prestige goods in the neolithic of the carpathian basin - CiteSeerX

ZS. SIKLÓSI

PRESTIGE GOODS IN THE NEOLITHIC OF THE CARPATHIAN BASIN MATERIAL MANIFESTATIONS OF SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION1

To my parents

1. INTRODUCTION Archaeologists often use the expression “prestige object” in the prehistoric archaeological literature, but they rarely define what they mean by it exactly or discuss what evidence and criteria justify calling an object a prestige good and what its social implications are. The clarification of this theoretical framework is an important issue if we want to use it in the reconstruction of the types and the power organisation of prehistoric societies. Before starting the analysis, I would like to call attention to a few questions that may seem evident yet we are likely to forget them. One of the most important issues is that every culture has its own value system, which is often drastically different from ours. As the value system is subjective in every society, it depends on culture and changes over time; our own value system cannot be used as a starting point for the determination of the valuables and prestige goods of other societies. Each society has to be examined in itself, starting from the data left by that society. This is the only way we can accurately approach the real structure of a past society. At the same time, archaeology has, first of all, the opportunity to analyse material culture, it should be kept in mind that practically every object a society creates and uses carries meaning for the members of the society. This meaning is also strongly dependent on the society and often also on time. The purpose of archaeology is to uncover the essence of these meanings and the value an object had for the society. It should be added that an object can have at least three kinds of values: use, exchange, and sacral values. Which of these an object is endowed with, how high a value it represents for the society and in which sphere, can be determined only by thorough analysis. In this respect, the contextual analysis can help archaeology the most. This problem is rendered even more complicated by the fact that a society can take part in more than one exchange system. In one of these systems the highest value can be set upon an object, while in another system the same object can be absolutely valueless, even though the two systems work side by side. We cannot even say that these three values can be arranged in a hierarchical order or that they are incompatible categories. I would rather say that they are categories of the same grade, which often intertwine to form a complex system. Thus, the value of an object has to be analysed individually in the case of every society and every object type. In any given case, for example, an object can have a high use and exchange value in one exchange system, while another object can have a sacral and high exchange value in another exchange system. These exchange systems can, of course, be intra-social systems and networks encompassing a number of societies. Even this short introduction gives an idea of how strongly the problem of valueables and prestige goods is interrelated with that of exchange systems, so it is not accidental that the problem often arises in archaeological writings that discuss exchange. Besides, I think these are the object types the analysis of

1 This paper is the abbreviated version of the thesis defended in the department of archaeology of ELTE in 2003. The thesis was completed with a detailed catalogue of the finds discussed. I would like to thank everyone who helped me in the preparation of the thesis: Dr. Violetta Zentai, with whom I had very interest-

ing discussions in the Invisible College on the sociological and anthropological estimation of social inequality, Piroska Csengeri, who gave me permission to use her unpublished finds, and Dr. Eszter Bánffy for her useful pieces of advice and information and my family for their patience and support. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 55 (2004) 1–62 0001-5210/$20.00 © Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

2

ZS. SIKLÓSI

which can shed light on the structure and the power organisation of a society but naturally only if they are compared with all the collected archaeological data like settlement type, structures, and burial customs. These statements do not refer to groups as they are defined by the concept of an archaeological culture, but to cultures in an anthropological and sociological sense. Accordingly, the identification of the target society or community through archaeological find materials is a crucial problem in the dissection of social issues. From this perspective, I cannot accept the identification of an archaeological culture with a society. People who lived in the same settlement or were buried in the same burial ground certainly formed a community. It is uncertain, however, how far the group of people extended who felt they belonged to the same community. In such uncertain circumstances archaeology tries to find the best approaches to interpret the find materials discovered. A review of the finds reveals that certain regional differences and characteristics can be recognised which cross over the narrow bounds of archaeological cultures. The adaptation of the results of cultural anthropology (anthropology in the following) in the field of archaeology can furnish useful additional information and generate, at the same time, more problems. I disagree strongly with approaches and archaeological explanations that, for example, try to shed light on the unknown function of an object to us by the retrospective application of a modern anthropological example. My opinion is the same concerning the analysis of social phenomena and customs. Such methods try to apply the information gained from modern pre-industrial societies to prehistoric societies. I find them vain attempts since there is no connection between the targeted (usually prehistoric) societies and the modern societies; they are independent of each other both in chronologically and territorially. In my view, the knowledge of anthropological data is necessary and can be fruitful when the aim is not their use retrospectively to fit archaeological data into frameworks borrowed from the anthropological literature. Anthropological literature, at the same time, can help in envisioning and understanding activities, customs, and social phenomena that seem illogical and unimaginable to the modern way of thinking. One should be very careful, always bearing in mind that being able to rely solely on the analysis of archaeological data from as many aspects as possible can lead to suppositions and theories from which the structure of past societies can best be approached. In the following I will apply anthropological data within these frameworks.

2. SOCIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH HISTORY An especially interesting issue in the history of social sciences is the appearance of the problem of social inequality/equality. In this respect, the theoretical works of philosophers and field observations of anthropologists together determine the prospects for research into the problem. Rousseau was the first to suggest that social equality or “quasi” equality was a natural property of human beings. The question was discussed with even greater stress in Marxist philosophy.2 Although the idealistic concept of social equality ruled for a long time, it has been proved by now, especially due to anthropological studies, that perfect social equality has never existed. The research historical review of the problem has to be started with a review of the works of the two fathers of sociology: Max Weber and Emil Durkheim. M. Weber gave the definitions of the basic technical terms of sociology which have been used ever since. He also determined the characteristics of the various types of political power.3 E. Durkheim’s approach was drastically different from M. Weber’s scrupulous definitions. He thought that the division of labour based on mechanical and organic solidarity was the motivator in society and that this provided the basis for the organisation and functioning of any society.4 L. H. Morgan in the 19th century grouped societies into the categories of savagery, barbarism, and civilisation according to the levels of organisation and complexity. Two new theories were developed in the field of cultural anthropology in the 20th century, both on the basis of the theory of social evolution. E.

2 BÉTEILLE 1994 offers a thorough historical review of philosophy.

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 55, 2004

3 4

WEBER 1987. DURKHEIM 2001.

PRESTIGE GOODS IN THE NEOLITHIC OF THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

3

Service differentiated the social organisational levels of band, tribe, chiefdom and state,5 while M. Fried defined egalitarian, ranked, stratified society and state organisations.6 C. Redman, archaeologist, suggested a more refined categorisation: mobile hunter-gatherers, sedentary specialized gatherers, sedentary and mobile intensive hunter-gatherers, sedentary village agriculturists and mobile husbandry, advanced farming villages, temple-towns, city-states and national states.7 In the last 10 to 20 years, cultural anthropology has given up the experiment of setting up comprehensive, globally valid explanations and categories and focused on the study of individual, specific cases. From the perspective of this paper, the early phase and the causes of the development of social inequality are the most interesting issues. J. Woodburn prepared an extremely thorough study of egalitarian societies. He differentiated two types of egalitarian societies, those using an immediate-return system and those working in a delayed-return system. In societies of the first category people are only differentiated by sex and age. The members of the society suppress or forego any action or event that could lead to differentiation. As these societies do not really know the concept of permanent ownership, they share directly whatever they have and so they are psychologically incapable of adopting productive economy. In communities functioning on the basis of a delayed-return system, at the same time, the first manifestations of differentiation can be observed between heads of lineages and families. They have a small amount of property and live in relatively permanent houses. These are the societies that are capable of adopting a settled way of life and productive economy.8 B. A. Voytek’s, R. Tringham’s and S. J. Mithen’s theories agree with J. Woodword’s anthropological observations. They hold that, contrary to the formerly accepted idea that social differentiation started together with or after neolithisation, neolithisation could not have been realised if social differences had not existed and people had not been psychologically capable of transformation.9 This is also implied by the burials of the European Mesolithic.10 Hierarchy observed in the settlement system, differences in the houses and the analysis of burials can provide information about the organisational level and complexity of a society and the existence of social differentiation. As very few data have been published on differences between settlements in the territory of the Carpathian Basin during the Neolithic, cemetery analyses and the study of grave-goods can be used as primary sources in the study of social differentiation. Since the spread of New Archaeology, more and more investigations have been pursued with the purpose of drawing conclusions concerning the structure of societies from the analysis of the social function and meaning of objects in individual cultures. Burials can express social differences in diverse ways like, for example, a great investment of labour, diverse burial rites, a large number of grave-goods, their value, and the place of the grave in relation to other burials.11 Papers in the 1980s discussed not only the methods of cemetery analysis but also the possible errors hidden in these methods.12 Numerous papers have been written on cemeteries of the Central European Linear Pottery Culture (LPC), in which the material manifestations of social differentiation were described in detail. Certain types of objects in the burials of the LPC could be associated with sex, which, as will be proved later, cannot as yet be demonstrated in TLPC and ALPC.13 The aged people were usually given the richest and largest numbers of grave furniture in the cemeteries. Probably they were the leaders of kin groups.14 The status symbols placed in the graves of young people attest to the ascribed status. These observations were made from the older phase of the culture, while the differences are less conspicuous in the following periods.15 J. Müller and his colleagues also analysed the burials of the LPC. In their study they differentiated status and prestige goods (“Statusgüter” and “Prestigegüter”).16 Some recently published

SERVICE 1962. FRIED 1967. 7 REDMAN 1978, 203. 8 WOODBURN 1982. 9 VOYTEK–TRINGHAM 1985. 10 MITHEN 1990, 100–104, 181–187, 191–193. G. M. Feinman recently published a summary of theories on social inequalities in the archaeological literature: FEINMAN 1995. 5 6

TAINTER 1975; WASON 1994, 67–102. CHAPMAN–KINNES–RANSBORG 1981. 13 VAN DE VELDE 1979; HÖCKMANN 1982; DOHRN-IHMIG 1983; JEUNESSE 1997. 14 PAVÚK 1972. 15 NIESZERY 1995. 16 MÜLLER et al. 1996. 11 12


4

ZS. SIKLÓSI

summaries have already discussed the appearance of the diverse forms of social differentiation17 and how they can be reflected in the archaeological find material.18 The person who fills the position of a leader in an egalitarian society and in societies showing minor social differentiation is called a Big Man in the anthropological literature. Characteristically the position is not hereditary, acquiring and especially holding it depend on personal abilities. Since the description of Big Man-type leadership, anthropologists have observed some other social methods as well of keeping a position of achieved leadership and foregoing its’ turning into an ascribed status. The importance of the problem lies in the fact that archaeological literature considers the prestige goods placed in the graves of children as evident signs of an ascribed status, which, however, is not supported by the anthropological examples. On the contrary, numerous examples prove that persons with an achieved status often make efforts to turn their status ascribed, but the community hinders it.19 The possibility of the exchange of prestige or sacral goods is known from anthropological investigations, so it is no wonder that archaeological works describing the various types of exchange cite the results of anthropology. B. Malinowski’s description of the kula system in the Trobriand Islands20 and M. Mauss’ study on gift exchange21 had a great impact not only on anthropological studies but also on archaeologists who analysed prehistoric exchange systems. Archaeological research also noted the relationship between long-distance exchange contacts and social differentiation,22 and some of the analyses of exchange and commercial contacts definitely focused on this aspect. The book that collected C. Renfrew’s writings on social archaeology appeared soon after a volume that contained papers on the same topic pertaining to various prehistoric periods.23 His studies expound on investigations from different approaches of community standing on various levels of social organisation (e.g. monumental architecture, the role of territoriality, and exchange).24 R. Bernbeck and J. Müller have also used known anthropological examples of the ceremonial exchange of valuables as a theoretical determination of prestige goods.25 Archaeologists working in English- and German-speaking territories have put growing stress on the analysis and clarification of social issues, especially since the appearance (and acceptance) of New Archaeology and modern archaeological theoretical trends, which, however, has barely had any effect on the study of the Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin.

Social Archaeological research on the Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin The intensive study of one-time worlds of beliefs and societies is impossible without clarification of their chronological and cultural frameworks. It is, however, an unlucky circumstance that even to date the refining of the chronological system stands in the focus of Hungarian research and the number of papers is insignificant dealing with the world of belief, social structure or “economic life” as they can be reconstructed from archaeological finds. The publications of neolithic burials in the Carpathian Basin are often content with the most correct cultural and chronological determination of the burials possible and refrain from drawing consequences regarding sacral life or social problems. Instead, the problem is regarded as closed by a few short and unfounded remarks. So, regrettably, the review of studies dealing with social problems is very short. With regard to research on social issues, the beginning of the 1980s can be considered as the most fruitful period of studies concerning the Carpathian Basin. J. Makkay examined the process of development of tell settlements in the Late Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain, and the reasons for the interruption of the concentration process compared with

17 18 19 20 21

PRICE–FEINMAN 1995. WASON 1994. VAN VELZEN 1973. MALINOWSKI 1972. MAUSS 2000.


22 23 24 25

DALTON 1977. RENFREW–SHENNAN 1982. RENFREW 1984. BERNBECK–MÜLLER 1996.


5

processes in the Near East. He found that tell development was caused by both climatic and economic factors. A two-level settlement system developed by the time of the Tisza culture in consequence of the complex concentration processes launched by external factors at the time of the Szakálhát culture. This system saw the disintegration of the kinship system.26 The settlement system of the period reflects the kinshipbased hierarchy of tribal organisation that still existed at the time of the Körös-Starčevo and the ALPC, where differences could exist between the individual settlements, but they were insignificant. This picture changed dramatically from the start of the Late Neolithic, when kinship ties loosened in the communities that clustered in larger settlements and society was organised in territorial units. This population concentration generated the appearance of social differentiation and the division of labour. This prosperous system carried its fall in itself since the ever growing population could not be supplied with the cultivation technology of the time, which compelled the population to leave the settlement centres.27 A. Sherrat’s results of settlement research appeared at the same time as J. Makkay’s book. In the course of the regional investigations at Szeghalom carried out in British–Hungarian co-operation, A. Sherratt documented that the population moved into a few larger settlements from the smaller ones dispersed along riverbanks in the Early and Middle Neolithic. Beside settlement concentration, he stressed in his works the intensification of broadening exchange contacts in the Late Neolithic.28 J. Chapman’s analysis of the Vinča culture was published at approximately the same time. From the complex analysis of the finds, he inferred the existence of exchange centres on the territory of the culture, although he refuted the existence of a handicraft specialisation. In his view, the social organisation of the Vinča culture must have been closer to a tribal system than to a chiefdom society.29 In his paper published a few years later he analysed the neolithic and Copper Age burials of the Balkan. From our perspective, his observations and suppositions concerning the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture are really important. J. Chapman suggested that the astonishingly few burials known from the Early Neolithic and the unbalanced distribution by sex and age can be explained by the use of diverse burial rites. He thought that higher status’ men were honoured by a rite that left no archaeologically observable trace.30 P. Racky also contributed to the reconstruction of the late neolithic society of the Great Hungarian Plain with the re-publication of the Csóka hoard. In his view, the prestige goods that constitute the hoard also had a sacral significance which indicates the energy accumulation manifested in non-subsistence activities. This process, which meant the withdrawal of the object that represented economic accumulation from the real economic sphere, influenced subsistence strategies in a negative direction, so the hoard also “embodies an early phase of the accumulation of wealth, gradually shifting toward the sacral sphere”.31 The most recent social archaeological analysis of the territory and the period was written by J. Chapman. The author analysed the graves found at Kisköre–Gát; he studied how the graves were situated in relation to the houses of the settlement, what system they composed (rows, arcs) and the distribution of grave-goods by age and sex. He concluded that global or community traditions and local traditions played an equally important role in the rite and the general appearance of the burials.32 I. Zalai-Gaál studied the societies of neolithic cultures in Transdanubia. As a result of the analysis of large cemeteries of the Lengyel culture (Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb and Zengôvárkony) he determined a matrilocal lineage system of small families from the examination of grave groups, the seriation of gravegoods, and the distribution of burial rites, which he also tried to support by the results of physical anthropological and serogenetic analyses. He demonstrated from the tools and vessels placed in the graves that blood relatives, small families, were buried in grave groups. He tried to prove the existence of a hierarchy among the prominent male members of the grave groups with the help of grave-goods. Finally, he arrived at the conclusion that a fully developed social differentiation can be found in the Lengyel culture. The

26 In J. Makkay’s theory, the sudden drastic change of settlements at the start of the Szakálhát culture was partly due to the fact that the author still counted pit houses at the time of the ALPC. 27 MAKKAY 1982, 104–164.

28 29 30 31 32

SHERRATT 1982; SHERRATT 1983a; SHERRATT 1983b. CHAPMAN 1981, 68, 82–83. CHAPMAN 1983. RACZKY 1994, 165. CHAPMAN 2000, 45–74. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 55, 2004

6

ZS. SIKLÓSI

same was not definitely present in the LPC period; it probably did not extend beyond differentiation by age and sex. The serogenetic analysis of the Mórágy cemetery demonstrated endogamy, which certainly could not have been a common custom that could be maintained for a long time. On the whole, he reconstructed the existence of matrilinear and matrilocal segmentary society where males fulfilled the role of the tribal leader.33 In the recent years I. Zalai-Gaál has carried on the examination of the problem, but he has not arrived at new results.34 In his most recent study he analysed the B1 grave group of the Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb cemetery. The author separated habits of grave-good offerings, differentiated groups according to the costume and also 12 biological groups from the serogenetic analyses. I think that the basic problem with these groupings is that he set up too many groups, which often contain only a single grave. He determined a hierarchical order within these groups according to the quantity and quality of grave-goods.35 With regard to the fine chronological differences, the number of excavated graves, and the estimated number of the population, I do not find it reasonable to set up so many groups and such a detailed hierarchy. It is impossible that so many different social groups, layers or positions existed within a relatively small population. Their organisation into a rigid and complex hierarchical order seems even less probable. Practically everyone agrees on accepting the grave groups of the Lengyel culture as family burials.36 N. Kalicz expressed a view opposite I. Zalai-Gaál’s in the publication of Aszód. He thinks that the graves of men, women, and children with conspicuously rich grave-goods are no more than the first signs of the initial phase of social differentiation, which arrives at its full growth only in the Copper Age. Rich grave-goods indicate that men, women, and children irrespective of their sexes and ages had the same rights within society.37 I cannot agree with N. Kalicz’s theory since every community, even that with the most simple organisation, makes basic differences in every segment of life between the sexes and the members of the community that are biologically and socio-culturally mature or not mature. Thus, an absolute equality between the members of a community is unheard of. C. Lichter has recently analyzed burials from the region with extreme thoroughness. He did not, however, address social questions besides giving a detailed description of certain features of the burial customs.38 The interpretation of Transdanubian Lengyel rondels must be mentioned, although this problem belongs to sacral life. It is a widely accepted view that these rondels fulfilled a sacral role or they enclosed the “gathering or communal place” of the community. According to thorough Austrian and German studies, a few smaller settlements were associated with a rondel.39 At the Polgár–Csôszhalom tell, fortified with multiple rondel, a symbiosis of the Lengyel and Herpály cultures can be observed far from the main territories of both cultures. This corroborates the community scene or sacral role of rondels, which always belonged to the population of more than one village.40 The construction of rondels and the organisation of construction can provide further data on social differentiation. J. Lichardus and M. Lichardus-Itten’s study41 diverges somewhat from the direction of earlier investigations. They suggested that crusted ware could be prestige goods. I think that the possibility of a prestige (or status) good role for certain pottery types should certainly be examined, not be limited to crusted ware. However, a thorough typological and contextual analysis is needed, which I cannot undertake here.

3. TERMINOLOGY Max Weber clarified the basic terminology of sociology, and sociologists have been using it ever since in their writings. I think the same terms can be applied in an archaeological context as well. To go on with the topic, I think it is necessary to clarify the terms used for the description of power organisations. 33 34 35 36 37

ZALAI-GAÁL 1986; ZALAI-GAÁL 1988. ZALAI-GAÁL 2002a–c. ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 51, 101–107. See also KALICZ 1988; NEMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ 1986. KALICZ 1985, 74.


38 39 40 41

LICHTER 2001. PETRASCH 1990; TRNKA 1991. E.g. RACZKY et al. 1994. LICHARDUS–LICHARDUS-ITTEN 1995–96.


7

It is a basic need to differentiate power and authority. According to M. Weber we can speak about power when there is “a chance of a man, or a number of men to realize their own will in social action, even against the resistance of others. Authority is defined as the probability that certain specific commands (or all commands) will be obeyed by a given group of people”.42 Authority is based on obedience, which goes along with faith in the legitimacy of the authority, a leading person, and usually also an executive group. A legitimate authority can be: 1. rational-legal, based on faith in legitimacy, 2. traditional, based on the sanctity of traditions and faith in the legitimacy of the authority of the person they endow with authority, and 3. charismatic, based on devotion to a saintly or otherwise prominent person.43 Traditional and charismatic authority types are actually contrary to each other. In the case of traditional authority, social customs and traditions determine the leading person, which means that it is a conservative system where prestige is important. On the contrary, in a charismatic authority individual features and abilities determine the leading person. It should be added that power contacts operate in every segment of a society, so various authority types can exist in parallel within a society and they can interchange in time. It is here that we arrive at the concepts of prestige and social status. They must be differentiated even though archaeologists often group them together, using the words prestige and status as synonyms, although the two concepts are clearly distinguished in the sociological literature. The definitions of these concepts have to be completed with further criteria in consequence of the specific features of archaeological data, that is, they have to be adapted to our own field of study, yet the use of sociological basic terms is certainly justified and necessary. The archaeological differentiation of the two types is a complicated task and only a few attempts can be found in the archaeological literature.44 Social status only indicates the place a certain individual occupies in a given society. Usually every person occupies several social statuses (e.g. male, father, warrior, chief) depending on his or her social relationships. The social status is a set category, it is socially determined, often strictly bound, the members of the society are born into it and they cannot change it, which means that the opportunity for changing status is socially determined. Thus the value attached to the various social statuses is also fixed; it is independent of the capabilities and acts of the individual, that is, the activity of the individual cannot change it. The value of a certain status, however, need not manifest itself only in objects. It can appear, for example, in different behavioural norms, house types or burial rites. Thus in the case of such objects I think the use of the concept of status goods is justified so that it can clearly be distinguished from the concept of prestige goods, which will be discussed below. The concept of prestige is basically different, although in the archaeological material it can appear in a very similar form to social status. Prestige (social respect and esteem) is not a socially fixed thing. It depends on the activity of the person, and can influence the activity. It is a part of a social status, the degree of which can be directed or influenced by the person. Prestige can be acquired and lost very easily. A tribal chief, for example, can be born a chief (in a society where rank is hereditary), that is his status, but what kind of a chief he will become, what honour and esteem he will have, depends solely on him. It is important to understand that prestige has a meaning only in a comparative system. Prestige cannot exist in itself, we can speak of it only in relation to the members of a society or the members of societies. It is not a property a person does or does not have, but a relationship between the members of the society. Similarly to status, prestige can manifest itself in objects and social habits. It is important to consider that the appearance of prestige in the shape of an object is only a form of its manifestation. Prestige is often embodied in customs that leave no archaeological traces, e.g. the case when the reputation of a Big Man or a tribal chief depends on the number of material goods he can distribute among the members of the community, which will probably not leave any trace to be discovered by archaeologists.

42 43

WEBER 1987, 77. WEBER 1987, 224.

44

E.g. MÜLLER et

al. 1996.


8

ZS. SIKLÓSI

In the following I will review what can be called a prestige good. Researchers agree that those objects are prestige goods that – are rare, exotic, and come from remote lands, – are difficult to obtain, that is, their acquisition is limited, – represent a high value from a certain aspect for the members of the society, – are often copied from other raw materials, – occur mainly in graves, or as lost or spoilt items. This initial definition must be completed with further criteria. It means that these objects often appear as everyday objects of use only they are made from precious raw materials or they are richly ornamented finely executed items. It is easier to recognise objects that cannot have been used as articles of use; the best known of these are items of jewellery. Besides raw material, fine workmanship can also indicate high value and a large number of such objects can in themselves increase prestige. Prestige objects can contribute to the maintenance of the high social status of the owner. Nevertheless, they can be separated from the owner and live an independent life, which can influence the value of the object. Objects of the same type can, consequently, have different values for the members of the society. Thus prestige goods can be in constant movement in an exchange system that is not identical with the economic exchange. They may be owned only temporarily, but even so they can increase the prestige of the temporary owner. The best and best-known example is the kula system in the Trobriand Islands of Melanesia, where Conus millepunctatus bracelets and Spondylus necklaces circulating in opposite directions each have their individual histories. The value of an object can increase in the course of its circulation in the kula if it was owned by a highly respected person or by the time it has spent in the kula. The value of the objects is also determined by their size and fineness, they only seemingly have an equal value. This ceremonial exchange system of valuables is independent of the system of economic exchange, although everyday goods can also be exchanged in association with the kula without being included in the kula system. Only objects of high value can temporarily take part in the system as asking gift or a simple gift which serves the purpose of obtaining an especially valuable kula object.45 A special characteristic of this system is that it is carried out between tribes. According to A. B. Weiner, the participants act as individuals in these systems, their acts increase or decrease their own prestige, but they cannot entirely lose it. It is important to add that beside the tribal chiefs other male tribe members can also take part in the kula. In other cases the ceremonial distribution of prestige goods (the most frequently in the case of a Big Man) or their destruction (the potlatch among Native Americans) can increase the prestige of the person who directs these events.46 Competing for prestige is not necessarily restricted to the leading groups or persons of the society. In Dimini, the distribution of Spondylus objects and megaron buildings in the settlement suggests that the contest for prestige was pursued by groups outside the social elite.47 Anthropological examples help the recognition of these possibilities. Without knowing them, being familiar only with our own society and culture, we might think that only the long-term ownership of prestige objects can increase the prestige of a person, but the situation was the opposite in pre-industrial societies. It was exceptional that someone owned a prestige good for a long period of time. They were on the move constantly within the society, or rather between societies. This is another difference between prestige goods and objects indicating social status, since objects marking status (status goods) do not move between the members of a society, the members of a group in a society, and between societies in the same way as prestige goods do. They are strongly linked to status; they express it and cannot be detached from it. C. Renfrew collected the characteristic aspects of the exchange of prestige goods: – they represent a balanced reciprocity between persons of high status, – the objects are often passed on in subsequent exchanges, – these objects cannot be used in everyday life, – they occur in “rich” burials, 45 MALINOWSKI 1972, 49–109; BERNBECK–MÜLLER 1996, 11–12. More than one interpretation of the kula system has been proposed. Beside those above see also MAUSS 2000, 227–243; WEINER 1992.


46 For a summary of the anthropological examples see: BERNBECK–MÜLLER 1996, 5–8. 47 HALSTEAD 1993, 608.


9

– they are lost or broken items, – they are part of an exchange system over long distances, – they can be found in similarly large numbers as far from the source as on territories closer to the sources.48 Having recognised these aspects, the important methodological problem that arises is how the traces of the prestige manifestations of these types can be identified in archaeological material. Perhaps the permanent possession of prestige goods is the easiest to identify, at least in cases when the object is placed in the grave of the owner and is not passed on through generations. Nevertheless, it is in these cases that the object can be confused with status goods. We can also find traces suggesting the ceremonial destruction of prestige goods, e.g. in the case of intentional burning or breaking.49 In such cases the differentiation of sacral and prestige goods can cause problems. The two can often be combined, which means that in certain cases an object can have a prestige and a sacral value at the same time.50 In the third case these objects may be found when they fall out of circulation due to unexpected circumstances, e.g. they are lost or broken, or when the owner leaves the circulation, usually because of death, and the object he owns at the moment of death is buried with him. When his successor in the system inherits the object, however, it will return to circulation. A prestige object can mirror respect for the entire society or for those who fill lower social statuses than the owner or even for the members of more than one society (which is quite common). The presence of imitation is justified in this relationship, namely in the case when access to a certain source is limited. When only certain members of a society have the right to the source, the objects are associated with high social status and high prestige; persons who have no right or possibility of access to the sources try to get higher social esteem by using less valuable items, imitations of these objects. I have tried to include all the object types that are considered prestige goods in the archaeological literature. I studied the circumstances of their recovery and reviewed which types can really be accepted as prestige goods and what are the social consequences we can draw from them.51

4. FIND MATERIAL 4.1. Spondylus Spondylus gaederopus, warm sea oysters, have long been gathered and consumed in large numbers in the Adriatic and Aegean regions.52 This shell was passed across nearly all of Europe, reaching as far as the Parisian basin during the Neolithic. The long distance raises the question whether the shells of contemporary bivalves, which lived in warm seas, were used for the production of ornaments in the Neolithic or whether Miocene bivalves were used, which occur in the interior territories of Europe, e.g. in the Vienna Basin or in southern Moravia. It is very important to decide the question. In the former case the limited source supposes the existence of a contact system spanning Europe, while in the latter case it was not necessary, since there were ample sources available to the people of the Neolithic and they could prepare their Spondylus ornaments independent of each other. Most of the experts on the topic accept that contemporary shells were used, yet the fossil origin could not be ruled out either until instrumental analyses. N. Shackleton and H. Elderfield studied the strontium isotope content of recent and fossil Spondylus shells. The results showed that the

SHACKLETON–RENFREW 1970, 1064. Perhaps the burnt Spondylus finds found in Dimini and Agia Sofia are the traces of such a destruction. In this case the destruction of the objects allows the owner to turn purely economic wealth into a social status. See: HALSTEAD 1993, 608. 50 Anthropological and written sources show that the two are often combined. See: SÉFÉRIADÈS 2000, 425–429 on the sacral 48 49

content of South American and Melanesian Spondylus exchange systems and on the inference of possible sacral content in the European Spondylus system. 51 BERNBECK–MÜLLER 1996 give a thorough recapitulation of the theoretical problems of prestige. 52 See the exact description of the bivalves in SÉFÉRIADÈS 1995, 238 and SÉFÉRIADÈS 2000, 423. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 55, 2004

10

ZS. SIKLÓSI

pieces of ornaments were made of contemporary recent bivalve shells,53 although rarely some exceptional objects were made of fossil shell (corroborated by instrumental analyses), e.g. at Emmersdorf.54 Long before the problem was clarified, vivid debates had been held about the sea from which the shells could come: from the Mediterranean (i.e. the Aegean and the Adriatic Seas) or the Black Sea. The debate was again settled by instrumental analyses, this time of the quantity of the oxygen isotope in the shells. The analyses proved that the Black Sea could not provide a suitable habitat for Spondylus bivalves.55 There are two possibilities in the Mediterranean as well: the Aegean Sea and the Adriatic Sea. In this case isotope analyses could not help since no significant difference could be demonstrated in the shells from the two seas. The distribution of the finds rather pointed to the Aegean Sea,56 although R. J. Rodden suggested the Adriatic Sea as the origin of the shells as early as the 1960s,57 which was not taken into consideration until recently. More and more Spondylus finds have been recovered from Dalmatia, so nowadays researchers consider both territories as sources, which contributes to a more and more refined delineation of the contact systems.58 Regarding the Spondylus finds in France and the Rhine region, a western Mediterranean origin was also inferred, but, for the reasons noted above this has not yet been proved or refuted.59 W. Buttler compiled the first distribution map of Spondylus ornaments;60 then more and more summaries were published on the Spondylus finds from various countries and regions.61 C. Willms’ results marked the next major step in the research history, summing up the actual state of research and collecting all the finds known until then.62 Examining the distribution map of the Spondylus objects the uneven distribution of the finds becomes conspicuous. Only a couple of sites in the coastal regions of the Aegean and the Adriatic Sea contained Spondylus objects, while huge centres can be observed in the Lower Danube area, in the Carpathian Basin, along the Danube and the Tisza, in Bavaria further to the northwest along the Danube and also in the upper reach of the Rhine. This picture approximately outlines the possible exchange routes, in which rivers must have played a major role. The main problem in the reconstruction of the exchange network is the determination of the route that connected the source regions and the destinations, since this is the territory where the data are scarce. In C. Willms’ view, Spondylus shells must have come from the Aegean and they were processed in the Drama Plain. From this inference he drew three routes: a) a marine route through the Dardanelles and the Bosporus to the Black Sea and from there to the Bulgarian and Romanian coasts, from where the exchange route went on to the interior territories along the Danube, b) along the Marica and the Iskir rivers to the Danube and c) through the Vardar and Morava valleys to the Danube bend at Belgrade. In all three cases the route continued toward the interior regions of Europe along the Danube. Accepting the possibility of an Adriatic source, he found a route from the Adriatic coast through the Neretva and Bosna valleys to the Sava River and then the Danube to be the most feasible.63 M. L. Séfériadès has delineated the same exchange routes.64 Earlier theories reconstructed an immense coherent exchange system from the Mediterranean to the Parisian Basin. J. Müller drafted a fundamentally different picture. He determined two practically independent exchange systems, which were chronologically separate and produced different types of objects. One of the systems is linked with the Adriatic coast, from whence the Spondylus ornaments travelled to Central Europe (including the characteristic Spondylus object of the LPC, the belt clasp with a V-shaped incision–“V-Klappen”). The raw materials and objects from the sites of the Danilo culture can be dated SHACKLETON–ELDERFIELD 1990. SEEWALD 1942. 55 SHACKLETON–RENFREW 1970. Most of the researchers exclude the Black Sea as a possible place of origin of the bivalves, but H. Todorova argues for the origin from the Black Sea in the case of Bulgarian and Roumanian finds. TODOROVA 1995, 56–58; TODOROVA 2000. 56 SHACKLETON–RENFREW 1970. 57 RODDEN 1970. 58 MÜLLER 1997, 94; MÜLLER et al. 1996, 84–88; KALICZ– SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 46–47. 53 54


JEUNESSE 1997, 125; SÉFÉRIADÈS 2000, 424. BUTTLER 1938. 61 E.g. VENCL 1959; COMŞA 1973; CHILDE 1950; CLARK 1952. 62 WILLMS 1985, with the detailed description of the research history of Spondylus objects. The studies published since then usually base their analyses on his map and supplement it with new results. 63 WILLMS 1985. 64 SÉFÉRIADÈS 2000, 424. 59 60


11

from around 5500 BC. Nevertheless, the finds from Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania compose an independent group, which cannot be dated from earlier than 5200 BC. Yet the “Spondylus-network” functioned here even after the cessation of the Central European network.65 A similarly refined picture was drawn by N. Kalicz and J. G. Szénászky; they also consider the Adriatic Sea to have been the most likely source for the Carpathian Basin (along the Neretva, Sava, and Drava to the Danube). They reject the route along the valley of the Morava since Spondylus objects rarely occur in this region. The roads to the Roumanian and Bulgarian territories could have led through the valleys of the Struma and the Marica, then the two main roads would have joined each other along the Danube and the Tisza in the southern Carpathian Basin.66 On the whole, the object types allow the differentiation of three groups: the Balkan group with the extremely broad bracelets, the Carpathian Basin group with perforated pendants, and the Central European LP group with the “V-Klappen.”67 Naturally, there are common objects that occur everywhere (common bead types and pendants with two small holes) and common chronological traits beside the regional specialities. These differences, however, often mean not simply typological modifications but differences in the raw material used for the production of the objects. L. Pfeiffer dealt with the production technology of shell ornaments at the beginning of the twentieth century. He reviewed in detail the various ornaments types found in archaeological and anthropological materials made from bivalve shells and animal teeth, and reconstructed the possible production technologies from ethnographic descriptions.68 A. Tsuneki reconstructed the production processes from halffinished products and stone tools known from the Greek Neolithic.69 She called attention to the differences between the two valves of the Spondylus bivalves: the left or upper shell of the bivalve is flat and reddish brown with two small ears at the hinge, while the right or lower shell is much more convex with a large umbo, it is white and shows a reddish brown colour only along the edges70 (Fig. 1). This difference is very important, since certain object types could be produced from only one or the other shell. The thin bracelets that were generally distributed in the Carpathian Basin during the Late Neolithic were made from the left shell, while the thick, high bracelets that were characteristic of the Middle Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin (e.g. Szekszárd–Palánki-hegy in Hungary71) and in Bulgaria, Romania (e.g. Durankulak72) could only be made from the right shell. The large, cylindrical beads could also be made only from the thick hinge of the right shells.73 The pendants of the Carpathian Basin made from whole shells could be made from either shell, unlike the clasps with a V-shaped incision, which were usually made from the right shell. Buttons were made from the right, thicker shell just like large beads and even usually the small beads.74 It is possible that besides differences in production, chronological discrepancies can also be demonstrated in the use of these shells. A. Tsuneki examined the bracelets from Agia Sofia Magoula and arrived at the conclusion that the thinner left shells were used exclusively for the production of bracelets in the late phase of the Dimini culture, which better suited the demands of “mass production.” Earlier, however, both shells were used for bracelets. The dominance of shells that can be processed more quickly and easily may be a sign of specialisation in handicrafts.75 Specialisation in handcrafts seems to be supported by the spatial distribution of Spondylus objects, blanks, and raw material in the territory of Dimini.76 The determination of a processing workshop is strongly linked with the problem of exchange networks. The problem is really important since no Spondylus raw material and blanks have been uncovered in the territory of Central Europe; the importation of ready-made goods was not characteristic of the LPC. This fact, however, is complemented by the finds from the Adriatic region and Bosnia, where raw materials, that is, unprocessed Spondylus shells and blanks, were found in the settlements, and ready-made ornaments

65 66 67 68 69 70 71

MÜLLER et al. 1996, 86–88; MÜLLER 1997, 91–94. KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 46–47. SÉFÉRIADÈS 2000, 425. PFEIFFER 1914. TSUNEKI 1987, 1989. TSUNEKI 1987, 3. CSALOGOVITS 1936, 2.

TODOROVA 1995, Fig. 5. TSUNEKI 1989, 10–12. 74 TSUNEKI 1989, 10–12. 75 TSUNEKI 1987, 14–15. 76 Finds from the production process of bracelets clustered in house N, while Spondylus buttons and tiny beads concentrated in territory G. TSUNEKI 1989, 7, 13. 72 73


12

ZS. SIKLÓSI

Fig. 1. Right (above) and left (below) valves of Spondylus gaederopus (after TSUNEKI 1987, Fig. 1)

is rare (e.g. Danilo, Obre I, Obre II).77 Spondylus finds rarely occur on the coast of the Adriatic Sea (e.g. Grabčeva cave, Ražanac, Smilčić, Danilo, Nin, Ajdovsa cave),78 so probably the raw material was transported from there to inland settlements, where it was processed. This is suggested by the blanks unearthed at these sites.79 Processing workshops are also known from Thessaly and Macedonia (e.g. Agia Sofia Magoula, Dimini, Dikili Tash, Sitagroi, Tsangli, Pevkakia, Servia),80 and it seems that the transportation of Spondylus shells as raw material can also be evidenced from the Parisian Basin.81 Beside primary workshops at the raw material sources, we can expect secondary processing and distribution places indicated by large

77 BENAC 1973b, 368, pl. 12. 13; BENAC 1973a, 105–106, pl. 25. 1–14; KOROŠEC 1958, 153–154, pl. 51. 1,2,5; WILLMS 1985; E. L. STERUD–K. STERUD 1974, 258. 78 MÜLLER 1997, 101.


BENAC 1973a, 107. HALSTEAD 1993; KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 47–49; TSUNEKI 1989, 16–17; RENFREW 1973, 187, fig. 117, 118b, 243. 81 SÉFÉRIADÈS 2000, 425. 79 80


13

numbers of Spondylus objects in settlements, among which broken or mended items can also occur. For instance, fragments of several Spondylus bracelets and copper objects were uncovered in a vessel under the debris of house no. 5 from the first phase of the Gumelniţa culture at Hîrşova.82 The region of Battonya could have been such a centre in the Late Neolithic, where broken items were transformed and blanks were finished (in this case perforated Spondylus pendants could have been made here, according to N. Kalicz’s and J. G. Szénászky’s investigations).83 At least a couple of sites are known in every part of the distribution area of Spondylus objects where fragmentary Spondylus objects were found, so probably there were also workshops and settlements in Central Europe where broken objects or blanks were processed further.84 Spondylus finds are known in Central Europe only as ready-made products in graves. At the same time in the Adriatic region and in Greece they appear in settlements as raw materials, blanks or ready made products when it comes from their function. Compared to the two “terminals” of the exchange network, the Carpathian Basin is in an intermediary area, where Spondylus finds occur both in graves and in settlements (which is also true for the Lower Danube region).85 From a chronological perspective, the Spondylus finds of the Carpathian Basin can be divided into two horizons. The older one comprises the Early and the Middle Neolithic, that is the Körös–Starčevo and LPC finds, the younger horizon represents the Late Neolithic, that is, it contains the finds of the Lengyel, and Tisza–Herpály–Csôszhalom cultures. The difference is not only chronological, it indicates typological divergences as well. Only a few scattered Spondylus objects have been found from the Early Neolithic, and while their number rose significantly in the Middle Neolithic, they are still rare. In the Late Neolithic a drastically different picture can be drawn. Spondylus ornaments seems to swarm in the area, at least this is what the number of items suggests.86

4.1.1. The Early Neolithic As has already been mentioned, only sporadic data for Spondylus ornaments can be used from the Early Neolithic. J. Banner unearthed eight graves at Kopáncs–Zsoldos-tanya, where a bracelet made of “Tridachna” bivalve was found on the right arm of a skeleton crouched on the left side in grave no. 3.87 J. Makkay found the fragment of a bracelet and three beads in a feature at the Endrôd 119 site.88 B. Milleker also mentions a Spondylus bracelet from Szerbkeresztúr (Srpski Krstur–Starčevo culture),89 although the stratigraphical position of the find is uncertain. The stratigraphic position of the Óbesenyô finds is also uncertain since there are Vinča layers at both sites and it is possible that the finds could be affiliated with the Vinča culture. Some Spondylus bracelet fragments were also recovered from the Gura Baciului site.90 This is the total number of the finds known in the region from the Early Neolithic. It is obvious that the data are very sporadic and uncertain, yet they are enough to indicate that the existence of Spondylus objects has to be taken into consideration in the Carpathian Basin as early as the initial phase of the Neolithic. However defective the descriptions are, it is certain that only Spondylus bracelets have so far been recovered from the Early Neolithic. A significantly higher number of Spondylus finds are known from the Early Neolithic of Southeastern Europe. They comprise bracelets, pendants and beads in both the Adriatic coastal region and Greece.

COMŞA 1973, 66–67. KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001. 84 MÜLLER 1997, 96. 85 This picture, which has generally been accepted by researchers, will be modified and refined to a certain degree after the detailed review of the object types. 86 KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 27–45, 49. 87 BANNER 1932, 4. The rest of the graves had no grave furniture; only a net weight and a net weight fragment were found 82 83

near the skulls in graves nos 5 and 8 (it is not certain that they really belonged to the graves). J. Banner affiliated the find material to the Körös culture. He did not publish pictures of the graves and the bracelet has been lost since then. 88 MAKKAY 1990, 23–27, figs. 4.3; KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 27; SÉFÉRIADÈS 1995, 239, fig. 6. 89 MILLEKER 1893, 304. 90 VLASSA 1972, 181, fig. 3. 11; LAZAROVICI–MAXIM 1995, 384, 26. Fig. 1. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 55, 2004

14

ZS. SIKLÓSI

Fig. 2. Spondylus hoard from Szekszárd–Palánk-hegy (after CSALOGOVITS 1936, Fig. 2)

The later processing workshops were probably already producing modest amounts of Spondylus ornaments, which reached the inland only sporadically at that time (e.g. Obre I, Anza, Lepenski Vir, Sesklo, and Achilleon; raw material was recovered from Sesklo, Smilčić, and Nin).91 4.1.2. The Middle Neolithic This was the period when the number of Spondylus objects suddenly increased, which can be observed from the initial phases of the LPC. This, however, seems to be a significant increase only as compared to the sporadic finds of the Early Neolithic, since Spondylus ornaments is still a rarity. Usually only a few beads or a pendant or a bracelet can be observed in graves even though they needed a larger bulk of raw material. Graves with more than one type of Spondylus ornaments are exceptional. The real mass appearance of Spondylus ornaments can be seen only in the next period. In this period more object types can be found: 1. Spondylus pendants, 2. large, elongated, cylindrical Spondylus beads, 3. wide, thick Spondylus bracelets, and 4. arched Spondylus pendants. 91 GIMBUTAS 1976, 247–249; BENAC 1973b, 368; WIJNEN 1981, 53; MÜLLER et al. 1996, 84; KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 28; E. L. STERUD–K. STERUD 1974, 258.



15

Hoards with Spondylus ornaments appear for the first time in this period; the Hîrşova find noted above contained Spondylus bracelet fragments and a copper awl, and could be the hidden hoard of a Spondylus ornaments-producing workshop. Spondylus ornaments hoards (pendants, bracelets, beads) are known from the LPC as well. A find group of each type was recovered from Szekszárd–Palánki-hegy92 (Fig. 2) and perhaps also Ecseg,93 which contained intact objects nearly exclusively and can probably be associated with a certain person or community, similarly to the find assemblage from Alba Iulia.94 At that time, Spondylus objects were found only in graves and hoards, except for the Szakálhát culture.95 This corroborates the specific role of the Szakálhát settlements in the region of Battonya.

4.1.2.1. Pendants Pendants with two small suspension holes represent the most frequent type, which can be found in every middle neolithic culture of the Carpathian Basin (e.g. Szarvas site no. 8/1, Nagykálló–Strandfürdô, Kompolt–Kistér, Csanytelek–Újhalastó).96 In Hungary they were all found in grave assemblages (as far as the recovery circumstances are known). They lay at the waist of the dead similarly to belt clasps with Vshaped incisions. Spondylus pendants appear in the graves of small children as well, who probably could not have worn these discs measuring 8 to 10 cm in diameter (e.g. Csanytelek–Újhalastó, grave no. 136, a two- to three-year-old child; Mezôkövesd–Nagy-fertô, feature no. S120, the grave of a three- to five-year-old child; Mezôkövesd–Mocsolyás, grave no. 1097). Regrettably, there are not enough physical anthropological data for an analysis of the occurrence ratio of adults/children and men/women in the graves. A man 42 to 47 years old lay in grave no. B13 at Tiszalúc–Sarkad;98 an eight- to nine-year old child in grave no. 1986/42a at the Tiszaföldvár–Téglagyár site99 was already old enough to have worn the disc in his lifetime. A Spondylus pendant was unearthed in a symbolic burial of the late ALPC at Kompolt–Kistér100 (Table 1). Intact representatives of this type can be found in every hoard of the period that can be associated with a person or a community (Alba Iulia and Bernburg: two items, Ecseg and Szekszárd–Palánki-hegy: one item101); an item ornamented by incised signs was found at Mostonga.102 N. Kalicz and J. G. Szénászky collected Spondylus pendants that have a large round perforation in the centre and two smaller lateral perforations in the upper part.103 Another version of the type has four smaller lateral perforations instead of two (e.g. Battonya–Formóza, Kajdacs).104 The characteristic object type of the Carpathian Basin occurs only sporadically south and north of this region (e.g. Cernica, Jasa Tepe, Topolica).105 This type is clustered in the Szakálhát settlements around Battonya. Strongly worn, used or fragmentary items were unearthed in large numbers at certain sites (e.g. Battonya–Parázstanya, Battonya–Formóza, Battonya–Gödrösök). Somewhat farther, Parţa also yielded a few items in a similarly poor condition106 (Fig. 3). This fact led N. Kalicz and J. G. Szénászky infer the existence of a secondary Spondylus processing workshop in the Battonya region.107 Only a couple of representatives of this type are known outside the southern area of the Great Hungarian Plain at Iža, Kajdacs, and Szomor.108 From these, regrettably, only the find context of the Iža find are known; it came from a settlement feature. Taking into consideration the fact that nearly all of these objects are mended items and each came from a settlement, we

CSALOGOVITS 1936. KATÓ 1990. 94 COMŞA 1973, 71; KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 43. I will discuss the neolithic hoards in detail below. 95 Exception: Zalavár site no. 4, Drassburg. MRT 1, 183; SEEWALD 1942, figs 1–2. 96 KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 42, fig. 14.2; KOREK 1957, 17; BÁNFFY 1999, 124, 160; HEGEDÛS 1982–1983, 25–26. 97 HEGEDÛS 1982–1983, Figs 25–26, 13–14; CSENGERI in press; KALICZ–KOÓS 2000, 48. 98 ORAVECZ 1996, 57, Fig. 4. 99 ORAVECZ 1999, 55. 92 93

BÁNFFY 1999, 124. BERCIU 1966, pl. 5; WILLMS 1985, 337, fig. 1; CSALOGOVITS 1936, 18, pl. 2; KATÓ 1990, fig. 1–3. 102 KARMANSKI 1977, pl. 7. 103 KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 29, fig. 2. 104 KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 33, fig. 5.1; KALICZ 1998, 43, fig. 7.1. 105 KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 30–31. 106 RESCH–GERMAN 1995, fig. 1. 107 KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 47–49. 108 PAVÚK 1972, fig. 42; HAMPEL 1895, 43; KALICZ– SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 31. 100 101


16

ZS. SIKLÓSI

Table 1 Middle Neolithic graves in the Carpathian Basin with Spondylus pendants or bracelets, by sex and age

Site, grave number

Bajč, grave no. 1 Csanytelek–Újhalastó, grave no. 136 Eggenburg, grave no.1 Füzesabony–Gubakút, grave no. 9 Hankenfeld–Saladorf Kengyel–Halastó Kleinhadersdorf, grave no. 1c Kleinhadersdorf, grave no. 3 Kompolt–Kistér, feature no. 286 (symbolic grave) Mähr.–Kromau Mezôkeresztes–Cethalom, grave no. 25 Mezôkövesd–Nagyfertô, S120 Mezôkövesd–Mocsolyás, grave no. 17 Mosonszentmiklós– Szilas Nagykálló– Strandfürdô Poysdorf Pulkau Šarišské Michaľany, grave no. 12 Tiszabura Tiszaföldvár– Téglagyár Tiszalúc–Sarkad, grave no. B13 Vedrovice–“Široká u lesa”, grave no. 15/75 Vedrovice–“Široká u lesa”, grave no. 70/79 Vedrovice–“Široká u lesa”, grave no. 86/80 Vedrovice–“Za dvorem”, grave no. 2/85 Vedrovice–“Za dvorem”, grave no. 9/88

Culture

Sex

Zseliz female Szakálhát LPC

female

Age

adult 2–3 years

Spondylus Spondylus Spondyl pendant bracelet us bead x

x x

x

x

x

young

Szatmár

x

LPC Szakálhát LPC

x x adult

x

LPC

infant

x

ALPC

x

LPC ALPC

child?

ALPC

3–5 years

Szatmár

x

Esztár

adult

LPC LPC

x

x x

SEEWALD 1942, 7–8, 6. and 7, figs 1–2 WOLF–SIMONYI 1995, fig. 3

x

CSENGERI in press x

x

KALICZ–KOÓS 2000, 49, fig. 8. 2, 11

x

x

KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 38

x x x

Bükk

adult

ALPC ALPC

x

x x

x

8–9 years

x

x

x

x

Szatmár

male

42–47 years

LPC

male

40–45 years

LPC

male

Ca. 50 years

female Ca. 30 years

LPC

male

25–30 years

LPC

female

18–20 years


CHEBEN 2000, 72–73, figs 11–13 HEGEDÛS 1982–1983, 25–26, figs 13– 14 STIFFT–GOTTLIEB 1939, 149–159, pl.1– 2 DOMBORÓCZKI 1997, Cat. 31 SEEWALD 1942, 6, fig. 4 RACZKY 1982a, fig. 12 LEBZELTER–ZIMMERMANN 1936, 2, fig. 3; SEEWALD 1942, 6–7, fig. 5 LEBZELTER–ZIMMERMANN 1936, 2, fig. 3; SEEWALD 1942, 6–7, fig. 5 BÁNFFY 1999, 124

x

female ?

Zseliz

LPC

x x

Reference

KOREK 1957, 17; KALICZ–MAKKAY 1977, 146 SEEWALD 1942, 8 STIFFT–GOTTLIEB 1939, 162–163, pl. 3. figs 40–41 ŠIŠKA 1986, 445 HAMPEL 1895, 42–43, 24–25, 28, figs 30–31 ORAVECZ 1999, 47, 55

x

ORAVECZ 1996, 57, fig. 4, grave no. 13. 1–2 PODBORSKÝ 2002, 23–26, fig. 15. 9–11

x

x

PODBORSKÝ 2002, 69–71, fig. 70. 2–3

x

x

PODBORSKÝ 2002, 84–85, fig. 87. 2–4

x

x x

x

PODBORSKÝ 2002, 104, 107, fig. 112. 3 x

PODBORSKÝ 2002, 110–115, fig. 117. 1– 21


17

Fig. 3. Middle Neolithic Spondylus pendants in the Carpathian Basin z Settlement finds Grave finds 5 Unknown find context 1: Botoš; 2: Csanytelek–Újhalastó; 3: Ecseg; 4: Main road between Hankenfeld–Saladorf; 5: Kompolt–Kistér; 6: Mezôkövesd–Nagyfertô; 7: Mosonszentmiklós–Szilas; 8: Mostonga; 9: Nagykálló–Strandfürdô; 10: Poysdorf; 11: Tiszabura; 12: Tiszaföldvár–Téglagyár; 13: Tiszalúc–Sarkad; 14: Vedrovice–Zábrdovice; 15: Nagydorog; 16: Potporanj; 17: Szarvas, Site 8/1; 18: Szilvásvárad–Istállóskô; 19: Szomor; 20: Fields of Vršac-Potporanj villages; 21: Battonya–unknown site; 22: Battonya–Formóza; 23: Battonya–Gödrösök; 24: Battonya–Parázstanya; 25: Dévaványa–Ôrhalom; 26: Eger–Kiseged; 27: Gyomaendrôd, Site 158; 28: Iža; 29: Kajdacs; 30: Parţa; 31: Szomor

have to ask if they really composed a distinct object type in the Middle Neolithic or whether the morphological differences are due to mending and use. It is worth observing that the surfaces of every item of the type are strongly polished and worn, while the ones with two suspension holes are usually found in excellent condition with only slightly modified surfaces. Is it possible thus that they are items waiting for modification and so do not compose a separate type? Even the majority of the relatively intact items are broken at at least one of the suspension holes (e.g. Battonya–unknown site; Öcsöd–Kováshalom,109 the only piece from the Late Neolithic, although N. Kalicz dated it to the time of the Szakálhát culture). The only complete items, with four small perforations and a large hole in the middle, each in a strongly worn condition, came from Iža110 and Parţa.111 Another possible interpretation is that the central hole was a characteristic feature in the southern part of Great Hungarian Plain, although it does not explain why these pendants have never been found in graves.112 HAMPEL 1895, fig. 48. 29; RACZKY 1987, 77, fig. 26. PAVÚK 1972, fig. 42. 111 RESCH–GERMAN 1995, 1, fig. 3. 112 A pendant with a slightly different large, irregular central hole was found at Föllik in Austria, which I think does not belong to this type. SEEWALD 1942, fig. 5, 3. A more thorough 109 110

scrutiny of the blanks found at Danilo can help in answering the question. A number of shells were found at Danilo that show no other traces of processing than central perforations of varying sizes and the rough polishing of the exterior surface. They could be blanks of the same pendant type, although they could also be the pre-forms of bracelets. KOROŠEC 1958, pl. 51. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 55, 2004

18

ZS. SIKLÓSI

The items with four small suspension holes probably did not comprise an independent type as only a couple of them have been found so far (Zsadány–Püski rét, Parţa, Kengyel–Halastó113), and their features and manner of use were identical to those with two suspension holes. It is worth noting whether the pendant types show differences in the use of the two valves. It seems certain that the belt clasps of the Central-European LPC were made of the bulkier, pointed, right shell. It seems that no such evident preference can be determined in respect of the pendants in the Carpathian Basin. Many pendants (especially the items with a central hole) are so worn that the side of the bivalve cannot be determined and when it can, both valves occur. Certainly, left valves were used for the Tiszabura, Mezôkövesd–Nagy-fertô and Hankenfeld discs and certainly the right valves for the Csanytelek disc and one of the Tiszaföldvár discs (probably for the Kompolt and the Kengyel items as well). This is enough to reveal that no relationship can be observed between the application and the distribution area of the two valves. Pendants have been recovered in much larger numbers from sites in the Great Hungarian Plain and northeastern Hungary than from Transdanubia. The difference could be due to the different stage of investigation, yet, in the case of Spondylus objects it seems probable that we have to take into consideration the routes of exchange paths as well.114

4.1.2.2. Bracelets Spondylus bracelets are the rarest among the Spondylus object types in the Middle Neolithic. They were made by perforating in the centre of the shell, producing wide pieces of ornaments with a flat crosssection (e.g. Ecseg, Etyek–Both puszta, Kleinhadersdorf, Szekszárd–Palánki-hegy115). The other, thinner type with a semicircular cross-section is rare in the Middle Neolithic (e.g. Mezôkövesd–Mocsolyás grave no. 17, Mezôkeresztes–Cethalom grave no. 25116); it is more characteristic of the Late Neolithic.117 According to grave finds, they were worn round the upper arm (e.g. Bajč grave no. 1, Mezôkeresztes–Cethalom grave no. 25, Mezôkövesd–Mocsolyás grave no. 17118). It could be observed at the latter site that a worn item that could no longer be mended was turned into a pendant by a slight modification119 and there cases exist that attest the opposite. Most of the bracelets have been found in graves. Nevertheless, the Szakálhát settlements in the Battonya region have yielded not only an extremely large number of Spondylus pendant fragments, but many bracelet fragments were also recovered. Spondylus bracelets are rare yet they occur in the settlements of the TLPC as well (Zalavár, site no. 4 and Drassburg120). In burials they occur characteristically in the graves of women and children, although sometimes they are also found in the graves of men (Eggenburg grave no. 2121). Spondylus pendant and bracelets occurred together in a grave in only two cases: at Mosonszentmiklós and Vedrovice (grave no. 9/88).122 They occurred together with Spondylus or stone beads in a few graves of adult women as well as children (in the graves of women at Bajč grave no. 1 and Eggenburg grave no. 1 and in the grave of a child at Kleinhadersdorf123), although commonly this is the only piece of ornaments in the grave. (Table 1)

113 KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 41, fig. 13. 1; RESCH–GERMAN 1995, fig. 1. 5; RACZKY 1982a, fig. 12. 114 This argument, although it is generally accepted by researchers, is somewhat awkward, as the routes of exchange were determined from the distribution of the finds, so this is a circular argument. The interrelation is nonetheless acceptable. 115 KATÓ 1990, fig. 2; MAKKAY 1970, fig. 22; SEEWALD 1942, fig. 5. 3; CSALOGOVITS 1936, pl. 2. 116 KALICZ–KOÓS 2000, 49; WOLF–SIMONYI 1995, fig. 3.


KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 45. CHEBEN 2000, 72–73; WOLF–SIMONYI 1995, fig. 3; KALICZ–KOÓS 2000, 49. 119 KALICZ–KOÓS 2000, 48. 120 MRT 1. 183; SEEWALD 1942, fig. 1–2. 121 STIFFT-GOTTLIEB 1939, 149–159. 122 KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 38; PODBORSKÝ 2002, 110–115. 123 CHEBEN 2000, 72–73; STIFFT-GOTTLIEB 1939, 149–159; SEEWALD 1942, 6–7. 117 118


19

4.1.2.3 Beads In the graves of the Middle Neolithic, large, 2–6 cm long cylindrical Spondylus beads were the most important ornaments beside the large pendants. Spondylus beads are usually recovered from graves as necklaces, belts, bracelets, hair ornaments in every group of the LPC from the oldest phase of the culture on (e.g. Mezôkövesd–Mocsolyás, Füzesabony–Gubakút124). Spondylus beads often occur mixed with limestone, marble or other stone beads (e.g. Tiszaföldvár–Téglagyár, Tiszalúc–Sarkad, Tiszavasvári125). The beads are usually large, cylindrical and elongated (e.g. Kompolt–Kistér, Tiszavasvári126). These large, bulky beads could only be made from the hinge of the right valve of the Spondylus, so the raw material need was rather specific. The small, cylindrical and button-like beads with a V-shaped perforation, which are common in the Late Neolithic, rarely occur in this period (e.g. Mezôkövesd–Mocsolyás127). Unusually, many kinds of Spondylus beads were found in the Sopot culture grave unearthed at Bicske. The most of the rows composing the belt around the waist of the dead were made from small, cylindrical beads with straight sides. Besides cylindrical with rounded sides, oval and spherical were also used. Furthermore, two versions of buttons, hemispherical-convex and hemispherical-flat, were found, just like a very unusual quadrilobed bead type. Based on the typometrical analyses of beads, archaeologists have inferred that they were standardised object types produced by specialised artisans.128 The bead types and wear uncovered at Bicske in grave no. 1 of a man already mirror the common costume of the Late Neolithic. The only significant difference is that it is the grave of an adult man, while Spondylus ornaments can no longer be found in the graves of men in the Late Neolithic. Ornaments made from Spondylus beads can be found in the graves of children and adults alike, approximately in the same proportion, in the graves of both men and women. Grave no. 9 of Tiszavasvári certainly belonged to a mature man. It contained two barrel-shaped beads painted red.129 The distribution of the graves with Spondylus beads in the Nitra cemetery is drastically different from the picture drawn in Hungary. Spondylus beads occur in Hungarian find materials with both sexes and in every age category, while in the Nitra cemetery the Spondylus grave goods are characteristic elements of the graves of 40–60year-old adults, first of all men.130 At the same time, the picture of the cemetery unearthed at Vedrovice is similar to that in Hungary. Here Spondylus beads were found in the graves of both sexes and children, while bracelets and pendants were uncovered only in the graves of adults.131

4.1.2.4. Arched pendants Arched pendants were often made from broken bracelets, although they are frequently much thinner. They are characteristic first of all of the LPC and they also occur in the Lengyel culture (Lánycsók132). Only a few items have been found in Hungary; they are more frequent in the Central European LPC as constituents of necklaces. At least two types of these pendants are known. One type is long and thin, strongly reminiscent of pendants made of wild boar tusk, although the shell pendants are smaller and usually occur in much larger numbers in a necklace than wild boar tusk pendants, which were worn in pairs (e.g. Eggenburg, grave no. 1–2 (Fig. 4), Erfurt, Vedrovice–“Široká u lesa” graves nos 19/75, 46/77, Vedrovice–“Za dvorem” grave no. 9/88133). Despite the strong morphological similarity, the shell pendants are not imitations of the well-known tusk pendants since they are only known from the Late Neolithic, while the

124 KALICZ–KOÓS 1997a, 31; KALICZ–KOÓS 1997b, 127; KALICZ–KOÓS 2000, 47–49; DOMBORÓCZKI 1997, 22. 125 ORAVECZ 1999, 47–55; ORAVECZ 1996, 52–57; KURUCZ 1994, 126. 126 BÁNFFY 1999, 42, 117, 124; KURUCZ 1994, 126. 127 KALICZ–KOÓS 2000, 48. 128 MAKKAY et al. 1996, 22–24.

KURUCZ 1994, 126. PAVÚK 1972. 131 PODBORSKÝ 2002, 21–121, 126–128. 132 KALICZ 1977–78, 10, fig. 7. 133 STIFFT-GOTTLIEB 1939, 1, fig. 25; PFEIFFER 1914, 84, fig. 97; PODBORSKÝ 2002, 28–30, 48–50, 110–112, fig. 29. 9, fig. 46.4, fig. 117a, 13–14. 129 130


20

ZS. SIKLÓSI

Fig. 4. Spondylus pendants in the shape of a wild boar tusk, Eggenburg, grave 2 (after STIFFT-GOTTLIEB 1939, Fig. 1)

shell pendants can be dated from the Middle Neolithic. The second type of shell pendant is a small, stocky item resembling an animal canine (e.g. Mezôzombor–Községi temetô, graves nos 49, 62, Vedrovice–“Široká u lesa” graves nos 14/75, 75/79, 81/79, 90/80, 102/81134). If we consider them to be the imitations of items made of animal canines, we accept that animal teeth represented a similar or even higher value than Spondylus. The value of animal teeth is supported by the fact that similar pendants are also known from clay (e.g. Sátoraljaújhely–Ronyvapart, Hejce–Püspöktábla, Bodrogkeresztúr–Széchenyi-Wolkenstein park135).

134 CSENGERI in press; PODBORSKÝ 2002, 22–23, 74–75, 80–81, 87, 95, fig. 14. 1, fig. 75. 1, fig. 81. 4, fig. 90. 4, fig. 102. 1.


135

REZI KATÓ 1994–95, pl. 3. 4–10, pl. 1. 3–4, pl. 2.


21

This review of the find material from the Middle Neolithic reveals that ornaments was made from both valves of the bivalve in this period, which corroborates A. Tsuneki’s inferences.136 The object types of the period demand a freak deal of raw material and they can be found, even though in small numbers, in the graves of both sexes and every age. The detailed analysis of the object types revealed the fact that the find context of the Spondylus pendants in the Carpathian Basin had been incorrectly evaluated. The mistake was caused by the fact that researchers tried to interpret all the pendants of the region in a single group, whereas a much clearer picture can be drawn by distinguishing the items having a central hole and those having two suspension holes. The items prepared with two holes were always recovered from graves or hoards, while all the items with a central perforation were unearthed in settlements in a relatively limited geographical region (Fig. 3).

4.1.3. The Late Neolithic The start of the Late Neolithic brought a sudden, explosion-like increase in the wearing of Spondylus ornaments. Only a few, perhaps a dozen, pieces of Spondylus ornaments were found in a grave in the Middle Neolithic, while in the Late Neolithic, there are graves flooded with hundreds of Spondylus beads. An important change compared to the previous period is that while Spondylus ornaments can be found in the graves of both sexes in the Middle Neolithic, it was almost only women’s wear in the Late Neolithic. The Spondylus ornaments of the Middle Neolithic, however, was composed of large pendants and large, stocky beads in which the raw material demand often reached or surpassed the size of assemblages composed of dozens or a few hundred tiny beads. Thus, the mere number of the finds can lead us to a misleading conclusion. Another aspect of the question is that the graves of the Late Neolithic show finer details in the scale of graves without grave goods and the ones having very rich grave furniture.

4.1.3.1. Pendants This characteristic object type of the Middle Neolithic is only found sporadically (e.g. Öcsöd– Kováshalom; N. Kalicz affiliates it with the Szakálhát culture and Vésztô–Mágor).137 Much smaller versions (not Spondylus) (e.g. Kisköre–Gát, graves nos 18 and 21; Aszód, grave no. 172138) are found in new contexts: as an element of braid ornaments (e.g. Polgár–Csôszhalom, site 6139), on a necklace among beads (Kisköre–Gát, grave no. 21140), although sometimes it is still found at the waist (Aszód, grave no. 172141). A blank was unearthed at Obre II, a site of the Butmir culture.142 A bone and shell pendant was found on the habitation level at Hódmezôvásárhely–Gorzsa, but no further details are known about it.143 The type with two small suspension holes also occurs in this period outside the Carpathian Basin, e.g. at Obre II and Sopot.144

4.1.3.2. Bracelets Bracelets and beads are the really characteristic representatives of Spondylus ornaments in the Late Neolithic. The wide thick bracelets of the Middle Neolithic are rare; they were replaced by thinner items with an oval or round cross-section, which earlier had occurred very rarely. Broken bracelets were

TSUNEKI 1987. RACZKY 1987, 75, fig. 26; KALICZ–RACZKY 1987a, 21; HEGEDÛS–MAKKAY 1987, 98, fig. 22. 138 KOREK 1989, 108–109, pl. 25, fig. 18, pl. 26. fig. 21, 119, pl. 36. 1–3, 121, pl. 38. fig. 3; KALICZ 1985, 27, fig. 30. 5. 139 RACZKY et al. 1997, 40, fig. 34. 136 137

KOREK 1989, 109, fig. 26. 21. KALICZ 1985, 128, 140, fig. 30. 5. 142 KOROŠEC 1958, 51. figs 1–2, 4–5; BENAC 1973a, pl. 25. 3, 5. 143 HORVÁTH 1987, 43. 144 BENAC 1973a, pl. 25. 1–2; DIMITRIJEVIĆ 1968, pl. 16. 1, pl. 20. 7. 140 141


22

ZS. SIKLÓSI

often mended (e.g. Kisköre–Gát, graves nos. 21 and 36145), sometimes they were fixed with copper wire. The bracelets were worn around the upper arm, usually one at a time, although two, four, and eight bracelets have been found in a few graves (e.g. Aszód, grave no. 164: girl, 4 bracelets; Kisköre–Gát, grave no. 21: adult woman, 2 bracelets; Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 63: 9–11-year-old child, 2 bracelets; Ószentiván, 8 bracelets146). Spondylus bracelets occur relatively frequently in late neolithic graves, mostly together with shell and stone beads (e.g. Kisköre–Gát, graves nos 1, 4, 9, 21, 36; Aszód, graves nos 101, 164147), and they are found equally frequently together with copper ornaments and without any other ornaments (e.g. Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 47, Ószentiván148) (Table 2). At the same time, the only Spondylus object of the Lengyel settlement of the Branč site was a bracelet found in a posthole of house no. 13. It was certainly a building offering.149 At sites of the Vinča culture, the most frequent Spondylus objects are also bracelet fragments. They have been found in graves unearthed at Botoš, a site of the Vinča culture.150

4.1.3.3. Beads The number of Spondylus beads abruptly increases in the graves of women in the Late Neolithic; they become the most common ornament type, practically covering the entire body (e.g. Hódmezôvásárhely–Gorzsa, grave no. 29; Aszód, grave no. 164; Lužianky, grave no. 1/1942151). They can be observed as hair ornaments, necklaces, bracelets, anklets or belts. The beads can cover more than one row, so their number in a grave may exceed one thousand. Pierced red deer canine ornaments often occur together with shell beads. The large cylindrical beads characteristic of the previous period (e.g. Aszód, grave nos 95, 173– 175152) can still be found, although rarely, even in a transversally pierced version (e.g. Lebô B, grave no. 1153). It is the tiny round beads, however, that occur in masses in the graves. The button-shaped beads with a V-shaped perforation belong to a third type. They had appeared as early as the Middle Neolithic, but they are really characteristic of this period (e.g. Csóka–Kremenyák, from marble, in a hoard154). The graves unearthed at Kisköre–Gát (e.g. grave no. 2 and also Lebô B, grave no. 6) yielded narrow, elongated, cylindrical beads on which incisions give the impression of three to five tiny beads stacked together.155 Spondylus beads occur only sporadically in the graves of men in the Late Neolithic. Beside Spondylus beads, Dentalium beads also appear, first in the graves of the Lengyel culture (e.g. Szekszárd– Ágostonpuszta, grave no. 22; Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, graves nos 43, 48156). Dentalium beads usually compose necklaces combined with copper beads. Spondylus beads do not occur alone either, they compose a necklace, bracelet or a belt, usually combined with marble beads and animal teeth. In these pieces of ornaments, the majority of the beads were made of marble or limestone instead of Spondylus. The wearing of Spondylus ornaments was restricted to women and children (probably girls) in the Late Neolithic. The characteristic types of the period are smaller and lighter than the ornaments of the former periods, while their numbers in graves show a greater distribution. Beads were more often and in a much larger quantity combined with items made from other raw materials, so the number of beads in a grave can easily be misleading. It is possible that the fact that the object types were simpler and easier to produce is connected with the start of handicraft specialisation in the producing regions as has been suggested by A. Tsuneki.157 The apparent quantitative growth observed in this period can indicate a relative

KOREK 1989, 121, pl. 38. fig. 1, 122, pl. 39. figs 1, 3. KALICZ 1988, 342; KOREK 1989, 42; ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 82; BANNER 1928, fig. 70. 147 KOREK 1989, 39–44, pl. 31. 1–2, pl. 33. 4, pl. 38. 1–2, pl. 39. 1, 3.; KALICZ 1985, 24; 1988, 342. 148 ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 82; BANNER 1928, 217. 149 VLADÁR–LICHARDUS 1968, 266, 269. 150 MILLEKER 1938, 114. 145 146


151 HORVÁTH 1987, 36, fig. 7; KALICZ 1988, 342; NOVOTNÝ 1962a, 217. 152 KALICZ 1985, 140, fig. 30. 2, 150, fig. 40. 1, 6–7, 151, fig. 41. 153 KOREK 1973, pl. 9. 1. 154 BANNER 1960, 18; RACZKY 1994, 163, fig. 1, fig. 4. 7–8. 155 KOREK 1973, pl. 2. 2., pl. 10. 6. 156 ZALAI-GAÁL 1979–80, 7–8; ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 83. 157 TSUNEKI 1987; 1989.

23


Table 2 Late Neolithic graves in the Carpathian Basin with Spondylus bracelets and other grave-goods, by sex and age Spondylus Stone or other bead shell bead

Site, grave number

Culture

Sex

Age

Aszód, grave no. 101

Lengyel

female

adult

x

Aszód, grave no. 164

Lengyel

female ?

infant

x

Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 39 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 47 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 63 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 71 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 75 Zengôvárkony, grave no. 313

Lengyel

female

Lengyel

male

13–15year-old 13–15year-old 9–11year-old

Hódmezôvásárhely– Gorzsa, grave no. 10 Hódmezôvásárhely– Gorzsa, grave no. 29 Hódmezôvásárhely– Kökénydomb, grave no. 5

Tisza

Hódmezôvásárhely– Kökénydomb, grave no. 7

Tisza

Kenézlô–Szérûs-kert, grave no. 1 Kisköre–Gát, grave no. 1 Kisköre–Gát, grave no. 4

Tisza

Kisköre–Gát, grave no. 9

Tisza

Kisköre–Gát, grave no. 21 Kisköre–Gát, grave no. 36 Ószentiván

Tisza

x

Polgár–Csôszhalom, feature no. 207

Csôszhalom

x

Lengyel Lengyel

Lengyel

Copper Copper Copper bracelet ring bead

x?

x

x

x x

x

x

x

female ?

Tisza

x

Tisza

infant

x

x

x

female

23–25year-old 2,5–3year-old

x x

x

male

42–46year-old

x

x

Tisza

female

x

x

Tisza

male

23–37year-old 46–50year-old

x

x

Tisza

x x

x 6–7year-old

Tisza

Pierced animal tooth

x

Reference

KALICZ 1985, 24, fig. 34 KALICZ 1988, 342 ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 82–83 ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 82–83 ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 82–83 ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 82–83 ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 82–83 DOMBAY 1960, 140–141, pl. 75.16 GAZDAPUSZTAI 1963, 27–30 HORVÁTH 1987, fig. 37 BANNER 1930, 78–79, pl. 3. 6; BOGNÁRKUTZIÁN 1963, 410–411 BANNER 1930, 78–79, pl. 3. 6; BOGNÁRKUTZIÁN 1963, 410–411 KISS 1939, 7, pl. 1. 6 KOREK 1989, 39, pl. 31. 1–2 KOREK 1989, 39–40, pl. 33. 1–4 KOREK 1989, 41, pl. 34. 3, pl. 35. 3 KOREK 1989, 42, pl. 37–38 KOREK 1989, 44, pl. 39–40, PL. 41. 5 BANNER 1928, 217, fig. 70 RACZKY et al. 1997, cat. V. 14


24

ZS. SIKLÓSI

loss of value. That is, more and more people could obtain valuable raw materials (Spondylus, marble), while the growing proportion of limestone and marble beads hints at the fact that contacts were frequently interrupted and were gradually becoming a rarity with the areas where Spondylus raw material was processed primarily. 4.2. Copper Naturally, the sources of copper ore were just as limited as those of Spondylus. Apart from the well-known copper sources in Transylvania and Slovakia, copper can be expected in the region of the Mecsek, Recsk, Rudabánya, and Telkibánya.158 To determine the source of the raw material of neolithic copper objects (and consequently to outline possible contacts), complex analyses are necessary.

4.2.1. The Early Neolithic Only sporadic data attest to the processing of copper as early as the Early Neolithic.159 The chronological situation, however, is ambiguous. According to E. Comşa, who recapitulated the neolithic copper finds in Romania, all the early neolithic copper finds in Romania were found in uncertain circumstances and probably came from a younger period. The dating of the copper awls from Balomir (Fig. 5), Dubova, and the Iernut find (Criş culture) is also uncertain.160 On the contrary, N. Kalicz argues that so many copper finds are already known from the Early Neolithic that they cannot be simply disregarded by saying that they cannot be authentic and affiliating them with a younger horizon.161 The sporadic traces indicate varied forms of copper use, which implies that the people of the Neolithic only found and used native copper or copper ores accidentally.162 Significant differences appear in the types of copper finds in the various chronological horizons. In the Early Neolithic, only small copper tools are known (e.g. Balomir, Cuina Turcului, Dubova: awls, Gornea: a hook163), and all of them were found in settlements, mainly in Transylvania and the Iron Gates region. 4.2.2. The Middle Neolithic The really conscious phase of copper processing started in the Middle Neolithic. Nevertheless, only tiny copper tools and ornaments were made during the Neolithic. They were probably all made by cold hammering. The first authentic copper finds in Hungary come from this period. The often-cited copper awl from Neszmély did not belong certainly to the Zseliz culture,164 but K. Hegedûs found copper beads in the graves of the Szakálhát culture in indisputable circumstances at Csanytelek–Újhalastó (graves nos 3 and 136) and Csongrád–Bokrospuszta (grave no. 7).165 Compared to the Early Neolithic, not only the quantitative increase of the finds indicated a change; basic changes also occurred in the object types. Tiny copper ornaments appeared while copper tools became sporadic. This picture is valid in the Late Neolithic, too. Then, in the Late Neolithic, the number of copper finds suddenly increases. Copper ornaments can be found in the territory of every culture in the region, mainly in burials, and sometimes copper fragments have also been recovered from settlements.

KALICZ 1992, 11. KALICZ 1992, 4, 11. 160 KALICZ 1992, 11; COMŞA 1991, 77. E. Comşa considers the finds from the end of the Middle Neolithic to be the earliest authentic copper finds in Romania. 161 N. Kalicz lists 15 sites in Southeastern Europe and the Carpathian Basin, while in Hungary only the Szarvas 23 site 158 159


yielded a copper object from the Early Neolithic. KALICZ 1992, 11. 162 KALICZ 1992, 5. 163 HOREDT 1976, 175–177, fig. 1a; COMŞA 1991, 77; CHAPMAN–TYLECOTE 1983, 374–375. 164 KALICZ 1992, 8. 165 HEGEDÛS 1981, 8–9; HEGEDÛS 1982–1983, 25, 30.


25

Fig. 5. Copper awl, Balomir (after HOREDT 1976, fig. 1)

4.2.3. The Late Neolithic In the Great Hungarian Plain more and more copper objects have been found from the time of the Szakálhát culture, while in Transdanubia there are as yet no copper objects in the earliest, formation, phase of the Lengyel culture. Copper finds become more frequent only in the later period of phase I of the Lengyel culture.166 The largest number of copper and malachite beads, simple and spiral rings, and spiral bracelets were recovered from graves in southern sites of the Lengyel culture (e.g. Zengôvárkony, Villánykövesd167), while at Aszód, for example, N. Kalicz found only a single tiny fragment.168 According to I. Ecsedy, the relative richness of copper in the graves of the Lengyel culture in the southern part of Transdanubia may be due to the circumstance that the culture used malachite from the Mecsek hills.169 Copper fragments have only been found in graves in the territory of the Lengyel culture apart from the single awl find from Zengôvárkony (pit no. 1947/VII),170 while in the territories east of the Danube, that is at the sites of the Tisza–Herpály–Csôszhalom cultures, copper finds also occur in settlements (e.g. Polgár–Csôszhalom, Berettyóújfalu–Herpály171). They comprise copper beads, coiled thin bracelets, rings, and pins. A significant number of copper finds were uncovered from the Late Neolithic at Berettyóújfalu–Herpály (more than 30 objects are known from various layers of the settlement), which is exceptional in the entire region. In that period very few copper objects occur in most sites (graves held only a few beads, a ring or a bracelet). In a few assemblages a large number of copper finds has been recovered, which certainly represented high value in the period; P. Raczky found a necklace of 259 copper beads in a sacrificial pit at Polgár–Csôszhalom (which also contained 20 bone beads).172 Copper spiral bracelets are ornaments that occur rarely in the graves of the Lengyel culture. They are usually found around the upper arm of the dead (e.g. Zengôvárkony, graves nos 113, 230 and 286); they were rarely worn on the lower arm, which is more characteristic of the Tisza–Herpály–Csôszhalom cultures. Copper bracelets wound into several coils sometimes occur in pairs in the Late Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain (e.g. Hódmezôvásárhely–Gorzsa, grave no 2, 11, the latter is a burial of an infant173) and sometimes they were placed in graves together with shell or copper beads (e.g. Zengôvárkony, graves nos 113, 230, and 286174). Among the copper ornaments the coiled bracelets evidently demanded the largest amount of raw material, so it is not astonishing that they are the rarest pieces of ornaments in the period. Here I have to mention briefly wide, flat and open copper bracelets, which are known, regrettably, only from old excavations: from Tordos in the Torma Zsófia collection, from Caţa, and an unknown site.175 They are undoubtedly the largest copper objects of the Neolithic from the sites of the Vinča–Tordos and Petreşti cultures. Their significance is shown not only by their rarity but also by the fact that the wide, flat bone bracelets found in grave no. 243 at Zengôvárkony and grave no. 60 at Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb176 and the wide, open, polished stone bracelets from Botoš, the region of Szeged, and Törökkanizsa177 could be imitations of them. (Fig. 6) Copper finger rings, similarly to copper beads, were characteristic mainly of the graves of adult women and children in the Transdanubian Late Neolithic. They occur twice as frequently in the graves of ZALAI-GAÁL 1991, 389–390. DOMBAY 1939, 7–8, 13, 19, 21; DOMBAY 1960, 229; DOMBAY 1959, 61, 64. 168 KALICZ 1985, 71. 169 ECSEDY 1990. 170 DOMBAY 1960, 229, pl. 5. 2. 171 KALICZ 1992, 9; KALICZ–RACZKY 1984, 128–131; KALICZ– RACZKY 1987b, 122, fig. 41. 172 RACZKY et al. 1996, 19, figs. 5–8. 166 167

173 GAZDAPUSZTAI 1963, 27, pl. 4. 1; HORVÁTH 1987, 42–43, fig. 38. 1–2. 174 DOMBAY 1960, 86–87, 123, 136. 175 ROSKA 1941, pl. 145. 10; HOREDT 1976, 179, fig. 2a; HAMPEL 1895, 35, fig. 43. 176 DOMBAY 1960, 127, pl. 66. 4; ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 84. 177 MILLEKER 1938, 113; HAMPEL 1895, 35, fig. 44; MILLEKER 1938, 105, pl. 3.


26

ZS. SIKLÓSI

Fig. 6. Wide copper bracelet (above: unknown site) and its stone imitation (below: the outskirts of Szeged) (after HAMPEL 1895, figs 43–44) Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 55, 2004


27

women as in the graves of men or children. All three copper ornament types are present in a single burial at Zengôvárkony (grave no. 286). Copper bracelets and copper beads also occur together exceptionally rarely in graves (Mórágy-Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 38, Zengôvárkony, graves nos 230, 113).178 Copper rings and beads are much more frequent ornaments, which, with their lower raw material demand, certainly represented a lower value. Due to their character, beads could be obtained in smaller quantities, so a larger necklace could be built from a few smaller units of copper beads. The percentage of graves with copper grave goods, clustered within a cemetery, varies between 8–30%.179 Two types of copper rings are known: spiral coiled rings and simple, usually open, rings. Both are found in the graves of the Lengyel culture and the Tisza–Herpály–Csôszhalom cultures, and they are also known from settlements. In graves they occur in approximately the same ratio, singly or in pairs (e.g. Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, graves nos 47, 53, 60, 74, Ószentiván, Zengôvárkony, grave no. 85180), usually together with copper and shell and/or stone beads. The tiny beads were the most frequent copper ornaments. Often they were so tiny and of such a poor quality that only their imprint has been preserved in graves. Apart from the sacrificial assamblage at Polgár, the overwhelming majority of copper beads was unearthed in burials, in very diverse numbers from a couple of beads to bead rows of 60–80 pieces. It seems that the two extremes can clearly be differentiated. More graves have 1–5 to 20 copper beads mixed with shell and/or stone beads than graves with 40–50 beads, which are significantly less frequent. For example, a necklace of about 60 copper beads and a bracelet of 15 shell and 14 copper beads were found (together with a belt of two rows made of 117 shell beads) in grave no. 6 at Tápé–Lebô, Alsó-halom; in grave no. 67 at Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb 80 copper beads and 5 Spondylus beads were found, and in grave no. 88 at Zengôvárkony 83 malachite and azurite beads were recovered.181 The distribution of copper ornaments by sex and age can be analysed only from the time of the Szakálhát culture since copper ornaments is not known from earlier graves. Where physical anthropological data are available, they were always found in the graves of women or children (Table 3). In only two examples was copper ornaments certainly recovered from the graves of men: in graves nos 91 and 323 of Zengôvárkony,182 although men probably also lay in the graves with wild boar tusks and copper ornaments.183 No connection can be demonstrated between the number of copper ornaments and age; large numbers of ornaments items are found in graves of infants (e.g. Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, graves nos 43, 52184) and old women (e.g. Zengôvárkony, grave no. 286185). The first copper mines can be inferred from the transitional period of the Vinča–Tordos and Vinča–Pločnik phases. The existence of early mining activity could so far be proved at two sites: Ai Bunar186 in Bulgaria and Rudna Glava187 in Serbia. Since the discovery of these two sites, the investigation of the early copper objects in Southeastern Europe has seen a large impetus. The raw material of many copper objects from the Late Neolithic and the Early Copper Age has been analysed, showing clearly that numerous other provenances could be used beside the two above-mentioned raw material provenances (the provenance of the raw material of the copper objects unearthed at Selevac, Pločnik and Gomolava is unknown as yet). At the same time, no copper object made from the raw material mined at Rudna Glava has yet been found.188 The increasing use of copper in the Neolithic is seen in the tiny copper objects appearing at the sites of the Vinča culture, most of which can be dated from the Pločnik phase. This increase is evidently linked strongly with the continuous yield of copper ore sources in the territory of this culture. The earliest

178 179 180

ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 23, 25. ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 32. ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 81; BANNER 1928, 217; DOMBAY 1960,

76. 181 KOREK 1973, 278, pl. 10. 6, 8; ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 80; DOMBAY 1960, 78, pl. 37. 1. 182 ZOFFMANN 1969–70, 65. 183 It cannot be excluded that more graves of men contained copper ornaments, but physical anthropological analyses are

rarely published, and it was usually the archaeologists who determined the sex and the age from grave-goods. 184 ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 80. 185 DOMBAY 1960, 125. 186 ČERNYH 1978. 187 JOVANOVIĆ–OTTAWAY 1976. 188 PERNICKA et al. 1993; PERNICKA et al. 1998. Although the results of these analyses refer mainly to the Early Copper Age they are useful for the Neolithic as well. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 55, 2004

28

ZS. SIKLÓSI

Table 3 Late Neolithic graves, by age and sex, with copper grave-goods in the Carpathian Basin189 Site, grave number

Culture

Hódmezôvásárhely–Gorzsa Hódmezôvásárhely–Gorzsa, grave no. 2 Hódmezôvásárhely–Gorzsa, grave no. 11 Hódmezôvásárhely–Gorzsa, grave no. 17 Szegvár–Tûzköves, grave no. 3 Tápé–Lebô, Alsó-halom, grave no. 6 Lánycsók, grave no. 4 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 38

Tisza Tisza

Sex

Age child

Tisza Prototiszapolgár Tisza female? Tisza female? Lengyel Lengyel

female?

Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 43 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 44 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 47 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 48 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 49 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 51 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 52

Lengyel Lengyel Lengyel Lengyel Lengyel Lengyel Lengyel

female? female male female female female male?

Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 53

Lengyel

female

Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 55 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 57

Lengyel Lengyel

Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 60

Lengyel

male? female and male female?

Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 62 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 63 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 67 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 71 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 74

Lengyel Lengyel Lengyel Lengyel Lengyel

female? female? female female female

Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 75 Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 76 Villánykövesd, grave no. 2 Villánykövesd, grave no. 12 Zengôvárkony, grave no. 45

Lengyel Lengyel Lengyel Lengyel Lengyel

female female female

Zengôvárkony, grave no. 87

Lengyel

female


Lengyel


Lengyel

female and child male

Zengôvárkony, grave no. 115 Zengôvárkony, grave no. 230 Zengôvárkony, grave no. 286

Lengyel Lengyel Lengyel

female


Lengyel

male

male?

young 1–2 years child adult 13–15 adult adult adult 2–3 years 17–18 years adult

5–6 years child child adult child 40–46 years child child

x x

40–46 years adult child 40–80 years 40–59 years

Copper, malachite beads x

Reference

x

HORVÁTH 1987, 43 GAZDAPUSZTAI 1963, 27, pl. 4. 1 HORVÁTH 1987, 46, fig. 38

x

HORVÁTH 1987, 46, fig. 38 x x

KOREK 1973, 295 KOREK 1973, 278, pl. 10. 6, 8

x x

KALICZ 1977–78, pl. 9.1–2 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 4, fig. 7. 1

x x x x x x x

ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 6

x

ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2

x x

ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2

x

x


x

x x x

x

x

ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig 2 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2

x x x x x

ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 DOMBAY 1959, 61 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 DOMBAY 1939, 50

x

DOMBAY 1960, 78, pl. 37. 1

x


x

DOMBAY 1960, 81, pl. 38. 9

x

x

x

x

child 27–34 years 51–57 years

189 For lack of publications and anthropological data this table is incomplete.


Copper Copper bracelet ring

x x x

x

x x x

ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 ZALAI-GAÁL 1996, 21, fig. 2 DOMBAY 1960, 136, pl. 73. 4, pl. 74. 11–12 DOMBAY 1960, 144, pl. 77. 1


29

known copper hoards were found at Pločnik, although their dating is questioned. Most of the researchers accept dating from the Vinča–Pločnik phase, although it is also possible that the hoards belong to the Bubanj culture. The objects found in the hoards are so similar that they must have been made in the same workshop.190 Recent excavations at Pločnik yielded a copper awl certainly from the Vinča layer, which is similar to that found in the hoards, while the copper bracelet found in grave no. 12 at Gomolava is the exact analogue of that from the Pločnik hoard no. 3.191 The affiliation of the hoards with the Vinča culture is corroborated by magnesite stone axes, common only at the time of the Vinča-culture, in hoards nos 3 and 4.192 Thus the copper objects of the hoard can certainly be regarded as the forerunners of the heavy copper tools of the Early Copper Age.193 The distribution of finds locates the centre of copper processing in the territory of the Vinča culture. The distribution of finds in the Carpathian Basin shows that the occurrence of copper objects is denser in southern Hungary and that a significantly lower number of objects arrived in northern Hungary and Slovakia (e.g. Mlynárce, Čičarovce194). (Fig. 7)

4.3. Stone tools and ornaments To determine the prestige indicator role of polished stone tools, determination of the raw material and its origin could provide the safest basis, but the raw material of very few polished stone tools has been analysed as yet. In the majority of the cases there are no data either about the raw material or the possible raw material sources that would be of fundamental importance in the determination of the origin and significance of stone tools. These analyses have already been carried out in Hungary, but the determination of larger numbers of finds is a prospect for the future.195 Due to the geographical setting of the Carpathian Basin, it is poor in high quality stone raw materials, although two ideal raw materials can be found for the production of flaked tools: obsidian in the Tokaj region and radiolarite in the Bakony Mountains. They were such high quality raw materials that they were moved as far as the Balkan and Central Europe.196

4.3.1. Maceheads It is generally accepted that the stone axes and maceheads found in the graves of late neolithic men either indicated rank or were symbols of power. I. Zalai-Gaál applied this theory in the analysis of the burials of the Lengyel culture.197 Stone axes were certainly important tools, which is underlined by the traces of wear (always present). Stone maceheads, at the same time, do not show any trace of use or wear, which supports the supposition that they did not have any practical function. Maceheads were often made from marble, granite or other rare stones (e.g. Aszód, graves nos 100, 105; Hódmezôvásárhely–Gorzsa, grave no. 14198). Marble and nephrite maceheads are also well known from the Neolithic of the Balkans and Greece (e.g. Sesklo and Dimini199), where stone objects were much more frequent than in the Carpathian Basin. It cannot be accepted for certain that maceheads were placed only in the graves of adult men, since in grave 1 of Bajč one was found in the richly furnished grave of an adult woman,200 and at Villánykövesd a

STALIO 1964, 41. STALIO 1964, fig. 7. 192 ANTONOVIĆ 1997, 37; STALIO 1964, figs 10–11. 193 JOVANOVIĆ 1990, 55. 194 NOVOTNÝ 1962a, 218; VÍZDAL 1980, 68–70, 204. 195 BIRÓ–SZAKMÁNY 2000. For lack of raw material analyses, contextual analyses of the finds are used as the main argument. Another factor that renders investigation difficult is that many finds were recovered in old excavations or as stray finds and the 190 191

exact find contexts are uncertain. Also, the materials of many recent excavations have not yet been published. 196 BIRÓ 1998; GRONENBORN 1994, 136–137, fig. 2; LENNEIS 1995, 22. 197 ZALAI-GAÁL 1988; 1991, 390. 198 KALICZ 1985, 142, 32.1, figs 3–4; HORVÁTH 1987, 43, fig. 34. 199 PAPATHANASSOPOULOS 1996, Cat. 65a–c. 200 CHEBEN 2000, 72–73. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 55, 2004

30

ZS. SIKLÓSI

Fig. 7. Copper finds in the Carpathian Basin from the Late Neolithic 1: Berettyószentmárton; 2: Berettyóújfalu–Herpály; 3: Caţa; 4: Čičarovce; 5: Csóka/Čoka–Kremenyák; 6: Divostin; 7: Gomolava; 8: Gornja Tuzla; 9: Hódmezôvásárhely–Gorzsa; 10: Lánycsók; 11: Lengyel; 12: Liubcova; 13: Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb; 14: Noslac; 15: Ószentiván; 16: Pločnik; 17: Polgár–Csôszhalom; 18: Stapari; 19: Szegvár–Tûzköves; 20: Szekszárd–Ágostonpuszta; 21: Tápé– Lebô; 22: Villánykövesd; 23: Vinča–Belo Brdo; 24: Zengôvárkony; 25: Mlynárce

stone macehead, the only such item in the entire site, was found in the grave of a child of Infant I age.201 Entire and fragmentary items are known from Csóka202 and Obre II,203 where some of the items are strongly used.

4.3.2. Stone ornaments This category comprises the discoid marble and limestone pendants of the Middle Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin and the Vinča culture, which often have two small perforations for suspension. They were distributed from Greece to Central Europe. The accepted interpretation is that they are the imitations of Spondylus pendants. In the Balkans, they are especially frequent in the territory of the Vinča cul-

201 202

ZALAI-GAÁL 1991, 396. BANNER 1960, 169.


203

BENAC 1973a, pl. 10. 9–11.


31

ture, which is not astonishing because there are quarries in the territory of the Vinča culture that could have been used as early as the Neolithic. A half-finished item was found in Istállóskô cave at Szilvásvárad in Hungary,204 while in Bohemia, one item each was found at the waists of those buried in graves no. 78/79 (a 7 to 8-year-old child) and 84/80 (a child of about 7) of the Vedrovice–“Široká u lesa” cemetery.205 Stone bracelets are extremely rare in the find materials of neolithic cultures in the territory of the present-day Hungary. In the Early Neolithic, one item was found in a grave of the Körös culture (Szolnok– Szanda206), and another limestone bracelet is known from the Herpály tell.207 Besides these, an open, serpentine bracelet with perforated terminals is known from the environs of Szeged (Fig. 6),208 which could be an imitation of a wide copper bracelet. The rest of the similar bracelets can be affiliated with the finds of the Vinča culture, where stone ornaments were common (e.g. Botoš, Törökkanizsa209). The Szeged find was probably also imported from the Vinča culture. Limestone or marble beads can be found in graves from the Szatmár culture. In the Middle Neolithic, they are usually found mixed with Spondylus beads. They can be barrel-shaped or discoidal in various sizes and appear as elements of necklaces (Füzesabony–Gubakút, graves nos 3, 4, 6, Csanytelek–Újhalastó, grave no. 136210) or as constituents of belts or bracelets (e.g. Bajč, grave no. 1211). Regarding the occurrence and quantity of the ornaments, no differences can be observed by sex or age. The shapes and sizes of stone beads were uniform in the Late Neolithic. At that time, usually only marble and limestone beads composed the necklace, the belt, the bracelet or the string worn in the hair. When they are mixed with Spondylus beads, the overwhelming majority of the beads are made of stone. The ornament types common in the Late Neolithic usually consist of more beads than those of earlier periods, when the number of the stone beads did not exceed 50 to 60 items in a grave (e.g. Füzesabony– Gubakút, grave no. 3 held 51 marble and Spondylus beads212). In this period some ornaments already comprised several hundred beads (e.g. Kisköre–Gát, graves nos 2, 4, 21, 34; Polgár–Csôszhalom, site 6, features nos 196 and 226213). Compared to the wearing of Spondylus ornaments, marble beads are found in the graves of both sexes in the Late Neolithic, independent of age (in the graves of men at Kisköre–Gát, graves nos 32, 34, 35, 36214), although they occur less frequently in the graves of men.

4.3.3. Stone tools The role of stone tools as prestige goods can be determined first of all with the help of the raw material. In this respect, two phenomena suggest this role; a given object is made from a rare raw material that occurs at a great distance from the site or the object is made from such a soft rock that it certainly could not have had a practical function. A good example of the latter case is offered by the soft white rocks magnesite, porcelanite and ash tuff variants, which were widely used in the territory of present-day Serbia, but only during the Vinča-Pločnik phase. This fact in itself makes their interpretation as a prestige good or prestigious raw material questionable, while outside the core area they appear especially rarely (e.g. Zengôvárkony, Samatovci, Donja Mahala).215 Magnesite sources are easily accessible in the territory of Serbia and central Bosnia and it seems they were used intensively in the Late Neolithic. Thus the territory of expansive use approximately overlapped the closed region of the raw material sources. This explains why this rock became a dominant rock at sites of the region: it was easy to obtain, easy and fast to process, and worn or spoilt tools also could be easily and quickly replaced. However, it is still unclear, since it was a raw

KOREK 1954, 141–142. PODBORSKÝ 2002, 77–78, 83, fig. 78. 1, fig. 84. 1. 206 KALICZ–RACZKY 1978, 274. 207 KALICZ–RACZKY 1984, 134. 208 HAMPEL 1895, 35, fig. 44. 209 MILLEKER 1938, 105, 113. 210 DOMBORÓCZKI 1997, 13–14, cat. 30; HEGEDÛS 1982–1983, 25–26. 204

211

205

212 213 214 215

CHEBEN 2000, 72–73. DOMBORÓCZKI 1997, cat. 13. KOREK 1989, 39–44; RACZKY et al. 1997. KOREK 1989, 39–44. ANTONOVIĆ 1997, 36–37.


32

ZS. SIKLÓSI

material so widely spread and used, how it could have had such a high value as copper tools. Namely, stone tools made of such soft rocks have been found together with copper tools in the Pločnik hoards. Half of them showed traces of woodworking, so they were certainly tools.216 D. Antonović tries to elucidate the contradiction by the physical properties of magnesite: it was easy to quarry and process, so it was suitable for “mass production.” Its physical properties, at the same time, are very similar to those of copper. When it got worn it could easily be resharpened, when it got spoilt, it was easy to make a new tool.217 Axes made of soapstone, a similarly soft, practically unusable raw material, are known from the Slovakian Neolithic (Nitriansky Hrádok, Borová–Ružindol).218 We cannot tell more about polished stone tools in Hungary made of soft rocks without the data from raw material analyses. Probably we can expect more items beside that from Zengôvárkony in the neolithic material. Stone axes occur extremely rarely in the graves of the Middle Neolithic. In this respect, the Nitra and Vedrovice cemeteries are again exceptions and show affinities to the Central European LPC, since many shoe-last stone celts were found there, usually in the graves of 40- to 60-year-old men. In the Vedrovice cemetery, stone tools were found only in the graves of a woman, three children, and a grave where the sex was uncertain. The remaining twenty cases were mostly in graves of 40- to 50-year-old men.219 At the same time, in the graves of the Szatmár culture and the ALPC, they were found in the graves of infants (Tiszalúc–Sarkad, grave no. B10, a 2- to 4-year-old child, contained a broken axe; Šarišské Michaľany, grave no. 5, infant220) and adults as well (e.g. Tiszavasvári–Paptelekhát, grave no. 10, Zsáka–Vizesi tanya, graves nos 1 and 3221). For lack of sex determination, however, it cannot be determined whether the finds can be associated with adult men (one exception is the Zseliz culture at Bajč, where a woman lay in grave no. 1222). I. Zalai-Gaál carried out typological classification and chronological sequencing of shaft-hole axes of the Transdanubian Lengyel culture in great detail, although the raw materials of the objects, the most important data from our perspective, are missing from his analysis.223 According to the regrettably few physical anthropological data, fifteen graves of men, three graves of adult women and seven graves of children contained stone axes in the Zengôvárkony cemetery.224 This means that in the Late Neolithic of Transdanubia these stone tools cannot be associated solely with adult men. The graves of people buried with stone tools were situated in the central parts of the grave groups at Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb and Zengôvárkony.225 The stone axes recovered from graves nos 288 and 272 of the Zengôvárkony cemetery, 226 which are rare and late types in I. Zalai-Gaál’s typological and chronological tables, 227 are morphologically reminiscent of the later copper axes of the Early Copper Age. The elongated angular shapes and the slightly convex sides make them similar to the axes in the Pločnik hoards. Here a question arises: is anything more than a functional similarity behind the morphological similarity of the two object types? Furthermore, does this morphological similarity mean more than a characteristic of a relatively wide chronological framework? Stone axes and chisels are common elements of grave furniture in the Late Neolithic, especially in the graves of the Lengyel culture. The distribution of the finds, however, suggests that putting stone tools in graves is not certainly a cultural feature. One-fifth (!) of the graves unearthed in Zengôvárkony, the largest excavated cemetery of the Lengyel culture, contained shaft-hole axes (the proportion is even larger when chisels are also included), while in the Mórágy cemetery only two stone axes were found. Such a great difference cannot be explained by the differences in the number of the graves unearthed at the two sites. It has to be added that none of the graves unearthed at other sites of the Late Neolithic contained axes as grave-goods in such a high proportion. Regrettably, there are too few physical anthropological data from the Zengôvárkony cemetery to determine if the stone axes were associated with the graves of men, although it seems probable. 216 217 218 219 220 221

ANTONOVIĆ 1997, 36. ANTONOVIĆ 1997, 39. HOVORKÁ–ILLÁŠOVÁ 2000, 104. PAVÚK 1972; PODBORSKÝ 2002, 21–129. ORAVECZ 1996, 52; ŠIŠKA 1986, 445. KALICZ–MAKKAY 1977, 77, 184–186.


222 223 224 225 226 227

CHEBEN 2000, 72–73. ZALAI-GAÁL 1991. ZALAI-GAÁL 1991, 396. ZALAI-GAÁL 1991, 398. DOMBAY 1960, pl. 70. 10, pl. 74. 5. ZALAI-GAÁL 1991, 392.


33

Obsidian and radiolarite used for the production of flaked tools also meet several criteria of prestige goods. That is, the raw material source is rare, yet obsidian and radiolarite tools travelled a long way, so probably the high quality of the raw material lent them a high use value. As one of the obsidian sources can be found in the Tokaj Mountains it is also possible that it had a prestige value in areas farther from this region. Thus it is highly probable that in the graves of the Transdanubian Lengyel culture and in the Vinča culture it played an important role,228 first of all obsidian represented in larger numbers. Radiolarite, which was moved along the Danube from Transdanubia to Bavaria, could have had a similar role. Furthermore, the use value of these raw materials was important since they were excellent for flaked tool production. In the Carpathian Basin, the raw materials of status or prestige goods were serpentinite, probably from the Bernstein region in Austria; marble from Transylvania or the Balkans; alabaster, probably also from the Balkans, and perhaps Volhynian flint, the practical value of which was far greater.229 A marble mine dated from the Neolithic is known from Sázava, Bohemia,230 although the marble finds in Hungary probably came not from here but from territories to the south.

4.3.4. Others Compared to neolithic cultures in the territory of Hungary, the Vinča culture is significantly richer in stone ornaments and stone vessels. The characteristic objects are pendants, bracelets, vessels, figurines and mushroom- and violin-shaped objects made of marble, rock crystal or alabaster. The raw materials used for violin- and mushroom-shaped objects comprise several varieties of marble (e.g. Vinča–Belo Brdo, Csóka–Kremenyák231), alabaster (e.g. Battonya–Gödrösök232), and calcite (e.g. Vinča–Belo Brdo233). The function of these objects is debated. M. Gimbutas thought them to have been ornamental buttons for belts or coats or perhaps other clothes,234 while other specialists consider some of them to have been the antecedents of violin-shaped idols or idol heads. Their function as articles of wear is also supported by the fact that on the necks of a few items traces of wear can be observed, for instance on the Battonya item. Vessels made of marble, rarely of alabaster, are also characteristic of the late neolithic cultures of the Balkans. They are usually small cups or bowls made of white or yellowish marble with dark veins.235 Stone vessels are extemely rare in Hungary; they only occur as goods imported from the south (Berettyóújfalu–Herpály236). All the Hungarian finds mentioned here were goods imported from the Vinča culture.

4.4. Bone, teeth, antler In the Neolithic, ornaments made from the teeth of wild animals also enriched the costume. This was characteristic especially of late neolithic cultures. As these ornaments were always made of the teeth of wild animals, they were probably strongly linked with the importance of hunting, which, in this case, was important not necessarily from an economic point of view. Archaeological data about the burials of the Early Neolithic are scarce, so it cannot be excluded that ornaments made from animal teeth was continuously used since the Palaeolithic or the Mesolithic. From the Middle Neolithic there are still few examples of animal tooth ornaments; they were usually the canines of red deer. This custom was generally accepted only in the Late Neolithic. This is interesting because ornaments made from the teeth of wild animals were

228 229 230 231 232

CHAPMAN 1981, 81. BIRÓ–SZAKMÁNY 2000, 33. PŘICHYSTAL 2000, 121. GIMBUTAS 1974, figs 223–225; RACZKY 1994, 163. GOLDMAN 1984, fig. 2. 2.

233 234 235 236

VASIĆ 1936a, 196–199, 201–207, Cat. 326. GIMBUTAS 1974, 45. BUTTLER 1938. KALICZ–RACZKY 1984, 131, 134, fig. 45. 1.


34

ZS. SIKLÓSI

used as early as the Mesolithic in the coastal communities of Europe and they sometimes filled the same role as in the Neolithic.237 The animal bones unearthed in settlements, at the same time, show that the consumption of domestic animals strongly dominated. Perhaps with the decrease of the economic role of hunting, the social estimation of hunting and its success changed.238

4.4.1. Perforated animal teeth Pierced animal teeth appeared in the Middle Neolithic as elements of bead rows and they became frequent in the Late Neolithic. They can be found together with beads as elements of hair ornaments, bracelets and necklaces (e.g. Aszód, grave no. 174239). It seems astonishing that in the late neolithic copies of red deer canines were also made from Spondylus (e.g. Erfurt, Sondershausen, Mezôzombor–Községi temetô240), antler, bone and even clay (e.g. Polgár–Csôszhalom, site 6241). However, no animal-toothshaped clay beads have so far been found in graves, they only occur in settlements (e.g. Hejce–Püspöktábla, Tiszalúc–Sarkad242). Only a couple of these pendants and beads occur in a grave, even in the graves at Polgár, where it seems that an entire bracelet and the most of a head ornament were made of red deer canines. On closer examination it turns out that only a few beads are original items, the rest are copies made of antler or bone.243 No differences by sex and age can be demonstrated nor have any quantitative differences been observed in middle neolithic or late neolithic graves that contain animal teeth. However, their imitations came only from female’s graves at Polgár–Csôszhalom, site 6.244

4.4.2. Wild boar tusk pendants Pendants made from split boar tusks are characteristic elements of the late neolithic male costume (or the jaw of a boar as a grave-good, e.g. Aszód, graves nos 100 and 180, Polgár–Csôszhalom, site 6, feature no. 429245). They can be found in every culture in the Carpathian Basin. They occur in pairs on the chest of the dead (e.g. pl. Polgár–Csôszhalom, site 6, feature no. 406, Aszód, grave no. 100246). In this period, these ornaments can be found outside the Carpathian Basin as well, e.g. some items were found in the settlement of the Butmir culture at Obre II, where the wider terminal was pierced in one or two places.247 Wild boar tusk pendants are known from earlier periods as well. A pendant and another fragment were found at the Obre I site from the settlement of the Starčevo culture,248 one such pendant was unearthed in a Zseliz burial at Bešeňov249 and another in grave no. 7/1956 at Lužianky.250 Although boar tusk pendants are not characteristic of the LPC, several LPC graves contained necklaces where arched pendants resembling boar tusks were suspended between Spondylus beads (e.g. Eggenburg, grave no. 1, Vedrovice, graves no. 19/75 and 46/77251). It is a generally accepted view that pendant pairs made of boar tusk lamellae were only used with male costume. In the overwhelming majority of the cases it seems true, although fragments of boar tusks were found in the graves children as well (Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 46, Zengôvárkony, grave no. 59252), and perhaps also in the grave of a woman (Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb, grave no. 6253). As they were never MITHEN 1990, 102. CHOYKE 2001, 253, 259. 239 KALICZ 1985, 151, fig. 41. 240 CSENGERI in press; REZI KATÓ 1994–95, 14. 241 RACZKY et al. 1997, 39–40; CHOYKE 1997, 158–159; 2001. 242 For a summary see: REZI KATÓ 1994–1995, 10–13, pl. 2. 243 RACZKY et al. 1997, V. 1–2, 6–7, 9–10, Cat. 12; CHOYKE 1997, 158–159; 2001. 244 CHOYKE 2001, 255. 245 KALICZ 1985, 143, fig. 33; RACZKY et al. 1997, IV. Cat. 38. 237 238


RACZKY et al. 1997, 39, fig. 31; KALICZ 1985, 142, fig. 32. 2. BENAC 1973a, 105, pl. 24. 8–11. 248 BENAC 1973b, 368, pl. 12. 6, 9. 249 CHEBEN 2000, 65. 250 NOVOTNÝ 1962, 217. 251 STIFFT-GOTTLIEB 1939, 149–159, pl. 1–2; PODBORSKÝ 2002, 28–30, 48–50, fig. 29. 9, fig. 46. 4. 252 ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 85; DOMBAY 1939, 23. 253 ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b, 85. 246 247


35

complete, typical pendants, the association of these grave-goods with sex and age is probably justified. The same is true for wild boar jaws, which are also (very rare) grave-goods in adult male graves. They probably fulfilled the same or a similar role as the boar tusk pendants. The custom of wearing animal teeth can be divided into two main parts. The wearing of boar tusks can certainly be associated with a group of adult men, which, thus, is probably connected with personal deeds and skills, maybe not only in hunting. On the contrary, the pendants made of red deer canines were ornaments worn independently of age and sex, so their wearing was probably linked with a basically different social group.

4.4.3. Multiple bone rings Finger-rings of two, three, four or five rings carved from bone or red deer antler are characteristic types of the Late Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain. Nearly all of them have been found in the territory of the Tisza culture, and a few items were uncovered in the northern border zone of the Vinča culture. Broken, half-finished and ready-made rings are known in large numbers from settlement features (e.g. Hódmezôvásárhely–Kökénydomb, Csóka–Kremenyák, Aradac; at Hódmezôvásárhely–Gorzsa from the habitation level, from disturbed graves according to the excavator F. Horváth, and also from the Csóka hoard254). A few rings have been recovered from graves on the fingers of the dead (Csóka–Kremenyák, grave no. 1904/5 and F. Móra excavation no. 5, graves no. 2 and 3; Hódmezôvásárhely–Kökénydomb, graves no. 4 and 7255) which shows the way they were worn. According to J. Korek they were only worn occasionally and the number of rings indicated social rank.256 Researchers accept that this object type was a prestige good, yet it should not be forgotten that these rings were made of raw materials that were easy to procure. Another aspect that makes them problematic is that this object type, actually known in much larger numbers from settlements as waste or halffinished products than as ornaments, was limited to a short chronological period and a limited geographical territory. At the same time, their role as a prestige good is supported by the circumstance that in the two graves at Kökénydomb they appeared together with shell bracelets and bead strings made of shell and animal teeth, and a ring was found in the Csóka hoard as well. Thus it seems acceptable that the places yielding a large quantity of waste and half-finished products were ring-producing workshops (e.g. Csóka– Kremenyák, Hódmezôvásárhely–Kökénydomb). In the following, it will be worth examining the possibility that they were tools that could somehow be linked to the production of Spondylus and marble objects and ornaments.

4.4.4. Bone beads and bracelets There are only a few bone beads in the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin, which usually appear mixed with beads made from other raw materials. The raw material is easy to obtain and they rarely occur, so they do not provoke much interest. They can be regarded as additions to or substitutes for more valuable beads. Bone bracelets are much more interesting. They were probably imitations of the rare wide, flat copper bracelets.257 The above review reveals that some object types made of animal bone and teeth played an important role in the community itself, while other objects were used to substitute, copy or complete objects made from more valuable raw materials.

254 BANNER–KOREK 1949, 22; BANNER 1960, 19; KARAPAČIĆ 1922, fig. 16. 7; HORVÁTH 1987, 43; RACZKY 1994, fig. 1. 255 BANNER 1960, 7, 20; BANNER 1930, 75–79, pl. 3. 1–2.

256 257

KOREK 1973, 180. See a detailed discussion of the problem there.


36

ZS. SIKLÓSI

4.5. Imitations At the determination of the types of prestige goods, imitations of certain object types from less valuable raw materials are an important aspect. The existence of such copies can help in the recognition of the value of the originals and in distinguishing prestige and status objects.

4.5.1. Bracelets Although there are only scattered and uncertain data on the existence of Spondylus ornaments in the Early Neolithic, several specialists hold that clay rings, which are continuously present from the Early Neolithic, could be imitations of Spondylus or stone bracelets (e.g. Dévaványa–Atyaszeg; Tiszaföldvár– Téglagyár). The diameter of these rings is between 6 and 10 cm; they are oval, cylindrical, obliquely cut, triangular or angular in cross-section.258 G. Rezi Kató collected the clay ring finds in the Carpathian Basin for the entire Neolithic period. He shares the opinion that they were copies of stone and Spondylus bracelets, although for the types with angular cross-sections he accepts other interpretations as well.259 Many stone bracelets are known from the Carpathian Basin from the Middle Neolithic, interpreted by most specialists as imitations of Spondylus bracelets. They were distributed from Southeast to Central Europe. The rings were usually made of limestone or marble, their shape and measurements match the wide bracelets with a flat cross-section,260 although some items are narrower and have a triangular cross-section. For example, at Obre I (Starčevo culture) the stone bracelet fragments were made of a soft rock (schist),261 and the item unearthed in a grave at Szolnok–Szanda (Körös culture) was also made of a soft rock.262 Morphologically they stand close to the Spondylus bracelets characteristic of the Late Neolithic. I think that it would be a mistake to speak of the bracelets made of various rocks, especially marble, as imitations, since they were just as valuable themselves as those made of Spondylus. The clay rings that were so frequent in the Early and Middle Neolithic disappeared in the Late Neolithic, which reinforces the suspicion that they were not copies of Spondylus bracelets since bracelets became popular in the Late Neolithic. It does not seem to be an acceptable argument that at that time there was no need to copy them since the graves reveal that not all the members of the community could obtain them even then. In respect of this type it is highly problematic that although there is very little evidence of the existence of Spondylus ornaments in the Early Neolithic, a much larger number of copies is known. Furthermore, these clay rings were always found in a fragmentary condition in settlements, often in large numbers, which implies that these rings had a different function. The morphologically very similar open bracelets made of bone and stone can be accepted to have been the imitations of flat and wide copper bracelets.

4.5.2. Pendants Copies of Spondylus pendants were usually made of limestone, marble or clay (Fig. 8). A limestone pendant, probably unfinished, is known from the Istállóskô cave (a Spondylus item was also found here),263 while marble pendants were recovered from the graves of two children (graves nos 78/79 and 84/80) in the cemetery of Vedrovice–“Široká u lesa.” They were discovered at the waist, in the same context as the Spondylus objects.264 The semicircular stone plaque, perforated at the upper arch, which was found in

258 259 260 261

ORAVECZ 1995, 67; KOREK 1975–77, 15. REZI KATÓ 1994–1995, 18–19. KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 46; ZÁPOTOCKÁ 1984. BENAC 1973b, 365, pl. 9. 4–5.


262 263 264

KALICZ–RACZKY 1978, 274. KOREK 1954, 141–142. PODBORSKÝ 2002, 77–78, 83, fig. 78. 1, fig. 84. 1.


37

Fig. 8. Clay imitations of Spondylus pendants (1, 7, 9: after KALICZ 1998, fig. 6. 1, 3, 6; 2: after KAUFMANN 1969, pl. 22; 3: after KOLNÍK 1978, 73, fig. 4; 4: after M. VIRÁG 1992, fig. 3.1; 5–6: after PAVÚK 1980, fig. 15.1–2; 8: after TICHÝ 1962, fig. 24.6A–B)

Fig. 9. Clay imitations of animal-tooth-shaped pendants (after REZI KATÓ 1994–95, 4, figs 2–3)

Danilo must have been a similar pendant.265 The pendants unearthed at Vinča, Sesklo and Tsangli can also be grouped here.266 Marble discs with three small perforations were found at the Vedrovice and Hodovice sites in Bohemia.267 Limestone pendants appeared earlier than Spondylus pendants in the Early Neolithic of Greece and the Balkans and they are more common; N. Kalicz and J. G. Szénászky suggested that they were the antecedents of Spondylus pendants.268 If this is true, they certainly cannot be interpreted as the imitations of Spondylus pendants. In this case we can only speak of various versions of the same form made of similarly valuable raw materials, among which no hierarchical order can be determined. The clay items are characteristic of the LPC, which developed locally according to N. Kalicz.269 Such items are known from the oldest phase of the TLPC from the Budapest–Aranyhegyi road site, a stray find from Szigetszentmiklós, and fragments from Becsehely.270 Beside the fragmentary items from Hungary, some intact representatives have been discovered in Slovakia, Moravia, and Germany.271 The clay pendants

KOROŠEC 1958, 152, pl. 10. 5. TSOUNTAS 1908, 43, pl. 4. 23; WACE–THOMSON 1912, fig. 78. k, l; VASIĆ 1932, cat. no. 62; PAPATHANASSOPOULOS 1996, cat. 285. 267 PŘICHYSTAL 2000, 123. 265 266

KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 43. KALICZ 1995, 34. 270 KALICZ 1995, 27, fig. 3.3; M. VIRÁG 1992, 15; KALICZ 1998, 42, fig. 6.1. 271 KALICZ 1998, 42, fig. 6.4–8. 268

269


38

ZS. SIKLÓSI

were always found in settlements, while the Spondylus items are known from graves and hoards. The incised patterns on the discs are usually interpreted as anthropomorphic representations.272 I think in the case of pendants the two perforations had primarily a practical purpose; they served for suspension. It is highly questionable to what extent a suspended, often unornamented, disc could be seen as a human representation, and the same question is valid for the Spondylus pendants. Only the Spondylus pendants with two suspension holes were copied in clay; no clay imitation of the Spondylus pendants with a central perforation has so far been found. N. Kalicz and J. G. Szénászky group the trapezoid stone and bone plaques with two small and one large perforations in this category in their latest publication. A stone item was found in a grave at Mezôgyán. It lay at the pelvis of the buried person, just as in the case of Spondylus pendants. A bone item was uncovered at Zsadány in the settlement of the Esztár group. On this item, however, the holes were arranged in an inverse position.273

4.5.3. Beads Here I have to mention the beads made from limestone, marble, and clay (e.g. Zsáka–Vizesi-tanya, grave no. 2),274 which often occur mixed with Spondylus beads, although they were also worn alone (e.g. Tiszavasvári, grave no. 11).275 In this case I think it is not necessarily right to consider all beads made from different raw materials as copies of Spondylus beads, since they also could have functioned alone (especially the items made of marble or other fine stone), even though they did not necessarily represent the same value. Copies of wild boar tusk pendants and animal teeth were made of clay, bone, antler and also of Spondylus. (Figs 4, 9) The small, conical, elongated marble pendants unearthed at Vinča can perhaps be grouped here.276 A. M. Choyke pointed out that the imitations of red deer canines were only worn by women and children. Furthermore, she observed that some of the imitations were worn out and others were newly made for the deceased at the time of death.277

5. EXCHANGE

The problem of power, prestige, and status is strongly linked with the economic exchange and ceremonial exchange of valuables. Anthropological studies have demonstrated that the primary role of trade or exchange was often not in the area of economy or subsistence, but more importantly contributed to the maintenance and the development of peaceful social contacts and the avoidance of hostility.278 From the anthropological evidence it seems obvious that in an exchange system the pre-eminent role was often given to organic objects and raw materials (they constituted perhaps the majority of the exchanged goods), which decompose and leave no trace at an archaeological site. In other cases, the exchange of valuables or exotic objects served the purpose, beside economic relations, of obtaining a spouse and setting up alliances. The archaeological traces in this case often remain hidden, yet it is necessary to consider these aspects to recognise the subsequent shortcomings of the research. One of the prerequisites of well-established exchange is that each party in the exchange has an object or raw material the other party needs. This is why communities from diverse geographical environments are often involved in an exchange system, since different raw materials can be found in their regions.

272 HÖCKMANN 1965, 16–19; KAUFMANN 1969, 266–267. Perhaps a slightly angular clay disc from Tiszalök–Hajnalos (ALPC) can also be grouped here. It is ornamented with incised lines on both sides, and two small perforations can be seen at the tip, which makes it appear as an anthropomorphic representation. KURUCZ 1989, 41, 105, pl. 79. 273 KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 31.


KALICZ–MAKKAY 1977, 77. KURUCZ 1994, 126. 276 VASIĆ 1932, cat. 64–66. See a detailed discussion of the problem at the bone objects. 277 CHOYKE 2001, 252–255. 278 DALTON 1977, 205. 274 275


39

The most evident example is the exchange between communities in mountains and plains. A. Sherratt has suggested the existence of such a system in the Carpathian Basin, where communities in the mountains could have exchanged stone, ore and mineral raw materials (copper, salt) for cattle.279 It should be taken into consideration that there were four raw materials in the Neolithic that travelled long distances from the source regions. They are Spondylus, copper, radiolarite, and obsidian. Furthermore, reviewing the list of raw materials and objects that the inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin could offer for Spondylus, only copper, obsidian and radiolarite could have represented similar value.280 Most archaeological papers describing various exchange types refer to the results of anthropology. B. Malinowski’s description of the kula system in Trobriand Islands,281 and M. Mauss’ study of gift exchange282 have had a great effect on anthropological research as well as on archaeologists who investigate prehistoric exchange systems. The studies led C. Renfrew to suggest that the exchange of Spondylus objects was a gift exchange that could have been carried out in a system similar to the kula.283 R. Bernbeck and J. Müller cite anthropological examples of the ceremonial exchange of valuables as the theoretical determination of prestige goods.284 A. Weiner pointed out the paradox of the exchange of prestige goods. These objects cannot be separated from their owners, they cannot be alienated, so they embody the events of the past and the history of their own “career,” which, in certain cases, can increase their value; yet, to express a value they must enter exchange circulation. This fundamental paradox leads to the strange mechanism of the special exchange of prestige goods and the special features of their use. These objects are mostly deemed to represent social differences and wishes. These exchange systems are usually maintained outside kinship relations, kinship hierarchy and often even outside the narrow social frames.285 The exchange of prestige goods characterises societies where there are vertical social differences, since otherwise the entire system would be senseless. Usually in such exchanges family leaders and heads of lineages take part, competing with each other for greater social reputation. In this competition, they risk their own prestige and that of their relatives, kin, and all the members of the group they represent.286 Only objects made of Spondylus and copper can be examined with regard to the circulation of prestige goods in an exchange system since their provenances are known and they are represented in sufficiently large numbers. The provenance of the raw material of stone objects is as yet unknown, and objects of animal origin cannot be linked with a restricted environment; they are considered as “local products” and the existence of exchange cannot be proved. The thorough analysis of the finds led to the conclusion that the exchange system of Spondylus in the entire sphere of distribution area of the object type cannot be compared to the kula system. At least three regional systems can certainly be reconstructed after object types: in the Black Sea region, in the Carpathian Basin and in the territory of the Central European LPC. The loose contact between the three systems is probably due to the use of identical raw material sources, and the sporadic contacts along the border zones. This conclusion is supported first of all by the relatively isolated occurrence of the object types that are characteristic of the individual regions. At the same time, certainly vivid exchange was pursued within the regions between the members of the communities. In the Middle Neolithic burials with Spondylus pendants or bracelets of the Carpathian Basin only in two cases occurred (Mosonszentmiklós–Szilas, Vedrovice–“Za dvorem,” grave no. 9/88) in which both object types (and beads) were placed in a grave.287 When people were buried with a pendant or a bracelet, Spondylus beads were present in half of the cases. The fact that the two object types so consistently appear mutually exclusively in graves suggests that their meanings excluded each another. (Fig. 10) The graves were of men or women, while the graves of children make up half of the known cases for both object types. Regrettably there are too few anthropological analyses published about the graves with these grave goods 279 280 281 282 283

SHERRATT 1982. KALICZ 1992, 9; HEGEDÛS 1982–1983, 28. MALINOWSKI 1972. MAUSS 2000. RENFREW 1973, 187.

BERNBECK–MÜLLER 1996. WEINER 1992. 286 DALTON 1977, 205. 287 KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 38; PODBORSKÝ 2002, 110–112, fig. 117. 284 285


40

ZS. SIKLÓSI

Fig. 10. Middle neolithic graves with Spondylus pendants and bracelets in the Carpathian Basin Grave finds

5 Unknown find context

1: Botoš; 2: Csanytelek–Újhalastó; 3: Main road between Hankenfeld–Saladorf; 4: Kompolt–Kistér; 5: Mezôkövesd–Nagy-fertô; 6: Mosonszentmiklós–Szilas; 7: Mostonga; 8: Nagykálló–Strandfürdô; 9: Poysdorf; 10: Kengyel–Halastó; 11: Tiszaföldvár–Téglagyár; 12: Tiszalúc–Sarkad; 13: Vedrovice–Zábrdovice; 14: Bajč; 15: Eggenburg; 16: Füzesabony–Gubakút; 17: Kleinhadersdorf; 18: Mezôkeresztes–Site M3/10; 19: Mezôkövesd–Mocsolyás; 20: Pulkau; 21: Šarišské Michaľany

(seven graves with pendants and eight graves with bracelets) to draw conclusions from their distribution (Table 1). If more accurate data could be used, research could examine whether they mark two branches of an exchange system or different lineage/social groups (although this is improbable since they were scattered over the territory of the Carpathian Basin) or whether they had an absolutely different meaning. In the Late Neolithic, Spondylus ornaments belonged dominantly but not exclusively to women’s costume, so probably the social role of the objects also changed. The shape and size of the ornaments became uniform, which corroborates C. Renfrew’s and A. Tsuneki’s opinion that handicraft specialisation started in the Late Neolithic of Greece. This was strongly connected with the start of exchange of readymade objects; in earlier periods the exchange of raw material had been dominant, e.g. obsidian.288 This specialisation, however, meant the specialisation of an entire community or village rather than of individuals or families, for example in the case of Dimini or Battonya.289 A significant difference compared to the earlier periods is that marble beads appear in a much larger number than Spondylus beads. This may imply that contacts with distant seaside regions became looser and the contacts with the less distant Balkan territories became stronger or that a larger segment of society could obtain valuable objects from a closer source while access to distant raw materials became more limited.

288

RENFREW 1973, 187; TSUNEKI 1987, 1989.


289

KOTSAKIS 1996, 169.


41

Regarding the access to copper objects, contacts with the Vinča culture have to be examined although the yield of the malachite provenances in the Mecsek Mountains cannot be excluded either.290 Here the exact provenance of the raw material is uncertain; it may be that the raw material came from more than one source and exchange contacts spaned significantly shorter distances than in the case of Spondylus. The spatial distribution of copper objects does not exclude the possibility that people in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin offered obsidian for copper since obsidian played an important role even in the Early Copper Age. (Fig. 7) 6. SOCIAL DIFFERENTIATION AND THE SACRAL SPHERE 6.1. Depictions Anthropomorphic figurines and face-pots are the most characteristic material manifestations of the sacral life of the Southeast European Neolithic. M. Gimbutas carried out a thorough analysis and interpretation, regarding them as embodiments of the mother goddess and fertility cult.291 The picture of the beliefs in the Southeast European Neolithic as she sketched it has more or less remained valid. It has only been in the last decades that a few interpretations of neolithic figurines fundamentally different from her concept have been published. Numerous and diverse approaches can be found among them (e.g. representation of human existence, the cult of the ancestors, magic/witchcraft tools)292 yet all the experts agree that these objects had a sacral function. To understand the social meaning (importance) of Spondylus and copper ornaments, the ornaments that can be observed on these anthropomorphic representations can provide further data. Judging from the customs of personal adornment observed in the middle and late neolithic graves in the Carpathian Basin it seems probable that some of the decoration on face-pots and figurines can be interpreted as representations of ornaments. Broad Spondylus bracelets were usually found on the upper arms of the dead in the graves (e.g. Kisköre–Gát, graves nos 4, 21, 36; Aszód, grave no. 101; Mezôkövesd–Mocsolyás, grave no. 17293). Thus it can be inferred that the broad bracelets on the upper arms or directly above the elbows on the plastic anthropomorphic representations of the Tisza culture (e.g. the Kökénydomb Venus I, the Szegvár–Tûzköves statuette IV, and the seated anthropomorphic vessel from Öcsöd294) can be the depictions of similar Spondylus ornaments, like the convex bracelets that can be seen on the arms of face-pots of the Szakálhát culture (e.g. Battonya–Gödrösök several fragments, Szentes–Ilonapart295). A fragment of a clay statuette was found at the Szakálhát culture site of Battonya–Parázstanya; broad bracelets can be seen on both upper arms.296 On the anthropomorphic figurine on top of a house/temple model from Macedonia, on the contrary, two broad bracelets can be found on each of the lower arms.297 In grave no. 313 at Zengôvárkony, a Spondylus bracelet was also found on the lower arm of the dead.298 It is possible that what appear to be bracelets on figurines are depictions of broad copper bracelets similar to those known from Tordos, Caţa or Gomolava.299 In the Late Neolithic, Spondylus bracelets were worn nearly exclusively by women (except e.g. Kisköre–Gát, graves nos 9 and 36300). This observation is supported by depictions on late neolithic statuettes as well: only female figurines have broad bracelets on the upper arms (e.g. the Venus I of Kökénydomb301).

ECSEDY 1990. GIMBUTAS 1974. 292 E.g. BIEHL 1996; BAILEY 1994. 293 KOREK 1989, 40, 42, 44; KALICZ 1985, 24; KALICZ–KOÓS 2000, 49. 294 KALICZ–RACZKY 1987, fig. 2; KOREK 1987, fig. 15; RACZKY 1987, fig. 32. 295 GOLDMAN 1978, pl. 1. 42, pl. 2–4; KALICZ–MAKKAY 1977, pl. 189. 7. 290 291

KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 45. GIMBUTAS 1991, fig. 7–54. 298 DOMBAY 1960, 140–141. 299 ROSKA 1941, pl. 145. 10; HOREDT 1976, fig. 2a; BRUKNER 1988, 26, fig. 4. 300 KOREK 1989, 41, 44. 301 KALICZ–RACZKY 1987a, 14, fig. 2. 296 297


42

ZS. SIKLÓSI

Fig. 11. Representation of a disc pendant belt worn round the waist of a female figurine (Vinča–Belo Brdo) (after VASIĆ 1932, Fig. 19. 95)

Even the early neolithic layer of Anza contained a figurine on which discs were shown suspended from the neck on both the back and the front.302 The discs were depicted by modelling and obviously perforated in the middle. This may be the representation of a Spondylus pendant perforated in the middle, similar to that found, for example, at the Obre II site, although from a much later period.303 The eponymous site of the Vinča culture and Gomolava yielded figurines on which the representations of belts decorated with large discs can be seen304 (Fig. 11) (in the known cases only a single item was placed in grave). On other figurines similar objects can be seen on the chest or suspended from the neck (Fig. 12) (e.g. Predionica, Vinča–Belo Brdo, Achilleion).305 Large, perforated Spondylus pendants lay at the waist of the dead in burials (e.g. Mezôkövesd–Nagy-fertô, Tiszalúc–Sarkad, Tiszaföldvár–Téglagyár306). More exact depictions of the customs of adornment observed in graves can be found on figurines recovered from Velika Tumba and Tumba and on a fragment from Vinča (Fig. 13).307 One of the figurines was prepared in such a realistic style that even the suspension holes of the disc and the belt or ribbon from which the disk hung could clearly be discerned.308 They may, of course, equally be representations of stone pendants, not only of Spondylus pendants, which were more frequent in the Balkans. The multiple notches on both wrists of statuette 1 from Szegvár–Tûzköves and of Venus I and III from Kökénydomb, on the right wrist of statuettes IV and V from the same site and on the right wrist fragment of the large anthropomorphic statuette from Vésztô309 are reminiscent of a copper spiral bracelet. Copper spiral bracelets were always on the wrists of the dead in late neolithic burials (e.g. Zengôvárkony, graves nos. 113, 115, 230 and 286310), for lack of sufficient anthropological data it cannot be determined for certain if they were present in the graves of both sexes. GIMBUTAS 1976, 209, 211, fig. 146, pl. 13. 1–2. BENAC 1973a, pl. 25. 3, 5. 304 GIMBUTAS 1974, 44–45; 1991, fig. 8–15; BRUKNER 1965, pl. 13. 1. 305 GIMBUTAS 1974, 45; 1991, figs 7–84, 7–85. 306 CSENGERI in press; ORAVECZ 1996, 57, fig. 4; ORAVECZ 1999, 47. 302 303


307 SANEV et al. 1976, 42–44, Cat. 198, 202, 233; VASIĆ 1932, pl. 19. 94. 308 SANEV et al. 1976, 43, cat. 202. 309 KALICZ–RACZKY 1987, figs 2, 4; KOREK 1987, figs 14, 16; TROGMAYER 1992, 57; HEGEDÛS–MAKKAY 1987, fig. 9. 310 DOMBAY 1960, 86–88, 123, 136.


43

Fig. 12. Representation of a disc pendant as a necklace on an anthropomorphic figurine (Vinča–Belo Brdo) (after VASIĆ 1932, Fig. 31. 141)

Identifying the habits of wearing ornaments shed light on the strong link between Spondylus, stone, and copper ornaments and neolithic anthropomorphic representations. M. Gimbutas thought that the discs depicted on the statuettes indicated status or marked a god(dess).311 Thus it seems that the concept of sacral is strongly linked with the function of ornaments. This link implies, at the same time, that ornaments not only expressed social differences in a material way but that this role was strongly linked to the sacral side of the world. At least two conclusions can be drawn from this link: the social group who had the right to wear these prestige goods made efforts to support their social position from the sacral side,312 and the position of ritual and political and/or economic leader(s) in society was not yet separate at that time. The same is supported by some of the hoards and ritual offerings.

311

GIMBUTAS 1974, 44.

312

CHAPMAN 1981, 77. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 55, 2004

44

ZS. SIKLÓSI

Fig. 13. Fragment of a large vessel with relief, the human figure wears a Spondylus or stone pendant round the waist (Vinča–Belo Brdo) (after VASIĆ 1932, Fig. 19. 94)

6.2. Hoards Very few hoards have so far been discovered from the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin. These assemblages contain hoards of stone raw material, tools and various ornaments. The hoards composed of ornaments have to be examined in detail since although each of them plays an important role from the perspective of the study of trade/exchange contacts, it is the analysis of ornaments that contributes primarily to the study of the manifestations of social differentiation. In the analysis of hoards, the find context of the assemblage can provide important data to find out the reason for hiding a hoard and its function. A hoard found in a settlement offers different interpretative possibilities than a hoard that was uncovered alone, independent of any site of the same age. Hoards that mostly contain broken objects may be associated with workshops, while those composed exclusively of intact items could have been in the possession of an individual or they could be an offering. The following concerns find assemblages consisting of ornaments and/or prestige goods. Hoards from the Middle Neolithic contain only intact Spondylus ornaments (Vršnik, Alba Iulia, Bernburg, Szekszárd–Palánki-hegy, Ecseg?313) they were uncovered in settlements hidden in vessels, detached from con-

313 GIMBUTAS 1974, 44; GIMBUTAS 1991, fig. 7–82; BERCIU 1966, pl. 5; WILLMS 1985, 337, fig. 1; CSALOGOVITS 1936, 18;


KATÓ 1990, 57–58. Posteriorly it could not be determined if the Ecseg objects were grave goods or they came from a hoard.


45

temporary sites or in an unknown archaeological context. The find from Ražanac may belong to a hoard. It contained two jade axes and fragments of 25 Spondylus bracelets. A teacher found it in the nineteenth century, and nothing was recorded about the finding circumstances.314 While hoards from the Middle Neolithic consisted nearly exclusively of Spondylus ornaments, hoards dated from the Late Neolithic contained copper and marble objects as well as Spondylus ornaments. The largest hoard was found at Csóka/Čoka–Kremenyák at the beginning of the twentieth century. P. Raczky clarified the problem of the Csóka hoards. He concluded that actually two hoards were discovered, one of which has been lost.315 P. Raczky published the objects of Hoard I one by one,316 while only J. Banner’s description can guide us in regard to the lost Hoard II.317 The analogues of the objects of this hoard can be found in large numbers in sites of the Tisza culture and northern sites of the Vinča culture. Mushroom- and violin-shaped figurines are characteristic types of the Vinča culture, they were made of marble, rock crystal or alabaster (e.g. Vinča–Belo Brdo, Vršnik, Botoš, Dugi Njive, Krčevina, Mostonga318). A single item, certainly imported from the Vinča culture, was found in Hungary in House no. 1 at Battonya–Gödrösök (Szakálhát culture).319 The Spondylus ornaments of the hoards are known in large numbers in both cultures, while the multiple bone rings are characteristic only of the Tisza culture. According to J. Chapman, the Csóka hoards contained the personal ornaments of a person of a high status.320 P. Raczky thinks that “These prestige materials and the variety of items manufactured from them, embodying accumulation and wealth, seem to have been mainly withdrawn from the earthly sphere of the economy, restricting thereby the possibility of a continuous ‘positive feedback’. This undoubtedly had a negative influence on subsistence strategies, as well as on their efficiency. The Csóka ‘hoard’ can thus be accorded a key role in the complex historical process outlined in the above, for it embodies an early phase of the accumulation of wealth, gradually shifting towards the sacral sphere, on the southern edge of the Hungarian Plain.”321 They belonged, if not necessarily to an individual, to a community and they were not hoarded by a workshop. Another Spondylus hoard came to light from the Late Neolithic at Kozludža (20 Spondylus bracelet fragments).322 Hoards containing both Spondylus and copper objects are known from the end of the Late Neolithic: from Ariuşd and Hîrsova, which is considered to have been the legacy of a Spondylus processing workshop.323 Finally, the Pločnik copper hoards can be dated from the very end of the Neolithic; they are already leading to the Early Copper Age. Four hoards containing copper axes, chisels, bracelets, pins and stone axes were uncovered at Pločnik.324 The dating of the hoards is debated; some experts, N. Kalicz, for example, date them from the Early Copper Age.325 All the hoards of the Late Neolithic were found in settlements, although their exact context cannot be determined because they all came from old excavations. Besides hoards, a few sacrificial find assemblages containing Spondylus and copper objects are also known from the Late Neolithic. The only Spondylus object from the Branč site of the Lengyel culture was a bracelet placed into a posthole of House no. 13.326 A find assemblage of a stylised female figurine, a tiny vessel, five miniature vessels and three flat clay discs with lobed edges was unearthed on the floor of house no. 9 at Polgár–Csôszhalom. Under the floor of this house a necklace made of copper and bone beads was discovered in a sacrificial pit.327 The extremely large number of copper objects found at this site is unusual in the Late Neolithic, even more uncommon in such a context. P. Raczky thinks from the central position of house no. 9 and the finds recovered there that the house was a shrine.328 At Tărtăria several clay and mar-

BURIĆ 2000, 40. The number of hoards found at Csóka was uncertain for a long time, starting from the contradictory descriptions. J. Banner spoke of two hoards, BANNER 1960, 18, while J. Chapman discussed four hoards CHAPMAN 1981, 58–59. RACZKY 1994. 316 RACZKY 1994, 163. 317 BANNER 1960, 18. 318 VASIĆ 1936a, 194–207, cat. 326; MILLEKER 1938, 138; KARMANSKI 1977, pl. 18. 1–4. 319 GOLDMAN 1984, fig. 2. 2. 314 315

CHAPMAN 1981, 60. RACZKY 1994, 165. 322 GELLERT–GARSCHA 1930, 270. 323 COMŞA 1973, 66–67, fig. 4; LÁSZLÓ 1911, 224, fig. 6, fig. 92. 3, 5, 7, figs 93–94. 324 GRBIĆ 1929; STALIO 1964. 325 KALICZ 1992, 8. 326 VLADÁR–LICHARDUS 1968, 266, 269, fig. 72. 327 RACZKY et al. 1996, 18–19. 328 RACZKY et al. 1996, 20. 320 321


46

ZS. SIKLÓSI

ble figurines and a Spondylus bracelet were found in the same ritual pit with the well-known tablets with the incised signs.329 The fact that the objects used to express and manipulate social differences were suitable to fulfil the role of a gift or an offering in the field of contacts with the sacral sphere supports earlier views. However, the quantity of the find material known so far does not suggest that that the use of these objects in the sacral sphere reached such an extent that it could exercise an unfavourable influence on the functioning of the daily economic life of the society. Besides, anthropological descriptions imply that it was a common phenomenon that the objects and raw materials necessary for subsistence and prestige goods were exchanged within the frameworks of two different networks which were often not compatible, so the loss of prestige did not necessarily cause an economic loss as well. The link between prestige goods and sacral features can lead to two more cautious inferences. It cannot be excluded that the groups that used the prestige goods also limited the access to the sacral sphere to other members of the society and that, in order to preserve the value of prestige goods or to hinder other members of society from obtaining them, they preferred to destroy them or used them in such a way that they could not fall into the hands of “wider layers” of the population. The quantity of finds recovered from hoards compared to grave finds may certainly represent a larger value, so the question remains whether these unusually rich find units were in the possession of an individual, a family, a lineage or a social group.

7. BURIALS The examination of burials can serve as a primary source for archaeology in the study of past societies. The cemetery analyses of the 1970s were based on the presumption that the grave-goods in the graves were possessions of the dead and mirrored the social status of the dead. Thus the analysis of the grave-goods and their divergences can show the structure of society, the existence of social differences and their characteristics. The cemetery analyses of the LPC330 and the Early Bronze Age cemetery of Branč,331 for example, were based on this direct correlation. This was the starting point for complex summaries of the possibilities of investigating burial rites, the authors of which often supported their conclusions with anthropological examples.332 Based on the same assumption, J. O’Shea examined the manifestation of changes in social systems in burials. He asked the question that has been more and more often raised since then: how problematic is the study of social differences with archaeological methods? In consequence of these methods many forms of the manifestations of social differences remain hidden. In the case of Native Americans, who were the subjects of his studies, the vertical social differentiation could easily be demonstrated from burials, while kinship ties and horizontal stratification could not be seen. The reason is that individual lineages often differentiated themselves with methods undetectable by archaeological methods, e.g. hairdo, costume, and body painting.333 E. J. Pader’s work took a step further after this over-simplified picture. He realised the significant differences between the articles of adornment, ornaments of the dead, and the objects placed beside the dead during the burial by other members of the society, primarily by relatives. E. J. Pader concluded that the grave-goods do not always indicate the social status of the dead. An object in the grave of a child can be a gift from his parents, who express their own status with it.334 I think this differentiation is essential yet the objects placed beside the dead can be in just as strong a connection with the social status of the dead as his or her own articles of adornment. A society can regulate what funeral ceremony is due to which person,

VLASSA 1963, 490, fig. 6. 4. DOHRN-IHMIG 1983; HÖCKMANN 1982; VAN DE VELDE 1979. 331 SHENNAN 1975. 329

332

330

333


334

UCKO 1969. O’SHEA 1981, 40, 49–50. PADER 1982, 57, 62.


47

what ceremony a person can afford “legally” or financially. But the articles of adornment were not necessarily possessions of the dead, some of them could have been parts of socially regulated or afforded “gifts.” For example, the rich ornaments of a child did not necessarily mean the high social status of the child, but could simply be a gift from the parents. The use of anthropological examples can be very fruitful, yet it has many dangers. As I. Zalai-Gaál quotes I. N. Choplin: “The population of Asia Minor (Southeastern and Central Europe) treaded the complicated route of historical development in the past six millennia…while the aborigines of Australia still pursue the same way of life in this century as in the former six thousand years.”335 I think, however, that the problem is just the opposite. The later development of European and Asian societies is irrelevant from the respect of prehistoric studies since archaeologists use anthropological examples not for Western civilisath tions. Yet it would be a huge mistake to suppose that the modern (i.e. 20 century) hunter-gatherers or farming communities “were stuck at a lower stage of development”. These societies also underwent changes in the past 6000–10000 years like European societies, perhaps not in the same direction or in the same ways as the modern western civilisations. In this respect I agree more with C. Lévi-Strauss’ views than with the above approach.336 P. J. Ucko called attention to numerous mistakes in cemetery analyses that seem logical to our present way of thinking, but compared to the customs of other societies, many other interpretation possibilities arise.337 These warnings are worth taking into consideration during social analyses. Various statistical analyses as e.g. seriation, cluster analysis, factor analysis are popular methods of the study of burials and social differentiation.338 Numerous researchers try to make their observations more exact with these methods, yet they often arrive to misleading results due to the erroneous or inappropriate application of the methods. To get authentic and exact statistical results (then to be able to interpret them) a cemetery of a large grave number is needed (hundreds of graves). Furthermore, to arrive to social conclusions, the majority of the graves must have anthropological age and sex determinations. Even these two basic demands rarely occur together. Thus the results of some cemetery analyses made with statistical methods remain dubious. Regrettably, research is not fortunate in this respect concerning the neolithic cultures in Hungary. The cemeteries of the largest grave number are known from the Lengyel culture, from which the Zengôvárkony, Aszód, Lengyel and Mórágy cemeteries have enough graves for statistical analyses, but not all the graves are contemporary. The skeletons in some of the 386 graves unearthed at Zengôvárkony were so poorly preserved that they could not be rescued. Zs. Zoffmann could examine only 60 skeletons.339 N. Kalicz published only a single grave group from the 220 graves unearthed at Aszód,340 while not even the exact number of the graves in the Lengyel cemetery is known because of the old investigations and insufficient descriptions. Only the graves unearthed at Mórágy were completely published together with the anthropological data.341 In lack of a sufficient number of unearthed graves and anthropological data we have to give up statistics however enticing it may be, because no reliable data can be expected.

7.1. The Early Neolithic Extremely few graves are known from the Early Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin, which imply the parallel use of diverse burial rites. The diversity of the burial rites in the Early Neolithic is traditionally explained by the undeveloped customs.342 Based on the archaeological data from excavations we can expect

ZALAI-GAÁL 1988, 11, citing CHOPLIN 1976, 16. LÉVI-STRAUSS 1999. 337 UCKO 1969. 338 TAINTER 1975; ZALAI-GAÁL 1988, for the detailed research history of the problem see: 12–14. 335

339

336

340 341 342

ZOFFMANN 1969–70, 65. KALICZ 1985, 21–41. ZALAI-GAÁL 2001; ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b. E.g. KALICZ 1988, 38.


48

ZS. SIKLÓSI

burials in houses,343 in refuse pits in settlements and with more complex burials that needed more effort (e.g. Zlatara, Obre I.344). The number of burials of these diverse rites is so low that the existence of burials outside the settlements can be supposed or a burial rite that left no archaeological traces. The number of women and children is extremely high in the settlements of the Körös and Starčevo cultures. J. Chapman explains the striking lack of male graves with the argument that women and children had a lower social status than men and they were buried in the settlement, while men of a higher status were buried outside the settlements or by another rite that left no archaeological traces.345 Although this theory has been debated and it certainly cannot be accepted in this form, it is certain that we have to count with ritual diversities, which are probably due to a certain, not necessarily vertical, social differentiation. Among the known burials, which represent a very small percent of the communities, very few had grave-goods or ornaments. It is often because of burying the dead in a refuse pit that it cannot be decided if certain objects belonged to the grave. Apart from a few graves with pottery grave furniture, the only graves with stone or shell bracelets on the arms certainly from the Körös culture were found at Szolnok–Szanda346 and Kopáncs–Zsoldos-tanya.347 The affiliation of the Óbesenyô and Szerbkeresztúr graves is uncertain.348 Only four graves have so far been uncovered in the Transdanubian sites of the Starčevo culture: the burials of a woman and an infant without grave-goods from Lánycsók349 and two burials, one perhaps with gravegoods from Vörs–Máriaasszony-sziget350. I think the diversity and disproportion manifested in the burials of the Early Neolithic cannot simply be ascribed to research deficiencies, since the accumulating number of unearthed sites reinforce the same conclusion. So the social differences could manifest themselves not only in differences in grave-goods but also in the diversity of burial rites allowed to various individuals or groups of the society.

7.2. The Middle Neolithic Burial customs significantly changed in the Middle Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin, which could be observed especially clearly in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin. In Transdanubia, due partly to the less advanced stage of investigation and partly, perhaps, to the survival of former traditions, the number of the unearthed graves is lower by degrees. Apart from the TLPC settlement excavated recently on a large surface (Balatonszárszó–Kis-erdei-dûlô), where about 17 graves were unearthed in pits among the houses,351 only a few isolated burials are known, mostly without grave-goods.352 The Balatonszárszó burials matched the general custom of the period in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin. At the same time, cemeteries with more graves are known from the Central-European LPC.353 The closest cemetery of this category was unearthed at Nitra, which also stands close to the Central-European customs regarding the grave-goods.354 The custom of burying the dead among the houses in the settlements could be observed from the Szatmár culture in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin. This custom was characteristic of the entire period. In this period the orientation and position of the dead was independent of sex and age, it was moreor-less uniform, although the number of the unearthed graves is still very low as compared to the estimated population of the settlements, and the ratio of children is obviously very high. So it cannot be excluded that beside burials in the settlements, other rites were also used in the entire territory of the Carpathian Basin. Pottery grave-goods are rare in the graves, while the ornaments show the following distribution by age and sex. At the time of the Szatmár culture, approximately twice as many adults were buried with ornaments

343 344 345 346 347 348

RACZKY 1982–1983. LEKOVIĆ 1985; BENAC 1973b. CHAPMAN 1983, 10. KALICZ–RACZKY 1978, 274. KUTZIÁN 1944, 93. CHAPMAN 1981, pl. 105. 2; MILLEKER 1893, 304.


349 350 351 352 353 354

KALICZ 1990, 45. KALICZ et al. 2002, 16–18. HONTI et al. 2002, 10. KALICZ 1988, 141–158, 195. E.g. NIESZERY 1995; HÖCKMANN 1982. PAVÚK 1972.


49

(mainly women) than children. A similar proportion can be seen in the various groups of the ALPC. Regrettably, the distribution by sex cannot be determined for lack of exact anthropological data. Regarding the Szakálhát culture, the problem cannot be studied with authenticity because too few graves have been unearthed.355 The quantitative differences appearing in the ornaments cannot be associated with age. There are graves “rich” in ornaments and graves without grave-goods among the graves of both adults and children. The difference appears rather in sex. Women were more often buried with ornaments than men. The ornaments were Spondylus, stone, sometimes clay beads, pierced animal teeth and, in the Szakálhát culture, already copper beads. Very few people were buried with ornaments in the individual sites, and even less skeletons could anthropologically be determined, only a dozen is known on the entire territory of the Carpathian Basin. In the case of graves unearthed in a site, even if the burial of a child seems the richest, the group of graves with or without grave-goods cannot sharply be differentiated, grave-goods were given only to a few individuals. The largest number of graves, 25 burials, was unearthed at Mezôkövesd–Mocsolyás, where 10 graves had no gravegoods, 3 graves were so strongly disturbed that it could not be observed, while from the remaining 12 graves with Spondylus grave-good 3 belonged to children, 4 to women, one to a man and two to adults of undetermined sex.356 At Füzesabony–Gubakút, 7 of the 13 graves contained Spondylus grave-goods, but no anthropological data are known from here.357 The proportion of the graves with grave-goods is even lower at other sites. Stone beads were found in 2 graves of men and a grave of a child from the 9 graves at Tiszalúc, and one of the male graves contained Spondylus pendants as well.358 At Tiszavasvári–Paptelekhát none of the 13 graves contained Spondylus grave-goods, only one grave contained two beads.359 At Mezôkeresztes–Cethalom the grave of a woman and perhaps a grave of a child contained Spondylus grave-goods from the 15 unearthed graves.360 At the rest of the sites either the number of the graves is too low or the anthropological data are unknown, so they are not worth considering even for minimal calculations. It is generally accepted that the prestige goods appearing in the graves of children indicate an ascribed status. The first representatives of it appeared in our territory in the oldest phase of the LPC, from which period they were always present during the Neolithic. There are experts, who deduce from it the “preferences of the elite” and their ascribed features361, or a fixed social stratification,362 while others cannot find proof enough on the existence of social differentiation or hierarchy363 in the Middle Neolithic. However, as I have already mentioned, it is far not so obvious. First, the objects in the graves were not the properties of the dead by all means, they could be in the possession of the people who mourned him or the relatives, second, it is known from anthropological descriptions that men who acquired the leader’s position often make efforts to turn their position hereditary, against which various levelling mechanisms work in the society.364 On the whole, compared to the total number of the known graves, the ratio of the “rich” graves, and among them the graves of children is so low that they rather appear to be rare exceptions than customary phenomena.

7.3. The Late Neolithic Cemeteries with larger numbers of graves first appeared in the Carpathian Basin in the Late Neolithic. They can certainly be divided into groups. In the case of the Transdanubian Lengyel culture, research undoubtedly has to count with diverse burial rites used in parallel, which manifest themselves in two direc-

355 KALICZ–MAKKAY 1977, 73–83; ORAVECZ 1999, 44–47; KALICZ–KOÓS 2000. 356 KALICZ–KOÓS 2000, 47–50. 357 DOMBORÓCZKI 1997, 22. 358 ORAVECZ 1996, 51–57. 359 KALICZ–MAKKAY 1977, 77.

WOLF–SIMONYI 1995, 6. KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 50; HALSTEAD 1993, 604 in the case of Dimini. 362 BÁNFFY 1999, 54. 363 ORAVECZ 1996, 60; KALICZ–KOÓS 2000, 51. 364 VAN VELZEN 1973. 360 361


50

ZS. SIKLÓSI

tions: first inhumation and cremation burials can be observed in the larger cemeteries unearthed in the eastern territory of the culture (mainly in Southeastern Transdanubia) and second the lack of burials is conspicuous in the other territories, which is certainly not due to lack of investigation. Accordingly, there must have been burial rites in these territories that left no archaeological traces. The diverse burial rites used in parallel, which could already be observed in the previous periods, got territorially separated and new customs also appeared within a community. No differences can be observed in the grave-goods of inhumation and cremation burials in the Lengyel culture, so the divergences of these customs probably rooted in the diversity of the lineages of the social groups, in the horizontal social differences. The parallel use of inhumation and cremation rites is also documented from Öcsöd, the territory of the Tisza culture, although in a much smaller number.365 The burials cluster in the unused parts of the settlements or they are placed between houses in both the Lengyel and the Tisza–Herpály–Csôszhalom cultures. In the case of the Herpály and Csôszhalom cultures the spatial differentiation of the members of the society by sex and age probably remained in the burials, since the overwhelming majority of the graves on the Herpály tell belonged to children,366 while a separation by sex and age can be observed on the Csôszhalom tell and the extensive horizontal settlement.367 Regarding the Tisza culture, however, the existence of a similar separation is not obvious. The orientation of the dead is uniform, while the position of the body evidently depended already on the sex. Certain common traits can be observed with regard to the grave-goods. As compared to the preceding periods, the ratio of graves with grave-goods significantly increased, there is a greater variety of grave-goods and the discrepancy between the graves without grave-goods and the ones “rich” in gravegoods also grew. Concerning these changes great differences can be observed between the individual sites. This is the first time that certain grave-goods can be associated with sex and age, while there are still gravegoods that are independent of sex and age. A larger number of graves, published together with the anthropological data is known only from Kisköre–Gát in the eastern part of the Carpathian Basin. Here 14 of the 36 graves contained ornaments, from which 4 belonged to women, 4 to men, 4 to children and in two cases the sex of the adults is ambiguous.368 It is astonishing that the graves unearthed at Szegvár–Tûzköves, one of the largest settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain, are very poor in grave-goods and ornaments.369 Regrettably, no detailed publications have been published as yet about the graves unearthed in the tell settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain, so the data that suggest social differences can be read only from short preliminary reports.370 I. Zalai-Gaál analysed the cemeteries of the Transdanubian Lengyel culture in several studies,371 and found that a large variability is characteristic of the grave-goods and the ornaments in the graves. The greatest problem with I. Zalai-Gaál’s investigation method372 is the presumption that an exact hierarchy can be determined from the quantitative and qualitative differences observed in the grave-goods. On the one hand, this method could be valid only in the case of strictly contemporary graves, and, on the other hand, this presumption incurs further presumptions: each member of the society occupies a strict hierarchical place in relation to the others and this is always manifested in an archaeologically observable way. The first presumption is mistaken because every society is built of groups and there are practically no differences between the members of these groups. He supports his method with the following statement: “…up to now no communities have been demonstrated where every member of the community has the same objects, personal properties, «total equality is impossible on a society level»”.373 This statement is right, but only in the context that no absolute social equality exists, that is there is no society where each member would be absolutely equal since at least a minimal social differentiation by sex and age exists in every society. This does not yet mean that the members of a society can be arranged in a hierarchical order.

365 366 367 368 369 370

RACZKY 1987, 80. KALICZ–RACZKY 1987, 121–122. RACZKY et al. 1997, 38. KOREK 1989, 39–44. KOREK 1973, 294–306. In a summary see: TÁLAS–RACZKY 1991.


371 ZALAI-GAÁL 1988; ZALAI-GAÁL 2002a; ZALAI-GAÁL 2002c. 372 ZALAI-GAÁL 1988; ZALAI-GAÁL 2002a; ZALAI-GAÁL 2002c. 373 ZALAI-GAÁL 1988, 19 citing FRIED 1967, 27; NACEV SKOMAL 1983, 17.


51

He set up a hierarchical order from the differences of the grave-goods in the Lengyel culture based on the quantity of stone tools and pottery grave-goods, which could indicate the differences between men and women independent of each other, although he acknowledges that these grave-goods often do not determine sex. From the rich ornaments placed in the graves of girls he deduced a matrilineal lineage.374 With the help of I. Lengyel’s serogenetic analysis, he identified the grave groups with family units in the cemeteries of the Lengyel culture, where the richest burials were those of the leaders of the families, among whom social differences could also be demonstrated.375 In the second-third richest graves of the groups the sons and brothers of the leader of the family could be buried, he said.376 Graves with rich gravegoods were also spatially concentrated in the cemetery in the centres of the grave groups, while the graves poorer in grave-goods were dug somewhat farther (e.g. Sondershausen, Zengôvárkony, Aszód, Svodín). In some Lengyel cemeteries the rich graves of men, women and perhaps children were close to one another, who are supposed to have been the members of a nuclear (or extended) family.377 From the use of red deer canines in the Late Neolithic A. M. Choyke came to the following conclusion: “Perhaps the right to wear real or imitation red deer canine beads was related to kinship in a clan type group. This would explain why the use of real and imitation canines is found both in Transdanubia (Lengyel culture) and at contemporary final neolithic sites in the northern Hungarian Plain. People at these settlements may have recognized common lineages.”378 This remarkable assumption would deserve further investigation. Boar jaws and boar tusk pendants were grave-goods of only adult men in all the late neolithic cultures of the Carpathian Basin,379 while Spondylus bracelets, shell and marble beads usually belonged to the costumes of women and children. The occurrence of stone axes in graves is uneven. At Zengôvárkony they were found in one fifth of the graves, at Mórágy only two graves contained them, while at Szegvár only a single grave had a stone chisel, so stone tools could be put into the graves because of some other reasons than social differences. Large differences can be observed between graves with “rich” grave-goods and ones without gravegoods, and every point of the scale is represented between the two extremes. At Mórágy, only 5 graves were left without grave-goods from the 72 graves, while at Zengôvárkony, only 29 graves had no grave-goods from the 368 ones. Among the graves with grave-goods some had only potteries or a few flaked tools, maybe a couple of modest pieces of ornaments, while others were furnished with a “rich” grave-good containing various types.380 8. SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES, CONCLUSIONS I tried to review only a single type of the data referring to a possible social differentiation in the above paragraphs. The structure of a society cannot be drawn from the analysis of objects alone, the thorough analysis of burials and settlements is indispensable. Above, I tried to draw conclusions on the existence and extent of vertical social differentiation from the existence and types of grave-goods. Other very important factors can be differences within the settlements and the existence of settlement hierarchy. The traces of such differences appeared for the first time in the Late Neolithic. J. Makkay was the first to raise the question of the hierarchy of late neolithic settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain.381 A. Sherratt’s regional studies appeared at the same time as Makkay’s book, and he arrived to similar conclusions.382 In Transdanubia, the supposed appearance of specialised settlements can provide the same standpoint.383 According to J. Chapman, the various sizes of the houses of the Vinča culture did not indicate social differences, they only mirrored the different sizes of the families. He could not find any trace of handicraft speZALAI-GAÁL 1988, 31. ZALAI-GAÁL 1988, 49, 51. 376 ZALAI-GAÁL 1988, 51. 377 ZALAI-GAÁL 1988, 41, 61, 66, 78; KALICZ 1985, 22; NEMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ 1986, 145. 378 CHOYKE 2001, 257. 374

379

375

380 381 382 383

KALICZ–RACZKY 1987a, 24. ZALAI-GAÁL 1988, 113–115, 139–151. MAKKAY 1982, 104–164. SHERRATT 1982; SHERRATT 1983; SHERRATT 1983a. BIRÓ–REGENYE 2001, 98–99.


52

ZS. SIKLÓSI

cialisation or specialised workshops either.384 In Hungary, the divergences appearing in the sizes of houses are not significant enough to suggest social differentiation. I agree with B. A. Voytek’s and R. Tringham’s theory according to which settlement, food storage and preservation and exchange between hunter-gatherer and settled communities were strongly linked with the opportunity of the development of social differentiation. Furthermore, anthropological examples prove that social differentiation could exist in hunter-gatherer societies as well.385 As J. Woodburn has demonstrated, there is no perfect social equality, while the necessary prerequisite of neolithisation is the existence of a minimal social differentiation in the society.386 G. M. Feinman arrived to the same conclusion. He also stressed that the former pictures of egalitarian societies were mistaken since differentiation by sex, age groups, abilities, practice and prestige existed in these societies as well.387 The above model should certainly be taken into account in respect of the Carpathian Basin although there are only sporadic data in this territory from the Early Neolithic. The early neolithic settlements are small, they are closely associated with riverbanks, they extend along the banks sometimes in a length of several kilometres as the inhabitants had to move on from time to time. It is first of all the use of diverse burial rites that can indicate the social differences that logically ensue from the way of life. The criteria defined at the beginning of this study and the distribution of the objects in the graves by age and sex lead to the following consequences. Basically two raw material types and various objects made from them could have a role in the manifestation of vertical social differences in the Middle Neolithic: Spondylus and animal teeth. Imitations were prepared of the objects made from both raw materials (only the “original” items or the ones made from similarly valuable raw materials were placed into the graves), while pendants made of animal teeth never occurred independently, they were used together with Spondylus beads. Hoards contained and representation depicted probably only Spondylus objects. The objects made from both raw material types were among the rare grave-goods in the period. The distribution of the Spondylus objects suggests that they were included in an exchange system, while the same cannot be told about the animal tooth pendants because of their character. Although both groups of objects can be found in the graves of women and children as well, it is obvious, especially in the case of animal teeth, that they were not the “private acquisitions” of the dead persons. As the imitations of these objects are also known, they occur in hoards and in the graves of both sexes and children, the supposition that they were prestige goods seems acceptable. We could not find any object in the period that could be associated with a sex or an age group (first of all men) to fulfil the role of a status good. In the Middle Neolithic, we can find small villages of a few houses of similar sizes. The conditions of permanent settlement were not yet developed, the inhabitants of the villages had to move on at least once in a generation. This periodical resettling could be a circulate movement in certain regions. At that time, only a part of the community was buried in the settlements, mainly women and children. The parallel use of diverse burial rites could still be practised. Regarding the Middle Neolithic, C. Willms’ theory seems acceptable, who doubts that Spondylus defines sex. He thinks that the Spondylus objects cannot be linked either to sex nor an age group, but a family or a social group could have the right and the opportunity to use Spondylus.388 J. Müller and his colleagues arrived to the same conclusion, who also attributed the access to Spondylus in the Central-European LPC to a lineage or the members of a social group.389 Judged from the distribution of the Spondylus objects, an exchange system of prestige goods could operate in the territory of the Carpathian Basin at the time when the objects were relatively rare and could have an eminent importance in the life of a community. Spondylus pendants and bracelets formed two independent circles or their meaning was contradictory since, except for two cases, they never occur together. The lack of status goods suggests that there were no fixed, hereditary or great social differences that manifested in an archaeologically observable way. In this regard I am apt to suppose that they could be the graves of a group of people where vertical social differences were minimal and the leading persons of the community barely

384 385 386

CHAPMAN 1981, 62, 68. VOYTEK–TRINGHAM 1985. WOODBURN 1982.


387 388 389

FEINMAN 1995, 261–262. WILLMS 1985, 339–340. MÜLLER et al. 1996.


53

differed from the rest. The leading role was not marked by a (archaeologically observable) special status object that was fixed to their person and social position, but such objects played a role in the expression of social differences that fulfilled the role of prestige goods, first of all in competition with each other, in exchange and in the manipulation of respect and prestige. It seems that the communities supported the operating system from a sacral side as well, and the men who acquired the leading position were, at the same time, the religious leaders of the community. It is still not clear how the prestige goods got into the graves of women and children in such societies. The anthropological examples reveal that there have never been societies where women fulfilled the role of the leader of a community, it could manifest itself only indirectly. So the supposition that the “rich women” were the leaders of the community can certainly be refuted. Regrettably it is the burials of adult males that are missing from these burials, which underlines the presumption that they got a different burial rite because of their social position. Probably we cannot expect ascribed social differences in the Middle Neolithic, since there are very few “rich” adult and infant graves on the whole. There are some other possibilities to explain these differences. First, males who got the post of a leader by their abilities could increase their respect not only with their own costume but also with the valuable objects they presented to their deceased wives or children. Second, it can normally occur among people living in such communities that certain males in the leading position tried to make their social position hereditary, although the communities usually used various incentives to repress such intentions.390 In the Late Neolithic, significantly more raw material and object types can be included in the determination of prestige and status goods. Spondylus and red deer canine objects retained their role as prestige goods and they were completed by marble beads and copper objects. By this time wild boar jaws and boar tusk pendants appeared, which were certainly status goods. Probably stone maceheads can also be grouped here, although this is not certain because of the small number of the published finds. The evaluation of the multiple bone rings is also uncertain since they have been found in only a few graves, they cannot certainly be associated with sex or age, yet relatively many waste of production is known from settlements. However, a fragment was found in the Csóka I hoard. The estimation of stone axes, in my view, is also uncertain since because of the extremely uneven distribution in burials must have some other explanation. I find it improbable that the number of the persons of a high social status would have been so large in the graves unearthed in the Zengôvárkony cemetery, while in the graves of other cemeteries only a couple of “high-ranked” dead were buried. The differentiation of the status objects from the prestige goods can be completed with the following criteria: – known only from graves,391 – lack of copies, – association with sex or age groups, – they probably do not occur in hoards and offerings, – they often appear together with prestige goods in burials. Significant social changes happened in the Late Neolithic as compared to the Middle Neolithic. The differences between the graves without grave-goods and the ones “rich” in grave-goods significantly increased in the Late Neolithic. Within the groups of the cemeteries, the graves furnished with exceptionally rich grave-goods can be found close to each other and the graves without grave-goods or only a few grave-goods can be found at some distance. When such groups can be differentiated in a cemetery from the grave-goods and the rite, it can confirm the existence of an ascribed status.392 Some objects in the graves can be associated with age and sex. They could be status objects, which the men who led the community could obtain only at an adult age. While the prestige goods are much more diverse than in the previous period, which can be associated not only with males but also with larger groups of women and children. Such an increased access to the source of prestige goods implies that social differences appeared already between families or lineages. These differences were already probably hereditary, but these vertical social differences could not have been very large. 390

VAN VELZEN 1973.

391

WASON 1994, 97.

392

SHENNAN 1975, 285–286.


54

ZS. SIKLÓSI

REFERENCES ANTONOVIĆ 1997 BAILEY 1994 BÁNFFY 1999

BANNER 1928 BANNER 1930 BANNER 1932

BANNER 1960 BANNER –KOREK 1949

BENAC 1973a BENAC 1973b BERCIU 1966 BERNBECK –MÜLLER 1996

BÉTEILLE 1994 BIEHL 1996 BIRÓ 1998 BIRÓ –REGENYE 2001

BIRÓ –SZAKMÁNY 2000 BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1963 BRUKNER 1965 BRUKNER 1988

BURIĆ 2000 BUTTLER 1938 ČERNYCH 1978 CHAPMAN 1981

= D. ANTONOVIĆ: Use of light white stone in the Central Balkans Neolithic. Starinar 48 (1997) 33–39. = D. BAILEY: Reading prehistoric figurines as individuals. WA 25/3 (1994) 204–222. = E. BÁNFFY: Az újkôkori lelôhely értékelése (Neolithic settlement). In: T. Petercsák–J. J. Szabó (ed.): Kompolt–Kistér. Heves megyei régészeti közlemények. Eger 1999, 141– 170. = J. BANNER: Az ószentiváni ásatások (Grabungen bei Ószentiván). Dolg 4 (1928) 148– 243. = J. BANNER: A kökény-dombi neolithkori telep (Die neolithische Ansiedlung von Kökénydomb). Dolg 6 (1930) 49–158. = J. BANNER: A kopáncsi és kotacparti neolitikus telepek és a tiszai kultúra III. periódusa (Die neolithische Ansiedlungen von Hódmezôvásárhely–Kopáncs und Kotacpart und die III. Periode der Theiss-Kultur). Dolg 8 (1932) 1–48. = J. BANNER: The neolithic settlement on the Kremenyák Hill at Csóka (Čoka). The excavations of F. Móra in the years 1907–1913. ActaArchHung 12 (1960) 1–56. = J. BANNER–J. KOREK: Negyedik és ötödik ásatás a hódmezôvásárhelyi Kökénydombon (Les campagnes IV et V des fouilles pratiquées au Kökénydomb de Hódmezôvásárhely). ArchÉrt 76 (1949) 9–25. = A. BENAC: Obre II. A neolithic settlement of the Butmir Group at Gornje Polje. WMBH 3 (1973) 1–191. = A. BENAC: Obre I. A neolithic settlement of the Starčevo-Impresso and Kakanj Cultures at Raskršće. WMBH 3 (1973) 327–429. = D. BERCIU: Zorile istoriei in Carpati şi la Dunare. Bucureşti 1966. = R. BERNBECK–J. MÜLLER: Prestige und Prestigegüter aus kulturanthropologischer und archäologischer Sicht. In: J. Müller–R. Bernbeck: Prestige – Prestigegüter – Sozialstrukturen. Beispiele aus dem europäischen und vorderasiatischen Neolithikum. Archäologische Berichte 6. Bonn 1996, 1–27. = A. BÉTEILLE: Inequality and equality. In: T. Ingold: Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology. London–New York 1994. = P. F. BIEHL: Symbolic communication systems: symbols on anthropomorphic figurines of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic from South-Eastern Europe. JEA 4 (1996) 153–176. = K. T. BIRÓ: Lithic Implements and the Circulation of Raw Materials in the Great Hungarian Plain during the Late Neolithic Period. Budapest 1998. = K. T. BIRÓ–J. REGENYE: Tûzkôbánya és feldolgozó telepek. Egy Szentgál (Veszprém megye) környéki neolitikus lelôhelycsoport kutatása (Flintstone quarry and processing sites. Research study of a group of sites from the Neolithic around Szentgál, Veszprém County). In: J. Dani–Zs. Hajdú–E. Gy. Nagy–L. Selmeczi (eds.): Momos I. „Fiatal Ôskoros Kutatók” I. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete. Debrecen, 1997. november 10– 13. Debrecen 2001, 95–105. = K. T. BIRÓ –GY. SZAKMÁNY: Current state of research on Hungarian neolithic polished stone artefacts. Krystalinikum 26 (2000) 21–37. = I. BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN: The Copper Age Cemetery of Tiszapolgár-Basatanya. ArchHung 42. Budapest 1963. = B. BRUKNER: Neolitski i ranoeneolitski cloj na Gomolavi 1965–1966. godine (Neolithic and early eneolithic layer at Gomolava 1965–66). RVM 14 (1965) 137–175. = B. BRUKNER: Die Siedlung der Vinča-Gruppe auf Gomolava. Die Wohnschicht des Spätneolithikums und Frühäneolithikums – (Gomolava Ia, Gomolava Ia-b und Gomolava Ib) und der Wohnhorizont des Äneolithischen Humus (Gomolava II). In: N. Tasić– J. Petrović (hrsg.): Gomolava. Chronologie und Stratigraphie der vorgeschichtlichen und antiken Kulturen der Donauniederung und Südosteuropas. Internationales Symposium Ruma 1986. Novi Sad 1988, 19–38. = M. BURIĆ: Findings of nephrite and jade axes on the territory of Croatia. Krystalinikum 26 (2000) 39–43. = W. BUTTLER: Beiträge zur Frage des jungsteinzeitlichen Handels. Marburger Studien 28 (1938) 26–33. = E. N. ČERNYCH: Aibunar – a Balkan copper mine of the fourth millennium BC. PPS 44 (1978) 203–217. = J. CHAPMAN: The Vinča Culture of South-East Europe. Studies in chronology, economy and society. BAR IntSer 117. Oxford 1981.



CHAPMAN 1983

CHAPMAN 1994 CHAPMAN 2000 CHAPMAN –TYLECOTE 1983 CHAPMAN –KINNES–RANSBORG 1981 CHEBEN 2000 CHILDE 1950 CHOYKE 1997

CHOYKE 2001

CLARK 1952 COMŞA 1973 COMŞA 1991 CSALOGOVITS 1936

CSENGERI in press

DALTON 1977 DIMITRIJEVIĆ 1968 DOHRN-IHMIG 1983

DOMBAY 1939 DOMBAY 1959 DOMBAY 1960 DOMBORÓCZKI 1997

DURKHEIM 2001 ECSEDY 1990 FEINMAN 1995 FRIED 1967 GAZDAPUSZTAI 1963

55

= J. CHAPMAN: Meaning and illusion in the study of burial in Balkan prehistory. In: A. G. Poulter (ed.): Ancient Bulgaria. Papers presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, University of Nottingham 1981. Nottingham 1983, 1–42. = J. CHAPMAN: Social power in the early farming communities of Eastern Hungary – Perspectives from the Upper Tisza region. JAMÉ 36 (1994) 79–99. = J. CHAPMAN: Tension at Funerals. Micro-tradition analysis in later Hungarian prehistory. Archaeolingua : SerMin 14. Budapest 2000. = J. C. CHAPMAN –R. F. TYLECOTE: Early copper in the Balkans. PPS 49 (1983) 373– 379. = R. CHAPMAN–I. KINNES–K. RANSBORG (eds): The Archaeology of Death. Cambridge 1981, 39–52. = I. CHEBEN: Bajč – eine Siedlung der Želiezovce-Gruppe. Entwicklungsende der Želiezovce-Gruppe und Anfänge der Lengyel-Kultur. UPA 68. Bonn 2000. = V. G. CHILDE: Prehistoric Migrations in Europe. London 1950. = A. M. CHOYKE: Polgár–Csôszhalom-dûlô lelôhely csont-, agancs- és agyartárgyainak vizsgálata. Investigation of bone, antler and tusk objects from the site of Polgár–Csôszhalom-dûlô. In: P. Raczky–T. Kovács–A. Anders (eds): Utak a múltba. Paths into the Past. Budapest 1997, 157–159. = A. M. CHOYKE: Late neolithic red deer canine beads and their imitations. In: A. M. Choyke–L. Bartosiewicz (eds): Crafting Bone: Skeletal Technologies through Time and Space. Proceedings of the 2nd meeting of the (ICAZ) Worked Bone Research Group Budapest, 31 August–5 September 1999. BAR IntSer 937. Oxford 2001, 251–266. = J. G. D. CLARK: Prehistoric Europe: The economic basis. London 1952. = E. COMŞA: Parures néolithiques en coquillages marins découvertes en territoire Roumain. Dacia N. S. 17 (1973) 61–76. = E. COMŞA: L’utilisation du cuivre en Roumanie pendant le Néolithique moyen. In: C. Éluère–J. P. Mohen (éd.): Découverte du métal. Paris 1991, 77–84. = J. CSALOGOVITS: Tolna vármegye múzeumának újabb szerzeményei I. 2. Újabb-kôkori leletek (Neuerwerbungen im Museum des Komitates Tolna I. 2. Funde der jüngeren Steinzeit). In: J. Holub (ed.): Tolna vármegye múltjából 2. Pécs 1936, 15–21. = P. CSENGERI: Spondylus-mellékletes középsô neolitikus temetkezések Mezôzomborról és Mezôkövesdrôl (Middle neolithic burials with Spondylus shell ornaments from Mezôzombor and Mezôkövesd). Conference Bozsok 2002. = G. DALTON: Aboriginal economies in stateless societies. In: T. K. Earle–J. E. Ericson (eds): Exchange Systems in Prehistory. New York 1977, 191–212. = S. DIMITRIJEVIĆ: Sopotsko-lendelska kultura. Zagreb 1968. = M. DOHRN-IHMIG: Das bandkeramische Gräberfeld von Aldenhoven-Niedermerz, Kreis Düren. In: G. Bauchhenß (hrsg.): Archäologie in den rheinischen Lössböden. Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte im Rheinland. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 24. Köln 1983, 47–190. = J. DOMBAY: A zengôvárkonyi ôskori telep és temetô [The Prehistoric Settlement and Cemetery at Zengôvárkony]. ArchHung 23. Budapest 1939. = J. DOMBAY: Próbaásatás a villánykövesdi kôrézkori lakótelepen (Probegrabung an der aeneolithischen Ansiedlung bei Villánykövesd, Kom. Baranya). JPMÉ (1959) 55–71. = J. DOMBAY: Die Siedlung und das Gräberfeld in Zengôvárkony. ArchHung 37. Budapest 1960. = L. DOMBORÓCZKI: Füzesabony–Gubakút. Újkôkori falu a Kr. e. VI. évezredbôl. Neolithic village from thr 6th millennium B.C. In: P. Raczky–T. Kovács–A. Anders (eds): Utak a múltba. Paths into the Past. Budapest 1997, 19–27. = E. DURKHEIM: A társadalmi munkamegosztásról (De la division du travail sociale). Budapest 2001. = I. ECSEDY: On the early development of prehistoric metallurgy in Southern Transdanubia. GCBI 28(26) (1990) 209–231. = G. M. FEINMAN: The emergence of inequality. A focus on strategies and processes. In: T. D. Price–G. M. Feinman (eds): Foundations of Social Inequality. New York–London 1995. = M. FRIED: The Evolution of Political Society. New York 1967. = GY. GAZDAPUSZTAI: Késôneolitkori telep és temetô Hódmezôvásárhely–Gorzsán (Elôzetes beszámoló az 1956–57. évi ásatásokról) (Siedlung und Friedhof aus dem Spätneolithikum in Hódmezôvásárhely–Gorzsa. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1956–57). MFMÉ 1963, 21–48. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 55, 2004

56

ZS. SIKLÓSI

GELLERT –GARSCHA 1930 GIMBUTAS 1974 GIMBUTAS 1976 GIMBUTAS 1991 GOLDMAN 1978 GOLDMAN 1984 GRBIĆ 1929 GRONENBORN 1994

HALSTEAD 1993 HAMPEL 1895 HEGEDÛS 1981 HEGEDÛS 1982–1983 HEGEDÛS–MAKKAY 1987 HONTI et al. 2002

HOREDT 1976 HORVÁTH 1987 HOVORKÁ–ILLÁŠOVÁ 2000

HÖCKMANN 1965 HÖCKMANN 1982 JEUNESSE 1997 JOVANOVIĆ 1990

JOVANOVIĆ–OTTAWAY 1976 KALICZ 1977–78 KALICZ 1985 KALICZ 1988 KALICZ 1990 KALICZ 1992

KALICZ 1995

= J. F. GELLERT–F. GARSCHA: Prähistorisches aus dem östlichen Tafelbalkan, insbesondere Muschelringe. PZ 21 (1930) 269–271. = M. GIMBUTAS: The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe 7000 to 3500 BC. Myths, legends and cult images. London 1974. = M. GIMBUTAS (ed.): Neolithic Macedonia. As reflected by excavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. Monumenta Archaeologica 1. Los Angeles 1967. = M. GIMBUTAS: The Civilization of the Goddess. San Fransisco 1991. = GY. GOLDMAN: Gesichtsgefässe und andere Menschendarstellungen aus Battonya. BMMK 5 (1978) 13–60. = GY. GOLDMAN: Battonya–Gödrösök. Eine neolithische Siedlung in Südost-Ungarn. Békéscsaba 1984. = M. GRBIĆ: Pločnik, äneolithische Ansiedlung. Beograd 1929. = D. GRONENBORN: Überlegungen zur Ausbreitung der bäuerlichen Wirtschaft in Mitteleuropa – Versuch einer kulturhistorischen Interpretation ältestbandkeramischer Silexinventare. PZ 69/2 (1994) 135–151. = P. HALSTEAD: Spondylus shell ornaments from late neolithic Dimini, Greece: specializes manufacture or unequal accumulation? Antiquity 67 (1993) 603–609 = J. HAMPEL: Újabb tanulmányok a rézkorról. ÉTtK 16/6. Budapest 1895. = K. HEGEDÛS: Újkôkori lakótelep Csanytelek határából (Excavations at the neolithic settlement of Csanytelek–Újhalastó). ArchÉrt 108 (1981) 3–12. = K. HEGEDÛS: The settlement of the neolithic Szakálhát-group at Csanytelek–Újhalastó. MFMÉ 1982–83/1, 7–54. = K. HEGEDÛS–J. MAKKAY: Vésztô–Mágor. In: L. Tálas–P. Raczky (eds): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region. Budapest–Szolnok 1987, 85–103. = SZ. HONTI–K. BELÉNYESY–ZS. GALLINA–V. KISS–T. MARTON–Á. NAGY–P. G. NÉMETH–K. OROSS–K. SEBÔK–K. SOMOGYI: A tervezett M7-es autópálya Somogy megyei szakaszán 2000–2001-ben végzett megelôzô régészeti feltárások. Elôzetes jelentés II (Rescue excavations in 2000–2001 on the planned route of the M7 Motorway in Somogy county. Preliminary report II). SMK 15 (2002) 3–36. = K. HOREDT: Die ältesten neolithischen Kupferfunde Rumämiens. JMV 60 (1976) 175– 181. = F. HORVÁTH: Hódmezôvásárhely–Gorzsa. In: L. Tálas–P. Raczky (eds): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region. Budapest–Szolnok 1987, 31–46. = D. HOVORKÁ–L. ILLÁŠOVÁ: What we know about abiotic raw materials used by neolithic/aeneolithic populations on the territory of nowadays Slovakia? Krystalinikum 26 (2000) 83–110. = O. HÖCKMANN: Menschliche Darstellung in der Bandkeramischen Kultur. JRGZM 12 (1965) 1–34. = O. HÖCKMANN: Zur Verteilung von Männer- und Frauengräbern auf Gräberfeldern des Frühneolithikums und des Mittelneolithikums. JRGZM 29 (1982) 13–74. = C. JEUNESSE: Pratique funéraire au Néolithique ancien. Sépultures et nécropoles danubiennes 5500–4900 av J. C. Paris 1997. = B. JOVANOVIĆ: Die Vinča-Kultur und der Beginn der Metallnutzung auf dem Balkan. In: D. Srejović–N. Tasić (eds): Vinča and its World. International Symposium. The Danubian Region from 6000 to 3000 BC. Belgrade, Smederevska Palanka, October 1988. Beograd 1990, 55–60. = B. JOVANOVIĆ–B. S. OTTAWAY: Copper mining and metallurgy in the Vinča group. Antiquity 50 (1976) 104–113. = N. KALICZ: Früh- und spätneolithische Funde in der Gemarkung des Ortes Lánycsók (Vorbericht). JPMÉ 22 (1977–78) 137–158. = N. KALICZ: Kôkori falu Aszódon (Neolithische Dorf in Aszód). Múzeumi füzetek 32. Aszód 1985. = N. KALICZ: A termelô gazdálkodás kezdetei a Dunántúlon [The Beginnings of the Food Productive Economy in Transdanubia]. Dr.Sc. Diss., manuscript. Budapest 1988. = N. KALICZ: Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. IPH 4. Budapest 1990. = N. KALICZ: A legkorábbi fémleletek Délkelet-Európában és a Kárpát-medencében az i. e. 6–5. évezredben (The oldest metal finds in Southeastern Europe and the Carpathian Basin from the 6th to 5th Millennia BC). ArchÉrt 119 (1992) 3–13. = N. KALICZ: Die älteste transdanubische (mitteleuropäische) Linienbandkeramik. Aspekte zu Ursprung, Chronologie und Beziehungen. ActaArchHung 47 (1995) 23–59.



KALICZ 1998 KALICZ–KOÓS 1997a

KALICZ–KOÓS 1997b

KALICZ–KOÓS 2000

KALICZ–MAKKAY 1977 KALICZ–RACZKY 1978 KALICZ–RACZKY 1984

KALICZ–RACZKY 1987a

KALICZ–RACZKY 1987b KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001 KALICZ et al. 2002

KALICZ–M. VIRÁG–T. BIRÓ 1998

KARAPAČIĆ 1922 KARMANSKI 1977 KATÓ 1990 KAUFMANN 1969 KISS 1939 KOLNIK 1978 KOREK 1954 KOREK 1957 KOREK 1973 KOREK 1975–1977 KOREK 1987 KOREK 1989 KOROŠEC 1958 KOTSAKIS 1996 KURUCZ 1989

57

= N. KALICZ: Figürliche Kunst und bemalte Keramik aus dem Neolithikum Westungarns. Archaeolingua SerMin 10. Budapest 1998. = N. KALICZ–J. KOÓS: Mezôkövesd–Mocsolyás. Újkôkori telep és temetkezések a Kr. e. VI. évezredbôl. Neolithic settlement and graves from the 6th Millennium B. C. In: P. Raczky P–T. Kovács–A. Anders (eds): Utak a múltba. Paths into the Past. Budapest 1997, 28–33. = N. KALICZ–J. KOÓS: Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithischen Hausresten und Gräbern in Nordostungarn. In: M. Lazic: (ed.): Antidóron Dragoslavo Srejović. Completis LXV annis Dragoslavo Srejović ab amicis collegis discipulis oblatum. Centre for Archaeological Research/University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy 17. Belgrade 1997, 123–135. = N. KALICZ–J. S. KOÓS: Település a legkorábbi újkôkori sírokkal Északkelet-Magyarországról (Eine Siedlung mit ältneolithischen Gräbern in Nordostungarn). HOMÉ 39 (2000) 45–76. = N. KALICZ–J. MAKKAY: Die Linienbandkeramik in der Großen Ungarischen Tiefebene. StudArch 7. Budapest 1977. = N. KALICZ–P. RACZKY: Szolnok–Szanda-Tenyôsziget-Dersi-gát. ArchÉrt 105 (1978) 274. = N. KALICZ–P. RACZKY: Preliminary report on the 1977–1982 excavations at the neolithic and Bronze Age tell settlement at Berettyóújfalu–Herpály I. ActaArchHung 36 (1984) 85–136. = N. KALICZ–P. RACZKY: The late Neolithic of the Tisza region. A survey of recent archaeological research. In: L. Tálas–P. Raczky (eds): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region. Budapest–Szolnok 1987, 11–30. = N. KALICZ–P. RACZKY: Berettyóújfalu–Herpály. In: L. Tálas–P. Raczky (eds): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region. Budapest–Szolnok 1987, 105–125. = N. KALICZ–J. G. SZÉNÁSZKY: Spondylus-Schmuck im Neolithikum des Komitats Békés, Südostungarn. PZ 76 (2001) 24–54. = N. KALICZ–K. T. BIRÓ–ZS. M. VIRÁG: Vörs, Máriaasszony-sziget. In: E. Marton–J. Kisfaludi (eds): Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon = Archaeological Research in Hungary 1999. Budapest 2002, 15–26. = N. KALICZ–ZS. M. VIRÁG–K. T. BIRÓ: The northern periphery of the early neolithic Starčevo culture in South-Western Hungary: a case study of an excavation at lake Balaton. DocPraehist 25 (1998) 151–187. = D. Č. KARAPAČIĆ: Aradac. Starinar (1922) 151–174. = S. KARMANSKI: Katalog antropomorfne i zoomorfne plastike iz okoline Odžaka. Odžaci 1977. = S. KATÓ: Ôskori kagylóékszer lelet (Urzeitlicher Fund von Muschel-Schmuck). Múzeumi mozaik. A Nógrád megyei Múzeumok tájékoztatója. Salgótarján 1990/2, 57–61. = D. KAUFMANN: Zwei bemerkenswerte linienbandkeramische Neufunde mit antropomorphen Darstellungen aus dem Nordharzvorland. JMV 53 (1969) 263–283. = L. KISS: Fiatalabb kôkori telep és sírok Kenézlôn (Jüngere steinzeitliche Siedlung und Gräber in Kenézlô). FolArch 1–2 (1939) 7–12. = T. KOLNIK: Vyskum v Cíferi-Páci v roku 1978. Die Grabung in Cífer-Pác im Jahre 1978. AVANS 1978, 142–155. = J. KOREK: Das neolithische Fundmaterial der Höhle von Istállóskô. ActaArchHung 5 (1954) 141–144. = J. KOREK: A vadnai neolitikus sírlelet (The neolithic burial-finds at Vadna). HOMÉ 1 (1957) 14–30. = J. KOREK: A tiszai kultúra (Die Theiss-Kultur). [Dissertation.] Budapest 1973. = J. KOREK: Adatok a Tiszahát neolitikumához (Beiträge zum Neolithikum auf dem Theissrücken). JAMÉ 18–20 (1975–77) 8–60. = J. KOREK: Szegvár–Tûzköves. In: L. Tálas–P. Raczky (eds): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region. Budapest–Szolnok 1987, 47–60. = J. KOREK: Die Theiß-Kultur in der mittleren und nördlichen Theißgegend. IPH 3. Budapest 1989. = J. KOROŠEC: Neolitska naseobina u Danilu Bitinju = The Neolithic Settlement at Danilo-Bitinj, I–II. Zagreb 1958. = K. KOTSAKIS: Exchanges and relations. In: G. A. Papathanassopoulos (ed.): Neolithic Culture in Greece. Athens 1996, 168–170. = K. KURUCZ: A nyíri Mezôség neolitikuma [The Neolithic of the Mezôség, Nyírség region]. Jósa András Múzeum Kiadványai 28. Nyíregyháza 1989. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 55, 2004

58

ZS. SIKLÓSI

KURUCZ 1994

KUTZIÁN 1944 LÁSZLÓ 1911 LAZAROVICI–MAXIM 1995 LEBZELTER–ZIMMERMANN 1936 LEKOVIĆ 1985 LENNEIS 1995

LÉVI-STRAUSS 1999 LICHARDUS–LICHARDUS-ITTEN 1995–96

LICHTER 2001

MAKKAY 1970

MAKKAY 1982 MAKKAY 1990 MAKKAY et al. 1996

MALINOWSKI 1972 MAUSS 2000

MILLEKER 1893 MILLEKER 1938 MILOJKOVIĆ 1990 MITHEN 1990 MRT 1 MÜLLER 1997

MÜLLER et al. 1996

NEMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ 1986

= K. KURUCZ: Újkôkori sírok Tiszavasvári határából [Neolithic graves from the outskirts of Tiszavasvári]. In: G. Lôrinczy (ed.): A kôkortól a középkorig. Tanulmányok Trogmayer Ottó 60. születésnapjára. Szeged 1994, 125–134. = I. KUTZIÁN: A Körös-kultúra [The Körös Culture]. DissPan II:23. Budapest 1944. = F. LÁSZLÓ: Háromszék vármegyei praemykenaei jellegû telepek (Stations de l’époque pré-mycénienne dans le comitat de Háromszék). Dolg 2 (1911) 175–259. = G. LAZAROVICI–Z. MAXIM: Gura Baciului. Monografie Arheologică. Cluj-Napoca 1995. BHV 11. = V. LEBZELTER–G. ZIMMERMANN: Neolithische Gräber aus Klein-Hadersdorf bei Poysdorf in Niederösterreich. MAGW 66 (1936) 1–16. = V. LEKOVIĆ: The Starčevo mortuary practices. New perspectives. GCBI 23 (1985) 157– 172. = E. LENNEIS: Altneolithikum: Die Bandkeramik. In: E. Lenneis–Chr. NeugebauerMaresch–E. Ruttkay: Jungsteinzeit im Osten Österreichs. St. Pölten–Wien 1995, 11– 58. = C. LÉVI-STRAUSS: Faj és történelem (Race et histoire). Budapest 1999. = J. LICHARDUS–M. LICHARDUS-ITTEN: Spätneolithische Funde von Čičarovce (Ostslowakei) und das obere Theißgebiet an der Schwelle zur frühen Kupferzeit. SASTUMA 4/5 (1995/96[1997]) 143–249. = C. LICHTER: Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten des südost-europäischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums. Monographien/Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Internationale Interakademische Kommission für die Erforschung der Vorgeschichte des Balkans 5. Mainz am Rhein 2001. = J. MAKKAY: A kôkor és a rézkor Fejér megyében I.1 [The Neolithic and the Copper Age in County Fejér]. In: J. Makkay: Fejér megye története az ôskortól a honfoglalásig. Székesfehérvár 1970. = J. MAKKAY: A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új eredményei [New Results in the Research of the Neolithic in Hungary]. Budapest 1982. = J. MAKKAY: Knochen-, Geweih- und Eberzahngegenstände der frühneolithischen Körös-Kultur. CommArchHung 1990, 23–58. = J. MAKKAY–E. STARNINI–M. TULOK: Excavations at Bicske-Galagonyás (Part III). The Notenkopf and Sopot-Bicske cultural phases. Quaderno/Società per la Preistoria e Protoistoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 6. Trieste 1996. = B. MALINOWSKI: A nyugati pacifikum argonautái [The Argonauts of the Eastern Pacific]. In: B. Malinowski: Baloma. Válogatott írások. Budapest 1972, 7–109. = M. MAUSS: Tanulmány az ajándékról. Az ajándékcsere formája és értelme az archaikus társadalmakban (Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques). In: M. Mauss: Szociológia és antropológia (Sociologie et antropologie). Budapest 2000, 193– 338. = B. MILLEKER: Szerb keresztúri ôstelep (Station préhistorique à Szerb-Keresztúr). ArchÉrt 13 (1893) 300–307. = B. MILLEKER: Vorgeschichte des Banats: Neolithikum. Starinar Ser. 3. 13 (1938) 102– 166. = J. MILOJKOVIĆ: The anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines. In: R. Tringham–D. Krstić (eds): Selevac. A neolithic village in Yugoslavia. Los Angeles 1990, 397–436. = S. J. MITHEN: Thoughtful Foragers. A study of prehistoric decision making. New studies in archaeology. Cambridge 1990. = K. BAKAY–N. KALICZ–K. SÁGI: Veszprém megye régészeti topográfiája. A keszthelyi és tapolcai járás. Magyarország régészeti topográfiája 1. Budapest 1966. = J. MÜLLER: Neolithische und chalkolithische Spondylus-Artefakte. Anmerkungen zu Verbreitung, Tauschgebiet und sozialer Funktion. In: C. Dobiat–K. Leidorf: Khrónos. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie zwischen Nord- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bernard Hänsel. Internationale Archäologie. Studia honoria 1. Espelkamp 1997, 91–106. = J. MÜLLER–A. HERRERA–N. KNOSSALLA: Spondylus und Dechsel – zwei gegensätzliche Hinweise auf Prestige in der mitteleuropäischen Linearbandkeramik? In: J. Müller–R. Bernbeck (hrsg.): Prestige – Prestigegüter – Sozialstrukturen. Beispiele aus dem europäischen und vorderasiatischen Neolithikum. Archäologische Berichte 6. Bonn 1996, 81–96. = V. NEMEJCOVÁ-PAVÚKOVÁ: Vorbericht über die Ergebnisse der systematischen Grabung in Svodin in den Jahren 1971–1983. SlA 34/1 (1986) 133–176.



NIESZERY 1995 NOVOTNÝ 1962 ORAVECZ 1995 ORAVECZ 1996 ORAVECZ 1999

O’SHEA 1981

PADER 1982 PAPATHANASSOPOULOS 1996 PAVÚK 1972 PAVÚK 1980 PERNICKA et al. 1993

PERNICKA et al. 1998

PETRASCH 1990 PFEIFFER 1914 PODBORSKÝ 2002

PRICE–FEINMAN 1995 PŘICHYSTAL 2000 RACZKY 1982a

RACZKY 1982b

RACZKY 1982–1983 RACZKY 1987 RACZKY 1994

RACZKY et al. 1994

RACZKY et al. 1996

RACZKY et al. 1997

59

= N. NIESZERY: Linearbandkeramische Gräberfelder in Bayern. Internationale Archäologie 16. Espelkamp 1995. = B. NOVOTNÝ: Lužianska skupina a počiatky maľovanej keramiky na Slovensku. Bratislava 1962. = H. ORAVECZ: Dévaványa–Atyaszeg. FolArch 44 (1995) 61–69. = H. ORAVECZ: Neolithic burials at Tiszalúc–Sarkad: data to the burial practices of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture. FolArch 45 (1996) 51–62. = H. ORAVECZ: Middle neolithic burials at Tiszaföldvár: data to the burial customs and social relations of the Alföld Linearband Pottery Culture. FolArch 47 (1998–1999) 43– 62. = J. O’SHEA: Social configurations and the archaeological study of mortuary practices: a case study. In: R. Chapman–I. Kinnes–K. Ransborg (eds): The Archaeology of Death. Cambridge 1981, 39–52. = E. J. PADER: Symbolism, Social Relations and the Interpretation of Mortuary Remains. BAR IntSer 130. Oxford 1982. = G. A. PAPATHANASSOPOULOS (ed.): Neolithic Culture in Greece. Athens 1996. = J. PAVÚK: Neolithisches Gräberfeld in Nitra. SlA 20 (1972) 5–103. = J. PAVÚK: Ältere Linearkeramik in der Slowakei. SlA 28 (1980) 7–90. = E. PERNICKA–F. BEGEMANN–S. SCHMITT-STRECKER–A. WAGNER: Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age copper artefacts from the Balkans and their relation to Serbian copper ores. PZ 68/1 (1993) 1–54. = E. PERNICKA–F. BEGEMANN–S. SCHMITT-STRECKER–H. TODOROVA–I. KULEFF: Ai Bunar and more: multi-centered copper production in the south-east European Chalcolithic. In: K. T. Biró–T. Horváth (eds): 31st International Symposium on Archaeometry Budapest, 27 April–1 May 1998. http://gw.ace.hu/MNM/MN/ametry/tipos.html = J. PETRASCH: Mittelneolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Mitteleuropa. BRGK 71 (1990) 407–564. = L. PFEIFFER: Die steinzeitliche Muscheltechnik und ihre Beziehungen zur Gegenwart. Weimar 1914. = V. PODBORSKÝ: Dvě pohřebiště neolitického lidu s lineární keramikou ve Vedrovicích na Moravě (Zwei Gräberfelder des neolithischen Volkes mit Linearbandkeramik in Vedrovice in Mähren). Brno 2002. = T. D. PRICE–G. M. FEINMAN: Foundations of Social Inequality. New York–London 1995. = A. PŘICHYSTAL: Stone raw materials of neolithic-aeneolithic polished artefacts in the Czech Republic. The present state of knowledge. Krystalinikum 26 (2000) 119–136. = P. RACZKY: „Szolnok megye a népek országútján”. Az állandó kiállítás vezetôje („Szolnok County: The crossroads of many races”. Guide to the archaeological collection). Szolnok 1982. = P. RACZKY: Elôzetes jelentés a Tisza III vízlépcsôhöz kapcsolódó régészeti munkálatokról Szolnok megyében (Vorbericht über die Sich der Dritten Theiss-Staustufe anschliessenden archäologischen Arbeiten im Komitat Szolnok). ArchÉrt 109 (1982) 223–230. = P. RACZKY: Origins of the custom of burying the dead inside houses in South-East Europe. SZMMÉ 19 (1982–1983) 5–10. = P. RACZKY: Öcsöd–Kováshalom. In: L. Tálas–P. Raczky (eds): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region. Budapest–Szolnok 1987, 61–83. = P. RACZKY: Two late neolithic ‘hoards’ from Csóka (Čoka)–Kremenyák in the Vojvodina. In: G. Lôrinczy (ed.): A kôkortól a középkorig. Tanulmányok Trogmayer Ottó 60. születésnapjára. Szeged 1994, 161–172. = P. RACZKY–W. MEIER-ARENDT–K. KURUCZ–ZS. HAJDÚ–Á. SZIKORA: Polgár–Csôszhalom. A late neolithic settlement in the Upper Tisza region and its cultural connections (Preliminary report). JAMÉ 36 (1994) 231–240. = P. RACZKY–W. MEIER-ARENDT–ZS. HAJDÚ–K. KURUCZ–E. NAGY: Two unique assemblages from the late neolithic tell settlement at Polgár–Csôszhalom. In: T. Kovács (hrsg.): Studien zur Mettalindustrie im Karpaten-becken und den banachbarten Regionen. Festschrift für Amália Mozsolics zum 85. Geburtstag. Budapest 1996, 17–30. = P. RACZKY–A. ANDERS–E. NAGY–K. KURUCZ–ZS. HAJDÚ–W. MEIER-ARENDT: Polgár–Csôszhalom-dûlô. Újkôkor végi telep és sírok a Kr. e. V. évezredbôl. Late neolithic settlement and graves from the 5th millennium B.C. In: P. Raczky–T. Kovács–A. Anders (eds): Utak a múltba. Paths into the Past. Budapest 1997, 34–43. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 55, 2004

60

ZS. SIKLÓSI

REDMAN 1978 RENFREW 1973 RENFREW 1984 RENFREW–SHENNAN 1982 RESCH–GERMAN 1995 REZI KATÓ 1994–95 RODDEN 1970

ROSKA 1941 SANEV et al. 1976 SEEWALD 1942 SÉFÉRIADÈS 1995

SÉFÉRIADÈS 2000

SERVICE 1962 SHACKLETON–ELDERFIELD 1990 SHACKLETON–RENFREW 1970 SHENNAN 1975 SHERRATT 1982 SHERRATT 1983a SHERRATT 1983b ŠIŠKA 1986 STALIO 1964 E. L. STERUD–K. STERUD 1974 STIFFT-GOTTLIEB 1939 TAINTER 1975 TÁLAS–RACZKY 1991 TICHÝ 1962 TODOROVA 1995

TODOROVA 2000 TRINGHAM et al. 1980 TRNKA 1991

= C. REDMAN: The Rise of Civilization. San Fransisco 1978. = C. RENFREW: Trade and craft specialisation. In: D. R. Theocharis (ed.): Neolithic Greece. Athen 1973, 179–191. = C. RENFREW: Approaches to social archaeology. Edinburgh 1984. = C. RENFREW–S. SHENNAN: Ranking, Recource and Exchange. New directions in archaeology. Cambridge 1982, 27–32. = F. RESCH–K. GERMAN: Schmuck aus Spondylus-Muscheln von Parţa. ActaMN 32 (1995) 351–358. = G. REZI KATÓ: Neolithic clay trinkets. CommArchHung 1994–1995, 5–25. = R. J. RODDEN: The Spondylus-shell trade and the beginnings of the Vinča culture. In: J. e Filip (éd.): Actes du VII Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques, 21–27 août 1966. Prague 1970, 411–413. = M. ROSKA: A Torma Zsófia-gyûjtemény az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum Érem- és Régiségtárában (Die Sammlung Zsófia von Torma). Kolozsvár 1941. = V. SANEV–D. SIMOSKA–B. KITANOSKI–S. SARŽOSKI: Urgeschichte Makedoniens. Skopje 1976. = O. SEEWALD: Ein jungsteinzeitlicher Grabfund mit Muschelschmuck bei Emmersdorf an der Donau. WPZ 29 (1942) 1–18. = M. L. SÉFÉRIADÈS: Spondylus Gaederopus: najzgodnejši sistem menjave na dolge razdalje v evrapi. Arheološke raziskave simbolike in strukture neolitiskih duržb (Spondylus Gaederopus: the earliest European long distance exchange system. A symbolic and structural archaeological approach to neolithic societies). DocPraehist 22 (1995) 233–256. = M. L. SÉFÉRIADÈS: Spondylus Gaederopus: some observations on the earliest European long distance exchange system. In: St. Hiller–V. Nikolov (hrsg.): Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien 2000, 423–437. = E. SERCIVE: Primitive social organization: an evolutionary perspective. New York 1962. = J. SHACKLETON–H. ELDERFIELD: Stroncium isotope dating of the source of neolithic European spondylus shell artefacts. Antiquity 64 (1990) 312–315. = N. SHACKLETON–C. RENFREW: Neolithic trade routes realigned by oxigen isotope analyses. Nature 228 (1970) 1062–1065. = S. SHENNAN: The social organization at Branč. Antiquity 49 (1975) 279–288. = A. SHERRATT: Mobile resources: settlement and exchange in early agricultural Europe. In: RENFREW–SHENNAN 1982, 27–32 = A. SHERRATT: The development of neolithic and Copper Age settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain. Part II.: Site survey and settlement dynamics. OJA 2/1 (1983) 13–41. = A. SHERRATT: Early agrarian settlement in the Körös region of the Great Hungarian Plain. ActaArchHung 35 (1983) 155–169. = S. ŠIŠKA: Grabungen auf dem neolithischen und äneolithischen Siedlung in Šarišské Michaľany. SlA 34/2 (1986) 439–454. = B. STALIO: Novi metalni nalaz iz Pločnika kod Prokupja (DépFt d’objets métalliques nouvellement mis au jour à Plocnik près de Prokuplje). ZNM 4 (1964) 35–41. = E. L. STERUD–K. STERUD: A quantitative analyses of the material remains. WMBH 4 (1974) 155–355. = A. STIFFT-GOTTLIEB: Linearkeramische Gräber mit Spondylusschmuck aus Eggenburg, Niederdonau. MAGW 69 (1939) 149–165. = J. A. TAINTER: Social inference and mortuary practices: an experiment in numerical classification. WA 7 (1975) 1–15. = L. TÁLAS–P. RACZKY (éd.): Les agriculteurs de la Grande Plaine Hongroise. Dijon 1991. = R. TICHÝ: Osídlení s volutovou keramikou na Moravě (Die Besiedlung mit Voluten(Linearband)Keramik in Mähren). PA 53 (1969) 245–305. = H. TODOROVA: Bemerkungen zum frühen Handelsverkehr während des Neolithikums im westlichen Schwarzmeerraum. In: B. Hänsel (hrsg.): Handel, Tausch und Verkehr im bronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Südost-Europa. Südosteuropa-Schriften 17. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 11. München–Berlin 1995, 53–65. = H. TODOROVA: Die Spondylus-Problematik heute. In: St. Hiller–V. Nikolov: Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien 2000, 415–422. = R. TRINGHAM–D. KRSTIĆ–T. KAISER–B. VOYTEK: The early agricultural site of Selevac, Yugoslavia. Archaeology 33/2 (1980) 24–32. = G. TRNKA: Studien zu mittelneolithischen Kreisgrabenanlagen. MPK 26. Wien 1991.



TROGMAYER 1992 TSOUNTAS 1908 TSUNEKI 1987 TSUNEKI 1989 UCKO 1969 VAN DE VELDE 1979

VAN VELZEN 1973

VASIĆ 1932 VASIĆ 1936 VASSITS 1910 VENCL 1959 VIRCHOW 1884 M. VIRÁG 1992

VÍZDAL 1980 VLADÁR–LICHARDUS 1968 VLASSA 1963 VLASSA 1972 VOYTEK–TRINGHAM 1985 WACE–THOMSON 1912 WASON 1994 WEBER 1987

WEINER 1992 WIJNEN 1981 WILLMS 1985 WOLF–SIMONYI 1995 WOODBURN 1982 ZALAI-GAÁL 1979–80 ZALAI-GAÁL 1986 ZALAI-GAÁL 1988

ZALAI-GAÁL 1991

ZALAI-GAÁL 1996

61

= O. TROGMAYER: Újkôkori istenszobrok attribútumokkal (Neolithic idols with special attributes). ArchÉrt 119 (1992) 57–61. = CH. TSOUNTAS: Hai proistorikai akropoleis Diminiou kai Sesklou. Athenai 1908. = A. TSUNEKI: A reconsideration of spondylus shell rings from Agia Sofia Magoula, Greece. BAOM 9 (1987) 1–15. = A. TSUNEKI: The manufacture of spondylus shell objects at neolithic Dimini, Greece. Orient 25 (1989) 1–21. = P. UCKO: Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains. WA 1 (1969) 262–280. = P. VAN DE VELDE: On Bandkeramik Social Structure. An analysis of pot decoration and hut distributions from the Central European neolithic communities of Elsloo and Heinheim. APL 12. Leiden 1979. = H. U. E. T. VAN VELZEN: Robinson Crusoe and Friday: strength and weakness of the big man paradigm. Man 8/4 (1973) 592–612. = M. M. VASIĆ: Praistorijska Vinča I. Beograd 1932. = M. M. VASIĆ: Praistorijska Vinča II. Beograd 1936. = M. M. VASSITS: Die Hauptergebnisse der prähistorischen Ausgrabung in Vinča im Jahre 1908. PZ 2 (1910) 23–39. = S. VENCL: Spondylové šperky v podunajskéne neolitu (Parure en Spondylus dans la néolithique danubien). AR 11 (1959) 699–742. = R. VIRCHOW: Excursion nach Bernburg. ZfE 16 (1884) 398ff. = ZS. M. VIRÁG: Újkôkori és középsô rézkori telepnyomok az M0 autópálya szigetszentmiklósi szakaszánál (Neolithische und Hochkupferzeitliche Siedlungsspuren an der Autobahntrecke M0 bei Szigetszentmiklós). In: P. Havassy–L. Selmeczi (hrsg.): Régészeti kutatások az M0 autópálya nyomvonalán I. Budapest 1992, 15–60. = J. VÍZDAL: Potiská kultúra na vychodnom Slovensku (The Tisa Culture in Eastern Slovakia). Košice 1980. = J. VLADÁR–J. LICHARDUS: Erforschung der frühäneolithischen Siedlungen in Branč. SlA 16/2 (1968) 263–352. = N. VLASSA: Chronology of the neolithic in Transylvania, in the light of the Tărtăria settlement’s stratigraphy. Dacia 7 (1963) 485–494. = N. VLASSA: Eine frühneolithische Kultur mit bemalter Keramik der Vor-StarčevoKörös-Zeit in Cluj-Gura Baciului, Siebenbürgen. PZ 47 (1972) 74–197. = B. A. VOYTEK–R. TRINGHAM: Rethinking the Mesolithic: the case of South-East Europe. In: C. Bonsall (ed.): The Mesolithic in Europe. 1985, 492–499. = A. J. B WACE–M. S. THOMSON: Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge 1912. = P. K. WASON: The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge 1994. = M. WEBER: Gazdaság és társadalom. A megértô szociológia alapvonalai. 1. Szociológiai kategóriatan (Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der Sozialökonomik. 1. Die Wirtschaft und die gesellschaftlichen Ordnungen und Mächte). Budapest 1987. = A. B. WEINER: Inalienable Possessions. Los Angeles 1992. = M. H. J. M. N. WIJNEN: The Early Neolithic I Settlement at Sesklo: an early farming community in Thessaly, Greece. APL 14. Leiden 1981. = C. WILLMS: Neolithischer Spondylusschmuck. Hundert Jahre Forschung. Germania 63 (1985) 331–343. = M. WOLF–E. SIMONYI: Elôzetes jelentés az M-3-as autópálya 10. lelôhelyének feltárásáról (Autobahn M3 10. Fundstelle). SMK 11 (1995) 5–32. = J. WOODBURN: Egalitarian societies. Man 17 (1982) 431–451. = I. ZALAI-GAÁL: A lengyeli kultúra a Dunántúlon (Die Lengyel-Kultur in Südwestungarn). BÁMÉ 10 (1979–80) 3–58. = I. ZALAI-GAÁL: Sozialarchäologische Forschungsmöglichkeiten aufgrund spätneolithischer Gräbergruppen in südwestlichem Ungarn. BÁMÉ 13 (1986) 139–154. = I. ZALAI-GAÁL: Közép-európai neolitikus temetôk szociálarchaeológiai elemzése (Sozialarchäologische Untersuchungen des mitteleuropäischen Neolithikums aufgrund der Gräberfeldanalyse). BÁMÉ 14 (1988) 3–178. = I. ZALAI-GAÁL: Die chronologische und soziale Bedeutung der Mitgabe von Steinäxten in den spätneolithischen Gräbern Südtransdanubiens. In: J. Lichardus (hrsg.): Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Symposium Saarbrücken und Otzenhausen 6.–13. 11. 1988. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 55. Saarbrücken 1991, 389–399. = I. ZALAI-GAÁL: Die Kupferfunde der Lengyel-Kultur im südlichen Transdanubien. ActaArchHung 48 (1996) 1–34. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 55, 2004

62

ZS. SIKLÓSI

ZALAI-GAÁL 2001 ZALAI-GAÁL 2002a

ZALAI-GAÁL 2002b ZALAI-GAÁL 2002c ZÁPOTOCKÁ 1984 ZOFFMANN 1969–70

= I. ZALAI-GAÁL: Die Gräbergruppe B2 von Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb und der ältere Abschnitt der Lengyel-Kultur. ActaArchHung 52 (2001) 1–48. = I. ZALAI-GAÁL: A státus és hierarchia kérdései a lengyeli kultúra közösségeiben (Die Fragen des Status und der Hierarchie in den Gemeinschaften der Lengyel-Kultur). JPMÉ 44–45 (1999–2000[2002]) 43–69. = I. ZALAI-GAÁL: Die neolithische Gräbergruppe-B1 von Mórágy–Tûzkôdomb I. Die archäologischen Funde und Befunde. Szekszárd–Saarbrücken 2002. = I. ZALAI-GAÁL: Das „prähistorische Modell von Varna” und die Fragen der Sozialstruktur der Lengyel-Kultur. ActaArchHung 53 (2002) 273–298. = M. ZÁPOTOCKÁ: Armringe aus Marmor und anderen Rohstoffen im jüngeren Neolithikum Böhmens und Mitteleuropas. PA 75 (1984) 50–132. = ZS. K. ZOFFMANN: Anthropological analysis of the cemetery at Zengôvárkony and the neolithic Lengyel culture in SW-Hungary. JPMÉ 14–15 (1969–70) 53–73.
