Neolithic ‘rondels’, also known as Kreisgrabenanlagen, are one of the most fascinating topics in European prehistory. They have attracted the interest of archaeologists since the earliest discoveries in the second half on the nineteenth century, and especially from the 1970s onwards. Knowledge about their existence has also reached the general public on occasions, sometimes leading to ‘click-baiting’ headlines (e.g. Kovárník et al., Reference Kovárník, Květ and Podborský2006). Indeed, the last two decades have seen a spectacular growth in the number of known sites and significant advances in their characterisation. This is due mostly to the increasing application of remote sensing techniques after the fall of communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and the excavations carried out in the context of development-led archaeological projects.

But what is a rondel? A basic definition of rondel is that of a roughly circular space enclosed by at least one V-shaped ditch and a foundation trench or setting of postholes that runs parallel to the ditch, presumably the remains of a wooden structure. The dimensions of the individual features and of the complex as a whole are frequently described as ‘monumental’. The ground plans of these enclosures are strikingly similar across a large region of Central Europe. This has prompted suggestions that there was, in fact, some sort of mental template of what a rondel should look like, shared by builders across a vast area of over 800,000 square kilometres, from parts of present-day Germany to Poland to Hungary, including Lower Austria, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Rondels often have more than one ditch—up to four—and more than one inner timber circle—up to three. They usually have one to four entrances, with rare cases of five or six entrances. Entrances are commonly non-randomly oriented: they may be aligned with the position of certain celestial bodies at particular times, or simply with the cardinal directions. They are usually found in close association with contemporary settlements, but remains of houses have seldom been recorded in the inner areas of the enclosures. There is ample discussion about the nature of the activities carried out within the enclosures, but there seems to be a general agreement that they were special places of some sort. Rondels appear to have been in use in the first half of the fifth millennium bce, which corresponds to the Middle Neolithic in Central Europe, that is, to traditional archaeological cultural groups such as Stroke Pottery, Lengyel, and others.

The book reviewed here summarises the most important developments in rondel research from the last twenty years. The authors themselves have conducted a number of successful excavations at rondels, particularly in Bohemia, and their deep knowledge of the topic is evident throughout. They are all archaeologists and their research interests revolve around the Neolithic in Central Europe. However, the book goes beyond a simple description of the known data. The authors are explicit in their attempt to identify the social processes that enabled and motivated the construction of these sites. They do so by searching for suitable social models in the anthropological literature. For this, they rely on cultural evolutionary approaches and Collective Action Theory, among other sources of inspiration. The basic research question is clearly delineated in the title: were rondels built by communities where leadership was based on personal achievement (i.e. Big Men), or instead by rank-based, more unequal groups where leadership was hereditary (i.e. chiefdoms)?

Contrary to previous interpretations, the authors suggest that the level of political complexity in these societies was relatively high. More specifically, they reject claims that rondel builders were egalitarian or transegalitarian, and instead postulate the existence of chiefs. However, they invoke a distinction that Colin Renfrew made decades ago (1974) between ‘group-oriented chiefdoms’ and ‘individualising chiefdoms’, and favour the former over the latter. Their arguments are based on a thorough analysis of the data, and on a series of inferences. The first one concerns the huge amount of effort required to build these structures. It is argued that such investment of energy, and the logistics associated with it, normally correspond in the anthropological literature to societies where power is centralised. In addition to this, the patterned nature of the archaeological evidence, as reflected in the regularities detected in the architecture of these enclosures and the orientation of the entrances, is suggestive of pre-conceived ideas of how rondels should be built and for what should they be used. All this, plus the recurring use of particular places, is emphasised in support of the authors’ interpretation of the ‘function’ of rondels as specialised sacred places, i.e. ‘temples’. Thus, the argument goes, religious beliefs would be the main motivation underpinning these collective undertakings, as is the case in various ethnographic examples.

The book is organised in ten chapters. Chapters 1 and 2 are introductory essays where some context is given to this research and the objectives of the book are laid out. Chapter 3 summarises the existing hypotheses concerning the meaning, function, and origins of Kreisgrabenanlagen. Chapter 4 critically examines the methods and techniques applied to the study of rondels. Chapter 5 describes twelve well-known sites in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, and Germany, as case studies to stress the ambiguous nature of the relevant data. This is followed by Chapter 6, where the first author, Jaroslav Řídký, analyses the available evidence and finds significant regularities in the ground plan and architecture of the vast majority of rondels across the study area; this chapter also outlines how the building process might have occurred. Chapter 7 focuses on the chronology of the phenomenon through radiocarbon dating and Bayesian analysis. Chapter 8 examines the relationship between rondels and other sites in the landscape: settlements, burial grounds, sources of raw material, etc. Chapter 9 adopts a smaller scale approach by taking an in-depth look at one of the regions under study, Bohemia, during the Stichbandkeramik (STK) period. Lastly, in Chapter 10 the authors discuss possible interpretations and present their hypothesis that only chiefdom-like societies could have been responsible for the construction of such monumental structures.

The strengths of the book are readily visible for any researcher with experience on the topic. It is predominantly well written. The authors have clearly put a lot of effort into data collection and systematisation, as the amount of data considered is impressive: 154 sites. The list of radiocarbon dates—130 samples—is very comprehensive. Discussion of the available information is deep and detailed, and many of the arguments are well supported by the evidence. The multiscalar approach taken works quite well, with studies focused on specific sites, micro-regions, regions, and the whole rondel area. Regarding this, I find the distinction between Eastern and Western cultural complexes especially useful. The hardback edition is really well produced, with numerous high-quality colour and greyscale images, and well laid out tables.

As for weaknesses, the treatment given to the various areas is somewhat uneven. For instance, Bohemian rondels are much more thoroughly analysed than Hungarian sites. In the final chapter, the authors lay out their own interpretation of the whole phenomenon. Although it is by no means the authors’ fault, the relative scarcity of data limits the explanatory potential of any interpretation. Of the 154 sites in their database, only ten have been extensively excavated, while the dated samples come from a small fraction of all known sites (fifteen). More in the authors’ control was the general approach taken to science communication. The target audience of the book is never explicitly stated, but my own assessment is that the published material will appeal to experts on the Neolithic of Central Europe. This leaves me with a certain bittersweet taste. I feel like a much broader audience would have found this book worthy of attention if only a few pages were devoted to introducing the reader to the main characteristics of the Central European Neolithic. Instead, there is little in the book to give proper context to the rondel phenomenon outside of their immediate cultural settings. It is difficult for a non-initiated reader, such as an undergraduate student or an archaeologist whose experience falls outside of the study area, like myself, to understand all the variables involved in the emergence of rondels when the Neolithisation of Central Europe is not addressed at any point, and references to the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) are few and far-between. Likewise, the rather intriguing questions raised by the disappearance of rondels are virtually ignored by this study. The narrative provided thus has no beginning and no end. Knowing what happened before and after rondels and how it relates to them can definitely enhance our knowledge of this particular episode in European prehistory. Recent rondels such as those dating to the Early Bronze Age (e.g. Spatzier & Bertemes, Reference Spatzier and Bertemes2018) are mentioned just once, and never returned to. I understand that this is a whole other archaeological problem, but a discussion of the appearance of very similar enclosures many centuries later in nearby areas would have been a very nice addition to this book, even if it was brief and just for comparative purposes. The same could be said for the lack of attention given to Neolithic causewayed enclosures of Western and Nordic Europe. Finally, British henges are only mentioned in passing.

The archaeological recognition of material correlates associated with the existence of ideal socio-political models taken from other social sciences is a very difficult endeavour. The authors are aware of this. However, the criteria employed to identify different types of societies in the archaeological record are not adequately discussed. Instead, they are simply summarised in a table. I find this to be a weakness of the book for two reasons. First, some of the criteria are ambiguous. Take for example storage structures, the concentration of which in a site is supposed to be indicative of chiefdoms. Not all pits are for storage, and discerning the function of a pit is in fact rather difficult (e.g. Jiménez-Jáimez & Suárez-Padilla, Reference Jiménez-Jáimez and Suárez-Padilla2019). How have the authors solved this issue? And what does ‘concentration’ mean exactly, in terms of both space and time? Second, it is not immediately clear in the narrative created in the last chapter what role do these criteria play, if they matter at all. For instance, is it meaningful in any way that pits are common in the STK but not in other contemporary cultural groups where rondels were also built?

All in all, as an up-to-date synthesis this book is a tremendous contribution to the study of so-called rondels or Kreisgrabenanlagen. It is one of the first monographs specifically devoted to this topic. It will be of particular interest to researchers who cannot read German, Czech, or Hungarian, given that only a handful of publications regarding rondels are written in English (e.g. some papers in Bertemes & Meller, Reference Bertemes and Meller2012; Hašek & Kovárník, Reference Hašek and Kovárník1999; Kobyliński et al., Reference Kobyliński, Braasch, Herbich, Misiewicz, Nebelsick and Wach2012; Pásztor et al., Reference Pásztor, Barna and Roslund2008; Petrasch, Reference Petrasch, Fowler, Harding and Hofmann2015; Řídký et al., Reference Řídký, Končelová, Šumberová, Limburský and Květina2014; Zotti & Neubauer, Reference Zotti and Neubauer2011). The main thesis of the book is certainly worthy of much discussion. In short, for archaeologists interested in the Neolithic of Central Europe, and in Neolithic enclosures in general, this book is a must-have.