orientation of neolithic rondels

The orientation of rondels of theNeolithic Lengyel culture inCentral EuropeEmılia Pasztor1, Judit P. Barna2 & Curt Roslund3

The rondels – circular earthworks of late Neolithic Europe – have a repeated form highlysuggestive of deliberate design and symbolism. The concentric ditches are cut by two, three or mostoften four causeways at right angles. Here the authors investigate the orientation of the causewaysin 51 rondels belonging to the Lengyel culture and conclude that they correlate well with thesunrise. The idea of a solar cult receives some corroboration from patterns on contemporarypottery.

Keywords: Central Europe, Carpathian Basin, late Neolithic, Lengyel culture, rondels,orientation, sun

IntroductionWith minor differences, the late Neolithic earthworks called rondels (Petrasch 1990: 418-9;Trnka 2005), are contemporary and share a common plan: circular with entrance causeways(Trnka 1991). They appear in several archaeological cultures of the early fifth millenniumBC, cultures which developed from the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture (Kalicz 1983-84: 281-2; Neugebauer & Maresch 1995). The highest uniformity in the architecturaldesign of these earthworks is shown by those of the Lengyel culture, which is spread acrossTransdanubia in the Carpathian Basin, in south Slovakia, in east Austria and south Moravia(Figure 1). Their principal features are the single or multiple circular ditches, broken by twoor more openings (causeways), which provide entrances to the inner space (Petrasch 1990:Abb. 26; Daim & Neubauer 2005). The arrangement of the causeways is often symmetricalor nearly so. Generally there are no traces of structures within the enclosure, or if there are,the buildings avoid the centrepoint.

The earliest examples were excavated in Transdanubia, Hungary, at Se (Karolyi 1983-84: 294-307; Kalicz 1998: 57-62, Abb. 21) and Sormas (Barna 2007). They are assumedto be multi-purpose (Kovarnık et al. 2006), with a preference for a ritual interpretationsince in most cases the ditches and causeways show few defensive properties. The casefor a ritual function is also strengthened by small figurines unearthed close to or in the

1 Matrica Museum, HU-2440 Szazhalombatta, Hungary (Email: [email protected])2 Balatoni Museum, HU – 8360 Keszthely, Hungary (Email: [email protected])3 Department of Astronomy, Gothenburg University, SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden

Received: 17 December 2007; Accepted: 20 March 2008; Revised: 1 May 2008

ANTIQUITY 82 (2008): 910–924

910

Res

earc

h

Emılia Pasztor, Judit P. Barna & Curt Roslund

Figure 1. Map of the sites listed in Table 1.

ditches (Podborsky 1985: 210; Kalicz 1998: 65; Barna 2007) although the nature of therite is uncertain (Hansen 2007). In some cases (such as Bucany, Schletz, Tesetice-Kyjovice,Svodın or Se) the special finds lie in or near one of the entrances (all but one are easternor southern), strengthening the significant role of the causeways (Petrasch 2004; Podborsky2004; Ruttkay 2004; 2005; Kalicz 2007). Archaeological investigations have also suggestedthat each enclosure might have belonged to a larger social community serving severalsettlements (Kazdova &Weber 1990: 167).

911

The

orientationofrondels

oftheN

eolithicLengyelculture

inC

entralEurope

Table 1. Data of the investigated Lengyel enclosures, with four, three, two and several causeways. See Figure 1 for site locations where numbered.

Four causeways ˚N ˚E ˚S ˚W Reference

1. Wurnitz-Hornsburg (Au) 353 86 179 262 Daim & Neubauer 20052. Friebritz 1 (Au) 10 91 191 – Trnka 1991; Daim & Neubauer 20053. Stiefern (Au) 352 65 138 250 Daim & Neubauer 20054. Velm (Au) 70 Daim & Neubauer 20055. Gauderndorf (Au) 341 169 Daim & Neubauer 20056. Immendorf (Au) 14 101 206 281 Daim & Neubauer 20057. Kamegg (Au) 7 101 187 276 Daim & Neubauer 20058. Gnadendorf (Au) – 105 190 289 Daim & Neubauer 20059. Muhlbach am Manhartsberg (Au) 13 106 197 300 Daim & Neubauer 2005

10. Kleinrotz (Au) 25 115 209 295 Daim & Neubauer 200511. Pranhartsberg (Au) 32 120 214 296 Daim & Neubauer 200512. Steinabrunn (Au) 34 120 198 284 Daim & Neubauer 200513. Plank am Kamp (Au) 8 118 277 Daim & Neubauer 200514. Rosenburg (Au) 147 327 Trnka 1991; Daim & Neubauer 200526. Nemcicky (M) 359 85 179 265 Pavuk & Karlovsky 200427. Rasovice (M) 350 70 160 250 Pavuk & Karlovsky 200428. Vedrovice (M) 354 80 174 260 Pavuk & Karlovsky 200429. Tesetice-Kyjovice (M) 355 82 178 262 Petrasch 199030. Beharovice (M) 12 102 192 282 Pavuk & Karlovsky 200431. Cifer-Pac (Sl) 57 143 239 338 Kuzma & Tirpak 2002; Pavuk & Karlovsky 200432. Ruzindol-Borova (Sl) 25 – Nemejcova-Pavukova 199733. Bucany (Sl) 20 115 199 295 Petrasch 199034. Zlkovce (Sl) 343 75 163 255 Pavuk & Karlovsky 200435. Horne Otrokovce (Sl) 45 120 (218) 314 Pavuk & Karlovsky 200436. Podhorany-Mechenice (Sl) 10 114 193 294 Pavuk & Karlovsky 200437. Zitavce (Sl) 352 82 ? 262 Kuzma & Tirpak 200338. Surany (Sl) 5 95(?) 185 280 Tocik 198739. Svodin 1 (Sl) 55 (151) 231 335 Petrasch 1990; Nemejcova-Pavukova 1995; Pavuk & Karlovsky 200440. Svodin 2 (Sl) 45 (135) 225 313 Petrasch 1990; Nemejcova-Pavukova 1995; Pavuk & Karlovsky 2004

912

Research

Emılia

Pasztor,JuditP.Barna

&C

urtRoslund

41. Se (Hu) 75 Karolyi 1983–84; Kalicz 199842. Sormas–Torokfoldek-I. (Hu) 75 180 Barna & Pasztor, in press44. Nagykanizsa- Palin (Hu) 108 Tokai unpublishedBylany (Cz) 350 80 170 260 Trnka 1991Lochenice (Cz) 347 77 167 257 Trnka 1991Polgar-Cs´oszhalom (Hu) 41 124 203 295 Raczky et al. 1997; 2005

NE angle ES angle EW angleMean 89.2˚ 89.6˚ 179.7˚

Three causeways I. II. III.15. Porrau (Au) 347˚ 113˚ 218˚ Daim & Neubauer 200516. Oberthern (Au) 323˚ 100˚ 187˚ Daim & Neubauer 2005

Two causeways ˚E ˚W11. Pranhartsberg (Au) 121 310 Daim & Neubauer 200517. Puch (Au) 63 239 Daim & Neubauer 200518. Hornsburg (2) (Au) 108 278 Daim & Neubauer 2005

Hornsburg (3) (Au) 71 259 Daim & Neubauer 200519. Michelstetten (Au) 70 240 Daim & Neubauer 200520. Schletz (Au) 75 245 Daim & Neubauer 200521. Simonsfeld (Au) 78 256 Daim & Neubauer 200522. Strogen (Au) 103 278 Daim & Neubauer 200523. Moosbierbaum (Au) 102 271 Daim & Neubauer 200524. Karnabrunn (Au) 105 295 Daim & Neubauer 200525. Olkam 118 294 Daim & Neubauer 2005

EW angleMean 177.9˚

Several causeways I. II. III. IV. V.26. Glaubendorf 2 (Au) 329˚ 82˚ 142˚ 198˚ 268˚ Daim & Neubauer 200527. Altruppersdorf (Au) 318˚ 225˚ Daim & Neubauer 200543. Sormas-Torokfoldek II. (Hu) 340˚ 7˚ 255˚ 284˚ Barna & Pasztor, in press

913

The orientation of rondels of the Neolithic Lengyel culture in Central Europe

The Lengyel rondels and astronomy

Research into the possible astronomical significance of features found in the enclosures wasinspired by work done on the British henges, although these are some 1800 years later.The study was also prompted by the fact that the axes of the four-causeway rondels arenearly perpendicular to each other, suggesting the idea of orientation towards four cardinalpoints. Although exact measurements of the sites did not correlate with the cardinal points,interest in the possible astronomical significance of their design has not diminished. Thegrowing popularity of archaeoastronomy has given further impetus to the continuation ofsuch lines of research (Pavuk & Karlovsky 2004; Daim & Neubauer 2005: Teil 3). Mostof these investigations, however, are characterised by the very small number of monumentsstudied.

Figure 2. Ground plan of Glaubendorf 2 (after Daim &Neubauer 2005). Scale = 100m.

The natural candidates for the rationaleof orientation were the sun, moon andstars. The first investigations of someLengyel enclosures along with a few LBKearthworks concluded that these were solarorientations with a preference for theequinoxes and the solstices (Iwaniszewski1996: 18-9). At the Austrian Glaubendorf2 rondel the equinoctial sun settingscould have been seen along the westerncauseway (Neubauer 2005: 56; Figure 2).Investigations of virtual reconstructions ofthese enclosures have drawn attention tothe fact that other construction elementssuch as openings or holes cut into thepalisades as well as poles could also haveplayed a role in the observation of celestialphenomena. In the case of the AustrianSteinabrunn rondel, a pole has been argued

to have been placed on the left side of the south-east causeway in order that the Pleiades’rising could be seen above it. It has also been alleged that there are monuments aligned withbright stars, such as Antares or Deneb, or star constellations instead of the sun (Gervautz &Neubauer 2005: 73).

Beside the sun and the stars, the moon also has been listed as a possible target foralignment. The ground plan of the Slovakian site of Zlkovce, which is regarded as a rulingand/or sacred centre (Pavuk 1998: 186), is said to be oriented to the southern minorturning-point of the moon (Karlovsky & Pavuk 2002). It is alleged that this phenomenonwas observed by looking from the south-eastern causeway and along the south-western one(Pavuk & Karlovsky 2004: Obr. 29). However, on the basis of the orientational values, thispalisade enclosure belongs to the set of sun-oriented monuments, as we shall see (Figure 3;Table 1).

914

Res

earc

h


Figure 3. The ground plan of Zlkovce, with structures aligned to the southern causeway (after Pavuk & Karlovsky 2004:Obr. 4). Largest diameter = 82m; shortest = 67m.

The investigated rondelsThe present paper focuses exclusively on the rondels of the Lengyel culture, which aremapped on Figure 1, listed in Table 1 and the orientations summarised in Figure 4. Theorientation of the published plans, where checked on the ground, was found to be accurateto within 1◦. The orientation is measured in a clockwise direction from the north. The

915


Figure 4. Distribution of the orientations of the eastern causeways listed in Table 1.

causeways have been ranked according to the main cardinal point to which their orientationwas the nearest.

The orientation for each causeway was assessed separately, on the assumption that it wasits alignment (rather than the alignment of the line linking the causeway to a hypotheticalcentrepoint of the enclosure) that was significant. The lack of any archaeological feature atthe centre supports this premise, as well as the maintenance of the causeway axis where itcrosses multiple ditch systems.

The builders of the rondels seem to have striven for symmetry in their ground plans. Ifa rondel has four openings the axes are roughly perpendicular to each other. If the rondelhas only two causeways, they mark a diameter of the enclosure. This effort of the buildersto produce a symmetrical ground plan has allowed the authors to develop another premise,namely that the direction of a single causeway had a significant meaning for the communitywhen they set out the monument. Other causeways were then added to give a symmetricaldesign. Deviations from exact symmetry may be attributed to measuring or staking methods,natural obstacles or in some cases the vast dimensions of the rondels.

The possible targets for orientationThe deviation in orientation between rondels is relatively small. In the case of the easterncauseways, for example, it is +−19◦, which suggests alignment with a very distant object,such as a celestial body. If the target had been local, such as a sacred mountain, the variationwould have been higher. So the question arises as to which celestial objects could have beenused.

The primary candidate is always the sun, which as an essential element of life must haveplayed an important role in the life of a sedentary, agriculturally-based Neolithic community.The regularity of the sun’s daily and yearly motions is easily appreciated and orientatingmonuments or even graves to its position would not have presented major difficulties. Weargue here that the location of the sun at sunrise played an essential role in setting out thedirections for the causeways. This hypothesis is supported by the two-causeway enclosureswhich are aligned in an east-west direction. If the builders used the rising sun as a referencepoint for the eastern causeway on the day they began construction, their orientation would

916

Res

earc

h


fall between the summer and winter solstice sunrises. Taking an average geographical latitudeof 48.5◦ for the Slovakian and Austrian enclosures, the orientations of the eastern causewaysshould fall within about +−38◦ from due east; for the Hungarian southernmost site ofSormas with geographical latitude of 46.5◦, the above mentioned value is approximately+−36◦.

The orientations of 44 eastern causeways from the 51 enclosures investigated meet thiscriterion. Five of the remaining seven have yet to have their eastern causeways excavated.The orientations of only two, Cifer-Pac and Rosenburg, do not conform. This seems to bealso true for the eastern surveyed (but still unexcavated) causeway of Svodin 2 on the base ofsymmetry. It has rather been argued that these three openings are aligned with the moon’sturning (standstill) points (Pavuk & Karlovsky 2004).

Although the moon has always played a significant role in human cultures according tothe historical and ethnographical sources, orientation to its rising or setting points at thehorizon is much more difficult than that of the sun because of its rapid and complex motion.The further back in the past we go, the more uncertain the exact values of turning pointsare. These calculations are quite reliable as far back as 2000 BC but values for the time ofthe enclosures (4800-4500 BC) can only be conjectured. The motion of the moon raisesfurther problems for orientation. The moon cannot always be seen rising at the turningpoints (Roslund et al. 1999: 109-10). Thus the expected event that has been awaited over aperiod of 18.6 years loses its purpose and meaning. If the event is not observed on the verydate, 3 days later the difference is already 8◦. This means that the Neolithic observers hadto know the exact day of the turning point in order to orientate a monument to it, which isquite implausible.

A possibility for these sites is that they were still oriented with the sun, but sightings weretaken a few hours after it rose. Alternatively the sun might be used at its zenith rather thanits rising. If it was, the directions of the south causeways of the rondels should cluster closelyaround the south, which is not the case. Although the rising points change between twolimits (the midwinter and midsummer ones) the south direction is always the same duringthe year. Alternatively, the orientation might depend on a remembered direction, such asthe homeland in the case of the south-east orientation of LBK longhouses (Bradley 2001).

It has also been proposed that some orientations focus on stars (Gervautz & Neubauer2005). Might a star, a constellation or their attached myths have been so important fora social group that they orientated their monument to its rising or setting? The historicaland ethnographical written sources tells us what role the stars played in bearing or timereckoning, but so far no monument has been found in Europe aligned with stars. Withrespect to the Lengyel rondels, data from one or two monuments selected from a large groupof sites are rarely enough to verify such an astronomical orientation in Neolithic CentralEurope.

Assuming that a celestial phenomenon had so much influence on the life of a prehistoricsocial group, that the community was motivated to integrate some aspect of its appearancein the sky into their cult/communal structures, such a celestially motivated impact shouldbe reflected somehow in other archaeological features as well. While the sun can berecognised clearly (see below), the moon is more uncertain and the stars are even moreelusive.

917


Additional evidence for a solar cultThe important role of the sun in the religious life of the Lengyel culture can also besupported by other archaeological evidence, notably the motifs on pottery of the rondel-building period (Figures 5-9). These take the form of colourful eye-catching circles assumedto be solar symbols (Karolyi 2004). It has been argued that in the Bulgarian Neolithic theprincipal sources for such symbolism were partly the colours of the natural environment(Chapman 2003: 41). The major colours might have been based on the sky with a yellowand/or gold sun and a blue background, the sea, the earth along with the additional featuresof fire and/or blood (Chapman 2003: 43). Ethnographic and linguistic studies show thatbasic colours can express certain universal human experiences of the surrounding world. Inmany languages the words for yellow often denote warmth coming from the sun (Wierzbicka1990: 115-25). The metaphoric meaning assigned to the colour of the objects by the localideologies might have played an initial role in producing the artefacts. This might be the caseespecially with the fine painted pottery, which were created for special use. The significanceof colour symbolism in Lengyel culture is also strengthened by the fact that during theearly rondel building period, the red and yellow – the possible sun colours – are particularlyevident, which is not the case later. Prominent solar symbolism is also represented in theassemblage of miniature vessels and sun discs with figurines which were discovered inside acentral house of the unique rondel at Polgar-Cs´oszhalom, Hungary (Raczky et al. 1996; hereFigure 5) The closest parallel to these decorative objects comes from Ovcarovo (Bulgaria),where depictions of the sun can be found painted onto small altars (Todorova 1982; hereFigure 6).

DiscussionArguments for the investigated Lengyel rondels, which are the most regular ones amongthe Neolithic earthworks in Central Europe (Zalai-Gal 1990: 20), can be summarised asfollows:

� The direction of the rising sun offers a good interpretation for the orientation of theregular ground plans with the symmetrically arranged causeways.

� If the orientations of the eastern causeways are plotted on a chart, some groupings canbe defined, but no midsummer/midwinter or true east preference can be demonstrated.

� The orientations of just three of the 48 investigated enclosures cannot be correlatedwith the actual daily sunrise. If they used the sun, the setting out of these monumentsmust have been performed one or two hours later.

� There is corroborating evidence from images on contemporary pottery, which may beassociated with solar symbols.

Most researchers suggest that the orientations of these circular earthworks might havehad a calendrical function as well. The rising or setting of celestial objects observed throughthe causeways might have marked important days in their calendar (Gervautz & Neubauer2005), such as the winter or summer solstice which might have signalled the middle of theseasons but not their beginning as is the case today (Zotti 2005: 76-7, Abb 3.6). Althoughearly medieval Irish literature might support the existence of an ancient pan-Celtic calendar,

918

Res

earc

h


Figures 5–7. 5) The sacral assemblage of Polgar-Cs´oszhalom (after the museum guide of the Hungarian National Museum).6) Finds from the assemblage of Ovcarovo (after Todorova 1982: Figure 33). 7) The representation of the sun on a sherdfrom Se (after Karolyi 2004: 90.2. abra).

which divided the year with the mid-quarter days the earliest evidence for such a calendricaldivision comes from the medieval period (Hutton 1996: 408-11). The old Estonian andFinnish computation of time had also four turning points during the year, but they mighthave had connections with the weather not the sun’s motion (Vilkuna 1961: 80). Thereforethe apparent mid-quarter-day-orientation for some rondels (Zotti 2005) is most likelynothing more than a coincidence.

Numerous ethnographical investigations report how many peoples favour the southerndirection as well, when the life-giving power of the sun reaches its highest point. The facadesof several structures inside the rondel of Zlkovce must have faced the southern causeway asthe extended long axes or walls meet at this gate (Figure 3; Pavuk & Karlovsky 2004: Obr.4). The southern entrance was also emphasised at the circular enclosure of Svodin 2 by adeposition of fragments of clay figurines (Ruttkay 2004).

919


Figure 8a–b. Reconstruction of painted wares, Sormas-Torok-Foldek: a) Barna 2007; b) unpublished.

Figure 9. Bowls with red radial line paintings (after Daim & Neubauer 2005: Abb 1.20).

920

Res

earc

h


There are indications that the sun was also acknowledged in burial rite. In the cemeteriesthe deceased were often buried with their faces to the south or east. That was the caseat Zengóvarkony, Aszod (Kalicz 1985: 35-6), Veszprem (Regenye 2006: 14) and Moragy-Túzkoves (Zalai-Gaal 2002: 42).

Solar symbolism might also have been integrated into the design of some settlements withrondels. The tell settlement at Polgar-Csószhalom surrounded by five ditches is consideredto be a sacred complex representing the relation of the Lengyel and the Herpaly cul-tures. The arrangement of the whole structure might symbolise a sun-orientated beliefsystem. The houses inside the rondel with their radial-arranged long axis faced the centralbuildings, like the rays of the sun (Raczky et al. 1997). A similar house arrangementwas found outside the smaller rondel at Svodin as well. Thus the architectural design ofthe rondel and the houses make up an architectural unit (Nemejcova-Pavukova 1995). Apossible correlation between the south-eastern causeway of the Polgar-Csószhalom rondeland the mean direction of the houses of its outside one level settlement (Raczky et al. 2005:Figure 3) might also strengthen the solar symbolism as the sun rises in this direction at wintersolstice.

Folk traditions and ethnographic records report a probable association between circularenclosures solar cults and agrarian festivals (Domotor 1983; Ujvary 1991). Eligius (Eloi),bishop of Noyon (c . AD 588-90 to 659/660) commented on the midsummer festival: ‘Nota single Christian should believe in pyres, assemble to sing, as these are the devil’s machinations.No one is allowed to celebrate the midsummer, to build earthwork(s), to dance a dance, topractise magic and to sing diabolic songs at St. John’s or any other saints’ festivities’ (Domotor1983 after Liungman 1938: II.525). It cannot be clarified what exactly ‘build earthwork’means here as there is no more detailed description, but there is an implication that thecreation of (circular) earthworks for ritual/festive purposes had long tradition in prehistoricEurope.

The multiple concentric circular ditches may have been intended to signify the UpperWorld with several levels of a multi-tiered heaven described in later historical andethnographical sources (Krupp 1997: 55). The ground plan of the four-causeway rondelsalso became a significant symbol itself, with certain relation to the sun (Green 1993). Thisso-called cross-circle design was widely spread across prehistoric Europe. In the CarpathianBasin for example, its continuous use can be detected on archaeological finds as late as theearly medieval period when they had a magic protective role (Sagi 1967).

Conclusion‘When we see cosmology derived solely from the alleged orientation of a building to a particularstar, when we see an entire ideology reconstructed from the style of a carving, and when wesee ancient religion reconstructed from a handful of figurines, we have a right to be sceptical’(Flannery & Marcus 1998: 46). This is a useful caveat when trying to read signs of ancientpractice from material culture. The argument here is based on the high recurrence ofsimilar orientation among the rondel group, and its correlation with the sunrise. Indirectcorroboration may be derived from solar symbolism on pottery, and it has some interestingechos in folklore. The results of this study support the argument that the sun, or perhaps

921


the sunrise, played an important role in the life of the population, and that this belief wasintegrated into the design of the rondels.

As well as remembering the original construction of the enclosure, the orientation of thecauseways might have continued to signal certain days or periods connected to importantfestivals for Lengyel people. This conjecture receives a little support from Europeanethnology. Exact dates in a calendar cannot be idenitified but it would be natural to initiatethe construction of such structures on an already consecrated festival in order to make theevent more memorable for the community.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank Roslyn Frank, Maximilian O. Baldia, Nandor Kalicz and Balint Erdi for theirvaluable comments on the earlier draft of the paper, and Zoltan Torok for drawing the map, and Jozsef Bicskeifor the photographs.

ReferencesBRADLEY, R. 2001. Orientations and origins: a symbolic

dimension to the long house in Neolithic Europe.Antiquity 75: 50-6.

BARNA, J.P. 2007. A new site of the Lengyel culture inSormas−Torok-foldek, in J. Kozlowsky & P.Raczky (ed.) The Lengyel, Polgar and related culturesin the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe:365-80. Krakow: Polish Academy of Arts &Sciences.

BARNA, J.P. & E. PASZTOR. In press. Two Neolithicenclosures at Sormas–Torok-foldek and their possiblegeometrical and astronomical role (BritishArchaeological Reports International Series).Oxford: Archaeopress.

CHAPMAN, J. 2003. Colour in Balkan prehistory, in L.Nikolova (ed.) Early symbolic system forcommunication in Southeast Europe (BritishArchaeological Reports International Series 1139):31-57. Oxford: Archaeopress.

DAIM, F. & W. NEUBAUER (ed.). 2005. ZeitreiseHeldenberg: geheimnisvolle Kreisgraben –Niederosterreichische Landesausstellung 2005(Katalog des NiederosterreichischenLandesmuseums, Neue Folge 459). St Polten:Berger.

DOMOTOR, T. 1983. Naptari unnepek-nepi szınjatszas(Calendrical festivities – folk performances).Budapest: Akademia Kiado (in Hungarian).

FLANNERY, K.V. & J. MARCUS. 1998. Cognitivearchaeology, in D.S. Whitley (ed.) Reader inarchaeological theory: 35-48. London & New York:Routledge.

GERVAUTZ, M. & W. NEUBAUER. 2005. Sonne, Mondund Sterne, in F. Daim & W. Neubauer (ed.)Zeitreise Heldenberg: geheimnisvolle Kreisgraben –Niederosterreichische Landesausstellung 2005(Katalog des NiederosterreichischenLandesmuseums, Neue Folge 459): 73-4.St Polten: Berger.

GREEN, M. 1993. The sun gods of ancient Europe,in M. Singh (ed.) The sun, symbols of powerand life: 295-311. New York: Harry N.Abrams.

HANSEN, S. 2007. Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit:Untersuchungen zur antropomorphen Plastik derJungsteinzeit und Kupferzeit in Sudosteuropa(Archaologie in Eurasien 20). Mainz: Philipp vonZabern.

HUTTON, R. 1996. The pagan religions of the BritishIsles. Oxford: Blackwell.

IWANISZEWSKI, S. 1996. Neolithic and Eneolithicstructures in Central Europe:calendric-astronomical implications, in W.Schlosser (ed.) Proceedings of the second SEACconference: 15-28. Bochum: AstronomischesInstitut der Ruhr-Universitat.

KALICZ, N. 1983-84. Ubersicht uber denForschungsstand der Entwicklung derLengyel-Kultur und die alteste ‘Wehranlangen’ inUngarn. Mitteilungen der OstereichischenArbeitsgemeinschaft Ur- und Fruhgeschichte 33-34:271-93.

–1985. K´okori falu Aszodon (Neolithic village of Aszod)(Muzeumi Fuzetek 32). Aszod: Pet´ofi Muzeum.

–1998. Figurliche Kunst und bemalte Keramik aus demNeolithikum Westungarns. Budapest: Archaeolingua.

922

Res

earc

h


–2007. The beginning of the prehistoric figurinemaking in western Transdanubia, Hungary(6000-3000 BC), in G. Ilon (ed.) Wonderfulbeauties: human representations in prehistoric EasternHungary. Szombathely: Directorate of the VasCounty Museums.

KARLOVSKY, V. & J. PAVUK. 2002. Astronomickaorientacia rondelov Lengyelskej kultury(Astronomical orientation of the rondels of theLengyel culture), in I. Cheben & I. Kuzma (ed.)Otazky neolitu a eneolitu nasich Krajın: 113-27.Nitra: Archeologicky ustav SAV.

KAROLYI, M. 1983-84. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen bis1980 in der befestigten Ansiedlung von Se,Westungarn. Mitteilungen der OstereichischeArbeitsgemeinschaft Ur- und Fruhgeschichte 33-34:293-309.

–2004. Napszulottek. Savaria foldjenek ósi kulturai aromaiak elótt (Ancient cultures of Savaria before theRomans). Szombathely: Delta Univerzal.

KAZDOVA, E. & Z. WEBER. 1990. Architektur derLengyel-Rondelle im mittleren Donauraum.Jahresschrift fur Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte73:159-69.

KOVARNIK, J., R. KVET & V. PODBORSKY. 2006.Europe’s oldest civilisation and its rondels: the realstory. Antiquity 80: http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/kvet/index.html.

KRUPP, E.C. 1997. Skywatchers, shamans, and kings.New York: John Wiley & Sons.

KUZMA, I. & J. TIRPAK. 2002. Stvornasobny Rondel vCıferi. Archeologicke Vyskumy a Nalezy na Slovenskuv roku 2001: 108-10.

–2003. Rondel v Zitavciach. Archeologicke Vyskumy aNalezy na Slovensku v roku 2001: 78-9.

LIUNGMAN, W. 1937-38. TraditionswanderungenEuphrat-Rhein: Studien zur Geschichte derVolksbrauche, volumes I-II (Folklore FellowsCommunications 118-119). Helsinki: SuomalainenTiedeakatemia (Finish Academy of Sciences).

NEMEJCOVA-PAVUKOVA, V. 1995. Svodın: zweiKreisgrabenanlagen der Lengyel-Kultur (StudiaArchaeologica et Medievalia 2). Bratislava:Universitas Comeniana Bratislavensis.

–1997. Kreisgrabenanlage der Lengyel-Kultur inRuzindol-Borova (Studia Archaeologica etMedievalia). Bratislava: Universitas ComenianaBratislavensis.

NEUBAUER, W. 2005. Am Fusse des Heldenbergs: diedreifache Kreisgrabenanlage Glaubendorf 2, in F.Daim & W. Neubauer (ed.) Zeitreise Heldenberg:geheimnisvolle Kreisgraben – NiederosterreichischeLandesausstellung 2005 (Katalog desNiederosterreichischen Landesmuseums, NeueFolge 459): 52-8. St Polten: Berger.

NEUGEBAUER, J-W. & C.H. MARESCH. 1995.Mittelneolthikum: die Bemaltkeramik, in J.W.Neugebauer (ed.) Die Junsteinzeit im OstenOsterreichs: 57-107. Wien: NiederosterreichischesPressehaus.

PAVUK, J. 1998. Hlavnevysledky vyskumu sıdliskaLengyelskej kultury v Zlkovciach (Substantialresearch results of the Lengyel-culture site inZlkovce). Slovenska Archeologia 46(2): 169-86.

PAVUK, J. & V. KARLOVSKY. 2004. Orientacia rondelovLengyelskej kultury na Smery Vysokeho aNızkeho Mesiaca. Slovenska Archeologia 52(2):211-80.

PETRASCH, J. 1990. MittelneolithischeKreisgrabenanlagen in Mitteleuropa. Bericht derRomisch-Germanischen Kommission des DeutschenArchaologischen Instituts 71: 407-564.

–2004. Von Menschen und Hunden: Befunde ausKreisgrabenanlagen der Oberlauterbacher Gruppeund der Lengyel-Kultur und derenInterpretationen, in E. Studenıkova & B. Hansel(ed.) Zwischen Karpaten und Agais: Neolithikum undAltere Bronzezeit: 295-308. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

PODBORSKY, V. 1985. Tesetice-Kyjovice 2. Figuralnıplastika lidu s moravskou malovanoukeramikou.Brno: Univerzita J.E. Purkyne.

–2004. Uber das geistige Leben der Trager derLengyel-Kultur, in E. Studenıkova & B. Hansel(ed.) Zwischen Karpaten und Agais: Neolithikum undAltere Bronzezeit: 271-83. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

RACZKY, P., W. MEIER-ARENDT, Z. HAJDU, K. KURUCZ

& E. NAGY. 1996. Two unique assemblages fromthe late Neolithic tell settlement at Polgar-Csószhalom, in T. Kovacs (ed.) Studien zurMetallindustrie im Karpatenbecken und denbenachbarten Regionen: Festschrift fur AmaliaMozsolics zum 85. Geburtstag : 17-31. Budapest:Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum.

RACZKY, P., A. ANDERS, E. NAGY, K. KURUCZ, Z.HAJDU & W. MEIER-ARENDT. 1997. Utak aMultba: Az M3-as Autopalya Regeszeti Leletmentesei(Paths into the past: rescue excavations on the M3motorway): 34-41. Budapest: Hungarian NationalMuseum & Archaeological Institute of the LorandEotvos University.

RACZKY, P., A. ANDERS, Z. HAJDU & E.-GY. NAGY.2005. Zwischen Himmel und Erde – Polgar-Csószhalom, eine Siedlung in Ostungarn, in F.Daim & W. Neubauer (ed.) Zeitreise Heldenberg:geheimnisvolle Kreisgraben – NiederosterreichischeLandesausstellung 2005 (Katalog desNiederosterreichischen Landesmuseums, NeueFolge 459): 203-10. St Polten: Berger.

923


REGENYE, J. 2006. Ósregeszet Veszpremben. Óskoritelepules a varos alatt (Prehistory in Veszprem.Prehistoric settlement under the town). Veszprem:Veszprem Megyei Muzeumi Igazgatosag (inHungarian).

ROSLUND, C., J. LINDSTROM & P. ANDERSSON. 1999.Alignments in profusion and confusion. LundArchaeological Review 5: 105-15.

RUTTKAY, E. 2004. Anthropomorphe Tonplastik vonden Lengyel-Siedlungen in Svodın, Slowakei, in E.Studenıkova & B. Hansel (ed.) Zwischen Karpatenund Agais: Neolithikum und Altere Bronzezeit:323-41. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

– 2005. Innovation vom Balkan – MenschengestaltigeFiguralplastik in Kreisgrabenanlagen, in J-W.Neugebauer (ed.) Die Junsteinzeit im OstenOsterreichs: 194-202. Wien: NiederosterreichischesPressehaus.

SAGI, K. 1967. Arpadkori varazslas regeszeti emlekei(Archaeological remains of magic of the Hungarianearly Medieval Age). Veszprem Megyei MuzeumokKozlemenyei 6 : 55-88.

TOCIK, A. 1987. Beitrag zur Frage der befestigten undHohensiedlungen im mittleren und spatenAneolithikum in der Slovakei. Studijne Zvesti 23:5-21.

TODOROVA, H. 1982. Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen inNordostbulgarien (Materialien zur Allgemeinen undVergleichenden Archaologie 13). Munchen:Beck.

TRNKA, G. 1991. Studien zu mittelneolithischenKreisgrabenanlagen (Mitteilungen derPrahistorischen Kommission der OsterreichischenAkademie der Wissenschaften 26). Wien:Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

– 2005. Kreise und Kulturen – Kreisgraben inMitteleuropa, in F. Daim & W. Neubauer (ed.)Zeitreise Heldenberg: geheimnisvolle Kreisgraben –Niederosterreichische Landesausstellung 2005(Katalog des NiederosterreichischenLandesmuseums, Neue Folge 459): 10-19.St Polten: Berger.

UJVARY, Z. 1991. Agrarkultusz (Agrarian cult).Debrecen: University of Lajos Kossuth.

VILKUNA, K. 1961. Wochenrechnung und Teilung desJahres in zwei oder vier Teile. Finnisch-UgrischeForschungen 34: 43-83.

WIERZBICKA, A. 1990. The meaning of color terms:semantics, culture and cognition. CognitiveLinguistics 1/1: 99-150.

ZALAI-GAAL, I. 1990. Die Erforschung derneolithischen Kreisgrabensysteme inSO-Transdanubien. Archaeologiai Ertesıtó 117:3-23.

–2002. Die neolithische Grabergruppe-B1 von Moragy-Túzkódomb I: die archaologischen Funde undBefunde. Szekszard: Wosinsky Mor MegyeiMuzeum.

ZOTTI, G. 2005. Kalendarbauten? – Zurastronomischen Ausrichtung derKreisgrabenanlagen in Niederosterreich, in F. Daim& W. Neubauer (ed.) Zeitreise Heldenberg:geheimnisvolle Kreisgraben – NiederosterreichischeLandesausstellung 2005 (Katalog desNiederosterreichischen Landesmuseums, NeueFolge 459): 75-9. St Polten: Berger.

924

orientation of neolithic rondels

Documents

Transcript of orientation of neolithic rondels