Exploring the limits of the provenience postulate: chemical and mineralogical characterization of Bronze Age ceramics from the Great Hungarian Plain

Exploring the limits of the provenience postulate: chemical and mineralogical characterization of Bronze Age ceramics from the Great Hungarian Plain | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Exploring the limits of the provenience postulate: chemical and mineralogical characterization of Bronze Age ceramics from the Great Hungarian Plain Mark Golitko, Danielle J. Riebe, Paul Regis Duffy, Györgyi Parditka, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4577871/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Sep, 2024 Read the published version in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences → Version 1 posted 9 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Determining the provenience of archaeological objects relies on the so-called “provenience postulate,” namely, that sources of these objects are more compositionally distinct from each other than they are internally variable. For ceramics, it can be relatively straight forward in geologically heterogeneous environments to determine where vessels were produced, and whether they were traded or not. In geologically homogeneous regions, this can be far more complicated. In this study, we mineralogically and chemically compare Bronze Age ceramics (primarily Middle Bronze Age) from five archaeological sites on the Great Hungarian Plain to a large regional clay sample. The Great Hungarian Plain is comprised almost entirely of Pleistocene loess deposits, yet prior compositional studies have identified patterned variability between ceramics from different sites. Our results show that chemical variation in the region is continuous and clinal, making it difficult to strictly apply the provenience postulate to identify distinct production locations. However, we show that this clinal chemical variability can be used to make broad statements about whether most ceramics at any given site were produced relatively locally or were obtained from further distances (c. 50 km or more). We show that while production at most of our study sites was likely relatively localized, in one instance (the tell at Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár), many ceramics may have been obtained from other Bronze Age communities, including those in the Körös River drainage. Provenience Great Hungarian Plain Bronze Age Tell Petrography LA-ICP-MS Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Introduction Ceramic sourcing is a well-established method within archaeology used to determine the location of production and model systems of exchange (Arnold et al. 1991 ; Glascock et al. 2004 ; Mommsen 2001 ; Neff 2002 ). However, the ability to identify imported vessels and distinguish these from locally produced vessels, and indeed, the ability to even define a relatively geographically restricted local range of production depends on how well the so-called “provenience postulate” as first formally defined by Wiegand and colleagues (1977: 24) applies: “namely, that there exist differences in chemical composition between different natural sources that exceed, in some recognizable way, the differences observed with a given source.” For some materials like obsidian, it is relatively straightforward to identify geographically constrained and geochemically distinct sources, sample this naturally occurring variability, and then compare archaeological obsidian objects to known sources. Ceramic sourcing, in contrast, is complicated by the near ubiquity of clay containing deposits in most environments as well as natural processes (erosion, water transport, etc…) that can mix materials from multiple geological formations. Additionally, cultural and technological choices during manufacture (levigation, tempering, clay mixing) can alter the compositional profile of a ceramic from that of the geological background (Neff et al. 2003 ). Perhaps because of these complications, many ceramic compositional studies do not attempt to systemically evaluate how well the provenience postulate may apply in a particular setting. Instead, ceramics are analyzed from one or more sites in an attempt to interpret compositional patterning and distribution in terms of a more general understanding of local geology as well as the relative abundance of different compositional signatures at different sites. In geologically diverse regions, or when clear compositional differences can be identified between different types of ceramics or assemblages, this approach may be sufficient to provide relatively conclusive answers as to where ceramics might have been produced and whether they were moved from place to place in the past. However, in many geological environments, particularly ones that are relatively homogeneous, it may be more important to systematically evaluate the nature of geochemical and/or mineralogical diversity that exists in the natural environment to understand why chemistry patterns the way it does in archaeological ceramics, to understand whether it is possible to identify “non-local” ceramics, and to understand the geological scale at which ceramics may appear to be “non-local.” In this paper, we report on combined geochemical and mineralogical study of ceramics from Bronze Age ceramics from four tell sites and one cemetery on the Great Hungarian Plain (GHP). The compositional signatures obtained for the ceramics are compared to those belonging to a large number of clay samples collected from surrounding areas of the GHP. We contribute to answering questions about the level and type of social connections at sites in the region during different periods of the Bronze Age. This is particularly the case for the large tells that were founded or reoccupied (after initial Late Neolithic occupation) during later EBA and remained occupied until the end of the MBA. In one view, these tells were the centers of polities ruled by powerful chiefs who controlled areas of surrounding country side, supported attached craft specialists, and engaged in wide-ranging exchange to obtain valuable goods including metals, elaborately decorated pottery, horses, and other materials (e.g., Kristiansen and Larsson 2005 , Németi and Molnár 2012 ). In another view, later EBA and MBA communities were largely localized, agrarian, and organized much as they had been during the preceding Neolithic and Copper Age. Craft production, meanwhile, was also localized and occurred at a wide range of social contexts and site types (Kienlin 2015 ). Examining whether communities obtained ceramics from further afield or primarily relied on ceramics produced within a narrow region can also provide some insight into the scale over which people fostered social connections. The GHP is a relatively homogeneous geological area, with surface deposits consisting entirely of late-Pleistocene and early Holocene loess and reworked loess, albeit surrounded by diverse geological formations of the surrounding Carpathian and Apuseni Mountain ranges. Prior compositional studies of materials from Late Neolithic and Copper Age ceramics have identified patterned chemical differences between ceramics from different areas of the GHP, suggesting that chemical variability is present between clays as well, but the geological mechanisms that drive variability in ceramics, and the scale over which differences are present, have not been systematically explored. We address the following related issues through a study of Bronze Age ceramics and regional clay samples: 1) How well does the provenience postulate hold in this homogenous sedimentary basin, i.e., can “non-local” ceramics actually be identified with confidence, and what is the geographic range over which “non-local” ceramics might be identified? 2) If it is possible to identify transported ceramics, what is the geographical range over which ceramics were obtained? 3) Are ceramics at Bronze Age sites on the GHP regularly obtained from larger distances, or are they largely locally produced? Ceramic sourcing and the “provenience postulate” Sourcing, which we broadly define as identifying the place of extraction and/or production for an archaeological artifact, requires that some specific compositional (whether mineralogical or chemical) “signature” can be identified related to production from a particular raw material or at a specific location, and that any such signature differs sufficiently from the composition of objects produced from other sources or at other locations—the provenience postulate as first formally defined by Weigand (1977) and colleagues. What constitutes a source is however highly material specific, and for any given material, may also depend on a variety of geological, economic, historical, and cultural factors. For instance, sourcing obsidian is relatively straightforward because volcanic glass occurs in relatively geographically discrete and constrained regions, and different volcanic eruptive events tend to produce compositionally distinct obsidian. There are few if any cultural or environmental factors that can alter the composition of obsidian sufficiently that it cannot be readily traced back to its geological source of origin (Glascock 2020 ). For other materials, however, the provenience postulate holds to varying degrees, and the concept of “source” can be far more complicated. Glass or metals for instance, may combine materials from multiple geological sources, and the actual geographical distribution of these materials may be relatively large (e.g., Radivojević et al. 2019 ). Applying the provenience postulate to ceramics is challenging due to a variety of factors. Firstly, clays are widely available from most geological environments, and therefore, it is nearly impossible to delimit geographically what is meant by a geological “source.” Ceramics are also composite objects that may incorporate multiple different plastic and aplastic constituents, while levigation, firing, use, and particularly post-burial environment may further alter the mineralogical or chemical composition of archaeological ceramic objects (Neff et al. 2003 ). While for other materials, production evidence (lithic waste, metal or glass slag, kilns, etc…) often preserves in archaeological contexts, evidence for ceramic production may only be archaeologically visible in relatively intensive and specialized industries that use more elaborate technologies (substantial kilns, for instance) or that operate at sufficiently high volumes to generate substantial other evidence of production (wasters, for instance). Low intensity ceramic production may leave little to no direct evidence, or may only be identified in isolated instances (Rice 1987 ), and it may therefore also be difficult to delimit a cultural definition of what constitutes the source of some particular type of ceramic or paste recipe (Arnold et al. 1991 ; Druc 2013 ). While provenience studies of other material classes (obsidian, chert, metal) often rely on extensive surveys of potential raw material sources to build baseline compositional databases against which archaeological materials can be compared (e.g., Glascock 2020 ; Radivojević et al. 2019 ), impressionistically, the use of comparative clay samples in archaeological provenience studies remains relatively inconsistent. In part, this may reflect the broad availability of clays in most environments, and the inability in most cases to determine where potters likely specifically obtained clays from. There are examples of studies that have generated large comparative samples of clays from relevant regions (e.g., Golitko 2015 ; Neff and Bove 1999 ; Sharratt et al. 2009 ), however, many other studies simply rely on identifying different compositional types among archaeological ceramics, then making an argument for how this compositional variability relates to potential geological and cultural factors that may pattern variability. This may entail comparing ceramics from different regions or areas to each other (e.g., Blomster et al. 2005 ), analyzing small numbers of clay samples (e.g., Golitko and Terrell 2012), or else using the relative frequency of samples included in different compositional signatures to argue for local (more frequent) versus non-local (less common compositional signatures) production (the so-called “criterion of abundance”) (e.g., Levine et al. 2013 ). Petrography may allow for more informed conclusions, as mineralogy can often be linked back to specific geological formations or rock types even without comparative geological samples. For chemistry, however, it is difficult if not impossible to make suggestions about the source of ceramic raw materials based only on compositional data. In highly geologically diverse environments (particularly ones with strong areal rather than stratigraphic/vertical differentiation in geology/mineralogy/chemistry), the relative distribution of ceramic chemical types may provide strong evidence for why compositional differences exist, and where particular compositional types or signatures likely originated from (e.g., Bishop et al. 1988 ). In relatively geologically homogeneous environments, however, patterned chemical and/or mineralogical variability may still be found in studied archaeological ceramics (e.g., Bartlett et al. 2000 ; Riebe 2021 ), but understanding why this patterning exists, how spatially patterned it might be, and how geological variability may intersect with socioeconomic patterning (i.e., where production actually takes place) may prove highly challenging based on archaeological data alone (Arnold et al. 2000 ). Without understanding the baseline variability in clays, conclusions about whether ceramics were “local” to a particular site, or acquired from greater distances may rest on unfounded assumptions, including the relative geographical distance over which the provenience postulate may or may not apply. In such instances, intensive survey of potential raw materials may be required to understand the compositional variability that ancient potters sampled in acquiring raw materials for potting before any conclusions can be reached about the archaeological relevance of compositional differences to archaeological questions about economy, production, trade/exchange, or transfer of ideas and techniques. Our study region consists of homogeneous Quaternary deposits, yet prior studies of archaeological ceramics have identified patterned chemical variance in ceramics from sites in different portions of the GHP. We combine petrographic and chemical data with an intensive examination of geochemical variability in clays to examine how well the provenience postulate might apply to Bronze Age ceramics recovered on the GHP, and to what extent it might be possible to identify the transfer of ceramics between sites or areas of the GHP. The Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin The Carpathian (Pannonian) Basin (Fig. 1 ) comprises much of the modern nation of Hungary, as well as low-lying areas of the surrounding countries, and is roughly bounded by Carpathian and Apuseni Mountain ranges. The Great Hungarian Plain (GHP) is a particularly low-relief portion of the eastern Basin to the east of the Danube River, but also geomorphologically includes portions of western and northern Romania and the northern Serbian Banat region. Much of the GHP is relatively swampy, although this varies by region and landform, so that some areas like the Maros alluvial fan are drier than lower lying areas like the Körös drainage. The region is crossed by a number of major river systems originating in neighboring mountain ranges, most significantly the Tisza and Maros, but also a number of smaller rivers. During the later Early Bronze Age (EBA), after c. 2200 calBC, numerous tell settlements, some originally occupied during the Late Neolithic, were either founded or reoccupied. Tells eventually stretched across most of the GHP (they are not present west of the Danube or in mountainous regions off the GHP) during the ensuing Middle Bronze Age (MBA) and extensive excavations have been carried out at a number of these sites (Fischl and Reményi 2013 , Staniuk 2021 ). These tells vary in size and structure, but most are surrounded by ditches of some sort or artificial moats (expanding existing natural river courses in many cases), and some are surrounded by large flat settlements as well. Tells have been argued to represent the centers of small polities ruled by emergent political and military elites who controlled trade in valuable goods (including bronze, amber, and horses), sponsored attached craft specialists, and drew on the produce of nearby flat settlements (e.g., Fischl and Reményi 2013 ; Gogâltan 2016 ; Nicodemus et al. 2015 ). Kienlin ( 2015 , 2020 ), in contrast, suggests that this view of tells imposes models more appropriate to the Late Bronze Age (LBA) and Iron Age onto MBA communities. He notes that MBA tells are barely larger than those occupied during the Neolithic and contain little evidence for centralized administration or elite residences. These tells were on present evidence largely abandoned after 1500 calBC (but possibly as early as 1700 calBC), although disturbance of upper tell levels, limited C-14 dating in many cases, and issues with regional ceramic chronologies make this process difficult to understand in many areas of the GHP (Daróczi et al. 2022 ). Flat sites and cemeteries were likely still occupied into the LBA (Kienlin 2015 ; Parditka et al. 2019; Staniuk 2021 ), while populations may also have shifted further south into the Serbian Banat into so-called “megaforts” as climatic conditions changed (Molloy et al. 2023 ). The occupation and peak period of tell settlement also corresponds to the greatest elaboration of what has been termed “baroque” designs on ceramics. These MBA vessels, although stylistically variable across the GHP (see Fig. 1 for cultural-historical stylistic regions, although the utility of these is now questioned), generally have incised and channeled decorations including bosses, elaborate spiraled motifs, and possible cosmological symbology (see Fig. 2 ; Bóna 1975 ; Sofaer 2013 ; Szeverényi et al. 2021 ). In the Maros area, Michelaki ( 2006 , 2008 ; see also O’Shea 1996 ) argues for the production of elaborate decorated vessels as specialist craft associated with metalworking. However, most extent studies of MBA ceramics have found limited direct evidence for wide scale transport of ceramics between regions or communities (e.g., Earle et al. 2011 ; Kreiter 2007 ; Michelaki 2006 ). Kreiter ( 2007 ) found little evidence for significant changes in production technology during the Bronze Age, and mineralogical and technological studies of Bronze Age pots suggest a relatively low-intensity production organization (Golitko et al. 2021 ; Kreiter 2007 ; Michelaki 2008 ). The central portion of the eastern GHP where the work reported here is focused, roughly the region of the Körös and Berettyó river systems, is one of the wettest areas of the GHP. During the MBA, this is the southern half of the Ottomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex (OFCC) (Fischl 2018 ), or Gyulavarsánd style, which extends southwards to the edge of the Maros Fan, westward to the Körös-Tisza confluence, and northwards to the edge of the Plain (Fazecaș and Gogâltan 2019). In the Körös drainage itself, only a handful of tells are known (Kovács 1988 ). Duffy’s research (2014), focusing on tell–non-tell relationships in the Lower Körös region, found no evidence of redistribution or regional consolidation of political power, and little social differentiation between tells and open settlements, questioning at least the broad applicability of common assumptions about MBA societies. Further north, in the Berettyó river valley, tells provide more evidence of prestige goods and craft specialism, and are less commonly associated with flat settlements (Máthé 1988 ; Dani 2012 ). Prior chemical and petrographic studies of ceramics from the GHP The GHP (Fig. 1 ) would appear to be an unpromising place to conduct ceramic sourcing work—the surface geology of most of the GHP consists of deep Pleistocene loess deposits (Bosq et al. 2023 ). In poorly drained areas (known locally as Puszta), this loess is relatively unaltered, however, in lower, better drained areas, this loess has been reworked into more clay rich deposits (Duffy 2014 ). Most of these areas were drained and canalized by the Habsburg Empire during the 18th and 19th centuries, so that current hydrology does not represent the situation during prehistory (Gyucha et al. 2011 ). The surrounding mountains are however highly geologically diverse, and contain a variety of sedimentary, volcanic, and metamorphic deposits which may contribute to the composition of reworked loessic deposits on the GHP itself (Riebe 2021 ). Despite this overt lack of geological variability, a number of prior compositional studies of pottery from this broad loessic region have identified patterned chemical variability in ceramics from different areas of the GHP. For example, Michelaki ( 2006 ) used INAA to study two sites in the Maros drainage, Kiszombor-Új-Élet Tsz (a tell dating to the early Maros phase of the EBA, c. 2600 − 2000 calBC) and Klárafalva-Hajdova (a tell dating to the Late Maros/MBA, c. 2000 − 1700 calBC). While noting (Michelaki 2008 : 360–361) that at a macroscopic level, the majority of sherds were made from “fine, non-calcareous clays with a ubiquitous presence of small mica (muscovite) particles,” ceramics from the two sites differed based on concentrations of transition metals. While some ceramics identified as non-Maros stylistically (including EBA Makó sherds and Gyulavarsánd sherds) also differed chemically (as did a handful of Maros style sherds), other stylistically “non-local” sherds (Transdanubian Encrusted Ware in this case) appeared chemically “local.” As part of the broader Benta Valley project, Earle, Kreiter, and colleagues analyzed a number of sherds from Százhalombatta-Földvár and nearby Bronze Age communities. Petrographic analysis identified the use of three basically different clays (non-calcareous, calcareous, calcareous with forminefera), with long-term stability EBA-LBA in these production methods, suggesting possible continued traditions of multiple potting groups, but with numerous potters working. Based on minor differences in chemical concentration (measured by INAA), ceramics from down-valley sites (near the Danube) could be distinguished from up-valley sites, with limited overlap between the two identified chemical signatures. Down-valley samples also contain elevated frequencies of volcanic mineral grains that may have been transported by the Danube and mixed into local clay deposits. In this case, there was little evidence for movement of ceramics, although highly localized movement of pottery (on the order of 10km or less) could not be ruled out (Earle et al. 2011 ; Kreiter et al. 2007 ). A recent study of ceramics from the Serbian site of Corneşti-Iarcuri by petrography, XRD, WD-XRF, and PXRF also identified patterned chemical variability. This site began as a MBA flat settlement that developed into the largest known LBA “mega-fort” in the Pannonian Basin. While all studied ceramics appeared petrographically “local,” (including the addition of “local” looking grog temper), chemical analysis identified minor differences between MBA and LBA ceramics from the site. Comparison to ceramics from other regional sites also produced evidence for potential movement of pots between Corneşti-Iarcuri and smaller outlying sites, as well as a number of chemical outliers that might have come from greater distances (Meyer et al. 2016 ). While not focused on Bronze Age ceramics, two studies of ceramics have also been carried out that focus on the Körös drainage and surrounding regions of the GHP. Riebe ( 2021 ; see also Riebe and Niziolek 2015 ) examined a large corpus of Late Neolithic (Tisza and Herpály) ceramics by LA-ICP-MS, as well as a number of sediment samples collected from the immediate vicinity of the studied sites. While finding minor variability between individual sites, Riebe was able to distinguish combined pottery groups associated with sites in the Körös, Berettyó, and Tisza River drainages, primarily via subtle differences in Mo and W concentrations. The study suggests that about 8–10% of ceramics were transported between these drainages, although limited to c. 70-80km (ceramics did not move between the Berettyó and Tisza drainages). A similar study at Early Copper Age (Tiszapolgár) sites in and around the Körös drainage by Duwe and colleagues (Duwe 2005 ; Duwe et al. 2020 ) similarly identified differences between pottery from different portions of the central GHP. Using a combination of INAA and LA-ICP-MS on ceramic, clay, and daub samples, they were able to distinguish ceramics from sites in the Körös drainage from those recovered at Battonya-Vertán and link these sites to local sediment samples. Their INAA measurements were also compared to Michelaki’s data from the Maros region, suggesting that these samples were significantly chemically different from those recovered in the Körös drainage. Based on these results, they proposed that sediments are relatively homogeneous on scales of c. 35-50km, but that transport of ceramics beyond this range can be identified. For instance, they suggest that a number of outlier samples from sites in the Körös were imported based on differences in Sn an Sc concentrations, and suggest two-way movement of ceramics between the Körös drainage and the Battonya area. Petrography has also been performed on ceramics from a number of Bronze Age sites on the GHP, but generally, beyond identifying the use of a number of “local” looking clays, it has proven difficult to conclusively identify the movement of ceramics via mineralogy. Petrographic analysis of ceramics from the Benta Valley failed to identify mineralogical differences between chemically “core” local ceramics and chemical outliers, although ceramics from sites nearer to the Danube had higher frequencies of volcanic mineral grains that might have been incorporated into local loessic sediments by riverine transport. In a large-scale study of ceramics from the MBA tell settlement of Kakucs-Turján, stylistically “non-local” ceramics did not appear mineralogically different from presumed local Vatya style ceramics (Staniuk et al. 2022 ). In a broad-scale study of ceramics from a number of EBA, MBA, and LBA sites, Kreiter ( 2007 ) was able to identify a number of different paste types based on the relative frequencies of mineral grains, however, the ubiquity of common mineral types (quartz, muscovite) across sites made it difficult to compellingly identify non-local ceramics. He did find evidence that near the edges of the GHP, mineralogy is likely to reflect input from surrounding geologies. For instance, ceramics from Füzesabony-Öregdomb, near the base of the northern Carpathians, contain a wider range of polycrystaline rocks fragments including feldspars and igneous/pyroclastic rocks. In a study of ceramics from the central GHP dating to the Later Copper Age and EBA and MBA, Parsons ( 2012 ) found little evidence for change in basic paste preparation, although noting that MBA ceramics were less variable than during earlier periods and more frequently incorporated grog. He was unable to identify systematic site by site differences in mineralogy. Collectively, these studies suggest that while mineralogy may be relatively undifferentiated across the GHP, there is patterned geochemical variability despite the relative homogeneity of surface sediments. Both Riebe ( 2021 ) and Duwe and colleagues ( 2020 ) suggest that geochemical differences may pattern by river drainage, possibly owing to transport of sediments out of different geologies in surrounding mountain ranges. Both studies also suggest that there is insufficient variability at shorter distances or within river drainages to allow distinction of production location or movement of vessels. However, there remain a number of questions regarding the ability to conclusively distinguish locally produced from imported vessels, and how well the provenience postulate applies on the GHP. For instance, it should be noted that Riebe had to remove samples from each of her drainage specific chemical groups in order to produce “core” groups that strictly obeyed the statistical expression of the provenience postulate, typically evaluated by calculating Mahalanobis distance-based probabilities of group membership (Neff 2002 ). Additionally, in both studies, sample sites are located in geographically distinct clusters of sites, which may also contribute to an impression of discontinuous variability across the GHP from a chemical and statistical standpoint, but adding in intermediate sites might create substantially more overlap and reduce the ability to conclusively distinguish between different ore widely spaced regions of the GHP. In other words, it is possible that these studies are sampling distinct regions of what is actually a broad continuum of chemistry, producing the false impression of geochemically distinct regions between which movement of ceramics can be identified. In an attempt to address these issues, in this study, we rely on a much larger set of clay samples collected across the GHP between the Tisza River and the Hungarian-Romanian border to address how much actual variability exists in sediments, over what scales geochemistry varies, and to what degree there exists discontinuous variability between different river drainages or areas of the GHP that might allow for a strict application of the provenience postulate. Ceramics from five Bronze Age site assemblages are then evaluated relative to this variability to assess whether production was likely to be largely local, or whether we can identify ceramics that might have been acquired from further distances. Table 1 Sites and samples included in the study. Site Chronology (calBC) Total Coarseware Fineware Cups/Mugs Bowls Jars/Urns Other/Undiagnostic Békés-Várdomb 1900 − 1600 25 5 20 8 9 1 7 Vésztő-Mágor 1900 − 1600 25 5 20 4 1 1 18 Berettyóújfalu-Herpály 2020 − 1430 25 5 20 1 6 0 15 Túrkeve-Terehalom 2000 − 1600 25 5 20 5 3 3 12 Békés Jégvermi-kert (chemistry) 1880 − 1280 98 12 86 15 16 29 25 Békés Jégvermi-kert (petrography) 1880 − 1280 103 11 92 12 24 33 21 Materials and Methods Sample and sample assemblages Our sampling was designed to include assemblages of well dated materials from major Gyulavarsánd tell sites and a sizable collection from Békés Jégvermi-kert, the only known cemetery from the southern area of the OFCC. We attempted to sample MBA contexts for tell sites, while sampling at the cemetery was more extensive and was designed to sample both the settlement area of the site as well as a representative set of burials spanning the main occupation phases at the cemetery. At tell sites, fineware samples (typically burnished and thin-walled) were primarily chosen on the basis of having recognizable MBA Gyulavarsánd decorations including channels, bosses, and triangular incised decorations (see Fig. 2 ). Our sample also includes a variety of vessel forms, including urns (Fig. 2 a and b), jars, mugs/cups (Fig. 2 c and i), and bowls (Fig. 2 e, h). There are a handful of vessels included in our sample with stylistic features more common in other regions of the GHP and beyond (Fig. 2 l and m). Twenty samples were selected per site, with an additional five courseware (often rusticated or brushed) sherds (Fig. 2 k), typically fragments of storage vessels or cooking pots, sampled from the same contexts or levels (Table 1 ). Békés-Várdomb The tell at Békés-Várdomb, and its adjacent occupation, was excavated over several seasons during the 1950s (Banner 1956 , Banner and Bóna 1974 ). This site cluster is now under study by members of the Körös Consortium (these results are as of yet unpublished). All samples analyzed in this study derive from the 1950s excavations. The Várdomb tell and surrounding flat settlement are estimated to have housed approximately 500 people (Duffy et al. 2013 ). There is no evidence of an earlier Late Neolithic settlement. New unpublished radiocarbon dates from the northern part of the cluster (Békés-Városerdő-dűlő) place the occupation in the 1900 − 1600 BCE range (Parditka, in prep). Vésztő-Mágor : Vésztő-Mágor is a 3.9 hectare tell surrounded by a meander loop of the ancient Sebes-Körös, topped by medieval monastery and highly disturbed by 19th century construction. The tell was excavated between 1972–1976 and then again in 1986 (Hegedűs and Makkay 1987 , Makkay 2004 ), while recent work during the 2010s (from which our samples derive) has focused on producing a more reliable chronology for the site and conserving profiles excavated in the 1980’s (Gyucha et al. 2015 ; Parkinson et al 2018). The tell has a significant Late Neolithic component, with shorter occupations during the earlier Neolithic and Early-Middle Copper Age. The only Bronze Age date with known contextual information places the dated context between 1875–1745 calBC (68.2 percent) (Duffy, Parditka et al. 2019 : Table S2, Figure S1 ). Additional unpublished dates place the site in the 1900 − 1600 BCE range (Duffy and Parditka, in prep.) Túrkeve-Terehalom Túrkeve-Terehalom, located along a paleo-channel of the Hortobágy-Berettyó, is one of the most extensively investigated tell settlements in the Gyulavarsánd area. The site was systematically excavated over ten field seasons between 1985 and 1995, and then again in 2004. The site contains c. 10m of stratified deposits divided into eleven distinct levels. The site is located at the border of stylistic traditions, and the excavators note similarities in the ceramic assemblage to Hatvan, Perjámos (early Maros), and Füzesabony styles in addition to more typical regional styles including Gyulavarsánd during the MBA (Csányi and Tárnoki 1992 ). An extensive set of C-14 dates were recently published from Túrkeve-Terehalom as part of the “joinTime” project. These dates indicate that the tell was first settled between 2014 − 1907 calBC, and abandoned around 1600 calBC or slightly thereafter. Our samples come from the 1985-95 excavations, and are derived from the MBA levels 3,4,5, 6, and 6A, and thus date to between c. 1830 − 1753/1712 calBC (Daróczi et al. 2022 ). Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár This tell (and associated flat settlement) is the eponymous site of the Late Neolithic Herpály culture, and was reoccupied during the Middle Bronze Age. The Bronze Age layers at Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár are thin and poorly preserved in some areas, but four layers have been identified. The ceramics in our sample derive from levels 3 and 4, described as Ottomány B (4) and Gyulavarsánd (3) by the excavator. Available radiometric dates fall between 2020 and 1430 calBC (Raczky et al. 1992 ; Staniuk 2021 ), however, the exact stratigraphic context of these dates is unpublished, the dates have large error margins, and disturbance of upper levels at the tell may also complicate interpretation of the Bronze Age chronology (Máthé 1992 ). Békés Jégvermi-kert Lipcsei tanya (Békés 103). Békés Jégvermi-kert is the only Bronze Age cemetery known from the Lower Körös area but is also associated with a small settlement area. Between 2011 and 2019, 83 graves were excavated. Most consist of cremations placed into ceramic urns, but there are also a few scattered cremations, as well as inhumation burials (Paja et al. 2016 , Williamson et al. 2021 ). Based on survey results and the total area of the cemetery, it is estimated that ca. 2500 burials may be present (Duffy et al. 2014 ; Duffy, Paja et al. 2019 ). Radiometric dating and stylistic analysis of burial ceramics suggests four primary phases of use at the cemetery spanning the EBA, MBA, and early stages of the LBA, as well as short hiatus in use during the early MBA. Most would describe the ceramics of Phases 3 (1880 − 1600) and 4 (1600 − 1280 calBC) as Otomani-Füzesabony or Gyulavarsánd style, decorated with typical “baroque” motifs including spirals, bosses, prows, channels, and chevrons (Duffy, Parditka et al. 2019 ). It should be noted that the absolute dates associated with phase 4 are late relative to the types of ceramics found in those burials. At tell settlements on the GHP, these styles represent the primary and terminal phases of MBA occupation and date no later than c. 1700/1600 calBC. An initial sample was selected by Riebe in 2013 that was drawn from early surface collections, including from the settlement area. Subsequently, a larger sample was taken from burial contexts to reflect variability across use of cemetery as well as different burials and vessel types. Samples were selected to include all phases, as well as stylistic variability present in these phases. While Riebe’s initial sample included both decorated burnished vessels, and coarseware samples, the later sample consists only of decorated and burnished urns, cups, jars, and bowls from funerary contexts. A separate set of sherds were selected for petrographic analysis. In most cases, these samples were drawn from the same vessels selected for chemical analysis, but the two sets to do not entirely overlap. Clay sampling During 2015, 2016, and 2018, we carried out a broad areal clay survey of the GHP between the Tisza River and Romanian border, with several additional samples opportunistically collected west and north of Lake Tisza, south of Budapest, and on the Romanian side of the Maros river near the tell at Pecica “Şanţul Mare” (Fig. 1 ). Samples were collected at a depth of c. 1m using an Oakfield soil probe. We focused primarily on paleomeanders of old stream and river channels that were cut off from the regional hydrology during the 18th and 19th centuries, both because these sediments proved to be far more clay rich than comparable non-stream and riverine sediments, and because we hoped to avoid the effects of 20th century industrial pollutants and fertilizers which might be concentrated in agricultural areas and modern canalized stream and river courses. Clays were evaluated in the field via the production of coils to informally assess how suitable they might be for ceramic production. We noted that most stream and river clays were highly plastic and could be used to produce coils with little need for further processing. Samples taken from Puszta were generally siltier and more difficult to form coils from than clays collected from reworked Holocene deposits. We also include clay samples collected and analyzed by Riebe ( 2021 ) as part of her study of Late Neolithic ceramics. These were largely sampled onsite rather than in stream channels, and are primarily “meadow clays” formed by repeated movement of the water table through loess deposits. A total of 98 clay samples were analyzed. Methods A sub-set of ceramics from Békés Jégvermi-kert was analyzed both by optical petrography (103 samples), and LA-ICP-MS as were a number of clay samples collected in the immediate vicinity of the site, while remaining ceramics and clays were analyzed by LA-ICP-MS only. Optical petrography was carried out at the Hungarian National Museum (Budapest) and followed standard methods of thin-section production and analysis of texture and mineral inclusions as reported by Kreiter ( 2007 ). Inclusion density, size categories, inclusion sorting and roundness of the components were determined based on a slightly modified version of the guidelines of the Prehistoric Ceramic Research Group (2010). Inclusion density was coded as rare (1–2%), sparse (3–9%), moderate (10–19%), common (20–29%), very common (30–39%) and abundant (40% <). Inclusion size was coded as very fine ( 3 mm). Clay samples were prepared for petrographic analysis by first removing larger inclusions and impurities, adding water, and forming small briquettes. The briquettes were fired in a Nabertherm L15/12/320 type electric kiln in an oxidizing atmosphere at 750°C, with a heating time of one hour and a soaking time of three hours. This temperature was selected to prevent transformation of carbonates as these were present in ceramic samples (Kreiter 2007 ), which could distort the visibility of calcareous non-plastic inclusions. Standard 30 µm thin sections were then prepared from these fired briquettes. For chemical analysis, clean broken edges were selected on ceramic samples, in some cases using cut edges produced for thin-sectioning. Clays were dried, manually disaggregated, and homogenized in an agate mortar. 5gm of material from each sample was then rewetted using ultra-pure deionized water, formed into a briquette, and fired at 800°C for one hour. LA-ICP-MS was performed at the Field Museum Elemental Analysis Facility (EAF, Chicago, USA) using procedures reported elsewhere (Golitko 2015 ; Riebe 2021 ; Riebe and Niziolek 2015 ). Concentrations were calculated against NIST standards 610, 612, and 679 using the sum-normalization procedure first published by Gratuze and colleagues ( 2001 ). New Ohio Red Clay (NORC) was run as a quality assurance standard with each run, and resulting average values and relative standard deviations are reported in supplemental table S2. All measurements can be found in supplemental data. Results of compositional analyses Petrography The analyzed ceramics were divided into six fabric groups based on the density and size of inclusions, summarized in supplemental table S3. The basic raw materials represented in these six fabric groups are however very similar in terms of the type of non-plastic inclusions. Fabric 1 (n = 61): This fabric is very fine grained, although fine inclusions are also present. All vessels were tempered with grog, though its amount is rare to sparse. The majority of inclusions are very fine to fine quartz and muscovite mica but rare feldspar (potassium feldspar, plagioclase) was also identified. Fabric 2 (n = 1): This fabric is similar to Fabric 1, however it contains calcareous inclusions (carbonate clasts, but the clay matrix is non-calcareous). The majority of inclusions are also very fine to fine quartz and muscovite mica but rare feldspar (potassium feldspar, plagioclase) was also identified. The amount of grog tempering is moderate. Fabric 3 (n = 36): This fabric is very fine to fine-grained. It is similar to Fabrics 1 and 2 but Fabric 3 contains more fine non-plastic inclusions. The ceramics were tempered with rare to sparse amounts of grog. The majority of inclusions are very fine to fine quartz, muscovite mica, feldspar (potassium feldspar, plagioclase) is rare. Fabric 4 (n = 3): This fabric is similar to Fabric 3, however it contains calcareous inclusions (carbonate clasts, but the clay matrix is non-calcareous). Grog temper is rare. The types of inclusions are similar to the previous fabrics. Fabric 5 (n = 1). This fabric is also similar to the other fabrics; however, it contains calcareous inclusions (individual carbonate clasts appear and the clay matrix is calcareous). The amount of grog tempering is sparse. Fabric 6 (n = 1): This fabric is very fine to medium-grained and tempered with rare amounts of grog. It is a calcareous raw material, but also contains larger carbonate clasts. The majority of inclusions are very fine to medium quartz and muscovite mica, but rare feldspar (potassium feldspar, plagioclase) was also identified. The raw materials used to produce the vast majority of the studied ceramics closely resemble clay samples collected near Békés Jégvermi-kert (Fig. 3 ), however, it should be noted that when a particular clay sample resembles a ceramic sample or group of ceramics, this does not mean that they are identical, but rather that the particular clay sample is the closest match to the ceramics in terms of the type, size, and distribution of non-plastic inclusions. In some cases, clay samples resemble multiple petrographic ceramic groups, and we are not suggesting one to one correlation between particular vessels and particular clay samples. The results do however indicate that the degree of mineralogical variability in locally available clays is similar to that observed in ceramic samples, suggesting that the full range of ceramics from Békés Jégvermi-kert we studied could have been produced with relatively locally available raw materials. An earlier analysis of seven sherds from Túrkeve-Terehalom similarly indicates use of clays that could have been obtained locally on the GHP and specifically near to the site itself (Kreiter 2007 ). Overall, we identified no ceramics that appear to originate from significantly different geological environments than the GHP, and all plausibly could originate from very near to the site. The petrographic analysis also suggests that beyond removal of very large inclusions, and the occasional addition of grog temper, Bronze Age potters at Békés Jégvermi-kert likely used relatively unaltered clays for the production of vessels. LA-ICP-MS of ceramics Our initial interpretations of ceramic chemistry followed statistical procedures widely utilized in ceramic compositional studies, which are in effect an attempt to statistically apply the provenience postulate to identify distinctive production signatures and then assess the likelihood that any given ceramic might have been drawn from a particular identified chemical distribution (Harbottle 1976 ; Neff 2002 ; Glascock and Neff 2003 ; Glascock et al. 2004 ). Prior to conducting further analysis of the data, we omitted a series of elements that were likely impacted by post-depositional alteration. In a prior study (Golitko et al. 2021 ), we noted issues particularly with ceramics from Békés Jégvermi-kert, which when excavated, were often covered with a whitish crust. This material proved to be composed of a variety of soil minerals and organic compounds cemented into a matrix of redeposited calcite, likely formed through annual wet/dry cycling in the surrounding burial matrix. Examination of compositional profiles in sherd cross-sections also identified alteration of concentrations of a number of potentially mobile elements (Na, Ca, Sr, Ba), which were also noted as being present systematically higher concentrations than those present in ceramics from the four tell sites, where ceramics were likely less subjected to annual differences in moisture. We subsequently also noted potential issues with Mn and U concentrations. Consequently, these six elements were removed from all further analysis. Remaining elemental values were then logged (base 10) to normalize the data and eliminate scaling differences between elements, after which we used cluster analysis, inspection of bivariate plots, and PCA (see supplemental figures S1 , S2, and S3) to examine structure in the data (Neff 2002 ). Preliminary groups were then refined by calculation of Mahalanobis distance-based probabilities of group membership to remove outlier samples and assess the degree of statistical separation between chemical groups. Initial attempts to separate samples by site proved challenging, as did attempts to separate the sites by river valley. In the end, the most robust partitioning of samples that we could produce generated three chemical signatures (labeled A, B, and T in Fig. 3 ) as well as a number of statistical outliers. The principal distinctions between these chemical groups can be seen on Fig. 4 , comparing logged W and Mo concentrations. Group A is the largest of the chemical groups, and contains all non-outlier sherds from Békés Jégvermi-kert, Békés-Várdomb, Vésztő-Mágor, and the majority of samples from Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár. Group B contains seven sherds from Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár, and is characterized by lower W concentrations than Group A sherds. Group T contains all non-outlier sherds from Túrkeve-Terehalom and is characterized by higher Mo concentrations than those present in Group A sherds. A number of sherds remain unassigned to these chemical groups, yet inspection of bivariate plots suggests that these are statistical outliers of these groups, not samples with chemistries divergent enough to suspect that they were imported from elsewhere. As can be seen on Fig. 4 , these outlier samples generally hover around the fringes of the confidence regions for the chemical groups to which the majority of samples from their respective sites belong. It should be noted that Groups A and T do not fully satisfy the provenience postulate in a formal statistical sense, as there is a substantial amount of statistical (and chemical) overlap between ceramics located near the compositional boundaries of these two groups (supplemental table S4). We could in principle have eliminated this overlap by omitting samples with high probabilities of belonging to both groups, then comparing these sherds to the more narrowly constrained “core” chemical-statistical regions of each group. However, given that Túrkeve-Terehalom is only c. 35km from the nearest Körös drainage site (Vésztő-Mágor) included in Group A, and without a knowledge of how much clay chemistry varies on this order of distance, we felt it was equally likely that this degree of overlap could result from localized production at each site and no movement of ceramics. To more explicitly test these possible interpretations, we next explore chemical patterning in clay samples and how these compare to measured ceramics. Clay variability and comparison to ceramics We first grouped samples by drainage system (with “Puszta” added as a category for all samples outside of a drainage basin). A MANOVA test using logged (base 10) elemental concentrations suggests that there are statistically significant chemical differences between some drainage basins on certain elements (Wilk’s test p=<<0.001). Some of the most significantly varying elements are shown as box-and-whisker plots on Fig. 5 . Several trends are evident on these plots, for instance, relatively low Ni and Co and high Cu concentrations in samples taken the Zagyva-Tarna drainage, and similarly elevated Cu concentrations in samples from the Danube and Maros drainages. Concentrations of Cs are consistently higher in samples from the northern portions of the GHP (Danube, Hortobágy, Zagyva-Tarna, Berettyó). Both Mo and W, associated with differences between some samples in this data set (and in Riebe’s ( 2021 ) earlier study of Late Neolithic ceramics) differs significantly between different drainages, and in particular, significantly higher W concentrations are measured in Berettyó clay samples compared to those taken from the Körös drainage. Puszta samples and samples from the Tisza are particularly variable, reflecting the large geographical distances between samples in these categories. These chemical differences could account for the ability to distinguish ceramics from sites in different drainages, as noted in prior studies, however, there is a substantial amount of overlap between concentrations in any pair of drainages for most elements, which could also account for observed overlaps in ceramics. Another way to conceptualize the provenience postulate is as follows: chemical variability must demonstrate a discontinuous distribution so that a distinct boundary can be identified in compositions representing production in two different geographically discrete regions. If chemical variance is continuous, then distinctive profiles will only be identifiable in the event that ceramics are produced only in relatively distantly spaced communities or production centers. If variability is clinal, and ceramics are produced at widely distributed but relatively closely spaced communities, ceramic chemistry will also form a continuous distribution that will make it impossible to identify the compositional and statistical boundaries of production at one site, and to conclusively identify where a transported ceramic was actually produced. To examine the geographic distribution of chemical variance, we compare pair-wise Euclidean distances between the logged (base 10) chemical concentrations in clay samples to their corresponding pair-wise geodesic distances in kilometers. This comparison reveals a statistically significant linear increase in chemical distance with geographic distance, albeit that distance only explains about 20% of the total variance (R 2 = 0.181, p < < 0.001) in chemical similarity (Fig. 6 A, see supplemental table S5). In other words, the further apart two different clay deposits are, the more likely it is that they will display significant chemical differences, however, it is also possible to sample broadly chemically similar clays even at relatively large distances on the GHP. This broadly clinal nature of chemical variability on the GHP makes it unlikely that pottery produced there will satisfy the provenience postulate in any strict form, excepting in a case where pottery is only produced in a handful of widely separated locations and it can conclusively be ruled out that ceramics were produced in any geographically intermediate locations. Even so, the wide range of concentrations found in clays at any given location makes it likely that even then, there will be overlap between the compositional and statistical space occupied by ceramics from any two production sites. This patterning helps explain the results of prior compositional studies, in other words, the ability to find consistent chemical differences between widely spaced sites, inability to distinguish pottery produced at proximal sites, and the degree of compositional and statistical overlap between ceramics from even widely spaced ancient communities. That said, we propose that the clinal nature of chemical variability on the GHP can still be used to make some broad statements about the likely location of ceramic manufacture at different communities. In the event that the majority of ceramics at a given site are manufactured on site or at least within a relatively short distance of the site, comparison to clays should reveal a broadly similar linear relationship between pair-wise Euclidean chemical distance and geographic distance so long as tempering or other processes do not substantially change the base paste composition relative to natural geochemical variability. Conversely, if ceramics were largely obtained from a more distant location, this relationship should diverge from that observed for comparisons of clay samples to each other. Treating all of the Bronze Age ceramics in our sample as local and comparing them to clay samples (Fig. 6 B, supplemental table S5) does in fact show a linear relationship that is broadly similar to that for comparisons of clay samples to each other. Divided by type, it is clear that coarseware vessels (storage vessels and cooking pots) almost exactly mimic the regression pattern between clays, suggesting very local production in our sample, as might be expected for these larger, less decorated vessels (Fig. 6 C). Fineware diverges marginally from this pattern, however, dividing by specific vessel types highlights larger divergence from the expected “local” regression pattern for some vessel types (Fig. 6 D). Mugs/cups and bowls in particular show greater than expected Euclidean distances relative to clays when compared to geographical distance, suggesting that these relatively small, and sometimes very elaborately decorated vessel types (e.g., Sofaer 2013 ) may have moved more frequently over larger distances. Urns/jars fall in between these other vessel categories and the coarseware/clay regression lines, suggesting that fewer of these vessels may have been transported over longer distances. However, it should be noted that while cups and mugs (and bowls to a lesser degree) were relatively widely sampled across our study sites, larger urns and jars in our sample derive almost entirely from funerary contexts at Békés Jégvermi-kert. While comparison of the pooled set of samples suggests that many of the vessels in our Bronze Age sample were locally produced (within a short distance of the sites from which they were recovered), we may perhaps gain a more detailed view by making this comparison on both a site-by-site basis and by dividing ceramic samples based on their assigned chemical group. For Békés Jégvermi-kert (Fig. 7 ), the relationship between Euclidean chemical distance and geographic distance (removing outlier samples from consideration) is similar to that for clay-clay comparisons (Fig. 7 A), although again, coarseware fits the clay regression line marginally closer than fineware does. If the site is placed at a series of false coordinates on other parts of the GHP, these regression lines diverge from the expected chemical-distance relationship, particularly as the site is moved to large distances from its true location. This is particularly evident when the site is placed well to the north (Fig. 7 C) or within the Maros fan (Fig. 7 D). The difference is less pronounced when moving the site westwards but still within the broader Körös drainage (Fig. 7 B), suggesting that chemical similarity may be greater within river drainages than when comparing across different drainages. At three of the four other study sites (Békés-Várdomb—Figure 8 A, Vésztő-Mágor—Figure 8 B, and Túrkeve-Terehalom—Figure 8 C), the relationship between chemical distance and geographical distance for the major chemical group identified at each site is nearly identical to that for clays, again suggesting that many or even most of the ceramics at each of these three sites may have been produced in close proximity to each respective ancient community. Applying this same approach to the ceramics from Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár produces a very different result, however, suggesting the possibility that relatively few of the ceramics we sampled from there were produced locally. For comparisons of both Group A and Group B ceramics from the site to clays (Fig. 8 B), the resulting regression relationship deviates significantly from that expected for local production from clays sampled from nearby in the Berettyó Valley. This is particularly the case for Group B ceramics. Moving the site to a variety of “dummy” geographical coordinates suggests that Group A ceramics are similar to clays from the Körös drainage (see supplemental figure S4), so that possibly many ceramics used there were acquired from communities in the Körös area. Notably, both coarse- and fineware ceramics appear “non-local.” That said, we have relatively limited numbers of clay samples from the Berettyó and northern GHP, which may bias our results as to how similar ceramics from Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár are relative to more local clays, and it remains possible that additional sampling in that area would make ceramics there appear more “local.” Group B ceramics do not match any of the clays in our current sample, and we are unable to suggest a likely production area or region for these. They might plausibly originate outside of the regions we have sampled, for instance in the Danube-Tisza interfluve, or further east on the Romanian portions of the GHP, or could originate from off of the GHP altogether and derive from a basically different geological background. This can only be resolved with further clay sampling and petrographic study of the ceramics themselves. Having established that most ceramics were likely largely locally produced at four of the five study sites, we can also examine how the probability of group membership for clay samples relative to these ceramics—a common means of comparing clays to ceramic samples in archaeometric studies (e.g., Neff 2002 ; Riebe 2021 )—varies with distance. Given the relatively small number of samples analyzed at most of the sites when compared to the number of elements we measured, we focus only on ceramics from Békés Jégvermi-kert, as the values for other sites might be artificially inflated by small sample size. Calculation of Spearman’s rho in this case indicates a significant negative correlation (ρ=-.401, p < < 0.001) between distance and group membership probability, although the relationship is not linear. Plotting a loess fit line against the actual data points (Fig. 9 ) indicates that within c. 50km, membership probabilities are relatively high on average and only weakly tail off with distance. Beyond this distance, there is a more rapid fall off in group membership probability with distance, but these probabilities remain non-negligible up to a distance of c. 100km. Discussion Our results demonstrate that it is not possible to strictly apply the provenience postulate to ceramics within the bounds of the GHP, but also explains why prior ceramic compositional analyses in the region have found patterned variability despite the relative geological homogeneity of the region. Clays diverge chemically in a predictable fashion with distance, and as a result, potters sampling this geology to obtain clays are also likely to produce ceramics that became progressively less chemically similar the further apart these clays are. However, given that even relatively distant clays may still be chemically similar to one another, it is anticipated that a considerable degree of overlap will exist even between ceramics produced at relatively distant places. While we cannot provide an exact value for suggesting how far apart two potting communities would need to be before there would be minimal overlap between their respective communities, our results suggest that this distance might be something like 50km, although potentially further for communities located within the same river drainage. This result is consistent with prior geochemical studies of ceramics on the GHP. From a statistical standpoint, clays up to 100km from particular community might still show non-negligible similarities to ceramics. The inability to clearly define boundaries of chemical variability makes it nearly impossible to clearly identify where any particular ceramic vessel might have been produced on the basis of chemistry alone. That said, the clinal nature of geochemical variance in this case can be used to make more general statements as to whether ceramics were largely locally produced (meaning within a c. 50km area of the site), or were potentially primarily imported from elsewhere. In the present study, mineralogy suggests that all studied ceramics from the Bronze Age cemetery at Békés Jégvermi-kert were produced on the GHP, and a combination of petrography and chemistry further suggests that they are likely to be local to the Körös drainage at a minimum. The mineralogical variability present in the samples is consistent with that observed in clays sampled within a few kilometers of the site, and only petrographic group 5 (one of the calcareous paste groups), shows any chemical variability relative to other ceramics by petrographic group (elevated W concentration—supplemental figure S5), and so could potentially reflect a marginally longer distance import. However broadly speaking, the degree of resolution afforded by the geology of the GHP makes it difficult to distinguish whether any site in our study acquired ceramics from distances of c. 50-60km or less, particularly if those sites are located in the same river drainage. While ceramics at the cemetery could for instance have been produced at the associated settlement, the Békés Jégvermi-kert cemetery might have drawn ceramics (and possibly people) from a very local (6-7km) area, but also could have been used by people from further distances as well (e.g., Duffy, Paja, et al. 2019 ). There is little evidence to suggest significant changes in clay and/or ceramic acquisition between EBA, MBA, and transitional MBA-LBA contexts at the cemetery, as Group A ceramics characterize all of these periods. It should be noted that our sample from Békés Jégvermi-kert by and large focused on more typical looking vessels—there were some “non-local” looking ceramics found in some graves, but these were not included in the present study as they came from poorly preserved contexts. Some of these were associated with bronze objects as well (Parditka and Duffy 2023). Future sampling might focus on expanding the sample of ceramics that appear stylistically divergent relative to the majority of any given site assemblage to see if these ceramics on average diverge more from the expected chemical similarity-distance relationship than vessels with more typical forms and/or decorations. Similarly, at three of the four tell sites included in our sample, we have no compelling evidence that ceramics were obtained from any great distance, and plausibly, the ceramics in our sample may have been produced very near to each tell. Of course, it is still possible that in each case, the tells drew ceramics from non-tell communities in their immediate vicinity, and so our data do not directly address the question of how tell communities related to their potential hinterlands. Moderate divergence between fineware and coarseware in terms of similarity to clays, as well as for particular vessels classes (mugs/cups and bowls in particular) also suggests that decorated fineware may have moved larger distances in relatively low volumes, however. Conversely, at Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár, on the basis of our present data, many of the studied ceramics may have been acquired outside of the Berettyó Valley. Group A ceramics, comprising the majority of the samples analyzed from Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár, appear to better match compositional variability in the Körös drainage to the south, minimally 35km away. That said, as the site is on the edge of our clay sampling region, it remains possible that similar clays could be found nearer to the site, perhaps further up the Berettyó drainage to the east. Group B, containing only seven vessels, appears to represent production somewhere outside of the area in which we have sampled clays. It should be noted that both chemical groups contain vessels with typical Gyulavarsánd type decorative motifs, for instance channels and spirals (Fig. 2 D, assigned to Group B), while Group A also includes vessels with decorations that are uncommon in the OFCC region. For instance, the jug with an “ansa lunata” handle (Fig. 2 L), a stylistic feature more common in the Maros area of the southern GHP (Bóna 1975 ), was assigned to Group A, as was a bowl with Wietenberg decorative elements (Fig. 2 M), a style found to the east in Transylvania (Quinn et al. 2020 ). We cannot entirely rule out the possibility that these vessels were produced non-locally and transported to the tell, however, these results may indicate that a broader range of styles were produced on the GHP at times than traditional culture-historical boundaries suggest, or that potters from other regions at times moved to the GHP and introduced such stylistic elements. While we cannot conclusively rule out the production of some vessels locally at Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár based on our data, however, it is clear that the pattern at this tell diverges substantially from that at the other studied tell sites. Although our results are to a degree preliminary, they provide some support for emerging understanding of the diversity of practices at different tell sites and in different areas of the GHP during the later EBA and MBA, further suggesting that monolithic models of tell formation and occupation may need revisiting in light of differing regional trajectories in social and economic organization (e.g., Kienlin 2015 ). Ceramics may only have been produced in some areas of the GHP during the Bronze Age, and some tell communities may have acquired ceramics from elsewhere, while others produced or acquired them from lesser distances. Our results also highlight the critical role that intensive clay raw material surveys may play in understanding geochemical and mineralogical variability in geologically homogeneous regions. While patterned variability exists in the ceramics in our study (and in prior geochemical studies on the GHP), the results of our clay survey and comparison to ceramics highlights the limits of applying the provenience postulate to ceramics produced there. It would prove difficult to conclusively identify transported ceramics on a sample-by-sample basis, as even at relatively geographically widely spaced points on the GHP, sampling the base geological variability in clays would likely produce a degree of compositional overlap between resulting ceramics (i.e., there is not more inter-source variability than intra-source variability in clays). This limitation may constrain the kinds of archaeological questions that can be addressed using ceramic sourcing on the GHP, but even so, a combined mineralogical and chemical approach may still yield useful data reflective of production location and technology within the limits imposed by the environment. Conclusion In this study, we examine the degree to which ceramic sourcing is possible in the very homogenous environment of the eastern Carpathian/Pannonian Basin—the Great Hungarian Plain. Our intensive survey of clays from the region suggest that geochemical variability exhibits a continuous clinal distribution, although impacted to a degree by river drainages. As a result, the provenience postulate underlying archaeological sourcing analyses—that more variability exists between identifiable sources than within them–cannot be strictly applied to ceramics produced there. However, our results do make interpretation of the patterned geochemical variability found in ceramics from the GHP both in our study and prior studies possible by delimiting the scale of variability and providing a means of determining whether ceramics from a given ancient community were largely locally produced or acquired from a distance beyond c. 50km—what we might consider “geochemically local.” This scale of resolution does limit the kinds of questions that may be directly answered using compositional data, however, and other more traditional archaeological indicators of production or else fine-grained analyses of production techniques, stylistic elements, and so forth may be required to make any further arguments about what “local” means relative to the actual site by site locations of production and means of acquiring ceramics. That said, a combination of mineralogical/petrographic analysis (to confirm production on the GHP vs. elsewhere) with chemical analysis can produce archaeological valid and useful results despite the overt difficulties of interpreting compositional data in an environment like the eastern Carpathian Basin. While our results provide a solid empirical basis for interpreting ceramic compositional analyses on the GHP regardless of time period, we have not as of yet sampled the entire expanse of the GHP and surrounding regions. Further clay sampling in the Danube-Tisza interfluve, Serbian Banat region, and along the northern and eastern fringes of the GHP in Hungary and Romania may help to further delimit where ceramics in our study were produced. Our results suggest that the bulk of the ceramics we analyzed from four sites in or near to the Körös River drainage—the cemetery at Békés Jégvermi-kert, as well as the tell settlements at Békés-Várdomb, Vésztő-Mágor, and Túrkeve-Terehalom, can be considered predominately geochemically local. The majority of ceramics studied from the tell of Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár may be geochemically non-local, and many of these ceramics may have been obtained from the Körös region. Moreover, our data provide further evidence to suggest that social and economic structure was not uniform across the GHP during the florescence of tell settlements during the MBA, reinforcing this notion of emerging complexity and regional variability during the Bronze Age. Declarations Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests. Author Contribution MG wrote the main manuscript text; MG, DJR, and AK analyzed samples; PRD, GyM, and MG obtained research funding; MG, PRD, GyM, DJR, and AK conceptualized the research; MG and AK generated the figures; PRD and DJR obtained samples Acknowledgement The work reported here was funded by the United States National Science Foundation (BCS1226439, BCS1460820) as part of the BAKOTA project. Additional chemical analysis was funded by the Field Museum Elemental Analysis Facility via United State National Science Foundation funding (BCS1628026) and the Notre Dame Department of Anthropology. Many thanks to Julia Giblin, László Paja, Attila Gyucha, Laure Dussubieux, Ádám Balázs, János Dani, Alyssa McGrath, Craig Jensen, Ashley Cercone, Beth Grávalos, Emily Quarato, William Parkinson, William Ridge, and the staff of the Munkácsy Mihály Múzeum, who assisted with portions of the work reported here. Data Availability All data are provided in a supplementary file included with the manuscript. References Arnold DE, Neff H, Bishop RL (1991) Compositional analysis and sources of pottery: an ethnoarchaeological approach. Am Anthropol 93(1):70–90 Arnold DE, Neff H, Glascock MD (2000) Testing assumptions of Neutron Activation Analysis: communities, workshops and paste preparation in Yucatán. Mexico Archaeometry 42(2):301–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2000.tb00883.x Banner J (1956) Research on the Hungarian Bronze Age since 1936 and the Bronze-Age Settlement at Békés-Várdomb. P Prehist Soc 21:123–143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00017497 Banner J, Bóna I (1974) Mittelbronzezeitliche Tell-Siedlungen bei Békés. Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest Bartlett ML, Neff H, McAnany PA (2000) Differentiation of clay resources on a limestone plain: the analysis of clay utilization during the Maya Formative at K’axob Belize. Geoarchaeology 15(2):95–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6548(200002)15:23.0.CO;2-1 Bishop RL, Canouts V, De Atley SP, Qöyawayma A, Aikins CW (1988) The formation of ceramic analytical groups: Hopi pottery production and exchange. J Field Archaeol 15(3):1300–1600. 317–337. https://doi.org/10.1179/009346988791974439 Blomster JP, Neff H, Glascock MD (2005) Olmec pottery production and export in ancient Mexico determined through elemental analysis. Science 307:1068–1072. https://www.science.org/doi/ 10.1126/science.1107599 Bóna I (1975) Die Mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre südöstlichen Beziehungen. Archaeologici Hungariae, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest Bosq M, Kreutzer S, Bertran P, Lanos P, Dufresne P, Schmidt C (2023) Last Glacial loess in Europe: luminescence database and chronology of deposition. Earth Syst Sci Dat 15:4689–4711. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-4689-2023 Csányi M, Tárnoki J (1992) Túrkeve-Terehalom. In: Meier-Arendt W (ed) Bronzezeit in Ungarn: Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, pp 159–165 Dani J (2012) Fortified Tell Settlements from the Middle Bronze Age in the Hungarian Reach of the Berettyó Valley. In: Jaeger M, Czebreszuk J, Fischl KP (eds) Enclosed Space-Open Society. Contact and Exchange in the Context of Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Central Europe. SAO/SPEŚ, Poznan and Bonn, pp 27–27 Daróczi T-T, Csányi M, Tárnoki J, Nagy F, Olsen J (2022) Túrkeve-Terehalom in the Eastern Carpathian Basin. Bronze Age multi-stratified site provides high-precision chronology with continental implications. Praehist Z 98(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/pz-2022-2024 Druc I (2013) What is local? Looking at ceramic production in the Peruvian Highlands and beyond. J Anthropol Res 69:485–513. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/ 10.3998/jar.0521004.0069.404 Duffy PR (2014) Complexity and Autonomy in Bronze Age Europe: Assessing Cultural Developments in Eastern Hungary. Prehistoric Research in the Körös Region, Archaeolingua, Budapest Duffy PR, Parkinson WA, Gyucha A, Yerkes RW (2013) Coming together, falling apart: A multiscalar approach to prehistoric aggregation and interaction on the Great Hungarian Plain. In: Birch J (ed) From Prehistoric Villages to Cities: Settlement Aggregation and Community Transformation. Routledge, New York and London, pp 44–62 Duffy PR, Paja L, Parditka GM, Giblin JI (2019) Modelling mortuary populations at local and regional levels. J Anthropol Archaeol 53:240–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2019.01.003 Duffy PR, Parditka GM, Giblin JI, Paja L (2019) The problem with tells: lessons learned from absolute dating of Bronze Age mortuary ceramics in Hungary. Antiquity 93:63–79. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.179 Duffy PR, Parditka GM, Giblin JI, Paja L, Salisbury RB Discovering Mortuary Practices in the Körös River Basin, Hungary. Hungarian Archaeology, 2014, Autumn (2014) https://www.hungarianarchaeology.hu/?cat=54 Duwe S (2005) Pots, Daub, and Neutrons: A Pilot Compositional Analysis of Early Copper Age Clay Assemblages. La Tinaja 16:2–5 Duwe S, Parsons TA, Galaty ML, Hoekman-Sites H (2020) Elemental, Mineralogical, and Petrographic Analyses of Ceramics and Daub. In: Parkinson WA, Gyucha A, Yerkes RW (eds) Bikeri: Two Copper Age Villages on the Great Hungarian Plain. Monumenta Archaeologica 46. UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp 245–262 Earle T, Kreiter A, Klehm C, Ferguson J, Vicze M (2011) Bronze Age Ceramic Economy: The Benta Valley, Hungary. Eur J Archaeol 14(3):419–440. https://doi.org/10.1179/146195711798356746 Fischl KP (2018) Settlement layouts, systems and structure of the Otomani-Füzesabony Cultural Complex. Gesta XVII (2): 3–8 Fischl KP, Reményi L (2013) Interpretation Possibilities of the Bronze Age Tell Sites in the Carpathian Basin. In: Anders A, Kulcsár G, Kalla G, Kiss V, Szabó GV (eds) Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on his 60th Birthday. L’Harmattan, Budapest, pp 725–738 Fischl KP, Kiss V, Kulcsár G, Szeverényi V (2013) Transformations in the Carpathian Basin around 1600 B.C. Tagungen des. Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 9:355–371 Glascock MD (2020) A systematic approach to geochemical sourcing of obsidian artifacts. Sci Cult 6(2):35–47 Glascock MD, Neff H (2003) Neutron activation analysis and provenance research in archaeology. Meas Sci Technol 14:1516–1526 Glascock MD, Neff H, Vaughn KJ (2004) Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics for Pottery Provenance. Hyperfine Interact 154:95–105 Gogâltan F (2016) Building power without power? Bronze Age fortified settlements on the Lower Mureş Basin. In: Gogâltan F, Cordoş C (eds) Prehistoric Settlements: Social, Economic, and Cultural Aspects. Seven studies in the Carpathian area. Editura Mega, Cluj-Napoca, pp 87–114 Gogâltan F, Găvan A, Lie M, Fazecaş G, Cordoş C, Kienlin TL (2020) Exploring Bronze Age tells and tell-like settlements from the Eastern Carpathian Basin. Results of a research project. In: Blanco-González A, Kienlin TL (eds) Current Approaches to Tells in the Prehistoric Old World. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 73–95 Golitko M (2015) LBK Realpolitik: An Archaeometric Study of Conflict and Social Structure in the Belgian Early Neolithic. Archaeo, Oxford Golitko M, McGrath A, Kreiter A, Lightcap IV, Duffy PR, Parditka GM, Giblin JI (2021) Down to the crust: chemical and mineralogical analysis of ceramic surface encrustations on Bronze Age ceramics from Békés 103, Eastern Hungary. Minerals 11:436. doi.org/10.3390/min11040436 Gratuze B, Blet-Lemarquand M, Barrandon J-N (2001) Mass spectrometry with laser sampling: a new tool to characterize archaeological materials. J Radioanal Nucl Ch 247(3):645–656. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010623703423 Gyucha A, Duffy PR, Frolking TA (2011) The Körös Basin from the Neolithic to the Habsburgs: Linking Settlement Distributions with Pre-Regulation Hydrology through Multiple Data Set Overlay. Geoarchaeology 26(3):392–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20350 Gyucha A, Yerkes RW, Parkinson WA, Sarris A, Papadopoulos N, Duffy PR, Salisbury RB (2015) Settlement Nucleation in the Neolithic: A Preliminary Report of the Körös Regional Archaeological Project’s Investigations at Szeghalom-Kovácshalom and Vésztő-Mágor. In: Hansen S, Raczky P, Anders A, Reingruber A (eds) Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea. Chronologies and Technologies from the 6th to the 4th Millenium BCE. International Workshop Budapest 2012. Archälogie in Eurasian 31, Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, pp 129–142 Harbottle G (1976) Activation Analysis in Archaeology. Radiochemistry 3:33–72 Hegedűs K, Makkay J (1987) Vésztő-Mágor. In: Raczky P (ed) The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region: a survey of recent excavations and their findings. Kosuth, Budapest, pp 85–103 Hováth T, Farkas-Pető, Farkas I, Mihály J, Péterdi B (2016) Füzesabony-Öregdomb Brzonkori Tell-Település Kőanyaga. Az egri Dobó István Vármúzeum Évkönyve 2016: 29–94 Kienlin TL (2015) Bronze Age Tell Communities in Context—an Exploration into Culture, Society and the Study of European Prehistory. Part 1: Critique. Europe and the Mediterranean. Archaeo, Oxford Kienlin TL (2020) Bronze Age Tell Communities in Context—an Exploration into Culture, Society and the Study of European Prehistory. Part 2: Practice. The Social, Space, and Materiality. Archaeo, Oxford Kreiter A (2007) Technological Choices and Material Meanings in Early and Middle Bronze Age Hungary: Understanding the Active Role of Material Culture through Ceramic Analysis. BAR International Series, vol 1604. Archaeo, Oxford Kreiter A, Bajnóczi B, Sipos P, Szakmány Gy, Tóth M (2007) Archaeometric examination of Early and Middle Bronze Age ceramics from Százhalombatta-Földvár, Hungary. Archeometriai Műhely 2007(2): 33–47 Kristiansen K, Larsson TB (2005) The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels, Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Kovács T (1988) Review of the Bronze Age settlement research during the past one and a half centuries in Hungary. In: Kovács T, Stanczik I (eds) Bronze Age tell settlements of the Great Hungarian Plain I. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 1. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest, pp 17–26 Levine A, Stanish C, Williams PR, Chávez C, Golitko M (2013) Trade and early state formation in the northern Titicaca Basin, Peru. Latin Am Antiq 24(3):289–308. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.24.3.289 Makkay J (2004) Vésztő-Mágor: Ásatás a szülőföldön. Békés Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága, Békéscsaba Máthé MS (1988) Bronze Age Tells in the Berettyó Valley. In: Kovács T, Stanczik I (eds) Bronze Age tell settlements of the Great Hungarian Plain I. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 1. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest, pp 27–122 Máthé MS (1992) Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár (Die bronzezeitlichen Schichten des für die neolithische Herpály-Kultur eponymen Fundortes). In: Meier-Arendt W (ed) Bronzezeit in Ungarn: Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, pp 170–173 Meyer M, Daszkiewicz M, Schneider G, Bernbeck R, Heeb BS, Hegewisch M, Kohlmeyer K, Näser C, Polla S, Schultze E, Schweigert F, Warburton DA (2016) Economic Space. On the Analysis and Interpretation of Pottery Production and Distribution. eTopoi J Anc Stud 6:190–219 Michelaki K (2006) Household Ceramic Economies: Production and Consumption of Household Ceramics among the Maros Villagers of Bronze Age Hungary. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1503, Archaeopress, Oxford Michelaki K (2008) Making Pots and Potters in the Bronze Age Maros Villages of Kiszombor-Új-Élet and Klárafalva-Hajdova. Camb Archaeol J 18(3):355–380. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774308000413 Molloy B, Jovanović D, Buyere C, Estanquiero M, Birclin M, Milašinović L, Šalamon A, Penezić K, Bronk Ramsey C, Grosman D (2023) Resilience, innovation and collapse of settlement networks in later Bronze Age Europe: New survey data from the southern Carpathian Basin. PLoS ONE 18(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288750 Mommsen H (2001) Provenance determination of pottery by trace element analysis: problems, solutions, and applications. J Radioanal Nucl Ch 247(3):657–662 Neff H (2002) Quantitative Techniques for Analyzing Ceramic Compositional Data. In: Glowacki DM, Neff H (eds) Ceramic Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest: Source Determination by INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations. Monograph 44, The Cotson Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp 15–36 Neff H, Bove FJ (1999) Mapping ceramic compositional variation and prehistoric interaction in Pacific coastal Guatemala. J Archaeol Sci 26:1037–1051. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1999.0422 Neff H, Cogswell JW, Ross LM Jr (2003) Supplementing bulk chemistry in archaeological ceramic provenance investigations. In: van Zelst L (ed) Patterns and Process: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Edward V. Sayre. Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education, Suitland, pp 200–224 Németi J, Molnár Z (2012) Bronzkori hatalmi központok Északnyugat-Erdélyben: A Nagykároly–Bobáld-tell. Bronzezeitliche. Machtzentren In Nordwest-Siebenbürgen: Der Tell von Carei-Bobáld. Monographs from the Department of Archaeology, University of Szeged, Szeged Nicodemus A, Motta L, O’Shea JM (2015) Archaeological Investigations at Pecica Şanţul Mare 2013–2014. Ziridava Studia Archaeologica 29:105–118 O’Shea JM (1996) Villagers of the Maros: a Portrait of an Early Bronze Age Society. Plenum, New York and London Paja L, Duffy PR, Parditka GM, Giblin JI (2016) Bioanthropological analysis of Békés 103 (Jégvermi-kert, Lipcsei-tanya), a Bronze Age cemetery from southeastern Hungary. Acta Biologica Szeged 60(2):183–192 Parditka Gy, Duffy PR (2023) From the ashes of Bronze Age fires: a framework for comparison across body treatments. J Anthropol Archaeol 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2023.101525 Parsons TA (2012) Modeling Late Copper Age demographics on the Great Hungarian Plain using ceramic petrography. J Archaeol Sci 39:458–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.10.001 Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group (2010) The study of prehistoric pottery: general policies and guidelines for analysis and publication, 3rd edn. The Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group. https://www.prehistoricpottery.org/_files/ugd/b40101_48969801f0fd4147b24b935728c32ff7.pdf Quinn CP, Ciugudean H, Bălan G, Hodgins G (2020) Rethinking time, culture and socioeconomic organization in Bronze Age Transylvania. Antiquity 94(373):44–61. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.231 Raczky P, Hertelendi E, Horváth F (1992) Zur Absoluten Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Tell-kulturen in Ungarn. In: Meier-Arendt W (ed) Bronzezeit in Ungarn: Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, pp 42–45 Radivojević M, Roberts BW, Pernicka E, Stos-Gale Z, Martinón-Torres M, Rehren T, Bray P, Brandherm D, Ling J, Mei J, Vandkilde H, Kristiansen K, Shennan SJ, Broodbank C (2019) The Provenance, Use, and Circulation of Metals in the European Bronze Age: The State of Debate. J Archaeol Res 27:131–185. https://link.springer.com/article/ 10.1007/s10814-018-9123-9 Rice PM (1987) Pottery Analysis: A Source Book. The University of Chicago, Chicago Riebe DJ (2021) Redefining Archaeological Cultures: Boundaries and Interactions during the Late Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Prehistoric Research in the Körös Region, Archaeolingua, Budapest Riebe DJ, Niziolek LC (2015) Investigating compositional variation of ceramic materials during the Late Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain—Preliminary LA-ICP-MS results. Open Geosci 1:423–445. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2015-0044 Sharratt N, Golitko M, Williams PR, Dussubieux L (2009) Ceramic production during the Middle Horizon: Wari and Tiwanaku clay procurement in the Moquegua Valley. Peru Geoarchaeology 24(6):792–820. https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20288 Sofaer J (2013) Cosmologies in clay: Swedish Helmet Bowls in the Middle Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin. In: Bergerbrant S, Sabatini S (eds) Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies in Honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen. BAR International Series, vol 2508. Archaeo, Oxford, pp 361–365 Staniuk R (2021) Early and Middle Bronze Age Chronology of the Carpathian Basin Revisited: Questions Answered or Persistent Challenges? Radiocarbon 63 (5): 1526–1546. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2021.83 Staniuk R, Kreiter A, Kulcsár G, Jaeger M (2022) Uniform in diversity: Typological and technological analysis of Bronze Age fine ware from Kakucs-Turján. J Archaeol Sci Rep 41:103332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103332 Szeverényi V, Kreiter A, Dani J, Gucsi L, Kiss V, Kulcsár G, Skoda P, Szathmári I (2021) The Middle Bronze Age Füzesabony pottery style of the Carpathian Basin. In: Vučković V, Filipović V, Stojanović B, Risch R (eds) Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project. Regional Museum of Paraćin, Paraćin, pp 49–70 Weigand PC, Harbottle G, Sayre EV (1977) Turquoise sources and source analysis: Mesoamerica and the Southwestern U.S.A. In: Earle TK, Ericson JE (eds) Exchange Systems in Prehistory. Academic, Cambridge, pp 15–34 Williamson KA, Danella EB, Ullinger J, Paja L, Giblin J (2021) Heads over tails? An exploration of anatomical arrangement within cremation urns from Bronze Age Hungary. Bioarchaeology Int 4(3–4):153–171. https://doi.org/10.5744/bi.2020.4002 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Golitkoetal.Supplement.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 30 Sep, 2024 Read the published version in Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 17 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 16 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 02 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Jun, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Jun, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 18 Jun, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 14 Jun, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 13 Jun, 2024 First submitted to journal 13 Jun, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4577871","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":315870885,"identity":"dd7dcb32-602f-41e0-9e3a-edc05d7953aa","order_by":0,"name":"Mark Golitko","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Notre Dame","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mark","middleName":"","lastName":"Golitko","suffix":""},{"id":315870892,"identity":"d02158b8-9051-434a-a4ab-5b2171db023a","order_by":1,"name":"Danielle J. Riebe","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Georgia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Danielle","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Riebe","suffix":""},{"id":315870893,"identity":"9346017c-93aa-4460-85e6-ab3cbaaf9f3a","order_by":2,"name":"Paul Regis Duffy","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"ROOTS Cluster of Excellence, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte Christian-Albrechts-Universität","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Paul","middleName":"Regis","lastName":"Duffy","suffix":""},{"id":315870895,"identity":"f880c669-7ff9-4de6-9f76-f6c1fe2a2d62","order_by":3,"name":"Györgyi Parditka","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Michigan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Györgyi","middleName":"","lastName":"Parditka","suffix":""},{"id":315870897,"identity":"b650d515-bbc5-4ad4-a26b-3546513d6718","order_by":4,"name":"Attila Kreiter","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hungarian National Museum Public Collection Centre","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Attila","middleName":"","lastName":"Kreiter","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-06-13 18:13:54","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4577871/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4577871/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-024-02076-4","type":"published","date":"2024-09-30T15:58:20+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":59379989,"identity":"90a2d0ae-752e-4780-8333-45b3c538aa86","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-01 05:23:02","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":5245542,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMap of the portions of the Carpathian Basin and surrounding regions showing Middle Bronze Age stylistic/cultural units (approximate boundaries represented by shaded white lines, redrawn after Fischl et al. 2013), and the location of sites from which ceramics were analyzed as part of the Bronze Age Körös Off-Tell Archaeology (BAKOTA) project. Sites (Black circles): 1. Békés Jégvermi-kert (Békés 103) 2. Békés-Várdomb 3. Vésztő-Mágor 4. Túrkeve-Terehalom 5. Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár. Clay sampling locations are indicated by white circles. Shaded colors indicate different geologic units—brown areas are Quaternary deposits. All site coordinates can be found in supplemental table S1.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4577871/v1/8fd70f888773144659677d90.png"},{"id":59378925,"identity":"abcc4f32-75c0-4ddb-b5bd-544c883f1b08","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-01 05:06:53","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2456123,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSelected ceramic vessels analyzed in this study. a) and b) burial urns, Békés Jégvermi-kert; c) cup, Békés-Várdomb; d) vessel fragment, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár; e) “Swedish Helmet” bowl, Békés Jégvermi-kert; f) vessel fragment, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár; g) biconical vessel, Túrkeve-Terehalom; h) bowl, Békés-Várdomb; i) cup/mug, Békés Jégvermi-kert; j) jug, Vésztő-Mágor; k) brushed coarseware, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár; l) “ansa lunata” jug handle, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár; m) bowl with Wietenberg type decorations, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4577871/v1/0cb3ecac202331bb40b32102.png"},{"id":59379966,"identity":"59de3b55-9552-482c-af5f-d2c119a5cbc8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-01 05:23:00","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":5855926,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMicrographs showing ceramics and clays to which they are the most similar. 1. Ceramic 103 (Fabric 1), urn (40x, XPL). 1b. Clay 21 (40x, XPL). 2. Ceramic 21 (Fabric 2), urn (40x, XPL). 2b. Clay 20 (40x, XPL). 3. Ceramic 89 (Fabric 3), storage vessel (40x, XPL). 3b. Clay 9 (40x, XPL). 4. Ceramic 78 (Fabric 4), urn (40x, XPL). 4b. Clay 10 (40x, XPL). 5. Ceramic 53 (Fabric 5), urn (40x, XPL). 5b. Clay 10 (40x, XPL). 6. Ceramic 31 (Fabric 6), urn (40x, XPL). 6b. Clay 10 (40x, XPL).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4577871/v1/baebd70b7255ed423840e73c.png"},{"id":59378583,"identity":"4b35e2d6-ea3a-4d8a-b405-9f190df42dd7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-01 04:58:53","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":376325,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBivariate plot of logged Mo and W concentrations in ceramics separated by chemical group. Ellipses represent the 90% confidence boundaries for each group. Outlier ceramics samples are indicated with sample names, and clay samples are represented by (x).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4577871/v1/9d5cdad5e68276c71f1fce64.png"},{"id":59378582,"identity":"7965f2f6-c763-4c0a-9bec-c13ed03d93a5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-01 04:58:53","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":311993,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBox-and-whisker plots of selected elements measured in clays showing statistically significant chemical differences between different stream/river drainages in the study area.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4577871/v1/95e0b00589e74b424f306b4a.png"},{"id":59378590,"identity":"dd7ca844-276b-4648-9369-5d7f63a4f2c5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-01 04:58:53","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":2763943,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGeographic distances between samples compared to pair-wise Euclidean chemical distances for a) clay samples, b) for all measured ceramic samples compared to clay samples, The dotted lines represent the 1- and 2-sigma prediction bands derived from comparison of clay samples. On all plots, the black regression line represents the linear relationship for clays, while on b), the blue regression line represents the relationship for ceramics compared to clays. c) shows the same but with ceramics divided by fineware (blue regression line) and coarseware (yellow line). d) divides the ceramics by vessel type—cooking pots and storage vessels (yellow line), bowls (purple), jars/urns (blue), and mugs/cups (red). On c) and d), the y-axis scales have been adjusted in the lower plots for visual clarity.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4577871/v1/f6c24e5963ca92b830888ec2.png"},{"id":59378928,"identity":"6cc7ce40-4164-4893-ba09-705439b98b42","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-01 05:06:53","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1770395,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison of ceramic-clay geographic distances and Euclidean chemical distances for Békés Jégvermi-kert, with site in a) its true geographical location, and at three fake geographical coordinates on the GHP: b) c. 60 km east on the Körös past the confluence of its minor branches, c) c. 80km north near Jánoshida, and d) c. 80km south on the Maros fan in northern Romania. Regression lines are drawn only for ceramics assigned to chemical Group A, separated by coarseware (yellow) and fineware (blue).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4577871/v1/694be66031ee0c8c783bce31.png"},{"id":59378588,"identity":"bb730048-5388-4fc7-89da-4998686db5c0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-01 04:58:53","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1483893,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison of ceramic-clay geographic distances and Euclidean chemical distances for a) Békés-Várdomb (Group A ceramics), b) Vésztő-Mágor (Group A ceramics), c) Túrkeve-Terehalom (Group T ceramics), and d) Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár (Group A and B ceramics. As in Figure 7, the yellow line expresses the relationship between chemical and geographic distance for courseware, while the blue line expresses the same for fineware. For Berettyóújfalu-Herpály-Földvár ceramics, Group A ceramics are displayed in yellow and blue, while regression relationships for Group B ceramics are displayed in orange (coarseware) and purple (fineware).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4577871/v1/83d5b723020c41de5c52696c.png"},{"id":59379990,"identity":"b9d79e57-9764-44ec-bbf4-41f8e64ee90e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-01 05:23:03","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":277561,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMahalanobis distance-based group membership probabilities for clay samples relative to Group A ceramics from Békés Jégvermi-kertas a function of distance from the site. The blue line is a loess fit to the data.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Fig9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4577871/v1/087754c9c55509fde3e512ae.png"},{"id":66097025,"identity":"1deca994-699c-4944-9805-2c06057c4123","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-07 16:12:48","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":25417606,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4577871/v1/c4414dec-bc3b-41bf-bffd-65b5cac08be3.pdf"},{"id":59378591,"identity":"5e8ae622-eaae-4bec-a3b6-ccbef568ce70","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-01 04:58:53","extension":"pdf","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":728010,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Golitkoetal.Supplement.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4577871/v1/85e389192d017f7362720992.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Exploring the limits of the provenience postulate: chemical and mineralogical characterization of Bronze Age ceramics from the Great Hungarian Plain","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eCeramic sourcing is a well-established method within archaeology used to determine the location of production and model systems of exchange (Arnold et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Glascock et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e; Mommsen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Neff \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). However, the ability to identify imported vessels and distinguish these from locally produced vessels, and indeed, the ability to even define a relatively geographically restricted local range of production depends on how well the so-called \u0026ldquo;provenience postulate\u0026rdquo; as first formally defined by Wiegand and colleagues (1977: 24) applies: \u0026ldquo;namely, that there exist differences in chemical composition between different natural sources that exceed, in some recognizable way, the differences observed with a given source.\u0026rdquo; For some materials like obsidian, it is relatively straightforward to identify geographically constrained and geochemically distinct sources, sample this naturally occurring variability, and then compare archaeological obsidian objects to known sources. Ceramic sourcing, in contrast, is complicated by the near ubiquity of clay containing deposits in most environments as well as natural processes (erosion, water transport, etc\u0026hellip;) that can mix materials from multiple geological formations. Additionally, cultural and technological choices during manufacture (levigation, tempering, clay mixing) can alter the compositional profile of a ceramic from that of the geological background (Neff et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Perhaps because of these complications, many ceramic compositional studies do not attempt to systemically evaluate how well the provenience postulate may apply in a particular setting. Instead, ceramics are analyzed from one or more sites in an attempt to interpret compositional patterning and distribution in terms of a more general understanding of local geology as well as the relative abundance of different compositional signatures at different sites. In geologically diverse regions, or when clear compositional differences can be identified between different types of ceramics or assemblages, this approach may be sufficient to provide relatively conclusive answers as to where ceramics might have been produced and whether they were moved from place to place in the past. However, in many geological environments, particularly ones that are relatively homogeneous, it may be more important to systematically evaluate the nature of geochemical and/or mineralogical diversity that exists in the natural environment to understand why chemistry patterns the way it does in archaeological ceramics, to understand whether it is possible to identify \u0026ldquo;non-local\u0026rdquo; ceramics, and to understand the geological scale at which ceramics may appear to be \u0026ldquo;non-local.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this paper, we report on combined geochemical and mineralogical study of ceramics from Bronze Age ceramics from four tell sites and one cemetery on the Great Hungarian Plain (GHP). The compositional signatures obtained for the ceramics are compared to those belonging to a large number of clay samples collected from surrounding areas of the GHP. We contribute to answering questions about the level and type of social connections at sites in the region during different periods of the Bronze Age. This is particularly the case for the large tells that were founded or reoccupied (after initial Late Neolithic occupation) during later EBA and remained occupied until the end of the MBA. In one view, these tells were the centers of polities ruled by powerful chiefs who controlled areas of surrounding country side, supported attached craft specialists, and engaged in wide-ranging exchange to obtain valuable goods including metals, elaborately decorated pottery, horses, and other materials (e.g., Kristiansen and Larsson \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e, N\u0026eacute;meti and Moln\u0026aacute;r \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In another view, later EBA and MBA communities were largely localized, agrarian, and organized much as they had been during the preceding Neolithic and Copper Age. Craft production, meanwhile, was also localized and occurred at a wide range of social contexts and site types (Kienlin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Examining whether communities obtained ceramics from further afield or primarily relied on ceramics produced within a narrow region can also provide some insight into the scale over which people fostered social connections. The GHP is a relatively homogeneous geological area, with surface deposits consisting entirely of late-Pleistocene and early Holocene loess and reworked loess, albeit surrounded by diverse geological formations of the surrounding Carpathian and Apuseni Mountain ranges. Prior compositional studies of materials from Late Neolithic and Copper Age ceramics have identified patterned chemical differences between ceramics from different areas of the GHP, suggesting that chemical variability is present between clays as well, but the geological mechanisms that drive variability in ceramics, and the scale over which differences are present, have not been systematically explored. We address the following related issues through a study of Bronze Age ceramics and regional clay samples:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1) How well does the provenience postulate hold in this homogenous sedimentary basin, i.e., can \u0026ldquo;non-local\u0026rdquo; ceramics actually be identified with confidence, and what is the geographic range over which \u0026ldquo;non-local\u0026rdquo; ceramics might be identified?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2) If it is possible to identify transported ceramics, what is the geographical range over which ceramics were obtained?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3) Are ceramics at Bronze Age sites on the GHP regularly obtained from larger distances, or are they largely locally produced?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCeramic sourcing and the “provenience postulate”\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSourcing, which we broadly define as identifying the place of extraction and/or production for an archaeological artifact, requires that some specific compositional (whether mineralogical or chemical) \u0026ldquo;signature\u0026rdquo; can be identified related to production from a particular raw material or at a specific location, and that any such signature differs sufficiently from the composition of objects produced from other sources or at other locations\u0026mdash;the provenience postulate as first formally defined by Weigand (1977) and colleagues. What constitutes a source is however highly material specific, and for any given material, may also depend on a variety of geological, economic, historical, and cultural factors. For instance, sourcing obsidian is relatively straightforward because volcanic glass occurs in relatively geographically discrete and constrained regions, and different volcanic eruptive events tend to produce compositionally distinct obsidian. There are few if any cultural or environmental factors that can alter the composition of obsidian sufficiently that it cannot be readily traced back to its geological source of origin (Glascock \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For other materials, however, the provenience postulate holds to varying degrees, and the concept of \u0026ldquo;source\u0026rdquo; can be far more complicated. Glass or metals for instance, may combine materials from multiple geological sources, and the actual geographical distribution of these materials may be relatively large (e.g., Radivojević et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplying the provenience postulate to ceramics is challenging due to a variety of factors. Firstly, clays are widely available from most geological environments, and therefore, it is nearly impossible to delimit geographically what is meant by a geological \u0026ldquo;source.\u0026rdquo; Ceramics are also composite objects that may incorporate multiple different plastic and aplastic constituents, while levigation, firing, use, and particularly post-burial environment may further alter the mineralogical or chemical composition of archaeological ceramic objects (Neff et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). While for other materials, production evidence (lithic waste, metal or glass slag, kilns, etc\u0026hellip;) often preserves in archaeological contexts, evidence for ceramic production may only be archaeologically visible in relatively intensive and specialized industries that use more elaborate technologies (substantial kilns, for instance) or that operate at sufficiently high volumes to generate substantial other evidence of production (wasters, for instance). Low intensity ceramic production may leave little to no direct evidence, or may only be identified in isolated instances (Rice \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e), and it may therefore also be difficult to delimit a cultural definition of what constitutes the source of some particular type of ceramic or paste recipe (Arnold et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; Druc \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile provenience studies of other material classes (obsidian, chert, metal) often rely on extensive surveys of potential raw material sources to build baseline compositional databases against which archaeological materials can be compared (e.g., Glascock \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Radivojević et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), impressionistically, the use of comparative clay samples in archaeological provenience studies remains relatively inconsistent. In part, this may reflect the broad availability of clays in most environments, and the inability in most cases to determine where potters likely specifically obtained clays from. There are examples of studies that have generated large comparative samples of clays from relevant regions (e.g., Golitko \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Neff and Bove \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Sharratt et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), however, many other studies simply rely on identifying different compositional types among archaeological ceramics, then making an argument for how this compositional variability relates to potential geological and cultural factors that may pattern variability. This may entail comparing ceramics from different regions or areas to each other (e.g., Blomster et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), analyzing small numbers of clay samples (e.g., Golitko and Terrell 2012), or else using the relative frequency of samples included in different compositional signatures to argue for local (more frequent) versus non-local (less common compositional signatures) production (the so-called \u0026ldquo;criterion of abundance\u0026rdquo;) (e.g., Levine et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Petrography may allow for more informed conclusions, as mineralogy can often be linked back to specific geological formations or rock types even without comparative geological samples. For chemistry, however, it is difficult if not impossible to make suggestions about the source of ceramic raw materials based only on compositional data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn highly geologically diverse environments (particularly ones with strong areal rather than stratigraphic/vertical differentiation in geology/mineralogy/chemistry), the relative distribution of ceramic chemical types may provide strong evidence for why compositional differences exist, and where particular compositional types or signatures likely originated from (e.g., Bishop et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). In relatively geologically homogeneous environments, however, patterned chemical and/or mineralogical variability may still be found in studied archaeological ceramics (e.g., Bartlett et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Riebe \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), but understanding why this patterning exists, how spatially patterned it might be, and how geological variability may intersect with socioeconomic patterning (i.e., where production actually takes place) may prove highly challenging based on archaeological data alone (Arnold et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Without understanding the baseline variability in clays, conclusions about whether ceramics were \u0026ldquo;local\u0026rdquo; to a particular site, or acquired from greater distances may rest on unfounded assumptions, including the relative geographical distance over which the provenience postulate may or may not apply. In such instances, intensive survey of potential raw materials may be required to understand the compositional variability that ancient potters sampled in acquiring raw materials for potting before any conclusions can be reached about the archaeological relevance of compositional differences to archaeological questions about economy, production, trade/exchange, or transfer of ideas and techniques. Our study region consists of homogeneous Quaternary deposits, yet prior studies of archaeological ceramics have identified patterned chemical variance in ceramics from sites in different portions of the GHP. We combine petrographic and chemical data with an intensive examination of geochemical variability in clays to examine how well the provenience postulate might apply to Bronze Age ceramics recovered on the GHP, and to what extent it might be possible to identify the transfer of ceramics between sites or areas of the GHP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eThe Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Carpathian (Pannonian) Basin (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) comprises much of the modern nation of Hungary, as well as low-lying areas of the surrounding countries, and is roughly bounded by Carpathian and Apuseni Mountain ranges. The Great Hungarian Plain (GHP) is a particularly low-relief portion of the eastern Basin to the east of the Danube River, but also geomorphologically includes portions of western and northern Romania and the northern Serbian Banat region. Much of the GHP is relatively swampy, although this varies by region and landform, so that some areas like the Maros alluvial fan are drier than lower lying areas like the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s drainage. The region is crossed by a number of major river systems originating in neighboring mountain ranges, most significantly the Tisza and Maros, but also a number of smaller rivers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring the later Early Bronze Age (EBA), after c. 2200 calBC, numerous tell settlements, some originally occupied during the Late Neolithic, were either founded or reoccupied. Tells eventually stretched across most of the GHP (they are not present west of the Danube or in mountainous regions off the GHP) during the ensuing Middle Bronze Age (MBA) and extensive excavations have been carried out at a number of these sites (Fischl and Rem\u0026eacute;nyi \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e, Staniuk \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These tells vary in size and structure, but most are surrounded by ditches of some sort or artificial moats (expanding existing natural river courses in many cases), and some are surrounded by large flat settlements as well. Tells have been argued to represent the centers of small polities ruled by emergent political and military elites who controlled trade in valuable goods (including bronze, amber, and horses), sponsored attached craft specialists, and drew on the produce of nearby flat settlements (e.g., Fischl and Rem\u0026eacute;nyi \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Gog\u0026acirc;ltan \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Nicodemus et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Kienlin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), in contrast, suggests that this view of tells imposes models more appropriate to the Late Bronze Age (LBA) and Iron Age onto MBA communities. He notes that MBA tells are barely larger than those occupied during the Neolithic and contain little evidence for centralized administration or elite residences. These tells were on present evidence largely abandoned after 1500 calBC (but possibly as early as 1700 calBC), although disturbance of upper tell levels, limited C-14 dating in many cases, and issues with regional ceramic chronologies make this process difficult to understand in many areas of the GHP (Dar\u0026oacute;czi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Flat sites and cemeteries were likely still occupied into the LBA (Kienlin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Parditka et al. 2019; Staniuk \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), while populations may also have shifted further south into the Serbian Banat into so-called \u0026ldquo;megaforts\u0026rdquo; as climatic conditions changed (Molloy et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe occupation and peak period of tell settlement also corresponds to the greatest elaboration of what has been termed \u0026ldquo;baroque\u0026rdquo; designs on ceramics. These MBA vessels, although stylistically variable across the GHP (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e for cultural-historical stylistic regions, although the utility of these is now questioned), generally have incised and channeled decorations including bosses, elaborate spiraled motifs, and possible cosmological symbology (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e; B\u0026oacute;na \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1975\u003c/span\u003e; Sofaer \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Szever\u0026eacute;nyi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In the Maros area, Michelaki (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; see also O\u0026rsquo;Shea \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e) argues for the production of elaborate decorated vessels as specialist craft associated with metalworking. However, most extent studies of MBA ceramics have found limited direct evidence for wide scale transport of ceramics between regions or communities (e.g., Earle et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Kreiter \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Michelaki \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Kreiter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) found little evidence for significant changes in production technology during the Bronze Age, and mineralogical and technological studies of Bronze Age pots suggest a relatively low-intensity production organization (Golitko et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Kreiter \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Michelaki \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe central portion of the eastern GHP where the work reported here is focused, roughly the region of the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s and Beretty\u0026oacute; river systems, is one of the wettest areas of the GHP. During the MBA, this is the southern half of the Ottomani-F\u0026uuml;zesabony Cultural Complex (OFCC) (Fischl \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), or Gyulavars\u0026aacute;nd style, which extends southwards to the edge of the Maros Fan, westward to the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s-Tisza confluence, and northwards to the edge of the Plain (Fazecaș and Gog\u0026acirc;ltan 2019). In the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s drainage itself, only a handful of tells are known (Kov\u0026aacute;cs \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e). Duffy\u0026rsquo;s research (2014), focusing on tell\u0026ndash;non-tell relationships in the Lower K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s region, found no evidence of redistribution or regional consolidation of political power, and little social differentiation between tells and open settlements, questioning at least the broad applicability of common assumptions about MBA societies. Further north, in the Beretty\u0026oacute; river valley, tells provide more evidence of prestige goods and craft specialism, and are less commonly associated with flat settlements (M\u0026aacute;th\u0026eacute; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Dani \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePrior chemical and petrographic studies of ceramics from the GHP\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe GHP (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) would appear to be an unpromising place to conduct ceramic sourcing work\u0026mdash;the surface geology of most of the GHP consists of deep Pleistocene loess deposits (Bosq et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In poorly drained areas (known locally as Puszta), this loess is relatively unaltered, however, in lower, better drained areas, this loess has been reworked into more clay rich deposits (Duffy \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Most of these areas were drained and canalized by the Habsburg Empire during the 18th and 19th centuries, so that current hydrology does not represent the situation during prehistory (Gyucha et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The surrounding mountains are however highly geologically diverse, and contain a variety of sedimentary, volcanic, and metamorphic deposits which may contribute to the composition of reworked loessic deposits on the GHP itself (Riebe \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite this overt lack of geological variability, a number of prior compositional studies of pottery from this broad loessic region have identified patterned chemical variability in ceramics from different areas of the GHP. For example, Michelaki (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) used INAA to study two sites in the Maros drainage, Kiszombor-\u0026Uacute;j-\u0026Eacute;let Tsz (a tell dating to the early Maros phase of the EBA, c. 2600\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2000 calBC) and Kl\u0026aacute;rafalva-Hajdova (a tell dating to the Late Maros/MBA, c. 2000\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1700 calBC). While noting (Michelaki \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e: 360\u0026ndash;361) that at a macroscopic level, the majority of sherds were made from \u0026ldquo;fine, non-calcareous clays with a ubiquitous presence of small mica (muscovite) particles,\u0026rdquo; ceramics from the two sites differed based on concentrations of transition metals. While some ceramics identified as non-Maros stylistically (including EBA Mak\u0026oacute; sherds and Gyulavars\u0026aacute;nd sherds) also differed chemically (as did a handful of Maros style sherds), other stylistically \u0026ldquo;non-local\u0026rdquo; sherds (Transdanubian Encrusted Ware in this case) appeared chemically \u0026ldquo;local.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs part of the broader Benta Valley project, Earle, Kreiter, and colleagues analyzed a number of sherds from Sz\u0026aacute;zhalombatta-F\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;r and nearby Bronze Age communities. Petrographic analysis identified the use of three basically different clays (non-calcareous, calcareous, calcareous with forminefera), with long-term stability EBA-LBA in these production methods, suggesting possible continued traditions of multiple potting groups, but with numerous potters working. Based on minor differences in chemical concentration (measured by INAA), ceramics from down-valley sites (near the Danube) could be distinguished from up-valley sites, with limited overlap between the two identified chemical signatures. Down-valley samples also contain elevated frequencies of volcanic mineral grains that may have been transported by the Danube and mixed into local clay deposits. In this case, there was little evidence for movement of ceramics, although highly localized movement of pottery (on the order of 10km or less) could not be ruled out (Earle et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Kreiter et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA recent study of ceramics from the Serbian site of Corneşti-Iarcuri by petrography, XRD, WD-XRF, and PXRF also identified patterned chemical variability. This site began as a MBA flat settlement that developed into the largest known LBA \u0026ldquo;mega-fort\u0026rdquo; in the Pannonian Basin. While all studied ceramics appeared petrographically \u0026ldquo;local,\u0026rdquo; (including the addition of \u0026ldquo;local\u0026rdquo; looking grog temper), chemical analysis identified minor differences between MBA and LBA ceramics from the site. Comparison to ceramics from other regional sites also produced evidence for potential movement of pots between Corneşti-Iarcuri and smaller outlying sites, as well as a number of chemical outliers that might have come from greater distances (Meyer et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile not focused on Bronze Age ceramics, two studies of ceramics have also been carried out that focus on the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s drainage and surrounding regions of the GHP. Riebe (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; see also Riebe and Niziolek \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) examined a large corpus of Late Neolithic (Tisza and Herp\u0026aacute;ly) ceramics by LA-ICP-MS, as well as a number of sediment samples collected from the immediate vicinity of the studied sites. While finding minor variability between individual sites, Riebe was able to distinguish combined pottery groups associated with sites in the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s, Beretty\u0026oacute;, and Tisza River drainages, primarily via subtle differences in Mo and W concentrations. The study suggests that about 8\u0026ndash;10% of ceramics were transported between these drainages, although limited to c. 70-80km (ceramics did not move between the Beretty\u0026oacute; and Tisza drainages).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA similar study at Early Copper Age (Tiszapolg\u0026aacute;r) sites in and around the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s drainage by Duwe and colleagues (Duwe \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Duwe et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) similarly identified differences between pottery from different portions of the central GHP. Using a combination of INAA and LA-ICP-MS on ceramic, clay, and daub samples, they were able to distinguish ceramics from sites in the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s drainage from those recovered at Battonya-Vert\u0026aacute;n and link these sites to local sediment samples. Their INAA measurements were also compared to Michelaki\u0026rsquo;s data from the Maros region, suggesting that these samples were significantly chemically different from those recovered in the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s drainage. Based on these results, they proposed that sediments are relatively homogeneous on scales of c. 35-50km, but that transport of ceramics beyond this range can be identified. For instance, they suggest that a number of outlier samples from sites in the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s were imported based on differences in Sn an Sc concentrations, and suggest two-way movement of ceramics between the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s drainage and the Battonya area.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePetrography has also been performed on ceramics from a number of Bronze Age sites on the GHP, but generally, beyond identifying the use of a number of \u0026ldquo;local\u0026rdquo; looking clays, it has proven difficult to conclusively identify the movement of ceramics via mineralogy. Petrographic analysis of ceramics from the Benta Valley failed to identify mineralogical differences between chemically \u0026ldquo;core\u0026rdquo; local ceramics and chemical outliers, although ceramics from sites nearer to the Danube had higher frequencies of volcanic mineral grains that might have been incorporated into local loessic sediments by riverine transport. In a large-scale study of ceramics from the MBA tell settlement of Kakucs-Turj\u0026aacute;n, stylistically \u0026ldquo;non-local\u0026rdquo; ceramics did not appear mineralogically different from presumed local Vatya style ceramics (Staniuk et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In a broad-scale study of ceramics from a number of EBA, MBA, and LBA sites, Kreiter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) was able to identify a number of different paste types based on the relative frequencies of mineral grains, however, the ubiquity of common mineral types (quartz, muscovite) across sites made it difficult to compellingly identify non-local ceramics. He did find evidence that near the edges of the GHP, mineralogy is likely to reflect input from surrounding geologies. For instance, ceramics from F\u0026uuml;zesabony-\u0026Ouml;regdomb, near the base of the northern Carpathians, contain a wider range of polycrystaline rocks fragments including feldspars and igneous/pyroclastic rocks. In a study of ceramics from the central GHP dating to the Later Copper Age and EBA and MBA, Parsons (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) found little evidence for change in basic paste preparation, although noting that MBA ceramics were less variable than during earlier periods and more frequently incorporated grog. He was unable to identify systematic site by site differences in mineralogy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollectively, these studies suggest that while mineralogy may be relatively undifferentiated across the GHP, there is patterned geochemical variability despite the relative homogeneity of surface sediments. Both Riebe (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and Duwe and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) suggest that geochemical differences may pattern by river drainage, possibly owing to transport of sediments out of different geologies in surrounding mountain ranges. Both studies also suggest that there is insufficient variability at shorter distances or within river drainages to allow distinction of production location or movement of vessels. However, there remain a number of questions regarding the ability to conclusively distinguish locally produced from imported vessels, and how well the provenience postulate applies on the GHP. For instance, it should be noted that Riebe had to remove samples from each of her drainage specific chemical groups in order to produce \u0026ldquo;core\u0026rdquo; groups that strictly obeyed the statistical expression of the provenience postulate, typically evaluated by calculating Mahalanobis distance-based probabilities of group membership (Neff \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, in both studies, sample sites are located in geographically distinct clusters of sites, which may also contribute to an impression of discontinuous variability across the GHP from a chemical and statistical standpoint, but adding in intermediate sites might create substantially more overlap and reduce the ability to conclusively distinguish between different ore widely spaced regions of the GHP. In other words, it is possible that these studies are sampling distinct regions of what is actually a broad continuum of chemistry, producing the false impression of geochemically distinct regions between which movement of ceramics can be identified.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn an attempt to address these issues, in this study, we rely on a much larger set of clay samples collected across the GHP between the Tisza River and the Hungarian-Romanian border to address how much actual variability exists in sediments, over what scales geochemistry varies, and to what degree there exists discontinuous variability between different river drainages or areas of the GHP that might allow for a strict application of the provenience postulate. Ceramics from five Bronze Age site assemblages are then evaluated relative to this variability to assess whether production was likely to be largely local, or whether we can identify ceramics that might have been acquired from further distances.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSites and samples included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"9\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSite\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChronology (calBC)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoarseware\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFineware\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCups/Mugs\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBowls\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJars/Urns\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther/Undiagnostic\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s-V\u0026aacute;rdomb\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026minus;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1900\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1600\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eV\u0026eacute;sztő-M\u0026aacute;gor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026minus;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1900\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1600\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeretty\u0026oacute;\u0026uacute;jfalu-Herp\u0026aacute;ly\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026minus;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2020\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1430\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eT\u0026uacute;rkeve-Terehalom\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026minus;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2000\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1600\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert (chemistry)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026minus;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1880\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1280\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert (petrography)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026minus;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1880\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1280\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e103\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSample and sample assemblages\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur sampling was designed to include assemblages of well dated materials from major Gyulavars\u0026aacute;nd tell sites and a sizable collection from B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert, the only known cemetery from the southern area of the OFCC. We attempted to sample MBA contexts for tell sites, while sampling at the cemetery was more extensive and was designed to sample both the settlement area of the site as well as a representative set of burials spanning the main occupation phases at the cemetery. At tell sites, fineware samples (typically burnished and thin-walled) were primarily chosen on the basis of having recognizable MBA Gyulavars\u0026aacute;nd decorations including channels, bosses, and triangular incised decorations (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Our sample also includes a variety of vessel forms, including urns (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea and b), jars, mugs/cups (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ec and i), and bowls (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ee, h). There are a handful of vessels included in our sample with stylistic features more common in other regions of the GHP and beyond (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003el and m). Twenty samples were selected per site, with an additional five courseware (often rusticated or brushed) sherds (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ek), typically fragments of storage vessels or cooking pots, sampled from the same contexts or levels (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eB\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s-V\u0026aacute;rdomb\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe tell at B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s-V\u0026aacute;rdomb, and its adjacent occupation, was excavated over several seasons during the 1950s (Banner \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1956\u003c/span\u003e, Banner and B\u0026oacute;na \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1974\u003c/span\u003e). This site cluster is now under study by members of the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s Consortium (these results are as of yet unpublished). All samples analyzed in this study derive from the 1950s excavations. The V\u0026aacute;rdomb tell and surrounding flat settlement are estimated to have housed approximately 500 people (Duffy et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). There is no evidence of an earlier Late Neolithic settlement. New unpublished radiocarbon dates from the northern part of the cluster (B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s-V\u0026aacute;roserdő-dűlő) place the occupation in the 1900\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1600 BCE range (Parditka, in prep).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eV\u0026eacute;sztő-M\u0026aacute;gor\u003c/em\u003e: V\u0026eacute;sztő-M\u0026aacute;gor is a 3.9 hectare tell surrounded by a meander loop of the ancient Sebes-K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s, topped by medieval monastery and highly disturbed by 19th century construction. The tell was excavated between 1972\u0026ndash;1976 and then again in 1986 (Hegedűs and Makkay \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e, Makkay \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), while recent work during the 2010s (from which our samples derive) has focused on producing a more reliable chronology for the site and conserving profiles excavated in the 1980\u0026rsquo;s (Gyucha et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Parkinson et al 2018). The tell has a significant Late Neolithic component, with shorter occupations during the earlier Neolithic and Early-Middle Copper Age. The only Bronze Age date with known contextual information places the dated context between 1875\u0026ndash;1745 calBC (68.2 percent) (Duffy, Parditka et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e: Table S2, Figure \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e). Additional unpublished dates place the site in the 1900\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1600 BCE range (Duffy and Parditka, in prep.)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eT\u0026uacute;rkeve-Terehalom\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eT\u0026uacute;rkeve-Terehalom, located along a paleo-channel of the Hortob\u0026aacute;gy-Beretty\u0026oacute;, is one of the most extensively investigated tell settlements in the Gyulavars\u0026aacute;nd area. The site was systematically excavated over ten field seasons between 1985 and 1995, and then again in 2004. The site contains c. 10m of stratified deposits divided into eleven distinct levels. The site is located at the border of stylistic traditions, and the excavators note similarities in the ceramic assemblage to Hatvan, Perj\u0026aacute;mos (early Maros), and F\u0026uuml;zesabony styles in addition to more typical regional styles including Gyulavars\u0026aacute;nd during the MBA (Cs\u0026aacute;nyi and T\u0026aacute;rnoki \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e). An extensive set of C-14 dates were recently published from T\u0026uacute;rkeve-Terehalom as part of the \u0026ldquo;joinTime\u0026rdquo; project. These dates indicate that the tell was first settled between 2014\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1907 calBC, and abandoned around 1600 calBC or slightly thereafter. Our samples come from the 1985-95 excavations, and are derived from the MBA levels 3,4,5, 6, and 6A, and thus date to between c. 1830\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1753/1712 calBC (Dar\u0026oacute;czi et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eBeretty\u0026oacute;\u0026uacute;jfalu-Herp\u0026aacute;ly-F\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;r\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis tell (and associated flat settlement) is the eponymous site of the Late Neolithic Herp\u0026aacute;ly culture, and was reoccupied during the Middle Bronze Age. The Bronze Age layers at Beretty\u0026oacute;\u0026uacute;jfalu-Herp\u0026aacute;ly-F\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;r are thin and poorly preserved in some areas, but four layers have been identified. The ceramics in our sample derive from levels 3 and 4, described as Ottom\u0026aacute;ny B (4) and Gyulavars\u0026aacute;nd (3) by the excavator. Available radiometric dates fall between 2020 and 1430 calBC (Raczky et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e; Staniuk \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), however, the exact stratigraphic context of these dates is unpublished, the dates have large error margins, and disturbance of upper levels at the tell may also complicate interpretation of the Bronze Age chronology (M\u0026aacute;th\u0026eacute; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eB\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert Lipcsei tanya (B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s 103).\u003c/em\u003e B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert is the only Bronze Age cemetery known from the Lower K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s area but is also associated with a small settlement area. Between 2011 and 2019, 83 graves were excavated. Most consist of cremations placed into ceramic urns, but there are also a few scattered cremations, as well as inhumation burials (Paja et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e, Williamson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Based on survey results and the total area of the cemetery, it is estimated that ca. 2500 burials may be present (Duffy et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Duffy, Paja et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Radiometric dating and stylistic analysis of burial ceramics suggests four primary phases of use at the cemetery spanning the EBA, MBA, and early stages of the LBA, as well as short hiatus in use during the early MBA. Most would describe the ceramics of Phases 3 (1880\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1600) and 4 (1600\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1280 calBC) as Otomani-F\u0026uuml;zesabony or Gyulavars\u0026aacute;nd style, decorated with typical \u0026ldquo;baroque\u0026rdquo; motifs including spirals, bosses, prows, channels, and chevrons (Duffy, Parditka et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). It should be noted that the absolute dates associated with phase 4 are late relative to the types of ceramics found in those burials. At tell settlements on the GHP, these styles represent the primary and terminal phases of MBA occupation and date no later than c. 1700/1600 calBC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn initial sample was selected by Riebe in 2013 that was drawn from early surface collections, including from the settlement area. Subsequently, a larger sample was taken from burial contexts to reflect variability across use of cemetery as well as different burials and vessel types. Samples were selected to include all phases, as well as stylistic variability present in these phases. While Riebe\u0026rsquo;s initial sample included both decorated burnished vessels, and coarseware samples, the later sample consists only of decorated and burnished urns, cups, jars, and bowls from funerary contexts. A separate set of sherds were selected for petrographic analysis. In most cases, these samples were drawn from the same vessels selected for chemical analysis, but the two sets to do not entirely overlap.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eClay sampling\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring 2015, 2016, and 2018, we carried out a broad areal clay survey of the GHP between the Tisza River and Romanian border, with several additional samples opportunistically collected west and north of Lake Tisza, south of Budapest, and on the Romanian side of the Maros river near the tell at Pecica \u0026ldquo;Şanţul Mare\u0026rdquo; (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Samples were collected at a depth of c. 1m using an Oakfield soil probe. We focused primarily on paleomeanders of old stream and river channels that were cut off from the regional hydrology during the 18th and 19th centuries, both because these sediments proved to be far more clay rich than comparable non-stream and riverine sediments, and because we hoped to avoid the effects of 20th century industrial pollutants and fertilizers which might be concentrated in agricultural areas and modern canalized stream and river courses. Clays were evaluated in the field via the production of coils to informally assess how suitable they might be for ceramic production. We noted that most stream and river clays were highly plastic and could be used to produce coils with little need for further processing. Samples taken from Puszta were generally siltier and more difficult to form coils from than clays collected from reworked Holocene deposits. We also include clay samples collected and analyzed by Riebe (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) as part of her study of Late Neolithic ceramics. These were largely sampled onsite rather than in stream channels, and are primarily \u0026ldquo;meadow clays\u0026rdquo; formed by repeated movement of the water table through loess deposits. A total of 98 clay samples were analyzed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMethods\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA sub-set of ceramics from B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert was analyzed both by optical petrography (103 samples), and LA-ICP-MS as were a number of clay samples collected in the immediate vicinity of the site, while remaining ceramics and clays were analyzed by LA-ICP-MS only. Optical petrography was carried out at the Hungarian National Museum (Budapest) and followed standard methods of thin-section production and analysis of texture and mineral inclusions as reported by Kreiter (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Inclusion density, size categories, inclusion sorting and roundness of the components were determined based on a slightly modified version of the guidelines of the Prehistoric Ceramic Research Group (2010). Inclusion density was coded as rare (1\u0026ndash;2%), sparse (3\u0026ndash;9%), moderate (10\u0026ndash;19%), common (20\u0026ndash;29%), very common (30\u0026ndash;39%) and abundant (40% \u0026lt;). Inclusion size was coded as very fine (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.1 mm), fine (0.1\u0026ndash;0.25 mm), medium (0.25\u0026ndash;1 mm), coarse (1\u0026ndash;3 mm) and very coarse (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;3 mm). Clay samples were prepared for petrographic analysis by first removing larger inclusions and impurities, adding water, and forming small briquettes. The briquettes were fired in a Nabertherm L15/12/320 type electric kiln in an oxidizing atmosphere at 750\u0026deg;C, with a heating time of one hour and a soaking time of three hours. This temperature was selected to prevent transformation of carbonates as these were present in ceramic samples (Kreiter \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), which could distort the visibility of calcareous non-plastic inclusions. Standard 30 \u0026micro;m thin sections were then prepared from these fired briquettes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor chemical analysis, clean broken edges were selected on ceramic samples, in some cases using cut edges produced for thin-sectioning. Clays were dried, manually disaggregated, and homogenized in an agate mortar. 5gm of material from each sample was then rewetted using ultra-pure deionized water, formed into a briquette, and fired at 800\u0026deg;C for one hour. LA-ICP-MS was performed at the Field Museum Elemental Analysis Facility (EAF, Chicago, USA) using procedures reported elsewhere (Golitko \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Riebe \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Riebe and Niziolek \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Concentrations were calculated against NIST standards 610, 612, and 679 using the sum-normalization procedure first published by Gratuze and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). New Ohio Red Clay (NORC) was run as a quality assurance standard with each run, and resulting average values and relative standard deviations are reported in supplemental table S2. All measurements can be found in supplemental data.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Results of compositional analyses","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePetrography\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analyzed ceramics were divided into six fabric groups based on the density and size of inclusions, summarized in supplemental table S3. The basic raw materials represented in these six fabric groups are however very similar in terms of the type of non-plastic inclusions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFabric 1 (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;61): This fabric is very fine grained, although fine inclusions are also present. All vessels were tempered with grog, though its amount is rare to sparse. The majority of inclusions are very fine to fine quartz and muscovite mica but rare feldspar (potassium feldspar, plagioclase) was also identified.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFabric 2 (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1): This fabric is similar to Fabric 1, however it contains calcareous inclusions (carbonate clasts, but the clay matrix is non-calcareous). The majority of inclusions are also very fine to fine quartz and muscovite mica but rare feldspar (potassium feldspar, plagioclase) was also identified. The amount of grog tempering is moderate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFabric 3 (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;36): This fabric is very fine to fine-grained. It is similar to Fabrics 1 and 2 but Fabric 3 contains more fine non-plastic inclusions. The ceramics were tempered with rare to sparse amounts of grog. The majority of inclusions are very fine to fine quartz, muscovite mica, feldspar (potassium feldspar, plagioclase) is rare.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFabric 4 (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3): This fabric is similar to Fabric 3, however it contains calcareous inclusions (carbonate clasts, but the clay matrix is non-calcareous). Grog temper is rare. The types of inclusions are similar to the previous fabrics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFabric 5 (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1). This fabric is also similar to the other fabrics; however, it contains calcareous inclusions (individual carbonate clasts appear and the clay matrix is calcareous). The amount of grog tempering is sparse.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFabric 6 (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1): This fabric is very fine to medium-grained and tempered with rare amounts of grog. It is a calcareous raw material, but also contains larger carbonate clasts. The majority of inclusions are very fine to medium quartz and muscovite mica, but rare feldspar (potassium feldspar, plagioclase) was also identified.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe raw materials used to produce the vast majority of the studied ceramics closely resemble clay samples collected near B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e), however, it should be noted that when a particular clay sample resembles a ceramic sample or group of ceramics, this does not mean that they are identical, but rather that the particular clay sample is the closest match to the ceramics in terms of the type, size, and distribution of non-plastic inclusions. In some cases, clay samples resemble multiple petrographic ceramic groups, and we are not suggesting one to one correlation between particular vessels and particular clay samples. The results do however indicate that the degree of mineralogical variability in locally available clays is similar to that observed in ceramic samples, suggesting that the full range of ceramics from B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert we studied could have been produced with relatively locally available raw materials. An earlier analysis of seven sherds from T\u0026uacute;rkeve-Terehalom similarly indicates use of clays that could have been obtained locally on the GHP and specifically near to the site itself (Kreiter \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Overall, we identified no ceramics that appear to originate from significantly different geological environments than the GHP, and all plausibly could originate from very near to the site. The petrographic analysis also suggests that beyond removal of very large inclusions, and the occasional addition of grog temper, Bronze Age potters at B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert likely used relatively unaltered clays for the production of vessels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLA-ICP-MS of ceramics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur initial interpretations of ceramic chemistry followed statistical procedures widely utilized in ceramic compositional studies, which are in effect an attempt to statistically apply the provenience postulate to identify distinctive production signatures and then assess the likelihood that any given ceramic might have been drawn from a particular identified chemical distribution (Harbottle \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1976\u003c/span\u003e; Neff \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Glascock and Neff \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Glascock et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Prior to conducting further analysis of the data, we omitted a series of elements that were likely impacted by post-depositional alteration. In a prior study (Golitko et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), we noted issues particularly with ceramics from B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert, which when excavated, were often covered with a whitish crust. This material proved to be composed of a variety of soil minerals and organic compounds cemented into a matrix of redeposited calcite, likely formed through annual wet/dry cycling in the surrounding burial matrix. Examination of compositional profiles in sherd cross-sections also identified alteration of concentrations of a number of potentially mobile elements (Na, Ca, Sr, Ba), which were also noted as being present systematically higher concentrations than those present in ceramics from the four tell sites, where ceramics were likely less subjected to annual differences in moisture. We subsequently also noted potential issues with Mn and U concentrations. Consequently, these six elements were removed from all further analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRemaining elemental values were then logged (base 10) to normalize the data and eliminate scaling differences between elements, after which we used cluster analysis, inspection of bivariate plots, and PCA (see supplemental figures \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e, S2, and S3) to examine structure in the data (Neff \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Preliminary groups were then refined by calculation of Mahalanobis distance-based probabilities of group membership to remove outlier samples and assess the degree of statistical separation between chemical groups. Initial attempts to separate samples by site proved challenging, as did attempts to separate the sites by river valley. In the end, the most robust partitioning of samples that we could produce generated three chemical signatures (labeled A, B, and T in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) as well as a number of statistical outliers. The principal distinctions between these chemical groups can be seen on Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, comparing logged W and Mo concentrations. Group A is the largest of the chemical groups, and contains all non-outlier sherds from B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert, B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s-V\u0026aacute;rdomb, V\u0026eacute;sztő-M\u0026aacute;gor, and the majority of samples from Beretty\u0026oacute;\u0026uacute;jfalu-Herp\u0026aacute;ly-F\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;r. Group B contains seven sherds from Beretty\u0026oacute;\u0026uacute;jfalu-Herp\u0026aacute;ly-F\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;r, and is characterized by lower W concentrations than Group A sherds. Group T contains all non-outlier sherds from T\u0026uacute;rkeve-Terehalom and is characterized by higher Mo concentrations than those present in Group A sherds. A number of sherds remain unassigned to these chemical groups, yet inspection of bivariate plots suggests that these are statistical outliers of these groups, not samples with chemistries divergent enough to suspect that they were imported from elsewhere. As can be seen on Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, these outlier samples generally hover around the fringes of the confidence regions for the chemical groups to which the majority of samples from their respective sites belong.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt should be noted that Groups A and T do not fully satisfy the provenience postulate in a formal statistical sense, as there is a substantial amount of statistical (and chemical) overlap between ceramics located near the compositional boundaries of these two groups (supplemental table S4). We could in principle have eliminated this overlap by omitting samples with high probabilities of belonging to both groups, then comparing these sherds to the more narrowly constrained \u0026ldquo;core\u0026rdquo; chemical-statistical regions of each group. However, given that T\u0026uacute;rkeve-Terehalom is only c. 35km from the nearest K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s drainage site (V\u0026eacute;sztő-M\u0026aacute;gor) included in Group A, and without a knowledge of how much clay chemistry varies on this order of distance, we felt it was equally likely that this degree of overlap could result from localized production at each site and no movement of ceramics. To more explicitly test these possible interpretations, we next explore chemical patterning in clay samples and how these compare to measured ceramics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eClay variability and comparison to ceramics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe first grouped samples by drainage system (with \u0026ldquo;Puszta\u0026rdquo; added as a category for all samples outside of a drainage basin). A MANOVA test using logged (base 10) elemental concentrations suggests that there are statistically significant chemical differences between some drainage basins on certain elements (Wilk\u0026rsquo;s test p=\u0026lt;\u0026lt;0.001). Some of the most significantly varying elements are shown as box-and-whisker plots on Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e. Several trends are evident on these plots, for instance, relatively low Ni and Co and high Cu concentrations in samples taken the Zagyva-Tarna drainage, and similarly elevated Cu concentrations in samples from the Danube and Maros drainages. Concentrations of Cs are consistently higher in samples from the northern portions of the GHP (Danube, Hortob\u0026aacute;gy, Zagyva-Tarna, Beretty\u0026oacute;). Both Mo and W, associated with differences between some samples in this data set (and in Riebe\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) earlier study of Late Neolithic ceramics) differs significantly between different drainages, and in particular, significantly higher W concentrations are measured in Beretty\u0026oacute; clay samples compared to those taken from the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s drainage. Puszta samples and samples from the Tisza are particularly variable, reflecting the large geographical distances between samples in these categories. These chemical differences could account for the ability to distinguish ceramics from sites in different drainages, as noted in prior studies, however, there is a substantial amount of overlap between concentrations in any pair of drainages for most elements, which could also account for observed overlaps in ceramics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother way to conceptualize the provenience postulate is as follows: chemical variability must demonstrate a discontinuous distribution so that a distinct boundary can be identified in compositions representing production in two different geographically discrete regions. If chemical variance is continuous, then distinctive profiles will only be identifiable in the event that ceramics are produced only in relatively distantly spaced communities or production centers. If variability is clinal, and ceramics are produced at widely distributed but relatively closely spaced communities, ceramic chemistry will also form a continuous distribution that will make it impossible to identify the compositional and statistical boundaries of production at one site, and to conclusively identify where a transported ceramic was actually produced. To examine the geographic distribution of chemical variance, we compare pair-wise Euclidean distances between the logged (base 10) chemical concentrations in clay samples to their corresponding pair-wise geodesic distances in kilometers. This comparison reveals a statistically significant linear increase in chemical distance with geographic distance, albeit that distance only explains about 20% of the total variance (R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.181, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) in chemical similarity (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003eA, see supplemental table S5). In other words, the further apart two different clay deposits are, the more likely it is that they will display significant chemical differences, however, it is also possible to sample broadly chemically similar clays even at relatively large distances on the GHP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis broadly clinal nature of chemical variability on the GHP makes it unlikely that pottery produced there will satisfy the provenience postulate in any strict form, excepting in a case where pottery is only produced in a handful of widely separated locations and it can conclusively be ruled out that ceramics were produced in any geographically intermediate locations. Even so, the wide range of concentrations found in clays at any given location makes it likely that even then, there will be overlap between the compositional and statistical space occupied by ceramics from any two production sites. This patterning helps explain the results of prior compositional studies, in other words, the ability to find consistent chemical differences between widely spaced sites, inability to distinguish pottery produced at proximal sites, and the degree of compositional and statistical overlap between ceramics from even widely spaced ancient communities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThat said, we propose that the clinal nature of chemical variability on the GHP can still be used to make some broad statements about the likely location of ceramic manufacture at different communities. In the event that the majority of ceramics at a given site are manufactured on site or at least within a relatively short distance of the site, comparison to clays should reveal a broadly similar linear relationship between pair-wise Euclidean chemical distance and geographic distance so long as tempering or other processes do not substantially change the base paste composition relative to natural geochemical variability. Conversely, if ceramics were largely obtained from a more distant location, this relationship should diverge from that observed for comparisons of clay samples to each other. Treating all of the Bronze Age ceramics in our sample as local and comparing them to clay samples (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003eB, supplemental table S5) does in fact show a linear relationship that is broadly similar to that for comparisons of clay samples to each other.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDivided by type, it is clear that coarseware vessels (storage vessels and cooking pots) almost exactly mimic the regression pattern between clays, suggesting very local production in our sample, as might be expected for these larger, less decorated vessels (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003eC). Fineware diverges marginally from this pattern, however, dividing by specific vessel types highlights larger divergence from the expected \u0026ldquo;local\u0026rdquo; regression pattern for some vessel types (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003eD). Mugs/cups and bowls in particular show greater than expected Euclidean distances relative to clays when compared to geographical distance, suggesting that these relatively small, and sometimes very elaborately decorated vessel types (e.g., Sofaer \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) may have moved more frequently over larger distances. Urns/jars fall in between these other vessel categories and the coarseware/clay regression lines, suggesting that fewer of these vessels may have been transported over longer distances. However, it should be noted that while cups and mugs (and bowls to a lesser degree) were relatively widely sampled across our study sites, larger urns and jars in our sample derive almost entirely from funerary contexts at B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile comparison of the pooled set of samples suggests that many of the vessels in our Bronze Age sample were locally produced (within a short distance of the sites from which they were recovered), we may perhaps gain a more detailed view by making this comparison on both a site-by-site basis and by dividing ceramic samples based on their assigned chemical group. For B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e), the relationship between Euclidean chemical distance and geographic distance (removing outlier samples from consideration) is similar to that for clay-clay comparisons (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003eA), although again, coarseware fits the clay regression line marginally closer than fineware does. If the site is placed at a series of false coordinates on other parts of the GHP, these regression lines diverge from the expected chemical-distance relationship, particularly as the site is moved to large distances from its true location. This is particularly evident when the site is placed well to the north (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003eC) or within the Maros fan (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003eD). The difference is less pronounced when moving the site westwards but still within the broader K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s drainage (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003eB), suggesting that chemical similarity may be greater within river drainages than when comparing across different drainages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt three of the four other study sites (B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s-V\u0026aacute;rdomb\u0026mdash;Figure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003eA, V\u0026eacute;sztő-M\u0026aacute;gor\u0026mdash;Figure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003eB, and T\u0026uacute;rkeve-Terehalom\u0026mdash;Figure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003eC), the relationship between chemical distance and geographical distance for the major chemical group identified at each site is nearly identical to that for clays, again suggesting that many or even most of the ceramics at each of these three sites may have been produced in close proximity to each respective ancient community.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eApplying this same approach to the ceramics from Beretty\u0026oacute;\u0026uacute;jfalu-Herp\u0026aacute;ly-F\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;r produces a very different result, however, suggesting the possibility that relatively few of the ceramics we sampled from there were produced locally. For comparisons of both Group A and Group B ceramics from the site to clays (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003eB), the resulting regression relationship deviates significantly from that expected for local production from clays sampled from nearby in the Beretty\u0026oacute; Valley. This is particularly the case for Group B ceramics. Moving the site to a variety of \u0026ldquo;dummy\u0026rdquo; geographical coordinates suggests that Group A ceramics are similar to clays from the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s drainage (see supplemental figure S4), so that possibly many ceramics used there were acquired from communities in the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s area. Notably, both coarse- and fineware ceramics appear \u0026ldquo;non-local.\u0026rdquo; That said, we have relatively limited numbers of clay samples from the Beretty\u0026oacute; and northern GHP, which may bias our results as to how similar ceramics from Beretty\u0026oacute;\u0026uacute;jfalu-Herp\u0026aacute;ly-F\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;r are relative to more local clays, and it remains possible that additional sampling in that area would make ceramics there appear more \u0026ldquo;local.\u0026rdquo; Group B ceramics do not match any of the clays in our current sample, and we are unable to suggest a likely production area or region for these. They might plausibly originate outside of the regions we have sampled, for instance in the Danube-Tisza interfluve, or further east on the Romanian portions of the GHP, or could originate from off of the GHP altogether and derive from a basically different geological background. This can only be resolved with further clay sampling and petrographic study of the ceramics themselves.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHaving established that most ceramics were likely largely locally produced at four of the five study sites, we can also examine how the probability of group membership for clay samples relative to these ceramics\u0026mdash;a common means of comparing clays to ceramic samples in archaeometric studies (e.g., Neff \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Riebe \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;varies with distance. Given the relatively small number of samples analyzed at most of the sites when compared to the number of elements we measured, we focus only on ceramics from B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert, as the values for other sites might be artificially inflated by small sample size. Calculation of Spearman\u0026rsquo;s rho in this case indicates a significant negative correlation (ρ=-.401, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) between distance and group membership probability, although the relationship is not linear. Plotting a loess fit line against the actual data points (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e) indicates that within c. 50km, membership probabilities are relatively high on average and only weakly tail off with distance. Beyond this distance, there is a more rapid fall off in group membership probability with distance, but these probabilities remain non-negligible up to a distance of c. 100km.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur results demonstrate that it is not possible to strictly apply the provenience postulate to ceramics within the bounds of the GHP, but also explains why prior ceramic compositional analyses in the region have found patterned variability despite the relative geological homogeneity of the region. Clays diverge chemically in a predictable fashion with distance, and as a result, potters sampling this geology to obtain clays are also likely to produce ceramics that became progressively less chemically similar the further apart these clays are. However, given that even relatively distant clays may still be chemically similar to one another, it is anticipated that a considerable degree of overlap will exist even between ceramics produced at relatively distant places. While we cannot provide an exact value for suggesting how far apart two potting communities would need to be before there would be minimal overlap between their respective communities, our results suggest that this distance might be something like 50km, although potentially further for communities located within the same river drainage. This result is consistent with prior geochemical studies of ceramics on the GHP. From a statistical standpoint, clays up to 100km from particular community might still show non-negligible similarities to ceramics. The inability to clearly define boundaries of chemical variability makes it nearly impossible to clearly identify where any particular ceramic vessel might have been produced on the basis of chemistry alone.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThat said, the clinal nature of geochemical variance in this case can be used to make more general statements as to whether ceramics were largely locally produced (meaning within a c. 50km area of the site), or were potentially primarily imported from elsewhere. In the present study, mineralogy suggests that all studied ceramics from the Bronze Age cemetery at B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert were produced on the GHP, and a combination of petrography and chemistry further suggests that they are likely to be local to the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s drainage at a minimum. The mineralogical variability present in the samples is consistent with that observed in clays sampled within a few kilometers of the site, and only petrographic group 5 (one of the calcareous paste groups), shows any chemical variability relative to other ceramics by petrographic group (elevated W concentration\u0026mdash;supplemental figure S5), and so could potentially reflect a marginally longer distance import. However broadly speaking, the degree of resolution afforded by the geology of the GHP makes it difficult to distinguish whether any site in our study acquired ceramics from distances of c. 50-60km or less, particularly if those sites are located in the same river drainage. While ceramics at the cemetery could for instance have been produced at the associated settlement, the B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert cemetery might have drawn ceramics (and possibly people) from a very local (6-7km) area, but also could have been used by people from further distances as well (e.g., Duffy, Paja, et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). There is little evidence to suggest significant changes in clay and/or ceramic acquisition between EBA, MBA, and transitional MBA-LBA contexts at the cemetery, as Group A ceramics characterize all of these periods. It should be noted that our sample from B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert by and large focused on more typical looking vessels\u0026mdash;there were some \u0026ldquo;non-local\u0026rdquo; looking ceramics found in some graves, but these were not included in the present study as they came from poorly preserved contexts. Some of these were associated with bronze objects as well (Parditka and Duffy 2023). Future sampling might focus on expanding the sample of ceramics that appear stylistically divergent relative to the majority of any given site assemblage to see if these ceramics on average diverge more from the expected chemical similarity-distance relationship than vessels with more typical forms and/or decorations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimilarly, at three of the four tell sites included in our sample, we have no compelling evidence that ceramics were obtained from any great distance, and plausibly, the ceramics in our sample may have been produced very near to each tell. Of course, it is still possible that in each case, the tells drew ceramics from non-tell communities in their immediate vicinity, and so our data do not directly address the question of how tell communities related to their potential hinterlands. Moderate divergence between fineware and coarseware in terms of similarity to clays, as well as for particular vessels classes (mugs/cups and bowls in particular) also suggests that decorated fineware may have moved larger distances in relatively low volumes, however.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConversely, at Beretty\u0026oacute;\u0026uacute;jfalu-Herp\u0026aacute;ly-F\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;r, on the basis of our present data, many of the studied ceramics may have been acquired outside of the Beretty\u0026oacute; Valley. Group A ceramics, comprising the majority of the samples analyzed from Beretty\u0026oacute;\u0026uacute;jfalu-Herp\u0026aacute;ly-F\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;r, appear to better match compositional variability in the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s drainage to the south, minimally 35km away. That said, as the site is on the edge of our clay sampling region, it remains possible that similar clays could be found nearer to the site, perhaps further up the Beretty\u0026oacute; drainage to the east. Group B, containing only seven vessels, appears to represent production somewhere outside of the area in which we have sampled clays. It should be noted that both chemical groups contain vessels with typical Gyulavars\u0026aacute;nd type decorative motifs, for instance channels and spirals (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eD, assigned to Group B), while Group A also includes vessels with decorations that are uncommon in the OFCC region. For instance, the jug with an \u0026ldquo;ansa lunata\u0026rdquo; handle (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eL), a stylistic feature more common in the Maros area of the southern GHP (B\u0026oacute;na \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1975\u003c/span\u003e), was assigned to Group A, as was a bowl with Wietenberg decorative elements (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eM), a style found to the east in Transylvania (Quinn et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). We cannot entirely rule out the possibility that these vessels were produced non-locally and transported to the tell, however, these results may indicate that a broader range of styles were produced on the GHP at times than traditional culture-historical boundaries suggest, or that potters from other regions at times moved to the GHP and introduced such stylistic elements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile we cannot conclusively rule out the production of some vessels locally at Beretty\u0026oacute;\u0026uacute;jfalu-Herp\u0026aacute;ly-F\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;r based on our data, however, it is clear that the pattern at this tell diverges substantially from that at the other studied tell sites. Although our results are to a degree preliminary, they provide some support for emerging understanding of the diversity of practices at different tell sites and in different areas of the GHP during the later EBA and MBA, further suggesting that monolithic models of tell formation and occupation may need revisiting in light of differing regional trajectories in social and economic organization (e.g., Kienlin \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Ceramics may only have been produced in some areas of the GHP during the Bronze Age, and some tell communities may have acquired ceramics from elsewhere, while others produced or acquired them from lesser distances.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur results also highlight the critical role that intensive clay raw material surveys may play in understanding geochemical and mineralogical variability in geologically homogeneous regions. While patterned variability exists in the ceramics in our study (and in prior geochemical studies on the GHP), the results of our clay survey and comparison to ceramics highlights the limits of applying the provenience postulate to ceramics produced there. It would prove difficult to conclusively identify transported ceramics on a sample-by-sample basis, as even at relatively geographically widely spaced points on the GHP, sampling the base geological variability in clays would likely produce a degree of compositional overlap between resulting ceramics (i.e., there is not more inter-source variability than intra-source variability in clays). This limitation may constrain the kinds of archaeological questions that can be addressed using ceramic sourcing on the GHP, but even so, a combined mineralogical and chemical approach may still yield useful data reflective of production location and technology within the limits imposed by the environment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we examine the degree to which ceramic sourcing is possible in the very homogenous environment of the eastern Carpathian/Pannonian Basin\u0026mdash;the Great Hungarian Plain. Our intensive survey of clays from the region suggest that geochemical variability exhibits a continuous clinal distribution, although impacted to a degree by river drainages. As a result, the provenience postulate underlying archaeological sourcing analyses\u0026mdash;that more variability exists between identifiable sources than within them\u0026ndash;cannot be strictly applied to ceramics produced there. However, our results do make interpretation of the patterned geochemical variability found in ceramics from the GHP both in our study and prior studies possible by delimiting the scale of variability and providing a means of determining whether ceramics from a given ancient community were largely locally produced or acquired from a distance beyond c. 50km\u0026mdash;what we might consider \u0026ldquo;geochemically local.\u0026rdquo; This scale of resolution does limit the kinds of questions that may be directly answered using compositional data, however, and other more traditional archaeological indicators of production or else fine-grained analyses of production techniques, stylistic elements, and so forth may be required to make any further arguments about what \u0026ldquo;local\u0026rdquo; means relative to the actual site by site locations of production and means of acquiring ceramics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThat said, a combination of mineralogical/petrographic analysis (to confirm production on the GHP vs. elsewhere) with chemical analysis can produce archaeological valid and useful results despite the overt difficulties of interpreting compositional data in an environment like the eastern Carpathian Basin. While our results provide a solid empirical basis for interpreting ceramic compositional analyses on the GHP regardless of time period, we have not as of yet sampled the entire expanse of the GHP and surrounding regions. Further clay sampling in the Danube-Tisza interfluve, Serbian Banat region, and along the northern and eastern fringes of the GHP in Hungary and Romania may help to further delimit where ceramics in our study were produced.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur results suggest that the bulk of the ceramics we analyzed from four sites in or near to the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s River drainage\u0026mdash;the cemetery at B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert, as well as the tell settlements at B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s-V\u0026aacute;rdomb, V\u0026eacute;sztő-M\u0026aacute;gor, and T\u0026uacute;rkeve-Terehalom, can be considered predominately geochemically local. The majority of ceramics studied from the tell of Beretty\u0026oacute;\u0026uacute;jfalu-Herp\u0026aacute;ly-F\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;r may be geochemically non-local, and many of these ceramics may have been obtained from the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s region. Moreover, our data provide further evidence to suggest that social and economic structure was not uniform across the GHP during the florescence of tell settlements during the MBA, reinforcing this notion of emerging complexity and regional variability during the Bronze Age.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eMG wrote the main manuscript text; MG, DJR, and AK analyzed samples; PRD, GyM, and MG obtained research funding; MG, PRD, GyM, DJR, and AK conceptualized the research; MG and AK generated the figures; PRD and DJR obtained samples\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe work reported here was funded by the United States National Science Foundation (BCS1226439, BCS1460820) as part of the BAKOTA project. Additional chemical analysis was funded by the Field Museum Elemental Analysis Facility via United State National Science Foundation funding (BCS1628026) and the Notre Dame Department of Anthropology. Many thanks to Julia Giblin, L\u0026aacute;szl\u0026oacute; Paja, Attila Gyucha, Laure Dussubieux, \u0026Aacute;d\u0026aacute;m Bal\u0026aacute;zs, J\u0026aacute;nos Dani, Alyssa McGrath, Craig Jensen, Ashley Cercone, Beth Gr\u0026aacute;valos, Emily Quarato, William Parkinson, William Ridge, and the staff of the Munk\u0026aacute;csy Mih\u0026aacute;ly M\u0026uacute;zeum, who assisted with portions of the work reported here.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll data are provided in a supplementary file included with the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArnold DE, Neff H, Bishop RL (1991) Compositional analysis and sources of pottery: an ethnoarchaeological approach. Am Anthropol 93(1):70\u0026ndash;90\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eArnold DE, Neff H, Glascock MD (2000) Testing assumptions of Neutron Activation Analysis: communities, workshops and paste preparation in Yucat\u0026aacute;n. Mexico Archaeometry 42(2):301\u0026ndash;316. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2000.tb00883.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1475-4754.2000.tb00883.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBanner J (1956) Research on the Hungarian Bronze Age since 1936 and the Bronze-Age Settlement at B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s-V\u0026aacute;rdomb. P Prehist Soc 21:123\u0026ndash;143. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00017497\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0079497X00017497\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBanner J, B\u0026oacute;na I (1974) Mittelbronzezeitliche Tell-Siedlungen bei B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s. Fontes Archaeologici Hungariae, Akad\u0026eacute;miai Kiad\u0026oacute;, Budapest\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBartlett ML, Neff H, McAnany PA (2000) Differentiation of clay resources on a limestone plain: the analysis of clay utilization during the Maya Formative at K\u0026rsquo;axob Belize. Geoarchaeology 15(2):95\u0026ndash;133. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6548(200002)15:2\u0026lt;95::AID-GEA1\u0026gt;3.0.CO;2-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/(SICI)1520-6548(200002)15:2%3C95::AID-GEA1%3E3.0.CO;2-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBishop RL, Canouts V, De Atley SP, Q\u0026ouml;yawayma A, Aikins CW (1988) The formation of ceramic analytical groups: Hopi pottery production and exchange. J Field Archaeol 15(3):1300\u0026ndash;1600. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e317\u0026ndash;337. https://doi.org/10.1179/009346988791974439\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"317\u0026ndash;337. 10.1179/009346988791974439\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBlomster JP, Neff H, Glascock MD (2005) Olmec pottery production and export in ancient Mexico determined through elemental analysis. Science 307:1068\u0026ndash;1072. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.science.org/doi/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.science.org/doi/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1126/science.1107599\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/science.1107599\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eB\u0026oacute;na I (1975) Die Mittlere Bronzezeit Ungarns und ihre s\u0026uuml;d\u0026ouml;stlichen Beziehungen. Archaeologici Hungariae, Akad\u0026eacute;miai Kiad\u0026oacute;, Budapest\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBosq M, Kreutzer S, Bertran P, Lanos P, Dufresne P, Schmidt C (2023) Last Glacial loess in Europe: luminescence database and chronology of deposition. Earth Syst Sci Dat 15:4689\u0026ndash;4711. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-4689-2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5194/essd-15-4689-2023\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCs\u0026aacute;nyi M, T\u0026aacute;rnoki J (1992) T\u0026uacute;rkeve-Terehalom. In: Meier-Arendt W (ed) Bronzezeit in Ungarn: Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, pp 159\u0026ndash;165\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDani J (2012) Fortified Tell Settlements from the Middle Bronze Age in the Hungarian Reach of the Beretty\u0026oacute; Valley. In: Jaeger M, Czebreszuk J, Fischl KP (eds) Enclosed Space-Open Society. Contact and Exchange in the Context of Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Central Europe. SAO/SPEŚ, Poznan and Bonn, pp 27\u0026ndash;27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDar\u0026oacute;czi T-T, Cs\u0026aacute;nyi M, T\u0026aacute;rnoki J, Nagy F, Olsen J (2022) T\u0026uacute;rkeve-Terehalom in the Eastern Carpathian Basin. Bronze Age multi-stratified site provides high-precision chronology with continental implications. Praehist Z 98(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1515/pz-2022-2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1515/pz-2022-2024\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDruc I (2013) What is local? Looking at ceramic production in the Peruvian Highlands and beyond. J Anthropol Res 69:485\u0026ndash;513. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3998/jar.0521004.0069.404\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3998/jar.0521004.0069.404\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuffy PR (2014) Complexity and Autonomy in Bronze Age Europe: Assessing Cultural Developments in Eastern Hungary. Prehistoric Research in the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s Region, Archaeolingua, Budapest\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuffy PR, Parkinson WA, Gyucha A, Yerkes RW (2013) Coming together, falling apart: A multiscalar approach to prehistoric aggregation and interaction on the Great Hungarian Plain. In: Birch J (ed) From Prehistoric Villages to Cities: Settlement Aggregation and Community Transformation. Routledge, New York and London, pp 44\u0026ndash;62\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuffy PR, Paja L, Parditka GM, Giblin JI (2019) Modelling mortuary populations at local and regional levels. J Anthropol Archaeol 53:240\u0026ndash;261. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2019.01.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jaa.2019.01.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuffy PR, Parditka GM, Giblin JI, Paja L (2019) The problem with tells: lessons learned from absolute dating of Bronze Age mortuary ceramics in Hungary. Antiquity 93:63\u0026ndash;79. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2018.179\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.15184/aqy.2018.179\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuffy PR, Parditka GM, Giblin JI, Paja L, Salisbury RB Discovering Mortuary Practices in the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s River Basin, Hungary. Hungarian Archaeology, 2014, Autumn (2014) \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.hungarianarchaeology.hu/?cat=54\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.hungarianarchaeology.hu/?cat=54\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuwe S (2005) Pots, Daub, and Neutrons: A Pilot Compositional Analysis of Early Copper Age Clay Assemblages. La Tinaja 16:2\u0026ndash;5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuwe S, Parsons TA, Galaty ML, Hoekman-Sites H (2020) Elemental, Mineralogical, and Petrographic Analyses of Ceramics and Daub. In: Parkinson WA, Gyucha A, Yerkes RW (eds) Bikeri: Two Copper Age Villages on the Great Hungarian Plain. Monumenta Archaeologica 46. UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp 245\u0026ndash;262\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEarle T, Kreiter A, Klehm C, Ferguson J, Vicze M (2011) Bronze Age Ceramic Economy: The Benta Valley, Hungary. Eur J Archaeol 14(3):419\u0026ndash;440. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1179/146195711798356746\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1179/146195711798356746\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFischl KP (2018) Settlement layouts, systems and structure of the Otomani-F\u0026uuml;zesabony Cultural Complex. Gesta XVII (2): 3\u0026ndash;8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFischl KP, Rem\u0026eacute;nyi L (2013) Interpretation Possibilities of the Bronze Age Tell Sites in the Carpathian Basin. In: Anders A, Kulcs\u0026aacute;r G, Kalla G, Kiss V, Szab\u0026oacute; GV (eds) Moments in Time. Papers Presented to P\u0026aacute;l Raczky on his 60th Birthday. L\u0026rsquo;Harmattan, Budapest, pp 725\u0026ndash;738\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFischl KP, Kiss V, Kulcs\u0026aacute;r G, Szever\u0026eacute;nyi V (2013) Transformations in the Carpathian Basin around 1600 B.C. Tagungen des. Landesmuseums f\u0026uuml;r Vorgeschichte Halle 9:355\u0026ndash;371\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlascock MD (2020) A systematic approach to geochemical sourcing of obsidian artifacts. Sci Cult 6(2):35\u0026ndash;47\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlascock MD, Neff H (2003) Neutron activation analysis and provenance research in archaeology. Meas Sci Technol 14:1516\u0026ndash;1526\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGlascock MD, Neff H, Vaughn KJ (2004) Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics for Pottery Provenance. Hyperfine Interact 154:95\u0026ndash;105\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGog\u0026acirc;ltan F (2016) Building power without power? Bronze Age fortified settlements on the Lower Mureş Basin. In: Gog\u0026acirc;ltan F, Cordoş C (eds) Prehistoric Settlements: Social, Economic, and Cultural Aspects. Seven studies in the Carpathian area. Editura Mega, Cluj-Napoca, pp 87\u0026ndash;114\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGog\u0026acirc;ltan F, Găvan A, Lie M, Fazecaş G, Cordoş C, Kienlin TL (2020) Exploring Bronze Age tells and tell-like settlements from the Eastern Carpathian Basin. Results of a research project. In: Blanco-Gonz\u0026aacute;lez A, Kienlin TL (eds) Current Approaches to Tells in the Prehistoric Old World. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp 73\u0026ndash;95\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGolitko M (2015) LBK Realpolitik: An Archaeometric Study of Conflict and Social Structure in the Belgian Early Neolithic. Archaeo, Oxford\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGolitko M, McGrath A, Kreiter A, Lightcap IV, Duffy PR, Parditka GM, Giblin JI (2021) Down to the crust: chemical and mineralogical analysis of ceramic surface encrustations on Bronze Age ceramics from B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s 103, Eastern Hungary. Minerals 11:436. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003edoi.org/10.3390/min11040436\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/min11040436\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGratuze B, Blet-Lemarquand M, Barrandon J-N (2001) Mass spectrometry with laser sampling: a new tool to characterize archaeological materials. J Radioanal Nucl Ch 247(3):645\u0026ndash;656. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010623703423\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010623703423\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGyucha A, Duffy PR, Frolking TA (2011) The K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s Basin from the Neolithic to the Habsburgs: Linking Settlement Distributions with Pre-Regulation Hydrology through Multiple Data Set Overlay. Geoarchaeology 26(3):392\u0026ndash;419. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20350\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/gea.20350\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGyucha A, Yerkes RW, Parkinson WA, Sarris A, Papadopoulos N, Duffy PR, Salisbury RB (2015) Settlement Nucleation in the Neolithic: A Preliminary Report of the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s Regional Archaeological Project\u0026rsquo;s Investigations at Szeghalom-Kov\u0026aacute;cshalom and V\u0026eacute;sztő-M\u0026aacute;gor. In: Hansen S, Raczky P, Anders A, Reingruber A (eds) Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea. Chronologies and Technologies from the 6th to the 4th Millenium BCE. International Workshop Budapest 2012. Arch\u0026auml;logie in Eurasian 31, Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn, pp 129\u0026ndash;142\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarbottle G (1976) Activation Analysis in Archaeology. Radiochemistry 3:33\u0026ndash;72\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHegedűs K, Makkay J (1987) V\u0026eacute;sztő-M\u0026aacute;gor. In: Raczky P (ed) The Late Neolithic of the Tisza region: a survey of recent excavations and their findings. Kosuth, Budapest, pp 85\u0026ndash;103\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHov\u0026aacute;th T, Farkas-Pető, Farkas I, Mih\u0026aacute;ly J, P\u0026eacute;terdi B (2016) F\u0026uuml;zesabony-\u0026Ouml;regdomb Brzonkori Tell-Telep\u0026uuml;l\u0026eacute;s Kőanyaga. Az egri Dob\u0026oacute; Istv\u0026aacute;n V\u0026aacute;rm\u0026uacute;zeum \u0026Eacute;vk\u0026ouml;nyve 2016: 29\u0026ndash;94\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKienlin TL (2015) Bronze Age Tell Communities in Context\u0026mdash;an Exploration into Culture, Society and the Study of European Prehistory. Part 1: Critique. Europe and the Mediterranean. Archaeo, Oxford\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKienlin TL (2020) Bronze Age Tell Communities in Context\u0026mdash;an Exploration into Culture, Society and the Study of European Prehistory. Part 2: Practice. The Social, Space, and Materiality. Archaeo, Oxford\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKreiter A (2007) Technological Choices and Material Meanings in Early and Middle Bronze Age Hungary: Understanding the Active Role of Material Culture through Ceramic Analysis. BAR International Series, vol 1604. Archaeo, Oxford\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKreiter A, Bajn\u0026oacute;czi B, Sipos P, Szakm\u0026aacute;ny Gy, T\u0026oacute;th M (2007) Archaeometric examination of Early and Middle Bronze Age ceramics from Sz\u0026aacute;zhalombatta-F\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;r, Hungary. Archeometriai Műhely 2007(2): 33\u0026ndash;47\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKristiansen K, Larsson TB (2005) The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels, Transmissions and Transformations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKov\u0026aacute;cs T (1988) Review of the Bronze Age settlement research during the past one and a half centuries in Hungary. In: Kov\u0026aacute;cs T, Stanczik I (eds) Bronze Age tell settlements of the Great Hungarian Plain I. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 1. Magyar Nemzeti M\u0026uacute;zeum, Budapest, pp 17\u0026ndash;26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLevine A, Stanish C, Williams PR, Ch\u0026aacute;vez C, Golitko M (2013) Trade and early state formation in the northern Titicaca Basin, Peru. Latin Am Antiq 24(3):289\u0026ndash;308. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.24.3.289\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.7183/1045-6635.24.3.289\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMakkay J (2004) V\u0026eacute;sztő-M\u0026aacute;gor: \u0026Aacute;sat\u0026aacute;s a sz\u0026uuml;lőf\u0026ouml;ld\u0026ouml;n. B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s Megyei M\u0026uacute;zeumok Igazgat\u0026oacute;s\u0026aacute;ga, B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;scsaba\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eM\u0026aacute;th\u0026eacute; MS (1988) Bronze Age Tells in the Beretty\u0026oacute; Valley. In: Kov\u0026aacute;cs T, Stanczik I (eds) Bronze Age tell settlements of the Great Hungarian Plain I. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 1. Magyar Nemzeti M\u0026uacute;zeum, Budapest, pp 27\u0026ndash;122\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eM\u0026aacute;th\u0026eacute; MS (1992) Beretty\u0026oacute;\u0026uacute;jfalu-Herp\u0026aacute;ly-F\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;r (Die bronzezeitlichen Schichten des f\u0026uuml;r die neolithische Herp\u0026aacute;ly-Kultur eponymen Fundortes). In: Meier-Arendt W (ed) Bronzezeit in Ungarn: Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, pp 170\u0026ndash;173\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeyer M, Daszkiewicz M, Schneider G, Bernbeck R, Heeb BS, Hegewisch M, Kohlmeyer K, N\u0026auml;ser C, Polla S, Schultze E, Schweigert F, Warburton DA (2016) Economic Space. On the Analysis and Interpretation of Pottery Production and Distribution. eTopoi J Anc Stud 6:190\u0026ndash;219\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMichelaki K (2006) Household Ceramic Economies: Production and Consumption of Household Ceramics among the Maros Villagers of Bronze Age Hungary. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1503, Archaeopress, Oxford\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMichelaki K (2008) Making Pots and Potters in the Bronze Age Maros Villages of Kiszombor-\u0026Uacute;j-\u0026Eacute;let and Kl\u0026aacute;rafalva-Hajdova. Camb Archaeol J 18(3):355\u0026ndash;380. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774308000413\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/S0959774308000413\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMolloy B, Jovanović D, Buyere C, Estanquiero M, Birclin M, Milašinović L, Šalamon A, Penezić K, Bronk Ramsey C, Grosman D (2023) Resilience, innovation and collapse of settlement networks in later Bronze Age Europe: New survey data from the southern Carpathian Basin. PLoS ONE 18(11). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288750\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0288750\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMommsen H (2001) Provenance determination of pottery by trace element analysis: problems, solutions, and applications. J Radioanal Nucl Ch 247(3):657\u0026ndash;662\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeff H (2002) Quantitative Techniques for Analyzing Ceramic Compositional Data. In: Glowacki DM, Neff H (eds) Ceramic Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest: Source Determination by INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations. Monograph 44, The Cotson Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp 15\u0026ndash;36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeff H, Bove FJ (1999) Mapping ceramic compositional variation and prehistoric interaction in Pacific coastal Guatemala. J Archaeol Sci 26:1037\u0026ndash;1051. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1999.0422\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1006/jasc.1999.0422\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeff H, Cogswell JW, Ross LM Jr (2003) Supplementing bulk chemistry in archaeological ceramic provenance investigations. In: van Zelst L (ed) Patterns and Process: A Festschrift in Honor of Dr. Edward V. Sayre. Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education, Suitland, pp 200\u0026ndash;224\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eN\u0026eacute;meti J, Moln\u0026aacute;r Z (2012) Bronzkori hatalmi k\u0026ouml;zpontok \u0026Eacute;szaknyugat-Erd\u0026eacute;lyben: A Nagyk\u0026aacute;roly\u0026ndash;Bob\u0026aacute;ld-tell. Bronzezeitliche. Machtzentren In Nordwest-Siebenb\u0026uuml;rgen: Der Tell von Carei-Bob\u0026aacute;ld. Monographs from the Department of Archaeology, University of Szeged, Szeged\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNicodemus A, Motta L, O\u0026rsquo;Shea JM (2015) Archaeological Investigations at Pecica Şanţul Mare 2013\u0026ndash;2014. Ziridava Studia Archaeologica 29:105\u0026ndash;118\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Shea JM (1996) Villagers of the Maros: a Portrait of an Early Bronze Age Society. Plenum, New York and London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePaja L, Duffy PR, Parditka GM, Giblin JI (2016) Bioanthropological analysis of B\u0026eacute;k\u0026eacute;s 103 (J\u0026eacute;gvermi-kert, Lipcsei-tanya), a Bronze Age cemetery from southeastern Hungary. Acta Biologica Szeged 60(2):183\u0026ndash;192\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParditka Gy, Duffy PR (2023) From the ashes of Bronze Age fires: a framework for comparison across body treatments. J Anthropol Archaeol 71. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2023.101525\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jaa.2023.101525\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParsons TA (2012) Modeling Late Copper Age demographics on the Great Hungarian Plain using ceramic petrography. J Archaeol Sci 39:458\u0026ndash;466. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.10.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jas.2011.10.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrehistoric Ceramics Research Group (2010) The study of prehistoric pottery: general policies and guidelines for analysis and publication, 3rd edn. The Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.prehistoricpottery.org/_files/ugd/b40101_48969801f0fd4147b24b935728c32ff7.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.prehistoricpottery.org/_files/ugd/b40101_48969801f0fd4147b24b935728c32ff7.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQuinn CP, Ciugudean H, Bălan G, Hodgins G (2020) Rethinking time, culture and socioeconomic organization in Bronze Age Transylvania. Antiquity 94(373):44\u0026ndash;61. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.231\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.15184/aqy.2019.231\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaczky P, Hertelendi E, Horv\u0026aacute;th F (1992) Zur Absoluten Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Tell-kulturen in Ungarn. In: Meier-Arendt W (ed) Bronzezeit in Ungarn: Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theiss. Stadt Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt am Main, pp 42\u0026ndash;45\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRadivojević M, Roberts BW, Pernicka E, Stos-Gale Z, Martin\u0026oacute;n-Torres M, Rehren T, Bray P, Brandherm D, Ling J, Mei J, Vandkilde H, Kristiansen K, Shennan SJ, Broodbank C (2019) The Provenance, Use, and Circulation of Metals in the European Bronze Age: The State of Debate. J Archaeol Res 27:131\u0026ndash;185. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://link.springer.com/article/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://link.springer.com/article/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s10814-018-9123-9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10814-018-9123-9\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRice PM (1987) Pottery Analysis: A Source Book. The University of Chicago, Chicago\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRiebe DJ (2021) Redefining Archaeological Cultures: Boundaries and Interactions during the Late Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Prehistoric Research in the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s Region, Archaeolingua, Budapest\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRiebe DJ, Niziolek LC (2015) Investigating compositional variation of ceramic materials during the Late Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain\u0026mdash;Preliminary LA-ICP-MS results. Open Geosci 1:423\u0026ndash;445. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2015-0044\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1515/geo-2015-0044\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSharratt N, Golitko M, Williams PR, Dussubieux L (2009) Ceramic production during the Middle Horizon: Wari and Tiwanaku clay procurement in the Moquegua Valley. Peru Geoarchaeology 24(6):792\u0026ndash;820. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20288\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/gea.20288\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSofaer J (2013) Cosmologies in clay: Swedish Helmet Bowls in the Middle Bronze Age of the Carpathian Basin. In: Bergerbrant S, Sabatini S (eds) Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies in Honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen. BAR International Series, vol 2508. Archaeo, Oxford, pp 361\u0026ndash;365\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStaniuk R (2021) Early and Middle Bronze Age Chronology of the Carpathian Basin Revisited: Questions Answered or Persistent Challenges? \u003cem\u003eRadiocarbon 63\u003c/em\u003e(5): 1526\u0026ndash;1546. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2021.83\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/RDC.2021.83\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStaniuk R, Kreiter A, Kulcs\u0026aacute;r G, Jaeger M (2022) Uniform in diversity: Typological and technological analysis of Bronze Age fine ware from Kakucs-Turj\u0026aacute;n. J Archaeol Sci Rep 41:103332. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103332\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.103332\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSzever\u0026eacute;nyi V, Kreiter A, Dani J, Gucsi L, Kiss V, Kulcs\u0026aacute;r G, Skoda P, Szathm\u0026aacute;ri I (2021) The Middle Bronze Age F\u0026uuml;zesabony pottery style of the Carpathian Basin. In: Vučković V, Filipović V, Stojanović B, Risch R (eds) Crafting pottery in Bronze Age Europe: the archaeological background of the CRAFTER project. Regional Museum of Paraćin, Paraćin, pp 49\u0026ndash;70\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeigand PC, Harbottle G, Sayre EV (1977) Turquoise sources and source analysis: Mesoamerica and the Southwestern U.S.A. In: Earle TK, Ericson JE (eds) Exchange Systems in Prehistory. Academic, Cambridge, pp 15\u0026ndash;34\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliamson KA, Danella EB, Ullinger J, Paja L, Giblin J (2021) Heads over tails? An exploration of anatomical arrangement within cremation urns from Bronze Age Hungary. Bioarchaeology Int 4(3\u0026ndash;4):153\u0026ndash;171. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5744/bi.2020.4002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5744/bi.2020.4002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"archaeological-and-anthropological-sciences","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"aasc","sideBox":"Learn more about [Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences](http://link.springer.com/journal/12517)","snPcode":"12520","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12520/3","title":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Provenience, Great Hungarian Plain, Bronze Age, Tell, Petrography, LA-ICP-MS","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4577871/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4577871/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eDetermining the provenience of archaeological objects relies on the so-called \u0026ldquo;provenience postulate,\u0026rdquo; namely, that sources of these objects are more compositionally distinct from each other than they are internally variable. For ceramics, it can be relatively straight forward in geologically heterogeneous environments to determine where vessels were produced, and whether they were traded or not. In geologically homogeneous regions, this can be far more complicated. In this study, we mineralogically and chemically compare Bronze Age ceramics (primarily Middle Bronze Age) from five archaeological sites on the Great Hungarian Plain to a large regional clay sample. The Great Hungarian Plain is comprised almost entirely of Pleistocene loess deposits, yet prior compositional studies have identified patterned variability between ceramics from different sites. Our results show that chemical variation in the region is continuous and clinal, making it difficult to strictly apply the provenience postulate to identify distinct production locations. However, we show that this clinal chemical variability can be used to make broad statements about whether most ceramics at any given site were produced relatively locally or were obtained from further distances (c. 50 km or more). We show that while production at most of our study sites was likely relatively localized, in one instance (the tell at Beretty\u0026oacute;\u0026uacute;jfalu-Herp\u0026aacute;ly-F\u0026ouml;ldv\u0026aacute;r), many ceramics may have been obtained from other Bronze Age communities, including those in the K\u0026ouml;r\u0026ouml;s River drainage.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Exploring the limits of the provenience postulate: chemical and mineralogical characterization of Bronze Age ceramics from the Great Hungarian Plain","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-07-01 04:58:48","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4577871/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-07-17T10:46:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-16T20:56:48+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-02T22:40:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"283157302488438407136825978878520297548","date":"2024-06-18T11:10:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"90111545369768541735996719870874505484","date":"2024-06-18T08:45:15+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-06-18T08:24:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-06-14T06:51:07+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-06-13T22:29:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","date":"2024-06-13T18:11:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"archaeological-and-anthropological-sciences","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"aasc","sideBox":"Learn more about [Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences](http://link.springer.com/journal/12517)","snPcode":"12520","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/12520/3","title":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"24083161-c34d-4d80-9dd6-588942c9e1b0","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 1st, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-10-07T16:05:35+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4577871","link":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-024-02076-4","journal":{"identity":"archaeological-and-anthropological-sciences","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences"},"publishedOn":"2024-09-30 15:58:20","publishedOnDateReadable":"September 30th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-07-01 04:58:48","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1007/s12520-024-02076-4","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-024-02076-4","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4577871","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4577871","identity":"rs-4577871","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}