1982-83 Raczky, P.: Origins of the custom of burying the dead inside houses in South-East Europe (original) (raw)
Related papers
Questioning when, how and even why the Neolithic way of life appeared in Europe has been one of the most debated problems of European prehistory, leading to the formulation of various explanatory models, each providing evidence to support its point of view, but without convincing others. Conventional standpoints, one-tract thinking and considering the emergence of the Neolithic way of life as a short-term event have hampered consensus, bringing discussions almost to a deadlock. Recent evidence has made it clear that the Neolithisation process in Europe was a multifarious event that went on for more than a millennium; thus, all previous hypotheses were correct with regard to their specific cases. Analytic or synthetic explicative models such as migration, colonisation, segregated infiltration, the transfer of commodities and of know-how, acculturation, assimilation, and maritime expansion that are seemingly mutually contradictory actually took place simultaneously as distinct modalities.
Schier 2014 Oxford Handbook of the Neolithic - Central and Eastern Europe
The essay describes major movements of people and ideas in central and eastern Europe during the sixth to third millennium BC. For the sixth millennium, Neolithization itself is the main issue, the debate about which reflects changing attitudes in central European archaeology over the past two decades. The spread of a solarcosmological ideology is suggested at the beginning of the fifth millennium, manifested in circular enclosures with astronomical orientations. In the late fifth and early fourth millennium the Neolithic economy and areas of habitation are considerably enlarged in central Europe, suggesting new agricultural techniques. The later fourth and early third millennium was a time of far-reaching innovation with the development of wheeled transport; in contrast to earlier opinions an origin in the Pontic steppe zone seems highly probable. The latest large-scale movement of ideas and/or people considered here is the diffusion of the Corded Ware culture, and with it, a new gender-specific ideology, reflected in its rigid burial customs.
Fowler, C. - Harding, J. - Hofmann, D.: The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe, 2015
This contribution traces the development of tells, or settlement mounds, in south-east Europe. Owing to their surviving height, these habitation monuments became the foci of regional research traditions, but more recently the balance has shifted to include horizontal or 'flat' sites. This has allowed to integrate tells into their social context, to systematically investigate off-tell activity, the different notions of time and community played out in both types of settlement, and the relations to other kinds of site, such as cemeteries. This chapter offers a chronological overview from the earliest tells in the southern Balkans in the mid 7th millennium, when households engaged in a variety of mobility strategies, to their expansion north-westwards into the Hungarian Plain, during which the significance of tells also altered. While tells continue to be built until around 3700 BC, the increasing social stratification may be a factor in their ultimately rapid abandonment.
Documenta Praehistorica, 2007
According to traditional views, the main reason for 'demesolithisation' in East Central Europe was the spread of the Neolithic oecumene, particularly from c. 4000 BC. Simultaneously, the disintegrated Late Mesolithic world gradually underwent typological unification, and finally reached the stage that is sometimes described as pre-Neolithic. However, we definitely have to bear in mind that as a matter of fact we deal only with the 'history' of archaeological artefacts that are treated as typical attributes of hunter-gatherers. The analyses of chronological, technological, settlement, economic, and social data referring to foragers of East Central Europe demonstrate that the quantitative decrease and changes of their archaeological attributes in the fifth, fourth, and third millennia were not connected with a profound reorientation of their spatial and ideological existence. It was rather a continuation of previous patterns, even though territories settled by farming societies were steadily growing in size. The final disappearance of Central European hunter-gatherers -but only in a strictly typological dimension -took place in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. IZVLE∞EK -Glede na tradicionalne poglede je bil glavni razlog 'de-mezolitizacije' v vzhodni srednji Evropi ∏iritev neolitske ekumene, predvsem od c. 4000 BC dalje. Isto≠asno je mlaj∏i mezolitski svet postopoma do∫ivel tipolo∏ko zedinjenje in kon≠no dosegel stopnjo, ki je v≠asih opisana kot pred-neolitska. Vendar moramo jasno vedeti, da se dejansko ukvarjamo le z zgodovino arheolo∏kih artefaktov, ki jih obravnavamo kot tipi≠ne atribute lovcev in nabiralcev. Analize kronolo∏kih, tehnolo∏kih, poselitvenih, ekonomskih in socialnih podatkov, ki se nana∏ajo na nabiralce vzhodne srednje Evrope dokazujejo, da kvantitativni upad in spremembe njihovih arheolo∏kih atributov v petem, ≠etrtem in tretjem tiso≠letju niso bili povezani s temeljito, novo usmeritvijo prostorske in ideolo∏ke eksistence. πlo je ve≠inoma za nadaljevanje prej∏njih vzorcev, ≠eprav so se obmo≠ja, ki so jih poselili kmetovalci, stalno pove≠evala. Kon≠no izginotje srednjeevropskih lovcev in nabiralcev -vendar v striktno tipolo∏ki razse∫nosti -se je dogodilo v mlaj∏em neolitiku in v za≠etku bronaste dobe. KEY WORDS -East Central Europe; late hunter-gatherers; Late/Final Mesolithic; para-Neolithic Fig. 1. Territory and sites discussed in the text.
Acta Archaeologica, 2006
In Hungary, prehistoric archaeology, and Neolithic research in particular, has reached the level at which the problems of demography as well as those of social organisation and structure can be more intensively studied, beyond the primary analysis of material culture. 1 This development fits a general research trend pursued across Europe. This qualitative change was, in part, facilitated by guest researchers from abroad, who became involved with prehistoric research in the Carpathian Basin through their personal archaeological projects. Their new approaches have inspired the emergence of a broader view among local archaeologists. 2 On the other hand, it is an indubitable fact that, for a long time, the comprehensive work by János Makkay 3 has remained the benchmark study in the forefront of neolithic research in Hungary that also guided the clarification of demographic and social relations. Makkay's book may be considered a milestone especially, since it directed attention to the importance of settlement history in dealing with these problems. Prior to that time, on the basis of the analysis carried out in the Tiszapolgár-Basatanya cemetery, 4 it had been generally assumed that social questions in Early Prehistory may be dealt with chiefly on the basis of archaeological observations made in burials. To some extent, that attitude has remained influential in connection with the Lengyel culture, its research is concentrated on the analysis of cemeteries within the framework of "sozialarchäologische Forschungen". 5 In addition to the gradual adoption of the interpretive frameworks of the most influential trends in European archaeology (processual, post-processual, cognitive-processual and interpretative archaeology) 6 in Hungary, another development of similar importance must be mentioned: large surface excavations could be carried out * The shorter version of this paper was presented at the conference entitled "(un)settling the using modern techniques. 7 Parallel with these excavations, several field surveys on a regional level facilitated the study of higher levels of settlement history, including the Neolithic Period as well. 8 Meanwhile, an evidently important basis for assessing prehistoric social relations is the availability of comparative archaeological information from the settlements and cemeteries of cultural units investigated. 9 A great variety of the possibilities of analysing the various levels of pathways to power (e. g.: data on mortuary practices, artefacts and settlements) are presented in the theoretical syntheses written by M. Parker-Pearson, 10 B. Hayden, 11 P. K. Wason, 12 and F. McHugh. 13 Another important requirement in studying social archaeology is the availability of a certain chronological framework, as has recently been convincingly demonstrated by J. Müller in relation to the Neolithic of the Middle Elbe-Saale region. 14 Owing to the aforementioned circumstances, the site of Polgár-&VV]KDORPKDVRIIHUHGXQLTXHH[FDYation results 15 . In relation to these, questions of social relations in the Late Neolithic of the Upper Tisza Region can not only be posed, but also discussed in sufficient detail.