1

ARCHAEOLOGICAL PREDICTIVE MODELS AND THE HUNGARIAN

CULTURAL HERITAGE PROTECTION

GBOR MESTERHZY MT STIBRNYI
1



The first and foremost task of archaeological heritage protection is the spatial identification of archaeological
sites. Our study proposes the introduction of predictive archaeological models in Hungary based on studies
involving the known Hungarian site register. These could mean extensive tools, already available at the initial
planning phase of the construction works, by which the preliminary protection of national sites can be secured.

Keywords: site, GIS, predictive modelling



The approach , where these decisions are taken
on the basis of (expert) knowledge of the known archaeological site sample,
is in our view an irresponsible approach to archaeological heritage management.
VERHAGEN 2010, 438

When asking archaeologists to show us the location of their research, we are bound to
be shown a wealth of thrilling sites. Yet they will be in trouble when we ask them to show us
each and every one of them. This is due to the fact that no one knows the actual number of
archaeological sites in Hungary. This is not a theoretical problem,
2
since the chance of
protecting sites we do not know the location of is next to none.
3
Although almost all
archaeological research deals with sites, there is disproportionately little discourse on the
possibilities of identifying a register of sites. Nevertheless, without doubt such a huge amount
is in question that it simply cannot be managed without a geographic information system
(GIS). Any archaeological data within the archaeological register of sites which lacks more

1
Hungarian National Museum Centre for National Cultural Heritage, Department of Topography;
gabor.mesterhazy@mnm-nok.gov.hu, mate.stibranyi@mnm-nok.gov.hu
2
Act LXIV 11 and 7 (20) of 2001.
3
It is not possible to discuss the definition of archaeological sites here; we interpret the archaeological site as
the distinctive spatial location of the special collective of finds, archaeological features and ecological remains
(RACZKY 2006), augmented by the fact that its expanse is defined by the surrounding area lacking of finds.
However, this does not answer a number of questions: e.g., when finds from several periods are unearthed
together should they be regarded as one or more sites; or how many sites comprise, for example, the Roman
period city town of Aquincum? We have already discussed the question briefly (REMNYI STIBRNYI 2010).
2
precise geographical data cannot be studied; it simply cannot be identified as a site. In the
following essay we will summarize the state of the Hungarian archaeological register of sites,
connecting GIS-based analyses, as well as those options which serve as a more protective
solution for the sites from such a viewpoint.

The known archaeological site register in Hungary

At first sight, the situation is promising. A unified and centralized data archive exists
where information about archaeological sites is collected. This is quite an outstanding feat
knowing the divided state of Hungarian archaeology. The official site register of the National
Office of Cultural Heritage (KH) can be regarded as a reliable base for the study of the site
registers state as it contains the topographical data collected by the Archaeological
Topography of Hungary (MRT),
4
the archival databases of the majority of museums, as well
as archaeological excavational data conducted since 2001. Currently it contains more than
70 000 records, while the number of sites in Hungary is estimated to be about 100 000
(WOLLK 2009). According to this, we already know 70% of the sites.
However, this is not true. First of all: we certainly do not know 70 000 sites. Sites can
only be considered known when they possess spatial data, that is, simply their geographical
location is known. The database of the KH was not contrived as a geographic information
system at the time of its compilation; thus, it contains a lot of site descriptions that do not
have, and indeed cannot have any geographical data. Only about two thirds of the given
information, 50 000 sites have some kind of geographical data added (whether they have an
extension or are only dot-like). Furthermore, only ca. 10% among these can be found within
city borders (this means 5.42% of the area of Hungary), which sheds light on its
disproportionate state caused by the fact that due to divisions usually the same site receives
different registry numbers according to the assigned plots of land. Fairly often a single site is
registered under several numbers. In all, we estimate the actually known number of sites to be
between 25 00030 000.
5
As we can identify several periods and characteristics at the
majority of sites this number cannot be given unequivocally. Nevertheless, for the time being
let us be content with the current practice based on spatially defined units: site means a
location where archaeology is found surrounded by an area free from artefacts.

4
See below for further details.
5
In 2004 this number was 10 00012 000 (WOLLK 2004, 76); however, this did not yet contain the geographic
data resulting from the Transdanubian research of the MRT (cf. WOLLK 2004, 77, fig. 5).
3
Many scholars have already extrapolated the number of sites on regions systematically
researched up till now to the whole area of the country (JANKOVICH-BSN AND NAGY 2004;
WOLLK 2004), which resulted in an estimate of 100.000150.000 sites within Hungary. This
implies ca. 11.5 sites to each square kilometre. This is feasible judging by the study of the
sites observable on the surface, which number is more or less supported by current research as
well. The staff of the KH and the Directorate of Somogy County Museums conducted
topographical research at 17 settlements of Inner Somogy between 20002004, where 517
sites were located in an area of 426 square kilometres (1.21 sites/km) (FEKETE et al. 2005).
Our field survey conducted in spring 2011 at Perkta and environs with an area of almost 160
km surveyed resulted in 220 sites (1.375 sites/km). These surveys, just as those conducted
by the MRT, certainly have not found all the sites of a given area, but we can state that they
have given significant results.
The 11.5 sites/km ratio is reasonable in comparison to European site registers as
well, although we meet rather different figures according to each region. In Poland 435 000
sites were located on a 270 000 km area (1.6 sites/km) (PRINKE 2009, 72); in Sweden
570 000 sites were identified on a 450 000 km area in 2009 (1.2 sites/km) (NORMAN -
SOHLENIUS 2009, 83); the 20 000 km area of Slovenia yielded 26 000 sites (1.3 sites /km)
(DJURI et al. 2009, 90). Due to the variation in the data (e.g. site definitions) we must not
draw far-reaching conclusions from these figures, but the ratios are observable. Thus the 100
000150 000 sites estimated for the area of Hungary seems reasonable.
We should not omit from our calculations the fact that there are also archaeological
sites which are unidentifiable by mere field surveys. However, for the moment we do not
know of such an extensive survey which could significantly elucidate the question of the ratio
of these types of sites within the site register.
All in all, we think it is not the numbers which are important, but what results from
them; and based on these we know 2030% of the archaeological sites in Hungary, while ca.
25% of the country has been systematically researched.
6
We feel this is a significant problem
from several aspects.
From an archaeological perspective, apart from academic relevance, this low figure
means that practically 70% of the site register is unprotected, as current legislation only
protects registered sites. In line with Act LXIV of 2001, protection primarily refers to

6
The MRT examined 11.7% of Hungary, researching ca. 10 000 sites, while there are a further two volumes and
almost 2 000 sites still in manuscript form (WOLLK 2004, and for data from manuscripts Istvn Torma,
personal communication).
4
preventing the disturbance of the site and not its excavation. Archaeology is thus concerned
with constructions avoiding the sites, although due to its underfinanced state in the past few
years we seem to forget that our primary ethical and professional duty is not the excavation of
sites, but protecting them for the future.
From the viewpoint of constructions, this state is also problematic as the high
percentage of unknown sites does not allow for planning to avoid them. If such a large percent
of the sites is unknown, it is practically futile to ask for archaeological data during the course
of planning as there is only a little chance that it will be of any use. An average 70% of the
sites ideally only emerge during the compulsory field survey conducted because of the
authorization. During the planning phase of the Nabucco gas pipelines running along 384 km
through seven counties of Hungary 77 sites were already registered. After a single field
survey in 2010, this was modified to 339, but including the percentage of areas where the
survey could not be conducted we can estimate at least 400 sites altogether. This of course
means an unforeseen risk with regard to schedules and monetary matters for the construction
works, which can only be more precisely revealed ideally during authorization, less ideally
during construction itself.

Solution possibilities

1.
As we have already mentioned in the previous chapter, we regard current legislation,
which tries to carry out the protection of sites based solely on the rather small list of sites
known, very dangerous.
One possibility was outlined ahead of its time by the Archaeological Topography of
Hungary (MRT): to conduct intensive field surveys throughout the country. Under the
circumstances prevalent in Hungary, due to the extremely high number of cultivated land,
field surveys are the cheapest and easiest methods for identifying sites. By this procedure we
can gain reliable information in ploughed fields regarding how much they were affected by
archaeology. However, its drawbacks are that although the surface-collected finds are deeply
connected to the features hidden under the surface, their relationship does not always mean
they can be more precisely associated. The fact that a site exists at the spot can usually be
determined with certainty, but its precise extent cannot, grounded simply on surface features.
Furthermore, in certain areas and with certain types of sites this method cannot be employed.
5
The early undertaking of the MRT started with a positivist approach in the 1960s,
growing into a progressive topographical workshop, but was eventually broken off by the end
of the 1990s; it had surveyed 11.7% of the area (WOLLK 2004). We may regard this as the
basis. What we know from the site register was compiled for the most part by these studies. It
is enough to think of the fact that almost 12 000 sites from the total number of 25 00030 000
known sites were identified by the MRT (WOLLK 2004, and for data from manuscripts
Istvn Torma, pers. comm.).
Even though the numbers suggest so, the task is not impossible, yet it requires
significant resources. In Poland the National Archaeological Survey (Archeologiczne Zdjcia
Polski, AZP) organized the field survey of almost the whole of the country with a huge
amount of human and material resources involved. The end of the first phase (field survey) of
the project started in 1978 is to be expected in a few years time. By 2009 with the
involvement of 500 archaeologists more than 435 000 sites were identified in Poland (PRINKE
2009). In Sweden archaeologists have conducted field surveys twice so far in areas not
covered by forests, resulting in 600 000 sites; currently the archaeological survey of forested
areas is underway (NORMAN - SOHLENIUS 2009).
For the moment, we do not see reality in any form for systematic topographical surveys,
similar to the abovementioned, to start in Hungary in the near future. This is partially due to
financial reasons; for archaeology in such an underfinanced state, it can only be conceived
with increased state engagement. A greater, more complex problem is the disinterest of the
archaeological profession on this matter. The reasons for this would deserve an essay of their
own, but we think its roots lead back to the fact that the archaeological revolution spreading
throughout Europe following the Malta Convention in 1992 has only partially reached
Hungary (BNFFY 2004). The profession regards the necessity of preliminary rescue
excavations as self-evident, but not that this would also entail the establishment of a Cultural
Resources Management (CRM) independent from academic research.
7
CRM, however, does
not only cover archaeological companies and motorway excavations, but also implies a
change in approach that results from the complex task of protecting every archaeological
feature. Nevertheless, this raises different, not too scholarly questions in the academic sense
of the word.

2.

7
For the definition of the phrase cf. KING 2004, 4.
6
We can approach the solution to this problem from another angle as well: let us turn
the question around and try to anticipate where archaeological sites and features can be
expected. The method is based on model experiments that are employed by several sciences
from medicine to zoology, collectively called predictive models (ARC-WOFE 1998).


Fig. 1.: DEM of the Srrt-region at Fejr County. (SRTM 2006)

Archaeological predictive models try to predict the location of archaeological sites
or materials in a region, based either on a sample of that region or on fundamental notions
concerning human behaviour (VERHAGEN 2007, 13). The majority of these are based on two
assumptions: on the one hand, the choice of the location of a human settlement was largely
influenced by certain characteristics of the natural environment. On the other hand, these
natural factors influencing settlement location appear at least indirectly on modern maps
(WARREN ASCH 2000, 6-7). Thus, human settlement is not random in the region and the
dispersion of sites found so far can be modelled along natural and cultural resultants. In such a
way the locations where sites may occur with more possibility or where this is less likely can
be filtered by geographic information and geostatistical analyses. This is quite a pragmatic
attitude and obviously comes from a CRM stance: if time and money are not sufficient for a
7

Fig. 2.: Archaeological predictive model of Srrt-region in Fejr County (MESTERHZY 2011 75.)
8
full-scale examination, but we definitely need to give an answer and fast, then we must be
aware of the possible solutions. In the past 3040 years that these models have been in use,
however, the methodology has outgrown the status of a simple aid. Today we use these data
to better understand and study connections between human activity and the natural
environment. Likewise, the spatial analyses prepared during the modelling are not only to be
interpreted as elements of the model, but as an additional benefit, so to speak, they can be
useful data on their own.
The effect of natural geography, thus, primarily watercourses, relief features and soil,
on human settlement has already been studied both ethnographically and geographically in the
first half of the 20th century; Zsigmond Btky and Istvn Gyrffy from an ethnographical
perspective (BTKY-GYRFFY-VISKI 1941), and the geographer Tibor Mendl also researched
the topic (MENDL 1932). In terms of archaeological settlement structure, Istvn Mri was
among the first to emphasize the significance of proximity to water and the features of the
terrain (MRI 1952), but this realization also led the directors of the field surveys conducted
by the MRT. The relationship of waters and settlements is an obvious fact for archaeologists
today. Hungarian archaeological research in the past 20 years has been primarily influenced
by environmental archaeology, a science closely connected to and parallelly developing with
predictive modelling. We can regard these results as the basis for predictive models.
Thus, in the following we will briefly summarize those Hungarian studies which we
find progressive from such a perspective and which can be useful for predictive modelling.
Archaeological GIS in Hungary

Among GIS systems used for archaeological purposes in Hungary we must first
mention those that categorize and systematize data collected during archaeological
excavations and display these spatially. The primary aim of these database-like systems based
on features and/or stratigraphical units is to store the wealth of data collected from
excavations with large surfaces, otherwise rather difficult to manage, according to unified
system requirements (WOLF 2002; EKE et al. 2007; TOLNAI 2009; HOLL PUSZTAI 2011).
Nonetheless, we will not go into detail regarding these processing methods and applications
within the scope of this essay even if they were one of the first steps taken in Hungarian GIS
research. Most of all for the reason that from the perspective of predictive models those
Hungarian works are more important that not only structurally organize and store data, but
have also prepared spatial studies and reconstructions, and among them those that have been
9
spatially displayed, that is, they can be presented on a map. It has to be stressed, that
predictive archaeological modelling makes use of archaeological data on the level of and
above the site surface, thus we concentrated on these during the study.
From the viewpoint of a study relying on the predictive archaeological model that is
mostly based on environmental factors, it is of great importance to determine environmental
changes. A significant difference between predictive models and environmental
reconstructions is that the latter deal with a single level or coverage of the environment. As
will be seen later, they do contain predictions regarding favourable and non-favourable zones
of prospective archaeological site locations; however, this only refers to the given coverage.
On the other hand, the predictive archaeological model is a complex prediction based on
several environmental factors implemented by geographical information and geostatistical
analyses regarding the probable location of archaeological sites. Consequently, environmental
reconstructions can specify the model itself as the input data of the predictive model. It is
important to emphasize that this is only possible, if these input data meant for improvement
form databases with well-defined precision and spatial characteristics that can be managed by
geographical information systems and are not just textual statements. The following research
historical sketch serves to point out, amongst others, that: the knowledge necessary for the
predictive archaeological models (or geographical information coverages, if you will) is used
more and more in Hungarian archaeology; although collective and unified processing through
geographical information systems is still rarely to be seen (FEKETE 2008; PADNYI-GULYS
2010; PADNYI-GULYS 2011; MESTERHZY 2011).
It is easy to see that during the reconstruction of any archaeological period, all the
changes in the region and the environment that happened after the period under examination,
or after 1711
8
at the latest, are mostly negligible from an archaeological point of view. Thus,
one of the important sources and starting points for environmental reconstructions is the
information to be found on modern maps. One of the most significant roles of these
contemporary representations is to unravel the land formation effects of the river regulation
and swamp reclamation works that had commenced in the 19
th
century; but it also offers
valuable data on topography and vegetation. The changes that came about in the natural
landscape, and thus in the environment of the archaeological sites as well, can be sufficiently
demonstrated by the three military surveys (ARCANUM 2004, ARCANUM 2006a, ARCANUM

8
Act LXIV 19 of 2001.
10
2007) and other, county (ARCANUM 2009) or various local (ARCANUM 2006b, ARCANUM
2006c) maps referring to the area of research.
Most examples apply to the adjustment of hydrographic data and the refinement of
contemporary circumstances. This already goes to show that water, whether still or flowing, is
one of the most important factors in human settlement, either from a positive or negative
aspect. Since it not only attracts settlements, but it also repels them if we think of swampy
regions and floods. The opportunity presents itself to reconstruct the configurations of the
terrain prior to river regulations directly next to the site and to trace back the waterlogged
areas on them (RACZKY et al. 1997, 170; SZAB et al. 1997a, 81; SZAB et al. 1997b, 87;
FISCHL 2006, 12). In the case of larger, microregional studies, however, it is necessary to
employ geological data as well (RACZKY et al. 2002; GYUCHA DUFFY 2008; FZESI 2009).
Logic in such cases is the opposite contrary to old maps, as the direction of approaching
prehistoric circumstances is not from the top but from below, through the changes
occurring in the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs determined by geological methods. For the
moment only along shorter lengths, but it is proven that the location of archaeological sites is
also suitable for the delineation of old river-beds and flood plains (GYUCHA DUFFY 2008,
20; FZESI 2009, 382) at areas where the beds are known to change frequently; this is
characteristic of wide glacial valleys such as those at the lower section of the Saj and Hernd
rivers. These data also result in the refinement of geological data.
Usage of old maps, however, is often not sufficient anymore. Despite the given
sources varying according to each area, they provide reliable information only until the
17
th
18
th
centuries. Thus, the other significant sources of environmental reconstructions are
the results of various scientific analyses that are less defined by periods.
Environmental archaeological research based on general samples spreading across
large expanses are also known in Hungary (GL et al. 2005; ZATYK et al. 2007); the
complex geomorphological, sedimentological, radiocarbon, palaeo- and macrobotanical, and
malacological analyses serve the better understanding of the related settlement history
overviews.
The studies of Pl Smegi cannot be left out from our survey, who is an authoritative
figure within the field of Hungarian environmental archaeological research (an incomplete list
of examples: KERTSZ SMEGI 1999; RACZKY et al. 2002, 840-842; SMEGI et al. 2003;
SMEGI MOLNR 2004; SMEGI 2009). For our survey the spatially displayed, more
accurate periodic hydrographic models are the most relevant (SMEGI 2007, 379-382; SMEGI
et al. 2007, 250-251).
11
A significant result of soil boring conducted directly in the vicinity of archaeological
sites is precisely the more accurate delineation of the contemporary relief of an area. The
results of the drills conducted usually along a 10x10 square grid can be utilized when
deducted from the height values of the current relief model (VARGA 2000, 75; SALISBURY
2008, 53). However, the problem with this method is that on a vast territory this also
culminates in significant expenses in the budget.
During the research conducted at Kelemr-Mohosvr, the access of the castle and the
direction the finds were washed down could be determined by calculating the gradient
categories (PUSZTAI 2007b, 56-57). Likewise, visibility could be studied by the reconstruction
of a digital elevation model and the height of the tower (PUSZTAI 2005, 419), which made it
possible to define the microenvironment of the castle and the exact locations of the nearby
settlements connected to the castle.
Two studies have to be mentioned at the end of our overview. It can be considered a
great progress that a hydrographic reconstruction supported by remote sensing data was made
in the flat terrain of the Great Hungarian Plain (TMR 2004). At areas where the half metre
sea level differences on even the best contemporary Unified National Mapping System
(EOTR) maps practically appear as flat surfaces on a relief model, much more advantageous
possibilities arise with the processing of remote sensing images, which means the redrawing
of river-beds that appear on them in the case of a hydrographic reconstruction. Its drawback,
however, is that in exchange for the exact spatial data one must conduct chronological
examinations at the given area.
One of the most important elements of the research conducted at Ecsegfalva besides
the hydrographic reconstruction was the mapping of vegetation data resulting from the
environmental reconstruction. Thus, visibility studies conducted on plain and vegetation-
covered surfaces present varying prospects (GILLINGS 2007, 39-42). Likewise, a visibility
study conducted from a single given location, which already considers lengths within
distances still seen by the unaided eye (GILLINGS 2007, 44-46), can be very useful in studies
regarding relationships between the individual settlements.
The creation of predictive archaeological models in Hungary is still in the making.
Until now two essays have been published: one of research conducted in Somogy County
(FEKETE 2008, 147-156) and one in the area of the Zsmbk Basin (PADNYI-GULYS 2010,
1-6); while a further data collection is known from Borsod-Abaj-Zempln County (FISCHL
2008). So far, two predictive models have been prepared at the professional workshop of the
Centre for National Cultural Heritage of the Hungarian National Museum. These are shortly
12
to be published in detail, where one deals with the results of modelling conducted at Srrt
(MESTERHZY 2011) and the other at the Srvz Basin (PADNYI-GULYS 2011). We must
also mention the predictive model made in connection with Kelemr-Mohosvr, which
defined the location of the medieval village of Fancsal based on visibility and exposure;
unfortunately, a field survey has not been carried out thus far to verify the hypothesis
(PUSZTAI 2007, 63).

Predictive models: history of research

P. Verhagen attributes the research historical basis of modelling to the settlement
network analyses of New Archaeology (Verhagen 2007, 14). Its background is built up of the
archaeological interpretation of the geographical location theory and the site catchment
analysis developed from the latter (CHISHOLM 1962). At the end of the 1960s these
theoretical approaches received a quantitative background for employment in the period of
processual archaeology; while by the end of the 1970s two volumes discussing
archaeological spatial analysis were born (HODDER ORTON 1976; CLARKE 1977). After this,
the theoretical background of the predictive model in archaeology was practically ready.
The first predictive models were prepared in the USA. According to the National
Historic Preservation Act, approved by the Federal Government in 1966, archaeological sites
were not renewable resources and were thus values to be protected. Since, however, this
referred to the heritage protection of such vast expanses where field surveys could not be
conducted, there was a lot of pressure on the departments involved to find a solution. This
resulted in the establishment of the first data-driven predictive models (MEHRER WESCOTT
2004, 6-9). These were prepared in large numbers after the second half of the 1970s. The
basis of preparing the American-type predictive model was widely published (KOHLER
PARKER 1986; JUDGE SEBASTIAN 1988); later on easy-to-use tools were also compiled for
the modelling (WESCOTT BRANDON 2000).
Predictive models actually received their working base with the creation of GIS, which
was necessary for their applicability. It was equally difficult to explain the theory of statistical
employment and to introduce the results; the possibility of spatial representation was a huge
leap either way. In the 1990s, the rapid development of GIS occurred parallel to the
spreading of the postprocessual approach within archaeology. Most scientific criticism aimed
at predictive models, according to P. Verhagen, actually stems from the processual
13
postprocessual contrast, where the quantitative approach overly simplifies the requirements of
habitation (VERHAGEN 2007, 16).
From this time on the opinions on predictive models became somewhat divided. Its
professional reception was quite low, with continuous criticism as the basis of the analyses
was not sufficiently supported by scientific evidence. At the same time, it was a readily
usable, practical tool for CRM in order to draw the attention of decision makers to the actual
number of archaeological risks at hand. The archaeological agencies of the USA and Canada
use it as an everyday tool in administrative and planning tasks even today.
In Europe we can reckon with the large demand of heritage protection tasks previously
unaccounted for starting from the Malta Convention in 1992, which resulted in the creation of
CRM. The first predictive models were prepared in connection with this, which had the most
impact on the archaeology of the Netherlands. The Netherlands uses the only nationwide
model that was created in 1997 (Indicatieve Kaart van Archeologische Waarden IKAW)
that is continuously developed through a wide scientific cooperation (VERHAGEN 2007): they
are now using a third generation model for public administration today.

The structure and methodological background of predictive
models

The comprehensive collection and handling of data at motorway excavations
involving vast areas could only be managed with the help of geographic information systems,
which meant a significant and partially constrained shift of paradigm compared to the
previous small surface excavations. Precisely such a leap in scale can be observed in field
survey site locations, as the surface data of large areas can only be handled and employed by
geographic information databases. Just as in the case of the geographic informational
background of excavations, the most exact spatial location of surface finds and sites also
obtains a significant role. As we have already mentioned above, we have located about 20
30% of Hungarian archaeological sites in the past 50 years. The accuracy of these data is to be
questioned, moreover, simply because the surveys were by necessity usually conducted on a
rough estimate without the help of geodesic tools (GPS).
With field surveys only even if the systematic studies discontinued since the past 15
years would advance more rapidly a long time would elapse until the majority of
14
archaeological sites could be identified and protected. Predictive modelling in contrast offers
an alternative that can draw an exact, reliable and approximate picture of the archaeologically
concerned areas of Hungary.
During predictive modelling, the spatial location probability of new, thus far unknown
sites can be determined in a given region by considering the environmental characteristics of
the archaeological sites (human settlement) already known. Today this process is usually
defined by statistical methods. However, we need to briefly review the techniques employed
during modelling before outlining the environmental factors, as various new methods have
appeared following almost 30 years of development.
A significant difference in the case of predictive models is whether the known
archaeological data are to be used or not. This helps in separating the inductive models
employing archaeological data and the deductive models that do not. Due to lack of space we
cannot compare the positive and negative aspects of the two model types, but we can state that
here in Hungary the inductive models have more possibilities, thus we will be dealing with
these in the following.
The most important characteristic of the initial model types with dichotomous
variables (Boolean overlay, weighted binary addition) was that the modelling specialist could
determine which environmental conditions, in which zone would predict the location of
unknown archaeological sites (EJSTRUD 2003, 128-129). Nowadays, the base of modelling is
placed on modern methods of mathematics, such as the Bayesian probability theory, the
Dempster-Shafer theory based on the latter, the Weights of Evidence, and fuzzy logics (for an
overview of their archaeological use cf. EJSTRUD 2003; NYKNEN SALMIRINNE 2007).
During their use, when choosing the environmental factors a mathematical (function) relation
is determined between the location of the known archaeological sites and the environmental
factors; thus the indicators not showing significant relations can be filtered out before the
modelling itself. On the other hand, accurate probability rates and reliability values can be
determined by these methods, which are important for measuring the stages of models.
The most variation between models appears in the choice of environmental factors.
There is no prescription for these choices; the variations in natural geography regarding each
studied area call for different processing methods and data. As it was seen earlier, these
environmental factors are not unknown in Hungarian research either. Therefore, in the
following we will summarize the characteristic environmental factors employed and the
geographical information to be derived from these.
15
One of the basic requirements for human settlement is the proximity of water, whether
still or flowing. As we have already stated above, an archaeologically accurate hydrographic
map can be obtained if we do not consider hydrographic changes following the archaeological
periods; and furthermore, incorporate dry watercourses into our database. There are three
methods to outline it. Firstly, each change can be defined with the help of old maps; however,
this is lengthy and costly work with large areas involved. Secondly, the opportunity arises to
generate outflow models based on the (improved) relief model (TELBISZ 2007). Thirdly,
experience (MESTERHZY 2011; PADNYI-GULYS 2011) shows that the layers of geographic
maps related to flowing and still waters can also give a good point of departure. The distance
from water or flooded areas can be employed as coverage for geographic information, which
can be defined generating zones; in our experience the depth of ground water levels can also
be an important factor.
Geographical and pedological data can be employed as well; and not just in predicting
the flooded areas already mentioned. It is absolutely necessary to simplify these data, and to
merge their categories, for example according to characteristic rock-forming minerals, to
enable them to be authoritative information resources that can be managed by statistical
analyses. The special role of geographical data is the identification of temporary, former
watercourses, as we have already discussed in detail.
Digital elevation models (DEM) are available either free (SRTM, ASTER GDEM), or
can be bought (the products of The Institute of Geodesy, Cartography and Remote Sensing
and the MoD Mapping Non-Profit Ltd in Hungary). They fundamentally influence the
achievement of predictive models. This is caused by the fact that on the one hand, the freely
available elevation models (DEM) are actually digital surface models (DSM). That is, the
DSMs produced by remote sensing methods contain not only the relief features of the terrain,
but also incorporate all the features, buildings, vegetation and their height values are also
added to the heights of the relief map. Nevertheless, whichever elevation model will be used
its precision measurements and resolution must be well considered, as it gives the lower end
of the scale of the modelling as well. Usually three coverages from the relief data can be built
into the predictive archaeological model: exposure, gradient categories and individual surface
forms; but several other modes of application are also possible.
The choice of environmental factors and their categorization requires varying values
whether in flat, hilly or mountainous areas. Thus, such near homogenous units need to be
found in an area where the coverages do not have extreme values. The Cadastre of the
Microregions of Hungary (MKK 2010) offers precisely such delimitations for the whole of
16
Hungary, and provides the scale of modelling too for microregions usually 100500 km
2
that
have a sufficient number of sites for the building of a substantial model (STIBRNYI 2010,
352).
The end-product of modelling is a raster image file where fixed probability and
reliability values are determined for its basic construction units: the pixels. These values can
be categorized and result in a clear, colour-coded map, where three or four zones can be
identified to indicate the very low, low, middle, and high archaeologically significant areas.
Yet, it is important to emphasize that the actual site expansion cannot be read from such
maps, only the probability values showing the probability of the location of archaeological
sites.


Concerns about predictive models

Archaeological predictive modelling has divided the international archaeological
community since its beginnings, stirring up heated debate within scientific circles. The main
objections have been summarized by P. Verhagen in the following four points (VERHAGEN
2007, 17):
1) use of incomplete archaeological datasets;
2) the biased selection of environmental parameters, often governed by the
availability of cheap datasets such as DEM;
3) as a consequence, a neglect for the influence of cultural factors, both in the
choice of environmental parameters, as well as in the archaeological dataset;
4) and lastly, a neglect of the changing nature of the landscape

The archaeological database currently available and the archaeological site register in
it, as we have already mentioned, is far from complete. Nonetheless, this idea would hold true
for the comprehensive processing of any archaeological object or feature type; while the goal
of modelling is non other than to serve data for these unplumbed areas of archaeology.
The accuracy of inductive models is defined by the accuracy of the worst resolution
coverage. One of the primary viewpoints of selecting environmental factors besides the
quality of data is that the piece of information should be available in digital format or able to
be digitalized. The incentives behind it are naturally to cut expenditures, on the one hand; and
17
as we have mentioned with regard to environmental archaeology above, on the other hand, the
textually formatted environmental reconstructions are difficult to form into geographic
informational data and thus incorporate a significant amount of uncertainty.
One method of defining cultural effects, and culturally specific characteristics of a
given period or culture is precisely predictive modelling, inasmuch as we can consider the
differences between the models building on periods when creating a complex model.
There are a growing number of methods to define natural changes in the landscape.
The elimination of the effects of erosion (CENTERI 2001, 12-14), the definitions of the change
in vegetation (BR 2006; BR et al. 2010) and vertical surface movements (PAPP et al. 2005)
are all steps towards achieving this. Yet we must realize that however much these researches
help in making the image of the natural environment more accurate in a given period, they
will not be complete or we cannot be sure about their completeness, just as we cannot know
all the archaeological sites in Hungary. Of course, this does not mean we should not strive to
achieve it.

Applying predictive archaeological models in Hungarian
CRM

Archaeological studies also regularly make use of models specific to periods or
predicting features (e.g. GRAVES 2011). Academic research, however, is rarely interested in
every feature, much rather the individual feature types or cultures are focused on.
Nevertheless, the models are primarily connected to CRM, already in connection with their
creation, usage and development. They are suitable for producing reliable predictions on
relatively large, archaeologically less known areas. This should not be confused with site
predictions because, as we have mentioned, the models do not tell us where the sites are, but
where they are highly likely to be located.
During the planning phase of investments it is equally important for both the
archaeologist and the investor to avoid archaeological sites. Naturally, from the investors
point of view this is only a single phase of the whole planning but archaeology can only be of
use in this respect if the construction is planned on a known archaeological site. Due to the
low level of known sites, the risks of heritage protection are like time-bombs to all
construction works, which after detonation causes damage to the investor, the site, and the
social status of archaeology as well. A good predictive model can minimize this risk by
18
offering an overlay that indicates this to the investor or planner. This can be regarded as just
another overlay among the overlays of risks to be considered, but as the most important
characteristic: it can be anticipated and can give quantifiable predictions.
The employment of models can thus be pivotal, on one hand during the planning phase
of investments as, if other terms permit it, the constructions can simply be re-planned to an
area of lower risk in the knowledge of the predictable risks. This has a further advantage in
real estate developments: predictions can be made without the investors disclosing
information about the location of the planning, which is often handled as an anxiously
protected trade secret in the initial phase. Currently, if an investor was to call on an
archaeologist to ask for advice on such matters, he or she would not be able to help without
the knowledge of the exact location. In the case, however, when a predictive model would be
available for the area chosen (microregion), then the basic heritage risks can be clarified
without knowing the actual (lot number of the) location.
The model may help prior to construction as well, calling attention to the areas where
for various reasons no sites have been identified but these can be expected (e.g. at
motorways). Calculating with such areas, the amount of time and expenses needed for the
archaeological excavation can be estimated more precisely. The model can also be of
immense use for the archaeological tasks during construction, pointing out those regions
where archaeological monitoring should be more active and earthworks more careful as we
can expect to find unforeseeable archaeological features.
The model offers further assistance during everyday heritage protection. Whilst the
field surveys compulsory for the heritage protection of large-scale investments signify a
considerable amount of security in the case of unknown sites, this is not mandatory with other
investments; thus, unknown sites are practically not protected at all under these
circumstances. When the archaeological inspector does not have sufficient data to specify any
type of preliminary measures, the regional museum authorized to conduct excavations can
only acquire information about unexpectedly appearing sites by chance. However, should
there be a predictive model available of the area in question, then the archaeological inspector
can use this data for constructions planned in zones of high predictability to at least prescribe
monitoring, which can already assure archaeological presence and protection. Incidentally,
this is also granted by law to enable the protection of areas archaeologically affected. Models
are such an important part of administrative procedures in heritage protection in the
Netherlands that excavations have to be conducted at locations of high probability prior to
constructions even when no actual site is known there.
19
Interestingly enough, Hungarian legislative regulation is familiar with the category of
highly probable areas defined in predictive models, which was added to Act LXIV in 2001 as
an influence of the Dutch example: this is the category of area of archaeological concern
(Katalin Wollk, pers. comm.). According to this all areas at which archaeological sites
can be predicted are to be regarded as areas of archaeological concern.
9
The employment of
the model could fill this phrase with meaning, defining exactly which areas count as
archaeologically concerned and on what grounds.
Although the models can and should be continuously developed it would be nave to expect
the model to be infallible. Nevertheless, even the worst model offers more protection for
unknown sites than the present practise. Moreover, its values can even be set to be less precise
but more accurate (WHITLEY 2004, 238). That means that the high probability zone will
appear on a larger scale at the surveyed area, but the majority of the sites will be included
within it. Hidden sites pose as major problems for heritage protection. These are features
that cannot be observed through surface surveys either because they cannot be found by field
surveying methods (e.g. row cemeteries), or because they are covered (by forests, pastures,
architecture, etc.). Prior to earthworks, the identification of site remains on such areas is
usually very expensive, but the model draws attention to the risks affecting these locations as
well.

Possible considerations of modelling

The Hungarian microregional system could be a good base for the implementation of
models. As mentioned above, these microregions form an excellent possibility for
delimitation in connection with creating models for the description of homogeneity. We
estimate that the 230 microregions would fit into more or less 20-30 separate models. Each
model is exact inasmuch as the data entered are, but our experience shows that archaeological
data is the least accurate of these (MESTERHZY 2011; PADNYI-GULYS 2011). Thus, each
modelling period should be preceded by a field survey during which 20-30% of the area is
thoroughly surveyed, where each feature observable on the surface is identified by GPS. This
base, including the archaeological excavations conducted earlier on the site, can be
extrapolated later on. As referred to above, we have prepared the experimental models of two
microregions so far. Based on our experience, one microregional model can be prepared in

9
Act LXIV 7 of 2001 (17) about the protection of cultural heritage.
20
about a month involving 8 people (including field surveys and monitoring). Models can (and
should) be continuously improved with the development of both the input data and the know-
how, and will be increasingly more accurate by channelling the results of development in
remote sensing (LiDAR, hyperspectral images). This, however, requires a base that can be
developed.
The tools of archaeology are developing at an increasing speed providing more and
more possibilities; while putting more responsibility on archaeologists shoulders to protect
archaeological heritage with all methods available. Predictive models form a cost-effective
and highly accurate, continuously developing part of these tools.
The application of predictive archaeological models and the field surveys are not two
opposite methods, both can be organically integrated into each other. In any systematic field
survey we are to conduct, we must always consider those areas where perception is not
possible. Models can predict the heritage risks concerning these areas, moreover, any further
archaeological examination will strengthen the precision of the model. We are convinced that
in the current situation of Hungarian archaeology predictive models offer such a possibility
for heritage protection, which enables responsible safeguarding that can be continuously
developed.
Irodalom

ARCANUM 2004

Az els katonai felmrs Magyar Kirlysg 1782-1785. [First
Ordnance Survey Kingdom of Hungary] Arcanum DVD-ROM,
Budapest.
ARCANUM 2006a

Msodik Katonai Felmrs: Magyar Kirlysg (s a Temesi Bnsg) -
georeferlt. [Second Ordnance Survey Kingdom of Hungary (and the
Bnsg of Temes) - georeferenced] 1806-1869. Arcanum DVD-ROM,
Budapest.
ARCANUM 2006b

MOL Trkptra I. Kamarai trkpek [MOL Map Collection I. Maps of
the Chamber] 17471882. Arcanum DVD-ROM, Budapest.
ARCANUM 2006c

A MOL trkptra II. Helytarttancsi trkpek [MOL Map Collection
II. Maps of the Procuratorships Council] 17351875. Arcanum DVD-
ROM, Budapest.
ARCANUM 2007

Harmadik katonai felmrs 1869-1887, a Magyar Szent Korona
Orszgai, 1:25.000 georeferlt [ Third Ordnance Survey 1869-1887
21
georeferenced]. Arcanum DVD-ROM, Budapest.
ARCANUM 2009

Magyarorszg megyetrkpei a Hadtrtneti Trkptrban
[Countymaps of Hungary from Military Historical Map Collection]
17311948. Arcanum DVD-ROM, Budapest.
ARC-WOFE 1998 Arc-WofE User Guide.
http://www.ige.unicamp.br/wofe/documentation/wofeintr.htm
BNFFY 2009 Bnffy E., Fldinduls? A rgszet vlsga s vltozsa napjainkban.
[Earthquake? The crisis and change of archaeology today] In:
Archeometriai Mhely 2009/1. 1-3.
BTKY-GYRFFY-
VISKI 1941
Btky Zs. Gyrffy I. Viski K.: A magyarsg nprajza [Ethnography
of Hungary] I-IV. Budapest.
BR 2006 Br M.: Trtneti vegetcirekonstrukcik trkpek botanikai
tartalmnak foltonknti gazdagtsval. [Historical vegetation
reconstructions with the method of teaching the maps] Tjkolgiai
Lapok 4. 357-384.
BR et al. 2010 Br M. Horvth F. Blni L. Molnr Z.: Vegetcis adatbzisok
s a CORINE felsznbortsi trkp szintzisnek mdszertani krdsei
az Ipoly-vzgyjt nvnyzeti trkpe kapcsn. [Synthesis of different
habitat databases and CORINE landcover map methodological
approaches and a regional scale case study]. In: Tjkolgiai Lapok 8.
607-622.
CHISHOLM 1962 Chisholm, M.: Rural settlement and land use: an essay in location.
Hutchinson University Library, London.
CLARKE 1977 Clarke, D.L.: Spatial archaeology. Academic Press, London.
DJURI et al. 2009 Djuri, B. Mason, P. Mlakar, B. Kovaec Nagli, K. Petek, B.:
Listing archaeological sites heritage: the case of Slovenia. In: Schut,
A. C. P. (ed): Listing Archaeological Sites, Protecting the Historical
Landscape. EAC Occasional paper no. 3. 87-94.
EKE et al. 2007 Eke I. Frankovics T. Kvassay J.: Els tapasztalatok a nagyfellet
rgszeti feltrsok trinformatikai feldolgozsa sorn Zala megyben.
[Primary experiences in processing geographic information of large-
scale excavations of Zala County] Zalai Mzeum 16. 259-269.
FEKETE et al. 2005 Fekete Cs. Honti Sz. Horvth F. Jankovich-Bsn. D. Korom A.
22
Klt L.: Terepbejrsok Somogy megyben 19992004. [Field
walkings in Somogy County] In: Kisfaludi J. (szerk.): Rgszeti
kutatsok Magyarorszgon 2004-ben. Budapest 91120.
FEKETE 2008 Fekete Cs.: Predictive archaeological modelling in Somogy county.
Somogy Megyei Mzeumok Kzlemnyei 18. 147-156.
FISCHL 2006 P. Fischl K.: rokt-Donghalom bronzkori tell telep. [Bronze age tell
settlement in rokt-Donghalom] Borsod-Abaj-Zempln megye
rgszeti emlkei 4. Miskolc.
FISCHL 2008 P. Fischl K.: Adatbzis a Borsodi Mezsg s a Borsodi rtr prediktv
rgszeti lelhely meghatrozshoz. [Database for the predictive
determination of archeological sites in the Mezsg of Borsod and the
flood basin of Borsod] DVD-ROM. Herman Ott Mzeum, Miskolc.
FZESI 2009 Fzesi A.: A neolitikus teleplsszerkezet mikroregionlis vizsglata a
Tisza mentn Polgr s Tiszacsege kztt. [Microregional study of the
neolithic settlement pattern between Polgr and Tiszacsege] Tisicum
19. 377-398.
GL et al. 2005 Gl E. Juhsz I. Smegi P. (eds.): Environmental archaeology in
North-East Hungary. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica XIX. Budapest.
GRAVES 2011 Graves, D.: The use of predictive modelling to target Neolithic
settlement and occupation activity in mainland Scotland. Journal of
Archaeological Science 38. 633-656.
GILLINGS 2007 Gillings, M.: The Ecsegfalva Landscape: Affordance and Inhabitation.
In: Whittle, A. (ed.): The Early Neolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain:
investigations of the Krs culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Bks. 31-
46.
GYUCHA DUFFY
2008
Gyucha A. Duffy, P. R.: A Krs-vidk holocn kori vzrajza.
[Holocene hydrology of the Krs area] In: Gyucha A. (szerk.): Krs-
menti vezredek Rgszeti kolgiai s teleplstrtneti kutatsok a
Krs-vidken. Gyula. 11-40.
HOLL PUSZTAI
2011
Holl B. Pusztai T.: Trinformatika alkalmazsa a rgszeti
feltrsokon [GIS applications on archaeological excavations] In: Grf
P. Horvth F. Kulcsr V. F. Romhnyi B. Tari E. T. Bir K.
(szerk.): Rgszeti Kziknyv CD ROM, Budapest, 321-376.
23
HODDER ORTON
1976
Hodder, I. Orton C.: Spatial analysis in archaeology. Cambridge.
JANKOVICH-BSN
NAGY 2004
Jankovich-Bsn D. Nagy M.: Felmrs a rgszet helyzetrl 1989
1999. [Survey on the state of archaeology 1989-1999] Budapest.
JUDGE
SEBASTIAN 1988
Judge, J.W. Sebastian, L. (eds.): Quantifying the Present and
Predicting the Past: Theory, Method and Application of Archaeological
Predictive Modelling. Denver.
KERTSZ SMEGI
1999
Kertsz R. Smegi P.: Terik, kritika s egy modell: Mirt llt meg a
Krs-Starevo kultra terjedse a Krpt-medence centrumban?
[Theories, critiques and a model: why did the expansion of the Krs-
Starevo-culture stop in the centre of the Carpathian Basin?] Tisicum
11. 9-23.
KERTSZ SMEGI
2003

Kertsz R. Smegi P.: skrnyezeti tnyezk s a Krpt-medence
neolitizcija: egy j geoarcheolgiai modell nhny aspektusa.
[Palaeoenvironmental factors and the neolithization process of the
Carpathian Basin: some aspects of a new geoarchaeological model]
MFM Studia Archaeologica 9. 25-37.
KING 2004 King, T. F.: Thinking about cultural resource management. Altamira
Press, Walnut Creek.
KOHLER PARKER
1986
Kohler, T.A. Parker, S.C.: Predictive models for archaeological
resource location, In: Schiffer, M.B. (ed.): Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory, Vol. 9. New York, 397-452.
MEHRER
WESCOTT 2004
Mehrer, M. Wescott, K.: GIS and archaeological site location
modelling. London.
MENDL 1932 Mendl T.: Tj s ember. Az emberfldrajz ttekintse. [Landscape and
man. Overwiev of the human geography.] Budapest
MRI 1952 Mri Istvn: Beszmol a Tiszalk-Rzom s a Trkeve-mrici
satsok eredmnyeirl. [Report on the results of the excavations in
Tiszalk-Rzom and Trkeve-Mrichalom] Archrt 79. 204-226.
MESTERHZY 2011 Mesterhzy G.: Prediktv rgszeti modellek magyarorszgi
alkalmazhatsgnak lehetsgei. Szakdolgozat [Possibilities in the
application of archaeological predictive models in Hungary, BSc
Thesis] NYME-GEO.
24
MKK 2010 Dvnyi Zoltn (szerk.): Magyarorszg kistjainak katasztere.
[Gazetteer of the subregions of Hungary] Budapest.
NORMAN
SOHLENIUS 2009
Norman, P. Sohlenius R.: ASIS more than a register of ancient
monuments. In: Schut, A. C. P. (ed.): Listing Archaeological Sites,
Protecting the Historical Landscape. EAC Occasional paper no. 3. 83-
86.
PADNYI-GULYS
2010
Padnyi-Gulys G.: Prediktv modellezs a Zsmbki-medencben.
[Predictive modelling int he Zsmbk Basin]
http://www.agt.bme.hu/szakm/software/pgg_terinfo_szoftverism_01.pdf
PADNYI-GULYS
2011
Padnyi-Gulys G.: Rgszeti cl prediktv modellezs a Srvz
vlgyben. Szakdolgozat [Archeological predictive modelling in the
Srvz valley, BSc Thesis] BME.
PAPP et al. 2005 Papp B. dr. Jo I. Balzsik V.: A fggleges felsznmozgsok
vizsglata s modellezse a Duna-Tisza kzn Kecskemt-
Kiskundorozsma. [Investigation and modelling of the recent vertical
movements int he space between Danube and Tisza river] Geodzia s
Kartogrfia 2005/6 11-18.
PRINKE 2009 Prinke, A.: Seven years after Seville: Recent progress in managing the
archaeological heritage in Poland. In: Schut, A. C. P. (ed.): Listing
Archaeological Sites, Protecting the Historical Landscape. EAC
Occasional paper no. 3. 71-76
PUSZTAI 2005

Pusztai T.: The archaeological investigation of Kelemr-Mohosvr and
the medieval settlement history of the Kelemr area. In: Environmental
Archaeology in North-Eastern Hungary. Szerk.: Gl E. Juhsz I.
Smegi P. Budapest. 411-424.
PUSZTAI 2007b

Pusztai T.: A kelemri Mohosvr Egy 13-14. szzadban hasznlt vr
kutatsnak lehetsgei. [Mohosvr at Kelemr Possibilities of the
investigation of a 13-14th century castle] Castrum 5. 39-64.
RACZKY et al. 2002

Raczky P. Meier-Arendt, W. Anders A. Hajd Zs. Nagy E.
Kurucz K. Domborczki L. Sebk K. Smegi P. Magyari E.
Sznt Zs. Gulys S. Dob K. Bcskay E. T. Br K. C.
Schwartz: Polgr-Csszhalom (1989-2000): Summary of the
Hungarian-German Excavations on a Neolithic Settlement in Eastern
25
Hungary. In: R. Aslan S. Blum G. Kastl F. Schweizer D.
Thumm. (eds.): Mauerschau Festschrift fr Manfred Korfmann.
Remschalden-Grunbach. 833-860.
RACZKY 2006 Raczky P.: A rgszeti lelhely fogalmnak tudomnyfilozfiai alapon
trtn axiomatikus meghatrozsa. [The axiomatic definition of the
concept of archaeological site based on scientific philosophy] Archrt
131. 246248.
REMNYI
STIBRNYI 2010
Remnyi L. Stibrnyi M.: Rgszeti topogrfia ugyanaz msknt.
[Archaeological topography the same otherwise] In: Fl vszzad
terepen Tanulmnyktet Torma Istvn tiszteletre 70. szletsnapja
alkalmbl (megjelens alatt)
SALISBURY 2008

Salisbury, R. B.: Az Alfld ks neolitikus s kora rzkori
teleplsszerkezetnek vizsglatai frsadatok elemzsvel: A Neolithic
Archaeological Settlements of the Beretty-Krs Project (NASBeK)
elzetes eredmnyei. [Investigating Settlement Structure through Soil
Chemistry on Late Neolithic and Early Copper Age sites in the Krs-
Beretty Region. The NASBeK Project.] In: Gyucha A. (szerk.): Krs-
menti vezredek Rgszeti kolgiai s teleplstrtneti kutatsok a
Krs-vidken. Gyula. 41-64.
SRTM 2006 Jarvis, A. - Reuter, H. I. Nelson A. Guevara E.: Hole-filled seamless
SRTM data V3, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT),
http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org.
STIBRNYI 2010 Stibrnyi M.: Gondolatok a rgszeti topogrfia lehetsgeirl.
[Thoughts on the possibilities of archaeological topography] In:
Kvassay J. (szerk.): vknyv s jelents a Kulturlis rksgvdelmi
Szakszolglat 2008. vi feltrsairl. Budapest. 343359.
SMEGI 2007

Smegi P.: The vegetation history of the Srkeszi area. In: Zatyk Cs.
Juhsz I. Smegi P. (eds.): Environmental Archaeology in
Transdanubia. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica XX. Budapest. 377-384.
SMEGI 2009

Smegi P.: Ember s krnyezet kapcsolata a kzps bronzkorban: az
skori gazdasgi tr fejldse egy bronzkori tell geoarchaeolgiai s
krnyezettrtneti feldolgozsa nyomn. Az Alfld ks neolitikus s
kora rzkori teleplsszerkezetnek vizsglatai frsadatok
26
elemzsvel: A Neolithic Archaeological Settlements of the Beretty-
Krs Project (NASBeK) elzetes eredmnyei. Tisicum 19. 457-480.
SMEGI et al. 2003

Smegi P. - Kertsz R. - Tmr G. - Hebrich K.: Palaeoenvironmental
factors and Neolithization process of the Carpathian Basin: some
aspects of a new geoarchaeological model. In: Cattelain, P. (ed.): Acts
of the XIVth Union Int. of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences,
Lige, Belgium, 2-8 September 2001, Section 1: Theory and methods.
BAR Series 1145. Oxford. 135-141.
SMEGI et al. 2007

Smegi P. Bodor E. Juhsz I. Hunyadfalvi Z. Herbich K. -
Molnr S. Tmr G.: A Balaton dli partjn feltrt rgszeti lelhelyek
krnyezettrtneti feldolgozsa. [Environmental historical processing of
the excavated sites in the southern bank of Balaton] In: Kiss V.
Belnyesy K. Honti Sz. (szerk.): Grdl id - Rgszeti feltrsok az
M7-es autplya Somogy megyei szakaszn Zamrdi s Ordacsehi
kztt. Budapest. 241-253.
SMEGI MOLNR
2004

Smegi P. - Molnr S.: The Kiri-t meander: sediments and the
question of flooding. In: Whittle, A. (ed.): The Ecsegfalva project.
Varia Archaeologica Hungarica XXI. 67-82.
SZAB et al. 1997a

Szab M. Guillaumet, J. P. Kriveczky B.: SajpertiHossz-dl.
In: Raczky P. Kovcs T. Anders A. (szerk.): Utak a mltba Az
M3-as autplya rgszeti leletmentsei Paths into the Past. Rescue
excavations on the M3 motorway. Budapest. 81-86.
SZAB et al. 1997b

Szab M. J.-P. Guillaumet Kriveczky B.: Polgr-Kirly-rpart. In:
Raczky P. Kovcs T. Anders A. (szerk.): Utak a mltba Az M3-as
autplya rgszeti leletmentsei Paths into the Past. Rescue
excavations on the M3 motorway. Budapest. 87-89.
TELBISZ 2007 Telbisz T.: Digitlis domborzatmodellekre pl csapadk-lefolys
modellezs. [Precipitation runoff modelling based on digital elevation
models] http://www.fw.hu/geografus2008/ix_felev/hm/hm.doc
TMR 2004

Tmr G.: Space and GIS technology in Paleoenvironmental Analysis
(Old maps, satellite images and digital elevation models in
archaeology). Anteus 27. 135-144.
TOLNAI 2009 Tolnai K.: Rgszeti feltrs trinformatikai tmogatsa. [GIS
27
supported archeological analysis] Geodzia s Kartogrfia 61/2
(2009/2). 23-27.
VARGA 2000

Varga A.: Coring results at Szzhalombatta-Fldvr. In: Poroszlai I.
Vicze M. (eds.): SAX Szzhalombatta Archaeological Expedition
Annual Report 1. Field Season 1998. Szzhalombatta. 75-81.
VERHAGEN 2007 P. Verhagen (ed.): Case studies in archaeological predictive modelling.
Leiden.
VERHAGEN et al.
2010
Verhagen P. Kamermans, H. Leusen, M. v. Ducke B.: New
developments in archaeological predictive modelling. In: Bloemers, T
Kars, H. Valk, A. v. d. Wijnen, M. (eds): The Cultural Landscape &
Heritage Paradox. Protection and Development of the Dutch
Archaeological-Historical Landscape and its European Dimension.
Amsterdam, 431-444.
WARREN ASCH
2000
Warren, R. E. Asch, D. L.: A predictive model of archaeological site
location in the eastern Prairie Peninsula. In: Wescott, K. L. Brandon,
R. J. (eds.): Practical applications of GIS for archaeologists: a predictive
modelling kit. London. 5-32.
WESCOTT
BRANDON 2000
Wescott, K. L. Brandon, R. J. (eds): Practical Applications of GIS for
Archaeologists. A Predictive Modeling Toolkit. London, 2000.
WHITLEY 2004 WhitLey, T. G.: Causality and Cross-purposes in Archaeological
Predictive Modeling. In: Fischer Ausserer, A. Brner, W. Goriany,
M. Karlhuber-Vckl, L. (eds.): Enter the past: the E-way into the Four
Dimensions of Cultural Heritage. Computer Applications and
Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 2003. BAR International Series
1227. Oxford. 236239.
WOLF 2004

Wolf M.: A felszsolcai fldvr s krnyezetnek trinformatikai
rekonstrukcija. [GIS reconstruction of the hillfort of Felszsolca and
its environs] Archrt 127. 89-101.
WOLLK 2004 Wollk K.: The Protection of Cultural Heritage by Legistlative Methods
in Hungary. In: Jerem, E. Mester, Zs. Benczes, R. (eds.):
Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Preservation within the light of
new technologies. Selected papers from the joint Archaeolingua -
EPOCH Workshop. 27. Sept 2. Oct 2004. Szzhalombatta, Hungary.
28
73-82.
WOLLK 2009 Wollk K.: Listing precondition of protection? In: Schut, A. C. P.
(ed.): Listing Archaeological Sites, Protecting the Historical Landscape.
EAC Occasional paper no. 3. 53-62.
ZATYK et al. 2007

Zatyk Cs. Juhsz I. Smegi P. (eds.): Environmental Archaeology
in Transdanubia. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica XX.