Neolithic Eastern and Central Europe

Transcription

1 Chapter 31 Neolithic Eastern and Central Europe Eszter Bánffy 31.1 Introduction A Problematic Research History Until the early decades of the twentieth century, anthropomorphic statuettes, or, more exactly, clay figurines from Neolithic sites, shared the common fate of the category of objects regarded as interesting small finds. While the vast majority of pottery, animal bones, and the structural elements of buildings such as daub were discarded almost immediately, figurines along with anthropomorphic vessels, house models, and obsidian and Spondylus jewellery were vested with both a special typological and an artistic value. This attitude ensured the survival of these objects in exhibitions and museum stores, but at the same time led to their degradation by being regarded as mere objects, divorced from their original contexts and left bereft of any clues that would reveal anything about their roles within the community. This handicap was further aggravated by interpretations that considered these Southeast and Central European figurines as forerunners of the deities and goddesses of classical antiquity. These simplifying analogies in early publications sealed the figurines fate for many years most archaeologists, especially processualists, generally refused to analyse and publish figurines. While the Magna Mater cult, the idea of female power, the pantheon of a golden era for the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Europe as recreated by Marija Gimbutas (1982, 1989) was vehemently rejected (Bánffy ; Meskell 1995; Tringham and Conkey 1999; Ucko 1968), it was left without a thorough unbiased analysis and critique of her hypotheses. Owing to this unfortunate research history, the positivist legacy of the past century is little more than a series of figurines arranged into a relative chronological order and a few remarks on possible correlations and contacts within or between Eastern Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb /8/ :21:31 PM

2 706 Eszter Bánffy and Central European cultural groups. There seems to be a consensus in terms of not interpreting them as simple toys. But what positive interpretation do these representations allow, given that some sites have occasionally yielded hundreds of these figurines? A closer examination of the stylistic features and the archaeological contexts of figurines (e.g. their manufacturing technique, the finer details of their modelling, the way(s) in which they were used and discarded) can reveal much about Neolithic history, Neolithic cognition, and the role of ritual customs within changing Neolithic social structures Geographic and Temporal Considerations The spread of the sedentary and food- producing lifestyle reached the European continent from the southeast. In this sense, the Central and East- Central European Neolithic Fig Distribution map with site names indicated (copyright E. Banffy). Triangle first half of the sixth millennium bc. 1. Alsónyék, 2. Nagykörű, 3. Endrőd, 4. Méhtelek, 5. Gura Baciului, 6. Gorzsa, 7. Lánycsók, 8. Madjari. Square second half of the sixth millennium bc. 1. Szentgyörgyvölgy, 2. Brunn, 3. Bad Nauheim, 4. Füzesabony, 5. Mezőkövesd, 6. Aba, 7. Eilsleben, 8. Glaukönigshofen, 9. Erfurt, 10. Blatné, 11. Turdaş/ Tordos, 12. Mohelnice, 13. Hortobágy- Zám, 14. Békásmegyer, 15. Parţ a, 16. Ghelaeşti, 17. Truşseşti. Circle first half of the fifth millennium bc. 1. Szegvár, 2. Falkenstein, 3. Hluboké Masufky, 4. Svodin, 5. Sé, 6. Aufhausen, 7. Vésztő, 8. Zalaszentbalázs, 9. Mórágy, 10. Aszód, 11. Tiszafüred. Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb /8/ :21:31 PM

3 Neolithic Eastern and Central Europe 707 groups are to some extent all connected to the primary zone of the Neolithic. During the first centuries of sedentary life, the frontier and interaction zone between the central and southeasterly regions (especially the northern Balkans) often lay in the Carpathian Basin. This can be illustrated with an example taken from research on Neolithic figurines: two major comprehensive monographs have been published in the past few years, one discussing the western Neolithic figurines (Becker 2011), the other focusing on the anthropomorphic sculpture of Neolithic and Chalcolithic Southeast Europe (Hansen 2007). There is an overlap regarding a fairly large territory of the study area. The two authors are correct in claiming that a considerable part of the Carpathian Basin belongs to both Central and Southeast Europe, exactly because of the Balkanic impacts that faded but slowly towards the north. Bearing all these considerations in mind, this chapter focuses primarily on Central Europe (Germany, the Czech Republic, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary), and on Eastern Europe insofar as the cultural irradiation of Neolithic Central Europe extended to southern Poland, western Ukraine, and western Romania (Figure 31.1). The term Neolithic refers to the period when a sedentary lifestyle and food production were adopted and became general in each of these regions. This can mean very different absolute dates: a period that is still called the Neolithic in the Upper Danube Basin (Germany) will fall into the late Chalcolithic or even the Early Bronze Age in the Lower Danube region (Romania). Therefore it seems correct to use the term Neolithic in absolute terms for the period between 6000 and about 4500 bp The Finds An Overview In accordance with general cultural changes, the region discussed here can be divided into two major areas in terms of finds such as figurines: one which received significant direct impacts from the Southeast European Neolithic, the other affected indirectly, by way of transmission (and transformation) through the communities and cultural groups of the former. Not surprisingly, the first area encompasses the southern and eastern peripheries (e.g. Transylvania western Romania, the southern Carpathian Basin), while the second lies farther to the west and the north, roughly corresponding to the distribution of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture actually, the area that was occupied by these first farmers from Austria to the Paris Basin, and, in the east, to southeastern Poland, eastern Romania and a part of Ukraine (Bickle and Whittle 2013). As we shall see, the number of figurines is uneven across the territory; the intensity of their use within household contexts, their scarce occurrence in burials varies significantly, and they eventually disappeared altogether. In this entry, the focus will be less on typological differences and more on the differences in rituals changing in time and space, and the possible underlying causes. Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb /8/ :21:31 PM

4 708 Eszter Bánffy The Southeast European Impact: Körös, Starčevo, Criş Figurines Anthropomorphic finds abound in the southern part of the Carpathian Basin in the earlier sixth millennium bc: in the distribution area of the Körös- Criş culture in the Alföld (Great Hungarian Plain) and in Transylvania, and of the Starčevo culture in Transdanubia. Despite certain regional differences that can be attributed to the fact that the area is the northern periphery of the huge Balkanic cultural complex, the figurines and other finds are essentially rooted in and connected to the Balkans. Most female figurines represent the rod- headed variety with a fairly obese body, often with steatopygous buttocks and a large belly, which in some cases can perhaps be interpreted as an indication of pregnancy. Many were assembled from two halves along the longitudinal axis of the body before firing (e.g. the specimens from the Alsónyék site of the Starčevo culture, and the pieces from Nagykörü and Endrőd of the Körös culture [see Bánffy et al. 2010; Raczky ; Makkay 1993]). Most figurines are broken, with the vast majority of fragments represented by these half- bodies. In other cases, the figurines were violently smashed into small pieces: the many head and foot fragments testify to the large number of figurines used on settlements. A remarkably different perception of the female body can be noted in a local Late Körös environment: the flat rectangular clay figurines of the Méhtelek group in eastern Hungary (Kalicz 2011) reflect a highly abstracted type (Figure 31.2), which was also widespread in the Transylvanian earliest Neolithic (e.g. Gura Baciului: see Lazarovici and Maxim 1995: figure 22.1), and may have had links with the Galabnik type figurines of western Bulgaria. Anthropomorphic vessels exclusively depicted the human, usually female, body. Two types can be distinguished: pots were decorated either with the relief of a human figure or with a pars pro toto representation (such as a hand), or the entire vessel was modelled in the shape of the human body with a neck and belly, and with the arms appearing as handles. The naturalistic form of the Venus of Gorzsa from the southeastern Hungarian Körös culture is not merely a good example of how the vessel was identified with the human body. It is generally assumed that the contents of anthropomorphic vessels were special commodities that needed to be protected, just like the female body conceals and protects the unborn baby. In the case of the Gorzsa vessel, this female body contained the burnt fragments of the skull of a newborn child (Gazdapusztai 1957). An anthropomorphic nature is also indicated by vessels set on human feet, handles and other appliqué ornaments modelled in the shape of hands, or reliefs on the belly (Raczky : figures 10 12). Until recently, the famous goddess figures topping a house model or an altar (e.g. the one from Madjari, Macedonia) were believed to be completely lacking from the northern frontier region. By now it has become clear that the type occurs in a more abstracted form in the northern frontier zone: as a simplified body ending in cattle s horns. Although the evaluation of these figures is still in progress, the connection is beyond doubt (Bánffy et al. 2012; Kreiter et al. 2014; Schwarzberg 2006). Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb /8/ :21:31 PM

5 Neolithic Eastern and Central Europe 709 Fig Méhtelek (from Kalicz 2012: figure 117/ 2) Earlier LBK A Continuing Strong Balkanic Impact The existence of an intensive contact zone between the northern peripheries of the Starčevo- Körös cultures has been demonstrated by both archaeological and palaeo- environmental studies (Bánffy and Sümegi 2012; Domboróczki and Raczky 2010; Sümegi and Kertész 2001). The Central European LBK emerged from the interaction between the Starčevo and the local forager population (e.g. at Szentgyörgyvölgy Pityerdomb: Bánffy 2004). The human hands applied to vessels are clearly an Early Neolithic Balkanic tradition (Bánffy 2002). Thus the figurines from this phase are, to a large extent, quite similar to their southern prototypes for example, in the case of the large figurine from the Brunn site near Vienna (Hansen 2007: 294, figure 178) (Figure 31.3), and the Balkanic tradition can be generally observed across the distribution area of the earlier LBK phase in Central Europe (Figure 31.4). This intensive link is apparent in northwestern Germany, where the figurines from the Bad Nauheim Niedermörlen site lying north of Frankfurt am Main share many similarities with those in Transdanubia (Schade- Lindig 2002). A remarkable group of figural representations appeared, without any apparent antecedents, in early LBK contexts in the eastern part of the Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb /8/ :21:32 PM

6 710 Eszter Bánffy Fig Brunn (after Hansen 2007: figure 498/ 1). Carpathian Basin. The so- called centaur figures with flat, triangular faces so typical for the LBK from Füzesabony Gubakút and Mezőkövesd Mocsolyás seem to follow a strong but local tradition (Domboróczki 1997; Kalicz and Koós 1997) The Later LBK at the End of the Sixth Millennium bc Increasing Local (Mesolithic?) Impacts in the North, New Balkanic Impulses in the South Alongside a strong decrease in the number of LBK figurines compared with the earlier period, the figurines of the later LBK phases become much more abstracted, often with a flat, triangular face and indications of a curly coiffure, as on the pieces from Aba, Eilsleben, and Bad Nauheim (Kaufmann 1976; Makkay 1972; Schade- Lindig 2002). These heads occur on rod- like, cylindrical bodies (Figure 31.5). The peculiar, herringbone motifs incised on their back may be an imitation of the ribs and the spine (Höckmann 1965, 1972). These features are mostly alien to the southeastern traditions. Anthropomorphic vessels also occur in the earlier and middle LBK phases while their number is not too large, they show an astonishing diversity with remarkable forms. Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb /8/ :21:32 PM

7 Neolithic Eastern and Central Europe 711 Fig Gaukönigshofen (from Becker 2011: plate 36/ 1). Outstanding among the pots with very simple incised eyes and noses are the vessels from Erfurt in Germany (Höckmann 1965) and the curious footed vessel from Blatné in Slovakia (Pavúk 1981), which can be assigned to the more unusual figural representations of the entire LBK complex. New cultural impacts from the south reached extensive areas of the discussed region during the final centuries of the sixth millennium bc. Emanating from the north Balcanic Vinča cultural complex, this impact in part involved the direct migration and diffusion of the Vinča population and can in part only be detected in various new elements in figural representations. The first can be noted in parts of southern Transdanubia and in Transylvania, where Vinča groups settled during the culture s early phase (the local group was named after the Tordos/ Turdaş site in Transylvania: Roska 1941). The Vinča culture in Romania is mainly distributed in the Lower Danube Region and thus falls beyond the scope of this section. The second case is more relevant for the Central European region: the incorporation of southern, Vinča elements into late LBK figural sculpture. The seated position and the bowls occasionally placed in the lap of female figurines appear mostly on anthropomorphic vessels, where the vessel body represents the female body (as on the pot from Mohelnice in Moravia: Tichy 1958). In the eastern LBK distribution, especially in the Upper Tisza region, the figurines are modelled with a flat, rather abstract body and face (e.g. the piece from Hortobágy Zám: see Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb /8/ :21:32 PM

8 712 Eszter Bánffy Fig Dumeşti (from Wullschleger et al. 2008: figure 74). Every effort has been made to contact the copyright holder of this work. If notified, the publisher will be pleased to amend the acknowledgement in any future edition. Kalicz and Makkay 1977: figure 186). These traits suggest links with the earlier Méhtelek type flat figurines (see Kalicz 2011: 5), distributed in a geographically close- lying area. Cultural connections are assumed to have existed even apart from figural art: it seems that the rich obsidian and other flint deposits in the northeastern Hungarian Mountains were desirable enough for long- distance networking or even population mobility. Interestingly enough, one of the most frequent human representation types in Central Europe are not figurines but anthropomorphic vessels occurring in the late LBK groups (mainly the Zseliz/ Želiezovce group). Among these, the Békásmegyer- type vessels are quite unique because they are Janus - faced, with a face on both sides (Kalicz and Makkay 1972). These face pots are distributed as far as southern Germany (Becker 2011: ). They Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb /8/ :21:32 PM

9 Neolithic Eastern and Central Europe 713 Fig Terracotta statuette of idol with sickle, from Szegvár- Tűzköves, Hungary (from Csalog 1972, fig. 20). (DEA/ G. DAGLI ORTI). have much in common with the large number of similar finds from the co- eval Szakálhát group in the Alföld and in the Banat (e.g. from Parţa: Lazarovici et al. 2001: figure 257). The so- called Notenkopf group of the late LBK was distributed in the Dnieper and Dniester regions lying east of the Carpathians during the last centuries of the sixth millennium bc. The area was also affected by successive waves of cultural impacts from the Lower Danube region and the Eastern Balkans, which in the extensive Cucuteni- Tripolje cultural complex gave rise to a unique and rich figural art, differing significantly from that of more westerly regions (Monah 1997). The figurines often have closely set pointed legs, meaning that they could not be set upright without a support. The reason for the creation of such peculiar figurines became clear when find assemblages such as the one from Ghelăieşti came to light. This site yielded a vessel with four standing figurines placed inside it at its cardinal points, as if the figurines were protecting the contents of the vase (Cucoş 1973). Some of the Cucuteni figurines were painted with black stripes; many were deeply incised in the same manner, and the ritual scenes with figurines and small pieces of furniture are also noteworthy (Marinescu- Bîlcu 1981). The creation of such scenes is a custom that emerged from time to time throughout the entire sixth to fifth millennia (Figure 31.6). Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb /8/ :21:32 PM

10 714 Eszter Bánffy Later Neolithic Figurines in the South Additional Strong Influences from the Balkans In the first half of the fifth millennium bc, figurines became even more diverse in terms of both their frequency and their appearance. A remarkable, large, occasionally even monumental figural art emerged in the southeastern region of our study area, on the periphery of the world of tells, alongside indications of recurrent or continuous southern cultural influences. While these representations were perhaps rooted in the earlier large face pots, the clay sculptures nonetheless represent a new quality. The large clay altar of two divinities from Parţa (Lazarovici 1972) and the large seated figures of the eastern Hungarian Tisza culture must be mentioned here. Some of these sculptures clearly portray males, a rather baffling phenomenon among the mid- fifth millennium finds, where the overwhelming majority consists of either female or atypical representations. The most famous representative of these figures is undoubtedly the Sickle God from Szegvár (Figure 31.7), a statuette subject to many speculations and interpretations in the light of later legends and myths (e.g. Makkay 2005) Later Neolithic Figurines in the Central and Northwestern Part of the Study Area Restructuring the Legacy, New Contexts In the western part of the Carpathian Basin and in the adjacent regions of Central Europe (Austria, Moravia, and southern Germany), the extensive Lengyel culture Fig Falkenstein (from Urban 1989: 74). Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb /8/ :21:32 PM

11 Neolithic Eastern and Central Europe 715 emerged in the early fifth millennium bc. Its rise can be traced to the fact that the southernmost areas of Transdanubia, its zone of origin, again received cultural impacts from the Balkans. There are many indications, the figurines among them, that the Lengyel distribution area can be clearly divided into an eastern and western zone. In the eastern zone extending to southeastern Slovakia, figurines are rare finds but show great variability. In contrast, the western Transdanubian, western Slovakian, Austrian, and Moravian figurines occur in great numbers on settlements (Kalicz 1998; Neugebauer- Maresch 1995: ; Podborský 1985) and always in a strictly canonized form: a spherical head, an elongated neck and upper body, very short arms, and exaggerated buttocks. The legs are often modelled separately and assembled from two halves, perhaps a legacy from the Early Neolithic. These canonized figurines are virtually identical from the Lengyel sites in western Transdanubia to those in Lower Austria and Moravia (Figure 31.8). Almost all of them are fragmented: the intentional breakage is reflected by examples such as the Hluboké Masufky figurine whose pieces were found in pits lying at considerable distances from one another (Altgräfin and Vildomec ). The anthropomorphic representations of the Lengyel culture frequently take the form of vessels with a strongly symbolic nature. In the early phase, their most striking features are the large upheld arms which sometime terminate in small hollow cups, while the face is often missing. In some cases, the anthropomorphic nature is obvious from the separately modelled bent legs in a seated position attached to the vessel, while other vessels have tiny female breasts or male genital organs. The three vessels from the early Lengyel site of Svodin in Slovakia may be interpreted as a family (Pavúk 1981: figure 24). The vessels of a later phase are more varied: sometimes the vessel itself is the female body, while its head is another, smaller vessel (Figure 31.9). Fig Svodin (from Pavúk 1980: figure 24). Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb /8/ :21:32 PM

12 716 Eszter Bánffy Fig Aufhausen (after Kreiner Pleyer 1999) Fifth Millennium Figurines in the North The LBK split into many local groups in its late phase, which led to a rich cultural diversity among its successors. In the north and west there were countless local variants, such as the Cucuteni culture in the eastern boundary zone and the Tisza culture in the south. However, the northern Central European groups lacked the fertile Balkanic impulses and the inflow from human migrations instead, their development appears to have been determined by other, apparently local influences. From the Paris Basin through Germany and Poland, we find cultures such as Villeneuve- Saint- Germain, Hinkelstein- Großgartach- Rössen in Bavaria, the Stichband (Stroke Ornamented pottery) culture in the Czech Republic, and the Münchshöfen culture in the Upper Danube region. The latter two are related to the Lengyel complex and mark its northern boundary. Very few figural representations are known from this period. One of these, an anthropomorphic vessel from Aufhausen, displays surprisingly autochthonous features: its hollow body is twisted (Kreiner and Pleyer 1999). This is probably not a canonized element but seems more like the effort of the local population to imitate the figural representations of the fading Late Lengyel tradition. Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb 716

13 Neolithic Eastern and Central Europe 717 The figurines of the northern LBK descendants are extremely scarce, raising the possibility of an alternative, more abstract mode of expression. Helmut Spatz hypothesized that some of the special incised decorative motifs on vessels could be interpreted as anthropomorphic adorant representations (Spatz 2002). Given that even these motifs practically disappeared after the earliest, Hinkelstein phase, it is possible that entirely different local habits, traditions and ritual cognitions countervailed against the LBK of southern origin in the post- LBK societies The Decline of Figurine Production One possible reason for the radical decrease in figurines in the northern part of Central Europe, as noted above, was the fading of cultural impacts from the Balkans. Cultural development in these regions apparently took an entirely different course than in the Balkans by the mid- fifth millennium bc. Figurines were still produced and used in Southeast Europe at this time. Surprisingly, figural representations vanished suddenly also in the Carpathian Basin, the region that was most intensively exposed to cultural impacts from the southeast. The monumental sculptures and anthropomorphic vessels of the Tisza culture in the Alföld apparently had no impact on the groups of the more mobile Tiszapolgár and Bodrogkeresztúr cultures, which seem to lack clay figural art of any type. The same holds true for both Transylvania and the Banat to the east, and for Transdanubia to the west. The underlying causes may be connected to a series of changes in lifestyle, subsistence, settlement patterns, and funerary customs, which may have influenced cult practices or at least their visibility in the archaeological record. It is possible that anthropomorphic depictions should be sought in forms other than clay figurines or face pots, and also that new sacral meanings evolved. The Neolithic clay figurines and anthropomorphic representations appear to have faded from common memory for many centuries, until their scarce revival in some areas during the Middle Bronze Age Attempts at an Interpretation: The Role of Figurines in the Light of their Archaeological Contexts In order to bridge the gap between figurines as archaeological finds and any theories on cultic, let alone religious, life in the Neolithic, we must examine the archaeological contexts that is, the way in which figural representations were used for the last time before they became buried. Two extreme examples can be quoted to illustrate this point: the figurines carelessly tossed in garbage pits and placed lovingly in house Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb 717

14 718 Eszter Bánffy shrines must be compared according to their types, and their symbolic or naturalistic character, in order to clarify whether or not there is any correlation between the quality and the treatment of the figurines. It is also informative whether figurines were deposited in graves or whether they were mostly used on settlements. Both positive and negative correlations can be an important source for reconstructing some elements of Neolithic cult life. It is a great loss within this process that all stray finds and pieces whose exact findspots or contexts are not specified in the publications and excavation reports have to be excluded from the analysis. When comparing finds with a well- observed archaeological context, the following inferences can be made Settlement The Neolithic communities discussed here prepared, used, and discarded their clay figurines almost exclusively on their settlements. The assumption that some figurines were placed in sanctuaries must also be addressed. Buildings containing many figurines and other cult objects are often interpreted as having served cult purposes only (e.g. the sanctuary of Parţa in the Romanian Banat: see Lazarovici 1989). A building serving only sacred purposes is not unknown in the Near East, from the preneolithic Göbekli Tepe site in southern Anatolia to Nea Nikomedeia in northern Greece and Madjari in Macedonia (Rodden et al. 1996; Sanev 1998; Schmidt 2000). In these cases there were a series of circumstances that distinguished them from the everyday settlement sphere. The differences were apparent either from the features of the buildings for example, their exceptionally large sizes or from the presence of unusual, strange objects, such as the hundreds of clay balls lying in a building at Nea Nikomedeia (Rodden et al. 1996). All of these Southeast European houses were apparently built for a larger community rather than for a nuclear family and they were perhaps buildings where communal activities such as initiation rites were practised on definite occasions perhaps explaining the presence of many uniform objects of unknown function. However, only a handful of such buildings are known from the Central and Eastern European Neolithic. It is also possible that many large, circular, ditched enclosures with an empty space inside them were used for community gatherings (Daim and Neubauer 2005). These enclosures are often found in between several settlements, suggesting that they may have been built and used by a larger community. It must be noted that the vast majority of figurines come from settlements, or, more precisely, from domestic contexts: they are found lying either inside dwelling houses or in pits associated with houses. Thus we have to search for an interpretation of the enormous quantity of figurines within this framework. Most of the figurines come from refuse pits. However, in several instances they were found in situ inside the house. In these cases it was often observed that they were grouped in certain spots: often near the hearth (as at Vésztő, a settlement of the eastern Hungarian Tisza culture, and at the Lengyel settlement of Zalaszentbalázs: see Bánffy 1996; Hegedűs and Makkay 1987), or in a corner at the far Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb 718

15 Neolithic Eastern and Central Europe 719 end from the area where the main entrance probably lay. These buildings are normal dwelling houses, with areas for everyday activities. An area of this type, called the cult corner, can be observed over the millennia in houses of Neolithic farmers. In Neolithic houses lacking interior division, such as the Kleinbau (small building) variant of LBK longhouses, the cult corner probably lay at the far end of the house, while in buildings divided into three rooms such as the early fifth millennium houses in the Alföld and the Banat, it may have been placed in an outside room (e.g. the building described as a shrine at Parţa also had other rooms with household pottery and other finds reflecting the preparation and cooking of meals, weaving, etc. [see Lazarovici et al. 2001]). Regardless of house size and internal division, the area of the hearth was also a preferred location for depositing (or burying) figurines and other cult objects several parallels could be quoted for the significance of the central hearth from (pre)history. Currently known cult corners are too few in number to allow a detailed description or a reconstruction of their variants. However, the observation itself that the often enormous number of figurines and other cult finds discovered on Neolithic settlements were prepared and used in dwelling houses is of importance. This observation has several implications. First, there is no reason to hypothesize the existence of separate buildings such as sanctuaries, shrines, or temples in our study area. Second, the distribution and location of figurines and other cult finds shows that the cult life on Central European Neolithic settlements took place within a nuclear family and not in front of the whole community. This does not exclude feasts and other occasions with a larger gathering (e.g. in the circular ditched enclosures mentioned above), but figurines cannot be connected to these events. Third, the often huge number, the domestic context, and the broken condition of the figurines reflect a series of events, relating to when these objects were prepared, used, broken, and discarded. These circumstances strongly imply that figurines were made for use and that they have been used regularly. Use- wear traces on many figurines from handling in the course of a series of events bespeak this. A statistical analysis was performed in order to determine what these regular events might have been (Bánffy , 1994). Two groups were distinguished: one of carefully made, elaborately decorated figurines and another of coarsely made, poorly fired figurines. The target was to trace back the findspot and contexts of both groups within the settlement in order to establish whether or not the first type is found in a particular location of the dwelling house (e.g. in the cult corners ), and whether coarse pieces come from garbage pits. The result showed that there was no such correlation. The difference must have been the event for which the figurines were made: feasts and daily life, or perhaps sacred and profane occasions (Eliade 1969) Burials Although there are a few cemeteries with many figurines deposited as gravegoods in the Lower Danube region in eastern Romania, these were used by cultures with strong links to Southeast Europe. Generally, it can be said that the custom of placing figurines or Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb 719

16 720 Eszter Bánffy any other anthropomorphic depictions into graves was alien to the Central and Eastern European Neolithic. No such gravegoods are known from the initial period of the Early Neolithic of the southerly regions (Körös, Starčevo, Criş cultures), and this practice is also unknown in the extensive LBK distribution area (Nieszery 1995; Paluch 2012). While greater diversity can be noted in burial customs during the later Neolithic, the figurines so frequently used on settlements were rarely placed into graves. A few figurines from cemeteries have only been reported from the eastern Lengyel circle (e.g. Mórágy [see Zalai- Gaál 1993]), although it is unclear whether the figurine was buried in a bothros (a sacrificial pit) or a cenotaph (a symbolic grave without the remains of the deceased). In either case, it is not at all certain whether the figurine was intended to serve as a gravegood Attempts at an Interpretation: Women? Men? Animals? The Occurrence and Significance of Transitional Representations There is a voluminous literature dealing with the human, mostly female, figurines from the area and period under discussion here, which are studied quite separately from animal figurines, despite the fact that many bodies and heads are not typically female or even human but rather zoomorphic. There are also mixed creatures having, for example, a female body and an animal head or mask, which sometimes appears to be a typical representation for a certain animal species. Most publications pay little attention to this phenomenon. Marija Gimbutas is one of the few exceptions who systematically covered these representations in her works. Unfortunately, however, she did not analyse these figurines in detail first before offering her interpretation, but immediately fitted them into a rather arbitrary, preconceived framework of a veritable Neolithic pantheon. Tracking the complicated relations between animal and human representations in the Neolithic seems to be a more reasonable approach. While there are unambiguously human and, also, clearly zoomorphic clay figurines, the most enigmatic pieces are the ones representing transitional forms between humans and animals. A great proportion of heads of this type are applied onto small clay altars, such as the mixed human- animal heads appearing with the first farming cultures in the southerly region of our study area, in the Starčevo culture of Transdanubia (Lánycsók: see Kalicz 1990: figure 8), where it is impossible to determine whether they are human or zoomorphic representations. The only indication of a rather human character is a vertical line incised on the front of the altars, which can perhaps be interpreted as a female genital organ, and this would tip the scale in favour of a human interpretation Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb 720

17 Neolithic Eastern and Central Europe 721 of the heads. Similarly, the head on the early Vinča house models from Tordos/ Turdaş in Transylvania could equally be human or zoomorphic (Roska 1941: figures 104/ 7, 104/ 10). We must also mention the large group of rod- heads, mostly from the earlier phases of the Neolithic, on which there are neither human nor zoomorphic traits. The most we can say is that these figurines represent some living creature. The curious figure of a bird- like creature standing on human legs comes from the Lengyel settlement of Aszód in northern Hungary (Kalicz 1985: figure 75). Monster heads without any indication of a human or animal face but modelled with fear- inspiring features must also be mentioned here. The best examples of such figurines are known from Zengővárkony in western Hungary, where several pieces were found, and from Tiszafüred Majoros in the Middle Tisza region, and some of the Cucuteni figurines from Ukraine can also be assigned here (Dombay 1960: figures 87/ 1, 6, 8; Gimbutas 1982: e.g. 46, figures 13 14; Kalicz : 6/ 1 and 7/ 1a c). Human figurines fitted with an animal head are also known (e.g. the pair from Parţa: see Lazarovici 1989: figure 19). The double- headed form frequently served for human, animal, and transitional depictions; they are often masked representations. Figurines wearing different (human, animal, and indeterminable) masks occur in Central Europe in the regions where the LBK was distributed. This tradition was followed by the Tisza culture, a successor of the LBK. The concealment of the figurine s real face was probably essential to these representations. The stylized appearance probably had an abstract meaning which cannot be deciphered from the representation itself (Lévi- Strauss 1977: 131 2). It is also possible that this meaning underwent certain changes from time to time (Tilley 1999), and that this shift was expressed through masks or other applications on the faces, which were attached with the help of perforations on the edges of the faces. It is evident from the above examples that the most diverse types of sixth and fifth millennium figurines can equally take an obviously human form or an atypical, transitional or zoomorphic one. Thus, if setting out from the representation itself, no sharp boundary can be drawn between human and zoomorphic figurines. Again, well- observed and accurately described archaeological contexts are vital for examining whether this sharp distinction exists in the use of human and zoomorphic representations. Human and animal figurines both occur in primarily cultic associations for example, in cult corners and in refuse pits, mixed up with household garbage. Thus, similar to the elaborately and coarsely made figurines, there is no difference between the find contexts of human and zoomorphic representations. Furthermore, Neolithic figurines can be modelled with either human or animal heads, but they sometimes take the form of undeterminable mixtures and, also, of consciously made combinations (e.g. the figurines with obvious human and animal parts). Sometimes an intentionally maintained state of doubt about a figurine s human or zoomorphic character seems probable, as if the key to these fanciful creatures were stressing their dual nature. While mixed creatures are probably unrelated to the imaginary beasts from later times, such as unicorns, centaurs, and minotaurs, some representations nonetheless suggest that mixed creatures may have existed before the Bronze Age (Costello Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb 721

18 722 Eszter Bánffy 1979: 27 9). An enigmatic figurine, standing half- way between the human and the animal form, was perhaps believed to represent a more expressive power when mediating between the two worlds of which the figurines themselves were created: the real and the imaginary sphere. This may also have been perceived as a strong link, a symbol of communication between the physical sphere and the hidden principle, given that both must have been equally important realities in the Neolithic figural art of Central and Eastern Europe Conclusion: Implications for Archaeological Finds and Cultural Change It is apparent from the above that the sheer number of figurines and also their naturalistic/ symbolic nature vary in time and space. The interpretation of this unique group of finds is aggravated by the history of their research: there is a lack of in- depth studies in some fields and countless misconceptions in others. Thus many otherwise logical questions cannot even be raised. Moving beyond the observations made about various types and their chronology, some general conclusions can nonetheless be drawn for the Neolithic of the region discussed. Based on their external traits, the vast majority of these objects depict females, even though only a few of them exhibit strong sexual characteristics. The scale on which a particular figurine can be placed somewhere in between human and animal depictions may have had a significance. One shared trait of the Central and East European Neolithic figurines is that most are found in a broken condition, which can most probably be interpreted as a result of an intentional act whatever this intention may have been (Chapman and Gaydarska 2007). There are other possibilities of interpretation which can be linked to their biography and their role in ritual activities. It is apparent especially in communities with stronger links to the Southeast European tradition that the number of figurines in a given settlement can be strikingly high. In addition to ordering their types in time and space, figurines are certainly objects which offer a wealth of information about non- material needs and non- practical activities performed by a particular community. One might argue that ritual processes were believed to be very practical actions, but for the time being it seems reasonable to distinguish cult and ritual life from other, everyday household activities. Given that most figurines are not only broken but also worn and sometimes even repaired, this may be an indication that they were used for a longer, or rather for a definite, period of time. An examination of the contexts in which they were used (at least for the last time) will not lead us much farther. Only so much can be known for example, that some figurines were found in special areas within the house, or were carefully placed in bothroi, while others were found broken in garbage pits. The Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb 722

19 Neolithic Eastern and Central Europe 723 only common feature of the finds is that they all seem to have been used and that the scene was always the settlement, the nuclear family house. A sharp break can be noted in the custom of preparing, using, and discarding figurines. Along with a decline in the initially large number of corpulent clay figurines of the Balkans, there emerged flat and less naturalistic representations after the first farmers had been living for some generations in Central Europe. Can this change be the result of weaker Balkanic cultural impacts and the rise of a stronger local tradition? The early farmers of Southeast Europe brought with them a material culture rich in cult paraphernalia, reflecting a sophisticated set of beliefs. The transformation during the later centuries of the Neolithic in the northerly regions of the Carpathian Basin and especially farther north, in the Central European region, appears to be gradual. What are the indications of this transformation? Can we suspect cultural impacts from the local Mesolithic population? The growing evidence on the existence and cult habits of foragers allows such conclusions (Gronenborn 1999). The formation of the first Neolithic meant a slow shift to food production and the adoption of a sedentary lifestyle. A series of poorly made, local imitations of genuine Balkanic cult objects are known from this transitional period, reflecting the prestige of a farming life and its rituals, and a certain desire to adopt them (Bánffy 2005). Two striking phenomena can be noted after the diffusion of farming groups that is of the LBK to the north. First is the drastic decrease in numbers of figurines, anthropomorphic vessels, small clay altars, and other figural depictions. The other major change is the gradual disappearance of naturalistic depictions and of steatopygia, as well as of the portrayal of pregnancy. The figurines of this type were supplanted by angular, flat representations. Eventually, figurines practically disappeared from Central Europe during the LBK period. Along with various other indicators of social structures, such as house architecture, settlement patterns, and landscape exploitation, cult customs and beliefs are by their very nature highly conservative. The slow and gradual disappearance of the Balkanic figurines and other cult objects may indicate that while they endured for some time, they eventually faded from collective memory. It is perhaps apparent from this short discussion that the changes in Central European Neolithic figural art reflect the clash between two sets of beliefs with highly different backgrounds, and that the outcome shows that the initially prestigious Balkanic tradition was increasingly replaced by something local. The transition process, as reflected in the finds and the overall archaeological record, does not suggest violence or outbreaks of hostilities between the local and the immigrant groups. No matter how surprising this may seem, a new, self- confident Neolithic identity emerged without developing a contrast with an alien, pagan, inferior identity. Although it would be far too premature to draw any inferences about the local foragers religious beliefs or about the interference with Balkanic cult life, the scarce evidence nonetheless suggests that there were no radical differences in their perception of the world around them. No matter that the symbols used differed from each other, a symbolic thinking was present in both types of community. The differences may have lain in what was stressed of these ideas and, even more, in Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb 723

20 724 Eszter Bánffy their form of expression. In other words, while steatopygous female figurines and house models may have looked rather strange to the indigenous peoples of the Danube region, the principles behind them and the targeted results within ritual cognition may have been common. However, the above implication would be pointless if it were not bolstered by observations about many similar shifts in settlement patterns, architecture, pottery, lithic industries, new concepts of central places and social structures, and DNA haplotypes. In the light of these elements, the big change in anthropomorphic representations fits well into the hypothesis that the first farmers probably mingled with local groups in an increasing proportion north of the Carpathian Basin and that this local input must have been the main reason for the emergence of a rather independent figural style in Central Europe during the centuries of the late sixth millennium bc. The reappearance of naturalistic elements in various regions and during different periods was invariably rooted in cultural impulses from the Balkans. Suggested Reading Earlier collective works, such as Höckmann s (1968) publication, are rather outdated but are still useful for their abundant and well described figurines. In contrast with positivistic works such as Höckmann s, the books by M. Gimbutas (1982, 1989, 1991) are very different because of the adventurous interpretation they contain. However, they include photos, drawings, and descriptions of figurines that would otherwise be little known as they lie in magazines of small hidden museums in the former Soviet Union or Soviet Bloc. Even new syntheses can be considered interpretative works in a rather restricted sense: the one discussing the Western Neolithic figurines (V. Becker 2011) is reluctant to venture real conclusions, while the first summary offering a contextual analysis of Central and Southeast European Neolithic figurines was published decades ago (Bánffy ). The most updated and detailed monograph with a synthetic overview on Central and East European Neolithic figural art is thus that of S. Hansen (2007). References Altgräfin, E. and Vildomec, F Ein wichtiges neolithisches Idol aus Mähren. Jahrbuch für Prähistorische und Etnographische Kunst II: Bánffy, E Cult and archaeological context in Central and South East Europe in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. Antaeus 19 20: Bánffy, E Anthropomorphic figurines in cult corners of neolithic houses, in A. C. Ambrosi (ed.), La statuaria antropomorfa in Europa dal neolitico alla romanizzazione. Atti del congresso La Spezia Pontremoli 1988 (La Spezia: Sarzana), Bánffy, E Archaeology and settlement history in the Hahót Basin SW- Hungary, Antaeus, 22: 35 50, , Bánffy, E Emberkezes edény a vonaldíszes kultúra kialakulásának idejéből (Human hand application on a vessel from the formulation period of the Linear Pottery culture), Zalai Múzeum, 10: Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb 724

21 Neolithic Eastern and Central Europe 725 Bánffy, E The 6th Millennium bc Boundary in Western Transdanubia and its Role in the Central European Transition (The Szentgyörgyvölgy- Pityerdomb Settlement) (Budapest: Akaprint). Bánffy, E Mesolithic neolithic contacts, as reflected in ritual finds, Documenta Praehistorica, 32: Bánffy, E., Marton, T., and Osztás, A Early neolithic settlement and burials at Alsónyék Bátaszék. First report, in J. K. Kozlowski and P. Raczky (eds), Neolithisation of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost Distribution of the Starčevo/ Körös Culture (Kraków Budapest: PAU and Inst. Arch. ELTE), pp Bánffy, E. and Sümegi, P The early neolithic agro- ecological barrier in the Carpathian Basin: a zone for interaction, in P. Anreiter, E. Bánffy, L. Bartosiewicz, W. Meid, and C. Metzner- Nebelsick (eds), Archaeological, Cultural and Linguistic Heritage: Festschrift for Erzsébet Jerem in Honour of her 70th Birthday (Budapest: Archaeolingua), pp Becker, V Anthropomorphe Plastik der westlichen Linearbandkeramik I.- II. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Bd. 83 (Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH). Bickle, P. and Whittle, A. (eds) The First Farmers of Central Europe: Diversity in LBK Lifeways (Oxford: Oxbow). Chapman, J. and Gaydarska, B Parts and Wholes: Fragmentation in Prehistoric Context (Oxford: Oxbow). Costello, P The Magic Zoo: The Natural History of Fabulous Animals (London: Sphere Books). Csalog, J Thronendes Frauenidol von Szegvár Tűzköves, in H. Bachmayer, E. Ruttkay, and H. Melichar (eds), Idole. Prähistorische Keramiken aus Ungarn. Ausstellung des Ungarischen Nationalmuseums Budapest (Vienna: Verlag Naturhistorisches Museum Wien), pp Cucoş, St Un complex ritual cucutenian descoperit la Ghelăieşti, jud. Neamţ, Studii si cercetari de istorie veche, 24(2): Daim, F. and Neubauer, W. (eds) Zeitreise Heldenberg. Geheimnissvolle Kreisgräben. Katalog zur Niederösterreichischen Landesaustellung 2005 (Horn Vienna: Verlag Berger) Dombay, J Die Siedlung und das Gräberfeld bei Zengővárkony, ArchHung 37 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó). Domboróczki, L Füzesabony Gubakút. Újkőkori falu a Kr. e. VI. évezredből, in P. Raczky, T. Kovács, and A. Anders (eds), Utak a múltba (Paths into the Past). Az M3- as autópálya régészeti leletmentései. Rescue excavations on the M3 motorway (Budapest: Hungarian National Museum and Inst. Arch ELTE), pp Domboróczki, L. and Raczky, P Excavations at Ibrány and the northernmost distribution of the Körös culture in Hungary, in J. K.Kozlowski, and P. Raczky (eds), Neolithisation at the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost Distribution of the Starčevo Culture (Kraków and Budapest: PAU and Inst. Arch. ELTE), pp Eliade, M The Quest: History and Meaning in Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Gazdapusztai, Gy A Körös- kultúra lakótelepe Hódmezővásárhely Gorzsán (The settlement of the Körös culture at Hódmezővásárhely Gorzsa), Archeológiai Értesítő, 84: Gimbutas, M The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe: Myths and Cult Images (London: Thames & Hudson). Gimbutas, M The Language of the Goddess (London: Thames & Hudson). Insoll030216ATUK_Book.indb 725