Siklósi Zsuzsanna – Csengeri Piroska

Spondylus in Prehistory

New data and approaches

Contributions to the archaeology of shell technologies

Edited by

Fotis Ifantidis Marianna Nikolaidou

BAR International Series 2216 2011

Published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England [email protected] www.archaeopress.com BAR S2216 Spondylus in Prehistory: New data and approaches. Contributions to the archaeology of shell technologies © Archaeopress and the individual authors 2011 ISBN 978 1 4073 0774 9 Printed in England by Blenheim Colour Ltd All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England www.hadrianbooks.co.uk The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

F. IFantIdIs & M. nIkolaIdou (eds.), SpondyluS In PrehIstory: new data & aPProaches – contrIbutIons to the archaeology oF shell technologIes

InTroduCTIon

It is a generally accepted view in the research of the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin that there were considerable social changes between the Middle (ca. 5500–5000 BC) and Late Neolithic (ca. 5000–4500 BC). Signs of vertical social differ-ences appeared in the Late Neolithic but, according to some researchers, ascribed rank had already appeared in the Middle Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin (Bánffy 1999: 54; Bánffy & Bognár-Kutzián 2007: 216; Kalicz & Szénászky 2001: 50). Between these two periods, the population remained continu-ous while economic, social, and cultural changes occurred. Late Neolithic Tisza and Herpály Cultures are the descendants of Middle Neolithic Alföld Linear Pottery Culture (ALPC) and its groups, and Late Neolithic Lengyel Culture is de-scendant of Middle Neolithic Transdanubian Linear Pottery Culture (Chapman 1994: 80-82, 1997; Kalicz 1985b: 128-132, 1989, 2001; Makkay 1982: 60, 111-163, 1991: 322-326; Raczky 1995; Sherratt 1982: 17-21, 1983a, 1983b).

These social changes are reflected in the mortuary practice: not only was the number of burials multiplied, but the num-ber and variety of grave goods also increased (Raczky & An-ders 2006: 30; Siklósi 2004: 49-51; Zalai-Gaál 1988, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c).

While Spondylus ornaments were prestige goods all through the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin, their usage changed considerably during this period. Different types of ornaments were used, and they were also used in different ways during the two periods. These changes might have reflected social changes (Siklósi 2004).

One can often read that a considerably higher amount of Spon-dylus was used and placed into the graves in the Late Neo-lithic, as compared to the Middle Neolithic, which is usually

explained by increasing social inequalities. In the following, we are testing this statement thoroughly by examining Middle and Late Neolithic Spondylus grave goods and by providing an estimate of the amount of Spondylus used. Based on this analysis, our aim is to contribute to a better understanding of social changes during these two periods.

dIfferenCes In SpondyluS usage In The mIddle and laTe neolIThIC

In their article published in 2001, Nándor Kalicz and Júlia Szénászky described that two Spondylus horizons can be separated in the Neolithic Carpathian Basin, which showed not only chronological but also typological differences. The main characteristic types of Middle Neolithic Spondylus hori-zon are pendants, wide bracelets and large beads, while during the Late Neolithic small, disc-shaped beads and thin bracelets were worn (Kalicz & Szénászky 2001: 49).

We can add to this statement that the number of Spondylus finds also changed between these two periods. For the Middle Neolithic bigger but fewer items, while for the Late Neolithic a great number of smaller items were typical in graves. With reference to this observation, several questions arose: how much Spondylus was required to prepare an ornament, and whether the increase in the number of pieces signified a real quantitative increase in a grave. Is it possible that the manu-facture of large Middle Neolithic objects required more raw materials than that of the small Late Neolithic ones? To put this in another way, it is not certain that more Spondylus were placed in Late Neolithic graves. Another question is whether there were Spondylus imitations in graves. In other words, how important a part did imitations play?

To answer these questions, we analyzed Middle and Late Neolithic graves that contained Spondylus in the Carpath-

REcONSIdERATION OF SpondyluS USAgE IN ThE MIddLE ANd LATE NEOLIThIc OF ThE cARPAThIAN bASIN

zsuzsanna sIklósI & pIroska CsengerI

It is a generally accepted view in the research of the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin that there were considerable social changes between the Middle (ca. 5500–5000 BC) and Late Neolithic (ca. 5000–4500 BC). One can often read that a considerably higher amount of Spondylus was used and placed into the graves in the Late Neolithic, as compared to the Middle Neolithic, which is usually explained by increasing social inequalities. In the following, we are testing this statement thoroughly by examining Middle and Late Neolithic Spondylus grave goods and by providing an estimate of the amount of Spondylus used.We were able to show that the amount of Spondylus valves used did not increase from the Middle Neolithic to the Late Neolithic but Spondylus ornaments became accessible to a larger social group in the Late Neolithic. This could have resulted in the gradual devalu-ation of Spondylus as prestige raw material. New prestige raw materials appeared –first of all, copper– which could have taken over the role of Spondylus.

C H A P T E R 5

48

Figure 1. Middle and Late Neolithic sites of graves contained Spondylus grave-goodsWhite signs indicate sites of Spondylus ornaments which were measured

SpondyluS In PrehIstory: new data & aPProaches – contrIbutIons to the archaeology oF shell technologIes

1. Lužianky (Novotný 1962: 217, pl. 7.3-8, 15, pl. 38) 2. Nitra (Pavúk 1972: 6, 8, 11, 14-15, 20, 22, 24. fig. 4, 14-19, 25. fig. 1-3, 26. fig. 1, 6, 27. fig. 1-3, 6, 8, 28. fig. 4-9, 29. fig. 3-5, 16) 3. Šarišské Michal’any (Šiška 1986: 445)4. Garadna–Elkerülő út, Site No. 2 (unpublished) 5. Felsővadász–Várdomb (Koós 1986: 104; Csengeri 2004a: 47-48)6. Megyaszó–Csákó (Korek 1957: 18; Kalicz & Makkay 1977: 75)7. Mezőzombor–Temető (Csengeri 2004b: 65, 68-69, fig. 2-6, 8)8. Tiszalúc–Sarkadpuszta (Oravecz 1996: 57, fig. 4.; Oravecz 2001: 10, chart 1., fig. 6-8)9. Kesznyéten–Lúci Abony (unpublished) 10. Kenézlő–Szérűskert (Kiss 1939: 7, pl. 1.6) 11. Tiszavasvári–Deákhalmi–dűlő (Kurucz 1994: 126) 12. Nagykálló–Strandfürdő (Korek 1957: 17) 13. Polgár–Csőszhalom and Site No. 6 (Raczky et al. 1997: kat. IV.9., V.1-2, 6-7, 9, 14-15, 17, 20-23, 26, 35) 14. Mezőkövesd–Nagy–fertő (Csengeri 2004b: 66, 70, fig. 10-11, 15-16, 30, 33-34) 15. Mezőkövesd–Mocsolyás (Kalicz & Koós 1997: kat. 53, 55.; Kalicz & Koós 2000: 47-49, fig. 7, 8. fig. 2, 11.; Kalicz & Koós 2002: 47-52, 59) 16. Mezőkeresztes–M3, Site No. 10 (Wolf & Simonyi 1995: fig. 3) 17. Füzesabony–Gubakút (Domboróczki 1997: kat. 31-32) 18. Kompolt–Kistér (Bánffy 1999: 42-43, 117, 124) 19. Aszód–Papi földek (Kalicz 1985a: 22-29, fig. 30, 34, 38, 40-41 and unpublished) 20. Szentendre (Patay 1966-1967: 8, 10, 6. fig. 21) 21. Bicske–Galagonyás (Petres 1954: 22-28, fig. 19-20.; Makkay et al. 1996: 20-24) 22. Kisköre–Gát (Korek 1989: 39-44, fig. 31-41.) 23. Berettyóújfalu–Herpály (Tálas & Raczky 1991: kat. 254-255, 268-270) 24. Kengyel–Halastó (Raczky 1982: fig. 12) 25. Tiszaföldvár–Téglagyár (Oravecz 1998-1999: 47, 55) 26. Csanytelek–Újhalastó (Hegedüs 1982-1983: 25-26, fig. 13-14) 27. Hódmezővásárhely–Gorzsa (Gazdapusztai 1963: 410-411; Horváth 1987: 42-43, 45-46, fig. 7, 34, 37, 38; Tálas & Raczky 1991: kat. 259-260) 28. Čoka–Kremenyák (Banner 1960: 18, 20, 35, pl. 57.4-17; Raczky 1994: 163, fig. 1, 4) 29. Balatonszárszó–Kis–erdei–dűlő (Marton 2004: 82, fig. 1) 30. Pári–Altacker (Zalai-Gaál 2006: 20-21, fig. 4.) 31. Lengyel (Zalai-Gaál 2006: 16-20) 32. Szekszárd–Palánki–hegy (Zalai-Gaál 2006: 54-55, fig. 47-50) 33. Mórágy–Tűzkődomb (Zalai-Gaál 2006: 23-28, fig. 11-20) 34. Zengővárkony (Zalai-Gaál 2006: 32-41, fig. 27-43) 35. Villánykövesd (Zalai-Gaál 2006: 41, fig. 46)

49

ian Basin. From the Middle Neolithic, we examined 158 items from 10 burials at 5 sites (Garadna–Elkerülő út, Site No. 2, Felsővadász–Várdomb, Kesznyéten–Lúci Abony, Mezőkövesd–Nagy–fertő and Mezőzombor–Temető1), and from the Late Neolithic, we examined 2,155 items from 56 burials at Aszód–Papi földek2 (Fig. 1)3. We counted the num-ber of Spondylus ornaments in graves and measured them one by one.

Based on these finds, we were able to set up a typology of Middle and Late Neolithic Spondylus objects (Table 1 and Fig. 2), and could determine different scales of measure of beads for the two periods (Fig. 3). Following this, we clas-sified the finds published from many other sites on the basis of their size and shape. We examined 5,704 items from 166

1 Felsővadász–Várdomb was excavated by J. Koós between 1982 and 1984 (Koós 1986: 104; Csengeri 2004a: 47-48). Mezőzombor–Temető was excavated by J. Koós and N. Kalicz in 2000 (Koós 2003: 177; Spon-dylus items was not found in that year) and P. Csengeri and R. Patay in 2001 (Csengeri 2004b). Mezőkövesd–Nagy–fertő was excavated by P. Csengeri in 2002 (Csengeri 2004b). Garadna–Elkerülő út, Site No. 2 was excavated by P. Csengeri in 2003 (unpublished). We would like to thank Judit Koós for the opportunity to analyze the finds from Felsővadász and Kesznyéten.

2 Kalicz (1985a). We would like to thank Nándor Kalicz for the opportu-nity to analyze the finds from Aszód. Pál Sümegi made the raw material determination of ornaments from Aszód site, we thank him for his work (Sümegi 2009: 341-342).

3 In addition to graves that have already been analyzed, there are numer-ous graves from the Middle and Late Neolithic as well which contained Spondylus ornaments but, as there are no detailed publications available, we were unable to use them for this kind of analysis.

graves at 35 sites (48 Middle Neolithic and 118 Late Neolithic graves).

We concluded that large, cylindrical beads (e.g. Mezőkövesd–Nagy–fertő, grave No. S120, Fig. 4), large, barrel or irreg-ular shaped beads (e.g. Garadna, grave No. S191, Fig. 5), medium-sized cylindrical beads (e.g. Garadna, grave No. S191, Fig. 5), medium-sized barrel or irregular shaped beads (e.g. Mezőzombor, grave No. 49, Fig. 6, Garadna, grave No. S191, Fig. 5), and medium-sized disc-shaped beads (e.g. Mezőzombor, grave No. 49, Fig. 6, Kesznyéten, grave No. S4, Fig. 7) dominated in the Middle Neolithic.

Medium-sized cylindrical, disc, or barrel-shaped beads ap-peared in Late Neolithic graves as well, but in considerably smaller proportion (e.g. Kalicz 1985a: fig. 30.1-2, 40.3).

Typical for the Middle Neolithic but found in smaller quan-tities were large, biconical beads (e.g. Mezőkövesd–Nagy–fertő, grave No. S120, Fig. 4), pendants made of a complete shell valve (e.g. Mezőkövesd–Nagy–fertő, grave No. S120, Fig. 4), wide bracelets, arched, animal tooth-shaped pendants (e.g. Mezőzombor, grave No. 49, Fig. 6), and small plates made from broken bracelets (e.g. Mezőzombor, grave No. 49, Fig. 6).

On the contrary, most typical types in the Late Neolithic in-clude small, flat, disc-shaped beads, V-perforated buttons, and thin bracelets. Thin bracelets were used sometimes in the Middle Neolithic as well. Flattened, cylindrical beads, pyra-

ZsuZsanna sIklósI & PIroska csengerI – reconsIderatIon oF SpondyluS usage In the MIddle and late neolIthIc oF the carPathIan basIn

Types desCrIpTIon of SpondyluS ornamenTsmIddle

neolIThIClaTe

neolIThIC

1.1 Tiny, flat, disc-shaped bead – +++1.2 Medium-sized, barrel-shaped or irregular shaped bead +++ +++1.3 Large, barrel-shaped or irregular shaped bead +++ –1.4 Medium-sized, cylindrical bead +++ +++1.5 Large, cylindrical bead +++ –1.6 Large, biconical bead +++ –1.7 Medium-sized, flat, disc-shaped bead +++ +++1.8 Medium-sized, flattened, cylindrical bead – +++1.9 Pyramid-shaped bead – +++2.1 Massive, wide bracelet +++ –2.2 Thin bracelet +++ +++3.1 Pendant from a complete Spondylus shell valve with 2–4 perforations for suspension +++ –

3.2 Pendant from a complete Spondylus shell valve with 1 large perforation in the middle (and 2–4 perforations for suspension) +++ –

4.1 Animal tooth-shaped, arched pendant with perforation on the upper part +++ –4.2 Red deer tooth-shaped, small pendant with perforation on the upper part +++ +++5.1 V-perforated button – +++

6.1-6.2 Small plate with perforations +++ –7.1 Perforated ornament from pieces of massive, wide bracelets +++ –7.2 Perforated ornament from pieces of thin bracelets +++ +++

Table 1. Middle and Late Neolithic Spondylus ornament types

50

mid-shaped beads, and extremely tiny beads were only typical for the Late Neolithic (e.g. Kalicz 1985a: fig. 30.4, 34.2, 40.4; Korek 1989: fig. 31.1-2, 38.1-2, 39.1, 3, 40).

Several authors have already collected Neolithic Spondylus finds of the Carpathian Basin and its surroundings, and they also prepared a fine typology of the objects (recently: Kalicz & Szénászky 2001; Podborský 2002; Schuster 2002; Séfériadès 2003). Our analysis is different from theirs in that it shows well that Middle and Late Neolithic Spondylus types in the Carpathian basin can be clearly separated not only by shape but also by size. Graphs illustrate this well (Fig. 3).

A considerable increase between these two periods can be de-tected if we compare Middle and Late Neolithic graves only on the basis of the number of Spondylus items (Fig. 8-9). At the same time, by the Late Neolithic, objects with great mate-rial requirement such as pendants and wide bracelets disap-peared from graves, and extremely tiny (a few mm in width and diameter) beads appeared instead.

The manufaCTurIng TeChnIque of SpondyluS objeCTs

It is clear that a smaller number of Spondylus objects were found in Middle Neolithic in comparison to Late Neolithic graves. However, the question is how much raw material had to be used to manufacture an ornament. To provide a rough estimate of the amount of the raw material used for making the objects found in the graves, questions about manufactur-ing them have to be answered first.

H. Todorova and I. Vajsov also considered theoretically the necessary amount of Spondylus raw material used for an orna-ment (Todorova & Vajsov 2001: 17-18). It is obvious that each Middle Neolithic pendant or belt fastener required a whole shell valve. The same is true for bracelets. However, the ques-tion arises whether the waste material from the middle part of the valve could be used to manufacture smaller ornaments such as beads. Based on semi-finished products and waste ma-terial from Greek Neolithic sites, first of all Dimini, it seems that this possibility must be rejected. Based on Akira Tsuneki’s observations, it is probable that the manufacturing of bracelets also required a whole shell valve. Differences in usage of right and left valves signify chronological and regional differences,

Figure 2. Measures of different types of Spondylus beads


51

Figure 3. Measures of Middle and Late Neolithic Spondylus beads

too. Wide bracelets, which were typical of the Middle Neolith-ic of the Carpathian basin, can only be made from right valves, and thin, fine bracelets (typical of the Late Neolithic) can be made from left valves. This chronological difference is also observable on Neolithic finds in Greece (Tsuneki 1987, 1989).Characteristics of Spondylus valves (Tsuneki 1987: 3-6) de-termined that the manufacture of each large, long, cylindrical bead of the Middle Neolithic required a whole valve as well. It is highly probable that these objects could only be made from the right, lower valve because the left valve does not have the required thickness. The possibility of manufacturing thick, biconical, or barrel-shaped, and shorter but thick, cylindrical beads is similarly limited. Only the thick umbo or the thick-ened right valve provides appropriate raw material for these types. Thus, for each valve we can calculate with only one, and a maximum of three items.

Findings from Dimini and Neolithic sites of the Adriatic coast provide information for the manufacture of medium-sized cy-lindrical or disc-shaped beads and buttons. On the basis of Tsuneki’s examination (1987, 1989), finds from Danilo and the cave of Grabak (Korošec 1958: 153-154, pl. 51.1, 2, 5; Novak 1955) as well as our calculations, it is probable that 5

(or even less) but a maximum of 10 pieces of smaller cylin-drical beads or buttons, and 20 pieces of medium-sized, disc-shaped beads could be made from a shell valve.

It is most difficult to estimate the number of tiny, disc-shaped beads. We could not find any reference to the amount of waste created from this type of primary raw material in the relevant literature.

It is known from ethnographic cases how shell beads or mon-ey were made by using stone and wood implements in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. Charles M. Woodford described the manufacture of shell money on the Solomon Islands. First, shell valves were broken into small irregular pieces by a stone hammerhead without a handle. Next, pieces were chipped roughly into a circular shape, and their surface was polished smooth on a wooden instrument with the help of a grinding stone. Then, small pieces were pierced, one by one, by a chipped stone drill inserted in a coconut shell. Fi-nally, semi-finished discs were stringed on a strong bush fiber and irregular edges were polished smooth using sand, water and a grinding stone (Woodford 1908: 82-83). Bronislaw Ma-linowski described the manufacture of Spondylus beads used


52

Figure 4. Large, cylindrical bead, large, biconical beads and a pen-dant from a complete Spondylus shell valve from a

Middle Neolithic grave (Szakálhát Culture, Mezőkövesd–Nagy–fertő, grave No. S120)

[photo by Géza Kulcsár, Herman Ottó Museum]

Figure 5. Medium-sized and large beads from a Middle Neolithic grave (Bükk Culture, Garadna–Elkerülő út, site No. 2, grave No. S191)


Figure 6. Medium-sized beads, animal tooth-shaped, arched pen-dants, red deer tooth-shaped pendant, and small plates with perfora-tions from a Middle Neolithic grave, some of them are painted with red ochre (Tiszadob Group of ALPC, Mezőzombor–Temető, grave

No. 49) [photo by László Kádas, Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences]


53

in the kula ring on the Trobriand Islands in a very similar way. First, shells were broken with a stone into smaller, roughly circular pieces. Next, shells were put in the hole of a cylindri-cal piece of wood, they were polished and then pierced. Fol-lowing this, the semi-finished pieces were stringed on a thin but tough stick and polished into a regular circular shape by rolling on a flat grinding stone (Malinowski 1922: 371-372).

Michelle Miller (1996) discussed meticulously each phase of manufacture used in the production of tiny disc-shaped cockle beads (Cerastaderma edule), stone drills, and grind-ing stones from the Early Neolithic site of Franchthi Cave. Manufacture marks and the diversity of measurements of shell beads suggest that shells were ground individually during the Early Neolithic. Comparing the measurements of Early Neo-lithic beads to those of the Late Neolithic, the Late Neolithic beads are much uniform indicating increasing standardiza-

tion over time. Late Neolithic beads were probably strung and ground together in large groups. This method consider-ably decreases the time needed to make a shell bead (Miller 1996: 24-25). Standardized production and measurements of Spondylus beads were also documented at the Late Neolithic site of Makriyalos. Increasing production intensity can be im-plied between the two settlement phases (Pappa & Veropouli-dou, this volume). Miller’s experimental archaeological study demonstrated that special skill or practice was not necessary for making shell beads and their production did not require a significant amount of time (Miller 1996: 24-26). This manu-facturing technique might not have been essentially different from how the small Spondylus beads were made.

Tsuneki similarly reconstructed the manufacture of Spondylus beads on the basis of waste material and semi-finished prod-ucts (Tsuneki 1989: 10-12). It is probable that they were not able to exploit a shell valve maximally in the Neolithic. Tak-ing into consideration all these facts and only considering the size of the objects, a maximum of 50 to 100 tiny beads could have been made from a mature shell valve. At the same time, it is also possible that more tiny beads could be made from secondary raw material, that is, larger broken ornaments were used further for manufacturing small beads.

Based on these calculations, it is possible to provide an esti-mate on the amount of minimum and maximum Spondylus raw material per grave in the two periods. Because of uncer-tainties, this is only a rough estimation, but it is highly likely that any mistakes in our calculations are within an order of magnitude. If we compare the two periods only on the basis of the number of Spondylus items per grave, a considerable increase can be observed (Fig. 8-9). At the same time, the graph demonstrates well that there was hardly any difference in the estimated amount of Spondylus raw material per grave. It is even possible that the average amount of raw material de-creased (Fig. 10). On the basis of these observations, it can be determined that in the Middle Neolithic, as a rule, there were objects in the graves with a higher raw material requirement than in the Late Neolithic. In the majority of Late Neolithic graves, there were objects with lower raw material require-ment than in the former period, mostly just a few pieces or a couple of dozens of tiny beads. However, in this period, some graves appeared which were extremely rich in Spondy-lus. They contained a huge amount of Spondylus objects in terms of both the number of pieces and the amount of raw material. But it appeared from the malacological analysis of Aszód ornaments that a considerable number of beads, for-merly thought to be made of Spondylus, were in fact made of limestone (Sümegi 2009: 341-342). Therefore, we believe that it will be necessary to conduct further raw material analy-sis of Neolithic ornaments of other sites as well because we can expect similar results on other Late Neolithic sites. This clearly shows that Spondylus ornaments were imitated in con-siderable amounts in the Late Neolithic, a fact that resulted in further decrease of the number of real Spondylus items in Late Neolithic graves. No differences can be seen in dimensions

Figure 7. Medium-sized, disc-shaped beads from a Middle Neolithic grave (Kesznyéten–Lúci Abony, grave No. S4)


Figure 8. Mean Spondylus ornaments in Middle and Late Neolithic graves


54

between real and imitation beads in Aszód, so, during their wearing, differences were probably almost invisible4.

problem of fossIl shell usage and furTher researCh

In their publication on Spondylus and Glycymeris bracelets from the Vinča site, Vesna Dimitrijević and Boban Tripković called attention to the fact that the raw material of several former findings were erroneously determined to be Spon-dylus instead of Glycymeris, and they found fossil pieces as well (Dimitrijević & Tripković 2006: 247; Tripković 2006). Glycymeris is also a recent shell derived from the Mediter-ranean; therefore it does not basically influence our social archaeological conclusions. However, we would like to call attention to the fact that these shells appeared in the Carpath-ian basin only at the end of the Middle Neolithic, and they can be found more frequently only in Late Neolithic Lengyel or Tisza Culture graves (e.g. Aszód–Papi földek, Kisköre–Gát, Polgár–Csőszhalom, Csóka–Kremenyák, Battonya–Parázs–tanya, Györe–Bocok) (Kalicz 1985a: 140, fig. 30.5; Kalicz & Szénászky 2001: 32, fig. 4.1, fig. 8.1, fig. 9.1; Korek 1989: 119, 121, pl. 36.1-3, pl. 38.3; Raczky 1994: 169, 172, fig. 1,

4 Graphs represent the number of real Spondylus.

fig. 4.13; Raczky et al. 1997: 40, fig. 34.; Zalai-Gaál 2006: 21, fig. 6).

We had only restricted scientific data for the actual raw mate-rial of so-called “Spondylus” objects. It is an important ques-tion in terms of exchange relations whether the shell raw ma-terials were recent or fossil. In 1990, Judith Shackleton and Henry Elderfield published their strontium isotope analysis which showed that all of three objects from the Central Euro-pean Neolithic were made of recent Spondylus shell (Shack-leton & Elderfield 1990). After that, it became a generally accepted view that there was a long-distance exchange sys-tem in the Neolithic through Europe, from the Mediterranean through the Balkan Peninsula and Central Europe to the Paris basin (Dimitrijević & Tripković 2003; Kalicz & Szénászky 2001: 46-47; Müller 1997: 8; Séfériadès 1995a, 1995b, 2000; Siklósi 2004: 9-11; Willms 1985). Researchers abandoned the possibility of fossil shell usage. Contrary to this, in relation to Vinča finds, Dimitrijević and Tripković started to suspect again that there were imitations made of fossil shells, besides recent Spondylus items (Dimitrijević & Tripković 2006). Fos-sil shells (both Ostrea and Spondylus) can be found on several sites through the overland territory of Europe. However, ac-cording to Dimitrijević and Tripković, there are no features that could help clearly distinguish fossil and recent shells

Figure 9. Number of Spondylus ornaments in gravesCircles indicate outliers, stars indicate extremes, boxplots show minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, and maximum values


55

(Dimitrijević & Tripković 2006: 238-240). This can be solved only by isotope analysis applied on a large scale.

Michele Miller’s experimental archaeological analyses showed that even Spondylus shells collected on the shore were too rigid for manufacturing and they were broken, so it is probable that fossil shells were not appropriate for ornament making either (Miller 2003). Among the material subjected recently to palaeontological analysis –Neolithic ornaments of Vedrovice LPC cemetery (Hladilová 2002: 257, 263, this volume), Chalcolithic ornaments of Durankulak cemetery (Avramova 2002; Todorova 2002: 183)– there was not any fossil raw material found.

At the same time, István Zalai-Gaál and Pál Sümegi have recently published an analysis of seashell ornaments of Late Neolithic burials from South Eastern Transdanubia (e.g. Mórágy–Tűzkődomb, Pári–Altacker, Zengővárkony), and Sümegi determined some fossil Ostrea items besides recent Spondylus finds (Sümegi 2006; Zalai-Gaál 2006). It is a very interesting result because it shows that these objects could reach the Carpathian Basin not only via long-distance or prestige exchange, but there could also be local Spondylus imitations among them. Fossil Ostrea species are quite common at geological sites in the Carpathian Basin

(along mountains), so they can be considered as local raw materials. Among these sites, there are several ones where fossil Spondylus were also found (e.g. Nagymaros, Zebegény, Sámsonháza, Budapest–Rákosi railway cutting, Fertőrákos, Márkháza, Bánd, Mátraverebély, Piliny, and Mátraszőllős) (Fig. 11)5. Therefore, isotope analysis and the determination of species of seashell grave goods would be necessary for the whole Carpathian Basin in order to gain a more exact picture about exchange relations in the Middle and Late Neolithic and about changes between the two periods, as well as to estimate the ratio of local products and imitations.

In relation to this, another theory needs to be mentioned. Provided that fossil shells were used for ornaments in the Carpathian Basin, then people could manufacture these objects as well for they had to have the expertise. It is highly probable that they made smaller Spondylus ornaments, mainly beads. This is evidenced by the fact that secondary used materials have been found in Neolithic settlements (e.g. Csóka, Battonya, and Hîršova) (Banner 1960: 18; Comşa 1973; Kalicz & Szénászky 2001; Raczky 1994), and the grave

5 Alfréd Dulai (Hungarian Natural History Museum), pers. comm. We would like to thank him for the help in searching for fossil shell sites in the Carpathian Basin.

Figure 10. Estimated number of used Spondylus shell valves per graveCircles indicate outliers, stars indicate extremes, boxplots show minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, and maximum values


56

no. 4 at Kisköre–Gát contained a semi-finished Spondylus bracelet (Korek 1989: 40, pl. 33.4.).

soCIal arChaeologICal ConClusIons

Based on what has been discussed so far, it is possible to refine our understanding of Middle and Late Neolithic societies.

In the Middle Neolithic, mainly large, heavy ornaments were used with high raw material requirement which were prepared individually. In this period male, female as well as children graves contained Spondylus ornaments, although there are local differences. For example, Spondylus objects in Nitra LPC cemetery were typical especially for mature male graves (Pavúk 1972) but this is not typical for the graves of LPC found in the territory of present-day Hungary (Siklósi 2004: 48-49). Furthermore, the Spondylus ornaments or grave goods were the privilege of the few and the acquisition of Spondy-lus must have been strongly limited. Ornaments placed into the grave could be particularly valuable, especially if we take into consideration that in the Middle Neolithic burials with-out grave goods were very common. Burials extremely rich in Spondylus, containing pendants or wide bracelets as well as large beads, represented outstandingly high value (e.g. Mezőkövesd–Nagy–fertő, grave No. S120, Mezőzombor–Temető, grave No. 49, Mosonszentmiklós, Tiszaföldvár–Téglagyár) (Csengeri 2004b; Kalicz & Szénászky 2001: 38; Oravecz 1998-1999). We know about so few Middle Neolithic burials in the Carpathian Basin that they cannot represent the whole population of a settlement. At the moment, we know about only one settlement from this period where more than 100 burials were found and the possibility can emerge at all that it can be considered to be a representative sample (Raczky 2004). It seems that in this period only a narrow section of the population had the right to be buried in the territory of the set-tlement, and up to now, any Middle Neolithic formal cemetery could not be found in the territory of the present-day Hungary.

Middle Neolithic hoards are mainly ornament hoards. They could be associated with either a certain person or a community,

and contained intact ornaments and an extremely large amount of Spondylus was concentrated in them (e.g. Szekszárd–Palánki–hegy) (Csalogovits 1936). Based on these, it seems that there were competing, rivalry families or lineages in the Middle Neolithic that expressed and manipulated their prestige as well as social, and economic influence by exchanging and wearing exotic ornaments.

Contrary to this, since the turning of the Middle and the Late Neolithic (Sopot, Szakálhát cultures, etc.), considerable changes can be observed in Spondylus usage. First, consider-able changes in costumes or fashion can be witnessed: neck-laces, belts, bracelets and anklets consisting of composite, multi-row tiny beads appear instead of heavy, one-row neck-laces and belts of the former period (e.g. Bicske: Makkay et al. 1996: 20-23). These ornaments were also represented on Sé type figurines (P. Barna 2004: 33-34). These ornaments are smaller, and finished in a more sophisticated way. At the same time, this might mean that the “mass production” of shell or-naments started. This is also evidenced by the homogeneity of sizes of tiny beads. Secondly, according to the data from Late Neolithic graves, Spondylus prestige raw material be-came accessible to larger groups of society in small amounts. Taking into consideration the proportion of graves with Spondylus grave goods, there were more graves with shell/stone ornaments than there were in the Middle Neolithic but with higher differences in their amounts (Siklósi 2004: 24). However, some burials differ by several orders of magnitude from the rest of graves containing Spondylus (e.g. Aszód, Hódmezővásárhely–Gorzsa, Polgár–Csőszhalom) (Horváth 1987: 36; Kalicz 1985a: 41; Raczky & Anders 2006: 28-29).

Much more burials are known from the Late Neolithic than from the former period, and in case of some sites (e.g. Aszód–Papi földek), it is possible that excavated graves form a repre-sentative sample of the past community (Siklósi 2007). Wear-ing Spondylus ornaments was limited almost only to women and children. It is highly probable that, as compared to the former period, the expression form of prestige changed: men mostly expressed their wealth and prestige through their fe-

Figure 11. Fossil Spondylus valve from the Carpathian Basin (left) and recent Spondylus valve from the Mediterranean region (right)[courtesy of Alfréd Dulai & Zoltán Fehér, Hungarian Natural History Museum]


57

male family members and their descendants. This is the pe-riod when status and prestige objects can be differentiated: stone mace heads, wild-boar tusks and pendants were found in graves of a narrow group of adult men who could be lead-ers of communities (Siklósi 2004). Status objects connected to leader’s position were found in some graves of mature men and a stone mace-head was found in a child’s grave in Vil-lánykövesd (Zalai-Gaál 1988: 152) which suggests that in some societies rank could be hereditary. At this time, men or families communicated their economic power mainly through the costume of women and children, probably girls. Based on these observations, it could happen in some individual cases that men who held a leader’s position tried to hand down to, or express their own positions in the interment of their children.

In this period new raw materials appeared in the manifestation and manipulation of prestige, which were gradually taking over the role of Spondylus. More and more frequently, limestone or marble beads completed Spondylus string of beads as imitations. Beads made of red deer tooth or their imitations can be found in some graves as well. On the one hand, this shows the importance and value of Spondylus. On the other hand, it indicates that short-distance connections became more and more intensive, and long-distance exchange gradually became scarce (Siklósi 2004: 24). This tendency can be seen well on the ornaments from Aszód–Papi földek or Polgár–Csőszhalom and Site No. 6 (Anders & Nagy 2007: 84 and pers. comm.; Sümegi 2009: 341-342), where a considerable amount of limestone/marble beads were found besides Spondylus beads. This trend continues in the Early Copper Age when limestone and marble beads totally took over the place of Spondylus (Bognár-Kutzián 1963: 338-345).

In the decreasing importance of Spondylus ornaments as pres-tige goods not only the access of bigger social groups played a role, and therefore they lost their attraction, but a new raw material also appeared: copper. Late Neolithic was the first period in the territory of the Carpathian Basin when copper ornaments, the first signs of copper utilization appeared. This is a good example of Colin Renfrew’s idea that copper had been prestige raw material first and it was not used for mak-ing tools. It displaces stone tools only a period later (Ren-frew 1986). Tiny copper beads, rings, bracelets were found in several Late Neolithic, mainly female and children graves often with Spondylus and limestone/marble ornaments (e.g. Hódmezővásárhely–Gorzsa, Tápé–Lebő, Zengővárkony, Vil-lánykövesd, Mórágy–Tűzkődomb) (Dombay 1939: 7-8, 13, 19, 21, 1960: 78, 86-87, 123, 136, 229, pl. 37.1., 1959: 61, 64; Gazdapusztai 1963: 27, pl. 4.1; Horváth 1987: 42-43, fig. 38.1-2; Korek 1973: 278, pl. 10.6, 8.; Zalai-Gaál 1996: 23, 25, 2002b: 80-81). Graves with copper grave goods were of-ten part of the most prominent graves in other grave goods as well. Furthermore, new raw materials as wild-boar tusk, and mainly copper appeared to express the leader’s position or wealth instead of Spondylus. This supports the idea that cop-per as a new prestige raw material was accessible only to a narrow group and it was able to take over the role which Spon-dylus ornaments were more and more unable to play.

During this process, from the Middle Neolithic to the Early Copper Age, Late Neolithic can be considered as a transitional period when the older, traditional prestige material (Spondylus) and the new one (copper) existed side by side. The decreasing role of Spondylus ornaments can be seen in a European scale as well because during the Middle Neolithic Spondylus orna-ments reached Central Europe and even the Paris Basin but during the Late Neolithic the northern and western border of their spread was the Carpathian Basin. In the next period they can be found only in the Lower Danube region, except for the Mediterranean.

Late Neolithic hoards contain lots of broken Spondylus ob-jects and tools which indicate that they might be connected to secondary workshops (e.g. Csóka–Kremenyák, Hîršova) (Comşa 1973; Raczky 1994). Furthermore, these hoards con-tained both Spondylus and copper objects which maintain their similar role.

At the same time, the continuity of symbolic value is reflected through the fact that the types of ornament did not change and the Early Copper Age gold pendants reflect the traditional shapes of Neolithic Spondylus pendants (Jovanović 1996: 31; Lichardus 1991: 170; Raczky 1999: 27).

In the future, it would be important to perform isotope and malacological analysis of great amounts of shell ornaments from several sites so that it will be possible to determine the proportion of stone and fossil raw material. In knowledge of this, it might be necessary to rethink our views about social inequality and long-distance exchange in the Middle and Late Neolithic.


58

Seminar Papers 2 (ed. P. Topping): 139-164. Oxford: Oxbow Books [Monograph Series].

Comşa, e.1973 Parures néolithiques en coquillages marins dé-

couvertes en territoire Roumain. Dacia 17: 61-76.

csalogoVIts, J.1936 Tolna vármegye múzeumának újabb szerzemé-

nyei I: Újabb-kőkori leletek Tolna vármegyéből. In Tolna Vármegye Multjából (ed. J. Holub): 15-21. Pécs: Tolna Vármegye közönsége.

csengerI, P.2004a Adatok a Cserehát őskori településtörténe-

téhez [Data to the Prehistoric Settlements of the Cserehát]. In MΩMOΣ II. Őskoros Kutatók II. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete, Debre-cen, 2000. November 6–8 (ed. E. Nagy, J. Dani & Zs. Hajdú): 45-59. Debrecen: Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága.

2004b Spondylus mellékletes középső neolitikus te-metkezések Mezőzomborról és Mezőkövesdről [Middle Neolithic burials with Spondylus shell ornaments from Mezőzombor (Tiszadob group) and Mezőkövesd (Szakálhát culture)]. In MΩMOΣ III. Őskoros Kutatók III. Össze-jövetelének konferenciakötete. Halottkultusz és temetkezés, Szombathely-Bozsok, 2002. Ok-tóber 7-9 (ed. G. Ilon): 65-90. Szombathely: Vas Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága.

Dimitrijević, v. & B. tripković

2003 New Spondylus findings at Vinča-Belo Brdo: 1998-2001 campaigns and regional approach to problem. Starinar 52: 47-62.

2006 Spondylus and Glycymeris bracelets: Trade re-flections at Neolithic Vinča-Belo Brdo. Docu-menta Praehistorica 33: 237-252.

doMbay, J.1939 A zengővárkonyi őskori telep és temető [The

Prehistoric Settlement and Cemetery at Zengővárkony]. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó [Archaeologia Hungarica, 23].

1959 Próbaásatás a villánykövesdi kőrézkori lakóte-lepen [Probegrabung an der aeneolithischen Ansiedlung bei Villánykövesd (Kom. Bara-nya)]. A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve: 55-71.

1960 Die Siedlung und das Gräberfeld in Zengő-várkony. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó [Archae-ologia Hungarica, 37].

doMborócZkI, l.1997 Füzesabony–Gubakút: Újkőkori falu a Kr. e.

VI. évezredből [Füzesabony–Gubakút: Neo-lithic village from the 6th millennium B.C]. In Utak a múltba: Az M3-as autópálya leletmenté-sei [Paths into the Past: Rescue Excavations on the M3 Motorway] (ed. P. Raczky, T. Kovács &

anders, a. & e. gy. nagy

2007 Late Neolithic burial rites at the site of Polgár–Csőszhalom–dűlő. In The Lengyel, Polgár and Related Cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe (ed. J. K. Kozłowski & P. Raczky): 83-96. Kraków: The Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences Kraków, Eötvös Loránd University Institute of Archaeological Sciences Budapest.

aVraMoVa, M.2002 Der Schmuck aus den Gräbern von Durankulak.

In Durankulak, Band II: Die prähistorischen Gräberfelder (Hrsg. H. Todorova): 191-206. Sofia: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Berlin.

banner, J.1960 The Neolithic settlement on the Kremenyák Hill

at Csóka (Čoka): The excavations of F. Móra in the years 1907-1913. Acta Archaeologica Aca-demiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 12: 1-56.

P. barna, J.2004 Adatok a késő neolitikus viselet megismeré-

séhez a lengyeli kultúra újabb leletei alapján [Some data to Late Neolithic costume accord-ing to new finds of the Lengyel culture]. Zalai Múzeum 13: 29-53.

bÁnFFy, e.1999 Az újkőkori lelőhely értékelése. In Kompolt–

Kistér. Újkőkori, bronzkori, szarmata és avar lelőhely. Leletmentő ásatás az M3-as autópálya nyomvonalán [Kompolt–Kistér. Neolithic settle-ment and graves, part of a Bronze Age cemetery, Sarmatian and Avar settlements. Rescue exca-vation at the M3 motorway] (ed. T. Petercsák & J. J. Szabó): 351-356. Eger: Dobó István Vár-múzeum [Heves Megyei Régészeti Közlemé-nyek].

bÁnFFy, e. & I. bognÁr-kutZIÁn

2007 The Late Neolithic Tell Settlement at Polgár–Csőszhalom, Hungary: The 1957 Excavation. Oxford: Archaeopress [British Archaeological Reports, International Series, 1730].

bognÁr-kutZIÁn, I.1963 The Copper Age Cemetery of Tiszapolgár–

Basatanya. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó [Archaeologia Hungarica, 42].

chaPMan, J. c.1994 Social power in the early farming communi-

ties of Eastern Hungary: Perspectives from the Upper Tisza region [Társadalmi erőforrás a kelet-magyarországi korai földművelő közös-ségekben a Felső–Tisza–vidék szemszögéből]. A nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36: 79-99.

1997 The origin of tells in Eastern Hungary. In Neo-lithic Landscapes: Neolithic Studies Group

referenCes


59

zwischen Archäologie, Klimatologie, Biologie und Medizin (Hrsg. A. Lippert, M. Schultz, S. Shennan & M. Teschler-Nicola): 153-163. Rah-den/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf [Internationa-le Archäologie Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposi-um, Tagung, Kongress, 2].

kalIcZ, n. & J. koós 1997 Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolitischen Hausresten

und Gräbern in Nordostungarn. In ANTIΔΩPON Dragoslavo Srejović Completis LXV Annis ab Amicis Collegis Discipulis Oblatum (ed. M. Lazić): 125-135. Beograd: Centre for Archaeo-logical Research, Faculty of Philosophy, The University of Belgrade.

2000 Település a legkorábbi újkőkori sírokkal Észak-kelet–Magyarországról [Eine Siedlung mit ält-neolithischen Gräbern in Nordostungarn]. A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 39: 45-76.

2002 Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolitischen Gräbern in Nordostungarn. Preistoria Alpina 37: 45-79.

kalIcZ, n. & J. Makkay

1977 Die Linienbandkeramik der Großen Ungari-schen Tiefebene. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó [Studia Archaeologia, 7].

kalIcZ, n. & J. sZénÁsZky

2001 Spondylus-Schmuck im Neolithikum des Ko-mitats Békés, Südostungarn. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 76: 24-54.

kIss, l.1939 Fiatalabb kőkori telep és sírok Kenézlőn [Jün-

gere steinzeitliche Siedlung und Gräber in Kenézlő]. Folia Archaeologica 1-2: 7-12.

koós, J.1986 Archäologische Beiträge zur Geschichte

der Bükker Kultur in Nordost-Ungarn. In Urzeitliche und frühhistorische Besiedlung der Ostslowakei in Bezug zu den Nachbarge-bieten (Hrsg. B. Chropovský): 103-107. Nitra: Archäologisches Institut der Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

2003 Mezőzombor–Temető. In Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 2000 [Archaeological Inves-tigations in Hungary 2000] (ed. J. Kisfaludi): 177. Budapest: Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Hi-vatal és a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.

korek, J. 1957 A vadnai neolitikus sírlelet [The Neolithic

burial-finds at Vadna]. A Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve 1: 14-30.

1973 A tiszai kultúra. Budapest [Doctoral disserta-tion].

1989 Die Theiß-Kultur in der mittleren und nördli-chen Theißgegend. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum [Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae, 3].

koroŠec, J.1958 Neolitska naseobina u Danilu Bitinju I-II [The

Neolithic Settlement at Danilo-Bitinj I-II]. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i

A. Anders): 19-27. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum és Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem.

gaZdaPusZtaI, gy. 1963 Későneolitkori telep és temető Hódmező-

vásárhely–Gorzsán: Előzetes beszámoló az 1956-57. évi ásatásokról) [Siedlung und Fried-hof aus dem Spätneolithikum in Hódmező-vásárhely–Gorzsa: Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1956-57]. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve: 21-48.

hegedüs, k.1982-1983 The settlement of the Neolithic Szakálhát-

Group at Csanytelek-Újhalastó. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve: 7-54.

hladIloVÁ, Š.2002 Výsledky paleontologického studia ozdob z

lokality Vedrovice [Ergebnisse paläontologi-schen Studiums der Verzierungen aus der Loka-lität Vedrovice]. In Dvě pohřebiště neolitické-ho lidu s lineární keramikou ve Vedrovicích na Moravě [Zwei Gräberfelder des neolithischen Volkes mit Linearbandkeramik in Vedrovice in Mähren] (ed. V. Podborský): 257-264. Brno: Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Dept. of Archaeology & Museology.

horVÁth, F.1987 Hódmezővásárhely–Gorzsa. In The Late

Neolithic of the Tisza Region (ed. L. Tálas & P. Raczky): 31-46. Budapest–Szolnok: Directorate of the Szolnok County Museums.

jovanović, j.1996 Eneolithic gold pendants in South-East Europe:

their meaning and their chronology. In Studien zur Mettalindustrie im Karpatenbecken und den banachbarten Regionen: Festschrift für Amália Mozsolics zum 85. Geburtstag (Hrsg. T. Kovács): 31-36. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.

kalIcZ, n.1985a Kőkori falu Aszódon. Aszód: Petőfi Múzeum

[Múzeumi Füzetek, 32].1985b Über das spätneolithische Siedlungswesen

in Ungarn. A Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve 13: 127-138.

1989 Chronologische und terminologische Prob-leme im Spätneolithikum des Theißgebietes. In Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections (ed. S. Bökönyi): 103-122. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences [Varia Archae-ologica Hungarica, 2].

2001 Zusammenhänge zwischen dem Siedlungswe-sen und der Bevölkerungszahl während des Spätneolithikums in Ungarn [Connection be-tween modes of settlement and population size during the Late Neolithic period in Hungary]. In Mensch und Umwelt während des Neolithi-kums und der Frühbronzezeit in Mitteleuropa: Ergebnisse interdisziplinärer Zusammenarbeit


60

Umjetnosti Odjel za Filozofiju i Drušestvene Nauke.

kurucZ, k.1994 Újkőkori sírok Tiszavasvári határából [Neo-

lithic graves from the outskirts of Tiszavas-vári]. In A kőkortól a középkorig: Tanulmá-nyok Trogmayer Ottó 60. születésnapjára [Von der Steinzeit bis zum Mittelalter: Studien zum 60. Geburtstag von Ottó Trogmayer] (ed. G. Lőrinczy): 125-134. Szeged: Csongrád Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága.

lIchardus, J.1991 Das Gräberfeld von Varna im Rahmen des To-

tenrituals des Kodžaderm–Gumelniţa–Karano-vo VI–Komplexes. In Die Kupferzeit als his-torische Epoche: Symposium Saarbrücken und Otzenhausen 6.-13.11.1988. (Hrsg. J. Lichar-dus): 167-194. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH [Saarbrücker Breiträge zur Altertumskunde, 55]

Makkay, J.1982 A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új

eredményei. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.1991 Entstehung, Blüte und Ende der Theiß–Kultur.

In Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche: Sym-posium Saarbrücken und Otzenhausen 6.-13. 11.1988 (Hrsg. J. Lichardus): 319-328. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH [Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, 55].

Makkay, J., e. starnInI & M. tulok 1996 Excavations at Bicske–Galagonyás (Part III):

The Notenkopf and Sopot-Bicske Cultural Phases. Edizioni Svevo Trieste.

MalInowskI, b.1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account

of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Ar-chipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, Inc.

Marton, t.2004 Material finds from Balatonszárszó, Neolithic

settlement: Connections within and without the TLPC territory. Antaeus 27: 81-86.

MIller, M.1996 The manufacture of cockle shell beads at Early

Neolithic Franchthi Cave, Greece: A case of craft specialization? Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9(1): 7-37.

2003 Technical aspects of ornament production at Si-tagroi. In Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in Northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Vol. 2: The Final Report (ed. E. S. Elster & C. Renfrew): 369-382. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archae-ology at UCLA [Monumenta Archaeolo-gica, 20].

Müller, J. 1997 Neolithische und chalkolithische Spondylus-Ar-

tefakte: Anmerkungen zu Verbreitung, Tausch-gebiet und sozialer Funktion. In ΧΡΟΝΟΣ: Festschrift für Bernard Hänsel (Hrsg. C. Bek-ker, M.-L. Dunkelmann, C. Metzner-Nebelsick,

H. Peter-Röcher, M. Roeder & B. Teržan): 91- 106. Espelkamp: Verlag Marie Leidorf [Interna-tionale Archäologie, Studia Honoraria, 1].

noVak, g.1955 Prethistorijski Hvar: Grapčeva Spilja [Prehis-

toric Hvar: The Cave of Grabak]. Zagreb: Aca-demia Scientiarum et Artum Jugoslavica, Clas-sis Philosophia et Sociologia.

noVotný, b.1962 Lužianska Skupina a Počiatky Maľovanej

Keramiky na Slovensku. Bratislava: Vydavateľ-stvo Slovenskej Akadémie Vied Bratislava.

oraVecZ, h.1996 Neolithic burials at Tiszalúc–Sarkad: Data to

the burial practices of the Alföld Linear Pottery Culture. Folia Archaeologica 45: 51-62.

1998-1999 Middle Neolithic burials at Tiszaföldvár: Data to the burial customs and social relations of the Alföld Linearband Pottery Culture. Folia Ar-chaeologica 47: 43-62.

2001 A Tiszalúc-sarkadi újkőkori falu feltárásának eddigi eredményei (Borsod–Abaúj–Zem-plén megye) [Die bisherigen Ergebnisse der Freilegungen in der neolitischen Siedlung von Tiszalúc-Sarkad (Komitat Borsod–Abaúj–Zem-plén)]. In Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 1998 [Archaeological Investigations in Hun-gary 1998] (ed. G. Rezi Kató): 7-24. Budapest: Kulturális Örökség Igazgatósága és a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.

Patay, P.1966-1967 Adatok Budapest környékének újkőkorához és

rézkorához [Angaben zum Neolithikum und zur Kupferzeit der Umgebung von Budapest]. Folia Archaeologica 18: 7-26.

PaVúk, J.1972 Neolithisches Gräberfeld in Nitra. Slovenská

Archeológia 20: 5-103.Petres, é.1954 Újabb-kőkori sírok Bicskén [Neolithic graves

at Bicske]. Folia Archaeologica 6: 22-28, 197-198.

Podborský, V.2002 Dvě pohřebiště neolitického lidu s lineární

keramikou ve Vedrovicích na Moravě [Zwei Gräberfelder des neolithischen Volkes mit Line-arbandkeramik in Vedrovice in Mähren]. Brno: Masarykovy University Philosophy Faculty, Dept. of Archaeology & Museology.

racZky, P.1982 „Szolnok megye a népek országútján”: Az Ál-

landó kiállítás vezetője [„Szolnok County: The crossroads of many Races”: Guide to the ar-chaeological collection]. Szolnok: Damjanich János Múzeum.

1994 Two late Neolithic ‘hoards’ from Csóka (Čoka)– Kremenyák in the Vojvodina [Két késő neoli-tikus „kincs” Csóka (Čoka)–Kremenyákról (Vojvodina)]. In A kőkortól a középkorig: Ta-


61

nulmányok Trogmayer Ottó 60. születésnapjára [Von der Steinzeit bis zum Mittelalter: Studien zum 60. Geburtstag von Ottó Trogmayer] (ed. G. Lőrinczy): 161-172. Szeged: Csongrád Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága.

1995 Neolithic settlement pattern in the Tisza region of Hungary. In Settlement Patterns between the Alps and the Black Sea 5th to 2nd Millenium B.C., Verona-Lazise 1992 (ed. A. Aspes): 77-86. Ve-rona: Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Na-turale di (IIa serie) Sezione Scienze dell’Uomo 4.

1999 Goldfunde aus der Kupferzeit: Die Anfänge der Metallurgie im Karpatenbecken. In Prähisto-rische Goldschätze aus dem Ungarischen Na-tionalmuseum (Hrsg. T. Kovács & P. Raczky): 17-34. Budapest: Ungarisches Nationalmuseum & Institut für Archäologie der Eötvös Loránd Universität.

2004 Polgár, Ferenci–hát. In Régészeti kutatások Magyarországon 2002 [Archaeological Inves-tigations in Hungary 2002] (ed. J. Kisfaludi): 257-258. Budapest: Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Hivatal és a Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.

racZky, P. & a. anders

2006 Social dimensions of the Late Neolithic settle-ment of Polgár–Csőszhalom (Eastern Hungary). Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 57: 17-33.

racZky, P., a. anders, e. nagy, k. kurucZ, Zs. haJdú & w. MeIer-arendt

1997 Polgár–Csőszhalom–dűlő: Újkőkor végi telep és sírok a Kr. e. V. évezredből. In Utak a múltba [Paths into the Past] (ed. P. Raczky, T. Kovács & A. Anders): 34-41. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum és Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem Régészettudományi Intézet.

renFrew, c.1986 Varna and the emergence of wealth in pre-

historic Europe. In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective (ed. A. Appadurai): 141-168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

schuster, c.2002 Zu den Spondylus-Funden in Rumänien. Thra-

co-Dacica 23: 37-83.séFérIadès, M. l.1995a Spondylus Gaederopus: The earliest European

long distance exchange system. A symbolic and structural archaeological approach to Neolithic societies. Documenta Praehistorica 22: 233-256.

1995b La route néolithique des spondyles de la Médi-terranée à la Manche. In Nature et Culture, col-loque de Liège (13-17 décembre 1993) (éd. M. Otte): 291-358. Liège: ERAUL 68.

2000 Spondylus Gaederopus: Some observations on the earliest European long distance exchange system. In Karanovo, Band III: Beiträge zum

Neolithikum in Südosteuropa (Hrsg. S. Hiller & V. Nikolov): 423-437. Wien: Phoibos Verlag.

2003 Note sur l’origine et la signification des objets en spondyle de Hongrie dans le cadre du Néoli-thique et de l‘Énéolithique européens. In Mor-genrot der Kulturen: Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag (Hrsg. E. Jerem & P. Raczky): 353-373. Budapest: Archaeolingua.

shackleton, J. & h. elderFIeld 1990 Strontium isotope dating of the source of Neo-

lithic European Spondylus shell artefacts. An-tiquity 64: 312-315.

sherratt, a.1982 Mobile resources: Settlement and exchange in

early agricultural Europe. In Ranking, Resource and Exchange (ed. C. Renfrew & S. Shennan): 27-32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [New Directions in Archaeology].

1983a The development of Neolithic and Copper Age settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain. Part II.: Site survey and settlement dynamics. Ox-ford Journal of Archaeology 2(1): 13-41.

1983b Early agrarian settlement in the Körös region of the Great Hungarian Plain. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 35: 155-169.

sIklósI, Zs.2004 Prestige goods in the Neolithic of the Carpath-

ian Basin: Material manifestations of social differentiation. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 55: 1-62.

2007 Age and gender differences in Late Neolithic mortuary practice: A case study from Eastern Hungary. In The Lengyel, Polgár and Related Cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Cen-tral Europe (ed. J. K. Kozłowski & P. Raczky): 185-198. Kraków: The Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences Kraków, Eötvös Loránd Univer-sity Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Buda-pest.

ŠIŠka, s.1986 Grabungen auf der neolithischen und

äneolithischen Siedlung in Šarišské Michal’any. Slovenská Archeológia 34: 439-454.

süMegI, P.2006 A dél-dunántúli lengyeli kultúra tengeri kagy-

lóékszereinek archeozoológiai vizsgálata [Ar-chaeozoological investigation of the jewels of the S-Transdanubian Lengyel Culture]. A Wo-sinszky Mór Múzeum Évkönyve 28: 89-104.

2009 Őskori kultúrák ékszereinek elemzése – lokális és távolsági anyagok a csiga és kagylóékszerek között [A study of the jewellery of prehistoric cultures – local and long distance material]. In MΩMOΣ VI. Nyersanyagok és kereskedelem. Őskoros kutatók VI. összejövetele. Kőszeg, 2009. március 19-21. (ed. G. Ilon): 335-345. Szombathely: Field Service for Cultural Heri-


62

tage, Budapest and Vas County Museums’ Di-rectorate, Szombathely.

tÁlas, l. & P. racZky 1991 Les agriculteurs de la Grande Plaine Hongroise

(4000-3500 av. J.-C.). Dijon: Musée Archéolo-gique de Dijon.

todoroVa, h.2002 Die Mollusken in den Gräberfeldern von Du-

rankulak. In Durankulak, Band II: Die prähisto-rischen Gräberfelder (Hrsg. H. Todorova): 177-186. Sofia: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Berlin.

todoroVa, h. & I. VaJsoV

2001 Der kupferzeitliche Schmuck Bulgariens. Stutt-gart: Franz Steiner Verlag [Prähistorische Bron-zefunde XX, 6].

tripković, B.2006 Marine goods in European prehistory: A new

shell in old collection. Analele Banatului 14(1): 89-102.

tsunekI, a.1987 A reconsideration of Spondylus shell rings from

Agia Sofia Magoula, Greece. Bulletin of the An-cient Orient Museum IX: 1-15.

1989 The manufacture of Spondylus shell objects at Neolithic Dimini, Greece. Orient XXV: 1-21.

wIllMs, c.1985 Neolithischer Spondylusschmuck: Hundert Jah-

re Forschung. Germania 65(2): 331-343.wolF, M. & e. sIMonyI

1995 Előzetes jelentés az M3–as autópálya 10. lelőhelyének feltárásáról [Autobahn M3 10. Fundstelle]. Somogyi Múzeumok Közleményei 11: 5-32.

woodFord, c. M.1908 Notes on the manufacture of the Malaita shell

bead money of the Solomon Group. Man 43: 81-84.

ZalaI-gaÁl, I.1988 Közép-európai neolitikus temetők szociálar-

chaeológiai elemzése [Sozialarchäologische Untersuchungen des mitteleuropäischen Neo-lithikums aufgrund der Gräberfeldanalyse]. A Béri Balogh Ádám Múzeum Évkönyve 14: 3-178.

1996 Die Kupferfunde der Lengyel-Kultur im südlichen Transdanubien. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 48: 1-34.

2002a A státus és hierarchia kérdései a lengyeli kul-túra közösségeiben [Die Fragen des Status und der Hierarchie in den Gemeinschaften der Len-gyel–Kultur]. A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Év-könyve 44-45: 43-69.

2002b Die neolithische Gräbergruppe-B1 von Mórágy –Tűzkődomb. I: Die archäologischen Funde und Befunde. Szekszárd/Saarbrücken: Wosinszky Mór Múzeum.

2002c Das „prähistorische Modell von Varna” und die Fragen der Sozialstruktur der Lengyel–Kultur.


Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 53: 273-298.

2006 A lengyeli kultúra tengeri kagylóékszerei a Dél-Dunántúlon [Meeresmuschelschmuck der Lengyel–Kultur in Südtransdanubien]. A Wo-sinszky Mór Múzeum Évkönyve 28: 7-88.

Siklósi Zsuzsanna – Csengeri Piroska

Documents

Transcript of Siklósi Zsuzsanna – Csengeri Piroska