Selmeczi László szerk.: Szolnok Megyei Múzeumi Évkönyv (1982-83)
Pál, Raczky: Origins of the Custom of Burying the Dead inside Houses in South-East Europe. A házba való temetkezés szokásának kezdetei Délkelet-Európában
backround was uncovered at Prodromos I in Thessaly: three succesive deposits of skeletal remains comprising 11 skulls and' numerous other bones were below the floor of a large house 37 . The excavator, G. Hourmouziadis interpreted these burials as being secondary, i.e. that the deceased had been transported here from some other preliminary burial site, which in his opinion accounted for the fact that the human skeletal remains were not found in anatomical order. That this practice survived for a fairly long time is documented by the successive layers of burials. In contrast to the Yugoslavian examples listed above, the observations made at Prodromos indicate that even after the human remains were deposited below the floor, the houses were not abandoned in every case. This special burial practice may have signified that the deceased kinsman and former member of the community remained with the living and was perhaps thought to be endowed with special powers to protect the living 38 . The secondary burials found below the floor of the house at Prodromos are of prime importance as regards the origins of the South-East European Early Neolithic insofar as a similar practice was observed at Catal Hüyük in Anatolia, where successive generations buried their dead below the platforms of the houses 39 which, however, continued to be inhabited. According to J. Mellaart the deceased were buried below the platform of a house or shrine only after the skeletons were stripped of soft tissues. The complexity of the burial rites is also indicated by the relationship between the wall paintings in the shrines and the human skulls found on the floors there. These wall paintings depict huge vultures and headless human bodies 40 . Together with stylized bull and auroch statuettes, these wall paintings were probably also associated with bull and fertility cults 41 . As regards the origins of burying the deceased within houses, S. Weinberg has already pointed out that "infra muros" burials had made their appearance in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Near East at Khirokhitia, Jericho and Nahal Oren 42 . The observations made at Eynan (Ain Mallaha), a site of the Epipalaeolithic-Protoneolithic Natufian culture sheds new light on the origins and the first appearance of this custom : two skeletons lying in an extended position on their backs and covered with stones were found in a round house. There was a hearth above this burial 43 . In our opinion the burial, the hearth and the house should be regarded as a unit. It is equally important from a chronological point of view that the burial of deceased within houses was a common practice by the beginning of the Neolithic in the Near East from the Levant through Anatolia to the Tigris and the Euphrates, as well as the Zagros 44 , i.e. that the spread of this burial practice appears to be closely related to the diffusion of production economy. The origins of the custom of burying the deceased within houses observed in both South-East Europe and the Near East can probably be traced to the Epipalaeolithic, to burials where the dead were usually deposited near or below open-air hearths or in close vicinity to them 45 . Parallel to the emergence of production economy, former open-air hearths gradually began to be built near or inside houses which ensured permanence and sedentary life, and subsequently burials were also associated with dwelling houses. Later on, houses assumed the former symbolic function of hearts, and burials were then associated with houses. The deeply rooted relationship between burial, hearth and house is also corroborated by the evidence outlined above. The emergence of permanent settlements at the beginning of the Neolithic necessarily promoted the appearance and diffusion of the burial of the dead within houses. This particular burial rite could have evolved independently in South-East Europe and the Near East, since Epipalaeolithic burials associated with hearths occurred in both areas. The striking similarities between the secondary burials unearthed below the floor of the house at Prodromos and the concomitant features of the Catal Hüyük burials, however, suggest that there must have existed connections between the burial rites and funerary cults of the SouthEast European and Anatolian Neolithic. This genetic connection which is also apparent in the burial rites can probably be related to the spread of production economy to South-East Europe. Because of their uncertain chronological and cultural position, the similar burials of the Lepenski Vir culture cannot be assessed in the same way. It could hypothetically be argued that this burial custom was evolved by human groups which, due to their favourable geographical position, adopted a sedentary way of life, and it can thus be regarded as a step towards neolithisation. (In this case it should be emphasized that in our opinion this "neolithisation" could not lead to the local, independent emergence of production economy. The first step towards neolithisation should be evaluated in terms of a subjective situation without which the adaption to a new way of life would have been impossible.) It is equally feasible that the appearance of the custom of burying the deceased within houses can be traced to the arrival and the first contacts with peoples bringing with them a production economy. It is at present impossible to draw any definite conclusions in this respect, and it remains the task of future archaeological research to elucidate this problem. The presence of cremation graves both on the Lower Danube 46 and in Greece 47 may indicate further connections since this burial rite is extremely rare in the South-East European Early Neolithic 48 . As regards the connection between the burial of the deceased within houses and cremation, as well as other genetic ties, attention must be drawn to a house excavated at Tell Azmak which yielded a small vessel containing the burnt bones of an infant 49 . This observation may to a certain extent clarify the geographical diffusion of another burial rite. From this brief summary it is evident that the diffusion of burials which were associated with houses in the Körös-Starceyo-Protosesklo technocomplex was parallel to the emergence of the Neolithic in these areas of South-East Europe. The house, a symbol of production economy and a sedentary life, the most obvious expression of the interdependence of human groups, began to play an important role in the burial rites during this period. The burial of the deceased within the settlement during the Early Neolithic Era implies fear of the deceased, was a less decisive force than caring for the dead. The burial rites and religious beliefs which eventually led to the inevitable separation of settlement and cemetery made their first appearance only during a much later phase of the Neolithic 50 . The diversity of burial rites during the Early Neolithic of South-East Europe can only partially be traced to ethnic differences 51 and should probably be attributed to the colourful and varied beliefs concerning funerary cults and the netherworld. The appearance of cemeteries where the dead were buried according to the strict rites of a certain system is an expression of the fact that larger communities tried to accentuate their interdependence by a similarity in burial customs (e.g. the Cérnica cemetery 52 ). The intermediary role of the Carpathian Basin or, to be more precise, the Körös culture at the beginning of the Neolithic is also documented by the burial of the deceased within houses : evidence from the Körös culture and sites lying south of this culture convincingly prove that these graves were placed within houses that were formerly inhabited. There is evidence of sepulchral structures, "funerary huts" in the Early Neolithic Linear Band Pottery Culture of Middle Europe, but their form and dimensions indicate that hey were not real dwellings 53 . The "houses" were specially erected for the burial and were merely symbolic as compared to their South-East European counterparts. This difference is also expressed by the fact that Linear 7
