groups in
the sense earlier studies suggested. At the same time, however, it is still acceptable
– shown above all by the ALS survey – that most of the larger mounds are in the
southern part of the tumulus field, and no trace of a mound with burial chamber
north of Tumulus 120 can be observed. Comparing the ALS survey and the magnetic
mapping, the observation of previous researchers, that the Iron Age visitors of the
cemetery have been welcomed in the south by larger mounds, similarly as it is
proved in other EIA tumulus fields (e.g. Sopron-Burgstall). Moreover, based on our
data, it is also possible that the former road ran between two parallel rows of tumuli.
For traffic within the densely-built necropolis a route along the same line as today’s
northwest-southeast road may have been required, which does not mean that other

32
Czajlik et al. 2017, 350.
33
Czajlik et al. 2016 .
176 Zoltán Czajlik et al.

Fig. 10: Probable prehistoric paths of the Érd/Százhalombatta plateau

(Zoltán Czajlik – László Rupnik)
 Before and after: investigations of prehistoric land use 177

(presumably smaller) paths could not have passed through among the tumuli. Due
to the location of the gullies, which have largely delimited the settlement zone, it is
likely that the tumulus field could have been connected to the settlement by a route
similar to the current one. Finally, given that on the basis of previous maps the main
gully system has reached the Danube, we cannot exclude that this natural route was
used to provide the connection between the settlement, the cemetery and the river
(fig. 10).

6. The presence of Late Iron Age landmarks

The northern part of Százhalombatta – Sánc is one of the most prominent and most
undamaged Hungarian examples of the so-called Fécamp-type ramparts, which
could be assigned to the Late Iron Age (fig. 11).34 The fortification on the edge of
the loess plateau is difficult to climb even in its present state; the gate is presumed
to be from the direction of the ramp-way. Unfortunately, the results of both the old
and more recent excavations are unpublished, so the classification of the hillfort as
an oppidum is supported mostly by stray coins, an important stone statue head and
painted pottery finds besides the spectacular rampart.35 In 2017, we reconstructed the
possible extent of the former Iron Age settlement based on the Second Military Survey

Fig. 11: The northen rampart of the Iron Age fortified settlement
(aerial photograph by Zoltán Czajlik, November 27, 2017)

34
Czajlik 2018, 95–96.
35
Szabó 2005, 169.
178 Zoltán Czajlik et al.

or Franciscan Land Survey of the Habsburg Empire (1806–1869).36 In the framework

of the IAD project possible fortification ditches north of the Fécamp-type rampart
have also been detected as a result of magnetometer geophysical surveys.37 Although
the age of the latter is still unclear, both data suggest that the former Late Celtic
settlement could have been much larger than previously assumed, which reinforces
the hypothesis of defining the fortified settlement as an oppidum.

7. Transition in the use of the landscape during the Roman Age

Due to their different interest and political structure the topographical setting of the
area had significantly changed after the Roman occupation. The focus has moved
from the higher loess plateau to the lower area south of the Early Iron Age site.
The auxiliary fortress was built in the alluvial plain of the Danube south from the
estuary of the Benta creek controlling the natural path towards the inner territory
of the province (fig. 12). Owing to the excavations of Árpád Dormuth, András Mócsy
and more recently Péter Kovács, the structure and phases of the camp can easily
be reconstructed, despite the fact that in 1809 during the Napoleonic Wars the
construction of ditches damaged the Roman ruins to a large extent (fig. 13).38 The
civilian settlement surrounded the camp on its western and southwestern and mainly
on its northern side. The excavations concentrated chiefly on the northern part, and
revealed several stone buildings, a bath and a mansio with a bath.39 One of the
cemeteries of the settlement is located along the limes road running to the south.
During and prior to construction works 213 burials of the biritual graveyard possibly
consisting of more than a thousand graves have been unearthed.40 After its brightest
period during the 2nd–3rd centuries, the civilian settlement was gradually abandoned,
and those who remained moved within the fortifications. It is very likely that both the
settlement and the camp were exposed to floods of the Danube, since during the
excavations possible traces of inundations were documented. Furthermore, A. Mócsy
even assumed based on his observations during the excavation of the vicus that the
Romans endeavoured to defend themselves by building dams and ramparts.41
Beside the castellum and the surrounding vicus, the limes road was the other
remarkable component of the Roman landscape. From our point of view the section
connecting the fort of Campona (Nagytétény) and Matrica (Százhalombatta) claims
particular attention. Recently, several authors touched upon the questions regarding
the track line and possible traces of the limes road, also summarizing the results of the

36
Czajlik et al. 2017, fig. 4.
37
Czajlik et al. 2017, fig. 6.
38
Mócsy 1955; Kovács 2000. About the investigations of the auxiliary fort including the
assessment of old maps and aerial photos: Kovács 2000, 8–12; Kovács 2003, 109–111; Visy
2000, 62–65; Visy 2011, 74–75.
39
Mócsy 1955; Topál 1972, 48; Topál 1973, 38; Topál 1975, 36–37; Dinnyés et al. 1986, 235–237,
27/7; Kovács 2003, 111.
40
Topál 1981.
41
Mócsy 1955, 59–60.
 Before and after: investigations of prehistoric land use 179

Fig. 12: The elements of the Roman landscape (László Rupnik)

Fig. 13: The area of the Roman castellum with the traces of the Napoleonic Wars
fortifications in 1955 (source: Military History Museum 35672; László Rupnik)
180 Zoltán Czajlik et al.

investigations in the last 150 years.42 The road reached the area in question presumably
through Érd-Ófalu, where it climbed upon the loess plateau in a gully presently called
Római út (‘Roman road’). It was a general belief that the stone pavement still clearly
visible might originate from Roman times, however, in light of recent investigations,
this assumption can be firmly rejected.43 Based on old aerial photographs, the Roman
road runs through the side of the actual gully, as due to the erosions of the last two
millennia, it reaches the plateau farther to the west.44 Farther away a track branches off
the main road and runs to the south along a still used pathway, along which, based also
on old aerial photographs Zsolt Visy would identify three watchtowers (fig. 12, 1–3).45
Further evidence that would prove their existence, however, has not yet been found,
even despite the fact that our geophysical prospections have reached the area of the
northern tower. Furthermore, the existence of the assumed watchtowers on the edge of
the plateau near Érd-Ófalu and within the prehistoric fortification of Százhalombatta,46
respectively, is also still questionable. The road itself, however, is either detectable by
our prospections or perhaps still visible at some points. Near the so-called Stich-tanya
Máté Szabó succeeded in finding it with a small excavation and managed to date it
beyond doubt to the Roman Period.47 Earlier three pieces of a milestone had come
to light in the close vicinity (fig. 12, 4).48 This section of the road bypasses the tumulus
cemetery along its western border in order to avoid the uncomfortable and uneven
surface. Similarly, old georeferenced aerial photos help us identify further parts of the
road. Based on these, it runs straight to the northern gate of the camp of Matrica.
The structure of the road was archaeologically investigated at several points within the
area of the vicus situated north of the camp.49 There is another track visible on aerial
photographs and old maps running west of the road which reaches the plateau at
Érd. This one can be clearly traced as far as the bridge over the Benta creek within the
territory of today’s Százhalombatta. According to common belief, this bridge originates
from Roman times, but neither this nor the post road leading to it could not have
existed before the 18th century. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that this tradition
has some real foundation and there might have existed here a track branching off the
limes road (fig. 12, 5).

Conclusion
Looking at the first two thousand years of nearly 4000 years of land use on the Érd/
Százhalombatta plateau, we can come to interesting conclusions. Although not a
novelty, but it is important to emphasize that extreme stability can be detected in
the use of the settlement zone. From the Early Bronze Age, sometimes with larger

42
Dinnyés et al. 1986, 102–103, 9/25; Dinnyés et al. 1986, 240–241, 27/10; Visy 1978; Visy 1981;
Visy 2000, 60–65; Visy 2003, 64–65, fig. 82–85; Bödőcs 2008, 152–154, 167–168; Kovács 2007;
Varga 2016.
43
Mráv 2003, 134.
44
Visy 2000, 61, fig. 84; Visy 2003, 65, fig. 84.
45
Visy 2000, 61–62, fig. 85; Visy 2003, 65–66, fig. 85.
46
Vicze/Nagy 2003, 14.
47
Szabó 2014.
48
Dinnyés et al. 1986, 103, 9/25.
49
Mócsy 1955, 60.
 Before and after: investigations of prehistoric land use 181

breaks, but for nearly two thousand years people are settled on the same plateau
along the Danube due to its favourable (a closed area in suitable dimensions) and
despite its possibly unfavourable (access to the water is still in question) givens. The
largest expansion of the settlement was reached in the Middle Bronze Age and the
Late Iron Age, while the Early Iron Age settlement does not seem to be extremely
intensive on the basis of the research at hand. Compared to this relative continuity
and the special situation in all eras, it is a major change that after almost two thousand
years, the Roman settlement was established 4.5 km away from the antecedents, in a
not naturally protected area, but also much lower, closer to the bank of the Danube.
Although the significance of the Early Iron Age settlement may be smaller than in
the earlier and subsequent periods, the landscape transformations related to the
necropolis – which seems to belong to a rather short (maybe three or four generation)
period, but covers the largest area (at least 60 ha) – are rather notheworthy. This
landscape transformation is not only extensive but long-lasting as well: after an
approximately 400-year break, the Celts, who settled on the eastern edge of the
plateau, inevitably used the existing features. Not only the location of the settlement,
but also its approach was similar to that of the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. In
the Roman era, with the creation of the limes road, this relationship system has also
changed; the new route bypassed the nearly 80 hectares of the prehistoric landscape
of visible mounds and earthworks, running west of it at the edge of the tumulus field.

Acknowledgement
The manuscript was peer-reviewed by Magdolna Vicze.

Bibliography
Artursson, M 2010 Settlement Structure and Organisation. in Earle, T and Kristiansen,
K (eds) Organizing Bronze Age Societies. New York, 87–121
Bödőcs, A 2008 A római kori úthálózat térinformatikai vizsgálata a mai
Magyarország területén [GIS-investigation of the Roman road-system in the
territory of Hungary]. PhD thesis. Budapest
Czajlik, Z 2008 Aerial archaeology in the research of burial tumuli in Hungary.
Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungariae (28), 95–107
Czajlik, Z 2018 Aerial archaeological research of Late Iron Age fortified settlements in
Western Hungary (Transdanubia). in Fontes, L, Cruz, G and Alves, M (eds) Cultural
Interactions and Changing Landscapes  in Europe (2nd century BC / 2nd
century AD). Braga, 93–103
Czajlik, Z, Holl, B, T. Németh, G, Puszta, S and Vicze, M 2016 New results in
the topographic research on the Early Iron Age tumulus cemetery at Érd-
Százhalombatta (Kom. Pest/H). Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 46 (1),
57–73
Czajlik, Z, Kovačević, S, Tiefengraber, G, Tiefengraber, S, Puszta, S, Bödőcs, A, Rupnik, L,
Jáky, A and Novinszki-Groma, K 2017 Report on magnetometer geophysical
surveys conducted in Hungary, Austria and Croatia in the framework of the
182 Zoltán Czajlik et al.

Interreg Iron Age Danube project. Dissertationes Archeologicae Ser. 3 (5), 343–
359
Dinnyés, I, Kővári, K, Lovag, Zs, Tettamanti, S, Topál, J and Torma, I 1986 Pest megye
régészeti Topográfiája. A budai és a szentendrei járás. Magyarország Régészeti
Topográfiája 7 [Archäologische Topographie Ungarns 7. Archäologische
Topographie des Komitats Pest. Kreis Buda und Szentendre]. Budapest
Earle, T and Kolb, M J 2010 Regional Settlement Patterns. in Earle, T and Kristiansen,
K (eds) Organizing Bronze Age Societies. New York, 57–86
Earle, T, Artursson, M, Polányi, T and Vicze, M 2010 Rapid Assessment of Bronze Age
Settlement Studies in the Benta Valley, Hungary: A Micro-regional Approach /
Bronzkori települési kutatások gyors és hatékony kiértékelése a Benta-völgyben:
Mikro-regionális szemlélet. Ősrégészeti Levelek 12, 84–93
Earle, T, Kreiter, A, Klehm, C, Ferguson, J and Vicze, M 2011 Bronze Age ceramic
economy: The Benta Valley, Hungary. European Journal of Archaeology 14 (3),
419–440
Füleky, Gy and Vicze, M 2003 Soil and archaeological evidence of the periods of
tell development of Százhalombatta-Földvár. in Boschian, G (ed.) Second
International Conference on Soils and Archaeology Pisa, 12–15 May, 2003. Pisa,
34–37
Goguey, R and Szabó, M 1995 L’histoire vue du ciel. Photographie aérienne et
archéologie en France et en Hongrie – A történelem madártávlatból. Légi
fényképezés és régészet Franciaországban és Magyarországon. Budapest,
1995
Holl, B and Czajlik, Z 2013 Where are all the tumuli? in Czajlik, Z and Bödőcs, A
(eds) Aerial Archaeology and Remote Sensing from the Baltic to the Adriatic.
Selected Papers of the Annual Conference of the Aerial Archaeology Research
Group, 13th–15th September 2012, Budapest, Hungary. Budapest, 25–31
Holport, Á 1980 Százhalombatta. Régészeti Füzetek 1/33, 21
Holport, Á 1985 Ásatások Százhalombattán 1978–1982 (Előzetes jelentés) /
Ausgrabungen in Százhalombatta 1978–1982 (Vorläufiger Bericht). Studia
Comitatensia 17, 25–62
Holport, Á 1986 Questions in connection with recent excavations at Százhalombatta.
in Jerem, E (ed.) Hallstatt Kolloquium Veszprém 1984. Mitteilungen des
Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Beiheft 3. Budapest, 93–98
Holport, Á 1996 Építészeti emlékek az Érd-százhalombattai kora vaskori halomsíros
temetőből / Architectural remains in the Tumulus cemetery of Százhalombatta.
in Poroszlai, I (ed.) Ásatások Százhalombattán 1989–1995 / Excavations at
Százhalombatta 1989–1995. Százhalombatta, 34–42
Kovács, P 2000 Matrica. Excavations in the Roman Fort at Százhalombatta (1993–
1997). Studia Classica 3. Budapest
Kovács, P 2003 Matrica (Százhalombatta). in Visy, Zs (ed.) The Roman Army in
Pannonia. Pécs, 109–111
 Before and after: investigations of prehistoric land use 183

Kovács, P 2007 Római kor – Limes- és helyőrségtörténet Pest megyében [Roman

Period – History of the Limes and military garrisons in county Pest]. in Fancsalszky,
G (ed.) Pest megye monográfiája. I. kötet 1. rész. A kezdetektől a honfoglalásig.
Pest megye régészeti emlékei. Budapest, 211–248
Kovács, T 1963 Százhalombatta-Téglagyár. Régészeti Füzetek 17, 11
Kovács, T 1969 A százhalombattai bronzkori telep. The Bronze Age Settlement at
Százhalombatta. Archaeológiai Értesítő 96, 161–169
Luczenbacher, J 1847 A pogány magyar sírok körül tett felfedezések [Discoveries
around the pagan graves of the Hungarians]. A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia
Értesítője 7, 282–289
Mócsy, A 1955 A Százhalombatta-dunafüredi római tábor és település. Roman fort
and settlement at Százhalombatta. Archaeológiai Értesítő 82, 56–69
Mozsolics, A 1954 Adatok a magyarországi Hallstattkori kisplasztikához. Zwei
hallstattzeitliche Bronzestatuetten aus Ungarn. Archaeológiai Értesítő 81, 165–
166
Mráv, Zs 2003 Érd, Ófalu, római vagy mélyút. in Kisfaludi, J (ed.) Régészeti Kutatások
Magyarországon 2000 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2000
Budapest, 134
T. Németh, G, Czajlik, Z, Novinszki-Groma, K and Jáky, A 2016 Short report on
the archaeological research of the burial mounds no. 64 and no. 49 at Érd-
Százhalombatta. Dissertationes Archeologicae Ser. 3. No. 4, 291–306
Poroszlai, I 2000 Excavation campaigns at the Bronze Age tell site at Százhalombatta
– Földvár I. 1989–1991; II. 1991–1993. in Poroszlai, I and Vicze, M (eds)
Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition (SAX) Report 1. Százhalombatta,
13–73
Poroszlai, I and Vicze, M 2000 (eds) Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition
(SAX) Report 1, Százhalombatta
Poroszlai, I and Vicze, M 2002 Százhalombatta – Földvár (Téglagyár) (MRT 7. k., 27/2.
lelőhely). in Marton, E and Kisfaludi, J (eds) Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon
1999 – Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 1999, 246–247
Poroszlai, I and Vicze, M 2004 (eds) Százhalombatta története a bronzkortól
napjainkig [The history of Százhalombatta from the Bronze Age to the Present
Day]. Százhalombatta
Poroszlai, I and Vicze, M 2005 (eds) Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition
(SAX) Report 2. Százhalombatta
Szabó, M 2005 A keleti kelták. A késő vaskor a Kárpát-medencében [The Eastern
Celts. The Late Iron Age in the Carpathian Basin]. Bibliotheca Archaeologica.
Budapest
Szabó, M 2014 Római út Érd határában (Roman Road on the Confines of Érd) in
Rajna, A (ed.) Múltunk a föld alatt. Újabb régészeti kutatások Pest megyében.
Ferenczy Múzeum Kiadványai, A sorozat: Monográfiák 1. Szentendre, 87–93
Szentpétery, E 1937 (ed.) Scriptores Rerum Hungaricum I. Budapest
Topál, J 1972 Százhalombatta – Dunafüred-Déli gát. Régészeti Füzetek 26, 48
184 Zoltán Czajlik et al.

Topál, J 1973 Dunafüred-Déli gát. Régészeti Füzetek 27, 38

Topál, J 1975 Dunafüred, Római út 1149/71. Régészeti Füzetek 29, 36–37
Topál, J 1981 The Southern Cemetery of Matrica. Százhalombatta-Dunafüred.
Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae. Budapest
Varga, A 2000 Coring results at Százhalombatta – Földvár. in Poroszlai, I and
Vicze, M (eds) Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition (SAX) Report 1.
Százhalombatta, 75–81
Varga, G 2016 Római út Érd határában. Roman Road on the Confines of Érd.
Archaeologiai Értesítő 141, 123–144
Vicze, M 2000 Background information to the field-survey. in Poroszlai, I – Vicze, M (eds)
Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition (SAX) Report 1, Százhalombatta,
119–129
Vicze, M 2001 The history of the Százhalombatta tell settlement and its environment:
an overview. in Füleky, Gy (ed.) Proceedings of the 1st International Conference
on Soils and Archaeology. Gödöllő, 142–144
Vicze, M 2005 Excavation methods and some preliminary results of the SAX Project.
in Poroszlai, I and Vicze, M (eds) Százhalombatta Archaeological Expedition
(SAX) Report 2. Százhalombatta, 209–235
Vicze, M and Nagy, L 2003 Bronzkori és vaskori földvár Érd-Százhalombattán. The
Bronze and Iron Age fortified settlement at Érd-Százhalombatta. Régészeti
értékeink. Budapest
Vicze, M, Earle, T and Artursson, M 2005 Bronze Age Site Gazetteer: Benta Valley,
Hungary. in Poroszlai, I and Vicze, M (eds) Százhalombatta Archaeological
Expedition (SAX) Report 2. Százhalombatta, 237–250
Visy, Zs 1978 Pannóniai limes-szakaszok légifényképeken. Pannonische Limes-
Abschnitte auf Luftaufnahmen. Archaeológiai Értesítő 105, 235–259
Visy, Zs 1981 Pannonische Limesstrecken auf Luftaufnahmen. Antike Welt 12 (4) 39–
52
Visy, Zs 2000 A ripa Pannonica Magyarországon [The Ripa Pannonica in Hungary].
Budapest
Visy, Zs 2003 The Ripa Pannonica in Hungary. Budapest
Visy, Zs 2011 A Danube Limes program régészeti kutatásai 2008–2011 között. The
Danube Limes Project Archaeological Research between 2008–2011. Pécs