See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/210368735

Social dimensions of the Late Neolithic settlement of Polgár-Csőszhalom

(Eastern Hungary)

Article  in  Acta Archaeologica · March 2006

DOI: 10.1556/AArch.57.2006.1-3.3

CITATIONS READS

7 166

2 authors:

Pál Raczky Alexandra Anders

Eötvös Loránd University Eötvös Loránd University
59 PUBLICATIONS   695 CITATIONS    30 PUBLICATIONS   452 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sampling strategy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexandra Anders on 13 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF THE LATE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF
POLGÁR–&66=+$/20(ASTERN HUNGARY)*

P. RACZKY1–A. ANDERS2
1Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University
Múzeum krt. 4/B, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary
2 Research Group for Interdisciplinary Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences and Eötvös Loránd University

Múzeum krt. 4/B, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary

In Hungary, prehistoric archaeology, and Neolithic research in particular, has reached the level at which
the problems of demography as well as those of social organisation and structure can be more intensively studied,
beyond the primary analysis of material culture.1 This development fits a general research trend pursued across
Europe. This qualitative change was, in part, facilitated by guest researchers from abroad, who became involved
with prehistoric research in the Carpathian Basin through their personal archaeological projects. Their new ap-
proaches have inspired the emergence of a broader view among local archaeologists.2 On the other hand, it is an
indubitable fact that, for a long time, the comprehensive work by János Makkay3 has remained the benchmark
study in the forefront of neolithic research in Hungary that also guided the clarification of demographic and so-
cial relations. Makkay’s book may be considered a milestone especially, since it directed attention to the impor-
tance of settlement history in dealing with these problems. Prior to that time, on the basis of the analysis carried
out in the Tiszapolgár–Basatanya cemetery,4 it had been generally assumed that social questions in Early Prehis-
tory may be dealt with chiefly on the basis of archaeological observations made in burials. To some extent, that
attitude has remained influential in connection with the Lengyel culture, its research is concentrated on the analy-
sis of cemeteries within the framework of “sozialarchäologische Forschungen”.5
In addition to the gradual adoption of the interpretive frameworks of the most influential trends in Euro-
pean archaeology (processual, post-processual, cognitive-processual and interpretative archaeology)6 in Hungary,
another development of similar importance must be mentioned: large surface excavations could be carried out

* The shorter version of this paper was presented at the confer- 3 MAKKAY 1982.
ence entitled “(un)settling the Neolithic”, in Cardiff in 2003. 4 BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1963.
1 Recent summaries: CHAPMAN 2000, 21–25; ZALAI-GAÁL 5 I. ZALAI-GAÁL: Közép-HXUySDL QHROLWLNXV WHPHWN V]RFLiODr-

2002; KALICZ 2001; SIKLÓSI 2004, 2–6. chaeológiai elemzése (Socialarchäologische Untersuchungen des
2 K. KOSSE: Settlement Ecology of the Körös and Linear Pot- mitteleuropäischen Neolithikums aufgrund der Gräberfeldanalyse).
tery Cultures in Hungary. BAR IntSer 64. Oxford 1979; S. N. BÁMÉ 14 (1988) 3–178; ZALAI-GAÁL 2002.
SKOMAL: Wealth Distribution as a Measure of Prehistoric Change, 6 RENFREW–BAHN 1996; CL. GAMBLE: Archaeology: The ba-

Chalcolithic to Copper Age Cultures in Hungary. PhD Dissertation. sis. London 2001, 21–44.
Los Angeles 1983; SHERRATT 1982a; SHERRATT 1983a; SHERRATT
1983b; CHAPMAN 1989; CHAPMAN 1994; CHAPMAN 1997; W. A.
PARKINSON: The Social Organization of Early Copper Age Tribes on
the Great Hungarian Plain. PhD Dissertation. Michigan 1999;
PARKINSON 2002.

DOI: 10.1556/AArch.57.2006.1-3.3 Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hung. 57 (2006) 17–33

0001-5210/$20.00 © 2006 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest
18 P. RACZKY–A. ANDERS

using modern techniques.7 Parallel with these excavations, several field surveys on a regional level facilitated the
study of higher levels of settlement history, including the Neolithic Period as well.8
Meanwhile, an evidently important basis for assessing prehistoric social relations is the availability of
comparative archaeological information from the settlements and cemeteries of cultural units investigated. 9 A
great variety of the possibilities of analysing the various levels of pathways to power (e. g.: data on mortuary
practices, artefacts and settlements) are presented in the theoretical syntheses written by M. Parker-Pearson,10 B.
Hayden,11 P. K. Wason,12 and F. McHugh.13
Another important requirement in studying social archaeology is the availability of a certain chronologi-
cal framework, as has recently been convincingly demonstrated by J. Müller in relation to the Neolithic of the
Middle Elbe-Saale region.14
Owing to the aforementioned circumstances, the site of Polgár–&VV]KDORPKDVRIIHUHGXQLTXHH[FDYa-
tion results15 (Fig. 1). In relation to these, questions of social relations in the Late Neolithic of the Upper Tisza
Region can not only be posed, but also discussed in sufficient detail.
To our present knowledge, Polgár–&VV]KDORPLVRQHRIWKHPRVWVLJQLILFDQWODWHQeolithic settlements in
North-Eastern Hungary. With an estimated area of 28 hectares, the sheer extent of this site is indicative of its
special role among coeval sites in the region. Other late neolithic settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain seldom
reach the size of 10–12 hectares.16 On the other hand, it is the western section of the Polgár–&VV]KDORPVHWWOe-
ment where the tell itself developed. Known since the early 20 th century,17 for a long time this tell was considered
the all exclusive feature of the entire site in the archaeological literature. At the same time, the unique signifi-
FDQFH RI WKH &VV]KDORP WHOO LV WKDW LW PD\ EH FRQVLGHUHG WKH QRUWKHUQPRVW UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI WKH QHROLWKLF WHOO
settlements characteristic of the Balkans. 18 Furthermore, on the basis of soundings carried out at the site in 1957,
I. Bognár-.XW]LiQKDVSURSRVHGWKHH[LVWHQFHRID&VV]KDORPFXOWXUDOXQLWLQWKH8SSHU7LV]D5HJLRQ19

I.

The late neolithic settlement system in the Tisza River Region basically developed on the foundations of
the late components of the Alföld Linearband Pottery cultural complex Bükk, Szakálhát and Esztár groups. An
aggregation process of the settlements took place during this period. Meanwhile, the northern frontier of the dis-
tribution of tell settlements characteristic of the Balkans advanced northwards from the line of the Maros river to
that of the Körös river system.20 This comprehensive historical change resulted in the emergence of large tell

7 E.g. at Berettyóújfalu–Herpály, Öcsöd–KováshaloP9pV]W– 10 M. PARKER-PEARSON: The powerful dead: Archaeological

0iJRU pV +yGPH]YiViUKHO\–Gorzsa; for a summary see: L. relationships between the living and the dead. Cambridge Archaeo-
TÁLAS–P. RACZKY (eds): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region. A logical Journal 3 (1993) 203–229.
VXUYH\RIUHFHQWH[FDYDWLRQVDQGWKHLUILQGLQJV+yGPH]YiViUKHO\- 11 B. HAYDEN: Pathways to power: principles for creating so-

Gorzsa, Szegvár-7]N|YHV gFV|G-.RYiVKDORP 9pV]W-Mágor, cioeconomic inequalities. In: T. D. Price–G. M. Feinman (eds):
Berettyóújfalu-Herpály. Budapest–Szolnok 1987. Foundations of Social Inequality. New York 1995, 15–86, 75–78.
8 E.g.: SHERRATT 1983a; J. MAKKAY (ed.): Békés megye régé- 12 WASON 1994, 13, 23–35.

szeti topográfiája. IV/2: A szarvasi járás. Magyarország régészeti 13 MCHUGH 1999, 14–15.

topográfiája 8. Budapest 1989; B. D. JANKOVICH (ed.): Békés megye 14 J. MÜLLER: Sozialchronologische Studien zum Jung- und

régészeti topográfiája. IV/3: Békés és Békéscsaba környéke. Ma- Spätneolithikum im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet (4100–2700 v. Chr.).
gyarország régészeti topográfiája 10. Budapest 1989; S. BÖKÖNYI Rahden/Westf. 2001, 32–33.
(ed): Cultural and Landscape Changes in South-East Hungary I. 15 RACKY et al. 2002 with further references to the site. This

5HSRUWV RQ WKH *\RPDHQGUG 3URMHFW Archaeolingua 1. Budapest study is based on the field research carried out between 1995–2003.
1992; CHAPMAN 1994; RACZKY–KOVÁCS–ANDERS 1997; 16 MAKKAY 1982, 142; 1991, 322.

PARKINSON 2002. 17 F. TOMPA: Die Bandkeramik in Ungarn. Die Bükker und die

9 C. RENFREW: Socio-economic change in ranked societies. In: Theiß-Kultur. ArchHung 5–6. Budapest 1929, 48, 55–56.
C. Renfrew–S. Shennan (eds): Ranking, Resource and Exchange. 18 N. KALICZ: Siedlungsgeschichtliche Probleme der Körös-

Aspects of the archaeology of early European society. Cambridge und der Theiß-Kultur. AASzeg 8 (1965) 27–40, 37; BOGNÁR-
1982, 1–8; I. HODDER: Symbols in Action. Ethnoarchaeological KUTZIÁN 1972, 96; KALICZ 1995, 70.
studies of material culture. Cambridge 1982, 150–154; RENFREW– 19 BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1963, 15–18; 1966, 268–270.

BAHN 1996, 165–166; CHAPMAN 2000, 22–24 V. LULL: Death and 20 MAKKAY 1991, 322.

society: a Marxist approach. Antiquity 74 (2000) 576–580, 579.

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, 2006

 SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF THE LATE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF POLGÁR–&66=+$/20 21

settlement unitsRIWKH7LV]DDQG+HUSiO\FXOWXUHVVXFKDV+yGPH]YiViUKHO\–Kökénydomb, Szegvár–7&]N|YHV

9pV]W–Mágor and Berettyóújfalu–Herpály on the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain.21 Analyses on a
regional level, published in the 1980s by J. Makkay, A. Sherratt, N. Kalicz as well as J. Chapman,22 have already
outlined the archaeological characteristics of the comprehensive historical changes that must have taken place
between circa 5300–5000 BC, prior to the Late Neolithic. Results of the most recent regional research have con-
firmed that the settlement system of the Late Neolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain was characterized by a high
degree of structural complexity.23 The system of tell and tell-like settlements as well as their horizontal counter-
parts has already provided a basis for such conclusions in and of itself.24 However, the complex system of hori-
zontal settlement parts that could be localized around large, heavily stratified settlements has revealed a similar
relationship between various sections of individual settlements as well.25 The spatial arrangement of settlements
in the Tisza culture was also transformed: the repetitious basic module, that included a house and a pit, and was
characteristic of the previous Linearband Pottery Period was replaced by larger blocks. These were formed by the
integration of groups of houses and assemblages of large pits around them.26 Beyond all these, it must also be
emphasized that a “competition” may be observed between the large settlements of the Tisza region by the time
of the Late Neolithic. This is reflected in the efficient defense systems built around these settlements.27 The views
of J. Chapman are very convincing in the comprehensive analysis of tell settlements assigned to the Tisza and
Herpály cultures in the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain:...“a ‘tell’ can be recognised as such, it is
by definition multi-occupational monument with a long history of its own ... In the world of established tells,
monumental visibility marks the competition over the embodiment of ancestral place-values. There are two forms
of competition in which tell-occupants participate: the competition between tell-occupants and the occupants of
other, flat sites; the competition within different sub-groups of tell-occupants, each of whom may have different
readings of their narrative tradition. The mound-flat site distinctions express a vertical difference which may
assume various ideological meanings”.28 Beyond these observations it is evident that, larger demographic units
(incorporating groups at various levels of integration) stood behind the settlement nucleation process that took
place in the distribution area of the Tisza and Herpály cultures in the southern section of the Great Hungarian
Plain.29 These comprehensive processes are clearly reflected in the regional distribution of stylistic traits associ-
ated with distinct units of ceramic types (Tisza-Herpály-&VV]KDORP W\SHV WKDW ILUVW DSSHDUHG GXULQJ WKH /DWH
Neolithic.30 In these types, the vessels are decorated by motifs covering their entire surface, divided into 2–4
sections. These patterns “compete” with each other as well as with the earlier system of decorative motifs used on
Linearband pottery that could be interpreted as a “single continuum”.31 It was I. Hodder, who directed attention to
this specific trait of ceramic manufacturing in relation to the Central European Linearband pottery.32
Recently the signs of settlement concentration comparable to that observed in the southern section of the
Great Hungarian Plain could be detected in the Upper Tisza Region during the final phase of the Bükk-Esztár-
Szakálhát cultures. Among others, research carried out at the sites of Polgár–Nagy Kasziba33 and Polgár–Ferenci-
hát34 provide such evidence. Moreover, as a result of intensive settlement use, in the case of the latter site even a
small elevation was produced by the stratified settlement debris. In addition, the central part of the settlement

21 Recent summaries: KALICZ–RACZKY 1987; WHITTLE 1996, und Stratigraphie der vorgeschichtlichen und antiken Kulturen der
107–113. Donauniederung und Südosteuropas. Novi Sad 1988, 145–149;
22 MAKKAY 1982; SHERRATT 1982a; SHERRATT 1983a; Berettyóújfalu–Herpály: KALICZ 1995, 72–73.
SHERRATT 1983b; N. KALICZ: Über das spätneolithische Siedlungs- 28 CHAPMAN 1997, 146–147.

wese in Ungarn. BÁMÉ 13 (1986) 127–138; CHAPMAN 1989. 29 MAKKAY 1982, 135, 138, 151; KALICZ 2001.

23 PARKINSON 2002, 216. 30 KALICZ–MAKKAY 1977, 116–117; WHITTLE 1996, 112–113.

24 MAKKAY 1982, 128–158; MAKKAY 1991, 323; KALICZ 2001, 31 RACZKY 1987, 73–75.

153–154. 32 HODDER 1990, 135–136.

25 E.g. in the case of Öcsöd-Kováshalom: RACZKY 1987, 63; 33 P. RACZKY–A. ANDERS–E. NAGY–B. KRIVECZKY–ZS.

CHAPMAN 1997, 143–144; PARKINSON 2002, 405–407. HAJDÚ–T. SZALAI: Polgár-Nagy Kasziba. Rézkori sírok a Kr. e. V.
26 E.g.: Öcsöd–Kováshalom: RACZKY 1987, 67; Berettyóúj- pYH]UHG YpJpUO &RSSHU $JH EXULDOV IURP WKH ODWH th Millenium
falu–Herpály: KALICZ 1995, 73–74. B.C.) In: RACZKY–KOVÁCS–ANDERS 47–50, 47.
27 E.g.: +yGPH]YiViUKHO\–Gorzsa: F. HORVÁTH: Late neo- 34 P. RACZKY: Polgár-Ferenci hát. In: J. Kisfaludy (ed.): Régé-

lithic ditches, fortifications and tells in the Hungarian Tisza-region. szeti kutatások Magyarországon 2002 (Archaeological Investigations
In: M. Dalmacija–5 âDPDUGåLü +UVJ *RPRODYD &KURQRORJLH in Hungary 2002). Budapest 2004, 257–258.

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, 2006

22 P. RACZKY–A. ANDERS

under discussion here was surrounded by a system of concentric ditches, creating the possibility of a dual repre-
sentation of a central and an adjacent horizontal settlement. Meanwhile, in the case of both Polgár settlements,
excavated sections of the circular ditch system carry a definitely symbolic meaning. On a purely theoretical basis,
a similar process was hypothesized by J. Chapman in relation to the Alföld Linearband Pottery culture of the
Upper Tisza Region.35
The formation of the Polgár–&VV]KDORPVHWWOHPHQWILWVZLWKLQWKLVWUHQGWKDWODLGWKHEURDGHUIRXQGa-
tions of a new era within the Late Neolithic of the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain.
Never-the-less, the 28 hectare large site of Polgár seems to be morphologically related to settlements of
the Lengyel culture as well, characteristic of western and north-central Hungary (Transdanubia and the Danube
Bend Gorge respectively). Similarities are especially striking with Aszód, a late neolithic settlement in this west-
ern region.36 Polgár–&VV]KDORP WKHUHIRUH LV FKDUDFWHULVHG E\ LWV RXWVWDQGLQJ VL]H D GLIIHUHQWLDWHG VHWWOHPHQW
structure and the aforementioned dualism in cultural relations. This cultural variability may also be convincingly
demonstrated in the excavated materials. Sacral monuments especially show a special syncretism between the
Lengyel and Tisza culture types of pottery.37
Two fundamental structural units can be distinguished within this settlement, located on the bank of a
meander of the ancient Tisza river (Fig. 2). One of these is a horizontal settlement of approximately 24 ha, while
the other is a tell-like structure. The latter is surrounded by a system of concentric ditches and palisades covering
an estimated 4 hectares. This structural combination of a tell settlement and an enclosure system represent an
unusual synthesis of the Transdanubian – Central European Lengyel culture (present in western Hungary) and
tell-building cultures (Tisza-Herpály-&VV]KDORPLQWKH*UHDW+XQJDULDQ3ODLQDOWKRXJKWKH&VV]KDORPmound
is located almost 100 km north of the block of typical tell settlements in the southern section of the Great Hunga-
rian Plain.
In the case of Polgár–&VV]KDORPLWLVQRWRQO\WKHSK\VLFDODQGV\PEROLFGLVWLQFWLRQEHWZHHQWKHHn-
closure and the rest of the settlement that deserves attention. It seems that the internal space within the concentric
fortification is also characterised by marked duality. In the case of previously known circular ditch systems in
Central Europe, no intensive “settlement” features have been observed, which would have dominated the land-
scape in the form of a spectacular mound.38,WLVDOVRQRWHZRUWK\WKDWKRXVHVLQWKH&VV]KDORPWHOOZHUHDUUDQJHG
in a concentric pattern. They were also repeatedly destroyed by catastrophic fires. The remaining thick layers of
rubble were usually levelled and new houses were erected on the ruins of the old ones. A certain type of regular-
ity may be observed in these activities. Meanwhile, in the case of the 62 houses and 64 auxiliary buildings thus
far excavated in the outer settlement no direct or indirect traces of such fires could be observed.
In addition the analysis of animal bones by C. A. Schwartz has provided spectacular evidence of essen-
tial differences between these two loci of the Polgár site. His results indicate that within the concentric ditch
system, the remains of wild animals dominated, while the bones of domesticates dominated overwhelmingly in
the faunal material of the outer settlement.39 In practice, this means that the encircled area (with its continuously
built tell strata) and the “outer world” with dwellings houses, played different roles in the life of the neolithic
populations living there, and that fundamentally different rules must have been observed in these two areas. A
similar regularity may be concluded from the fact, that the occurrence of the special type of ceramics decorated
ZLWK UHG DQG ZKLWH SDVW\ SDLQW SUHYLRXVO\ FRQVLGHUHG DV FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKH &VV]KDORP FXOWXUH40 is mainly

35 CHAPMAN 1997. On the other hand, it is important to note
that, as a matter of fact, the Alföld Linearband Pottery culture did
not develop tell settlements anywhere in the Great Hungarian Plain
(KALICZ–MAKKAY 1977, 64), in contrast with the opinion voiced by
J. Chapman. Research has yet to come up with evidence for this. The
Region of Hungary. In: A. Aspes (ed.): Symposium “Settlement
Patterns between the Alps and the Black Sea 5th to 2nd Millennium
B.C.”, Verona–Lazice 1992. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia
Naturale di Verona II/4. Verona 1995, 77–86, 84.
38 J. PETRASCH: Mittelneolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Mit-

site of Újtikos-Tikosdomb, cited by J. Chapman (CHAPMAN 1997, teleuropa. BRGK 71 (1990) 407–564; HODDER 1990; G. TRNKA:
152), is a well known Bronze Age tell which, indeed, yielded spo- Studien zu mittelneolithischen Kreisgrabenanlagen. MPK 26. Wien
radic traces of an earlier horizontal Linearband Pottery culture 1991.
settlement. 39 CH. SCHWARTZ: Part V. In: RACZKY et al. 2002, 853–856.

36 KALICZ 1985. 40 BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1966, 268–270, Abb. 7.

37 P. RACZKY: Late neolithic settlement patterns in the Tisza

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, 2006

 SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF THE LATE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF POLGÁR–&66=+$/20 23

concentrated within the enclosure at the Polgár settlement. 41 This special ware was described by J. Lichardus and
M. Lichardus-Itten as “Prestigeware” who presumed that it had played an important role in transmitting social
contacts across this region.42
An even more striking difference is represented by the copper objects recovered at Polgár–&VV]KDORP
since these came to light exclusively from the area within the system of circular ditches. Among others, a neck-
lace made from copper beads and bone tubules came to light from the settlement section surrounded by the
ditch.43 Several small copper beads and a small piece of copper wire were also recovered in the same area. It is
here, where a child’s grave was also excavated, which contained the only grave good, a small ring, made from
copper at the entire site. All this seems to indicate that by the Late Neolithic, copper was used as a raw material
that carried prestige in and of itself. Therefore its find contexts may be connected to the symbolic-sacral spheres
as well. Meanwhile, it is the child with the copper grave good who represents the simultaneous presence of a
sacral context with a special type of grave furniture. All this leads to a special and problematic phenomenon in
the methodological study of social stratification, the question of “wealthy child burials”.44 In connection with
such graves one may sometimes notice the presence of cultic phenomena, in relation to which the emergence of
ascribed status should be considered. To be precise, wealthy child burials seem to express a marked effort to
institutionalize positions of power, that is, making them heritable.45 When this phenomenon, relevant to the en-
tirety of late neolithic social relations in the Carpathian Basin, is discussed, one cannot help thinking of the child
burials furnished with very rich grave goods, known from the sites of Aszód and Svodín, Slovakia.46 In addition
to the quantities of grave goods found in a great variety, these burials also contained zoomorphic and anthropo-
morphic vessels. The unusually rich Grave 112/80 in the Svodín cemetery contained two anthropomorphic ves-
sels. These finds have no contemporaneous, parallels in Europe, however they provide a new light on the social
relations of the Lengyel and Tisza-Herpály-&VV]KDORPFXOWXUHV
The aforementLRQHGGHWDLOHGREVHUYDWLRQVPDGHDWWKH&VV]KDORPWHOOVXUURXQGHGE\DV\VWHPRIFRn-
centric ditches, and its relation to the external, horizontal settlement are indicative of a contrast between these
two areal units that may plausibly be considered an archaeological manifestation of the juxtaposed concepts of
domus – agrios too, as defined by I. Hodder.47 It may be presumed that the peripheral part and the inner area
defined by the ditches represented two distinct spaces not only in a physical but also in a symbolic sense. An
increasing number of signs suggest that the system of enclosure observed at Polgár–&VV]KDORP, more exactly, its
four entrances of the enclosure were determined on a cosmic basis, as has been hypothesized in the case of Neolithic
circular ditch systems in Central Europe. On the basis of archaeological results from Nebra47a and Goseck47b
(Saxony-Anhalt, Germany) one may actually consider that the circular ditch system discovered at Polgár depicted
the “heavenly world”. Within this enclosed, symbolic spatial unit communal-sacral activities must have taken
place, whose archaeological evidence is represented by an assemblage of miniature clay statuettes and the afore-
mentioned string of copper beads.48 Among these statuettes, special significance may be attributed to three small,
scalloped clay discs which possibly represent the Sun. Similar specimens are known from a similarly sacral con-
WH[WIURPWKHVLWHRIýLþDURYFH6ORYDNLD49 The painted version of the Sun may also be seen on the alters within
the assemblage RIPLQLDWXUHFXOWLFILQGVIURP2YþDURYR%XOJDULD50 All this seems to indicate that the Sun, as a

41 RACZKY et al. 1994, 233–234; RACZKY et al. 2002, 837. 47b F. BERTEMES–W. SCHLOSSER: Der Kreisgraben von Goseck

42 J. LICHARDUS–M. LICHARDUS-ITTEN: Spätneolithische Fun- und seine astronomischen Bezüge. In: MELLER 2004, 48–51.
GH YRQ ýLþDURYFH 2VWVORZDNHL XQG GDV Rbere Theißgebiet an der 48 RACZKY et al. 1996.

Schwelle zur frühen Kupferzeit. SASTUMA 4–5 (1995–1996 49 J. VIZDAL: Potiská kultúra na Východnom Slovensku.

[1997]) 143–249, 207–210. Košice 1980. 144–151.

43 RACZKY et al. 1996. 50 H. TODOROVA: $UKHRORJLþHVNRJR SURXþYDQH QD SUDLsto-

44 MCHUGH 1999, 24–26. ULþHVNLREHNWLYUD\RQDQDV2YþDURYR7UJRYLãNRSUH]–1974.

45 MCHUGH 1999, 26. g. (Archäologische Untersuchung der prähistorischen Fundstätten in
46 KALICZ 1985, 75, 104; V. N0(-&29$-PAVÚKOVA: Vor- GHU 5HJLRQ GHV 'RUIHV 2YþDURYR %H]LUN 7UJRYLãWH ,Q + 7o-
bericht über die Ergebnisse der systematischen Grabung in Svodín in dorova–V. Vasilyev–Z. -DQXVHYLþ–0.RYDþHYD–39OHY2YþDURYR
den Jahren 1971–1983. SlA 34 (1986) 133–176, 146. Sofia 1983, 7–106. 91, Tabl. 89.1.
47 HODDER 1990, 94–99.

47a W. SCHLOSSER: Die Himmelschreibe von Nebra – Astrono-

mische Untersuchungen. In: MELLER 2004, 44–47.

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, 2006

24 P. RACZKY–A. ANDERS

cosmic phenomenon had a special significance within the enclosure at Polgár–&VV]KDORPVHSDUDWHGE\FRQFHn-

tric ditches and a palisade. In parallel with these discoveries, the destruction and reconstruction of buildings that
stood here are suggestive of a sequence of events that had followed a periodic pattern and affected the entire area.
These events must have mobilized a major group of people. The aforementioned periodicity thus may have been
associated with the cyclically repeated positions of the Sun and of certain constellations in the sky. As has been
suggested in connection with the figural representations, including four fields, on the face-decorated vessel
brought to light at the settlement of Öcsöd–Kováshalom, 51 myths may have been formed by the Late Neolithic in
which the four seasons or the four points of the compass played a prominent role. It is also probable, that by this
time the horizon of mythical interest has been elevated to the sky and was thus transposed to the projection of
“another world”.
All these told, several archaeological phenomena suggest that the organisation of activity in the central
area was, in a social sense, different from that in the environs of the houses located in the horizontal settlement.
While evidence of intense communal and sacral activity that must have mobilised major groups of people may be
seen within the concentric ditch system, sporadic finds of family or household-level ritual behaviour may be
observed amongst the houses of the outer settlement.52 This later clearly coincides with the general pattern repre-
sented by the traditional Alföld Linearband Pottery culture family/structural unit (consisting of a house, adjacent
refuse pits and burials),53 clearly seen in the settlement structure of the Polgár horizontal site. That is, the ruling
principle for opening graves was the proximity of houses, possibly in an effort to emphasise the physical and
spiritual connection.
As a summary of these arguments, it may be said that the 28 hectare surface of the Polgár–&VV]KDORP
in and of itself guarantees the significance of this site in the late neolithic history of the Upper Tisza region.
Meanwhile, this settlement fits within the system of site clusters that had formed by the Late Neolithic in the
Tisza region.54 The position of Polgár–&VV]KDORPLVIXUWKHUHQULFKHGE\WKHIDFWWKDWLWUHSUHVHQWVDVSHFLDOV\n-
thesis between a tell, typical of the southern section of the Great Hungarian Plain and an enclosure characteristic
of Central Europe and, within Hungary, Transdanubia. It is a generally accepted view, that either of these two
types of settlements played a role as “zentrale Orte – significant places” within their regional environments.55
Therefore the combination of these two types lends added weight to the argument that this site was a regional
significance. Beyond these points, the relationship between the external settlement and the tell-enclosure at Pol-
gár–&VV]KDORPPHDQVWKDWWKHODWWHUUHSUHVHQWVWKHnon-residential unit within the entire settlement. Within this
same area, the palisade built within the system of circular ditches may be interpreted as a monumental building.
Although previously several syntheses attributed special significance to Central European enclosures and South-
east European tell settlements during the Neolithic, conclusions that could be drawn concerning the underlying
social processes and communal organization remained rather uncertain.56 Studies on integration and interaction
by B. Parkinson have represented the most recent attempt to match social correlations within the Late Neolithic
of the Tisza Region. On the basis of these he hypothesizes the emergence of a certain variety in the nature of
tribal society by around 5000 B.C., that may have laid behind the phenomena observed in settlement history. The
same process was repeated within the same region when a system of Bronze Age tells developed by around 2500
B.C.57

51 P. RACZKY: An unique face pot from the Öcsöd-Kováshalom L. DOMBORÓCZKI $] ~MNNRU LGVHEE V]DNDV]D e.-Magyar-
settlement of the Tisza culture. ActaArchHung 51 (2000) 9–22. országon, a Heves megyei régészeti leletek fényében (The older
52 P. RACZKY: Evidence of contacts between the Lengyel and phase of the Neolithic in North-eastern Hungary in the light of
the Tisza–Herpály cultures at the late neolithic site of Polgár-&VV]- archaeological finds from Heves County). In: E. Vento Mir–P.
halom (Relationship between Central European and Balkan ritual
practice and sacral thought in the Upper Tisza Region). (A lengyeli
és a tiszai–herpályi kulturális érintkezés régészeti emlékei Polgár-
&VV]KDORP NpV QHROLWLNXV OHOKHO\pQ $ ULWXiOLV J\DNRUODW pV
szakrális gondolkodás közép-HXUySDLLOOHWYHEDONiQLHUHGHW&HOHPHi-
QHN|VV]HIJJpVHLD)HOV-Tisza-vidéken). BudRég 36 (2002) 79–92.
83.
53 L. DOMBORÓCZKI: Füzesabony-*XEDN~WÒMNkori falu a Kr.
H 9, pYH]UHGEO )]HVDERQ\-Gubakút. Neolithic village from the
6th millennium B.C.). In: RACZKY–KOVÁCS–ANDERS 1997, 19–27;
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, 2006
*XpULQHGV(DUO\)DUPHUVLQ(XURSH$NRUDLI|OGP&YHON(XUy-
pában). Valencia 1999, 15–47, 28–30.
54 PARKINSON 2002, 410.
55 H. PARZINGER: Zentralorte, Siedelverband und Kultgemein-
schaft im karpatenländischen Neo- und Äneolithikum. Balcanica 23
(1992) 221–230; CHAPMAN 1997, 142.
56 HODDER 1990, 111–114, 127–131; WHITTLE 1996, 107–111,
121; D. W. BAILEY: Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion, incorporation and
identity. London–New York 2000, 174–177.
57 PARKINSON 2002, 430–432.
 SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF THE LATE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF POLGÁR–&66=+$/20 25

II.

Parallel differences may also be found between the burials associated with the Polgár–&VV]KDORPVLWH
In the peripheral settlement 114 graves have been excavated in the proximity of 62 houses. Of these, 26 belonged
to children, 48 to women and 33 to men (in 7 cases no physical anthropological identification was possible). 58
The graves were found in association with houses, either by themselves or in small groups (Fig. 3). Within the
central area, on the other hand, only 14 burials were found, mostly of children and men during the course of new
excavations in 1989–2002. Previous excavations by I. Bognár-Kutzián at the same place brought to light 7 buri-
als. Two of these contained the remains of children. Another grave was symbolic, while four burials were those
of men, as may be judged from the description of their burial rites.59
This in itself is indicative of the duality of burials recovered so far, both in terms of spatial and social
organisation. These numerical data, on the other hand, raise new questions: The number of houses identified
within the 4 hectare excavated area and the population they seem to represent (approximately 62 × 5 = 310 peo-
ple) is not in proportion with the number of burials excavated here and in the inner, tell section of the settlement
(135 graves). In other words, the graves recovered do not represent what must have been the entire population.
On the basis of this ratio one must hypothesize the existence of an additional cemetery, or possibly sev-
eral burial grounds that were connected with the Polgár–&VV]KDORP VHWWOHPHQW RU DW OHDVW VHUYHG D SDUWLFXODU
segment of its population. The other possibility is that a major portion of the neolithic population were buried in a
form that left no archaeological signatures. The spatial distribution of, as well as proportions between these buri-
als in general suggest that various customs ruled the mortuary behaviour of people at Polgár–&VV]KDORP,IWKH
62 habitations discovered within the 4 hectare excavation area is extrapolated to the remaining 24 hectares of the
entire settlement, an estimate of 372 houses is obtained. On the basis of ethnographic parallels, the life span of
these buildings, characterized by a column superstructure, may be estimated as 50–100 years.60 Considering the
C14 dates so far available, the life span of the entire settlement may be estimated as 230 years.61 On the basis of
the aforementioned raw data, this means that approximately 81 to 162 buildings may have stood at the settlement
simultaneously. Calculating with a minimum of five people per building, this would correspond to an estimated
population of between 405 to 810 souls. All this, naturally, also means that outside the enclosure that measured 4
hectares, only an approximately 5.2 to 10.4 large area was inhabited. Although these data permit only a rather
rough estimate, they may provide a quantitative basis for the reconstruction of demographic and social relations
at the end of the Neolithic. In any case, population estimates calculated for the site of Polgár–&VV]KDORPKHUH
are consistent with results obtained by N. Kalicz, who obtained a 500 soul population estimate for the 25 hectare
large late neolithic Lengyel culture settlement of Aszód. 62
Late neolithic settlements excavated thus far in the Great Hungarian Plain reflect the same uncertain pic-
ture in terms of the representative value of demographic data. Similar results are also known from Germany, on
the basis of settlement and burial data of the Linearband Pottery culture. In these cases, the numbers of graves
studied do not exceed 20% of the population estimates.63
Moreover, the statistical samples representing these grave assemblages and cemeteries were not neces-
sarily acquired through random sampling. As was pointed out by P. Van de Velde, “when sociological, ethno-
graphical, or demographic research questions are to be answered from a graveyard, it should first be established
that the relevant funerals have occurred randomly, as regards precisely these dimensions. And this is well-nigh
impossible.”64

58 The physical anthropological investigations were carried out 192. We choose 50–100 years life-span because these buildings were
by Zs. K. Zoffmann. made of a wood kind of a long-life-type (pin oak Quercus palustris)
59 BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1963, 383, 414. and they were protected by a dick clay plaster.
60 J. LÜNING: Über den Stand der neolithischen Stilfrage in 61 RACZKY et al. 2002, 843.

Südwestdeutschland 2001. JRGZM 26 (1979) 75–113; A. COUDART: 62 KALICZ 2001, 160.

Architecture et société néolithique. L’unité et la variance de la mai- 63 NIESZERY1995, 17–18.

son danubienne. Paris 1998, 61–62; I. BALASSA (ed.): Magyar nép- 64 P. VAN DE VELDE: Much ado about nothing. Bandkeramik

rajz. Életmód (Hungarian Ethnology. Way of life). Budapest 1997, funerary ritual. APL 29 (1997) 83–90, 85–86.

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, 2006

26 P. RACZKY–A. ANDERS

Fig. 3. Polgár–&VV]KDORPKRUL]RQWDOVHWWOHPHQW–assemblages of houses (features 356, 592) and graves (features 348, 610–613, 618)

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, 2006

 SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF THE LATE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF POLGÁR–&66=+$/20 27

Fig. 4. Graves of the Polgár–&VV]KDORPKRUL]RQWDOVHWWOHPHQW– Diagram of age/gender distribution

Having studied the age distribution of burials found in the outer settlement of Polgár–&VV]KDORPLWLV
remarkable how underrepresented the age bracket of 10–25 years is both for men and women (Fig. 4). This may
indicate that the bodies of these people were disposed of by the ancient community following special rules. All
this indicates that there was a social division by age cohorts within the total population. This observation is sup-
ported by the 26 to 88 proportion between the number of burials of children to adults respectively in the outer
settlement. Given the high rates of infant mortality of the time, there should have been a far greater number of
child burials on the basis of statistical data.65 Consequently, some of the children must have been certainly buried
in a different manner, somewhere else. In the case of burials associated with houses, a closely observed gender
difference between male and female burials is quite apparent. Female skeletons lay on their left sides, while men
are placed on their right sides, contracted to various degrees. This marked distinction between dead men and
women is a new phenomenon in the region under discussion here that is in contrast with burial customs of the
previous Middle Neolithic. Such distinction by gender may be demonstrated in all late neolithic burials in the
Great Hungarian Plain.66 Over a hundred graves were recovered at the site of Polgár–Ferenci hát that represents
the final phase of the Middle Neolithic.67 All of these inhumations contained bodies that lay in a contracted posi-
tion on the left side of their body. This again suggests that, by the time of the Late Neolithic, horizontal features
of social stratification may be observed in the archaeological material of the northern section of the Great Hun-
garian Plain.
The dominant orientation of graves was Southeast-Northwest around the houses of the horizontal set-
tlement of Polgár–&VV]KDORP7\SLFDOIHPDOHDWWLUHLQFOXGHGKHDG-dresses, necklaces and belts made from one
or several strings of Spondylus shell or marble beads. Grave goods found in men’s burials characteristically con-
tain ground stone tools, wild boar jaws or plates carved from boar tusks. In addition to their primary function as

65NIESZERY 1995, 94. UHFHQW H[FDYWLRQV DQG WKHLU ILQGLQJV +yGPH]YiViUKHO\-Gorzsa,

66(J +yGPH]YiViUKHO\-Gorzsa: F. HORVÁTH: Hódme- Szegvár-7&]N|YHV gFV|G-Kováshalom, VpV]W-Mágor, Berettyó-
]YiViUKHO\-Gorzsa. A settlement of the Tisza culture. In: L. Tálas– újfalu-Herpály. Budapest–Szolnok 1987, 31–46. 45.
P. Raczky (eds): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region. A survey of 67 see note 31.

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, 2006

28 P. RACZKY–A. ANDERS

indicators of gender, all these types of jewellery and other objects must have represented a certain prestige value
and had symbolic significance as well.68 Still, find circumstances at Polgár indicate that wild boar jaws, as well as
plates made from split boar tusks clearly represented status. All this is especially supported by the fact the 1957
excavations directed by I. Bognár-Kutzián on the central tell brought to light 7 burials. Three of these that con-
tained the bodies of men also contained a wild boar jaw placed by the head. The only symbolic grave uncovered
in this area contained a wild boar jaw, found in association with a stone axe at the place of the head. Therefore the
excavator correctly concluded that this burial was also male in character.69 Meanwhile, two boar tusk plates were
also found in addition to a wild boar jaw in the waist region of one of the men entered here,70 one may thus say
that the wild boar symbol was used twice in the case of the aforementioned burial. These observations seem to be
in accordance with the idea that the preponderance of wild animal bones, observed within the circular ditch sys-
tem suggested some sort of a “wild world”, in which the wild boar as a symbol was present in essential associa-
tion with the male population. The hypothesized status marker role of wild boar jaws and boar tusk at Polgár–
&VV]KDOPRQLVLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKHFRQFOXVLRQVGUDZQIURPWKHJUDYHJRRGVRIEXUials recovered at the
site of Aszód. At this site, N. Kalicz distinguished 30 burials (Grave group “a”). The male burial that was the
centre of this group in a social sense as well (Grave 100), contained two boar jaws as well as a pair of intact and a
pair of broken boar tusk plates, whose roles as status markers could be ascertained by the excavator.71
The prestige value is most clearly illustrated by the presence of Spondylus shell bracelets. These arte-
facts occur in women’s and men’s burials alike, probably as elements representing a general prestige item in the
neolithic society of Polgár but presumably symbolising status as well. The possibility that their role exceeded
those of simple fashion items is suggested by contextual information: Depicting bracelets must have been of
special importance in both female and male figurines at the time (Szegvár,72 Battonya73) as well as on face-
decorated vessels (Battonya74). A similar interpretation is also supported by the fact that Spondylus shell bracelets
were accumulated in “hoards” (among others: Csóka, Hârsova) that first appeared in South-Eastern Europe at the
time. Zs. Siklósi arrived at the same conclusion following the detailed analysis of this artefact type. 75 One may
still agree with the opinion of P. K. Wason, that a greater number of Spondylus shell bracelets in graves may
indicate the status marker significance of these objects at Polgár as well.76 Following this line of argument, it was
not simply the presence of a particular object, but the numbers by which that object was represented, that had
significance as a marker of status: In this sense, the woman whose grave (Grave 836, located in the horizontal
settlement) contained 7 Spondylus shell bracelets (Fig. 5). It is also important to note in the case of this grave that
a pile of red ochre was placed by the head.
Beads made from the upper canine teeth of male red deer must also have been objects that embodied
general prestige. Individual pieces as well as smaller strings of these pendants occur in the graves of children,
women and men alike, however, the majority are associated with the burials of women. On the other hand, some
large specimens were found in the graves of men. Analyses by A. M. Choyke have demonstrated that in Polgár,
in addition to genuine deer canines, a great number of “fakes”, carved from bone and antler, had been added to
the grave furniture.77 The effort invested in making these artefacts shows that the originals were valuable pieces
in themselves while the copies had a worth derived both from the symbolic meaning of canines, their slightly
altered form and the time invested in producing them.78 From this aspect the grave of a young girl is worth men-

68 CH. WILLMS: Neolithischer Spondylusschmuck. Hundert 73 J. SZÉNÁSZKY: A szakálháti csoport idoltöredéke Battonyáról

Jahre Forschung. Germania 63 (1985) 331–343, 336; M. (Das Idolfragment der Szakálhát-Gruppe aus Battonya, Kom.
SÉFÉRIADES: La route néolithique des Sspondyles de la Mediterranee Békés). ArchÉrt 104 (1977) 216–220, Fig. 1–2.
à la Manche. In: M. Otte (ed.): Nature et Culture. Colloque de Liège 74 GY. GOLDMAN: Gesichtsgefässe und andere Menschendar-

(13–17 décembre 1993). E.R.A.U.L 68. Liège 1995, 289–356, 312– stellungen aus Battonya. BMMK 5 (1978) 13–60, Abb 1, 8, Taf. III–
316; KALICZ–SZÉNÁSZKY 2001, 50–51; SIKLÓSI 2004, 53. IV.
69 BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1963, 383. 75 SIKLÓSI 2004, 21–22.

70 BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1963, 311. 76 WASON 1994, 97.

71 KALICZ 1985, 23, 40. 77 CHOYKE 2001, 251, 255–257.

72 J. CSALOG: Die anthropomorphen Gefässe und Idolplastiken 78 CHOYKE 2001, 257.

von Szegvár-7&]N|YHV ActaArchHung 11 (1959) 7–38, Fig. 7.

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, 2006

 SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF THE LATE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF POLGÁR–&66=+$/20 31

Fig. 6. Graves of the Polgár–&VV]KDORPKRUL]RQWDOVHWWOement – Distribution of age/gender/wealth. Grave goods were scaled using the fol-
lowing system of criteria: Wealth (Spondylus shell bead, Spondylus shell bracelet, belt, ground stone tool, wild boar jaw or plate carved from
boar tusks, red deer canine /original or fake/). All of these artifacts were assigned a value of 1 within this system

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, 2006

32 P. RACZKY–A. ANDERS

Meanwhile, conclusions concerning social relations, drawn from the burials recovered at Polgár–&VV]-
halom, are consonant with the general culture historical picture emerging from the analysis of both external and
internal settlement characteristics. We would like to especially emphasise the importance of the central tell settle-
ment surrounded by a concentric ditch system as an “architectural monument” and the social differentiation as well
as mobility it may have represented. All these features seem to point to social relations being defined in terms of
ranking and the emergence of ascribed status in the case of the late neolithic inhabitants of Polgár–&VV]KDORP

REFERENCES

BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1963 = I. BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN: The Copper Age Cemetery of Tiszapolgár Basatanya. ArchHung 42.
Budapest 1963.
BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN 1966 = I. BOGNÁR-KUTZIÁN: Das Neolithikum in Ungarn. ArchA 40 (1966) 249–280.
CHAPMAN 1989 = J. CHAPMAN: The early Balkan village. In: S. Bökönyi (ed.): Neolithic of Southeastern
Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. VAH 2. Budapest 1989, 33–53.
CHAPMAN 1994 = J. CHAPMAN: Social power in the early farming communities of Eastern Hungary – Perspec-
tives from the Upper7LV]DUHJLRQ7iUVDGDOPLHUIRUUiVDNHOHW-magyarországi korai földm
YHON|]|VVpJHNEHQD)HOV-Tisza-YLGpNV]HPV]|JpEO-$0e–99.
CHAPMAN 1997 = J. CHAPMAN: The origins of tells in Eastern Hungary. In: P. Topping (ed.): Neolithic Land-
scapes. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 2. Oxbow Monograph 86. Exeter 1997,
139–187.
CHAPMAN 2000 = J. CHAPMAN: Tension at Funerals. Micro-Tradition Analysis in Later Hungarian Prehistory.
Archaeolingua Ser.min. Budapest 2000.
CHOYKE 2001 = 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. Pro-
ceeding of the 2nd meeting of the (IGAZ) Worked Bone Research Group Budapest, 31 Au-
gust–5 September 1999. BAR IntSer 937. Oxford 2001, 251–266.
HODDER 1990 = I. HODDER: The Domestication of Europe. Oxford–Cambridge 1990.
KALICZ 1985 = N. KALICZ: .NRUL falu Aszódon (Neolithisches Dorf in Aszód). Múzeumi füzetek (Aszód)
32. Aszód 1985.
KALICZ 1995 = N. KALICZ: Siedlungsstruktur der Neolithischen Herpály-Kultur in Ostungarn. In: A. Aspes
(ed.): Symposium “Settlement Patterns between the Alps and the Black Sea 5th to 2nd Millen-
nium B.C.”, Verona–Lazice 1992. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona
II/4. Verona 1995, 67–75.
KALICZ 2001 = N. KALICZ: Zusammenhänge zwischen dem Siedlungswesen und der Bevölkerungszahl
während des Spätneolithikums in Ungarn (Connections between modes of settlement and
population size during the Late Neolithic period in Hungary). In: A. Lippert et al. (Hrsg.):
Mensch und Umwelt während des Neolithikums und der Frühbronzezeit in Mitteleuropa. Er-
gebnisse interdisciplinärer Zusammenarbeit zwischen Archäologie, Klimatologie, Biologie
und Medizin. Rahden/Westf. 2001, 153–163.
KALICZ–MAKKAY 1977 = N. KALICZ–J. MAKKAY: Die Linienbandkeramik in der Großen Ungarischen Tiefebene.
StudArch 7. Budapest 1977.
KALICZ–RACZKY 1987 = N. KALICZ–P. RACZKY: The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region: A survey of recent archaeo-
logical research. In: L. Tálas–P. Raczky (eds): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region. A sur-
YH\ RI UHFHQW H[FDYWLRQV DQG WKHLUILQGLQJV +yGPH]YiViUKHO\-Gorzsa, Szegvár-7]N|YHV
Öcsöd-.RYiVKDORP9pV]W-Mágor, Berettyóújfalu-Herpály. Budapest–Szolnok 1987, 11–30.
MAKKAY 1982 = J. MAKKAY: $ PDJ\DURUV]iJL QHROLWLNXP NXWDWiViQDN ~M HUHGPpQ\HL $] LGUHQG pV D QpSL
azonosítás kérdései [New Results in the Research of the Hungarian Neolithic]. Budapest
1982.
MAKKAY 1991 = J. MAKKAY: Entstehung, Blüte und Ende der Theiß-Kultur. In: J. Lichardus (Hrsg.): Die
Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Symposium Saarbrücken und Otzenhausen 1988. Saar-
brücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 55. Bonn 1991, 319–328.
MELLER 2004 = H. MELLER: (Hrsg.): Der geschmiedete Himmel. Die weite Welt im Herzen Europas vor
3600 Jahren. Stuttgart 2004.
MCHUGH 1999 = F. MCHUGH: Theoretical and Quantitative Approaches to the Study of Mortuary Practice.
BAR IntSer 785. Oxford 1999.
NIESZERY 1995 = N. NIESZERY: Linerbandkeramische Gräberfelder in Bayern. Internationale Archäologie 16.
Espelkamp 1995.

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, 2006

 SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF THE LATE NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT OF POLGÁR–&66=+$/20 33

PARKINSON 2002 = W. A. PARKINSON: Integration, Interaction, and Tribal ‘Cycling’: The Transition to the Cop-
per Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. In: W. A. Parkinson (ed.): The Archaeology of Tribal
Societies. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 15. Ann Arbor
2002, 391–438.
RACZKY 1987 = P. RACZKY: Öcsöd-Kováshalom. A settlement of the Tisza culture. In: L. Tálas–P. Raczky
(eds.): The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region. A survey of recent excavtions and their find-
LQJV +yGPH]YiViUKHO\-Gorzsa, Szegvár-7]N|YHV gFV|G-.RYiVKDORP 9pV]W-Mágor,
Berettyóújfalu-Herpály. Budapest–Szolnok 1987, 61–83.
RACZKY et al. 1996 = P. RACZKY–W. MEIER-ARENDT–ZS. HAJDÚ–K. KURUCZ–E. NAGY: Two unique assemblages
from the Late Neolithic tell settlement at Polgár-&VV]KDORP,Q7.RYiFV+UVJ6WXGLHQ
zur Metallindustrie im Karpatenbecken und den benachbarten Regionen. Festschrift für
Amália Mozsolics zum 85. Geburtstag. Budapest 1996, 17–30.
RACZKY et al. 1997 = P. RACZKY–A. ANDERS–E. NAGY–K. KURUCZ–ZS. HAJDÚ–W. MEIER-ARENDT: Polgár-
&VV]KDORP-GOÒMNNRUYpJLWHOHSpVVtURND.UH9pYH]UHGEO/DWH1HROLWKLF6HWWOe-
ment and Graves from the 5thMillennium B.C.). In: RACZKY–KOVÁCS–ANDERS 1997, 34–43.
RACZKY et al. 2002 = P. RACZKY–W. MEIER-ARENDT–A. ANDERS–ZS. HAJDÚ–E. NAGY–K. KURUCZ–L.
DOMBORÓCZKI–K. S(%.–P. SÜMEGI–E. MAGYARI–ZS. SZÁNTÓ–S. GULYÁS–K. DOBÓ–E.
BÁCSKAY–K. T. BIRÓ–CH. SCHWARTZ: Polgár-&VV]KDORP –2000): Summary of the
Hungarian-German Excavations on a neolithic Settlement in Eastern Hungary. In: R. Aslan et
al. (Hrsg.): Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfman. Bd. 2. Remshalden – Grunbach
2002, 833–860.
RACZKY–KOVÁCS–ANDERS 1997 = P. RACZKY–T. KOVÁCS–A. ANDERS (Eds.): “Utak a múltba”. Az M3-as autópálya régészeti
leletmentései. (“Paths into the Past”. Rescue excavations on the M3 Motorway.) Budapest
1997.
RENFREW–BAHN 1996 = C. RENFREW–P. BAHN: Archaeology, Theories, Methods and Practice. London 1996. (=
Régészet. Elmélet, módszer, gyakorlat. Budapest 1999.)
SHERRATT 1982a = A. G. SHERRATT: The development of neolithic and Copper Age settlement in the Great
Hungarian Plain. Part I: The regional setting. OJA 1 (1982) 287–316.
SHERRATT 1982b = A. G. SHERRATT: Mobile resources: settlement and exchange in early agricultural Europe. In:
C. Renfrew–St. Shennan (eds): Ranking, Resource and Exchange. Aspects of the archa-
eology of early European society. Cambridge 1982, 13–26.
SHERRATT 1983a = A. G. SHERRATT: The development of neolithic and Copper Age settlement in the Great
Hungarian Plain. Part II: Site survey and settlement dynamics. OJA 2 (1983) 13–41.
SHERRATT 1983b = A. G. SHERRATT: Early agrarian settlement in the Körös region of the Great Hungarian Plain.
ActaArchHung 35 (1983) 155–169.
SIKLÓSI 2004 = ZS. SIKLÓSI: Prestige goods in the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin. Material manifestation
of social differentiation. ActaArchHung 55 (2004) 1–62.
WASON 1994 = P. K. WASON: The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge 1994.
WHITTLE 1996 = A. WHITTLE: Europe in the Neolithic. The creation of new worlds. Cambridge 1996.
ZALAI-GAÁL 2002 = I. ZALAI-GAÁL: A státus és a 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.

Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57, 2006

View publication stats