Universitätsforschungenzur prähistorischen Archäologie

Band 207

Aus der Graduiertenschule“Human Development in Landscapes”

der Universität Kiel

2012

Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

Tells: Social and Environmental Space

2012

Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

Proceedings of the International Workshop “Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the Last 12,000 Years:

The Creation of Landscapes II (14th –18th March 2011)” in Kiel Volume 3

edited by

Robert Hofmann, Fevzi-Kemal Moetz and Johannes Müller

7

Contents

9

10

13

15

19

33

47

53

67

79

93

105

117

127

Preface The Kiel Graduate School “Human Development in Landscapes”

Foreword

Robert HofmannTells: Reflections of Social and Environmental Spaces - an Introduction

Mehmet ÖzdoğanReading the Mounds: Problems, Alternative Trajectories and Biases

Eva RosenstockEnvironmental Factors in Tell Formation: An Archaeometric Attempt

Johannes MüllerTells, Fire, and Copper as Social Technologies

Peter F. Biehl, Ingmar Franz, Sonia Ostaptchouk, David Orton, Jana Rogasch, Eva RosenstockOne Community and Two Tells: The Phenomenon of Relocating Tell Set-tlements at the Turn of the 7th and 6th Millennia in Central Anatolia

Barbara Helwing, Tevekkül Aliyev, Andrea RicciMounds and Settlements in the Lower Qarabakh - Mil Plain, Azerbaijan

Simone Mühl Human Landscape - Site (Trans-) Formation in the Transtigris Area

Silvia Balatti, Maria Elena BalzaKınık-Höyük and Southern Cappadocia (Turkey): Geo-Archaeological Activities, Landscapes and Social Spaces

William A. Parkinson, Attila GyuchaTells in Perspective: Long-Term Patterns of Settlement Nucleation and Dispersal in Central and Southeast Europe

Barbara Dammers The Middle and Late Neolithic Tell of Uivar seen from a Ceramic Perspec-tive

Svend Hansen, Meda Toderaş The Copper Age Settlement Pietrele on the Lower Danube River (Roma-nia)

8

139

153

167

181

203

221

231

Agathe ReingruberCopper-Age House Inventories from Pietrele: Preliminary Results from Pottery Analysis

Carsten Mischka Late Neolithic Multiphased Settlements in Central and Southern Transil-vania: Geophysical Survey and Test Excavation

Inga Merkyte, Søren AlbekBoundaries and Space in Copper Age Bulgaria: Lessons from Africa

Robert Hofmann Style and Function of Pottery in Relation to the Development of Late Ne-olithic Settlement Patterns in Central Bosnia

Martin Furholt Kundruci: Development of Social Space in a Late Neolithic Tell-Settle-ment in Central Bosnia

Ulrich Bultmann Putting Sites in their Catchment Areas

Annex Workshop Programme, March 14th – 18th 2011

105

Tells in Perspective: Long-Term Patterns of Settlement Nucleation and Dis-persal in Central and Southeast Europe

William A. Parkinson and Attila Gyucha*

Abstract

This chapter compares the long-term patterns of early village organization in two parts of Europe – the Great Hungarian Plain in the Carpathian Basin, and the Thessalian Plain in Greece. We argue that a comparative perspective that incorporates multiple scales of analysis reveals interesting patterns of var-iation in how early village societies developed with-in these two distantly related regions, and how tells functioned within those different social systems. In Thessaly, tell settlements were established very early in the Neolithic sequence, which is characterized by

long-term stability in the location and organization of these tell settlements on the landscape. By contrast, tells did not occur in the Hungarian Neolithic until several hundred years after the first agricultural vil-lages were established in the region. During the Late Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain, tells formed discrete parts of settlement complexes, not discrete, long-term settlements. Although it is tempting to at-tribute these differences to simplistic environmental or demographic models, we prefer a more nuanced approach that incorporates multiple causal factors.

Introduction

Tells, or magoules, were built – and rebuilt – in several parts of the Old World. Without exception, the complex archaeological structures we refer to as tells have been associated with sedentary agricultural communities. But the social and environmental con-ditions in which tells were established, occupied, and abandoned, varied tremendously in different regions. Most tell settlements on the European continent never approached the vertical or horizontal extents of their Near Eastern counterparts (see Özdogan, this vol-ume), because they were not occupied as long or by as many people. But even within Europe, there also was striking variation in how tells were created and the roles they played within different regional systems.

This paper compares the long-term sequences of two European regions – the Great Hungarian Plain in the Carpathian Basin and the Thessalian Plain in northern Greece – in an attempt to understand how environmental and social factors in these two regions led to radically different trajectories of social organiza-

tion during the Neolithic. After the establishment of early agricultural villages in these regions, each area underwent significantly different trajectories of social change. Formal tells emerged in both areas, but at dif-ferent times within the regional trajectories and under very different social and environmental circumstances.

We argue that a comparative approach that in-corporates multiple scales of analysis, and which at-tempts to articulate the occurrence and organization of tells within different regional trajectories, contrib-utes substantially to our understanding of how ear-ly villages were established and changed over time. This perspective also permits tells to be understood not as monolithic cultural artifacts, but as the result of different social processes that played out in differ-ent settings. By modelling the dynamics of early vil-lages in these ways, we hope to move the focus away from questions about the origins of agriculture or sed-entism (i.e., ‘Neolithization’) – the questions that have dominated Neolithic research in Europe – and towards

* We thank the organizers for inviting us to Kiel and provid-ing us the unique opportunity to speak alongside some of the giants in the field of Neolithic studies, including K. Öz-dogan and P. Raczky. We also thank D. Riebe and R. Sei-fried for their assistance with data management, GIS, and

the production of illustrations. R. Seifried also copyedited the text, and J. Seagard helped rework some of the illustra-tions. Our colleagues and friends R. Yerkes and P. Duffy also provided useful comments on the manuscript.

In: R. Hofmann / F.-K. Moetz / J. Müller (eds.), Tells: Social and Environmental Space [Proceedings of the International Workshop “Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the Last 12,000 Years: The Crea-tion of Landscapes II (14st-18th March 2011)” in Kiel] (Bonn 2012) 105-116.

106

questions about what happened within early agricultur-al villages once they were established in a region, how they changed over time, and how the trajectories of ear-ly villages varied in different parts of the world.

This chapter begins with a brief discussion of the the-oretical importance of studying early village social dy-namics. Then, we delineate the different kinds of proc-esses that occurred within early village societies and attempt to outline a methodology for exploring them through the archaeological record using multiple scales of analysis. Next, we lay out the long-term trajectories of early villages on the Thessalian Plain of Greece and the Great Hungarian Plain of the Carpathian Basin, and compare and contrast the two trajectories.

We frame our comparative discussion by explor-ing several analytical dimensions of early village dy-namics within these regional trajectories, including how settlements and parts of settlements, including tells, were established and abandoned, how durable they were over time (settlement longevity), and the relative stability, or volatility of the overall trajecto-ry. Whereas tells – or magoules – were established al-most immediately after the establishment of agricul-tural villages on the Thessalian Plain during the Early Neolithic, tells did not appear on the Great Hungari-an Plain until several hundred years after the earliest Neolithic villages occurred in the region. Once estab-lished, the relatively even distribution of tells across the Thessalian Plain remained remarkably consistent throughout the Neolithic, and even into the Bronze Age. In contrast to this long-term durability and sta-bility, the trajectory on the Great Hungarian Plain was characterized by a high degree of volatility. After the establishment and abandonment of many Körös Culture settlements at the beginning of the Neolith-ic, many more sites continued to be established and abandoned during the Middle Neolithic Alföld Lin-ear Pottery / Alföldi Vonaldíszes Kerámia (or AVK) Culture. During the later – Szakálhát – phase of the

Middle Neolithic, there was a dramatic trend towards extreme settlement nucleation, clustering, and tell formation, which lasted throughout the Late Neolith-ic. At the beginning of the Copper Age, this nucleated pattern gave way to a more dispersed settlement pat-tern with many smaller sites, and a much higher de-gree of residential mobility, or settlement relocation.

This comparative perspective elucidates interesting differences between the dynamics of early villages, in-cluding the role of tells within each regional trajec-tory. In eastern Thessaly, the establishment of many tell settlements very early in the sequence, their even spatial distribution, and the long-term pattern of set-tlement stability all suggest a Neolithic agricultur-al package that was pre-adapted to the more temper-ate environment of the southern Balkans, and which led almost immediately to the establishment of dura-ble, sustainable settlements with long-lasting social ties that may have been separated into sub-regional groupings. Although smaller than their counterparts on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, the Neo-lithic tell settlements of Thessaly indicate the continu-ation of many cultural traditions that have deep roots in Anatolia and the Levant.

This contrasts starkly with the Hungarian trajec-tory, which is characterized by a much more vola-tile pattern with more settlement relocation in near-ly every phase and a much higher abandonment rate, at least until the establishment of nucleated tell-based settlement systems during the Szakálhát phase of the Middle Neolithic. But even that pattern was relatively short-lived, lasting only a dozen or so generations be-fore giving way to the dispersed settlement pattern of the Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár period. This more variable trajectory, within which short-lived tells formed special parts of settlements, seems to be a pe-culiar central European adaptation of those ancient Near Eastern cultural traditions.

Theoretical Considerations: Early Village Social Dynamics

Since the end of the Pleistocene, the majority of humans have lived in sedentary agricultural villag-es. But the social dynamics of early agricultural vil-lages remain understudied because of a historical bias that has focused research efforts on how agricultural villages came about in different parts of the Europe-an continent (e.g., Hodder 1990; Price 2000). We do not downplay the importance of the process of Neoli-thization. Indeed, the transition from a lifeway based upon hunting and gathering to one based upon pas-toralism, agriculture, and animal husbandry was one of the most dramatic since the origins of anatomical-ly modern humans. As a result of the focus this top-ic has received over the last fifty years, we now have a

very good understanding of the processes by which a Neolithic lifeway arrived in different parts of Europe – through extremely variable processes of migration and adoption (Price / Gebauer 1992; Kozłowski / Raczky 2010). Nevertheless, this focus on the process of Neoli-thization has resulted in an under-theorizing of those long-term processes that occurred within early agricul-tural villages, and which had a dramatic impact upon the long-term trajectories assumed by early villages in different parts of Europe. The process of Neolithization was only one small but undoubtedly vital chapter in the broader narrative of the European past.

The focus on the transition to the Neolithic has emphasized two main factors: the degree of reliance

107

upon domesticated plants and animals, and the de-gree of residential mobility or sedentism. The eco-nomic aspects of the Neolithic that relate to subsist-ence have received a great deal of attention, and the variability associated with the transition to a Neo-lithic way of life is now very well documented from both faunal and floral perspectives (e.g., Gregg 1988; Zohary / Hopf 1988; Bogaard 2004). Simi-larly, many scholars have focused upon the degree of sedentism exhibited within the Neolithic, most-ly to marshall support in favour of, or against, mod-els of migration or adoption (e.g., Whittle 1996). While establishing whether villages were inhabited only seasonally or year-round is helpful in assess-ing competing models of migration vs. adoption, we have only begun to scratch the surface regarding the variability of social organization exhibited with-in early villages. Many Neolithic sites were inhabit-ed year-round, but only some of them turned into tell settlements. This sort of hyperintensive sedent-ism only occurred in very specific cultural contexts, and for a variety of different reasons.

Other processes that occurred within early agricul-tural villages include:

• shifts in settlement distributions, from more nucleated to more dispersed patterns (Parkinson 2002);

• shifting patterns of boundary creation and maintenance, re-sulting in patterns of differentiation or homogeneity (Par-kinson 2006a);

• the construction of fortifications and enclosures, usually by communal efforts (Parkinson / Duffy 2007);

• patterns of economic intensification, including the use of sec-ondary products and specialization (Kaiser / Voytek 1983);

• and, in some places, the emergence of institutionalized hered-itary inequality (ranking) and the loss of village autonomy (Parkinson 2006b).

All these processes occurred within early agricul-tural villages, but the vast majority of research into the Neolithic has focused upon sedentism and domes-tication. To explore why tells formed at certain times in different regions, it is helpful to consider how these different processes came about – and how they related to each other – within different regional trajectories.

Methodological Considerations: Analytical Scales and Comparative Social Processes

These are questions that are best approached using multiple scales of analysis. But this runs against the European tradition of writing grand, synthetic, mon-ographs. Since before Childe, European prehistori-ans have written synthetic tomes that take advantage of the broad temporal and geographic scope of ar-chaeological information to generalize about the peri-ods of the human past – the Paleolithic (e.g., Lubbock 1865; Gamble 1999), the Neolithic (e.g., Hodder 1990; Whittle 1996), the Bronze Age (e.g., Piggott 1965; Kristiansen / Larsson 2005), and the Iron Age (e.g. Collins 1984). These synthetic monographs are essential for the discipline of archaeology but they also need to be tempered and textured, using the wealth of information from regional surveys that has become available over the last few decades. Thanks to the explosion of systematic regional surveys in plac-es like the Mediterranean (Cherry 1983, 1986, 1994), and the establishment of country-scale survey pro-grams such as the Archeologiczne Zdjęcia Polski (Na-tional Archaeological Registry; e.g. Prinke 2009) and the Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája in Hungary (Archaeological Topography of Hungary; e.g., Ecsedy et al. 1982), European prehistorians now have access to systematically collected data sets that can be used

to conduct explicit comparisons between different re-gional trajectories. These regional and micro-region-al patterns provide a finer geographic resolution that can be used to flesh out the patterns that emerge from more macro-scale syntheses (see Figs. 1 – 3).

Whereas regional surveys provide a finer-scale ge-ographic resolution, the widespread use of AMS ra-diocarbon dating and Bayesian modelling provides a much finer chronological resolution that permits us to more precisely examine the tempos and rhythms of change within and between different regional trajec-tories (Yerkes et al. 2009; Parkinson et al. 2010). In-corporating multiple geographic and temporal scales forces the researcher to think very explicitly about how social processes that occurred on a continental scale and over thousands of years – like the process of Neolithization – occurred within specific regional sequences, how those regional sequences relate to se-quences from specific sites, and how the site sequenc-es relate to specific features within a site. By being ex-plicit about the sources and resolution of information, as well as about the appropriateness of the analytical models we are using, we can create models that work better at different geographic and social scales.

Data Sources: Regional Surveys, Excavations, and Paleoenvironmental Studies

The patterns we discuss here take advantage of the long history of research in two of the most intensive-

ly studied regions in Europe – the Thessalian Plain in northern Greece and the Körös Region on the Great

108

The Dynamics of Early Villages on the Thessalian Plain, Greece

As Catherine Perlès (1999, 42) noted recent-ly, “the plains of Thessaly have attracted prehistor-ic groups and prehistorians alike!” The Plain, which is surrounded by mountains, consists of two subsid-ing alluvial basins that are separated by a ridge of Pliocene marl. For simplicity, we focus our discussion here only upon the eastern portion of the Plain, the

Larissa Basin, an area that covers about 1,150 km2. Eastern Thessaly was largely devoid of Mesolithic

sites when it was occupied during the early Neolith-ic (Perlès 2001, 113). Tells were established almost immediately after the establishment of agricultur-al villages in the region during the last half of the 7th millennium BC. More recent reanalysis of radiocar-

Fig. 1. Map of southeastern Europe showing the location of the Körös Region on the Great Hungarian Plain in the Carathian

Basin and the Thessalian Plain in Greece (map created byR. Seifried).

Hungarian Plain. The Thessalian Plain has been the focus of intensive prehistoric research since the ear-ly work of Tsountas (1908) and Wace / Thompson (1912) a century ago (see also Halstead 1977, 1981, 1994, 1995). Much of this research has focused upon the eastern part of the Thessalian Plain, the Larisa Basin, which was densely settled during the Neolith-ic (see, for example, Perlès 2001, 121 – 151). Many syntheses of the settlement distributions have been published. Notable in this regard is the publication of Gallis’ (1992) Prehistoric Atlas, which has been used extensively by several scholars (e.g., Alexakis et al. 2009; Runnels et al. 2009; van Andel / Run-nels 1995). Excavations at sites such as Sesklo, Di-mini, and Pefkakia in eastern Thessaly by Theo-charis (1973), Hourmouziaidis (1973), Kotsakis (1999), and others provide glimpses into how settle-ments were organized and changed over time with-in the region. Extensive environmental and geomor-phological information is available in the work of Demitrack (1986), van Andel (van Andel et al. 1995; van Andel / Runnels 1995; van Andel et al. 1990), and others (e.g., Zangger 1991).

The Körös Region of eastern Hungary has been the focus of systematic archaeological research since the 1960s when, in the framework of the Mag-yarország Régészeti Topográfiája (MRT) project, an intensive survey program was initiated in the north-ern portion of Békés County. To date, this program has recorded over 7,000 archaeological sites in the county (Ecsedy et al. 1982; Jankovich et al. 1989; Jankovich et al. 1998). In addition to the Hungari-an teams that worked in the region, the late Andrew Sherratt (Sherratt 1983; Goldman / Szénász-ky 1998) also conducted surveys in the northern part of the county between 1979 and 1981 and the Gyomaendrőd Project, carried out in the 1980s and 1990s by the Archaeological Institute of the Hungar-ian Academy of Sciences, identified numerous pre-historic sites in the western part of the Körös region (Bökönyi 1992, 1996). More recently, Alasdair Whittle (2007) excavated an Early Neolithic site near Ecsegfalva, and our own project – the Körös Re-gional Archaeological Project – has been investigat-ing Neolithic and Copper Age sites in the area since the late 1990s (Parkinson et al. 2010). The Bronze

Age Körös Off-Tell Archaeology project, focusing on the Middle Bronze Age settlement network of the re-gion, was established in 2006 (Duffy 2008, 2010). Each of these projects was based on the data collect-ed during the MRT project.

In this chapter, we focus our discussion upon var-iability in settlement patterns, which are based upon these previous surveys, excavations, and paleoen-vironmental studies, most of which have occurred within the last fifty years. The information is far from perfect, but it is adequate to demonstrate the major differences in the long-term trajectories be-tween the two regions, which is our goal here.

0 200100Km

Thessalian Plain,Greece

Körös Region,Hungary

109

bon dates from the region (Reingruber / Thissen 2009), however, suggests that many of the earlier ab-solute dates are not reliable and should be excluded. This effectively pushes the date of the earliest Neo-lithic forward to the end of the 7th millennium BC, and considerably lessens the time gap between the establishment of agricultural villages on the Plain of Thessaly and the Great Hungarian Plain.

Perlès (1999) has noted that the location of these early settlements on the Thessalian Plain indicates an avoidance of some areas, rather than an attraction to specific areas, as others have suggested (Halstead 1977; van Andel / Runnels 1995). The sites were organized roughly into large clusters of settlements separated by large empty areas, which Perlès (2001, 134) attributes to environmental variables and which Runnels and colleagues attribute to empty ‘buffer zones’ that they suggest may have separated allied communities (Runnels et al. 2009).

Perlès (2001, 131) discusses the many problems of Early Neolithic attributions of settlement sites in Thessaly, and this is further exacerbated by the prob-lems of the earliest absolute dates discussed above (Reingruber / Thissen 2009). Nevertheless, by the Early Neolithic 2 period (Proto-Sesklo) almost all of the settlements on the Thessalian Plain were tells, or over time would turn into tells. Many of these may have been fortified. Perlès (2001, 135) has noted the regularity of the size and spacing of the sites, which were mostly smaller than 2 ha and were located an average of 2.3 km apart. Runnels et al. (2009) re-cently have argued that evidence for fortifications and warfare occurs as early as the Early Neolithic in eastern Thessaly.

The pattern of stability that was established by the end of the Early Neolithic in eastern Thessaly per-sisted into the Middle Neolithic, when over 70 per-cent of the Early Neolithic sites continued to be in-habited, and more sites were established in the gaps (Tab. 1). This pattern continued into the Late Neo-lithic and even into the Bronze Age, although the quality of information during the Final Neolithic and Bronze Age is significantly less reliable.

The vast majority of tells in eastern Thessaly were stand-alone settlements, unlike the Neolithic tells of the Great Hungarian Plain, which were, almost with-out exception, incorporated as discrete areas into larger, horizontal, or ‘flat,’ settlements. A notable ex-ception is Sesklo, which boasts both a tell – the acrop-olis / Kastraki – and the so-called polis T – the flat set-tlement (Andreou et al. 1996; Kotsakis 1999, 2006; Theocharis 1973). Very large extended sites with ditches such as Makriyialos (Pappa / Besios 1999) oc-cur, especially in the Late Neolithic, further to the north in Greek Macedonia. But in eastern Thessaly, Sesklo is an exception as a tell that is directly asso-ciated with an extended settlement. Kotsakis (1999)

has described the differences between the Sesklo sites (A and B), noting that the majority of the materials at the flat site date to the end of the Middle Neolith-ic period, while the entire sequence is represented at the tell. This suggests that the flat settlement was

Fig. 2. Social processes at different geographic and temporal scales (based on Parkinson / Galaty 2009, figure 1.2. Illustra-

tion created by R. Seifried).

Fig. 3. Archaeological data that can be used to explore so-cial processes that occur at different geographic and temporal scales (based on Parkinson / Galaty 2009: figure 1.3. Illustra-

tion created by R. Seifried).

Tim

e (Y

ears

)

1

1

0

100

1,0

00

1 10 100 1,000

Distance (km)

Regional Processes(e.g. Tell Establishment)

Macro-Regional Processes(e.g. Neolithization)

Settlement Processes(e.g. Repeated Burning

and Reconstruction)

Tim

e (Y

ears

)

1

1

0

100

1,0

00

1 10 100 1,000

Distance (km)

RegionalChronological Sequences

(e.g. Körös Culture)

Macro-RegionalChronological Sequences

(e.g. Early Neolithic)

Stratigraphic Sequencesfrom Settlements

Stratigraphic Sequenceswithin Features

110

essentially an outgrowth of, or grew organically in concert with, the tell settlement.

The basic long-term pattern that emerges from eastern Thessaly is one of stability, durability, and sus-tainability (Fig. 4). From at least the Early Neolithic 2 period, the majority of settlements were temporal-ly durable and turned into tell settlements, indicating the existence of stable regional social networks and

sustainable agricultural practices. Many sites contin-ued to be occupied in subsequent periods, and more were founded, resulting in an almost constant growth in the number of settlements throughout the Neolithic.

These patterns, while similar to those in the Near East and Anatolia, are significantly different from those that occurred on the Great Hungarian Plain throughout the Neolithic.

The Dynamics of Early Villages on The Great Hungarian Plain

The Körös Region on the Great Hungarian Plain is a very flat, alluvial plain with a braided network of streams that was established at the end of the Pleis-tocene and the beginning of the Holocene (Gyucha 2010; Gyucha et al. 2011). Our research focuses upon an area of about 3,800 km2 in modern Békés County. Approximately one fourth (ca. 940 km2) of that ter-ritory belongs to the northern portion of an extend-ed Pleistocene alluvial fan associated with the ancient Maros River to the south. That region was very sparse-ly inhabited from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age, leav-ing settlements concentrated on an area of about 2,860 km2 in the northern part of Békés County.

Early Neolithic Middle Neolithic Late Neolithic Final Neolithic / Early Bronze Age

Simplified Approx. Chron. (cal BC) 6,500 – 6,000 6,000 – 5,300 5,300 – 4,500 4,500 – 3,200

Total Sites in Phase 106 104 154 139

Founded During Phase 106 28 80 24

Survived Into Phase . 76 74 106

Abandoned During Phase 30 30 68 .

Tab. 1. Neolithic site patterning in the Larisa Basin of eastern Thessaly. Data from van Andel / Runnels (1995, table 4), based on Gallis (1992) and van Andel et al. (1994).

Fig. 4. The long-term trajectory of Neolithic settlement patterns in eastern Thessaly, Greece. A – Raw numbers. B – Frequencies. (Il-lustration created by J. Seagard).

In contrast to eastern Thessaly, where tell settle-ments were founded almost immediately after the establishment of agricultural villages in the region, dispersed, but occasionally fairly large agricultur-al villages existed for nearly 700 years on the Great Hungarian Plain before tells were established at the end of the Middle Neolithic (Tab. 2; Goldman 1984; Kalicz / Raczky 1987). When tells did finally form on the Great Hungarian Plain, they usually were in-corporated into more complex settlements and set-tlement systems comprised of both tells and hori-zontal settlements (Makkay 1982; Chapman 1988, 1997; Raczky, this volume). From this perspective,

Total Sites in Phase

Founded During Phase

Survived Into Phase

Abandoned During Phase

Eastern Thessaly – Numbers

Founded During Phase

Survived Into Phase

Abandoned During Phase

Eastern Thessaly – Percentages180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

10090

80706050403020

010

Tell Settlements Tell Settlements

EN MN LN BA EN MN LN BA

Nu

mb

er

Per

cen

t

Period Period

A B

111

tells in the later Neolithic of Hungary were very dif-ferent than those of the Greek Neolithic. They were not just temporally durable, stable, tell settlements like those in eastern Thessaly. They were special parts of settlements and settlement systems, as well as focal points of larger-scale community events, that were temporally durable and somewhat more stable than the contemporaneous flat sites in the re-gion (Raczky / Anders 2008, 2010).

The pattern of Neolithic settlement dynamics in the Körös Region began in a fashion reminis-cent of that in eastern Thessaly. No Mesolithic sites have been identified in this part of the Great Hun-garian Plain, but within a few hundred years at the end of the 7th millennium BC, sites of the Körös Cul-ture were established in large numbers throughout the region (Kutzián 1944; Kosse 1979; Whittle 2007), with site densities (0.10 – 0.14 sites per km²)

even higher than those Perlès (2001) calculated for eastern Thessaly (0.08 – 0.10 sites per km²).

In contrast to the Early Neolithic pattern in Thes-saly, which was characterized by settlement stabili-ty and temporal durability, far fewer sites of the Körös Culture remained inhabited throughout the period and into the Middle Neolithic (Tab. 2; Fig. 5). Alasdair Whittle’s (2007) recent excavations at Ecsegfalva 23 in the Körös region suggest that the site was oc-cupied for only a few generations before it was aban-doned. This pattern of relatively frequent settlement relocation that began in the Early Neolithic contin-ued through the Middle Neolithic (AVK), until the Szakálhát Phase at the end of the Middle Neolithic. This is the period when tells were established on the Great Hungarian Plain (Makkay 1982).

In contrast to the Thessalian case, the tells that were established in the Later Neolithic of the Great

Early Neolithic Earlier Middle Neolithic

Later Middle Neolithic Late Neolithic Early Copper Age

Körös AVK Szakálhát Tisza / Herpály Prototiszapolgár / Tisza-polgár

Simplified ApproximateChronology (cal BC)

6,000 – 5,500 5,600 – 5,200 5,400 – 5,150 5,150 – 4,600 4,600 – 4,100

Total Sites in Phase 396 456 161 53 372

Founded During Phase 396 322 86 32 355

Survived Into Phase . 134 75 22 17

Abandoned During Phase 262 381 139 37 344

Stray Finds 22 18 10 3 13

Tab. 2. Neolithic site patterning in the Körös Region of the Great Hungarian Plain. Data from Ecsedy et al. (1982), Jankovich et al. (1989), Jankovich et al. (1998), and Gyucha (2010).

Fig. 5. The long-term trajectory of Neolithic settlement patterns in the Körös Region of the Great Hungarian Plain, eastern Hunga-ry. A – Raw numbers. B – Frequencies. (Illustration created by J. Seagard).

Total Sites in Phase

Founded During Phase

Survived Into Phase

Abandoned During Phase

Körös Region – Numbers

Founded During Phase

Survived Into Phase

Abandoned During Phase

Körös Region – Percentages

Tells Tells

500450400

350300250

200150100

500

120

100

80

60

40

20

0Körös AVK Szakalhât Tisza/Herpâly Tiszapolgâr Körös AVK Szakalhât Tisza/Herpâly Tiszapolgâr

Nu

mb

er o

f Sit

es

Period

Per

cen

t

Period

A B

112

Discussion: Tells and the Comparative Dynamics of Early Villages

The variability between these two regional tra-jectories points to significant differences in the so-cial and environmental factors that affected the early agricultural villagers in these two distantly relat-ed parts of Europe. The Neolithic pattern in Thes-saly indicates stability, durability, and sustainabili-ty, right from the onset. The trajectory in Hungary is characterized, for lack of better terms, by volatility, ephemerality, and unsustainability. Corresponding-ly, long-lived tell settlements were established rela-tively soon in the Thessalian sequence, but in Hun-gary more short-lived tells only appeared, usually as parts of larger settlements, several hundred years af-ter the first agricultural villages were established in the region.

Although we refer to the multi-layered mounds in both sequences as tells, the social processes that created them – and the social contexts within which they were created – were dramatically different. Some have suggested that the term ‘tell’ be abandoned al-together. Gogâltan (2001, 23), for example, has ar-gued that the word is an Arabic and archaeological neologism that causes more confusion than it helps (see discussion in Horváth 2009). Thomas Link (2006) also has highlighted the many problems asso-

ciated with the term. We side with Horváth (2009) and others (e.g., Chapman 1989; Sherratt 1982, 1983) who prefer to retain the term but understand that it has different meanings in different places. In fact, we encourage our colleagues to embrace the tell concept as multi-dimensional and to explore the var-iability between different kinds of tells, as well as be-tween different kinds of early village trajectories that incorporate tells, either as stand-alone tell settlements or as special areas within larger settlements.

By exploring the differences in the long-term tra-jectories of different regions within a comparative, multi-scalar framework, we stand to learn a great deal about how early villages evolved in different parts of the world. In so doing, we also may be able to understand the environmental and social factors that led to even more dramatic differences between different regions over the long term. For example, John Clark / David Cheetham (2002) have argued that most tribal societies in Mesoamerica lasted only a few hundred years before institutionalized political inequality emerged. This is radically different from other parts of the world, such as the examples dis-cussed here, where basically egalitarian tribal sys-tems cycled for several thousand years before hered-

Hungarian Plain were not stand-alone, long-term, settlements; they almost always were incorporat-ed as special areas within larger settlements (Chap-man 1997; Kalicz 2001). Although most of the tells on the Plain were separated by ditch-systems from the surrounding horizontal sites, they were an inte-grated part of the settlements. This pattern is well es-tablished at the site of Polgár-Csőszhalom (Raczky et al. 2002; Raczky / Anders 2008) and elsewhere (Kalicz / Raczky 1987; Raczky 1995; Gogâltan 2001). We discovered a similar pattern in our re-search at the site of Szeghalom-Kovácshalom, where the small tell is bounded on the south and west by a very large, over 10 ha, intensively occupied settle-ment. The exceptions to this rule may be some of the tell settlements of the Herpály culture (Kalicz 1995), and the large, exceptional Tisza culture tell settlement at Vésztő-Mágor (Hegedűs / Makkay 1987), which does not seem to be associated with a horizontal settlement (Parkinson et al. 2010). The phase of tell formation and fluorescence on the Great Hungarian Plain is characterized not only by extreme settlement nucleation and clustering at the regional scale, but also by a tendency towards in-creasing regionalization at the macro-regional lev-el, as indicated by more discrete patterning of mate-rial culture across the Plain (Kalicz / Raczky 1987; Parkinson 2006a). We interpret this as the result of

more active maintenance of social boundaries and of increased emphasis on territorial demarcation. By contrast, the Greek Neolithic was characterized throughout by a high degree of cultural homogene-ity over very large areas, especially across the Greek mainland. Although there might be a slight tenden-cy towards regionalization during the Late Neolith-ic in Northern Greece, at no point during the Greek Neolithic is there evidence of distinct archaeological groups to the extent which existed in the Hungarian Late Neolithic (Perlès / Vitelli 1999).

Compared to their counterparts in eastern Thes-saly, Neolithic tells were short-lived on the Great Hungarian Plain, lasting at most several hundred years (Hertelendi / Horváth 1992; Hertelendi et al. 1998; Yerkes et al. 2009). The tells were, almost without exception, abandoned at or near the end of the Neolithic. Although some tells were reoccupied during the Copper Age and more during the Bronze Age, these reoccupations almost always occurred af-ter a depositional hiatus at the sites at the end of the Neolithic (Parkinson et al. 2010). The Early Copper Age is characterized by a more dispersed settlement pattern with more sites located in those regions where Late Neolithic settlement clusters had been estab-lished, suggesting some cultural continuity, but with-out tell sites as ‘focal’ settlements in the regional net-work of sites (Parkinson 2006b; Gyucha 2010).

113

itary inequality became institutionalized during the Bronze Age. Even within our comparative sample, by the end of the Bronze Age the Greek mainland boast-ed small bureaucratic states, whereas centralized hi-erarchical polities were just beginning to emerge on parts of the Hungarian Plain (Duffy 2010). It is tempting to attribute the differences we have out-lined here to simplistic, environmentally determin-istic models that emphasize the dramatic diachronic changes that occurred within the Neolithic economy. Not only were ovicaprids – the southern Balkan do-mestic staple – quickly complemented by a more bal-anced suite of domesticates that included pigs and cat-tle, but the frequency of wild animals remained high throughout the Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain (Bartosiewicz 2007a, 2007b; Whittle / Bar-tosiewicz 2007). In the Thessalian Neolithic, the landscape was more densely occupied by groups who relied almost exclusively upon domestic animals and a broad spectrum of domestic plant resources (see, for example, Halstead 1999, 85). This would have re-sulted in a much more modified, filled-in landscape that, even if not significantly anthropogenically mod-ified, would have been largely under human control. By contrast, Neolithic villagers on the Great Hungar-ian Plain spent relatively more time hunting wild an-imals, relocating settlements, and tweaking their ag-ricultural practices to cope with the less temperate weather of central Europe.

One potential significant aspect of the differences in faunal assemblages may relate to the ability to store resources ‘on the hoof’ (Halstead 1996). In Greece, where ovicaprines dominated faunal assemblages throughout the Neolithic, there would have been a more consistent opportunity to maintain herds over time. This would have resulted in an inherent stabil-ity in risk-reducing strategies that would have helped to buffer against bad years, permitting more systemic growth over the long-term. By contrast, Neolithic fau-nal assemblages in Hungary indicate that it was diffi-cult to maintain herds of exclusively sheep and goat, and it was only when a more balanced approach to husbandry was adopted, by incorporating significant numbers of pig and cattle, that significantly larger, more temporally durable settlements began to be es-tablished. This may have been due, in part, to the abil-ity to effectively store resources on the hoof, thus pro-viding more security throughout lean times.

These environmental and ecological differences may have contributed to the volatility exhibited with-in the Hungarian trajectory, but demographic models

also are tempting causal explanations. Many prehis-torians recently have become enamored with Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel’s (2002) model of the Neo-lithic Demographic Transition (NDT), which posits a two stage process after the introduction of sedentism and agriculture into a region (Bocquet-Appel / Bar-Yosef 2008). In the first stage, there is an initial burst of rapid population growth as a result of an increase in fecundity. This is followed by a time-delayed de-cline in demographic growth, as a result of increased mortality due to disease and parasite infestation asso-ciated with sedentary, agricultural settlements. Since Bocquet-Appel’s (2002) initial identification of this pattern in prehistoric European and African mortu-ary contexts, many others, including notably Matt Bandy (2004, 2005, 2008), have identified similar patterns in many other parts of the world. An initial glance at the Hungarian Neolithic settlement patterns might suggest a similar trend (Fig. 5), with an increase in number of sites from Körös to AVK, with a subse-quent decrease during Szakálhát and Tisza. But the patterns discussed here relate only to the number of sites and do not include site sizes, which are necessary for any demographic estimates. The substantial in-crease in settlement size in the Körös region occurred with the establishment of nucleated tell-centered set-tlement systems during the Late Neolithic, when the overall number of sites was the lowest. This is more likely a pattern of demographic reorganization, as op-posed to a significant change in the demographic rate of growth. The Thessalian pattern, with near-constant growth throughout the Neolithic, seems to defy this trend, at least until the onset of the Bronze Age.

Any satisfactory causal explanation will incor-porate some aspects of these, and many other mod-els. Our goal here was not to provide the final answer about how Neolithic life was different in Thessaly and on the Great Hungarian Plain. Rather, we seek to re-phrase the kinds of questions prehistorians are ask-ing about early villages and how they approach them using archaeological information. Continental-scale syntheses are vital for archaeology, but such syn-theses, which extend across thousands of miles and years, must be kept honest by explicit regional stud-ies, which in turn provide nuanced textures that en-rich the syntheses. We have tried to demonstrate how an explicit, cross-cultural approach that incorporates multiple analytical scales can be helpful in identifying similarities and differences in the long-term trajecto-ries of early villages in different parts of the world.

114

Alexakis et al. 2009: D. Alexakis / A. Sarris / T. Astaras / T. Kon-stantinos, Detection of Neolithic Settlements in Thessaly (Greece) Through Multispectral and Hyperspectral Satellite Imagery. Sensors, 9/2, 2009, 1167 – 1187.

Andreou et al. 1996: S. Andreou / M. Fotiadis / K. Kotsakis, Re-view of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece. American Journal of Archaeology 100, 1996, 537 – 597.

Bandy 2004: M.S. Bandy, Fissioning, Scalar Stress, and Social Ev-olution in Early Village Societies. American Anthropologist 106, 2, 2004, 322 – 333.

Bandy 2005: M.S. Bandy, New World Settlement Evidence for a Two-Stage Neolithic Demographic Transition. Current An-thropology 46, S5, 2005, 109 – 115.

Bandy 2008: M.S. Bandy, Global Patterns of Early Village De-velopment. In: J. Bocquet-Appel / O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), The Ne-olithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences (New York 2008) 333 – 358.

Bartosiewicz 2007a: L. Bartosiewicz, Plain Talk: Animals, Envi-ronment and Culture in the Neolithic of the Carpathian Ba-sin and Adjacent Areas. In: D. Bailey / A. Whittle / V. Cum-mings (eds.), (Un)settling the Neolithic (Oxford 2007) 51 – 63.

Bartosiewicz 2007b: L. Bartosiewicz, Mammalian Bone. In: A. Whittle (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: Investigations of the Körös Culture Site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés (Budapest 2007) 287 – 326.

Bocquet-Appel 2002: J. Bocquet-Appel, Paleoanthropological Traces of a Neolithic Demographic Transition. Current An-thropology 43, 4, 2002, 637 – 650.

Bocquet-Appel / Bar-Yosef 2008: J. Bocquet-Appel / O. Bar-Yosef, Prehistoric Demography in a Time of Globalization. In: J. Boc-quet-Appel / O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences (New York 2008) 1 – 12.

Bogaard 2004: A. Bogaard, Neolithic farming in Central Europe: An Archaeological Study of Crop Husbandry Practices (New York 2004).

Bökönyi 1992: S. Bökönyi (ed.), Cultural and Landscape Chang-es in South–East Hungary I: Reports on the Gyomaendrőd Project (Budapest 1992).

Bökönyi 1996: S. Bökönyi (ed.), Cultural and Landscape Chang-es in South–East Hungary II: Prehistoric, Roman, Barbarian and Late Avar Settlement at Gyoma 133 (Budapest 1996).

Chapman 1988: J. Chapman, From “Space” to “Place”: A Mod-el of Dispersed Settlement and Neolithic Society. In: C. Bur-gess / P. Topping / C. Mordant / M. Madison (eds.), Enclosures and Defences in the Neolithic of Western Europe. BAR Inter-national Series 403 (Oxford 1988) 21 – 46.

Chapman 1989: J. Chapman, The Early Balkan Village. In: S. Bökönyi (ed.), Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and Its Near Eastern Connections (Budapest 1989) 33 – 53.

Chapman 1997: J. Chapman, The Origin of Tells in Eastern Hun-gary. In: P. Topping (ed.), Neolithic Landscapes: Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 2 (Oxford 1997) 139 – 164.

Cherry 1983: J. F. Cherry, Frogs Round the Pond: Perspectives on Current Archaeological Survey Projects in the Mediterranean Region. In: D.R. Keller / J.W. Rupp (eds.), Archaeological Sur-vey in the Mediterranean Area (Oxford 1983) 375 – 416.

Cherry 1986: J.F. Cherry, The “New Wave” of Greek Surveys: Les-sons and Future Directions. Presented at the British School

at Athens Centennial Conference, 28 – 30 August (Cambridge 1986).

Cherry 1994: J.F. Cherry, Regional Survey in the Aegean: The “New Wave” (and After). In: P.N. Kardulias (ed.), Beyond the Site: Re-gional Studies in the Aegean Area (Lanham 1994) 91 – 112.

Clark / Cheetham 2002: J.E. Clark / D. Cheetham, Mesoamerica’s Tribal Foundations. In: W.A. Parkinson (ed.), The Archaeolo-gy of Tribal Societies. International Monographs in Prehisto-ry, Archaeological Series 15 (Ann Arbor 2002) 278 – 339.

Collins 1984: J. Collins, The European Iron Age (London / New York 1984).

Demitrack 1986: A. Demitrack, The Late Quaternary Geologi-cal History of the Larissa Plain (Thessaly, Greece) - Tecton-ic, Climatic and Human Impact on the Landscape. Unpub-lished PhD dissertation, Stanford University (Stanford 1986).

Duffy 2008: P. Duffy, A Körös-vidék bronzkori tell-társadal-mai. In: G. Bóka / E. Martyin (eds.), Körösmenti évezredek. Régészeti ökológiai és településtörténeti kutatások a Körös-vidéken. Gyulai katalógusok 13 (Gyula 2008) 107 – 148.

Duffy 2010: P. Duffy, Complexity and Autonomy in Bronze Age Europe: Assessing Cultural Developments in Eastern Hun-gary. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor 2010).

Ecsedy et al. 1982: I. Ecsedy / L. Kovács / B. Maráz / I. Torma, Mag-yarország Régészeti Topográfiája VI. Békés Megye Régészeti Topográfiája: A Szeghalmi Járás (IV/1) (Budapest 1982).

Gallis 1992: K. Gallis, Atlas Proistorikon Oikismon tis Anato-likis Thessalikis Pediadas (Larisa 1992).

Gamble 1999: C. Gamble, The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe (Cambridge 1999).

Gogâltan 2001: F. Gogâltan, Die Tells der Bronzezeit im Karpat-enbecken. Terminologische Fragen. In: A. Rostoiu / A. Urus-tiu (eds.), Interregionale und Kulturelle Beziehungen im Kar-patenraum (2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. - 1. Jahrtausend n. Chr.) (Cluj 2001) 11 – 45.

Goldman 1984: Gy. Goldman, Battonya-Gödrösök. Eine neo-litische Siedlung in Südost-Ungarn (Békéscsaba 1984).

Goldman / Szénászky 1998: Gy. Goldman / J. Szénászky, Topo-graphic Research on the Neolithic Settlements in Békés Sárrét. In: L. Költő / L. Bartosiewicz (eds.), Archaeometrical Research in Hungary II. (Budapest, Kaposvár, Veszprém 1998) 13 – 19.

Gregg 1988: S.A. Gregg, Foragers and Farmers: Population In-teraction and Agricultural Expansion in Prehistoric Europe (Chicago 1988).

Gyucha 2010: A. Gyucha, A Körös-Vidék Kora Rézkora. Unpub-lished PhD Dissertation, Loránd Eötvös Scientific University (Budapest 2010).

Gyucha et al. 2011: A. Gyucha / P. Duffy / T. Frolking, The Körös Ba-sin from the Neolithic to the Hapsburgs: Linking Settlement Distributions with Pre-Regulation Hydrology Through Multi-ple Data Set Overlay. Geoarchaeology 26, 3, 2011, 392 – 419.

Halstead 1977: P. Halstead, Prehistoric Thessaly: The Submer-gence of Civilization. In: J.L. Bintliff (ed.), Mycenaean Geog-raphy (Cambridge 1977) 23 – 29.

Halstead 1981: P. Halstead, Counting Sheep in Neolithic and Bronze Age Greece. In: I. Hodder / G. Isaac / N. Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past: Studies in Honour of David Clarke (Cambridge 1981) 307 – 39.

Halstead 1994: P. Halstead, The North-South Divide: Regional

REFERENCES

115

Paths to Complexity in Prehistoric Greece. In: C. Mathers / S. Stoddart (eds.), Development and Decline in the Mediterra-nean Bronze Age (Sheffield 1994) 195 – 219.

Halstead 1995: P. Halstead, From Sharing to Hoarding: The Neo-lithic Foundations of Aegean Bronze Age Society. In: R. Laff-ineur / W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Liège / Austin 1995) 11 – 22.

Halstead 1996: P. Halstead, Pastoralism or Household Herding? Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandry. World Archaeology 28, 1, 1996, 20 – 42.

Halstead 1999: P. Halstead, Neighbours from Hell? The House-hold in Neolithic Greece. In: P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Soci-ety in Greece (Sheffield 1999) 77 – 95.

Hegedűs / Makkay 1987: K. Hegedűs / J. Makkay, Vésztő-Mágor: A Settlement of the Tisza Culture. In: L. Tálas / P. Raczky (eds.), The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region: A Survey of Recent Excavations and their Findings (Budapest / Szolnok 1987) 85 – 104.

Hertelendi / Horváth 1992: E. Hertelendi / F. Horváth, Radiocar-bon Chronology of Late Neolithic Settlements in the Tisza–Maros Region, Hungary. Radiocarbon 34, 3, 1992, 859 – 866.

Hertelendi et al. 1998: E. Hertelendi / É. Svingor / P. Raczky / F. Horváth / I. Futó / L. Bartosiewicz, Duration of Tell Settle-ments at four Prehistoric Sites in Hungary. Radiocarbon 40, 2, 1998, 659 – 665.

Hodder 1990: I. Hodder, The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Europe (Oxford 1990).

Horváth 2009: F. Horváth, Comments on the Tells in the Car-pathian Basin: Terminology, Classification, and Formation. In: F. Draşovean / D.L. Ciobotaru / M. Maddison (eds.), Ten Years After: The Neolithic of the Balkans as Uncovered by the Last Decade of Research (Timişoara 2009) 159 – 165.

Hourmouziadis 1973: G. Hourmouziadis, I Anthropomorphi Ei-doloplastiki tis Neolithikis Thessalias (Volos 1973).

Jankovich et al. 1989: D. Jankovich / J. Makkay / B.M. Szőke, Mag-yarország Régészeti Topográfiája VIII. Békés Megye Régészeti Topográfiája: A Szarvasi Járás (IV/2) (Budapest 1973).

Jankovich et al. 1998: D. Jankovich / P. Medgyesi / E. Nikolin / I. Szatmári / I. Torma (eds.) Magyarország Régészeti Topográ-fiája X. Békés és Békéscsaba (IV/3) (Budapest 1998).

Kaiser / Voytek 1983: T. Kaiser / B. Voytek, Sedentism and Eco-nomic Change in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal of Anthropo-logical Archaeology 2, 4, 1983, 323 – 353.

Kalicz 1995: N. Kalicz, Siedlungsstruktur der neolithischen Her-pály–Kultur in Ostungarn. In A. Aspes (ed.), Settlement Pat-terns between the Alps and the Black Sea 5th to 2nd Millenium B. C. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, Sezione Scienze dell’Uomo 4 (Verona / Lazise 1995) 67 – 75.

Kalicz 2001: N. Kalicz, Zusammenhänge zwischen dem Sied-lungs-wesen und der Bevölkerungszahl während des Spät-neolithikums in Ungarn. In: A. Lippert / M. Schultz / S. Shennan / M. Teschler-Nicola (eds.), Mensch und Umwelt während des Neolithikums und der Frühbronzezeit in Mit-teleuropa. Ergebnisse interdisziplinärer Zusammenarbeit zwischen Archäologie, Klimatologie, Biologie und Medizin (Rahden / Westfalie 2001) 153 – 163.

Kalicz / Raczky 1987: N. Kalicz / P. Raczky, The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region: A Survey of Recent Archaeological Re-search. In: L. Tálas / P. Raczky (eds.), The Late Neolithic of the Tisza Region (Budapest / Szolnok 1987) 11 – 30.

Kosse 1979: K. Kosse, Settlement Ecology of the Körös and Line-

ar Pottery Cultures in Hungary. BAR International Series 64 (Oxford 1979).

Kotsakis 1999: K. Kotsakis, What Tells Can Tell: Social Space and Settlement in the Greek Neolithic. In: P. Halstead (ed.), Neo-lithic Society in Greece (Sheffield 1999) 66 – 76.

Kotsakis 2006: K. Kotsakis, Settlement of Discord: Sesklo and the Emerging Household. In: N. Tasic / C. Grozdanov (eds.), Homage to Milutin Garasanin (Belgrade 2006) 207 – 20.

Kozłowski / Raczky 2010: J. Kozłowski / P. Raczky (eds.), Neo-lithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost Distri-bution of the Starčevo/Körös Culture (Kraków / Budapest 2010).

Kristiansen / Larsson 2005: K. Kristiansen / T.B. Larsson, The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels, Transmissions, and Transformations (Cambridge 2005).

Kutzián 1944: I. Kutzián, A Körös-kultúra. Dissertationes Pan-nonicae 23, 2 (Budapest 1944).

Link 2006: T. Link, Das Ende der neolithischen Tellsiedlungen. Ein kulturgeschichlichtes Phanomen des 5. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Karpatbecken. Universitätsforschungen zur prähis-torischen Archäologie 134 (Bonn 2006).

Lubbock 1865: J. Lubbock, Pre-historic Times, as Illustrated by Ancient Remains, and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages (London 1865).

Makkay 1982: J. Makkay, A Magyarországi Neolitikum Ku-tatásának Új Eredményei (Budapest 1982).

Pappa / Besios 1999: M. Pappa / M. Besios, The Makriyalos Project: Rescue Excavations at the Neolithic Site of Makriy-alos, Pieria, Northern Greece. In: P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield 1999) 108 – 120.

Parkinson 2002: W.A. Parkinson, Integration, Interaction, and Tribal ‘Cycling’: The Transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. In: W.A. Parkinson (ed.), The Archae-ology of Tribal Societies (Ann Arbor 2002) 391 – 438.

Parkinson 2006a: W.A. Parkinson, Tribal Boundaries: Stylistic Variability and Social Boundary Maintenance During the Transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25, 1, 2006, 33 – 58.

Parkinson 2006b: W.A. Parkinson, The Social Organization of Early Copper Age Tribes on the Great Hungarian Plain (Ox-ford 2006).

Parkinson / Duffy 2007: W.A. Parkinson / P. Duffy, Fortifications and Enclosures in European Prehistory: A Cross-Cultural Per-spective. Journal of Archaeological Research 15, 2007, 97 – 141.

Parkinson / Galaty 2009: W.A. Parkinson / M.L. Galaty, Intro-duction: Interaction and Ancient Societies. In: W.A. Parkin-son / M.L. Galaty (eds.), Archaic State Interaction: The East-ern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age (Santa Fe 2009) 3 – 28.

Parkinson et al. 2010: W.A. Parkinson / R.W. Yerkes / A. Gy-ucha / A. Sarris / M. Morris / R.B. Salisbury, Early Copper Age Settlements in the Körös Region of the Great Hungari-an Plain. Journal of Field Archaeology 35, 2, 2010, 164 – 183.

Perlès 1999: C. Perlès, The Distribution of Magoules in Eastern Thessaly. In: P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield 1999) 42 – 56.

Perlès 2001: C. Perlès, The Early Neolithic in Greece: The First Farming Communities in Europe (Cambridge 2001).

Perlès / Vitelli 1999: C. Perlès / K.D. Vitelli, Craft Specialization in the Neolithic of Greece. In: P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece (Sheffield 1999) 96 – 107.

Piggott 1965: S. Piggott, Ancient Europe (Edinburgh 1965).

116

William A. ParkinsonField Museum of Natural History

Department of Anthropology1400 S. Lake Shore Drive

Chicago, Illinois60605

USA

Attila GyuchaHungarian National Museum

Múzeum krt. 14 – 161088 Budapest

Hungary

Price 2000: T.D. Price, Europe’s First Farmers (Cambridge / New York 2000).

Price / Gebauer 1992: T.D. Price / A. Gebauer, The Final Fron-tier: First Farmers in Northern Europe. In: A. Gebauer / T. D. Price (eds.), Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory (Madi-son 1992) 97 – 116.

Prinke 2009: A. Prinke, Seven Years after Seville: Recent Progress in Managing the Archaeological Heritage in Poland. In: A. Schut (ed.) Listing Archaeological Sites, Protecting the His-torical Landscape, Europae Archaeologiae Consilium Occa-sional Paper 3, 2009, 71 – 76.

Raczky 1995: P. Raczky, Neolithic settlement patterns in the Tis-za region of Hungary. In A. Aspes (ed.), Settlement Patterns between the Alps and the Black Sea 5th to 2nd Millenium B. C. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, Sezi-one Scienze dell’Uomo 4 (Verona–Lazise 1995) 77 – 86.

Raczky / Anders 2008: P. Raczky / A. Anders, Late Neolithic Spa-tial Differentiation at Polgár–Csőszhalom, Eastern Hungary. In D. Bailey / A. Whittle / D. Hofmann (eds.), Living Well To-gether? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South–East and Central Europe (Oxford 2008) 35 – 53.

Raczky / Anders 2010: P. Raczky / A. Anders, Activity Loci and Data for Spatial Division at a Late Neolithic Site-Complex (Polgár-Csőszhalom: A Case Study). In: S. Hansen (ed.), Leb-en auf dem Tell als Soziale Praxis (Berlin 2010) 143 – 164.

Raczky et al. 2002: P. Raczky / W. Meier-Arendt / A. Anders / Z. Hajdú / E. Nagy / K. Kurucz / L. Domboróczki / K. Sebõk / P. Sümegi / E. Magyari / Z. Szántó / S. Gulyás / K. Dobó / E. Bác-skay / K. Biró / C. Schwartz, Polgár-Csõszhalom (1989 – 2000): Summary of the Hungarian-German Excavations on a Ne-olithic Settlement in Eastern Hungary. In: R. Aslan / S. Blum / G. Kastl / F. Schweizer / D. Thumm (eds.), Mauerschau: Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann (Remshalden-Grunbach 2002) 833 – 860.

Reingruber / Thissen 2009: A. Reingruber / L. Thissen, Depend-ing on 14C Data: Chronological Frameworks in the Neolith-ic and Chalcolithic of Southeastern Europe. Radiocarbon 51, 2, 2009, 751 – 770.

Runnels et al. 2009: T.C. Runnels / C. Payne / N. Rifkind / C. White / N. Wolff / S. LeBlanc, Warfare in Neolithic Thessaly: A Case Study. Hesperia 78, 2, 2009, 165 – 194.

Sherratt 1982: A. Sherratt, The Development of Neolithic and Copper Age Settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain, Part I:

The Regional Setting. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1, 1982, 287 – 316.

Sherratt 1983: A. Sherratt, The Development of Neolithic and Copper Age Settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain, Part II: Site Survey and Settlement Dynamics. Oxford Journal of Ar-chaeology 2, 1983, 13 – 41.

Theocharis 1973: D.R. Theocharis, Neolithic Greece (Athens 1973).Tsountas 1908: C. Tsountas, Ai proistorikai Akropoleis Dimen-

iou kai Sesklou (Athens 1908).van Andel / Runnels 1995: T.H. van Andel / C.N. Runnels, The

Earliest Farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69, 1995, 481 – 500.van Andel et al. 1990: T.H. van Andel / E. Zangger / A. Demi-

track, Land Use and Soil Erosion in Prehistoric and Historic Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 17, 1990, 379 – 396.

van Andel et al. 1995: T.H. van Andel / K. Gallis / G. Toufexis, Early Neolithic Farming in a Thessalian River Landscape, Greece. In: J. Lewin / M.G. Macklin / J.C. Woodward (eds.), Mediterranean Quaternary River Environments (Rotterdam 1995) 131 – 43.

Wace / Thompson 1912: A.J. Wace / M.S. Thompson, Prehistoric Thessaly (New York 1912).

Whittle 1996: A. Whittle, Europe in the Neolithic: The Creation of New Worlds (Cambridge 1996).

Whittle 2007: A. Whittle, Introduction. In: A. Whittle (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: Investigations of the Körös Culture Site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés (Bu-dapest 2007) 9 – 14.

Whittle / Bartosiewicz 2007: A. Whittle / L. Bartosiewicz, On the Waterfront. In: A. Whittle (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: Investigations of the Körös Culture Site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés (Budapest 2007) 727 – 754.

Yerkes et al. 2009: R. Yerkes / A. Gyucha / W.A. Parkinson, A Multi-Scalar Approach to Modeling the End of the Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain Using Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51, 3, 2009, 1071 – 1109.

Zangger 1991: E. Zangger, Prehistoric Coastal Environments in Greece: The Vanished Landscapes of Dimini Bay and Lake Lerna. Journal of Field Archaeology 18, 1991, 1 – 15.

Zohary / Hopf 1988: D. Zohary / M. Hopf, Domestication of Plants in the Old World (Oxford 1988).