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
bar@archaeopress.com
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
C hapter 5
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 devaluation of Spondylus as prestige raw material. New prestige raw materials appeared –first of all, copper– which could have taken over
the role of Spondylus.
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 differences 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 continuous 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 descendant of Middle Neolithic Transdanubian Linear Pottery
Culture (Chapman 1994: 80-82, 1997; Kalicz 1985b: 128132, 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 number and variety of grave goods also increased (Raczky & Anders 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 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. Based on this
analysis, our aim is to contribute to a better understanding of
social changes during these two periods.
Differences
Neolithic
in
Spondylus Usage
in the
Middle
and
Late
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 horizon 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 manufacture 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-
Spondylus in Prehistory: New Data & Approaches – Contributions to the Archaeology of Shell Technologies
Figure 1. Middle and Late Neolithic sites of graves contained Spondylus grave-goods
White signs indicate sites of Spondylus ornaments which were measured
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)
48
Zsuzsanna Siklósi & Piroska Csengeri – Reconsideration of Spondylus Usage in the Middle and Late Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin
Description of Spondylus Ornaments
Types
Middle
Neolithic
Late
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
–
+++
Small plate with perforations
+++
–
7.1
Perforated ornament from pieces of massive, wide bracelets
+++
–
7.2
Perforated ornament from pieces of thin bracelets
+++
+++
6.1-6.2
Table 1. Middle and Late Neolithic Spondylus ornament types
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 number of Spondylus ornaments in graves and measured them one
by one.
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 irregular 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.
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 classified the finds published from many other sites on the basis
of their size and shape. We examined 5,704 items from 166
Medium-sized cylindrical, disc, or barrel-shaped beads appeared in Late Neolithic graves as well, but in considerably
smaller proportion (e.g. Kalicz 1985a: fig. 30.1-2, 40.3).
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; Spondylus 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.
Typical for the Middle Neolithic but found in smaller quantities 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).
2 Kalicz (1985a). We would like to thank Nándor Kalicz for the opportunity 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).
On the contrary, most typical types in the Late Neolithic include 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-
3 In addition to graves that have already been analyzed, there are numerous 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.
49
Spondylus in Prehistory: New Data & Approaches – Contributions to the Archaeology of Shell Technologies
Figure 2. Measures of different types of Spondylus beads
The Manufacturing Technique of Spondylus Objects
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).
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 manufacturing them have to be answered first.
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).
H. Todorova and I. Vajsov also considered theoretically the
necessary amount of Spondylus raw material used for an ornament (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 question 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 material 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,
A considerable increase between these two periods can be detected 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 material requirement such as pendants and wide bracelets disappeared from graves, and extremely tiny (a few mm in width
and diameter) beads appeared instead.
50
Zsuzsanna Siklósi & Piroska Csengeri – Reconsideration of Spondylus Usage in the Middle and Late Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin
Figure 3. Measures of Middle and Late Neolithic Spondylus beads
too. Wide bracelets, which were typical of the Middle Neolithic 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) determined 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 thickened 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.
(or even less) but a maximum of 10 pieces of smaller cylindrical beads or buttons, and 20 pieces of medium-sized, discshaped 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 money 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. Finally, 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 Malinowski described the manufacture of Spondylus beads used
Findings from Dimini and Neolithic sites of the Adriatic coast
provide information for the manufacture of medium-sized cylindrical 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
51
Spondylus in Prehistory: New Data & Approaches – Contributions to the Archaeology of Shell Technologies
Figure 6. Medium-sized beads, animal tooth-shaped, arched pendants, red deer tooth-shaped pendant, and small plates with perforations 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]
Figure 4. Large, cylindrical bead, large, biconical beads and a pendant 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)
[photo by Géza Kulcsár, Herman Ottó Museum]
52
Zsuzsanna Siklósi & Piroska Csengeri – Reconsideration of Spondylus Usage in the Middle and Late Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin
tion over time. Late Neolithic beads were probably strung
and ground together in large groups. This method considerably 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 implied between the two settlement phases (Pappa & Veropoulidou, 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 manufacturing 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 products (Tsuneki 1989: 10-12). It is probable that they were not
able to exploit a shell valve maximally in the Neolithic. Taking 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.
Figure 7. Medium-sized, disc-shaped beads from a
Middle Neolithic grave (Kesznyéten–Lúci Abony, grave No. S4)
[photo by Géza Kulcsár, Herman Ottó Museum]
Based on these calculations, it is possible to provide an estimate on the amount of minimum and maximum Spondylus
raw material per grave in the two periods. Because of uncertainties, 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 decreased (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 requirement 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 Spondylus. 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, formerly 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 analysis 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 considerable 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 8. Mean Spondylus ornaments in Middle and
Late Neolithic graves
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 cylindrical piece of wood, they were polished and then pierced. Following 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 grinding 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 Neolithic beads to those of the Late Neolithic, the Late Neolithic
beads are much uniform indicating increasing standardiza53
Spondylus in Prehistory: New Data & Approaches – Contributions to the Archaeology of Shell Technologies
Figure 9. Number of Spondylus ornaments in graves
Circles indicate outliers, stars indicate extremes, boxplots show minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, and maximum values
between real and imitation beads in Aszód, so, during their
wearing, differences were probably almost invisible4.
fig. 4.13; Raczky et al. 1997: 40, fig. 34.; Zalai-Gaál 2006:
21, fig. 6).
Problem of Fossil Shell Usage and Further Research
We had only restricted scientific data for the actual raw material of so-called “Spondylus” objects. It is an important question in terms of exchange relations whether the shell raw materials 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 European Neolithic were made of recent Spondylus shell (Shackleton & Elderfield 1990). After that, it became a generally
accepted view that there was a long-distance exchange system 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). Fossil shells (both Ostrea and Spondylus) can be found on several
sites through the overland territory of Europe. However, according to Dimitrijević and Tripković, there are no features
that could help clearly distinguish fossil and recent shells
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 Spondylus 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 Mediterranean; 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 Carpathian 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.
54
Zsuzsanna Siklósi & Piroska Csengeri – Reconsideration of Spondylus Usage in the Middle and Late Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin
Figure 10. Estimated number of used Spondylus shell valves per grave
Circles indicate outliers, stars indicate extremes, boxplots show minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, and maximum values
(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.
(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.
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
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 longdistance 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
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.
55
Spondylus in Prehistory: New Data & Approaches – Contributions to the Archaeology of Shell Technologies
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]
no. 4 at Kisköre–Gát contained a semi-finished Spondylus
bracelet (Korek 1989: 40, pl. 33.4.).
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.
Social Archaeological Conclusions
Based on what has been discussed so far, it is possible to refine
our understanding of Middle and Late Neolithic societies.
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, considerable changes in costumes or fashion can be witnessed: necklaces, belts, bracelets and anklets consisting of composite,
multi-row tiny beads appear instead of heavy, one-row necklaces 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 ornaments 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 became 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).
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 Spondylus 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 without 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 settlement, and up to now, any Middle Neolithic formal cemetery
could not be found in the territory of the present-day Hungary.
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 representative sample of the past community (Siklósi 2007). Wearing 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-
Middle Neolithic hoards are mainly ornament hoards. They
could be associated with either a certain person or a community,
56
Zsuzsanna Siklósi & Piroska Csengeri – Reconsideration of Spondylus Usage in the Middle and Late Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin
male family members and their descendants. This is the period 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 leaders 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 Villánykövesd (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.
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 ornaments 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 objects and tools which indicate that they might be connected
to secondary workshops (e.g. Csóka–Kremenyák, Hîršova)
(Comşa 1973; Raczky 1994). Furthermore, these hoards contained both Spondylus and copper objects which maintain
their similar role.
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).
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.
In the decreasing importance of Spondylus ornaments as prestige 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 making tools. It displaces stone tools only a period later (Renfrew 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, Villánykövesd, 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 often 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 copper as a new prestige raw material was accessible only to a
narrow group and it was able to take over the role which Spondylus ornaments were more and more unable to play.
57
Spondylus in Prehistory: New Data & Approaches – Contributions to the Archaeology of Shell Technologies
References
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 Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 12: 1-56.
P. Barna, J.
2004
Adatok a késő neolitikus viselet megismeréséhez a lengyeli kultúra újabb leletei alapján
[Some data to Late Neolithic costume according 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 settlement and graves, part of a Bronze Age cemetery,
Sarmatian and Avar settlements. Rescue excavation at the M3 motorway] (ed. T. Petercsák &
J. J. Szabó): 351-356. Eger: Dobó István Vármúzeum [Heves Megyei Régészeti Közlemények].
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 communities of Eastern Hungary: Perspectives from the
Upper Tisza region [Társadalmi erőforrás a
kelet-magyarországi korai földművelő közösségekben a Felső–Tisza–vidék szemszögéből].
A nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve
36: 79-99.
1997
The origin of tells in Eastern Hungary. In Neolithic Landscapes: Neolithic Studies Group
Comşa, E.
1973
Seminar Papers 2 (ed. P. Topping): 139-164.
Oxford: Oxbow Books [Monograph Series].
Parures néolithiques en coquillages marins découvertes en territoire Roumain. Dacia 17: 6176.
Csalogovits, J.
1936
Tolna vármegye múzeumának újabb szerzeményei 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 településtörténetéhez [Data to the Prehistoric Settlements of
the Cserehát]. In MΩMOΣ II. Őskoros Kutatók
II. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete, Debrecen, 2000. November 6–8 (ed. E. Nagy, J. Dani
& Zs. Hajdú): 45-59. Debrecen: Hajdú-Bihar
Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága.
2004b
Spondylus mellékletes középső neolitikus temetkezések Mezőzomborról és Mezőkövesdről
[Middle Neolithic burials with Spondylus
shell ornaments from Mezőzombor (Tiszadob
group) and Mezőkövesd (Szakálhát culture)].
In MΩMOΣ III. Őskoros Kutatók III. Összejövetelének konferenciakötete. Halottkultusz
és temetkezés, Szombathely-Bozsok, 2002. Október 7-9 (ed. G. Ilon): 65-90. Szombathely:
Vas Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága.
Dimitrijević, V. & B. Tripković
2003New Spondylus findings at Vinča-Belo Brdo:
1998-2001 campaigns and regional approach to
problem. Starinar 52: 47-62.
2006
Spondylus and Glycymeris bracelets: Trade reflections at Neolithic Vinča-Belo Brdo. Documenta 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 lakótelepen [Probegrabung an der aeneolithischen
Ansiedlung bei Villánykövesd (Kom. Baranya)]. A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve:
55-71.
1960
Die Siedlung und das Gräberfeld in Zengővárkony. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó [Archaeologia Hungarica, 37].
Domboróczki, L.
1997
Füzesabony–Gubakút: Újkőkori falu a Kr. e.
VI. évezredből [Füzesabony–Gubakút: Neolithic village from the 6th millennium B.C]. In
Utak a múltba: Az M3-as autópálya leletmentései [Paths into the Past: Rescue Excavations on
the M3 Motorway] (ed. P. Raczky, T. Kovács &
58
Zsuzsanna Siklósi & Piroska Csengeri – Reconsideration of Spondylus Usage in the Middle and Late Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin
zwischen Archäologie, Klimatologie, Biologie
und Medizin (Hrsg. A. Lippert, M. Schultz, S.
Shennan & M. Teschler-Nicola): 153-163. Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf [Internationale Archäologie Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, 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 Archaeological Research, Faculty of Philosophy, The
University of Belgrade.
2000
Település a legkorábbi újkőkori sírokkal Északkelet–Magyarországról [Eine Siedlung mit ältneolithischen 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 Ungarischen Tiefebene. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó
[Studia Archaeologia, 7].
Kalicz, N. & J. Szénászky
2001
Spondylus-Schmuck im Neolithikum des Komitats Békés, Südostungarn. Praehistorische
Zeitschrift 76: 24-54.
Kiss, L.
1939
Fiatalabb kőkori telep és sírok Kenézlőn [Jüngere 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 Nachbargebieten (Hrsg. B. Chropovský): 103-107. Nitra:
Archäologisches Institut der Slowakischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
2003 Mezőzombor–Temető. In Régészeti Kutatások
Magyarországon 2000 [Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 2000] (ed. J. Kisfaludi):
177. Budapest: Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Hivatal 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 dissertation].
1989
Die Theiß-Kultur in der mittleren und nördlichen 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 Hódmezővásárhely–Gorzsán: Előzetes beszámoló az
1956-57. évi ásatásokról) [Siedlung und Friedhof aus dem Spätneolithikum in Hódmezővásárhely–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 SzakálhátGroup at Csanytelek-Újhalastó. Móra Ferenc
Múzeum Évkönyve: 7-54.
Hladilová, Š.
2002
Výsledky paleontologického studia ozdob z
lokality Vedrovice [Ergebnisse paläontologischen Studiums der Verzierungen aus der Lokalität Vedrovice]. In Dvě pohřebiště neolitického 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 Probleme im Spätneolithikum des Theißgebietes. In
Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near
Eastern Connections (ed. S. Bökönyi): 103122. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology of the
Hungarian Academy of Sciences [Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, 2].
2001
Zusammenhänge zwischen dem Siedlungswesen und der Bevölkerungszahl während des
Spätneolithikums in Ungarn [Connection between modes of settlement and population size
during the Late Neolithic period in Hungary].
In Mensch und Umwelt während des Neolithikums und der Frühbronzezeit in Mitteleuropa:
Ergebnisse interdisziplinärer Zusammenarbeit
59
Spondylus in Prehistory: New Data & Approaches – Contributions to the Archaeology of Shell Technologies
Kurucz, K.
1994
Umjetnosti Odjel za Filozofiju i Drušestvene
Nauke.
Novak, G.
1955
Újkőkori sírok Tiszavasvári határából [Neolithic graves from the outskirts of Tiszavasvári]. In A kőkortól a középkorig: Tanulmányok 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.
H. Peter-Röcher, M. Roeder & B. Teržan): 91106. Espelkamp: Verlag Marie Leidorf [Internationale Archäologie, Studia Honoraria, 1].
Prethistorijski Hvar: Grapčeva Spilja [Prehistoric Hvar: The Cave of Grabak]. Zagreb: Academia Scientiarum et Artum Jugoslavica, Classis Philosophia et Sociologia.
Novotný, B.
1962
Lužianska Skupina a Počiatky Maľovanej
Keramiky na Slovensku. Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo 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 Archaeologica 47: 43-62.
2001
A Tiszalúc-sarkadi újkőkori falu feltárásának
eddigi eredményei (Borsod–Abaúj–Zemplén megye) [Die bisherigen Ergebnisse der
Freilegungen in der neolitischen Siedlung von
Tiszalúc-Sarkad (Komitat Borsod–Abaúj–Zemplén)]. In Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon
1998 [Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 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, 197198.
Podborský, V.
2002
Dvě pohřebiště neolitického lidu s lineární
keramikou ve Vedrovicích na Moravě [Zwei
Gräberfelder des neolithischen Volkes mit Linearbandkeramik in Vedrovice in Mähren]. Brno:
Masarykovy University Philosophy Faculty,
Dept. of Archaeology & Museology.
Raczky, P.
1982
„Szolnok megye a népek országútján”: Az állandó kiállítás vezetője [„Szolnok County: The
crossroads of many Races”: Guide to the archaeological collection]. Szolnok: Damjanich
János Múzeum.
1994
Two late Neolithic ‘hoards’ from Csóka (Čoka)–
Kremenyák in the Vojvodina [Két késő neolitikus „kincs” Csóka (Čoka)–Kremenyákról
(Vojvodina)]. In A kőkortól a középkorig: Ta-
Lichardus, J.
1991
Das Gräberfeld von Varna im Rahmen des Totenrituals des Kodžaderm–Gumelniţa–Karanovo VI–Komplexes. In Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche: Symposium Saarbrücken und
Otzenhausen 6.-13.11.1988. (Hrsg. J. Lichardus): 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: Symposium 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 Archipelagoes 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 Sitagroi. In Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavations in
Northeast Greece, 1968-1970. Vol. 2: The Final
Report (ed. E. S. Elster & C. Renfrew): 369382. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA [Monumenta Archaeolo-gica,
20].
Müller, J.
1997
Neolithische und chalkolithische Spondylus-Artefakte: Anmerkungen zu Verbreitung, Tauschgebiet und sozialer Funktion. In ΧΡΟΝΟΣ:
Festschrift für Bernard Hänsel (Hrsg. C. Becker, M.-L. Dunkelmann, C. Metzner-Nebelsick,
60
Zsuzsanna Siklósi & Piroska Csengeri – Reconsideration of Spondylus Usage in the Middle and Late Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin
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. Verona: Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di (IIa serie) Sezione Scienze dell’Uomo
4.
1999
Goldfunde aus der Kupferzeit: Die Anfänge der
Metallurgie im Karpatenbecken. In Prähistorische Goldschätze aus dem Ungarischen Nationalmuseum (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 Investigations 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 settlement 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 prehistoric 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. Thraco-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: 233256.
1995b
La route néolithique des spondyles de la Méditerranée à la Manche. In Nature et Culture, colloque 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.
Note sur l’origine et la signification des objets
2003
en spondyle de Hongrie dans le cadre du Néolithique et de l‘Énéolithique européens. In Morgenrot 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 Neolithic European Spondylus shell artefacts. Antiquity 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. Oxford 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: 155169.
Siklósi, Zs.
2004
Prestige goods in the Neolithic of the Carpathian 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 Central Europe (ed. J. K. Kozłowski & P. Raczky):
185-198. Kraków: The Polish Academy of Arts
and Sciences Kraków, Eötvös Loránd University Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Budapest.
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 kagylóékszereinek archeozoológiai vizsgálata [Archaeozoological investigation of the jewels of
the S-Transdanubian Lengyel Culture]. A Wosinszky 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-
61
Spondylus in Prehistory: New Data & Approaches – Contributions to the Archaeology of Shell Technologies
tage, Budapest and Vas County Museums’ Directorate, Szombathely.
Tálas, L. & P. Raczky
1991
Les agriculteurs de la Grande Plaine Hongroise
(4000-3500 av. J.-C.). Dijon: Musée Archéologique de Dijon.
Todorova, H.
2002
Die Mollusken in den Gräberfeldern von Durankulak. In Durankulak, Band II: Die prähistorischen Gräberfelder (Hrsg. H. Todorova): 177186. Sofia: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut
in Berlin.
Todorova, H. & I. Vajsov
2001
Der kupferzeitliche Schmuck Bulgariens. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag [Prähistorische Bronzefunde 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 Ancient Orient Museum IX: 1-15.
1989
The manufacture of Spondylus shell objects at
Neolithic Dimini, Greece. Orient XXV: 1-21.
Willms, C.
1985Neolithischer Spondylusschmuck: Hundert Jahre 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 szociálarchaeológiai elemzése [Sozialarchäologische
Untersuchungen des mitteleuropäischen Neolithikums 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 kultúra közösségeiben [Die Fragen des Status und
der Hierarchie in den Gemeinschaften der Lengyel–Kultur]. A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve 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.
2006
62
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 53: 273-298.
A lengyeli kultúra tengeri kagylóékszerei a
Dél-Dunántúlon [Meeresmuschelschmuck der
Lengyel–Kultur in Südtransdanubien]. A Wosinszky Mór Múzeum Évkönyve 28: 7-88.