A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum évkönyve 36. - 1994 (Nyíregyháza, 1995)

John Chapman: Social power in the early farming communities of Eastern Hungary – Perspectives from the Upper Tisza region

Social power in the early farming communities of ... each Szatmár site leading to the occupation of a cluster of Tiszadob sites in the immediate vicinity (HUDSON 1969-, KRUK 1973.)., In this phase, there is an expansion of settlement over much of the dry landscape. Site concentrations are found in all seven sub-areas, for the first and the last time in the prehistoric sequence. Most site concentrations in the southern part lie near the edge of wet farmland. Closer to Tiszadob, the higher altitude of the dry land appears to have attracted two or three concentrations of scatters; some sites are located further from wet farmland than in the Polgár area. Sites such as Polgár 61 lie on tiny elevations on the floodplain. Other sites, such as the largest scatter at Polgár 46, are well set back from the floodplain edge, with large areas of fertile loess-derived soils for cultivation. Single finds occur on tiny islands near Tiszagyulaháza and west of the Kengyel-Tiszadob corridor, as well as in most other site concentrations. Site sizes vary in this period from small clusters of sherds (25x15 m), presumably indicating a single structure, to the 30hectare (600x500 m) site at Polgár 46, interpreted as a discontinuous, low-density distribution of individual houses with gardens. Although most of the sites are probably small-scale, maybe short-term and certainly dispersed, occasional large concentrations of people do occur as foci of social power in the landscape. The variety in site sizes may imply the existence of inter-site social differentiation, although this would need to be tested by future excavation. The site of Újtikos 2 is potentially interesting, since it is a tell with only Middle Neolithic pottery on the surface. If this dating is correct, this may be the first Tiszadob-phase tell in North-East Hungary. The mortuary evidence from the Middle Neolithic shows continuity from the Körös period, with intramural burial of skulls, disarticulated partial and articulated complete skeletons (CHAPMAN 1983.). One burial is known from the Szakáihát levels on the Vésztő tell (HEGEDŰS-MAKKÁ Y 1987.91.). The Vésztő burial is important in showing the typical path of future intramural tell burials - articulated but not buried in a burnt house. Thus the domestic arena maintains its ancestor focus, both on flat sites and on tells - a burial picture superficially comparable to that of the Bulgarian tell pattern (CHAPMAN 1991.). However, the Hungarian tell burials comprise complete articulated individuals, in contrast to the partial secondary burials on Bulgarian tells. It would seem that death has become less polluting in the Middle Neolithic, perhaps through the introduction of social boundedness designed to contain and limit the dangers from death to the community. Since the ancestral traditions so distinctive of tells have hardly developed strongly yet in Eastern Hungary, alternative modes of ancestral relations relating to mortuary ritual may have been more important. The first flowering of the tell tradition in Hungary dates to the Late Neolithic, c. 4500-3900 CAL B.C. Even then, fewer than 20 tells and tell-like sites are known from Eastern Hungary, their number being exceeded by sometimes larger flat sites (KALICZRACZKY 1987.a). The height of the tells at 3-4 m indicates intensive building and re-building, with rubble from earlier houses flattened and re-incorporated into new houses, a parallel strategy to incorporation of ancestors. The houses on the Hungarian tells are closely spaced, with a built-to-unbuilt ratio of around 2:3:1 for level 8 at Herpály (Plate 4: see also CHAPMAN 1989.Tab.l.). The contents of tell houses are extremely rich in pottery, figurines and other ritual paraphernalia. The houses are well-built, comfortable, full of life, fertility, possessions and furniture and fittings (for a full description: RACZKY 1987.). There is little doubt that the domestic arena of social power is as dominant on Hungarian as on Bulgarian tells. The question of hierarchical relations between tells and flat sites is still debated (KALICZRACZKY 1987.a.); some smaller flat sites near tells may be satellite sites (e.g., Szarvas 56: JANKOVICH et al. 1989-423.) but other, larger open sites (e.g., Sárazsadány) appear to be distinct entities. In the Polgár Block, 11 Late Neolithic scatters are known - two tells and 9 flat sites (Pig. 5). There is a small concentration in the southern part of the block, with only two sites near Tiszadob. Late Neolithic sites are known neither on the Hodos island nor on the Kengyel-Tiszadob corridor. Continuity of smaller-scale occupation from Middle Neolithic sites is frequent (e.g., Polgár 1, 32 and 46). Although the Late Neolithic occupation at Polgár 1 (Kenderföldek) does not appear to represent a tell formation itself, this sitewas selected for tell occupation in a later period^ m' The main feature of this period is the decision to found tell settlements at Csőszhalom and Bosnyák domb. It is surely significant that one of the two Late Neolithic tells in Block 1 is located in the middle of the densest cluster of the remains of Middle Neolithic sites and on a site close to a small Tiszadob settlement (Polgár 34). This decision marks the relocation of the main site of the period some 4 km north from Polgár 46 to Csőszhalom. It should be noted that none of the Late Neolithic sites is particularly large. While there is a high density of houses in the central part of the tell at Csőszhalom, a thin spread of pottery covering 130x60 m is found at Bosnyák domb, with smaller concentrations off the tell at Kenderföld (10x10 m), Polgár 32 (10x10 m) and Polgár 46 (20x10 m). The distinction between tells and smaller settlements, probably farmsteads, appears to emerge in the Late Neolithic. The majority of Late Neolithic sites is located on or near the edge of wet farmland, if in a range of different locations. Thus Csőszhalom is set back from the Hodos channel, Újtikos 6 is on a small island in the floodplain, while Tiszadob 1 lies near the main Tisza channel. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 1994 81