The Enclosure System of Polgar-Csészhalom and its Interpretation By Pal Raczky, Alexandra Anders and Lészl6 Bartosiewicz 1 Introduction Polgér-CsBszhalom is one of the most signifi- cant Late Neolithic settlements in Northeastem Hungary’. Its geographical location already makes it special amongst contemporaneous ai chaeological sites in the Carpathian Basin Fg. 1). Decades of archaeological research have revealed that this settlement comple, lo- cated on the bank of what once was an oxbow ofthe Tisza River, is composed of two structural units. One of these is a horizontal settlement covering almost 38 hectares, the other is a tell of 3.5 hectares, surrounded by a multiple pa saded enclosure (Fig.2)?. Based on the most re- cent data, the structure in which tells and their neighbouring horizontal settlements form a sin- ale complex represents a general phenomenon during the Neolithic in Southeast Europe that extends from the Aegean to the Tisza region’, i lustrated by several examples*. Meanwhile ata er level of organization, the coexistence and even integrated system of tells and horizon- tal settlements has been increasingly observed in the so-called Neolithic tell cultures across Southeastern Europe®. Accordingly, tells and ad- jacent horizontal settlements formed functional units in microregions in the southem part of the distribution area of the Tisza-Herpaly culture (outh ofthe Kor®s River) during the Late Neo- lithic of the Great Hungarian Plain (between 5000 and 4500/4400 BC). On the other hand, exclusively single-layer, horizontal settlements have been found north of this area®. The dualis- tic relationship between single-layer and tell * Tompa 1929, 43; 55-56: Childe 1929, 76-81; Tompa 1937, 40; KorePatay 1956, 42: BognsrKuzisn 1958; Bog nieKuzin 1963, 283; 506-508; 554; BognérKutzin 1966, 265-268, fig. 7; BognarKutzin 1972; Bry 2007; Banty] BognérKatzén 2007 2S taczky et a. 19973, 2; Raczky et al. 2002, 840-841; faczky etal 2007, 54. © Chapman 1989, 38-39: Tngham/Krstié 1990, 587-589; Nlicz/Raczky 19873, 17: Whitle 1996, 84; Baley 2000, 77. among others Seskl: Kotsakis 1999; Kosakis 2006. — Podgonea:Baley 1999, 102-106, ~ Pitre: Hansen et al 2006, 4-8. UWvar Schier|Dragovean 2008, 152-154; Ger ling etal. 2005, 35-37. - Ocsbd: Racy 1987, 71-73. *"Sherati 1983, 190-193; Kalser/Voytek 1983, 334-336 (Chapman 1981, 40-51; Chapman 1989, 38-39; Chapman 1998, 122-123; MelerArendt 1991; White 1996, 79-85 101-112; Balley 2000, 174-177; Gogltan 2003; Halstead 2005, 40-48; Rosenstock 2008, 221-224; Rosenstock 2006, 115-118; ink 2006, 14-17. * Maiday 1982, 106-164; Makkay 1991, 321-325; Sheratt 1982, 17-19; Kalice 1986, 129-152 Kalcz 2001, 151-158; Nalicz/Raczky 19872, 14-19; Racaky 1995, 80-83; White type settlements is present on a variety of levels that includes both individual sites and their re- gional contexts. It may be considered an essen- tial trait during the Neolithic of Southeastern Europe that was present since its beginnings in the region. This also means that tells may be looked upon as a specific, visual representation of Neolithic attitudes to space and time, mai festations of the body of knowledge incorpo: rated in the ‘Neolithic package”. At the same time, the way the immediate and broader en ronments of tell settlements in Southeastern Europe were landscaped seems to point to some kind of conscious and coordinated human activity*®. In addition to the location of the Polgér-CsBs2- hhalom site, other Late Neolithic settlements in the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain seldom exceed 10-12 hectares”. Therefore, the 38 hectares area of Polgér-CsBszhalom must be considered exceptional in the environment of Eastern Hungary. Meanwhile, simply in terms of its size, Polgar is similar in formal terms to large Lengyel culture settlements in Transdanubia (Western Hungary) and at the Danube Bend that extend over 20-30 hectares*®, The settlement of Aszéd, covering 25 hectares, is an especially relevant parallel to the Polgar-Csészhalom site", Meanwhile, the unique settlement mound also makes CsBszhalom different from sites within the Lengyel culture sphere, since the entire distribution area of the latter was characterized exclusively by single-layer settle ments, Meanwhile, Cs8szhalom is located some 100 km north of the block of Tisza-Herpaly-type tell settlements. These attributes equally show that the Polgér-Csészhalom tell complex stands ‘apart from others and that itis related to both the Tisza-Herpaly and Lengyel culture settle ‘ments. The system of connections is evidently 2008, 59-60; Link 2006, 10-14; Parkinson 2002, 410-18; Parkinson 2006, 139-144; Raceky/Anders 2008, 38. »"Sheratt 1997, 2; Sherratt 2005, 143; Rosenstock 2005, 221; 232-285; Racaly/Andes 2008, 37. * Chapman 19972, 162-163; Evans 2005, 117-120. ° akkay 1982, 152-133; Makkay 1991, 322-326; Kai 1986, 129-130; Yale 2001, 154; alc/Raczhy 19873, 17. 9 Kalce 1985, 12-15; Kalcz 1986, 133-134; Kali 2001, 156-160. alice 1986, 133-134; Kalier 2001, 160; alex 2006, 142-183. 1 alice 1986, 132-135; Kaliez 2001, 158-160; Makbay 1991, 323-324; Racohy/Anders 2008, 4 57Sozialarchdologische Perspektiven Fig. 1. The geographical location of Pog island” on a ‘hydrographic map ofthe Pol- ‘ar area inthe 18" century. 58 1 Polgir-Cséschalom; 2 Polar Ferencihd 3 Polodir Nagy Kaszbo; 4 Poladr Bosnydkdomb. manifested in the broader geographical area, while these phenomena are paralleled by addi tional localized features that form opposing characteristics in the settlement's immediate environment? ‘The system of palisaded enclosures, clearly sep- arating this tell from the horizontal settlement, represents an evident duality in and of itself. Owing to its shape and the structure of the earth- works, including four ‘gates’, there are essential similarities with a variety of Lengyel-type enclo- sures, although the latter only very rarely contain 3 aca a al. 1994, 253-234; Racly 1995, 77-80; Race hy tal 202, 837-858, MU paca etal 1994, 233-284; Raczhy eta. 1997, 42; Chapman 2000, 353-354; Raczky/Anders 2008, 41-09; aczhy/Andersin press b settlement features within the enclosure’*. In the case of Csészhalom, however, a_ settlement mound was erected in the middle of the system of concentric enclosures. The mound developed from the rubble of houses that burnt down regu: larly their ruins were levelled and filled with pure clay. Consequently, this tell rose to a height of 3.5 min the middle of a natural elevation on the riverside™, % Podborskj 1976: Podborskj 1988; Podborskj/Kovérik 2006, 62; Petrasch’ 1990; Petrasch 1998, 189-192; Tka 41991: Tinka 2005; Kalcz 1998, 8-62; Makkay 2001, 15- 24 4 packy et al 1994, 231; Racaky et al, 1997, 42; Racoky et al 2002, 834; Racaky eal. 2007, 58.Roca, A. Anders and L. Barosiewice- Te Enclosure System of PolgirCszhalom 2 Structure and Meaning: Interpretations of the Polgar-Csészhalom Tell (On the basis of the first archaeological data, by the 1990s it has been concluded that a synthesis, between the structures of Tisza-Herpaly-type tell settlements from the Great Hungarian Plain and Lengyel culture-type enclosures from Transdanu- ia existed at this special site”. At the same ime, this type of fusion could also be clearly ob- served in the artifactual material®. Large scale excavations atthe tell within the enclosure of cir- cular ditches as well as at the external, horizontal settlement covering 38 hectares have shown that, unusual activities took place in the area of the settlement mound. The significance of these ac- tivities pointed well beyond the daily routine, and in this regard it cannot be considered a real settlement, a tellin a classical sense’. Recently, [A Sherratt used the term ‘ersatz fell in relation to this and related phenomena in the Balkans. He stated that ‘they would thus preserve in monu- mental but token form the communal aspiration of telldwellers, in the area adjacent to the zone of tell-building but in circumstances where tech- niques of building-construction did not lead to the accumulation of pror (on this bass the interpretation of the ‘settlement mound’ at Csészhalom may be best approached by studying the context of symbolic meanings as recently has been summarized by several authors**. Meanwhile the special system of circu- lar ditches forming the enclosure around the Csészhalom ‘tell’ may also be interpreted within the Lengyel culture context as being primarily of sacral, social and astronomic significance respec- tively, This phenomenon has also been ap- proached as means of remembrance, placing memories in a monumental form’. All these fac- tors suggest that in the case of Polgar-Csdszha- tom, the unity of the tell and enclosure is not sim- ply a formal synthesis. it seems that two symbols of comparable content generated by these differ ent cultural spheres have been transposed onto teach other in this zone of interaction between 3 aca etal. 1994, 233-234; Racky 1995, 84-85; Race ty etal 2007, 52; Chapman 2000, 353; Chapman etal 2006, 29-31. 5 acaky 2002; Racrky etal. 2007, 58-61. 1 Racky/Anders 2008, 28-49; Racaky/Andersin pres, 2 Sheratt 2005, 143. % MelerArendt 1991, 82: Sheratt 1997, 22; Chapman 19972, 139-148; Baley 1999, 98-108; Koisakis 1999, 74 {jans 2005, 112-125; Scher 2005, 11-18. 2 Hodder 1990, 111-112; Pewasch 1990, 512-516; Pet rasch 1998, 192; nka, 1991, 316-318; Pavik 1991, 356; Podborskj 1988, 304-309; Podborsk etal. 1999, 287-291 Becker 1996; Pavik/karovskj. 2004; Gervautz/Neubauer 2008; Zt 2005; Kastowshl et 2005; Podborskj/Kavarik 2006, 62-64 ® dawilThomas 2001, 13-16 two ‘ideological’ systems”. Moreover, it is very clear on a broader geographical scale, that the distribution areas of Middle Neolithic enclosures in Central Europe and of the Late Neolithic and ‘Aeneolithic tells in Southeastern Europe are com- plementary to each other, and that the interface between these two major regions is located in the Carpathian Basin®, All this makes it likely that the complex of tells and circular ditch sys tems may also be defined in a more general, Eu- opean sense. They may be regarded as ‘built ‘monuments’ or ‘space-time metaphors", acts of ‘setting memories in clay and wood’, as well as ‘material evidence for an ‘Extermal Symbolic Stor- age®. The duality between clay and wood as raw materials represents the clear contrast between architectural styles in Southeastern (wattle-and- daub) and Central Europe (wood) whose domi- nance defines the structure, i.e. physical appear- ance of houses in the respective regions”. How- fever, the meanings inherent to these habitations remain similar*®. Enclosure systems in Europe formed part of ancient material cultures. As such their meanings were dependent on their respec tive cultural context™*. The symbiosis between Lengyel culturetype enclosures and Polgar- Csészhalomtype tells in the Carpathian Basin, 3 Sheratt 2005, 142-14; Racrky/Anders 2008, 9: Race lylanders in ress 2 varzinger 1992, Abb. 2: Binfy/Goldman 2003, 116-117; “ka 2005, fig. 113; Rocsky/Anders 2008, Shera’ 1997, 22; Chapman 1997b, 37-38; Bradley 19983; Tiley 1999; Thomas 2001, 177-181; White 2003, 426; Erans 2005, 120, 2 Cummings 2003, 38-39. 2% Renfren 1998, 3-6 » Childe 1949, 77; Stfanové 1997, 341-383; av 2000, 192-196; Stauble 2005, 212; Rosenstock 2005, 232-233; aczky 2006, 383. 2 Hodder 1994; Bradley 2001; Pearson/Richards 1994, 5~ 2A: Raczky 2006, 382-383. 5 Thomas 1996, 59, 69-91: Bradley 19986, 188-191: Dar valhomas 2001,7-17; Mejer(RaetzlFabian 2006: Neus- tupn’ 2006; Podborskj/Kovamik 2006, 62-65; Andersen 1997, 301-308; Parkinson/Duffy 2007 ‘ig. 2. Polgdr-Csiszhalom. The topography ofthe tel en- closed by a ditch system and the horizontal settlement with the investigated areas. The reconstruction is based on @ combination of magnetometric ‘surveys, fleld surveys and excavations 59