A prelude to the Neolithic in the Balaton region – new results to an old problem.

This volume has been publishedby the financial support of

Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità e del Vicino Oriente Centro Studi Ricerche Ligabue

SOCIETÀ PER LA PREISTORIA E PROTOSTORIADELLA REGIONE FRIULI-VENEZIA GIULIA

QUADERNO - 12

A SHORT WALK THROUGH THE BALKANS:THE FIRST FARMERS OF THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

AND ADJACENT REGIONS

Proceedings of the Conference held at the Institute of Archaeology UCLon June 20th - 22nd, 2005

Edited byMichela Spataro and Paolo Biagi

TRIESTE2007

ISSN 1124-156X

SOCIETÀ PER LA PREISTORIA E PROTOSTORIADELLA REGIONE FRIULI-VENEZIA GIULIA

QUADERNO 12 - 2007

c/o Museo Civico di Storia NaturalePiazza Hortis 4 - 34123 Trieste (Italia)

REDATTORE

Paolo Biagi

Fotografia di copertina: the Iron Gates from the Romanian bank of the Danube (photograph by M. Spataro)

– 5

CONTENTS

Preface ...................................................................................................................................................

1. Nandris, J. - Adaptive mediation in the FTN: the nature and rôle of the First Temperate European Neolithic .......................................................................................................................

2. Colledge, S. and Conolly, J. - The Neolithisation of the Balkans: a review of the archaeobotanical evidence ...............................................................................

3. Kozłowski, J.K. - Western Anatolia, the Aegean Basin and the Balkans in the Neolithisation of Europe ...................................................................................................

4. Bonsall, C. - When was the Neolithic transition in the Iron Gates? ....................................

5. Draşovean, F. - Regional aspects in the process of Neolithisation of the Banat (south-western Romania): the settlement of Foeni-Sălaş .......................................................

6. Luca, A.S. and Suciu, C. - Migrations and local evolution in the Early Neolithic in Transylvania: the typological-stylistic analysis and the radiocarbon data ..................

7. Nikolova, L. - Toward an evolutionary model of gradual development of social complexity among the Neolithic pottery communities in the Balkans

(cultural-chronological and cultural-anthropological problems) ..................................

8. Tasić, N. - Tell-tale squares ..........................................................................................................

9. Korkuti, M. - The Early Neolithic of Albania in a Balkan perspective ................................

10. Gatsov, I. - The Neolithisation process between Anatolia and the Balkans: a lithic perspective from the region around the Sea of Marmara ........................................

11. Biagi, P., Gratuze, B. and Boucetta, S. - New data on the archaeological obsidians from the Banat and Transylvania ................................................................................................

12. Spataro, M. - Everyday ceramics and cult objects: a millennium of cultural transmission

13. Müller, J. - Demographic variables and Neolithic ideology ..................................................

14. Minichreiter, K. - The first farmers of northern Croatia .......................................................

15. Nikolov, V. - Problems of the early stages of the Neolithization in the southeast Balkans

16. Bacvarov, K. - Jar burials as early settlement markers in southeast European Neolithic

17. Chapman, J. - Engaging with the exotic: the production of early farming communities in south-east and central Europe ...............................................................................................

18. Bánffy, E., Juhász, I. and Sümegi, P. - A prelude to the Neolithic in the Balaton region: new results to an old problem .....................................................................................................

page 7

» 11

» 25

» 39

» 53

» 67

» 77

» 89

» 103

» 113

» 119

» 129

» 149

» 161

» 171

» 183

» 189

» 207

» 223

– 7

PREFACE

This book records the proceedings of a conference held at the Institute of Archaeology, University College Lon-don, on June 20th-22nd, 2005, organised by myself, in collaboration with Stephen Shennan and Paolo Biagi.

The subject of the conference, and of most of the papers given, was the earliest Neolithic FTN complex found in the central Balkans, the Starčevo-Criş material culture. I was then a research fellow at the Institute, working on pottery from nineteen Starčevo-Criş sites in Romania, Serbia, and eastern Croatia (Spataro), which allowed me to travel in all three countries, meeting many local archaeologists and seeing sites and museum collections. I decided to organise the conference when I realised that archaeologists often knew each other’s archaeological assemblages mainly through publications rather than by direct observation, and that there was therefore the need for more discus-sion and presentation of recent discoveries. I also wanted to thank the many colleagues who had generously helped my project by lending artefacts, and to show them the results of this research.

The aim of this symposium was to give an up-to-date picture of what is known about the Starčevo-Criş Culture, by showing the sites and materials that archaeologists are currently working on, including those in countries surrounding the central Balkans, such as Albania, Bulgaria, and Hungary, and involving both lo-cally-based archaeologists and those from other countries. Proposed session topics included the origin and spread of the Neolithic, settlement patterns and subsistence strategies of the first farmers, their technology and material culture, and their ideology and social organisation. These topics were discussed in the context of excavations carried out in the last 20 years throughout the region. Central themes of discussion at the conference included the absolute chronology of the diffusion of the Neolithic way of life in the Balkans, the relationships between the last hunter-gatherers and the first farmers in this region, the chipped stone as-semblages produced by both groups, the settlement geography of the first farmers, and pottery production and the circulation of flint and obsidian in the Early Neolithic. It is great to be able to publish a book from this symposium, which allows different points of view to be expressed, regardless of whether they happen to be shared by the editors.

There is broad agreement now about the timing and speed of the Neolithisation of the Balkans (Bonsall; Draşovean; Luca and Suciu; Müller; Nikolova; c.f. Whittle et al., 2000; Biagi et al., 2005), even if not about the nature of the process. Broadly speaking, there remains a spectrum of opinion among archaeologists, between ‘indigenists’ and ‘migrationists’, the former emphasising the contribution of indigenous Mesolithic hunter-gatherers to the Neolithisation of the Balkan peninsula, and the latter stressing that the main driver of Neolithisation was the growth and dispersal of existing Neolithic communities. The continuing lack of evidence of Mesolithic settlements in much of the region has reinforced the migrationist position. Where there is clear evidence of Mesolithic settlement, in the Iron Gates region of Serbia and Romania, Bonsall argues that pottery appeared more or less contemporaneously with agriculture, in about 6000 cal BC, at about the same time that Neolithic sites began to appear in the surrounding areas.

The so-called ‘8.2 ka event’ (Alley et al., 1997), which has been cited as a potential trigger for Neolithisa-tion of the Balkans (Weninger et al., 2005), may in fact have acted as a brake on the spread of the Neolithic (Bonsall; Nikolova), which seems to have appeared almost throughout the peninsula in the century either side of 6000 cal BC. The emphasis placed on exogenous factors, such as climate change, is not surprising, and inevi-tably there are demographic implications. The ‘demic diffusion’ model (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1973) is implicitly accepted in many contributions, according to which higher rates of population growth in farming communities were responsible for the Neolithisation of the Balkan peninsula, through the gradual dispersal of immigrants from adjoining areas (the Aegean rim and Anatolia) where farming was already practised. A varia-tion on this model is ‘leapfrogging colonisation’ (Biagi et al., 2005), in which these movements were relatively rapid and long-distance, following the major river valleys - an adjustment necessary to reconcile the apparent speed of Neolithisation with the population growth predictions of the demic diffusion model.

Demographic data are not available, and it is difficult to even estimate population density in this period. Nandris characterises Mesolithic and Neolithic populations using the terms K-selection and r-selection (used in biology to denote low and high potential growth rates respectively), but only for the purpose of analogy. Müller provides some realistic estimates of increasing population density during the Early Neolithic in Thessaly, but finds that not enough is known about settlement patterns in the rest of the Balkans to be able to generalise from this example. A case study of a small area of Bosnia in the Late Neolithic suggests that a comparable population density was reached there by c. 4700 cal BC. If population density in Thessaly continued to grow over the course of the Neolithic, it is more difficult to make the case that the spread of the Neolithic into the central Balkans was caused by excess population along the Aegean rim. It is also feasible that the adoption of

8 –

food production and a shift to sedentism may have permitted exponential population growth of the indigenous population, rather than the replacement of indigenous hunter-gatherers by immigrant farmers.

Bonsall notes evidence of continuity across the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in aspects of the Iron Gates archaeological record, a sign that indigenous populations were involved in Neolithisation. Kozłowski and Gatsov each identify the persistence of local Epigravettian traditions in Early Neolithic flint assemblages from sites in the Aegean and Thrace, which also may be used to argue for an indigenous contribution to Balkan Neolithisa-tion. Bánffy et al., while favouring migration as the mechanism for the spread of Starčevo groups, emphasise the growing body of indirect evidence for Mesolithic sites in the Balaton region of Hungary. Nevertheless, there is still little clear evidence of widespread Mesolithic settlement in the interior of the peninsula, outside of the Iron Gates area. As well as further field surveys, better publication of lithic assemblages from Early Neolithic sites would help to show whether there are any traces of Mesolithic traditions in this region.

One of the interesting aspects discussed in this volume is the existence of strong links between Anatolia and the Balkans in the Neolithisation process. Gatsov’s detailed analyses of the lithic assemblages from sites on both sides of the Sea of Marmara show that they share a common technological tradition, bullet core produc-tion, and that the bullet core technique has local antecedents. Future research should aim to show whether this technique was also used in the central Balkans. Similarities in the archaeobotanical record from Asian aceramic and European ceramic Early Neolithic sites suggest routes of contacts, as well as climatic factors; the finds of rye grains, in particular, reinforce the correlations between Bulgaria and Anatolia (Colledge and Conolly). Tasić finds a link between Anatolia and the Balkans in the use of the same geometric motifs on ceramics and in the constant application of white painted decoration, which he argues is indicative of direct communication between these areas. Nikolov, on the other hand, suggests that the diversity of pottery decoration in the Balkan Early Neolithic makes the search for exact parallels in Anatolia extremely difficult.

Nikolov’s paper highlights the complexity of the Early Neolithic archaeological record, with nine dif-ferent stylistic groups defined on the basis of pottery decoration in the south-central Balkans alone. These groups share many elements, however, such as vessel forms, and seem to have a common origin in Anatolia. The Neolithisation process, Nikolov argues, consisted of a series of migrations from Anatolia to Thrace, with rapid local differentiation in pottery styles. Luca and Suciu advocate a similar model for the Neolithisation of Transylvania, in which Lazarovici’s (1993) four typological phases represent consecutive pulses of im-migration. Draşovean also associates changes in pottery decoration with population movements in Roma-nian Banat. Nevertheless, as Spataro shows, these changes in pottery style are not associated with changes in the technology of pottery production. On the contrary, a picture of these Early Neolithic communities as a coherent cultural group comes out of several papers, noting the consistency of the technological formula used in pottery production (Spataro), the use of the same decorations and ornaments (Nandris; Tasić), the use of the same surface treatments of pottery in Albania (Korkuti) as in Transylvania (Luca and Suciu) and further north in Slavonia (Minichreiter).

Another indication of the degree to which there was communication between Early Neolithic communi-ties throughout the Balkans is the presence of exotic raw materials imported from the same sources. In the first extensive study of obsidian provenance in this region, Biagi et al. discuss the chemical characterisation of obsidian artefacts found at sites throughout the peninsula, and find that from the start of the Neolithic, these were sourced from two outcrops, in Hungary and Slovakia. By contrast, everyday raw materials, such as flint (Kozłowski) and clay (Spataro) were apparently obtained locally.

Chapman, extending the definition of the exotic to include raw materials of rare colours and textures, discusses the intentional deposition of brightly-coloured objects at Early Neolithic sites, where their context may indicate their symbolic inclusion or exclusion; similar depositional patterns are noted at sites throughout the Balkans, presumably reflecting a consistent world-view. By contrast, Bacvarov discusses what appears to have been (at least in the Early Neolithic) a localised mortuary practice, the use of jars for infant burials in one region of Bulgaria. Not enough is known about mortuary practices in the rest of the Balkans at this time, but the only contemporary parallels are found in the ceramic Neolithic of the Levant, and the practice does not appear in Anatolia until later.

In summary, the symposium and the discussions that took place there were fundamental to the definition of a picture of the current state of knowledge of the Early Neolithic in the Balkans. Differences in opinion about the nature of the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition persist, but the combination of different viewpoints with the presentation of new results from studies of different archaeological materials and phenomena (lithics, pottery, chronology, settlement patterns etc.) was extremely productive. It is to be hoped that the meeting, and this publication, will encourage the application of new approaches to archaeological assemblages from different

– 9

regions of the Balkans over the next decade, in order to distinguish between local variation in human behaviour and gaps in our knowledge of the archaeological record. A better understanding of the Early Neolithic in the Balkan peninsula is required to explain the origins of the first farming communities in Central Europe, and the extent to which the last hunter-gatherers participated in the Neolithisation of Europe.

Finally, it is necessary to mention that the conference would not have taken place without the generous support of the AHRC Centre for the Evolutionary Analysis of Cultural Behaviour (Institute of Archaeology, UK), British Academy (London, UK), Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità e del Vicino Oriente, Ca’ Foscari University (Venice, Italy), International Centre for Albanian Archaeology (Tirana, Albania), Ligabue Founda-tion (Venice, Italy), and UCL Futures (London, UK).

I would like to thank all the contributors and conference speakers, the Institute of Archaeology and the Director Stephen Shennan, and Ca’ Foscari University, Venice, the Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Trieste, for publishing the book, and in particular Dr. John Meadows (Institute of Archaeology, UK), who was extremely helpful with the editing of this volume.

R E F E R E N C E S

Alley, R.B., Sowers, T., Mayewski, P.A., Stuiver., M., Taylor, K.C. and Clark, P.U. 1997 - Holocene climatic instability: a prominent, widespread event 8200 yr ago. Geology, 25 (6): 483-486.

Ammerman, A.J. and Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1973 - A population model for the diffusion of early farming in Europe. In Renfrew, C. (ed.) The Explanation of Culture Change. Models in Prehistory: 343-358. Duckworth, London.

Biagi, P., Shennan, S. and Spataro, M. 2005 - Rapid Rivers and Slow Seas? New Data for the Radiocarbon Chronology of the Balkan Peninsula. In Nikolova, L., Fritz, J. and Higgins, J. (eds.) Prehistoric Archaeology & Anthropological Theory and Education. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects, 6-7: 41-50. Salt Lake City - Karlovo.

Lazarovici, G. 1993 - Les Carpates Méridionales et la Transylvanie. In Kozłowski, J. (ed.) Atlas du Néolithique Européen. L’Europe Orientale, Vol. 1. ERAUL, 45: 243-284. Liège.

Weninger, B., Alram-Stern, E., Bauer, E., Clare, L., Danzeglocke, U., Jöris, P., Kubatzki, C., Rollefson, G. and Todorova, H. 2005 - Die Neolithisierung von Südosteuropa als Folge des abrupten Klimawandels um 8200 cal BP. In Gronenborn, D. (ed.) Klimaveränderung und Kulturwandel in neolithischen Gesellschaften Mitteleuropas 6700-22 v.Chr. RGZM-Tagungen, Band 1: 75-117.

Michela SpataroLondon July 4th, 2007

– 11

Michela Spataro and Paolo Biagi (edited by) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions

Società Preistoria Protostoria Friuli-V.G., Trieste, Quaderno 12, 2007: 11-23

JOHN NANDRIS*

ADAPTIVE MEDIATION IN THE FTN:THE NATURE AND RÔLE OF THE FIRST TEMPERATE EUROPEAN

NEOLITHIC

SUMMARY - Adaptive mediation in the FTN: the nature and rôle of the First Tempered European Neolithic. This essay or after-thought is not an exhaustively referenced update. It is a re-assertion of the basic concept of the First Temperate (European) Neolithic; and an examination of some possible ways of thinking about the explanatory framework. The main emphasis is on the coherence of the FTN phenom enon as a whole, while recognizing the variety and differenti ation, which is found within that entity. The FTN presents a polythetic continuum of relata, which share in a number of ongoing processes under the general headings of diffusion and differenti-ation. It takes up the behavioural opportun ities offered by the developing Altithermal for the establishment of the Neolithic in Europe, at a time when long-established Mesolithic K-strategists were also having to adapt to this rich directionally-changing environment. It is suggested that the emergence of the Neolithic in Temperate Europe was initially carried through by r-strategists. These are not absolute distinctions, and the question is not whether they should be labelled Mesolithic or Neolithic. The FTN has to be recognized as a coherent phen o men on partaking of this dynamic situation; or it will continue to remain an incoherent congeries of labels for regional and national archaeologies.

RIASSUNTO - Modelli di adattamento nell’FTN: la natura ed il ruolo del più antico Neolitico dell’Europa Temperata (FTN). Questo lavoro, o meglio ripensamento, non è un aggiornamento di altri precedenti sull’argomento, bensì una riasserzione del concetto fonda-mentale di Primo Neolitico dell’Europa Temperata, oltre che un esame di alcuni modi possibili di valutarne l’interpretazione. Viene enfatizzata la coerenza del fenomeno nel suo complesso, pur riconoscendone varietà e differenziazioni al suo interno. L’FTN è un insieme politetico di situazioni relazionabili, che condivide in una quantità di processi che si sviluppano nei modelli principali di dif-fusione e differenziazione; raccoglie l’opportunità offerta dalle nuove condizioni altitermiche, favorevoli alla diffusione del Neolitico in Europa, nel periodo in cui le K-strategie dei mesolitici dovevo adattarsi alle nuove condizioni ambientali. Si suppone che il Neolitico nell’Europa temperate sia stato inizialmente introdotto da r-strategie. Queste non sono distinzioni assolute, ed il problema non è tanto quello di definire se debbano essere chiamate Mesolitico o Neolitico. L’FTN deve essere riconosciuto come un fenomeno coerente, parte di questa condizione in via di sviluppo, altrimenti rimarrà sempre confinato ad una congerie incoerente di etichette ad uso delle archeologie regionali o nazionali.

INTRODUCTION

To name and to periodize is not to explain: but the definition of the ‘First Temperate Neolithic’ as the outcome of the initial Neolithic penetration into Europe, is an assertion of its essential unity, its European and indeed wider priority, and its adaptive validity.

We all aim to find better explan at ions for the emergence and transmission of the Neolithic mode of be-haviour in Temperate Europe. It would have been preferable not to refer mainly to my own limited work on various aspects of the phenomenon over the last forty years. It is not possible to document every argument in such an overview, but there is a need to offer some sources for the arguments, the figures and the keys to the maps. The reader must unfortunately refer back to the listed publications in the first instance, and I do apologize for this.

Nationally defined labels such as Starčevo, Criş, Körös, Bug-Dniester, Karanovo I and II, or Kremiko-vci, are artefacts of early research. They do not entirely comprise some other aspects such as the Albanian or Macedonian relata. The fullest significance of the FTN as an adaptive mediation between Mediterranean and Temperate Europe, and indeed between Early Neothermal and Anathermal modes of behaviour, lies in its bio-——————————* Cantemir Consultancy, Oxford, UK

12 –

social dimensions. Already at Çatal Höyük (Hodder, 1999) postulates new emergent forms of consciousness and social order, in explanation of the Neolithic phenomenon (fig. 1).

The overall distribution of the FTN can best be understood in relation to its adaptat ions, for example: 1) to Highland and Lowland zones, higher and lower latitudes,2) to the Adriatic and Steppic littorals of the Balkan Peninsula, 3) to Mediterranean or temperate zones and their intermediary ecotones, 4) to special environments, such as the Danube Gorges, 5) to developmental issues of regional and chronological variation.

The FTN is not delimited by rigid boundaries, whether chronological or geographical, but it does lie with-in a region bounded north-south by Mediterranean and Temperate Europe; and east-west by the wet Adriatic and dry Steppic littorals of southeast Europe. Its extension into the Adriatic littoral in Albania and Serbia is of interest, but it notably avoided the dry Pontic littoral in favour of the forest-steppe. Within these boundaries it participated in the overall European post-Glacial dynamic, the whole sense of which was an extension north-wards of the regions within which it became advantageous to adopt first the Mesolithic and then the Neolithic modes of behaviour. Initially both were restricted in their distribution, but later the evolutionary success of the Neolithic is confirmed by its wide distribution and duration.

The extension northwards of an originally Mediterranean economy necessitated adaptations to latitude, and to the different rainfall patterns and growing seasons of Temperate Europe. This could have been achieved through FTN exploitation of the Balkan highland zone. Alternatively, in the Ovče Polje we find Mediterranean patterns of precipitation carried further north into an upland basin, the settlement of which facilitated pre-adaptation to the pen-etration of Temperate Europe. The region is particularly suitable for sheep rearing, and was so used during the FTN. Perhaps surprisingly, so too was the Körös region, while FTN spoons from Bos primigenius metacarpals are also abundant there (Nandris, 1972a). In the Moldavian FTN there is an emphasis on cattle, in a region where late hunt-ing-cultures had intensively exploited a great variety of herding animals, and probably continued to do so (fig. 2).

Fig. 1 - FTN and Early Greek Neolithic sites within 500 miles of the Danube Gorges bounded by the wet Adriatic littoral (2, with sporadic FTN) and the dry Pontic Steppe littoral (3, with the Bug-Dniester; 5, on the forest steppe). Zones 1 (the Macedo-Bulgarian ecotone) and 4 respectively mediate between Mediterranean and Temperate Central Europe (after Nandris, 1977: fig. 4).

– 13

The Žegligovo in the north of the Ovče Polje region is the almost imperceptible watershed between the Aegean drainage of the Vardar, and the Danubian/Black Sea drainage of the Morava. The exploitation of sheep on any scale during the warmer conditions of the Anathermal, especially in Thessaly, would hardly have been possible without some mechanism of seasonality, and some exploitation of canine territoriality to protect against predators. Both these were also necessary elements of any Near Eastern and Anatolian pastoral techno-complexes, which almost certainly were influential in the Greek Neolithic and the FTN.

r- AND K- STRATEGIES

One way to understand the behaviour, which we find in the Early Neolithic is in terms of the r- and K- re-productive strategies (Nandris, 1988) which we shall consider below. There seems to be a regional dichotomy in the FTN between an emphasis on cattle, and one on sheep (fig. 3), although care is need in moving from bone evidence to conclusions about an economy. In any case it is not helpful to use terms such as the Starčevo-Criş Culture at one moment to refer to the FTN as a whole, and at another to mean particular regional incarnations. Long-term trends in the FTN during the Altithermal show a reduction in the variety of species being exploited, and using fewer tool types of larger dimensions to do so. The FTN also possesses an essentially blade-and-trapeze lithic industry, albeit macrolithic. This takes its place in the long-term trends in Early Neothermal lithic technology in southeast Europe (Nandris, 1978) (fig. 4).

An example of a lost opportunity to exploit the rich harvest of comparative ethno archae ology comes from the Danube Delta. A century ago its fishing settlements were strung out along the levees, with houses raised on piles, exploiting fisheries with small boats and nets. Regrettably they were not published or de-

Fig. 2 - The Ovče Polje and Pelagonia (as defined by the annual 500 mm isohyet) carry Mediterranean patterns of precipitation to a higher latitude, allowing new adaptations to emerge further north (after Nandris, 1977: fig. 5).

14 –

scribed in detail before vanishing, but what we know about these Delta settlements suggests some analogies with the settlement pattern of the Körös group of the FTN along the Tisza, Körös and Mureş (fig. 5), whose sites sometimes extended in the same way many tens even hundreds of metres along the levees of those riv-ers. Sites are located in relation to drainage and ground water, able both to fish and exploit the long-vanished gallery forests, free from flooding, and able to benefit from the seasonally replen ished fish stocks trapped in flooded ox-bow lakes. Flooding today has radically altered river regimes following two centuries of regula-tion and embankment of the rivers of the Carpathian basin, notably by Count Szechenyi in the 19th century. It is notable that in the flooding of towns and villages along the Mureş in Romania during the 1970’s no Neolithic sites were flooded.

The importance of the Neolithic village is that it effectively continued from its small-scale beginnings, and its quite large-scale Climax Neolithic sites, through historical accretion and differentiation across the middle ages, to underpin European civilization. The demography, economy and technology of its settlements supplied a fertile medium for the flowering of European complexity. Its bio-social elaborations on the themes of domesticity and domestication gave rise to some of the most highly-polished cultural and political forms on the planet, and have been widely emulated. This evolutionary success cannot be dismissed as a Eurocentric construct, since it created conditions for the free expression of individual potential to which much of humanity aspires.

The FTN was the most significant transmitter into central Temperate Europe of a Neolithic mode of be-haviour commonly agreed to have evolved in the Mediterranean and the Near East. It constitutes an adaptive mediation both geographically and chronologically between the antecedent Early Neothermal, the early Greek and Anatolian Neolithic, and the emergence of the Linearbandkeramik (BK or LBK). It embodies both the dif-fusion of the Neolithic mode of behaviour and its differentiation, not merely either one or the other.

Fig. 3 - Evidence for sheep (dark circles) and cattle in Greece and the FTN (after Nandris, 1978: fig. 7, listing the sites).

– 15

Fig. 4. - Relations between tool types, dimensions, and the range of species exploited (after Nandris, 1978: fig. 9, listing the sites).

The observable facts we see before us in the well-defined archaeol ogical culture of the FTN are not in process of becoming. There is more than one mechanism of differentiation. The archaeology of the FTN does not, at the moment, document at all well its pre-adaptations and the process of its initial formation. It does doc-ument its regionalisation and sub sequent differentiation, but there is for example no serious claim for a ‘PPN’, which in the Greek case was a conceptually incoherent attempt to claim an indigenous process of becoming. The FTN as such is already fully-defined, a social phenomenon, which is richly interconnected both internally and externally. Its overall unity is variegated, with recognizable intra-regions of social differ entiation attested by archaeo log ical traits.

The most notable are those, which are socially-defined. For example, figurine material implies some commonality or acceptability of belief, such as the acceptance of the highly specific decorated FTN Rod Heads into a Greek context with conventionally quite distinct pottery archaeology (Nandris, 1970a). Horned pendants define a micro-region centred around the Banat and Danube Gorges in both FTN and hunter-fisher contexts, from Lepenski Vir and elsewhere. An unusual example of a micro-region based on figurine mate-rial is found at a few sites across the northern Hungarian basin within the later Alföld and Tiszadob LBK (eg., from Tiszavásvari-Paptélekhát and Fuzésábony-Kettöhalom). Here sites 150 km apart yielded identi-cal face sherds carrying an extraordinary incised design of a quasi-anthropomorphic figure clamping down across the face and nose, which is suggestive of social cheiropractice or drugged vision or both (Bachmayer et al., 1972).

16 –

Fig. 5 - Sites of the Körös FTN, in relation to ground water (af-ter Nandris, 1970: fig. 3).

– 17

The FTN enjoyed a notably varied series of external connections and relationships; for example with the ecotonal LBK sites of the Transylvanian basin; with the Mesolithic forest-steppe sites of the Bug-Dniester; with northwestern Anatolia. The FTN inter-penetrates into the sites of the wet Adriatic highland littoral, espe-cially in Albania, which is an intriguing anomaly and surely awaits an interesting explanation. The FTN con-trives somehow to remain in contact with the Mediterranean environment from which it originated, eg., with the figurines and the Temperate European Impressed Wares of Nea Nikomedeia in Macedonia, and later with the Sesklo Culture of Thessaly. Mobility in Neolithic Europe was astonishing, and even the Bandkeramik was still able to acquire Spondylus gaederopus (Séfériadès, 1994).

Contact between the FTN and the Mediterranean is attested by the well-defined Rod Head figurine with its fan-shaped top-knot (fig. 6). The type is exclusively favoured by the FTN, but in undecorated form it probably originates among the many other figurine types, which are found at Nea Nikomedeia (we can-not pursue other antecedents here). Later the narrowly-defined decorated FTN form is found stratified in Sesklo contexts, and even crops up on Halonnesos an island of the northern Sporades well into the Aegean (Efstratiou, 1985).

Fig. 6 - The extension of FTN Rod Heads into Greece (after Nandris, 1970a: fig. 2).

18 –

A trait with non-utilitarian symbolic functions is thus stratified in quite distinct archaeological contexts, themselves based on functional ceramic classific ations, over a huge geogr aphic al and environmental range, across which for example the functional but also potentially symbolic Melian obsidian did not reach.

FTN Rod Heads document a non-utilitarian function in social exchanges over a huge area. They symbol-ize a mutually acceptable belief-pattern, which cuts across archae ol ogical “cultures”. They testify to the scale of movement and social inter change, since without social acceptance such symbolic objects would inevitably have been rejected. The specificity of these images, over an area reaching from the Moldavian and southern Romanian Criş to the Körös Culture on the Tisza, and through the Macedonian sites, is another confirmation of the essential relata of the FTN, a testimony to the shared belief and “behaviour as if ” (Nandris, 1990), which contributed to the cohesion of a diverse and adaptive techno complex.

It was perhaps on the geographical margins of the FTN and the BK in Europe such as the Bug-Dniester in the forest steppe, or in the Dutch LBK, that the clearest hints about the immensely significant role of aboriginal hunter-fishers are seen; or in such specialized environments as the Danube Gorges at Lepenski Vir. We have mitochondrial DNA from the teeth and bones of 24 skeletons at 16 Central-European LBK and Alföld BK sites in Germany, Austria and Hungary (Haak et al., 2005), which seems to suggest that, while the contribution of early farmers to the European gene pool “could be close to zero”, their legacy of agriculture was nevertheless of outstanding importance. In any case the BK and FTN do not necessarily embody the same demographic mechanisms.

The Mesolithic and the Neolithic in Europe were coevals, occupying the same environment, for perhaps two millennia (fig. 7). The various permutations of their possible relationships need more exhaustive exami-nation than is possible in this paper. There are some analogies from the biology of ecological speciation. We would need to establish whether these were discrete social groups exploiting the same environ ment in different ways, or different aspects of the same environment, or separate contemp or ary environments, or one related group exploiting different niches in the same environment, or whether we are seeing the activities of seasonal sub-groups.

Fig. 7 - Contemporaneity of hunter-fishers and FTN in the Danube Gorges (after Nandris, 1988: fig. 1).

– 19

The Danube Gorges are significant in documenting the long and uninterrupted perspective of Early Neothermal culture, and the ways in which it runs into what we understand as the Early Neolithic. Sites such as Lepenski Vir give us some archaeologically-based insights into the relationship between local hunters and the FTN (Nandris, 1972). For example the V-based bone spoon, which is usually seen as an exclusive type-fossil of the FTN (Lepenski Vir III) was actually being manufactured in the hunter-fisher settlement of Lepenski Vir II. This begs the interpretations both of the site stratigraphy, and the relationship between the peoples of the Ðerdap at the time. The type was formed from a metacarpal of Bos primigenius (fig. 8), and probably of other species. It is distributed outside the Mediterranean zone, within the animals’ forest habitat. While it is widespread in the FTN, the concentration in the Körös group is noticeable, perhaps as an artefact of research.

The FTN is not a series of nationally-based archaeological cultures, but a coherent and integrated phen-omenon of the highest importance for the subsequent history of Europe. As happened previously in Palaeolithic studies, terms of limited regional significance have been far too carelessly applied to wider phenomena in the Neolithic as if they had explanatory value. For example, the so-called PPN. The FTN itself was not undifferen-tiated, yet its component labels still continue to be applied inconsistently without integr ation. ‘Starčevo-Criş’ is often used as if it embraced the whole phenomenon. This isolationist tendency obscures the actual regional variety and overall significance of a mode of behaviour, which was central to the emergence and establishment of the Neolithic in southeastern Europe, and more widely in Europe.

Fig. 8 - V-based FTN bone spoons derived from Bos primigenius metacarpals (af-ter Nandris, 1972: fig. 1, for reference to sites).

20 –

It is not enough merely to describe the component elements of the FTN, such as its dating, or the supposed phases of its pottery typologies. We cannot use descriptions and labels as if they were explanations. The Neo-lithic is nothing if not a mode of behaviour. Indeed there is support from ethnoarchaeological case-studies such as that of the Jebaliyeh Bedouin of Sinai (Nandris, 1990) for the view that membership of the human group may be defined by ‘behaviour as if’ the affiliate belongs to the group.

The archaeological remains of a culture may be seen instead as the tangible outcome of human behaviour, made accessible through scientific method. The Comparative Ethnoarchaology practised since the 1970’s in the Highland Zone Ethnoarchaeology Project (Nandris, 1985) sought to integrate behaviour with its material outcome, and to facilitate its archaeological interpret ation. It could be concluded that archaeology is not prima-rily about the past. Like all scientific endeavour, it is in good part the outcome of a consensus among its coeval modern practitioners concerning long-term questions; for example “what it is that constit utes the identity of a human group?” The answer is certainly not assemblages of sherds.

Ethnoarchaeology bring us into contact with the beliefs of which behaviour is an outcome. These are not usually accessible to archaeology. It is a hidden factor, reminiscent of the substantial organic element in prehis-tory, which is not usually archaeologically accessible. We may be grateful for rare accidents of preservation, like Similaun man who has given us some sort of insight into Neothermal underwear, but the organic compo-nent of the FTN is sadly deficient. Ethnoarchaeology gives us other examples of hidden factors to consider, e.g., the rôle of periodical or seasonal social gatherings such as fairs or markets, in the distribution of products such as Rod Heads or obsidian, or in the sharing of ideas such as farming technology, or even in the search among widely scattered communities for mates.

The Neolithic needs to be placed in a testable explanatory framework of long-term processes of change. We need to ask the question “Change in what?” . Archaeology is the study of long-term proc-esses of change in human behaviour. Changes in the bio-social medium comprise both topics in social archaeology, and the more narrowly physical and biological emergence of the human species itself. These may be integrated with the other media in which change takes place, notably the environment, and human economy and technology.

The economy of a culture is the means of exploiting the environment within a given set of behavioural or cultural premises, in course of which social and religious factors play their part. The technology of a culture is largely the means to economic ends but, like other economic indicators it can sustain non-utilitarian social functions, for example the social signals of status or identity. The changing bio-social medium integrates de-liberative cultural choices made in technology and in the economic exploitation of the environment. Human choice rather than economic determinism lies at the centre of human behaviour.

The changing environment is the setting for changes in the behaviour of plants and animals as well as of man, and itself constitutes a legitimate topic of research, but it is not literally causal. Changes in the media of long-term change in human behaviour such as environment, economy, technology and the bio-social media must of necessity be studied individually. The explanatory framework which can integrate them is reticulate; a network of operations rather than a hierarchy. Even the social hierarchies, which are found without exception in every human society are also reticulate, analogous to the interdependence found in ecological relationships between plants and animals. Such an approach offers statistically-based rather than literalist understanding, and probabilistic rather than single-factor explanations. It is polythetic in nature, sampling from a possible list of definitions, and can ac-commodate ‘both-and’ as well as ‘either-or’ explanations.

A consistent trend from Palaeolithic times onwards has been to exploit the most readily accessible features of the environment, and having exhausted these to move down-market. The exploitation of plant resources, or the control of reproduction in animals, had a reciprocal impact on long-term natural changes in the environment. The establishment of the Greek Neolithic and the FTN, and their reproductive strate-gies, can be related to the energetics of succession, and the productivity of the Altithermal forest in Europe (Nandris, 1978).

The FTN can be interpreted as r- strategists, while later so-called ‘Copper Age’ cultures, such as Cucuteni or Gumelniţa, are better characterized as Late Neolithic K- strategist Climax cultures. These cases can best be understood in relation to the environments to which they were adapted, and this must include the social environment. The distinction between r- and K- can be envisaged as an expression of the proportion of energy expended in reproduction. The behavioural strategies of the r- and K- model constitute a spectrum not a sim-ple dichotomy. A population may be r- strategist in one context and K- strategist in another. The distinction is between r-strategist societies, which could be described as opportunist; and K-strategist societies, whose behaviour is adapted to stability and homeostasis (fig. 9).

– 21

r-strategists are adapted to make use of or colonize a rapidly fluctuating or directionally develop-ing environment. They are using the intrinsic rate of increase r- of a population to exploit directionally changing or ephemeral resources by discovery, rapid reproduction and dispersal. This suits the case of the FTN emerging in the highly dynamic and productive Anathermal and continuing into the developing Altithermal.

K-strategists occupy stable environments at or near carrying capacity (K-). They can compete success-fully in crowded circumstances, with a low reproductive rate, and are able to monopolise the extraction of energy from a particular part of the environment. This corresponds more to the densely settled Cu-cuteni-Tripolje or Gumelniţa Climax Neolithic cultures, and probably to the hunter-fishers of the Ðerdap before Vlasac and Lepenski Vir.

TOWARDS A SOUTHEAST CLIMAX NEOLITHIC

The idea of a southeast European Climax Neolithic, which “took the Neolithic mode of behaviour as far as it could go without becoming something else” (Nandris, 1978), was put forward by analogy with climax vegetation. This is perhaps more important than whether these cultures were ‘Chalcolithic’ or not, by virtue of their use of copper and gold, although southeast Europe again led the way in European terms in this technologi-cal development. This Climax Neolithic nevertheless incorporated the necessary pre-adaptations for the metal ages, and even distantly for proto-urbanism. For example the huge settlement at Majdanetskoe in the Tripolje Culture (Shmaglii, 1982), has unconfirmed claims for a population in five figures, much larger than could be directly supported by the accessible surrounding resource-zones; this would be one element in a definition of urbanism.

Fig. 9 - A model of the FTN in the energetics of the Altither-mal succession. Comparison of energetics of succession in a forest (A) and a laboratory microcosm (B) (after Odum, 1969). PG) gross production, PN) net production, R) total community respiration, B) total biomass (after Nandris, 1978: fig. 1).

22 –

There are reciprocities between what we call the EBA and the Medithermal relapse in climate; but as with all the developments which we are discussing, single-factor explanations are inadequate. The environ-ment or the ‘economy’ are no more causal than is the use of metal. Choice of the best behavioural strategy led ultimately to evolutionary success, rewarded by representation in the archaeological record. In the Danube Gorges we see the late hunter-fishers of the Early Neothermal, with long antecedents as K- strategists reaching back into the late Glacial, having to operate in the same rapidly changing environment as coeval FTN peoples who were exploiting it as r-strategists. A particular group may be r- strategists in one niche, and K-strategists in another set of circumstances, whether seasonally, or operating as geographically-based sub-groups. All this goes against the grain of literalist ‘stages of development’ such as Mesolithic or Neolithic, whatever may be the illusory convenience of those labels. To paraphrase a very well known dictum of Daryll Forde: people do not live at economic or behavioural stages; they possess their own economies and modes of behaviour.

The idea of archaeological cultures as modes of behaviour corresponding among other evolutionary im-peratives to certain reproductive strategies ought to be testable, for example by their correlates, in settlements, distributions, economy, mortality, demography, and other material data recoverable by fieldwork. In the real world of archaeology it is sometimes a tall order to set out to recover adequate data to answer such questions; but data-collection is hopeless without meaningful research questions in mind. The analogy with the adaptation of animal populations to different environmental states, and to directionally-changing or to climax vegetations, is applicable to the growth and decline, spatial distributions, and behavioural strategies of the FTN in a rapidly developing Neothermal environment. The FTN is an entirely coherent and intriguingly diversified phenom-enon, and it deserves to be considered as a whole.

– 23

R E F E R E N C E S

Bachmayer, F., Ruttkay, E., Melichar, H. and Schultz, O. (eds.) 1972 - Idole. Prähistorische Keramiken aus Ungarn. Wien.

Efstratiou, N. 1985 - Agios Petros - A Neolithic Site in the Northern Sporades. Aegean Relationships during the Neolithic of the 5th Millennium BC. BAR International Series, 241. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Haak, W., Forster, P., Bramanti, B., Matsumura, S., Brandt, G., Tänzer, M., Villems, R., Renfrew, C., Gronenborn, D., Alt, K.W. and Burger, J. 2005 - Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites. Science, 310 (5750): 1016-1018.

Hodder, I 1999 - Symbolism at Çatal Höyük. In Coles, J., Bewley, R. and Mellars, P. (eds.) World Prehistory. Studies in Memory of Grahame Clark. Proceedings of the British Academy, 99: 177-191. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

[See also eg., www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/2005/may/seeds_civilization.php]

Hutchinson, R. and Williams, M., 2006 - Representing the Other in Modern Japanese Literature: a Critical Approach. Routledge, London.

Nandris, J.G. 1970 - Ground Water as a Factor in the First Temperate Neolithic settlement of the Körös Region. Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja, VI: 59-71. Belgrade.

Nandris, J.G. 1970a - The Development and Relationships of the earlier Greek Neolithic. Man, 5 (2): 192-213.

Nandris, J.G. 1972 - Review of Srejović D. 1972. New Discoveries at Lepenski Vir. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 38: 426-429.

Nandris, J.G. 1972a - Bos primigenius and the Bone Spoon. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, London University, 10: 63-81.

Nandris, J.G. 1975 - Some factors in the Early Neothermal Settlement of south-east Europe. In Sieveking, G. de G., Longworth, I. and Wilson, K.E. (eds.) Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology: 549-556. Duckworth, London.

Nandris, J.G. 1977 - The Perspective of Long-term Change in south-east Europe. In Carter, F. (ed.) A Historical Geography of the Balkans: 25-57. Academic Press, London.

Nandris, J.G. 1978 - Some Features of Neolithic Climax Societies. Studia Praehistorica, 1-2: 198-211. Sofia.

Nandris, J.G. 1985 - The Stîna and the Katun: foundations of a research design in European Highland Zone Ethnoarchaeology. World Archaeology, 17: 256-268.

Nandris, J.G. 1988 - The r- and K-strategy Societies of Lepenski Vir in Early Neothermal Perspective. Rivista di Archeologia, XII: 5-13. Venice.

Nandris, J.G. 1990 - The Jebeliyeh of Mount Sinai and the Land of Vlah. Quaderni di Studi Arabi, 8: 45-80. Venice.

Odum, E.P. 1969 - The strategy of ecosystem development. Science, 164 (3877): 262-270.

Séfériadès, M.L. 1994 - Spondylus Gaederopus: the Earliest European Long Distance Exchange System. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji, XXII: 233-256. Ljubljana.

Shmaglii, N.M. 1982 - Krupn’ie Tripol’skie poseleniia v mezhdurec’e Dnepra i iuzhnogo Buga. In Semaines Philippopolitaines de l’Histoire et de la Culture Thrace. Tracia Praehistorica. Pulpudeva, supplementum 3: 62-69. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia (in Russian).

Author’s Address:JOHN NANDRIS, Cantemir Consultancy, The Old School – UK - MERTON, OXON., OX25 2NF e-mail: [email protected]

– 25



SUE COLLEDGE* and JAMES CONOLLY**

THE NEOLITHISATION OF THE BALKANS: A REVIEW OF THE ARCHAEOBOTANICAL EVIDENCE

SUMMARY - The Neolithisation of the Balkans: a review of the archaeobotanical evidence. Minimal emphasis has hitherto been placed on the potential for analysing archaeobotanical datasets to explore the origin and spread of Neolithic farming; in this paper we present the results of such analyses which are based on the amalgamated records from c. 250 southwest Asian and European aceramic and Early Neolithic sites. We demonstrate the similarity of crop diversity on sites at the origins and at the focus of the earliest dispersal events and also the notable disparity in diversity between Early Neolithic sites in the different regions of the Balkans, once farming spread further westwards towards central Europe. We account for these variations in the ‘crop package’ in terms of both the routes of contact via which farming reached southeast Europe and also climatic factors that predetermined which species were better suited to cultivation according to the different regions.

RIASSUNTO - La Neolitizzazione dei Balcani: una revisione.delle testimonianze archeobotaniche. Poca attenzione è stata finora posta alle possibilità che possono derivare dai risultati delle analisi archeobotaniche per studiare l’origine e la diffusione dell’agricoltura. In questo lavoro vengono presentati i risultati di queste analisi, basati sulle informazioni raccolte in circa 250 siti aceremici e del Neolitico antico dell’Asia sud-occidentale e dell’Europa. Vengono dimostrate le somiglianze nelle diverse modalità di coltivazione nei siti ubicati alle origini ed al centro del fenomeno di dispersione più antica, ed anche la notevole disparità nelle differenze che si notano tra i siti del Neolitico Antico nelle diverse regioni balcaniche, una volta che la l’agricoltura si diffuse più ad occidente, verso l’Europa centrale. Queste variazioni vengono interpretate come ‘pacchetti di coltivazione’ sia come percorsi di contatto attraverso i quali l’agricoltura ha raggiunto il sudest europeo, sia come fattori climatici che predeterminavano quali specie erano più adatte alla coltivazione a seconda delle diverse regioni.

INTRODUCTION

In this paper we consider the spread of the earliest crops into Europe and assess the significance of simi-larities and differences between the use of domestic species found on aceramic sites in southwest Asia and on Early Neolithic sites in the different regions of the Balkans.

Our aim is to increase understanding of the subsistence systems that supported the earliest Neolithic populations of southeast Europe. We discuss the ancestry of the agricultural strategies practiced in the Bal-kans, and identify the specific changes in crop use that occurred as part of the Neolithisation process in this region.

Our dataset consists of archaeobotanical records from c. 250 southwest Asian and European aceramic and Early Neolithic sites.

Charred plant remains (with very few taxa preserved by mineralisation, waterlogging or as impressions) identified at each site (and phases of each site) were recorded in a database; records include the complete range of plant types found on the sites, e.g. crops as well as wild and weed taxa.

All the information is taken from published reports in which the archaeobotanical samples were assigned to phased and dated contexts.

The records in the database are thus both spatially and chronologically referenced (for more details about the database see Colledge et al., 2004; 2005).

——————————** Institute of Archaeology, UCL, London, UK** Department of Anthropology, Trent University, Ontario, Canada

26 –

THE EVOLUTION OF THE FOUNDER CROPS

The earliest domesticated plant species (the ‘founder crops’: Zohary, 1996) first appear on Aceramic Neolithic sites in southwest Asia, and from there they spread by human agency, via coastal Mediterranean and inland Anatolian routes, into Europe (Colledge et al., 2004). The complete ‘crop package’ of the eight founder species - three cereals: emmer (Triticum dicoccum), einkorn (Triticum monococcum), hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare); four pulses: lentil (Lens culinaris), pea (Pisum sativum), chick pea (Cicer arietinum) and bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia); and flax (Linum usitatissimum) - have been identified on many Levantine pre-pottery Neolithic (PPN) sites (Garrard, 1999; Zohary and Hopf, 2000; Colledge, 2001). However, the package was not adopted in its entirety in the different regions of Europe; certain crops were cultivated preferentially, influenced by both climatic and cultural factors (Halstead, 1989; Bogucki, 1996; Colledge et al., 2005; Bakels, 2007).

Genetic studies of modern populations have formed the basis of research on the ancestry of the founder species (Salamini et al., 2004). Central to these studies have been the attempts to determine the frequency and location of the domestication events, which gave rise to the earliest domestic crops. Certain authors favour monophyletic origins for the crops and suggest that domestication took place only once (or at most very few times, e.g. Zohary, 1996; 1999; Heun et al., 1997). Others, however, are proponents of polyphyletic origins, whereby each species was domesticated more than once and in different locations (Jones et al., 1998; Allaby, 2000; Allaby and Brown, 2003). Location has proved to be an equally contentious issue; for example, the results of DNA analyses seem to be at odds over whether the founder crops evolved in the southern Levant (e.g. Jordan, Israel, Palestinian Territories) or the northern Levant (e.g. Syria, southeast Anatolia) (Heun et al., 1997; Nesbitt, 1998; Nesbitt and Samuel, 1998; Zohary, 1999; Özkan et al., 2002). Corroborative archaeobotanical evidence provides a means of resolving uncertainties over how many times and where domestication events took place, but the question of whether or not domestic taxa can be confirmed as the ‘earliest’ at certain pre-pottery Neolithic sites in southwest Asia has proved to be no less controversial (for example, see Nesbitt, 2002).

The chronological framework for domestication, or domestication events, is fundamental to our under-standing of the dynamics of the spread of crop-based agriculture beyond southwest Asia. Estimates vary on the rate at which domestication would have taken place once wild crops were under cultivation. Recent research, which is based on an assessment of the relative proportions of domestic-type and wild-type wheat and barley chaff in archaeobotanical assemblages from early sites in the Levant, indicates that domestication (e.g. whereby the end result is cereal crops with tough rachises) was a long process, possibly taking between 1000 and 1500 years (Tanno and Willcox, 2006; Fuller, in prep.). In this scenario, cultivation that did not involve preferential selection of the mutant tough rachised plants may have continued for a considerable length of time without any signs of the morphological changes in the cereal ears that are associated with domestication (see Willcox, 2004 for a discussion of the development of large grained wild cereal ‘crops’). On the basis that greater proportions of indehiscent (i.e. tough rachised) spikelets are indicative of the emergence of a fully domestic crop, the earli-est sites which meet this criterion in the two studies cited above are dated to the late/final PPNB (c. 7500-6400 cal BC). This is a much later date for the evolution of the founder crops than has previously been assumed (for example, see Harris, 2002; Nesbitt, 2002; Colledge et al., 2004).

In contrast, on the basis of experimental harvesting of wild einkorn, Hillman and Davies (1990; 1991) cal-culated that cereal crops could have been domesticated within 200 years, or perhaps as rapidly as 20-30 years, provided that certain harvesting prerequisites were met (e.g. if the wild cereals were harvested partially ripe, if they were gathered by uprooting or sickle reaping, and if new fields were sown each year). On the assumption that cultivation leading to domestication began in the Late Epipalaeolithic (Moore et al., 2000; Hillman et al., 2001), Hillman and Davies’ ‘short gestation’ model (Colledge et al., 2004) places the evolution of domestic crops within the time-frame of the PPNA. As we consider below, this is more compatible with what is currently known about the timing of the spread of Neolithic farming westwards.

THE DISPERSAL OF THE FOUNDER CROPS

Domestic cereal and pulse species have been identified in southwest Asia from as early as c. 9500 cal BC and there is evidence, mainly in the form of charred remains, with very few instances of impressions in plaster or daub, for the full suite of founder crops on many sites by the early/middle PPNB (i.e. between c. 8700 and 7500 cal BC: Garrard, 1999; Zohary and Hopf, 2000; Colledge, 2001).

– 27

Fig. 1 - Percentage of Pre-Pottery Neolithic sites/phases in southwest Asia with evidence for the listed cereal and pulse species, and flax.

Fig. 1 is a comparison of the range and frequency of occurrence of crops (including the founder species and also later or secondary domesticates) present on a total of 44 aceramic sites (or phases of sites) recorded in our database (with dates ranging from c. 9500-7000 cal BC and located in Jordan, Syria, the Palestinian Territories, Israel and Anatolia). The most common species are hulled barley, the two glume wheats (einkorn and emmer), pea, lentil and bitter vetch, which all occur on over 50% of the sites. The remaining founder species (chick pea and flax), together with free threshing wheat (Triticum aestivum/durum), naked barley (Hordeum vulgare var nudum), grass pea (Lathyrus sativus) and rye (Secale cereale), are recorded on far fewer sites.

Recently excavated sites (i.e. since the early 1990s) on Cyprus have produced evidence that has revo-lutionised previously held ideas about both the settlement of the island and also the routes and timing of the initial dispersals of the founder crops from their origins (Peltenburg et al., 2001; Colledge, 2004; Colledge and Conolly, 2007). Of greatest significance are the archaeobotanical data, which indicate a very early date for the seaward migration of Neolithic farmers from southwest Asia. There are eight Aceramic Neolithic sites on Cyprus (assigned to the Cypro-PPNB and late Aceramic Neolithic/Khirokitian, dating from the mid 9th to the 6th millennia cal BC) with evidence of preserved plant remains. Table 1 is summary of the range of crops identified at the sites, including not only the founder species but also later additions to the spectrum of plants that were cultivated in the Early Neolithic (e.g. free threshing wheat and naked barley, and two pulses: grass pea and faba bean, Vicia faba). The order of sites in the table (from the top) is approximately chronological from earliest to latest (for relative chronologies see Peltenburg, 2003: 87, table 11.3).

The earliest archaeobotanical evidence on Cyprus is from the sites of Perekklisha-Shillourokambos and Kissonerga-Mylouthkia (both excavated within the last decade and a half). A very limited spectrum of taxa is represented in the assemblages from the earliest phase at Perekklisha-Shillourokambos (PSI: Early Phase A; for 14C dates see Guilaine, 2003) dated to the Cypro-Early PPNB (equivalent to the Levantine EPPNB); the status of the cereal ‘crops’ at the site is equivocal and Willcox (2001) records only wild/domestic glume wheat grains and chaff and wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum). The identifications were made from impressions of plant remains in pisé and the difference in mode of preservation between Shillourokambos and a majority of the southwest Asian sites (and, more significantly, also the other Cypriot aceramic sites) could account for the relatively poor representation of taxa (including crop species) at the site. The phase IA samples from Kissonerga-Mylouthkia

SW Asia: pre-pottery Neolithic sites/phases (n=44)

28 –

Cer

eals

Puls

es

?wild

dom

estic

lentil*

pea*

bitter vetch*

grass pea*

faba bean*

wild/domestic barley

wild/domestic emmer

hulled barley

einkorn

emmer

naked barley

free threshing wheat

Cyp

ro-E

arly

PPN

B

[c. 8

700-

8200

cal

BC

]K

isso

nerg

a-M

ylou

thki

a IA

●●

●●

●M

urra

y , 2

003

Pere

kklis

ha-S

hillo

urok

ambo

s I●

●W

illc

ox, 2

001

Cyp

ro-M

iddl

e/L

ate

PPN

B

[c. 8

200-

7400

/c. 7

400-

6600

cal

B

C]

Pere

kklis

ha-S

hillo

urok

ambo

s II

●●

Wil

lcox

, 200

1Pe

rekk

lisha

-Shi

llour

okam

bos I

II●

●●

Wil

lcox

,200

1K

isso

nerg

a-M

ylou

thki

a IB

●●

●●

●M

urra

y, 20

03K

alav

asso

s-Te

nta

●●

●●

●●

Han

sen,

197

8; 1

979;

200

5A

is-Y

iork

is●

●Si

mmon

s and

Esp

inda

, per

s. co

mm

.K

hiro

kitia

n

[c

. 660

0-50

00 c

al B

C]

Khi

roki

tia [e

ast,

wes

t & ‘s

mal

l’ tre

nche

s]●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Wai

nes a

nd S

tanl

ey P

rice

, 197

7; M

ille

r, 1

984;

Han

sen,

198

9; 1

994

Cap

e And

reas

-Kas

tros

●●

●●

●●

●va

n Ze

ist, 1

981

Dha

li-A

grid

hi●

●●

●●

Stew

art,

1974

Kho

letri

a-O

rtos

●●

●●

Simm

ons,

per

s. co

mm

.

[* th

e do

mes

tic st

atus

of t

he p

ulse

s and

flax

has

not

bee

n co

nfirm

ed in

all

case

s]

flax*

Tabl

e 1

- Pre

senc

e of

cro

p sp

ecie

s on

acer

amic

Neo

lithi

c si

tes i

n C

ypru

s.

– 29

(broadly contemporary with PSI) comprise a diverse range of both domestic and wild species. Three of the founder crops (hulled barley, einkorn, and emmer) were identified (lentil and flax could not be assigned with certainty as domestic species; Murray, 2003) and the presence in the samples of harvesting or processing waste (e.g. field weeds and chaff) provided further confirmation of the status of both the cereal crops and farming by the middle of the 9th millennium cal BC, a short time after they evolved on the Levantine mainland.

The Cypriot evidence indicates that the spread of Neolithic farming beyond its origins was rapid. From the archaeobotanical data it is apparent that there was no significant reduction in the range of crops that were cultivated in the Early Neolithic, an indication of the successful transport of grain stocks and the requisite tech-niques to ensure productive harvests by the colonising farmers. Calibrated dates for the earliest occurrences of domestic cereals on the island (table 2) appear to show that the initial dispersal via the Mediterranean was as early as, if not earlier than the mainland route via Anatolia (Colledge et al., 2004: s40-41; Perlès, 2005). The first evidence of domestic cereals in southeast Anatolia is dated to the early-mid 9th millennium cal BC (table 3). Two or three centuries later crops had spread further to the west, and at Aşıklı Höyük, the earliest farming community yet known in central Anatolia, levels with domestic glume wheats are dated to c. 8300 cal BC.

THE NEOLITHIC CROP PACKAGE IN THE BALKANS

Greece

Farming and the founder crops reached southern Europe at about 7000 cal BC (Halstead, 2000; Perlès, 2001; Colledge et al., 2005). The range and relative frequency of occurrence of the domestic species on the earliest sites in Greece (fig. 2; a total of 12 initial (Aceramic) and Early Neolithic sites and/or phases, with dates ranging from c. 7000-6000 cal BC) and on aceramic sites in southwest Asia are remarkably similar. Hulled barley, einkorn, emmer, pea and lentil are the most common domestic species (present on over 50% of the sites) and other crops occur on a minority of the Greek sites. The diversity of crops used in the two regions are also comparable as demonstrated by the percentages of sites with five or more crops (southwest Asia: 73%, Greece: 75%; fig. 4) and by the mean number of crops per region (southwest Asia: 5.88, Greece: 5.75; table 4). There is little difference, therefore, in the diversity of domestic species grown between the regions where the founder crops evolved and where the crop package was adopted once farming had reached southeast Europe. Taxa identified on the early Greek sites are all based on records of plant remains preserved by charring and although in some instances sample sizes are small the representation of the crop repertoire appears to be as complete as that in southwest Asia, where there are far more sites and samples included in the comparisons.

In an earlier paper (Colledge et al., 2004) we suggested the results of more comprehensive quantitative analyses of assemblages of crops (both domestic and wild) and weeds were indicative of links between Greece and the southwest Asia (more specifically the southern Levant), via Cyprus. The similarities in composition of much larger suites of taxa between sites in the eastern Mediterranean and the southern Balkans are in accord, therefore, with the findings we report here, which are based on crop species alone. This is consistent with similar conclusions made by Perlès who, on the basis of comparative studies of the material culture in these regions, proposes that Greece was colonised by processes originating in the Levant and the southern Anatolian coast via the southern route of a two-fold east-west expansion of the Neolithic (Perlès, 2005). Certain commodi-ties, which included crops, would have been transferred by the Neolithic migrants, thus resulting in a pack-age common to both the origins and the focus of the colonisation. Bogaard argues that the farming practices, which gave rise to comparable crop (and weed) packages must also have been similar, thus that there was also transmission of husbandry techniques (Bogaard, 2004; 2005). On the basis of detailed analyses of crops and weed assemblages she concludes that the same ‘general’ system of intensive, small-scale cultivation (Bogaard, pers. comm.) characterised Neolithic farming in Greece and a majority of southeast Europe (Bogaard, 2004: 51; 2005, 182), and from the available evidence it seems likely that this was a mode of production which had originated in southwest Asia (Bogaard, 2005: 188).

Bulgaria

On Neolithic sites to the north of Greece there are significant differences in crop diversity. The data for Bul-garia (fig. 2) derive from records of charred plant remains from ten early Neolithic sites and/or phases (Karanovo

30 –

I/II), which range in date from c. 6000-5500 cal BC. The most frequently occurring species in southwest Asia and Greece are equally as common on the Bulgarian early Neolithic sites but, in addition, free threshing wheat, naked barley and grass pea are also present on a majority of the sites. Bulgaria has the highest percentage of sites with five or more crops (and the highest mean number of crops per site; fig. 4 and table 4), and therefore exhibits greater crop diversity than is manifest in southwest Asia and in the other regions of the Balkans.

In recent syntheses of archaeobotanical data recorded from Bulgarian early Neolithic sites, Marinova stresses the climatic/environmental idiosyncrasies of the country, which in part may account for the distinctiveness of the crop package we highlight here (Marinova, 2007). She points out that the environment of Bulgaria is conti-nental but with a strong Mediterranean influence (i.e. transitional between the east Mediterranean and Europe), so that crops introduced from the south and east would have had to adapt to these new conditions. Not all the founder species were suitable for cultivation in the region and Marinova makes reference to chick pea, which was common in the south but didn’t become an established crop throughout the entire country. In contrast, the greater frequency of occurrence of free threshing wheat (or more specifically hexaploid bread wheat, which is more common in our study area than the tetraploid species) compared to Greece, which has a Mediterranean climate, could be due to its enhanced tolerance of more continental conditions (Zohary and Hopf, 2000: 51-58; see also Colledge et al., 2005: 149). The glume wheats, which are better suited to Mediterranean conditions, are present on equally high proportions of the Bulgarian sites and so the range of cereal crops is greater on these sites in comparison with other regions, for example, where the climate favoured cultivation of either the founder species or the secondary domesticates. Husbandry practices would likewise have been modified according to the prevailing climatic conditions in the different areas of Europe. However, in this instance Bogaard suggests that the weed assemblages from the Bulgarian Early Neolithic sites, rather than the crops alone, are more in-formative about patterns of land and resource management, and that their composition is consistent with what would be expected for intensively cultivated fields (Bogaard, 2005: 182).

Significantly, Marinova states that archaeobotanical data from the Bulgarian early Neolithic sites are in-dicative of connections with northern Greece and Anatolia and the data presented here also support this claim. Archaeobotanical evidence from early Neolithic sites in the region of Anatolia immediately to the east of Bulgaria (i.e. in northern and central/south central Anatolia) is sparse and our comparison is limited to just six aceramic phases from a total of four sites (Aşıklı Höyük, Can Hasan III, Çatalhöyük [pre-levels XIIA, XIIB and XIIC/D] and Hacilar). Nevertheless, it is clear that the range of crops represented on the Anatolian sites is comparable with that for the Bulgarian sites (fig. 3), for example, free threshing wheat and glume wheats are equally as common and the full suite of pulse species is present, all of which (including chick pea) are found on a majority of the sites. The two regions mirror each other in terms of the diversity of crops to the extent that the proportions of sites with more than five crops and the mean number of crops per site are also similar (for Anatolia: 83% and 8.50, respectively).

It is relevant here to highlight the presence of rye in the Bulgarian Early Neolithic. Rye has been identified on very few southwest Asian Early Neolithic sites but finds on Anatolian sites outnumber those in other areas (e.g. at aceramic Can Hasan III, Hillman identified rye grains in 35 of the 41 samples he examined; Hillman,

Kissonerga Mylouthkia IA dates (taken from Peltenburg, 2003: 83)

Laboratory number

Radiocarbon age Calibrated date BC Material dated

1 sigma 2 sigmas

AA-33128 9235±70 BP 8550-8290 8630-8280 charred cereal from well 116, fill 123 (20.75-20.55 m asl)

AA-33129 9110±70 BP 8450-8240 8540-8200charred cereal from well 116, fill 124 (19.75-19.80 m asl), immediately below the layer in which the sample

for AA-33128 was taken

OxA-7460 9315±60 BP 8690-8450 8740-8320charred barley grain from well 116, fill 124 (19.75-19.80 m asl), immediately below the layer in which

the sample for AA-33128 was taken

Table 2 - 14C dates for domestic cereals at Cypro-EPPNB Kissonerga-Mylouthkia phase IA.

– 31

Ear

liest

dat

e(s)

regi

onsi

te14

C d

ate

BP

cal B

Cla

b nu

mbe

rco

ntex

t of d

ated

mat

eria

l(c

harc

oal u

nles

s sta

ted)

dom

estic

cer

eals

pre

sent

at s

iteco

ntex

t in

whi

ch c

erea

ls w

ere

foun

d

SE A

nato

liaC

afer

Höy

ük95

60±1

9092

50-8

700

Ly-4

436

leve

l XII

: eas

t are

a la

yer J

2aem

mer

cha

ff; e

mm

er/e

inko

rn g

rain

s & c

haff

hear

ths 1

26 a

nd 1

27, a

nd b

urnt

laye

r

Caf

er H

öyük

8990

±160

8340

-783

0Ly

-218

2le

vel X

II: 1

978

base

of s

onda

geem

mer

cha

ff; e

mm

er/e

inko

rn g

rain

s & c

haff

hear

ths 1

26 a

nd 1

27, a

nd b

urnt

laye

r

Caf

er H

öyük

8950

±80

8270

-797

0Ly

-443

7le

vel I

X: e

ast a

rea

laye

r J1a

, hea

rth 1

24ei

nkor

n gr

ains

sam

ple

88 fr

om h

earth

124

Çay

önü

9320

±55

8700

-847

0G

rN-6

243

Bas

al P

its su

b-ph

ase

emm

er g

rain

s; e

mm

er/e

inko

rn c

haff

basa

l pits

(uns

peci

fied)

Çay

önü

9275

±95

8630

-834

0G

rN-6

241

Cha

nnel

led

Bui

ldin

g su

b-ph

ase:

ch1

-4em

mer

/ein

korn

cha

ffch

anne

lled

build

ing

(uns

peci

fied)

Çay

önü

9250

±60

8570

-834

0G

rN-8

079

Bas

al P

its su

b-ph

ase:

hea

rthem

mer

gra

ins;

em

mer

/ein

korn

cha

ffba

sal p

its (u

nspe

cifie

d)

Nev

alı Ç

ori

9261

±181

8740

-828

0H

d-16

781-

835

leve

l I/II

[mat

eria

l not

spec

ified

]gl

ume

whe

at sp

ikel

et fo

rks (

inde

t. ca

tego

ry)*

hear

ths,

fill b

etw

een

ston

es in

‘cul

t bui

ldin

g’

Nev

alı Ç

ori

9243

±55

8560

-834

0H

d-16

782-

351

leve

l I/II

[mat

eria

l not

spec

ified

]gl

ume

whe

at sp

ikel

et fo

rks (

inde

t. ca

tego

ry)*

hear

ths,

fill b

etw

een

ston

es in

‘cul

t bui

ldin

g’

Nev

alı Ç

ori

9212

±76

8540

-831

0H

d-16

783-

769

leve

l I/II

[mat

eria

l not

spec

ified

]gl

ume

whe

at sp

ikel

et fo

rks (

inde

t. ca

tego

ry)*

hear

ths,

fill b

etw

een

ston

es in

‘cul

t bui

ldin

g’

C A

nato

liaA

şıkl

ı Höy

ük89

58±1

3083

00-7

910

P-12

40ba

se o

f site

: bur

nt la

yer N

W c

utei

nkor

n &

em

mer

gra

ins;

em

mer

/ein

korn

cha

ffpr

oven

ance

uns

peci

fied

Aşı

klı H

öyük

8920

±50

8240

-798

0G

rN-1

9116

phas

e 2C

-A: s

quar

e 2J

, roo

m F

Fei

nkor

n &

em

mer

gra

ins;

em

mer

/ein

korn

cha

ffpr

oven

ance

uns

peci

fied

Aşı

klı H

öyük

8880

±70

8230

-795

0G

rN-1

9865

phas

e 2E

/2D

: are

a JY

, dum

p/w

orks

hop

eink

orn

& e

mm

er g

rain

s; e

mm

er/e

inko

rn c

haff

prov

enan

ce u

nspe

cifie

d

Can

Has

an II

I85

84±6

576

60-7

540

HU

-11

trenc

h 49

L, n

ear b

asal

leve

lsei

nkor

n &

em

mer

gra

ins

trenc

h 49

L

Can

Has

an II

I85

43±6

676

00-7

525

HU

-12

trenc

h 49

L, b

asal

leve

lsei

nkor

n &

em

mer

gra

ins

trenc

h 49

L

Can

Has

an II

I84

70±1

4076

50-7

320

BM

-166

4Rtre

nch

49L,

sam

ple

156F

eink

orn

& e

mm

er g

rain

stre

nch

49L

Çat

alhö

yük

8240

±55

7360

-714

0O

xA-9

778

pre

XII

.D [

whe

at g

rain

dat

ed]

eink

orn

& e

mm

er g

rain

s & c

haff

pre

XII

.C/D

leve

l

Çat

alhö

yük

8160

±50

7250

-706

0O

xA-9

777

pre

XII

.Cei

nkor

n &

em

mer

gra

ins &

cha

ffpr

e X

II.C

/D le

vel

Çat

alhö

yük

8155

±50

7250

-706

0O

xA-9

893

pre

XII

.D [w

heat

gra

in d

ated

]ei

nkor

n &

em

mer

gra

ins &

cha

ffle

vel p

re X

II.C

/D le

vel

SW A

nato

liaH

acıla

r87

00±1

8082

00-7

550

BM

-127

leve

l V: a

rea

Q, c

ourty

ard

floor

hea

rthem

mer

gra

ins &

cha

ffas

hy la

yer a

t bas

e of

ace

ram

ic le

vels

Tabl

e 3

- Ear

liest

14C

dat

es fo

r site

s in

Ana

tolia

with

evi

denc

e fo

r dom

estic

cer

eals

.

32 –

Fig. 2 - Percentage of Early Neolithic sites/phases in the Balkans with evidence for the listed cereal and pulse species, and flax.

Fig. 3 - Percentage of Aceramic Neolithic sites/phases in central and southwest Anatolia with evidence for the listed cereal and pulse species, and flax.

C&SW Anatolia: aceramic sites/phases (n=6)

0

20

40

60

80

100

hulled

barley

einko

rn

emmer

free t

hresh

ing w

heat

nake

d barl

eysp

elt

ryemille

tpe

alen

til

bitter v

etch

chick

pea

grass

pea fla

x

% o

f site

s/ph

ases

– 33

Table 4 - Mean number of crop species in the different regions.

Fig. 4 - Percentage of sites/phases in the different regions with evidence of four crop species or fewer and with five or more crop species.

mean number of crops per site/phase

SW Asia [n=44] 5.88

Greece [n=12] 5.75

Bulgaria [n=10] 7.90

C&SW Anatolia [n=6] 8.50

Fr Yugoslavia/ Hungary [n=9] 2.44

1978) and so its presence on Bulgarian sites (where the domestic status is not assigned with certainty) and not on others in the Balkans is consistent with the concept of a link between the regions. In Perlès’ two-fold colonisation model the second route by which the ‘Neolithic’ reached the Balkans was via the north through Anatolia thus the available archaeobotanical data for both Early Neolithic Greece and Bulgaria are in agree-ment with her proposal.

Former Yugoslavia and Hungary

Archaeobotanical data for nine Early Neolithic (Körös/Starčevo) sites (dated between c. 6100-5500 cal BC) from the Former Yugoslavia (i.e. sites to the north and east of the Dinaric Alps, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia) and Hungary are given in fig. 21. Most noticeable is the fact that there is a much-reduced diversity of crops in comparison with the Greek and Bulgarian sites; only a small percentage of the Körös/Starčevo sites ——————————1 Comparable quantitative data from other regions in the Balkans were unavailable at the time we were compiling our records.

0

20

40

60

80

100

SW Asia Greece Bulgaria FrYugoslavia/

Hungary

CentralEurope (LBK)

% o

f site

s/ph

ases

5 crops or more4 crops or fewer

34 –

have five or more crops and the mean number per site is the lowest of all the regions in our study. Fewer of the founder crops are represented and of the five that are recorded only hulled barley and emmer are present on a majority of the sites. Two pulses, pea and lentil, are represented on a small minority the Körös/Starčevo sites, whereas in Greece and Bulgaria five pulses are present, and certain species are as common as the cereals (i.e. are present on over 50% of the sites).

The range and/or types of taxa represented on three out of the nine sites in the Former Yugoslavia and Hungary are possibly limited because preservation of the plant remains was solely in the form of impressions in pottery and daub. For example, it could be that they comprise only those species that were more valuable as temper (relative to their usefulness for other purposes), and those of wider economic importance may be ‘missing’ from the archaeobotanical record. It is less likely, therefore, that the assemblages from the three Körös/Starčevo sites represent the full suite of crops once used (e.g. only two cereals are represented at these sites). This may explain in part the differences in crop diversity between these and other regions in the Balkans. However, only seven crops in total are recorded from the Körös/Starčevo sites where preservation was by charring, which is also a considerable decrease in overall numbers of domestic species represented in comparison with the Greek (n=11) and Bulgarian sites (n=13). On the basis of these data (albeit limited), therefore, it would appear that the reduction in crop diversity is not entirely due to taphonomic factors.

Recent excavations and analysis of charred assemblages from Ecsegfalva in the east Hungarian Plain (Körös Culture: Whittle, 2000; Bogaard et al., 2007) produced a much more comprehensive list of plant taxa. Interestingly, only two additional crop species (other than those already recorded in our database for sites in the Former Yugoslavia/Hungary) were identified at the site (millet: Panicum miliaceum) and the ‘new’ glume wheat type; Kohler-Schneider, 2003). From their study Bogaard et al. (2007) conclude similarly and state: “it is possible to infer from the available evidence that there was a progressive narrowing of the crop spectrum from the southern through to the northern Balkans”. They dismiss the suggestion that lack of rigour in methods of recovery of the plant material (i.e. without the use of flotation) on the Körös-Starčevo-Criş sites may account for the disparity between the different regions in the Balkans in light of the fact that flotation and sieving had been used on very few of the Greek and Bulgarian sites. The authors also emphasise that the weed flora from Ecsegfalva is representative of small-scale garden type agriculture and, therefore, adheres to the general trend manifest throughout the rest of southeast Europe.

DISCUSSION

We demonstrate the similarities of the Neolithic crop packages between the regions at the origins in south-west Asia and at the focus of the initial dispersal events (e.g. Cyprus and Greece), but also the differences in diversity between regions of southeast Europe, namely the northern and southern Balkans, as farming spread further into the continent. The increase in diversity in Bulgaria can be accounted for by the exploitation of crops suited to both Mediterranean and continental climates, which include, for example, the founder crop cereals and the full complement of Mediterranean pulses, and also free threshing wheat and other later domesticates that are tolerant of continental conditions.

The decrease in diversity in the northwest (e.g. as exemplified in our study by the Former Yugoslavia/Hungary) in comparison with the other regions of the Balkans is explained in part by the reduction in the range of pulses used. This appears to be a change towards a crop suite more adapted to continental environments (Halstead, 1989) and is entirely consistent with this area being a ‘watershed’ between the different climates prevalent in the north and south. The reduction in diversity in the northwest Balkans represents a significant modification to the ancestral crop package that has widespread implications for the subsequent character of early farming in central European (e.g. from the evidence of the first farming settlements of the Linearbandk-eramik Culture; whose origins appear to have been in Transdanubia in northern Hungary, southwest Slovakia and Lower Austria, dating from c. 5600-5500 cal BC (Whittle, 1990).

In another study (Conolly et al., nd) we have examined in detail the loss of crop species and the resultant increased homogeneity during the spread of Neolithic farming between the Balkans and central Europe and, more specifically, whether this could be explained by ‘random cultural drift’ as explored by Neiman (1995), Shennan and Wilkinson (2001) and Bentley et al. (2004), among others. We established that the rate of species loss was too extensive to be accounted for by random changes associated with copying errors in transmission (e.g. between one settlement and those derived from it). Our conclusions, therefore, were that (a) there was some mechanism of selection that resulted in the loss of some species from the crop package (i.e. equivalent

– 35

to what is known as ‘stabilizing selection’ in evolutionary biology), and (b) the mechanism of selection was most likely to have been environmental (i.e. ‘natural’ to again use the terminology of biologists). This we feel is also the most probable explanation for the loss of species in the northwest Balkans; both the nature and ex-tent of the changes suggest to us that there is considerable external pressure on crop systems which results in a rapid loss of those species that cannot tolerate or adapt to the continental climates as farming spread further westwards across Europe.

An alternative explanation would be some form of cultural selection, whereby certain species were preferred to the detriment of others due to the fact that they performed better in the cultural system within which they were imbedded (e.g. as demonstrated by the evidence from the Linearbandkeramik settlements, see Bakels 1990; Kreuz 1990; Colledge et al., 2005, where the glume wheats may have been easier to transport and/or process with the available technology, and thus were favoured above other wheat species). In the absence of reliable archaeological evidence, which could be used to identify sources of cultural selection that operated independently of environmental pressure, we thus conclude that the variation in the crop packages observed between the southern and northern Balkans can most parsimoniously be accounted for by the differences in climatic conditions (i.e. the increasingly temperate climate in the north) that reduced the effectiveness of some crop species, resulting in a narrowing of the range of cereals and pulses in common use in the northwest region of the Balkans.

Acknowledgements The data presented in this paper were collected during a three years project sponsored by the AHRC ‘The origin and spread of Neolithic plant economies in the Near East and Europe’, directed by Stephen Shennan and James Conolly. We thank Amy Bogaard for reading and commenting on this paper.

36 –

R E F E R E N C E S

Allaby, R. 2000 - Wheat Domestication. In Renfrew, C. and Boyle, K. (eds.) Archaeogenetics: DNA and the population prehistory of Europe. McDonald Institute Monographs: 321-324. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Allaby, R.G. and Brown, T.A. 2003 - AFLP data and the origins of domesticated crops. Genome, 46 (3): 448-453.

Bakels, C. 1990 - The crops of Rössen Culture: significantly different from their Bandkeramik predecessors - French influence? In Cahen, D. and Otte, M. (eds.) Rubané et Cardial. ERAUL, 39: 83-87. Liège.

Bakels, C. 2007 - Nature or culture? Cereal crops raised by Neolithic farmers on Dutch loess soils. In Colledge, S. and Conolly, J. (eds.) The Origins, Spread and Use of Domestic Plants in Neolithic Southwest Asia and Europe. Left Coast Press, California: 343-347.

Bentley, R.A, Hahn, M.W. and Shennan, S.J. 2004 - Random drift and culture change. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 271: 1443-1450.

Bogaard, A. 2004 - The nature of early farming in Central and South-east Europe. Documenta Praehistorica, XXXI: 49-58. Ljubljana.

Bogaard, A. 2005 - ‘Garden agriculture’ and the nature of early farming in Europe and the Near East. World Archaeology, 37 (2): 177-196.

Bogaard, A., Bending, J. and Jones, G. 2007 - Archaeobotanical evidence for plant husbandry and use. In Whittle, A. (ed.) The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. Varia Archaeo-logica Hungarica, XXI: 421-446. Budapest.

Bogucki, P. 1996 - The spread of early farming in Europe. American Scientist, 84: 242-253.

Colledge, S. 2001 - Plant Exploitation on Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic Sites in the Levant. BAR International Series, 986. Archeopress, Oxford.

Colledge, S. 2004 - Reappraisal of the archaeobotanical evidence for the emergence and dispersal of the ‘founder crops’. In Peltenburg, E. and Wasse, A. (eds.) Neolithic Revolution: New perspectives on south-west Asia in the light of recent discoveries in Cyprus. Levant Supplementary Series, 1: 49-60. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Colledge, S. and Conolly, J. 2007 - A review and synthesis of the evidence for the origins of farming on Cyprus and Crete. In Colledge, S. and Conolly, J. (eds.) The Origins, Spread and Use of Domestic Plants in Neolithic Southwest Asia and Europe. Left Coast Press, California: 53-74.

Colledge, S., Conolly, J. and Shennan, S. 2004 - Archaeobotanical Evidence for the Spread of Farming in the Eastern Mediterranean. Current Anthropology, 45 Supplement: S35-S58.

Colledge, S., Conolly, J. and Shennan, S. 2005 - The evolution of Neolithic farming from SW Asian origins to NW European limits. European Journal of Archaeology, 8 (2): 137-156.

Conolly, J., Colledge, S. and Shennan, S. nd - Neutral drift founder effects, and crop use in the LBK (in preparation).

Fuller, D.Q. in prep. - Contrasting patterns in crop domestication and domestication rates: recent archaeobotanical insights from the Old World [Paper presented at ‘Domestication, super-domestication and gigantism: human manipulation of plant genomes for increasing yield’, Tsukaba, Japan, 2-4 October 2006].

Garrard, A. 1999 - Charting the Emergence of Cereal and Pulse Domestication in South-west Asia. Environmental Archaeology, 4: 67-86.

Guilaine, J. 2003 - Parekklisha-Shillourokambos périodisation et aménagements domestiques. In Guilaine, J. and Le Brun, A. (eds.) Le Néolithique de Chypre. Actes du colloque international organisé par le département des antiquités de Chypre et l’Ecole Française d’Athènes, Nicosie 17-18 Mai 2001. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. Supplément, 43: 3-14.

Halstead, P. 1989 - Like rising damp? An ecological approach to the spread of farming in south east and central Europe. In Milles, A., Williams, D. and Gardner, N. (eds.) The Beginnings of Agriculture. BAR International Series, 496: 23-53. Archeopress, Oxford.

Halstead, P. 2000 - Land use in postglacial Greece: cultural causes and environmental effects. In Halstead, P. and Frederick, C. (eds.) Land-scape and Land Use in Postglacial Greece. Sheffield studies in Aegean archaeology, 3: 110-128. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield.

Hansen, J. 1978 - Botanical Remains. Pp. 181-184. In Todd, I.A. Vasilikos Valley Project: Second Preliminary Report, 1977. Journal of Field Archaeology, 5: 161-195.

Hansen, J. 1979 - Botanical Studies in the Vasilikos Valley, 1978. Pp. 297-298. In Todd, I.A. (ed.) Vasilikos Valley Project: Third Pre-liminary Report, 1978. Journal of Field Archaeology, 6: 266-300.

Hansen, J. 1989 - Khirokitia plant remains: preliminary report (1980-1981, 1983). In Le Brun, A. (ed.) Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre) 1983-1986. Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris: 235-250.

Hansen, J. 1994 - Khirokitia plant remains: preliminary report. In Le Brun A. (ed.) Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre) 1988-1991. Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris: 393-409.

Hansen, J. 2005 - Flora. In Todd, I.A. (ed.) Vasilikos Valley Project 7: Excavations at Kalavassos-Tenta. Volume II. Studies in Mediter-ranean Archaeology, LXXI (7): 323-341. Paul Åströms Förlag, Sävedalen.

– 37

Harris, D.R. 2002 - Development of the agro-pastoral economy in the Fertile Crescent during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period. In Cappers, R.T.J. and Bottema, S. (eds.) The Dawn of Farming in the Near East. Studies in Early Near Eastern Produc-tion, Subsistence and Environment, 6: 67-83. Ex oriente, Berlin.

Heun, M., Schäfer-Pregl, R., Klawan, D., Castagna, R., Accerbi, M., Borghi, B. and Salamini, F. 1997 - Site of Einkorn Wheat Domestication Identified by DNA Fingerprinting. Science, 278 (5341): 1312-1314.

Hillman, G. 1978 - On the origins of domestic rye - Secale cereale: the finds from aceramic Can Hasan III. Anatolian Studies, XXVIII: 157-174.

Hillman, G.C. and Davies, S.M. 1990 - Measured Domestication Rates in Wild Wheats and Barley Under Primitive Cultivation, and Their Archaeological Implications. Journal of World Prehistory, 4 (2): 157-222.

Hillman, G.C. and Davies, S.M. 1991 - Domestication rate in wild wheats and barley under primitive cultivation: preliminary results and archaeological implications of field measurements of selection coefficient. In Anderson, P.C. (ed.) Préhistoire de l‘agriculture: nouvelles approches expérimentales et ethnographiques. Monographie du CRA, 6: 113-145. Editions du CRNS, Paris.

Hillman, G., Hedges, R., Moore, A., Colledge, S. and Pettitt, P. 2001 - New evidence of Lateglacial cereal cultivation at Abu Hureyra on the Euphrates. The Holocene, 11 (4): 383-393.

Jones, M.K., Allaby, R.G. and Brown, T.A. 1998 - Wheat Domestication. Science, 279 (5349): 302-303.

Kohler-Schneider, M. 2003 - Contents of a storage pit from late Bronze Age Stillfried, Austria: another record of the “new” glume wheat. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 12: 105-111.

Kreuz, A. 1990 Die Ersten Bauern Mitteleuropas. Eine Archäobotanische Untersuchung zu Umwelt und Landwirtschaft der ältesten Bandkeramik. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 23: 1-256.

Marinova, E. 2006 - Archaeobotanical studies of the Bulgarian Neolithic. The current state of research and perspectives for future studies. In Gatsov, I. and Schwarzberg, H. (eds.) Aegean - Marmara - Black Sea: the Present State of Research on the Early Neolithic. Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes, 5: 187-194. Beier & Beran, Langenweissbach.

Marinova, E. 2007 - Archaeobotanical data from the early Neolithic of Bulgaria. In Colledge, S. and Conolly, J. (eds.) The Origins, Spread and Use of Domestic Plants in Neolithic Southwest Asia and Europe. Left Coast Press, California: 93-109.

Miller, N.F. 1984 - Some plant remains from Khirokitia, Cyprus: 1977 and 1978 excavations. In Le Brun, A. (ed.) Fouilles récentes à Khirokitia (Chypre) 1977-1981. Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris: 183-188.

Moore, A.M.T., Hillman, G.C. and Legge, A.J. 2000 - Village on the Euphrates: from Foraging to Farming at Abu Hureyra. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Murray, M.A. 2003 - Chapter 7: The Plant Remains. In Peltenburg, E. (ed.) The Colonisation and Settlement of Cyprus. Investigations at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, 1976-1996. (Lemba Archaeological Project, Cyprus III.1). Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, LXX (4): 59-71. Paul Åströms Verlag, Sävedalen.

Neiman, F.D. 1995 - Stylistic Variation in Evolutionary Perspective: inferences from Decorative Diversity and Interassemblage Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages. American Antiquity, 60 (1): 7-36.

Nesbitt, M. 1998 - Where was einkorn wheat domesticated? Trends in Plant Science, 3 (3): 82-83.

Nesbitt, M. 2002 - When and where did domesticated cereals first occur in southwest Asia? In Cappers, R.T.J. and Bottema, S. (eds.) The Dawn of Farming in the Near East. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment, 6: 113-132. Ex oriente, Berlin.

Nesbitt, M. and Samuel, D. 1998 - Wheat Domestication: Archaeobotanical Evidence. Science, 279 (5356): 1431.

Özkan, H., Brandolini, A., Schäfer-Pregl, R. Salamini, F. 2002 - AFLP Analysis of a Collection of Tetraploid Wheats Indicates the Origin of Emmer and Hard Wheat Domestication in Southeast Turkey. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 19: 1797-1801.

Peltenburg, E. 2003 - Chapter 11: Conclusions: Mylouthkia 1 and the Early Colonists of Cyprus. In Peltenburg, E. (ed.) The Colonisa-tion and Settlement of Cyprus. Investigations at Kissonerga-Mylouthkia, 1976-1996 (Lemba Archaeological Project, Cyprus III.1). Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, LXX (4): 83-103. Paul Åströms Verlag, Sävedalen.

Peltenburg, E., Colledge, S., Croft, P., Jackson, A., McCartney, C. and Murray, M.A. 2001 - Neolithic dispersals from the Levantine Corridor: a Mediterranean Perspective. Levant, 33: 35-64.

Perlès, C. 2001 - The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Perlès, C. 2005 - From the Near East to Greece: Let’s reverse the focus Cultural elements that didn’t transfer. In Lichter, C. (ed.) How did farming reach Europe? Anatolian-European relations from the second half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th millen-nium cal BC. Proceedings of the international workshop, Istanbul, 20-22 May 2004, Istanbul, Turkey: Ege Yayınları. BYZAS, 2: 275-290. Berlin.

Salamini, F., Özkan, H., Brandolini, A., Schäfer-Pregl, R. and Martin, R. 2004 - Genetics and geography of wild cereal domestication in the Near East. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3: 429-441.

Shennan, S. and Wilkinson, J.R. 2001 - Ceramic style change and neutral evolution: A case study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity, 66 (4): 577-593.

38 –

Stewart, R.T. 1974 - Chapter VI. Palaeobotanic Investigation: 1972 Season. In Stager, L.E., Walker, A. and Wright, G.E. (eds.) American Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus. First preliminary report: seasons of 1971 and 1972. The American Schools of Oriental Research, Massachusetts: 123-129.

Tanno, K.-I. and Willcox, G. 2006 - How Fast Was Wild Wheat Domesticated? Science, 311: 1886.

van Zeist, W. 1981 - Plant remains from Cape Andreas-Katros (Cyprus). Appendix VI. In Le Brun, A. (ed.) Un site néolithique précéramique en Chypre: Cap Andreas Kastros. Recherche sur les grandes civilisations Memoirs, 5: 95-99. Editions ADPF, Paris.

Waines, J.G. and Stanley Price, N.P. 1977 - Plant remains from Khirokitia in Cyprus. Paléorient, 3: 281-284.

Whittle, A. 1990 - Radiocarbon dating of the Linear Pottery Culture: the contribution of cereal and bone samples. Antiquity, 64: 297-302.

Whittle, A. 2000 - New Research on the Hungarian Early Neolithic. Antiquity, 74: 13-14.

Willcox, G. 2001 - Présence des céréales dans le Néolithique Précéramique de Shillourokambos à Chypre: résultats de la campagne 1999. Paléorient, 2: 129-135.

Willcox, G. 2004 - Measuring grain size and identifying Near Eastern cereal domestication: evidence from the Euphrates valley. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31: 145-150.

Zohary, D. 1996 - The mode of domestication of the founder crops of Southwest Asian agriculture. In Harris, D.R. (ed.) The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. UCL Press, London: 142-158.

Zohary, D. 1999 - Monophyletic vs. polyphyletic origin of the crops on which agriculture was founded in the Near East. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 46: 133-142.

Zohary, D. and Hopf, M. 2000 - Domestication of Plants in the Old World. Oxford University Press, Oxford (3rd Edition).

Authors’ Addresses:SUE COLLEDGE, Institute of Archaeology, UCL, 31-34 Gordon Square – UK - LONDON WC1H 0PY e-mail: [email protected]

JAMES CONOLLY, Department of Anthropology, Trent University, 1600 West Bank Drive, PETERBOROUGH – ONTARIO K9J 7B8, CANADAe-mail: [email protected]

– 39



JANUSZ K. KOZŁOWSKI*

WESTERN ANATOLIA, THE AEGEAN BASIN AND THE BALKANS IN THE NEOLITHISATION OF EUROPE

SUMMARY - Western Anatolia, the Aegean Basin and the Balkans in the Neolithisation of Europe. Pre-Neolithic colonization of the Aegean islands (Kythnos, Gioura, Ikaria), the formation of the specific Mesolithic cultural units on the islands based on the Balkan Epi-gravettian tradition, and the diffusion of the Melian obsidian (since the end of the Palaeolithic) confirm maritime contacts in the Aegean basin. Additionally the contacts with Anatolia, Cyprus and Syro-Palestinian coast are documented by incipient domestication of animals (Gioura, Kythnos) and sedentism (stone architecture at Kythnos). The full package of food producing economy appears in the lowermost layers of Knossos (Crete) in the context of lithic assemblages close to the Aegean Mesolithic, also rooted in the Epigravettian tradition. The Pottery Neolithic of the Marmara basin developed on the base of different Epigravettian and Black Sea traditions. The question of the formation of the East Balkan (mainland Greece) Neolithic with painted pottery and macroblade industry is still unsolved.

RIASSUNTO - L’Anatolia occidentale, il bacino dell’Egeo ed i Balcani nel quadro della neolitizzazione dell’Europa. La colonizzazione pre-Neolitica delle isole dell’Egeo (Kynthos, Gioura, Ikaria), la formazione di specifiche unità culturali Mesolitiche, la cui origine è da ricercarsi nella tradizione Epigravettiana dei Balcani, e la diffusione dell’ossidiana di Melos (a partire dalla fine del Paleolitico Superi-ore) confermano l’esistenza di contatti marittimi nel Bacino dell’Egeo. I rapporti con l’Anatolia, Cipro e la costa Siro-Palestinese sono documentati dall’incipiente domesticazione degli animali (a Giura e Kythnos) e dal fenomeno della sedentarizzazione (archittetura in pietra a Kythnos). Tutti gli elementi che caratterizzano l’economia di sussistenza produttiva fanno la loro comparsa negli strati inferiori di Cnosso (Creta), con complessi litici simili a quelli del Mesolitico dell’Egeo, anch’essi di tradizione Epigravettiana. Il Neolitico Ce-ramico del Mar di Marmara si sviluppò da diverse tradizioni Epigravettiane e del Mar Nero. Il problema dell’origine del Neolitico dei Balcani Orientali (Grecia continentale), con ceramica dipinta ed industria a macrolame, resta a tutt’oggi irrisolto.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this paper is to point to alternative routes of Neolithisation of Europe, alternative to the route usually proposed, from northwestern Anatolia to the southeastern Balkans via the Marmara Sea basin (Ammer-man and Cavalli-Sforza, 1984).

By the end of the Palaeolithic we can see that traditions of the Mediterranean Epigravettian embraced the Balkans and the western Anatolia, probably because the sea regression had made the contacts between southeast Europe and Anatolia easier. The main boundary of cultural provinces ran along the Taurus chain, separating the Epigravettian province from the Kebarian and Zarzian areas (Yalçinkaya et al., 2002; Kaczanowska and Kozłowski, 2004) (fig. 1).

In the Early Holocene the Balkans were divided into two cultural zones (fig. 2): the western zone with the characteristic cultural change at the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary, namely: the replacement of the Epigravet-tian by the Sauveterrian with a completely new set of diagnostic microliths (Mihajlović, 1999; 2001). In the eastern zone the Epigravettian tradition continued with some changes, mostly in lithic technology. At the same time the territories in the western and northwestern zone of the Black Sea basin were the domain of totally dif-ferent Early Holocene traditions typical for the steppe zone of Eastern Europe, with cultural units such as the Erbiceni, the Grebeniki and the Kukrek (Kozłowski and Kozłowski, 1978; Gatsov, 2001).

The Sauveterrian shows a characteristic trait namely: the production of hypermicrolithic bladelets and the mixed blade/flake technique. A characteristic feature of the Epigravettian tradition is a smaller repertoir of geometric microliths and the tendency to use flake blanks, even for microliths. Finally, the Pontinian tradition ——————————* Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellońian University, Kraków, Poland

40 –

used slender blades obtained from pencil-like cores and produced special microliths on these blades using fine marginal or inverse retouches.

The impact of the western cultural tradition, represented by the Sauveterrian and the Castelnovian complex, can also be seen in the eastern part of the Balkans. For example, the Sauveterrian influence is present in the typology of microliths in the Early Mesolithic layer 5a in the Klisoura Cave 1 in Argolid (Koumouzelis et al.,

Fig.1 - Map of the cultural differentiation in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea Basin during the Final Pal-aeolithic.

Fig. 2 - Map of the cultural differentiation in the Adriatic, the Balkans and the Danube basin during the Mesolithic.

– 41

2003). In the central Balkans this influence contributed to the emergence of the Para-Castelnovian assemblages in Western Serbia and Montenegro (Kozłowski et al., 1994).

NORTHWEST ANATOLIA AND THE BALKANS

The most popular models that explain the process of Neolithisation of Europe (usually starting from the wave of advance model: Ammerman, 2003) hold that northwestern Anatolia was critical for the diffusion of the Neolithic from the Near East to Europe (Thissen, 2005). For this reason researchers looked for the evidence of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B sites in northwestern Anatolia.

M. Özdoğan and I. Gatsov (1998) claim that the site of Çalca - close to the east coast of the Marmara Sea - supports such a supposition: unfortunately at Çalca there are no diagnostic PPNB forms, either naviform cores or surface pressure retouch used for shaping blade points.

When we look for the westernmost traces of PPNB it seems more justifiable to ascribe to this tradition the finds discovered at Keciçayir near Eskişehir by T. Efe (2000). But even if this diagnosis is correct, this site confirms merely - as generally accepted - that the BAI (Big Arrowhead Industries: Kozłowski, 1999) range does not extend far to the west, beyond central Anatolia, including the Lake Basin. Naturally, the Keciçayir site needs to be excavated because the surface material does not wholly rule out the possibility that some of the bifacial forms could be of Copper Age and some Middle Palaeolithic admixtures existed at this site.

Because in western Anatolia the PPNB is absent, sequences must be based on local evolution of hypotheti-cally Early Holocene sites (unfortunately undated) showing co-occurence of lithic elements of the Black Sea and the Epigravettian traditions, such as the site of Ağaçli in Turkish Thrace published by I. Gatsov and M. Özdoğan (1994).

The hypothesis put forward by these two authors might be correct, namely that the Pontinian and Epigravet-tian traditions played a major role in the formation of the local Neolithic with monochrome ceramics (Early phase of the Fikirtepe Culture: Gatsov, 2001).

Fig. 3 - Early Neolithic of Turkish Thrace and northwestern Anatolia: main stratigraphic sequences.

Hoca Çeşme Aşaği Pinar

Developed

42 –

Fig. 3 shows the main phases of the evolution of the Neolithic in the Marmara basin: the archaic phase of the Fikirtepe Culture with monochrome pottery and blade-flake industries and the developed phase of the Fikirtepe Culture with encrusted ceramics - and later - linear pottery, also with assemblages where black bur-nished ceramics dominates.

A question can be posed: could this sequence in the Marmara basin play an important role in the Neolithisa-tion of the eastern and western Balkans where the macroblade industries and white-painted pottery are dominant? Özdoğan and Beslegen (1999) and some Bulgarian archaeologists (Todorova, 1989; Stefanova, 1996) would wish to see a monochrome phase in the Eastern Balkans that would be earlier than the white-painted ceramics - but alleged existence of such a phase is still doubtful.

The sequences such as on the sites of Hoca Çeşme (Özdoğan, 1998; Özdoğan and Beslegen, 1999; Gatsov, 2000) and Aşaği Pinar (Parzinger and Özdoğan, 1996) in Turkish Thrace provide evidence against this hypothesis.

At these sites the white-painted pottery with elements of macroblade technology and blade tools with lateral retouches (probably imported) appear together only in a later stage (e.g. in layer II of Hoca Çeşme or layer 5 of Aşaği Pinar). In fact influence of complexes with white-painted pottery was exerted in the opposite direction: from the west to the Turkish Thrace and the Marmara basin.

The Marmara Sea region did not play a significant role in the process of primary Neolithization of the Bal-kans but its role was important in the second stage of Neolithisation, when black burnished ceramics appeared in the Balkans (Kaczanowska and Kozłowski, 1991; Özdoğan, 1993).

Fig. 4 - Mesolithic/Early Neolithic sequences from the Aegean Islands, Argolid, Beotia and Thessaly. The 14C dates in the table are uncalibrated BP.

Thessaly

– 43

THE ROLE OF THE AEGEAN BASIN

In search of possible routes of the primary Neolithic diffusion we should, therefore, look more closely into the form that the Mesolithic/Neolithic interface assumed in the territory of the Aegean Basin.

The table in fig. 4 shows the chronological position of the four, most important, units that functioned in eastern Greece and in the Agean Islands in the time span from the middle of 10th to the middle of 8th millennium uncal BP:- Mesolithic with microflake/microblade technology, possibly with some elements of food producing economy

(mainly imported caprids and suids in the initial stage of domestication),- assemblages with complete package of food producing economy, but with Mesolithic microflake/microblade

technologies (unique example from the phase X in Franchthi and from layer X in Knossos),- assemblages with Neolithic macroblade technology, with food producing economy, but considered to be

aceramic,- Neolithic assemblages with macroblade technology and white decorated and/or monochrome pottery.

Although the cultural phenomena we enumerated have a general tendency to form sequences, yet in the light of radiometric dates their time intervals partially overlap (Thissen, 2005).

We can assume that these phenomena reflect one and the same process of diffusion of new elements within the existing settlement networks - the process did not embrace the whole Aegean basin at the same moment of time.

The model showed in fig. 4 seems justified especially if we remember that the diffusion across the Aegean Basin had to be based on contacts over the sea between islands and along the coasts. Contacts like these required the knowledge of seafaring and are confirmed from the end of the Palaeolithic by obsidian imports from the Island of Melos, confirmed already in phase VI in the sequence of the Franchthi Cave in Argolid dated to the 11th millennium uncal BP (Perlès, 1979; 1990). The discovery of pre-Neolithic evidence of obsidian exploita-tion on the Island of Melos itself is merely the question of time.

The evidence of seafaring in the Early Holocene as Mesolithic sites appears on some islands of the western Cyclades, the northern Sporades and the northern Dodecanese. So far A. Sampson (2001) has investigated the Mesolithic layers on the Cave of Cyclope, in the Island of Gioura, and under excavation is the site of Maroulas on the Island of Kythnos (Sampson et al., 2002).

In the Cyclope Cave, the Mesolithic layers showed subsistence based on fishing and food-gathering from the sea and on land. The large quantities of fishbones, primarily of Serranidae and Sparidae families (and twelve other species), numerous hooks for fishing rods and bone spearheads confirm deep-sea fishing. However the same levels also yielded bones of suids. The status of these animals imported to the island, halfway to domestication (Trantalidou, 2003) is just like that of the animals imported to Cyprus in the PPN (Ducos, 2003). Also in the Early Mesolithic of Gioura were found bones of caprines (goats) in transitional stage of domestication; in the Upper Mesolithic bones of goats do not differ from those of domesticated animals (Trantalidou, 2003). The site yielded, moreover, the evidence of consumption of land (Helicidae) and marine (Patellidae) molluscs.

The lithic industry of Gioura is based primarily on flake and splintered techniques and shows clear features of the Epigravettian tradition (presence of large backed blade points). The links with mainland industries are confirmed by the occurence of robust flake end-scrapers, truncations and retouched flakes (Sampson et al., 1998) (fig. 5). It is interesting that all tool types are made of different local siliceous rocks but microliths that appear in the Late Mesolithic are made from the Melian obsidian (fig. 6). The question of geometric microliths is puzzling because they continue to occur in the Early/Middle and Late Neolithic, not only in the Cyclope Cave, but also in the other sites of Northern Sporades (Alonessos Island).

The example of the Mesolithic from the Island of Gioura provides evidence that the settling of Northern Sporades took place probably from continental Greece, but systematic contacts with Cyclades are evidenced by imported obsidian and with Anatolia and the Middle East - by the imported half-domesticated animals and possibly some stylistic features of microliths (Sampson et al., 2003).

The second Mesolithic site on Greek islands is Maroulas on the Island of Kythnos. Maroulas is an open-air site situated on a peninsula and at present located directly on the sea. A part of the site is below sea level, and underwater prospection identified graves cut in the rock.

The dwelling features in Maroulas are round stone constructions with pavements, some built in erosional basins formed in the surface of metamorphic shales, where carbonates had deposited (figs. 7-9). The dating of these carbonates shows that the oldest basins reach back to the end of the Pleistocene and the youngest carbon-ate covers are later than the youngest dates for dwellings. The dwelling features discovered so far provided dispersed dates: for feature C15, an AMS date of 9420±50 uncal BP (Poz-6486), feature C16, yielded the dates

44 –

Fig. 5 - Mesolithic flint implements from Cyclope Cave on Gioura Island: backed points (1 and 2); nosed end-scrapers (3, 5 and 6); atypical perforator (4); truncation (7); microlith fragment (segment) (8); retouched flakes (9 and 10); splintered pieces (11 and 12).

Fig. 6 - Mesolithic flint and obsidian im-plements from Cyclope Cave on Gioura Island: notched implement on cortical flake (1); retouched truncation (2); abruptly re-touched scraper (3); splintered pieces (4-6); obsidian microliths (7-10); obsidian crested blades (11 and 12).

– 45

Fig. 7 - Maroulas, Kythnos Island: Mesolithic house stone foundation (house 6).

.Fig. 8 - Maroulas, Kythnos Island: Mesolithic house stone foundation (house 8 - upper pavement).

46 –

Fig. 9 - Maroulas, Kythnos Island: Mesolithic house stone foundation (house 8 - lower pavement).

Fig. 10 - Maroulas, Kythnos Island: Mesolithic house 3: accumulation of shells between the lowermost and uppermost pavements.

– 47

7250±210 uncal BP (Gd-18294), on land snails, and 7130±140 uncal BP (Gd-30025), on organic fraction, and an AMS date of 9440±40 uncal BP (Poz-2200), nearly identical to the AMS date from feature C15. Such differ-ences may reflect the use of different materials (organic fraction or charcoals) or real chronological differences between various occupation phases.

The houses located in carbonate basins were occupied several times, as several levels of stone pavements were found. In between the pavements there are culture layers with large accumulations of land snails, mainly Helix figulina, which were part of the diet (fig. 10).

The gathering of land snails was only part of subsistence strategies. Another strategy was the breeding of half-domesticated suids, which had been imported to the island. The presence of carefully shaped grinders and grindstones (fig. 11) associated with plant microremains point to the possible importance of plant food, but without domesticated crops.

The lithic industry used largely local quartz, which was processed by means of flake and splinter techniques. Quartz was used to produce thick end- and side-scrapers on flakes or plaquettes, less often other tool types. Blade elements are represented almost exclusively by obsidian finds, where - too - flake and splinter technique played a considerable role. However some microliths relating to the Epigravettian tradition, such as thick seg-ments on blades and flakes, were produced.

In general the industry from Maroulas exhibits similarities to other Early Holocene industries in the Aegean Basin, derived from the Epigravettian tradition. But the problem of stone architecture in Maroulas is more enigmatic indicating - with previously discovered graves in the area of settlement (Honea, 1975; Sampson, 1996), and recently (2005) excavated burials under the pavements of several houses (fig. 12) and discarded human bones and skulls between or above pavements - the sedentary way of life of Mesolithic foragers. The closest parallels to the houses from Maroulas are in circular houses known from the Syro-Palestinian coast in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic and on Cyprus (Katsarou, 2001). These houses were not only shelters but also places of multistage mortuary practices linked with the founding of houses and subsequent abandonment episodes.

The site of Maroulas is not the only site on Kythnos Island; recent surveys in the northeastern part of the island contributed to the discovery of similar industries from quartz, obsidian and white flint with a large number of diagnostic retouched tools. The presence of lithic industries similar to those from Kythnos on other Aegean islands is now highly probable; particularly recent surveys by A. Sampson on Ikaria Island, north of the Dodecanese and close to the Anatolian coast, yielded lithic finds made from flint and obsidian similar to the industry from Maroulas.

Fig. 11 - Maroulas, Kythnos Island: frag-ment of the Mesolithic ground stone found be-tween the stones of the uppermost pavement of house 2.

48 –

The Aegean Mesolithic - representing sedentary foragers (like many of the PPN groups in the Near East) was the effect of two phases of the island exploitation:- the first mobile hunter-gatherers from continental Greece who, starting from the end of the Palaeolithic,

used seafaring for fishing, exploiting other martitime resources and exploring some islands in search of raw materials;

- these pioneer groups were transformed into sedentary foragers due to the maritime contacts with Cy-prus and, possibly, southern Anatolia. Several innovations appeared in the Aegean as effect of these contacts, i.e. stone architecture, permanent settlements, burial rites related to the continuity of site location, increasing role of plant food and corresponding grinding stone equipment. Plant diet is a part of the broadening spectrum of subsistance strategies including fishing, gathering of land snails and fowling.We can see some analogies to these phases of transformation from highly mobile to sedentary foragers

under the influence of PPN - on Cyprus (Peltenburg, 2004) and in the appearence of some innovations in the way of life of Cycladic Mesolithic groups (Sampson and Katsarou, 2004).

Another example of early colonisation of the Aegean basin comes from Crete where layer X, at Knos-sos, yielded a lithic industry based on flake and splinter techniques, accompanied by microblades detached from hypermicrolithic single-platform cores. Typological similarities with the Aegean Mesolithic consist in the presence of marginal, semi-steep retouch on blades/bladelets, arched backed pieces on flakes and blades, microlithic truncations, atypical trapezes on flakes and retouched flakes. This industry occurs in the context of clay architecture of Near East type, and fully domesticated plants and animals, but the lithic industry resembles, in its technology and the occurence of Melian obsidian, typical for Aegean Basin (Evans, 1971; 1977; 1994).

It is interesting to point out that at Knossos the same technological tradition of layer X (including arched backed implements) is present in the whole Early Ceramic Neolithic (layers IX-VIII). This technology continues to evolve on the basis of local raw materials (mainly radiolarites) and imported Melian obsidian.

The association of the full package of food-producing economy and lithic industry derived from the local Mesolithic is known from the Franchthi Cave, lithic phase X (Perlès, 1990; Hansen, 1992).

Fig. 12 - Maroulas, Kythnos Island: Mesolithic burial.

– 49

FULL NEOLITHIC PACKAGE IN THE AEGEAN BASIN

Typical pottery Neolithic with white painted pottery appears in the Aegean basin only in association with macroblade industry, usually made from yellowish flint (‘silex blond’ of C. Perlès, 1992), whose deposit area is unknown, but its most probable source is northern Bulgaria.

Some layers in which macroblade industry appears in aceramic context have been signaled from lowest layers of Thessalian tells, but whether ceramics in these layers was indeed initially absent is questionable. The only site where macroblade industry is present without overlying Ceramic Neolithic layers is Dendra in Argolid (Protonotariou-Deilaki, 1992).

The origin of the macroblade industry is one of the most puzzling questions of the Balkan Pottery Neo-lithic. This technology is unknown in western Anatolia; the nearest analogies are in the late phase of the PPN on Cyprus (for ex. in Khirokhitia), but the probable diffusion of macroblade technology, via Aegean islands, is not confirmed by indisputable Early Neolithic assemblages.

Some macroblades made of ‘silex blond’ appear in the Early/Middle Neolithic layers in Cyclope Cave on the Island of Gioura in association with painted pottery of Central Anatolian type (Sampson et al., 1998; Kat-sraou, 2001), but the dates for these layers are not as early as in Thessaly or Argolid.

Recently macroblade industry from Melian obsidian has been found on the Island of Sykinos in the Cyclades, but without clear ceramic context (Sampson, pers. comm. 2005). While we cannot find Anatolian origins for the Early Neolithic macroblade technology, we can easily find analogies for the Early Neo-lithic white painted pottery from the plains of Thessaly and Argolid in ceramic cultures of south-central Anatolia.

CONCLUSIONS

To sum up: in the Aegean and Marmara basins we can recognise three different models of the Neolithisa-tion process (figs.13 and 14):

Fig. 13 - Corre-lation between cultural units in the Western A e g e a n a n d Northwestern Anatolia.

50 –

1) Aegean Mesolithic with non local incipient domestication,2) Aegean Aceramic Neolithic with imported full package of food producing economy developed on the

Epigravettian base (Franchthi phase X; Knossos),3) Pottery Neolithic of the Marmara basin developed from Epigravettian and Black Sea traditions.

The problem of the formation of the typical western Aegean Neolithic with painted pottery and macroblade industry is still unsolved.

AcknowledgementsInvestigations on the Aegean Mesolithic have been supported by the Polish Ministry of Sciences and Informatization, grant no. 2H01H03924.

Fig. 14 - Distribution map of the most important sites mentioned in the text (with their cultural attribution).

– 51

R E F E R E N C E S

Ammerman, A.J. 2003 - Looking back. In Ammerman, A.J. and Biagi, P. (eds.) The Widening Harvest.The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Archaeological Institute of America. Colloquia and Conference Papers, 6: 3-26. Boston.

Ammerman, A.J.and Cavalli-Sforza, L. 1989 - The Neolithic transition and the genetics of populations in Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Ducos, P. 2003 - La faune de Khirokitia (Chypre) et la diffusion des predomestications proche-orientales vers la mediterranee occidentale. In Vandermeersch, B. (ed.) Echanges et diffusion dans la Préhistoire Méditerranéenne: 41-50. CTHS, Paris.

Efe, T. 2000 - Recent investigation in inland northwestern Anatolia and its contributions to the aerly Balkan-Anatolian connections. In Hiller, S. and Nikolov, V. (eds.) Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa: 171-183. Phoibos, Wien.

Evans, J.D. 1971 - Neolithic Knossos: the growth of a settlement. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, XXXVII (II): 95-117.

Evans, J.D. 1977 - Island archaeology in the Mediterranean. Problems and opportunities.World Archaeology, 9 (1): 12-26.

Evans, J.D. 1994 - The early millenia continuity and change in farming settlement. Knossos. In Evely, D., Hughes-Brock, H. and Momogliano, N. (eds.) A labirynth of history: 1-20. Printer, London.

Gatsov, I. 2000 - Chipped Stone Assemblages from South Bulgaria and North-West Turkey (Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic and Neolithic). In Nikolova, L. (ed.) Technology, style and society. BAR International Series, 854: 1-28. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Gatsov, I. 2001 - Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic, Neolithic periods chipped stone assemblages from Southern Bulgaria and North Western Turkey. Similarities and differences. Tüba-Ar, 4: 101-112. Istanbul.

Gatsov, I. and Özdoğan, M. 1994 - Some Epi-Palaeolithic sites from NW Turkey: Ağaçli, Domali ad Gümüşdere. Anatolica, 20: 97-120.

Hansen, J.M. 1992 - Franchthi Cave and the beginnings of agriculture in Greece. In Anderson-Gerfaud, P.C. (ed.) Préhistoire de l’agriculture. Nouvelles approches experimentales et ethnographiques: 231-247. CNRS, Paris.

Honea, K. 1975 - Prehistoric remains on the island of Kythnos. American Journal of Archaeology, 79: 277-278.

Kaczanowska, M. and Kozłowski, J.K. 1991 - Vinča eine lokale Evolution oder ine Diffusion? Ein Beantwortungsversuch vn Stadpunkt der Entwicklung der Spaltindustrien ausberachtet. Banatica, 11: 110-118. Timişoara.

Kaczanowska, M. and Kozłowski, J.K. 2004 - Gravettian/Epigravettian sequences in the Balkans and Anatolia. Mediterranean Archae-ology and Archaeometry, 4 (1): 5-18. Rhodes.

Katsarou, S. 2001 - Aegean and Cyprus in the Early Holocene: brothers or distant relatives? Mediterranean Archaeology and Archae-ometry, 1 (1): 43-55. Rhodes.

Koumouzelis, M., Kozłowski, J.K. and Ginter, B. 2003 - Mesolithic finds from Cave 1 in the Klisoura Gorge, Argolid. In Galani-dou, N. and Perlès, C. (eds.) The Greek Mesolithic Problems and Perspectives. British School at Athens Studies, 10: 113-122. Athens.

Kozłowski, J.K. and Kozłowski, S.K. 1978 - Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Europe: taxonomy and palaeohistory. Ossolineum, Kraków.

Kozłowski, J.K., Kozłowski, S.K. and Radovanović, I. 1994 - Meso- and Neolithic sequence from the Odmut Cave (Montenegro). Warszawa.

Kozłowski, S.K., 1999 - The eastern wing of the Fertile Crescent. BAR International Series, 760. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Mihajlović, D. 1999 - Intensification of settlement in the Late Glacial of south-western Balkans. Folia Quaternaria, 70: 385-392. Kraków.

Mihajlović, D. 2001 - Technological decline of the Early Holocene chipped stone industries in South-East Europe. In Kertész, R. and Makkay, J. (eds.) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Archaeolingua, 11: 339-348. Budapest.

Özdoğan, M. 1993 - Vinča and Anatolia: a new look on very old problem. Anatolica, XIX: 173-193.

Özdoğan, M. 1998 - Hoca Çeşme: an Early Neolithic Anatolian Colony in the Balkans. In Enreiter, P. (ed.) Man and the Animal World. Archaeolingua, 8: 435-451. Budapest.

Özdoğan, M. and Beşgelen, N. (eds.) 1999 - Neolithic in Turkey. The cradle of civilization. New discoveries. Arkeoloji Sanat Yayinlari, Istanbul.

Özdoğan, M. and Gatsov, I. 1998 - The Aceramic period in western Turkey and in the Aegean. Anatolica, XXIV: 209-232.

Parzinger, H. and Özdoğan, M. 1996 - Die Ausgrabungen in Kirklareli und ihre Bedeutung fur die Kulturbeziehungen zwischen Anatolien und dem Balkan vom Neolithikum bis zur Frühbronzezeit. Bericht der Römisch Germanischen Kommission, 76: 5-29.

Peltenburg, E. 2004 - Cyprus: a regional component of the Levantine PPN. Neo-Lithics, 1: 3-7. Berlin.

Perlès, C. 1979 - Des navigateurs méditerranéens il y a 10 000 ans. La Recherche, 96: 82-83.

52 –

Perlès, C. 1990 - Les industries taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce). Tome II: Les industries du Mésolithique et du Néolithique initial. Excavations in Franchthi Cave, 5. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.

Protonotariou-Deilaki, E.1992 - Paratiriseis stin prokerameiki (apo i Thessalia sta Dendra tis Argolidos). In Diethnes Synedrio gia tin Archaia Thessalia sti Mnimi tou Dimitri P. Theochari: 97-111. Ekdosi Tameiou Archaeiologikon Poron kai Apallotrioseon, Athens.

Sampson, A. 1996 - The Mesolithic period in the Cave of Cyclope. In Alarm, E.(ed.) Agäisches Fruhzeit: 507-520. Verlag der ÖAW, Vienna.

Sampson, A. 2001 - Archaeology of the Northern Sporades. Municipality, Alonessos.

Sampson, A. and Katsarou, 2004 - Cyprus, Aegean and Near East during PPN. Neo-Lithics, 1: 13-18. Berlin.

Sampson, A., Kozłowski, J.K. and Kaczanowska, M. 1998 - Entre l’Anatolie et les Balkans: une séquence Mésolithique-Néolithique de l’Ilse de Gioura (Sporades du Nord). In Otte, M. (ed.) Préhistoire de l’Anatolie: génèse des deux mondes. ERAUL, 85: 125-141. Liège.

Sampson, A., Kozłowski, J.K. and Kaczanowska, M. 2003 - Mesolithic chipped stone industries from the Cave of Cyclope on the island of Youra (northern Sporades). In Galanidou, N. and Perlès, C. (eds.) The Greek Mesolithic Problems and Perspectives. British School at Athens Studies, 10: 123-130. Athens.

Sampson, A., Kozłowski, J.K., Kaczanowska, M. and Giannouli, B. 2002 - Mesolithic settlement at Maroulas, Kythnos. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, 2: 45-69. Rhodes.

Stefanova, T. 1996 - A Comparative Analysis of Pottery from the “Monochrome Early Neolithic Horizon” and “Karanovo I Horizon” and the Problems of the Neolithization of Bulgaria. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji, XXIII: 15-38. Ljubljana.

Thissen, L. 2005 - Coming to grips with Aegean Prehistory: an outline of the temporal framework, 10.000-5500 cal B.C. In Lichter, C. (ed.) How did farming reach Europe? Anatolian-European relations from the second half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th millennium cal BC. Proceedings of the international workshop, 20-22 May 2004, Istanbul, Turkey: Ege Yayınları. BYZAS, 2: 29-40. Berlin.

Todorova, H. 1989 - Das Frühneolithikum Nordostbulgariens im Konext des Ostbalkanischen Neolithikums. In Hiller, N. (ed.) Tell Karanovo und das Balkan-Neolithikum: 9-25. Salzburg.

Trantalidou, K. 2003 - Faunal remains from the earliest strata of the Cave of Cyclope, Youra. In Galanidou, N. and Perlès, C. (eds.) The Greek Mesolithic Problems and Perspectives. British School at Athens Studies, 10: 143-172. Athens.

Author’s Address:JANUSZ K. KOZŁOWSKI, Institute of Archaeology, Jagiellonian University, ul. Gołebia 11 – PL - 31007 KRAKÓWe-mail: [email protected]

– 53

CLIVE BONSALL*

WHEN WAS THE NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE IRON GATES?

SUMMARY - When was the Neolithic transition in the Iron Gates? This paper examines the evidence relating to the timing of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Iron Gates on the border between Romania and Serbia. The available data suggest that farming, pottery manufacturing and agriculture were introduced throughout the region within a narrow time window around 6000 cal BC, and there was no significant delay in the appearance of agriculture in the Iron Gates gorge relative to neighbouring areas of the Danube basin as some previous authors have supposed.

RIASSUNTO - Quando ha avuto luogo la transizione dal Mesolitico al Neolitico nella regione delle Porte di Ferro? Il presente lavoro riguarda il periodo di transizione dal Mesolitico al Neolitico alle Porte di Ferro, al confine fra Romania e Serbia. I dati disponibili pro-pendono a far ritenere che l’allevamento, la produzione ceramica e l’agricoltura furono introdotti nella regione in un periodo piuttosto breve, intorno a 6000 cal BC, e che non vi sia stato nessun ritardo significativo nella comparsa dell’economia agricola della regione rispetto a quelle circostanti il corso del Danubio, come altri autori avevano sostenuto in precedenza.

INTRODUCTION

Research in the Iron Gates since the 1960s has established a long sequence of Stone Age sites ranging in age between c. 13,000 and 5500 cal BC, making this a key area within southeast Europe for studying the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition.

Opinions on the timing of the transition have varied widely. At one extreme is the suggestion by Srejović (1972) that the Early Neolithic Starčevo Culture had its origins in the Iron Gates around 6400 cal BC; at the other is the belief that the Iron Gates remained a ‘refuge’ for Mesolithic hunter-gatherers for hundreds of years after the appearance of Neolithic communities in the surrounding areas of the central and northern Balkans (e.g. Radovanović and Voytek, 1997).

Disagreements over terminology have tended to complicate the debate. For many archaeologists the Iron Gates Neolithic is defined by the local presence of agriculture, and this is the definition adopted in this paper. Others define the term differently; Borić et al. (2004), for example, begin the Neolithic at the first appearance of pottery in the Iron Gates, which, they believe, predated the introduction of agriculture.

Equally, the term ‘Iron Gates’ has acquired several different meanings (Bonsall et al., 1997). In this pa-per, the term is used to refer to the 230 km-long section of the Danube Valley where the river forms the border between Romania and Serbia (fig. 1).

Thus it includes the Iron Gates gorge - really a system of gorges cut through the southern Carpathian Mountains1 - and the more open landscape downstream where the Danube is flanked by a broad alluvial plain consisting of several river terraces.

Over thirty cave and open-air sites with evidence of Mesolithic and/or Early Neolithic occupation are known along this stretch of the Danube. In spite of the differences in topography and river regime between the gorge and the downstream area, archaeologically they have many features in common.



——————————* School of History, Classics, and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, UK1 Some authors use the term ‘Danube gorges’. However, this invites confusion with the gorges on the Upper Danube between Regens-burg and Ingolstadt in Germany. The sharp turn of the Danube toward the south in northern Hungary is also referred to as the ‘Danube Bend gorge’.

54 –

Four fundamental questions will be considered in this paper:1) When did farming begin in the Iron Gates, and was this significantly later than in the neighbouring re-

gions?2) Did the Neolithic begin later in the gorge than in the area downstream? 3) How long were the Mesolithic inhabitants of the Iron Gates gorge in contact with farmers before turning

to farming themselves?4) As a result of contact, did the Mesolithic inhabitants of the Iron Gates adopt some elements of the ‘Neolithic

package’, such as pottery, before they made the economic transition to farming?

WHEN DID FARMING BEGIN IN THE IRON GATES?

Schela Cladovei

In the downstream area, the clearest indication so far of the timing of the transition to farming comes from the site of Schela Cladovei in Romania (Bonsall et al., 1996; 1997; 2000; 2002a; Boroneanţ et al., 1999; Bartosiewicz et al., 2001; Cook et al., 2001; 2002; Bonsall, 2003; in press). Judging from the radiocarbon evidence (fig. 2), this site was occupied in the Late Mesolithic between c. 7100 and 6300 cal BC, then abandoned for several centuries, and reoccupied c. 6000 cal BC.

It is clear that the reoccupation of Schela Cladovei was by people with a Neolithic culture and economy. Livestock keeping is indicated by abundant remains of domestic cattle, pigs and sheep/goats, although hunting and fishing still contributed to the economy. There were clear changes in material culture and technology, reflected in the appearance of pottery, ground stone artefacts, and new forms of bone tools. There are traces of buildings with a rectangular ground plan contrasting with the trapezoidal structures of the Late Mesolithic, as well as evidence for the acquisition through exchange of obsidian and high-quality ‘Balkan’ flint. So far, no burials dating to this period have been identified at Schela Cladovei, but the presence of crouched inhumations in Early Neolithic contexts at Velesnica (Vasić, in press) and Ušće Kameničkog potoka (Stanković, 1986) also in the downstream area, suggests the changes seen in material culture and economy at Schela Cladovei were accompanied by a change in mortuary practice.

Fig. 1 - Principal Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in the Iron Gates.

– 55

These new elements can all be paralleled in early farming settlements of the Starčevo-Körös-Criş complex, which by 6000 cal BC occupied a large area of south-east and central Europe surrounding the Iron Gates. On this evidence, therefore, the downstream area of the Iron Gates had been assimilated into the Starčevo-Körös-Criş complex and farming was underway there by 6000 cal BC.

Was agriculture present in the downstream area before 6000 cal BC?

The gap in the radiocarbon sequence at Schela Cladovei between the Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic occupations leaves open the possibility that the Neolithic began in the downstream area before 6000 cal BC. However, other evidence argues against this.

The origins and spread of agriculture in southeast Europe are not known in great detail and remain a source of much debate. Neolithic settlements were established in Thessaly and around the Marmara Sea by 6300 cal BC (Perlès, 2001; Özdoğan, 2005; Thissen, 2005; 2006; Gatsov, 2007) and most scholars accept that farming spread from this general region through the Balkan Peninsula taking advantage of alluvial soils in the major river valleys. Radiocarbon dates from Blagotin in Serbia (Whittle et al., 2002) indicate that by 6200 cal BC farming had reached at least as far north as the West Morava River catchment, within 125 km of the Danube. On this evidence farming advanced over a straight-line distance of 500 km in perhaps as little as a hundred years. At the same rate of spread, the agricultural frontier could be expected to have reached the Danube after just a few generations more.

Yet, agricultural settlements are not found in the valleys of the Danube and its northern tributaries for a further 150-200 years. The earliest 14C dates for Early Neolithic (Starčevo-Körös) settlements on the Pannonian Plain (Whittle et al., 2002) are no older than the date of the appearance of agriculture at Schela Cladovei. The same applies to the first Neolithic (‘Pre-Criş’ or ‘Criş I’) settlements in Romania north of the Danube, which lie along tributaries of the Danube or the Tisza (itself a major left bank tributary of the Danube). Calibrated 14C ages for these sites cluster around 6000 cal BC (Biagi et al., 2005) and are thus statistically indistinguishable from the earliest dates for Neolithic activity on the Pannonian Plain and at Schela Cladovei.

One interpretation of the radiocarbon evidence is that the spread of agriculture through the Balkan Peninsula came to a standstill c. 6200 cal BC to the south of the Danube, and a new phase of expansion began c. 6000 cal BC when agriculture spread rapidly along the Danube and its tributaries in northeast Serbia, southeast Hungary and Romania. Thus the earliest Neolithic occupation at Schela Cladovei may have occurred around the time of the first appearance of agriculture in the downstream area of the Iron Gates.

Why was there a ‘delay’ in the appearance of Neolithic settlements in the Danube Valley?

The gap in the radiocarbon sequence at Schela Cladovei between c. 6300-6000 cal BC has been linked to the major climatic cooling phase known as the ‘8.2 ka cold event’ (Bonsall et al., 2002a). This was the most extreme cold oscillation of the Holocene and is thought to have been triggered by a surge of fresh water into the North Atlantic from the melting Laurentide ice sheet (Barber et al., 1999). Land areas around the North Atlantic, including Europe, experienced significant climatic cooling over 3-400 years; mean annual tempera-tures during the 8.2 ka event were 2-3 °C cooler than before or after the event, and some regions experienced more pronounced cooling in winter. The 8.2 ka event appears to have been accompanied by an abrupt change

Fig. 2 - Radiocarbon mean ages for Schela Cladovei, Romania (after Bonsall et al., 2002).

56 –

in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns, which at the regional level was reflected in changes in precipi-tation patterns. Between 6300 and 6000 cal BC the middle latitudes of Europe between 43° and 50° N were characterized by a wetter climate, whereas the regions to the north and south experienced drier climatic condi-tions (fig. 3; Magny et al., 2003).

Fig. 3 - Hydrological conditions during the 8.2 ka cold event. Shaded area: mid-European zone with wetter conditions. Reference sites with positive (+) and negative (-) water budget during the 8.2 ka event (adapted from Magny et al., 2003).

During this period river systems across middle Europe experienced marked increases in the frequency and magnitude of floods. Bonsall et al. (2002a) have suggested that frequent, large-scale and unpredictable floods would have been a deterrent to farming of valley bottoms and may have excluded large areas from the possibil-ity of cultivation and stockraising - and this explains the apparent delay in the appearance of Early Neolithic settlements on the floodplains of the Danube and its northern tributaries.

Flooding did not just affect the agricultural potential of these areas. It would also have influenced the use of riverine environments by Mesolithic foragers, not least decisions about where to locate their settlements. Many of the Iron Gates sites are just a few metres above the pre-dam level of the Danube and so would have been vulnerable to big floods, just as they were to the man-made ‘floods’ that resulted from construction of the Iron Gates I and II dams - many sites were only discovered because these low-lying areas along the river were specifically targeted in archaeological surveys undertaken ahead of dam construction.

There is evidence to suggest that many riverbank sites ceased to be occupied on a regular basis between 6300 and 6000 cal BC. The ‘radiocarbon gap’ at Schela Cladovei is more or less repeated at Vlasac in the Iron Gates gorge - in fact very few sites in the Iron Gates region have 14C mean ages in this 300-year period (fig. 4a). This does not mean that the Iron Gates was abandoned as a resource area. The most parsimonious explanation of the radiocarbon evidence is that, faced with an increased threat from flooding, people chose to relocate their settlements onto higher ground above the river - and, critically, outside the zone that was surveyed archaeologi-cally in the 1960s and 1980s.

– 57

DID THE NEOLITHIC BEGIN LATER IN THE GORGE?

Because of the generally mountainous terrain it tends to be assumed that the gorge had little to offer early farmers, and this has helped to promote the idea that the Mesolithic hunting and gathering lifestyle persisted in this part of the Iron Gates for centuries after agriculture became established in the lowland plains on either side of the southern Carpathian Mountains. However, as R. Dennell (1983: 117) observed, between the individual canyon-like sections of the gorge there are enclosed basins that today afford good grazing and arable land, and tributary valleys that provide both easy access to the hinterland and contain fertile alluvial soils.

Lepenski Vir

Central to the debate over the timing of the Neolithic transition in the Iron Gates gorge is Lepenski Vir.

Srejović’s elaborate stratigraphic sequence - Proto-Lepenski Vir, Lepenski Vir Ia-e, Lepenski Vir II, and Lepenski Vir IIIa-b - is gradually being replaced by a 14C-based chronology (Bonsall et al., 1997; 2004; in preparation). The radiocarbon evidence shows sporadic activity at Lepenski Vir more or less throughout the Holocene, but the period of most intensive use was between 6300 and 5700 cal BC (fig. 4b). To this period belong the famous stone sculptures and plaster-floored trapezoidal buildings, and (probably) the majority of the 130+ burials from the site. This was also the period

when farming became established in all the regions surrounding the Iron Gates gorge. Moreover, Lepenski Vir is the only site in the entire Iron Gates region, which can be shown to have been in regular use during the critical phase between 6300-6000 cal BC when the agricultural frontier moved from the central Balkans into the Danube Basin.

Why Lepenski Vir remained in use during this 300-year period (corresponding to the ‘8.2 ka cold event’) when other sites along the Danube appear to have been largely abandoned is a matter for conjecture, although its unique features - plaster floors, figural sculptures and sub-floor burials - suggest it was more sacred site than settlement (for a discussion, see Bonsall et al., 2002a).

When did pottery appear at Lepenski Vir?

During the excavation of Lepenski Vir fragments of Starčevo pottery, and occasionally whole pots, were found on the floors of some of the trapezoidal buildings.2 Srejović (1969; 1972) assigned the trapezoidal buildings to his LV I and II phases (‘Late Mesolithic’) and dismissed the pottery as derived from a later LV III (‘Early Neolithic’) occupa-tion. This view was contested by Jovanović (1969) on the basis of his excavation at Padina where trapezoidal build-ings and Starčevo pottery were, apparently, unambiguously associated. Subsequently, Garašanin and Radovanović (2001) and Borić (2002) have shown that at least some of the pottery was in situ on the floors of the buildings at Lepenski Vir, thereby effectively demolishing Srejović’s LV I-III sequence. Thus, many authors (e.g. Jovanović, 1969; Tringham, 2000; Borić et al., 2004) now believe that the Starčevo pottery and trapezoidal buildings at Lepenski Vir are contemporaneous and, therefore, pottery came into use there around 6300 cal BC.

Fig. 4 - The ‘radiocarbon gap’ in the Iron Gates: a. Calibrated (median probability) ages per 100-year period between 5500 and 7700 cal BC from Hajdučka Vodenica, Icoana, Ostrovu Banului, Ostrovu Corbului, Padina, Răzvrata, Schela Cladovei, and Vla-sac; b. Calibrated (median probability) ages per 100-year period between 5500 and 7700 cal BC from Lepenski Vir (adapted from Bonsall, in press).

——————————2 According to Srejović (1969: 153) pottery was found in 15 of the trapezoidal buildings of Lepenski Vir: ‘houses’ 1, 4, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 26, 28, 32, 35, 37, 46, 47 and 54.

58 –

However, analysis of the radiocarbon and stratigraphic evidence from Lepenski Vir suggests a more com-plex situation. Approximate absolute ages can be assigned to some of the buildings at Lepenski Vir based on the 14C ages of associated charcoal samples or the stratigraphic relationship of a building to another radiocarbon dated building or burial. In Table 1 the dated buildings are arranged in their approximate order of age (a strict seriation is not possible) and the presence of pottery, stone sculptures, and ‘A-features’ is indicated. The pattern is quite striking - the buildings containing Starčevo pottery fall late in the sequence, the earliest securely dated occurrence having a 14C age of 7083±73 uncal BP (c. 5950 cal BC).

On this evidence, it is reasonable to divide the period from 6300 to 5500 cal BC at Lepenski Vir into an ‘aceramic’ phase characterized by plaster-floored buildings and stone sculptures, and a ‘ceramic’ phase begin-ning c. 6000 cal BC when Starčevo pottery became an important component of the cultural inventory.3 Interest-ingly, the appearance of A-features beside hearths, which I. Radovanović (1996) regarded as a relatively late architectural development at Lepenski Vir, also coincides with the ceramic phase.

Conversely, Borić and Miracle (2004) have attempted to show that trapezoidal buildings with pottery and A-features beside hearths began to be constructed at Padina before 6000 cal BC. However, their argument effectively rests on AMS 14C dating of bone samples that were not demonstrably in a primary context.

New burial practices

At about the same time that pottery first appeared at Lepenski Vir, a change in burial practice is also evi-dent. The traditional Mesolithic burial rite of extended supine inhumation was replaced by crouched inhuma-tion characteristic of the Early Neolithic Starčevo Culture. The latest (reservoir corrected) 14C date for a burial in the Mesolithic tradition is 7133±75 uncal BP (c. 6010 cal BC), while the earliest date for a Neolithic-type burial is 7036±95 uncal BP (c. 5950 cal BC) (Bonsall et al., in preparation). Thus, the radiocarbon evidence suggests that two key Neolithic traits - pottery and crouched inhumation - appeared in the Iron Gates gorge at approximately the same time (c. 6000 cal BC) as they did at sites in the downstream area and other parts of the Danube Basin in Hungary and Romania.

Of course, this still leaves open the possibility that the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of the Iron Gates gorge adopted only these elements of the ‘Neolithic package’, whilst continuing to rely on wild animal and plant resources for their food supply, just as they continued to construct trapezoidal buildings at Lepenski Vir and Padina and place carved boulders inside the buildings of Lepenski Vir.

When did farming begin in the Iron Gates gorge?

Bones of domestic livestock (cattle, pig and sheep/goat) were found at Lepenski Vir and other sites in the gorge in contexts which also produced Starčevo ceramics (‘Lepenski Vir III’, ‘Padina B’, ‘Hajdučka Vodenica II’) which suggests the livestock remains and the pottery are contemporaneous. In all cases, however, it seems the bones of livestock are far outnumbered by the remains of wild animals and fish (e.g. Bökönyi, 1972; Clason, 1980; Greenfield, forthcoming).4

The dating of the livestock remains at Lepenski Vir is especially problematic. Neither Bökönyi (1972) nor Dimitrijević (2000; in press) have reported bones of domestic animals other than dogs from the trapezoidal buildings, and since Garašanin and Radovanović (2001) and Borić (2002) have effectively reassigned the features originally attributed to ‘Lepenski Vir III’ to the same period as the trapezoidal buildings (‘LV I-II’), it is now not clear how the livestock remains relate to the architectural features on the site.

Several possibilities exist. One is that the remains of domestic livestock were contemporaneous with the later (ceramic) buildings at Lepenski Vir but, since they form only a small proportion of the overall faunal assemblage, were absent by chance. Statistically, this seems unlikely.5 Another possibility is that they were ——————————3 This is similar to the position taken up by Radovanović (1996), although she placed the beginning of the ceramic phase between 6500 and 6000 cal BC.4 Comparison of the bone counts from fish and large mammals is possibly misleading, owing to the differing numbers of skeletal ele-ments per individual and differing degrees of preservation, recovery and identification.5 Of the 3001 animal bone finds from Lepenski Vir analysed by Bökönyi (1972), 464 (15.5%) were from domestic livestock (cattle, pig, and sheep/goat), 184 (6.1%) from dog, and 1638 (54.6%) from terrestrial wild animals. The rest were mostly from fish and some from birds.

– 59

deliberately excluded from the buildings. Bökönyi (1972) and Dimitrijević (2000; in press) have argued convinc-ingly that parts of animal carcasses were intentionally deposited inside certain buildings as symbolic, or even sacrificial, acts. It is conceivable that this activity only involved wild animals and dogs, and never domestic livestock which were always deposited outside the buildings. A third possibility is that the domestic livestock remains at Lepenski Vir postdate the introduction of Starčevo ceramics - that is, the contexts containing both pottery and domestic animal remains belong to a later phase than the trapezoidal buildings with pottery.

Realistically, however, the only way of determining the chronological relationship between the domestic animal remains from Lepenski Vir and the Starčevo pottery and crouched burials from the site would be through direct AMS 14C dating of the animal bones and, ideally, the pottery (cf. Bonsall et al., 2002b).

The persistence of Mesolithic traditions represented by stone sculptures and trapezoidal buildings into the period after 6000 cal BC, and the preponderance of wild over domestic animal remains in contexts that contain Starčevo ceramics have led some authors to conclude that the presence of pottery and bones of livestock was the result of trade or exchange with neighbouring farmers, consistent with their view that the inhabitants of the Iron Gates gorge remained hunter-gatherers for a considerable time after a Neolithic economy based on cereal cultivation and stockraising had been established in the surrounding areas (e.g. Clason, 1980; Voytek and Tringham, 1989; Radovanović, 1996; Radovanović and Voytek, 1997; Zvelebil and Lillie, 2000).

However, evidence from bone chemistry studies contradicts this hypothesis. Carbon and nitrogen isotope ratios in human bone collagen can be used to make inferences about the diet, and hence the economy, of a com-munity. Two distinct types of diet are represented among the people who were buried at Lepenski Vir between 6300 and 5500 cal BC. Burials dated between 6300 and 6000 cal BC typically show very high levels of 15N and 13C (fig. 5) suggesting diets that were heavily dependent on riverine food sources, especially fish (Bonsall et al., 2004). A similar dietary pattern is found throughout the Mesolithic in the Iron Gates although, interestingly, the median δ15N value for the 6300-6000 cal BC time-range is higher than at any time previously, which may indicate an even greater reliance on the aquatic food web during this phase (Bonsall, in press). After 6000 cal BC the situation changed dramatically. All the burials from Lepenski Vir dated between 6000-5500 cal BC exhibit significantly lower collagen δ15N values. Median δ15N for this period is only 10.8‰, with a range from 9.8 to 12.6‰. Such values suggest that people still regularly consumed fish, but the intake of protein from ter-restrial sources had increased substantially.

The stable isotope data do not indicate whether the terrestrial protein sources were ‘wild’ or ‘domesticated’. However, it is difficult to imagine the Mesolithic foragers in Iron Gates gorge suddenly changing the focus of their economy from fishing to hunting and gathering of wild land mammals and plants. It is much more likely that the dietary shift reflected in the stable isotope data signals the adoption of farming and/or animal herding. This view is strengthened by the fact that the change in diet broadly coincides with the change in mortuary practice and the appearance of ceramic technology discussed above.

Why are the bones of domestic livestock so scarce?

If the dietary shift c. 6000 cal BC reflected in the human remains from Lepenski Vir does represent the transition to farming in the Iron Gates gorge, why then are the bones of domestic livestock so scarce in early ceramic contexts at the riverbank sites along the gorge?

Many of these sites are located on narrow alluvial benches below steep valley side slopes, with ac-cess to good fishing but not it would seem ideally situated for an economy based on cultivation and/or animal keeping. It may be that once agriculture was established in the gorge area, sites such as Hajdučka Vodenica, Padina and Vlasac ceased to be used as primary residential sites, and became seasonal fishing camps maintained perhaps to take advantage of the sturgeon migrations in late spring/early summer and autumn (Bonsall, in press). This would explain not only the relatively low frequencies of bones from domestic animals, but also the much smaller numbers of burials from the period after 6000 cal BC, com-pared to earlier occupation phases.

CONTACTS WITH FARMERS?

It was suggested above that the agricultural frontier had reached to within 125 km of the Iron Gates by c. 6200 cal BC, and it may have been closer (Bonsall, in press). This raises the possibility of contacts between the

60 –

hunter-gatherers of the Iron Gates and farmers to the south for a significant amount of time before agriculture was eventually established in the Danube Basin c. 6000 cal BC.

For how long before farming became established in the Iron Gates c. 6000 cal BC were the Mesolithic inhabitants of the region in contact with farmers? Several lines of evidence, potentially, have a bearing on this question.

Lime plaster pyrotechnology

The appearance of lime plaster floors at Lepenski Vir c. 6300 cal BC might be construed as evidence of contact with farmers, since there is no earlier evidence for the use of lime plaster in the Iron Gates, and lime plaster has not been recorded from Mesolithic contexts elsewhere in Europe.

The earliest known instance of lime plaster pyrotechnology is dated to c. 12,000 cal BC at Hayonim Cave in Israel, although floors made of lime plaster are not recorded in the Middle East until the PPNB phase, c. 8800-6900 cal BC (Gourdin and Kingery, 1975; Kingery et al., 1988; Thomas, 2005).

John Nandris referred to the use of lime plaster as “a Neolithic mode of behaviour” (Nandris, 1988), and it is tempting to assume that the technology spread from the Near East into Europe along with agriculture. The difficulty with this hypothesis is that, although ‘plastered floors’ have been reported from Early Neolithic con-texts in Greece, the earliest known examples (from Achilleion Ib: Winn and Shimabuku, 1989; Perlès, 2001)6

are not demonstrably older than those at Lepenski Vir and, as far as the present author is aware, there are no Early Neolithic buildings with lime plaster floors between Greece and the Danube that would indicate a spread through the Balkans with agriculture.

Therefore, it is far from being certain that the appearance of lime plaster pyrotechnology at Lepenski Vir c. 6300 cal BC was inspired by contact with farmers. On present evidence an independent invention in the Iron Gates, or a transfer of the technology from the Near East to Europe before the Neolithic, are equally plausible hypotheses.

Burials of newborn children within ‘houses’

An unusual feature of Lepenski Vir highlighted by Borić and Stefanović (2004) is the occurrence of burials of neonates beneath the floors of some of the trapezoidal buildings. Since this practice is not clearly represented in earlier Mesolithic contexts at neighbouring Vlasac, but is known from Epipalaeolithic and Neolithic sites in the East Mediterranean, Borić and Stefanović have implied that it spread with farming from the Near East to southeast Europe, and thus reflects contact between the Lepenski Vir community and nearby farmers in the period between c. 6300 and 6000 cal BC.

However, none of the infant burials from Lepenski Vir has been 14C dated and so it is not certain that they all belong to the time-range from 6300 to 6000 cal BC. Moreover the lack of Mesolithic house remains in southeast Europe outside the Iron Gates means we cannot be sure that the practice of burying infants under house floors was not practised by indigenous hunter-gatherers before the arrival of farming (negative evidence of taphonomically vulnerable remains of infants should, in general, be treated cautiously). As with the lime plaster floors, it may be that the presence of sub-floor burials at Lepenski Vir and their (apparent) absence from Late Mesolithic Vlasac and Early Neolithic Padina is simply a reflection of the special significance of Lepenski Vir for the Final Mesolithic inhabitants of the region, and not a marker of culture change (table 1).

Stable isotopes

Arguably, the strongest evidence for the presence of farmers close to the Iron Gates in the centuries before 6000 cal BC is provided by bone chemistry analyses. As previously discussed, stable isotope data suggest that the people buried at Lepenski Vir between 6300-6000 cal BC generally had diets that were very high in aquatic protein. However, three adults from this period show diets that were unusually high in terrestrial protein, simi-——————————6 The plastered floors at Achilleion were not described in detail, and so it is not clear how the technique compares with that used at Lepenski Vir.

– 61

Table 1 - ‘Seriation’ of plaster-floored buildings at Lepenski Vir and occurrence of pottery, A-features and stone sculptures. The dates assigned to individual buildings are either the 14C ages of associated charcoal samples, or based on the stratigraphic relationship of a building to another radiocarbon-dated building or burial. 14C ages with one-sigma errors of greater than ±100 yr have been excluded from the analysis. * – mean of two or more 14C ages. Data from Quitta (1975) and Bonsall et al. (in press).

62 –

lar to those, characteristic of the period after 6000 cal BC (fig. 5). All three had been accorded the traditional Mesolithic burial rite of extended supine inhumation.

One explanation is that these three individuals had spent a significant portion of their lives among a farm-ing population; they may have originated from that population and moved into the Lepenski Vir community. The ages of the three skeletons cannot be determined precisely, because of the 14C date uncertainties and the existence of an ‘age plateau’ on the calibration curve around that time. Calibrations of the reservoir-corrected 14C ages yield calibrated 2σ age ranges of 350-370 years (fig. 6). Thus, although these burials are very prob-ably older than 6000 cal BC, by how much is uncertain. Other interpretations of the stable isotope data may be suggested, based on either the imprecision of radiocarbon dating or the possibility of earlier ‘false starts’ to agriculture in the Iron Gates region (for discussion, see Bonsall et al., 2004). Whichever of the hypotheses discussed by Bonsall et al. (2004) is preferred, they all suggest that the Lepenski Vir population had at least knowledge of agriculture and, by implication, contacts with farmers for a time prior to 6000 cal BC. If so, it is possible that some Neolithic elements such as pottery, ground stone tools and Balkan flint began to infiltrate the Iron Gates gorge, perhaps initially through exchange, prior to 6000 cal BC and before the adoption of new burial practices.

Fig. 6 - Probability distributions of calibrated age ranges of three ‘Final Mesolithic’ skeletons from Lepenski Vir with stable isotope signatures that are atypical for the 6300-6000 cal BC time-range. 14C data from Bonsall et al. (in press). Dates have been calibrated using the INTCAL04 data set (Reimer et al., 2004) and OxCal v. 3.10 (Bronk Ramsey, 2005).

Fig. 5 - Stable carbon and nitrogen isotope values for Final Mesolithic (6300-6000 cal BC) skeletons from Lepenski Vir plotted against the Iron Gates Late Mesolithic (7200-6300 cal BC) and Early Neolithic (6000-5500 cal BC) ranges (adapted from Bonsall, in press).

– 63

CONCLUSIONS

The foregoing discussion of the timing of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Iron Gates has reached four principal conclusions:1) Farming began in the Iron Gates at approximately the same time, c. 6000 cal BC, as in other parts of the

Danube Basin.2) There is no evidence that the Neolithic began significantly later within the Iron Gates gorge than in the area

downstream between the Iron Gates I and II dams.3) It is likely that the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers of the Iron Gates gorge were in contact with farmers (to the

south of the Danube) before 6000 cal BC, but whether years, decades or centuries earlier is not clear on present evidence.

4) Although it may be premature to suggest that the Neolithic arrived in the Iron Gates as a ‘package’, the available evidence suggests that farming, pottery manufacturing and new burial practices appeared dur-ing a narrow time window and there is no evidence that the introduction of agriculture was significantly delayed relative to other Neolithic traits. This does not mean that the Iron Gates Neolithic was the result of colonization. The continuation of Mesolithic traditions after 6000 cal BC, reflected in the stone sculptures and trapezoidal buildings of Lepenski Vir, strongly suggests that the transition in the gorge at least was achieved largely through the adoption of new practices by the indigenous hunter-gatherer population.

AcknowledgementsThe author would like to thank Krum Băčvarov, László Bartosiewicz, Paolo Biagi, Dan Ciobotaru, Ivan Gatsov, Sabin Luca, Mehmet Özdoğan, Catriona Pickard, Ivana Radovanović, Michela Spataro, and Georgia Stratouli for their help in the preparation of this paper.

64 –

R E F E R E N C E S

Barber, D.C., Dyke, A., Hillaire-Marcel, C., Jennings, A.E., Andrews, J.T., Kerwin, M.W., Bilodeau, G., McNeely, R., Southon, J., Morehead, M.D. and Gagnon, J.-M. 1999 - Forcing of the cold event of 8,200 years ago by catastrophic drainage of Lau-rentide lakes. Nature, 400: 344-348.

Bartosiewicz, L., Boroneanţ, V., Bonsall, C. and Stallibrass, S. 2001 - New data on the prehistoric fauna of the Iron Gates: a case study from Schela Cladovei, Romania. In Kertész, R. and Makkay, J. (eds) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Ar-chaeolingua, 11: 15-22. Budapest.

Biagi, P., Shennan, S. and Spataro, M. 2005 - Rapid rivers and slow seas? New data for the radiocarbon chronology of the Balkan Peninsula. In Nikolova, L., Fritz, J. and Higgins, J. (eds.) Prehistoric Archaeology and Anthropological Theory and Education. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects, 6-7: 41-50. International Institute of Anthropology, Salt Lake City - Karlovo.

Bökönyi, S. 1972 - The vertebrate fauna. In Srejović, D. (ed.) Europe’s First Monumental Sculpture. New Discoveries at Lepenski Vir: 86-89. Thames and Hudson, London.

Bonsall, C. 2003 - The Iron Gates Mesolithic. In Bogucki, P. and Crabtree, P. (eds.) Ancient Europe 8000 B.C. to A.D. 1000: Encyclopedia of the Barbarian World: 175-178. Scribner, New York.

Bonsall, C. in press - The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates. In Bailey, G. and Spikins, P. (eds.) The European Mesolithic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bonsall, C., Boroneanţ, V. and Srejović, D. 1996 - AMS radiocarbon determinations on human bone from Lepenski Vir, Vlasac and Schela Cladovei. Mesolithic Miscellany, 17 (2): 6-10.

Bonsall, C., Cook, G.T., Hedges, R.E.M., Higham, T.F.G., Pickard, C. and Radovanović, I. 2004 - Radiocarbon and stable iso-tope evidence of dietary change from the Mesolithic to the Middle Ages in the Iron Gates: new results from Lepenski Vir. In Sparks, R.J. and Beavan-Athfield, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th International Radiocarbon Conference. Radiocarbon, 46 (1): 293-300.

Bonsall, C., Cook, G., Lennon, R., Harkness, D., Scott, M., Bartosiewicz, L. and McSweeney, K. 2000 - Stable Isotopes, radio-carbon and the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Iron Gates. Documenta Praehistorica, 27: 119-132. Ljubljana.

Bonsall, C., Cook, G., Manson, J. and Sanderson, D. 2002b - Direct dating of Neolithic pottery: progress and prospects. Documenta Praehistorica, 29: 47-59. Ljubljana.

Bonsall, C., Lennon, R., McSweeney, K., Stewart, C., Harkness, D., Boroneanţ, V., Payton, R., Bartosiewicz, L. and Chapman J.C. 1997 - Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in the Iron Gates: a palaeodietary perspective. Journal of European Archaeology, 5 (1): 50-92.

Bonsall, C., Macklin, M.G., Payton, R.W. and Boroneanţ, A. 2002a - Climate, floods and river gods: environmental change and the Meso-Neolithic transition in south-east Europe. Before Farming: the archaeology of Old World hunter-gatherers, 3-4 (2): 1-15.

Bonsall, C., Radovanović, I., Roksandić, M., Cook, G.T., Higham, T.F.G. and Pickard, C. in preparation - Dating burials and architecture at Lepenski Vir. In Bonsall, C., Boroneanţ, V. and Radovanović, I. (eds.) The Iron Gates in Prehistory: New Perspectives. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Borić, D. 2002 - The Lepenski Vir conundrum: reinterpretation of the Mesolithic and Neolithic sequences in the Danube Gorges. Antiquity, 76: 1026-1039.

Borić, D., Grupe, G., Peters, J. and Mikić, Ž. 2004 - Is the Mesolithic-Neolithic subsistence dichotomy real? New stable isotope evidence from the Danube Gorges. European Journal of Archaeology, 7(3): 221-248.

Borić, D. and Miracle, P. 2004 - Mesolithic and Neolithic (dis)continuities in the Danube gorges: new AMS dates from Padina and Hajdučka Vodenica (Serbia). Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 23(4): 341-371.

Borić, D. and Stefanović, S. 2004 - Birth and death: infant burials from Vlasac and Lepenski Vir. Antiquity, 78: 526-546.

Boroneanţ, V., Bonsall, C., McSweeney, K., Payton, R. and Macklin, M. 1999 - A Mesolithic burial area at Schela Cladovei, Romania. In Thévenin, A. (ed.) L’Europe des Derniers Chasseurs: Épipaléolithique et Mésolithique. Actes du 5e colloque in-ternational UISPP, commission XII, Grenoble, 18-23 septembre 1995: 385-390. Éditions du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques, Paris.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2005 - OxCal Program v3.10. Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, University of Oxford.

Clason, A.T. 1980 - Padina and Starčevo: game, fish and cattle. Palaeohistoria, 22: 142-173.

Cook, G.T., Bonsall C., Hedges R.E.M., McSweeney K., Boroneanţ V., Bartosiewicz L. and Pettitt P.B. 2002 - Problems of dating human bones from the Iron Gates. Antiquity, 76: 77-85.

Cook, G.T., Bonsall, C., Hedges, R.E.M., McSweeney, K., Boroneanţ, V. and Pettitt, P.B. 2001 - A freshwater diet-derived 14C reservoir effect at the Stone Age sites in the Iron Gates gorge. In Carmi, I. and Boaretto, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th International Radiocarbon Conference, Judean Hills, Israel, June 18-23, 2000. Radiocarbon, 43 (2A): 453-460.

– 65

Dennell, R. 1983 - European Economic Prehistory. A New Approach. Academic Press, London.

Dimitrijević, V. 2000 - The Lepenski Vir fauna: bones in houses and between houses. Documenta Praehistorica, 27: 101-117. Ljubljana.

Dimitrijević, V. in press - Lepenski Vir animal bones: what was left in the houses? In Bonsall, C., Boroneanţ, V. and Radovanović, I. (eds.) The Iron Gates in Prehistory: New Perspectives. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Garašanin, M. and Radovanović, I. 2001 - A pot in house 54 at Lepenski Vir I. Antiquity, 75: 118-125.

Gourdin, W.H. and Kingery, W.D. 1975 - The beginnings of pyrotechnology: Neolithic and Egyptian lime plaster. Journal of Field Archaeology, 2: 133-150.

Greenfield, H. in press - Reanalysis of the vertebrate fauna from Hajdučka Vodenica in the Danubian Iron Gates of Yugoslavia: subsistence and taphonomy from the Early Neolithic and Mesolithic. In Bonsall, C., Boroneanţ, V. and Radovanović, I. (eds.) The Iron Gates in Prehistory: New Perspectives. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Jovanović, B. 1969 - Chronological frames of the Iron Gate group of the Early Neolithic period. Archaeologica Iugoslavica, 10: 23-38. Belgrade.

Kingery, W.D., Vandiver, P.B. and Prickett, M. 1988 - The beginnings of pyrotechnology, Part II: production and use of lime and gypsum plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near East. Journal of Field Archaeology, 15: 219-240.

Magny, M., Bégeota, C., Guiot, J. and Peyrona, O. 2003 - Contrasting patterns of hydrological changes in Europe in response to Holocene climate cooling phases. Quaternary Science Reviews, 22: 1589-1596.

Nandriş, J.G. 1988 - The earliest European plaster pyrotechnology. The red floors of Lepenski Vir. Rivista di Archeologia, 12: 14-15. Venice.

Özdoğan, M. 2005 - Westward expansion of the Neolithic way of life: what we know and what we do not know. In Lichter, C. (ed.) How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European relations from the second half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th millennium cal BC. BYZAS, 2: 13-27. Berlin.

Perlès, C. 2001 - The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Quitta, H. 1975 - Die Radiocarbondaten und ihre historische Interpretation. In Srejović, D. (ed.) Lepenski Vir. Eine vorgeschichtliche Geburtsstätte europäischer Kultur: 272-285. Bergisch Gladbach, Lübbe.

Radovanović, I. 1996 - The Iron Gates Mesolithic. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series, 11. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Radovanović, I. and Voytek, B.A. 1997 - Hunters, fishers or farmers: sedentism, subsistence and social complexity in the Djerdap Mesolithic. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 29: 19-31.

Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Bertrand, C.J.H., Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Burr, G., Cutler, K.B., Damon, P.E., Edwards, R.L., Fairbanks, R.G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., van der Plicht, J. and Weyhenmeyer, C.E. 2004 - INTCAL04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0-26 kyr BP. Radiocarbon, 46 (3): 1029-1058.

Srejović, D. 1969 - Naslednici. Lepenski Vir, nova praistorijska kultura u Podunavlju. Srpska književna zadruga, Beograd.

Srejović, D. 1972 - Europe’s First Monumental Sculpture. New Discoveries at Lepenski Vir. Thames and Hudson, London.

Stanković, S. 1986 - Embouchure du ruisseau Kemenički potok - site du Groupe de Starčevo: compte-rendu des fouilles de 1981. Cahiers des Portes de Fer, 3: 467-471.

Thissen, L. 2005 - Coming to grips with the Aegean in Prehistory: an outline of the temporal framework, 10.000-5500 cal BC. In Lichter, C. (ed.) How did farming reach Europe? Anatolian-European relations from the second half of the 7th through the first half of the 6th millennium cal BC. Proceedings of the international workshop, Istanbul, 20-22 May 2004, Istanbul, Turkey: Ege Yayınları. BYZAS, 2: 29-40. Berlin.

Thissen, L. 2006 - CANeW 14C databases and 14C charts: southwest and northwest Anatolia, 10,000-5000 cal BC. Online: http://www.canew.org/news.html

Thomas, G.D. 2005 - Early lime plaster technology in the Near East: experimental work at the Lemba Experimental Village, Cyprus. In Experimentelle Archäologie in Europa, Bilanz 2004: 91-100. European Association for the Advancement of Archaeology by Experiment, Vienna.

Tringham, R. 2000 - Southeastern Europe in the transition to agriculture in Europe: bridge, buffer, or mosaic. In Price, T.D. (ed.) Europe’s First Farmers: 19-56. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Vasić, R. in press - Velesnica and the Lepenski Vir culture. In Bonsall, C., Boroneanţ, V. and Radovanović, I. (eds.) The Iron Gates in Prehistory: New Perspectives. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Voytek, B. and Tringham, R. 1989 - Rethinking the Mesolithic: the case of south-east Europe. In Bonsall, C. (ed.) The Mesolithic in Europe: 492-499. John Donald, Edinburgh.

66 –

Whittle, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Borić, D., Pettitt, P. and Richards, M. 2002 - In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus, 25: 63-117. Budapest.

Winn, S. and Shimabuku, D. 1989 - Architecture and the sequence of building remains. In Gimbutas, M., Winn, S. and Shimabuku, D. (eds.) Achilleion, a Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400-5600 BC: 32-68. University of California Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Zvelebil, M. and Lillie, M. 2000 - Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe. In Price, T.D. (ed.) Europe’s First Farmers: 57-92. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Author’s Address:CLIVE BONSALL, Department of Archaeology, School of History, Classics, and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Old High School, Infirmary Street – UK - Edinburgh EH1 1LT e-mail: [email protected]

– 67

FLORIN DRAŞOVEAN*

REGIONAL ASPECTS IN THE PROCESS OF NEOLITHISATION OF THE BANAT (SOUTH-WESTERN ROMANIA):

THE SETTLEMENT OF FOENI-SĂLAŞ

SUMMARY- Regional aspects in the process of Neolithisation of the Banat (south-western Romania): the settlement of Foeni-Sălaş. This paper considers the Neolithisation of the Banat, an environmentally and morphologically variegated region, which can be subdivided into three main different territories, on the basis of the results obtained from the excavations carried out at the plain site of Foeni-Sălaş. The settlement belongs to the first phase of diffusion of the Early Neolithic Criş Culture, which both the radiocarbon dates and the material culture remains attribute to the last two centuries of the 8th millennium uncal BP.

RIASSUNTO - Aspetti regionali del processo di neolitizzazione del Banat (Romania sudoccidentale): l’insediamento di Foeni-Sălaş. Il presente lavoro riguarda la neolitizzazione del Banat, una regione complessa da un punto di vista della sua geomorfologia molto ar-ticolata che può essere suddivisa in tre differenti regioni, vista in base ai risultati degli scavi condotti nel sito di pianura Foeni-Sălaş. Il sito, che in base ai reperti della cultura materiale e le datazioni radiocarboniche ottenute, è uno dei più antichi della regione, appartiene alla prima fase di espansione della Cultura di Criş, avvenuta negli ultimi due secoli dell’ottavo millennio uncal BP in questa regione della Penisola Balcanica

INTRODUCTION

The neolithisation of the southeast European area was a historical process of outstanding complexity that unfolded gradually and discontinuously over time and space. This triggered or brought about radical changes of man’s subsistence strategies through the taming of animals and cultivation of plants, the change of the habitation type through the gradual adjustment to the sedentary life style, and the change of magical-religious beliefs through the adoption of a new philosophical system and system of values.

GEOGRAPHIC POSITION AND ETHNOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE BANAT

Within this geographic frame of southeast Europe, over its entire history, due to its geographic position between the east and the centre of the continent, the Banat has played a distinctive and particular role, and namely that of passing down and synthesising the influences from different parts of the continent. Bounded to the east by the western range of the Carpathian Mountains, to the south by the Danube, to the west by the River Tisza and to the north by the river Mureş (fig. 1), the Banat has played the role of a meeting point between the south-east of the continent and the centre of it, by carrying influences coming along the Danube Valley and the valleys of its tributaries.

The Banat geographic frame may be divided into three distinct areas, which, after many thousands of years, still make up clearly cut ethnological entities. First of all, in the south-eastern and eastern part of the region lies the mountain area that is characterised from the ethnological point of view by a relatively homogenous pastoral population that, despite the frequent movement of flocks which would enable the population to set up connections to other areas, rarely undergoes influences from other communities and that has retained its cultural and ethnic identity over the entire modern age (Gaga, 2004: 9-35). This remark holds good also for prehistory



——————————* Muzeul Banatului, Timişoara, Romania

68 –

in which it that all human communities that settled down there evolved independently of other contemporary civilisations that lived in or advanced into the area along the rivers valleys (Kalmar et al., 1987).

The second area is made up by the Danube gorge, an ethnographically conservative and autarchic area, although it is dissected by one of the most important waterways of Europe, the Danube. Along the gorge at present there are relatively compact communities of Romanians, Serbians and Czechs who maintain their ethnic identities, despite having undergone mutual influences.

The third area, the largest, is represented by the western part of the Banat spreading over a low plain crossed by the main rivers Timiş and Bega, an area with fertile land and a temperate continental climate with Mediter-ranean, which have made for optimal living conditions since time immemorial (Zăvoianu and Ardelean, 1979). Unlike the other two areas, from an ethnological point of view the area has a multicultural aspect typified by constant interactions, but also by phenomena of acculturation and even of loss of cultural identity.

I have intended to specify these things in the introduction in order to underline the relative consistency over time of the development of historical phenomena in the Banat within the frame of geographic determinism which plays a special role in the evolution of human communities here and to underline the differences which may be spotted among these three areas since the dawn of civilisation.

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEOLITHISATION PROCESS OF THE THREE BANAT AREAS

The three areas contributed differently to the process of Neolithisation of the Banat. If the mountain area from the eastern Banat was not involved in this cultural phenomenon, a geographically and culturally distinct

Fig. 1 - Distribution map of the Earliest Neolithic sites in the Banat: 1) Foeni-Sălaş, 2) Foeni-Gaz, 3) Timişoara-Fratelia, 4) Dumbrăviţa, 5) Biled, 6) Unip, 7) Röszke-Ludvar, 8) Dubova-Cuina Turcului, 9) Gornea-Locurile Lungi.

– 69

entity was made up by the Danube’s gorges or Iron Gates. Research carried out over the last four decades has led to the uncovering of numerous Mesolithic/Epipalaeolithic and Early Neolithic sites. Of these undoubtedly the best-known and discussed site is Lepenski Vir (Srejović, 1969; 1979; Radovanović, 1996a; 1996b; 2006; Borić, 1999). On this site research carried out in the 1960s led to the discovery of trapezoidal huts, which the discoverer classified into three phases of site evolution, the first two falling in the Mesolithic (I and II) and the third in the Early Neolithic period (III) (Srejović, 1979). If at the time of publication, few questioned Srejović’s interpretation, as other sites from the Iron Gates were investigated it became clearer and clearer that the pottery found in the levels and complexes of Lepenski Vir I II did not represent later intrusions into the Mesolithic layer, as the discoverer had claimed, but they are organically part of the cultural content of the levels in question (Jovanović, 1987; Garašanin and Radovanović, 2001; Radovanović, 2006). These observations are borne out by a number of interdisciplinary analyses of archeozoological, archaeobotanical, and anthropological nature carried out on stone implements, which have prompted the idea that in this area the Epipalaeolithic communities survived and lived alongside with the newcomers who were to influence them remarkably. These are pointed out by alterations in diet, whereby the emphasis gradually shifted from nourishment mainly coming from fish-ing and hunting to the cultivation of cereals and the raising of animals (Bolomey, 1973; Radovanović, 1996a; 1996b; 2006; Bonsall et al., 2000; 2004). This process took place in the first part of the first half of the 7th millennium uncal BP (Whittle et al., 2002; 2005; Biagi et al., 2005), and from a cultural point of view in the second phase of the Starčevo-Criş Culture (Lazarovici, 1983; 1996; 1998; 2006). These have shown that in this area the autochthonous Mesolithic and Epipalaeolithic communities lasted well into the time of the first farmers, the bearers of the Starčevo-Criş Culture.

The Neolithisation of the Iron Gates is merely a particular local aspect of the neolithisation process of the Danube region. Its beginning is determined by the ethno-cultural phenomena, which developed in the Balkans in the latter half of the 7th millennium cal BC, and gave rise, in the Carpathian Danube area, to the settlements of Gura Baciului I, Cârcea-Hanuri and Grădinile (Nica, 1977), Ocna Sibiului I, Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş, Röszke-Ludvar, Donja Branjevina (Nica, 1977; 1981; Trogmayer, 1989; 2003; Lazarovici and Maxim, 1995; Paul, 1995; Karmanski, 2005). From the typological point of view, these settlements fit into phase Ia-Ib of the Starčevo-Criş Culture, according to the periodisation of Lazarovici, and they have been attributed to the first migration wave of Neolithic communities that reached the Danube region (Lazarovici, 2006). Once they arrived there, as the geographic distribution of the above-mentioned sites shows, these communities migrated towards north and west along the valleys of the most important rivers: along the Danube in order to go west, along the Olt and the Mureş in order to get into Transylvania and along the Tisza to get into the Pannonian Plain.

In the Banat Plain, the first agrarian-pastoral communities identified so far are those from Foeni-Sălaş and Gaz (Greenfield and Draşovean, 1994; Ciobotaru, 1998), Unip (Lazarovici et al., 1981), Timişoara-Fratelia (Draşovean, 2001), Dumbrăviţa (Draşovean et al., 2004), Biled (Draşovean, 1989), Dubova-Cuina Turcului (Păunescu, 1979) and Röszke-Ludvar (Trogmayer, 1989; 2003). All these settlements lie either on the banks of rivers or along former river courses, proving that these communities settled along the three main rivers of the Banat Plain: the rivers Timiş, Bega and Tisza. Of all these, the most informative, thanks to the research carried out in the past decade, is the settlement of Foeni-Sălaş.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOENI-SĂLAŞ SITE AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES FOR THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEOLITHISATION PROCESS OF THE WESTERN BANAT

Geographic location

Foeni lies in the southern part of the Banat, in the low Torontal Plain. The Neolithic settlement developed on a mound of Pleistocene loess deposits lying between the present-day rivers Timiş and Bega, on the right-hand side of a small rivulet, which is now canalised. The plain between the two rivers has an average altitude of around 80 m, sloping gently downwards towards the south and the west (Zăvoianu, 1979: 27). The area in which the site lies is a low one, rising to a height of only 84 m above sea level, and is crossed by temporary courses of the river Bega which slope only slightly. The poor drainage of ground and surface water leads to the formation of bogs. From the study of 18th century Austrian maps drawn before the great regularisation works of the Banat rivers, it appears that on the lower part of the rivers Timiş and Bega there was a marshy area which was flooded by the two rivers at times. The field studies done within the Foeni archaeological project, as well as other field research in the Banat, have shown that all the Early Neolithic sites lie on low terraces along the

70 –

old riverbeds or on the shores of ponds and on swamp edges. These terraces are high enough to avoid being flooded by the periodical water level rise of the rivers. This became obvious during the great floods that oc-curred in the southern Romanian Banat in the spring of 2005, when none of the prehistoric sites and implicitly, none of the Early Neolithic ones were flooded. The fact that people laid out their settlements in unfloodable areas shows that, even though they may not have had the sense of danger in the modern currency of the word, through multi-annual empirical observation carried out in the selfsame area, they noticed the periodical over-flowing of the rivers and went on to lay out their settlements on the highest places.

Absolute and relative chronology of the site

The systematic archaeological research carried out between 1992 and 1994 by H. Greenfield and the writer, led to the uncovering of a single habitation level Starčevo-Criş site.

The pottery dug up in the layer and in huts is very uniform. From the technological point of view, it was made of clay found in abundance nearby, or of the geological sediment lying immediately beneath the humus layer, or from the pond shores or rivers banks (Spataro, 2003). The XRD and SEM-EDS tests have shown that this clay was blended with organic matter and was burned at 600-650 ºC, but without exceeding 850º C (Spa-taro, 2003: 16; 2005). A fact worth noticing is that potters used the same temper regardless of the everyday or special use category of the pottery, or of their shape, ornament or surface treatment (Spataro, 2005; 2006). This fact also indicates that raw material was pre-processed to a certain amount and only later on did the potter decide on the use, and implicitly on the shape and ornament of the pot.

The typical shapes are globular pots and hemispheric dishes covered in a monochrome slip of brownish-red colour, well-polished, adorned with pinchings and indentures caused by fingernails (figs. 2-4). In connection with these there have been discovered decorations made up of painted dots with a white colour against the brownish-red background of the pot (fig. 5). Based on these elements, we can claim that, from the typologi-

Fig. 2 - Foeni-Sălaş: monochrome ceramics of the Starčevo-Criş IC phase.

Fig. 3 - Foeni-Sălaş: monochrome ceramics of the Starčevo-Criş IC phase decorated with pinchings.

Fig. 4 - Foeni-Sălaş: monochrome ceramics of the Starčevo-Criş IC phase decorated with indentures and grooves.

Fig. 5 - Foeni-Sălaş: monochrome ceramics of the Starčevo-Criş IC phase with a painted white dots decoration.

– 71

cal-stylistic viewpoint, the pottery can fit into the same chronological and cultural horizon as the sites of Gura Baciului I/II, Röszke-Ludvar, Ocna Sibiului I/II, Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş, Şeuşa and Cârcea-Hanuri, more exactly in the Starčevo-Criş Culture, phase IC (Lazarovici, 2006: 116, 138-144).

From the absolute chronology viewpoint, for the settlement Foeni-Sălaş we have so far seven radiocarbon dates, which have been obtained from samples of animal bones. Five of these have been sampled and analysed within the framework of the Romanian-Canadian research project, but only three of these make up a credible cluster, which places them in the last two centuries of the 8th millennium uncal BP (Greenfield, 2006). Two other samples recently analysed by the Groningen laboratory date to 7510±60 uncal BP (GrN-28455) and 7080±50 uncal BP (GrN-28454) (Biagi and Spataro, 2004: 9, 10, 13; Biagi et al., 2005). Despite all these discrepancies, four of the seven dates cluster in the last two centuries of the 8th millennium uncal BP, exactly the period when the Neolithisation of the central and northern regions of the Balkan peninsula took place. Analysing similar data from other sites, we find that the Foeni dates appear to overlap with those of Gura Baciului I, Ocna Sibiului I, Miercurea Sibiului, Şeuşa, but also with those of other sites as Donja Branjevina, Padina and Lepenski Vir (Tasić, 1989; Whittle et al., 2002; 2005; Biagi and Spataro, 2004; Ciută, 2005; Lazarovici, 2006), which belong to the first wave of Neolithisation of the Danube area. However, unlike the Iron Gates situation, where we find a co-habitation of the autochthonous element with the newcomers, in the northern part of this region no clear evidence of a Mesolithic presence or influence has been found.

In the northern part of the Banat, the first phase of the Starčevo-Criş Culture has not been documented. The earliest Neolithic presence identified here occurs at Timişoara-Fratelia (Draşovean, 2001a), Dumbrăviţa (Draşovean et al., 2004), Biled (Draşovean, 1989), Foeni-Gaz and Unip (Lazarovici et al., 1981), which represents the second wave of migration within Banat, characterised by monochrome cherry-coloured pottery, globular and conical-shaped pottery, adornments with finger indentures and thick inlays along the brim of the truncated-cone-shaped pottery. This horizon has been fitted into phase two of the Starčevo-Criş Culture, which is contemporary to Lepenski Vir IIIa-IIIb (Srejović, 1969; Lazarovici, 1983; 1998; 2006) from the Iron Gates area. From the viewpoint of absolute chronology, this new migration wave lies immediately after 7000 uncal BP (c. 5900 cal BC) (Biagi and Spataro, 2004; Biagi et al., 2005; Lazarovici, 2006).

Man’s relationship to the environment

Throughout his biological existence, man has been closely connected to the environment, being influenced by it and in turn, influencing it through his activity (Juhász, 2004). Within this process, especially in the prehistoric period, his survival and the quality of his life directly depended on his capacity of adaptation to the environ-ment and on the intelligence with which man exploited its resources. Within this dual context we consider as an essential step towards the understanding of human prehistoric society the identification of as many features of the natural environment in which those communities lived (Bánffy, 2004b). However, in the Foeni area as well as in the entire Banat, we face an absence of pollen data that would enable us to reconstruct the natural environment of that period. As a consequence, at the moment, we cannot describe the past environment in any detail, such as whether there were woods in this area or only groups of trees that grew on the riverbanks. In the concrete case of Foeni, we can find out these data only indirectly and partially from the study of economy on the basis of faunal remains and of the seeds found on location.

At Foeni-Sălaş the archaeozoological studies (Greenfield and Draşovean, 1994: 73-74) have shown the major part played by the domestic animals within the subsistence strategies of the inhabitants. These indicate that the economy was dominated by domestic animal, which make up 79% of identifications. Greenfield (2006 unpublished) found that sheep and goats made up 40% of the total faunal assemblage, followed by the cattle with 35% and pig with only 4%. We draw attention to the fact that the pig may significantly alter the other data, especially of the small animals, as it is well known that the pig and the dog can eat small bones from a settlement, like those of the sheep and of goats, of birds etc., thus distorting the statistical sample. Viewed in proportion to the animal raising, a subsidiary rank is taken up by the hunting and fishing exploitation of wild resources within the subsistence strategies of the Foeni-Sălaş community with only 21% of identifications. From the hunted animals one notes the red deer (Cervus elaphus), the roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and the aurochs (Bos primigenius), but other animals like the boar, hare and birds were not neglected either (Greenfield, 2006 unpublished).

Besides hunting, fishing and shellfish gathering made an important contribution, but on a lesser scale to that in contemporary communities from the Iron Gates. Preliminary archaeozoological studies have shown that fish occupies a well-defined place in the diet of Foeni people, ranked ahead of venison, aurochs meat or boar

72 –

meat, taken separately, among wildlife food resources. Beside fish, snails provide a representative sample of the total of aquatic resources used. An impressive quantity of more than 18,000 land snail shells (Helix sp.) has been excavated in the fills of some abandoned houses. Within the subsistence strategies these animals provided an important seasonal food resource. The prevailing exploitation of aquatic life over terrestrial wild-life is put down to opportunism exploitation of natural resources of the environment in an optimal way and is in no way a feature of Mesolithic economy.

This view is borne out by the art objects found on this site. If the contemporary art objects at Lepenski Vir represent aquatic figures, at Foeni-Sălaş one has dug up only realistically-shaped clay statues representing cattle (figs. 6 and 7) (Ciobotaru, 1998; Draşovean, 2001b). This is evidence of the inhabitants’ philosophical and values system, in whose pantheon a central place was taken up by terrestrial animals, linked to the new agrarian-pastoral life style. At the same time, through the worship of the bull – a symbol for the force and

power of procreation, the inhabitants of Foeni represent an example of a community which did not follow the old Mesolithic pantheon based on gods connected to the main pursuits, hunting and fishing.

Beside the animal exploitation, agriculture played an important role in the subsistence strategy of Neolithic Foeni. Although not many seeds have been unearthed, cereals were clearly important. Among the identified specimens, 57% belong to the species Triticum monococcum, 29% to the species Triticum dicoccum and 14% to the species Hordeum vulgare (Greenfield, 2006 unpublished). The activities tied to agriculture are demon-strated by the presence of flint blades whose polish around the edges suggests their use as component parts of some sickles and fragments of ground stone found in the layer and in huts (Kuijt, 1994).

All these data referring to the economy of the community of Foeni provide us with information on the natu-ral environment. Thus, even if the land had been covered by woods, the intensive practice of agriculture would have called for new land obtainable only through deforestation. The community’s reliance on cattle herding also called for a certain grazing surface, which, if it did not exist, had to develop at the expense of the woods. Sheep and goats, through their appetite for leaves and brushwood, must also have significantly contributed to the reduction of the brush in the area. At the same time, the wood necessary for the huts and heating led to significant tree felling. All these factors could have contributed to a significant degree of deforestation.

Tools

Because Foeni-Sălaş lies in loessic sedimentary deposits from which stone is entirely absent made the Foeni community collect the raw material for stone tools from far away. The chipped tools were made of brownish opal, flint, milky quartz and obsidian, and the grinders were made of sandstone (Kuijt, 1994). If this quartz might come from the local gravel sediments lying under the loess sediments, none of the other stone types can be found among the local sources. Of the siliceous materials, one notes the occurrence of flint and opal. The flint might have been brought from the deposits lying 150 km to the north-east further up the River Bega, or from the cretaceous strata near Belgrade (Kuijt, 1994: 90), and the closest opal sources lie in the Mesozoic limestone deposits with siliceous accidents from Silagiu, near Buziaş (Lazarovici and Maxim, 1995: 158). The obsidian, translucent and variegated, most probably comes from the Slovakian sources in the Tokay area, more than 300

Fig. 7 - Foeni-Sălaş: cattle ceramic figurine of the Starčevo-Criş IC phase.

Fig. 6 - Foeni-Sălaş: cattle ceramic figurine of the Starčevo-Criş IC phase.

– 73

km north-north-west. All these factors point to the fact that the inhabitants of the first agrarian-pastoral sites were involved in an exchange system of raw materials and of values unfolding over wide geographic spaces (Whittle, 2004: 17-18), which contributed to the cultural diffusion of the Early Neolithic and to the speeding up of the Neolithisation process of some areas far away from the Banat.

Unfortunately, at this stage of research, we cannot pin down the role played by the Late Mesolithic com-munities that might have lived in the area in the transmission of raw materials because, until now, like in other areas (Bánffy, 2004a: 344), no evidence has been found of the existence of such communities in the plain sec-tor of the Banat. The study of the lithic artefacts, like the study of those from the Iron Gates (Păunescu, 1970: 36-37; 1979: 32; Kozłowski and Kozłowski, 1973; Voytek and Tringham, 1989) has not found typological influences of the lithic implements from the Mesolithic/Epipalaeolithic, typified as a rule by a prominent kind of microliths. This may imply either the absence of such communities from this area or a numerically reduced presence, which has not left traces either in the field or in the lithic implements.

CONCLUSIONS

The Neolithisation of the Banat is a unitary but discontinuous process, particularised for three geographic areas: the Iron Gates of the Danube, the mountain region of the southeast and east and the plain lying in the west of the Banat.

The first agrarian-pastoral communities arrived in the Carpathian basin in the last centuries of the 8th mil-lennium uncal BP and are part of the cultural phenomena that made for the Neolithisation of the Balkans. This first migration gave rise to the communities of Gura Baciului I, Cârcea-Hanuri and Grădinile, Ocna Sibiului I, and Donja Branjevina. In the area of the Iron Gates, the surviving Mesolithic/Epipalaeolithic communities came into contact with the newcomers and gradually received visible influences, indicated by the thoroughgo-ing changes in diet, whereby the focus gradually shifted away from hunting and fishing to the cultivation of cereals and raising of animals.

The mountainous part of the Banat may be divided into two areas. The former is the southeast area, typi-fied by mountains with high plateaus furrowed by deep ravines which were seasonally inhabited starting with the transition to the Bronze Age. In the Early Neolithic period the area was not inhabited; its first inhabitants belong to the Copper Age, when they settled along the Timiş-Cerna gorge in the 4th millennium cal BC.

The second area is bounded by the Bistra gorge to the south, the Timiş Valley to the west, the Bega Valley to the north and the Poiana Ruscăi mountains to the east. This was more intensely inhabited from the Early Neolithic by the bearers of the Starčevo-Criş Culture phase III, whose settlements lay on the terraces that bound the upper river areas of the Timiş and Bega. However, the mountainous region of the Banat was not directly involved in the initial process of Neolithisation of the Banat.

The third region of the Banat is the plain bounded by the western hills of the Banat Mountains and by the River Tisza. This, beside the Iron Gates, was the main focus of the Neolithisation process. The first farmers advanced here along the main rivers and settled on the low terraces nearby or along the banks of the tributary streams. In this geographic area the settlers found fertile land in abundance, game and water-life, and a favourable climate that made agriculture possible and enabled habitation.

In the western plain of the Banat the settlement of Foeni-Sălaş is part of the first migration wave of Neo-lithic communities, but not quite as early as the settlements of Gura Baciului I and Donja Branjevina. From the typological point of view it belongs to Starčevo-Criş Culture phase IC, and chronologically it fits into the last two centuries of the 8th millennium uncal BP.

The Foeni settlement, surrounded by lakes or marshes, has an open character without being fortified. Periodic floods of the Timiş and Bega offered man nourishment, but also shelter from wild animals or from other human beings. The rivers also represented means of communication that enabled the people to set up connections with other communities or areas with raw materials.

The dwellings on this site are represented by huts spreading over a surface ranging between 20 and 40 sq m, laid out radially around a central larger dwelling. In some of these dwellings heating installations have been found, which suggests that the dwellings were inhabited for longer than a season. At the same time, the pres-ence of a centrally laid out dwelling suggests the possible existence of a ‘house of the tribe’, which would entail that there was a certain social organisation system. The relatively small dimensions of the huts indicates the existence of small families, with few members, and the reduced number of the huts that have been investigated enables us to estimate the number of inhabitants to amount to a maximum of 100 persons.

74 –

The character of the economy is determined, among other factors, by the subsistence strategies. In the case of the Foeni settlement, an important component was animal raising followed by fishing and hunting. Agricul-ture was not neglected either, as wheat (Triticum monococcum and Triticum dicoccum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) were cultivated. The strategies of food procurement, focusing on sheep, goat and cattle raising and on land tillage - and only secondarily on the exploitation of water resources, point to a typically Neolithic economy, without the influences of a hypothetical, but possible, autochthonous Mesolithic/Epipalaeolithic background. This impression is reinforced by the absence of such influences in the lithic implements domain and in magi-cal-religious artefacts. The emphasis on aquatic food resources over the terrestrial wildlife found at Foeni, does not support the idea of Mesolithic influences, as this situation is the result of man’s opportunism in optimal exploiting the natural resources available, and does not represent a feature of a Mesolithic economy.

The sources of lithic raw materials in the Foeni settlement clearly show that long-distance exchange networks existed at the time of the first agrarian/pastoral wave colonising the Banat, which contributed to the cultural diffusion of the Early Neolithic and to the speeding up of the Neolithisation process of other areas.

The figurative representations are realistic, especially those rendering cattle, but steatopygia, too, as a moulding manner may be noted with the feminine figures. All the artistic artefacts are inseparably linked to the new Neolithic life style and its pantheon and reflects the structural differences between the philosophical system and values system of the newcomers and those of the Mesolithic society they replaced.

In the next stage, around 6900 uncal BP, a new migration takes place, which is marked by the settlements of Foeni-Gaz, Timişoara-Fratelia, Unip, Biled, Dumbrăviţa, Dudeştii Vechi, Perlez Batka ‘C’ (Marinković, 2006), which brings the colonisation of the Banat plain to an end. The settlements of Lepenski Vir III, Padina B, Gornea-Locurile Lungi, Dubova-Cuina Turcului correspond to these at Iron Gates. From the cultural point of view, these communities belong to phase IIA-IIB of the Starčevo-Criş Culture.

(Translated by Sorin Ciutacu)

– 75

R E F E R E N C E S

Bánffy, E. 2004a - The 6th Millennium BC Boundary in Western Transdanubia and Its Role in the Central European Neolithic Transition. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, XV. Budapest.

Bánffy, E. 2004b - Neolithic Contacts: Adaptation, Exchange of Information (An Introduction). Antaeus, 27: 11-16. Budapest.

Biagi, P., Shennan, S. and Spataro, M. 2005 - Rapid Rivers and Slow Seas? New Data for the Radiocarbon Chronology of the Balkan Peninsula. In Nikolova, L., Fritz, J. and Higgings, J. (eds.) Prehistoric Archaeology & Anthropological Theory and Education. Report of Prehistoric Research Projects, 6-7: 41-50. Salt Lake City - Karlovo.

Biagi, P. and Spataro, M. 2004 - Noi datări cu radiocarbon în aşezările culturii Starčevo-Criş din Banat şi Transilvania (România). Patrimonium Banaticum, III: 7-20. Timişoara.

Bolomey, A. 1973 - An outline of the late epipalaeolithic economy at the ‘Iron Gates’, the evidence on bones. Dacia, XVII: 41-52. Bucharest.

Bonsall, C., Cook, G.T., Hedges, R.E.M., Higham, T.F.G., Pickard, C. and Radovanović, I. 2004 - Radiocarbon and stable isotope evidence of dietary change from the Mesolithic to the Middle Ages in the Iron Gates: new results from Lepenski Vir. In Sparks, R.J. and Beavan-Athfield, N. (eds.) Proceedings of the 18th International Radiocarbon Conference. Radiocarbon, 46: 293-300.

Bonsall, C., Cook, G., Lennon, R., Harkness, D., Scott, M., Bartosiewicz, L. and McSweeney, K. 2000 - Stable Isotopes, Radiocarbon and Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in the Iron Gates. Documenta Praehistorica, XXVII: 119-132. Ljubljana.

Borić, D. 1999 - Places that Created Time in The Danube Gorges and Beyond, c. 9000-5500. Documenta Praehistorica, XXVI: 41-70. Ljubljana.

Ciobotaru, D. 1998 - Plastica neolitică din aşezarea de la Foeni-Sălaş (jud. Timiş). Analele Banatului, VI: 73-82. Timişoara.

Ciută, M-M. 2005 - Începuturile neoliticului timpuriu în spaţiul intracarpatic Transilvănean. Bibliotheca Universitatis Apulensis, XII. Alba Iulia.

Draşovean, F. 1989 - Observaţii pe marginea unor materiale inedite privind raporturile dintre culturile Starčevo-Criş, Vinča A şi lumea liniară în nordul Banatului. Apulum, XXVI: 9-48. Alba Iulia.

Draşovean, F. 2001a - Early Neolithic Settlement at Timişoara-Fratelia. In Draşovean, F. (ed.) Festschrift für Gheorghe Lazarovici Zum 60. Geburtstag. Bibliotheca Historica Archaeologica Banatica, XXX: 33-40. Mirton, Timişoara.

Draşovean, F. 2001b - The Neolithic Art in Banat. Solness, Timişoara.

Draşovean, F., Benea, D., Mare, M., Muntean, M., Tănase, D., Crânguş, M., Chiu, F., Micle, D., Regep-Vlascici, S., Szentmiklosi, A., Ştefănescu, A. and Timoc, C., 2004 - Cercetările arheologice preventive de la Dumbrăviţa. Bibliotheca Historica Archaeologica Banatica, XXXIII. Waldpress, Timişoara.

Gaga, M.L. 2004 - Norme sociale şi atitutdini individuale în obiceiurile de familie din Banat. Bibliotheca Historica Archaeologica Banatica, XV. Mirton, Timişoara.

Garašanin, M. and Radovanović, I. 2001 - A Pot in House 54 at Lepenski Vir I. Antiquity, 76: 118-125.

Greenfield, H.J. 2006 unpublished - Foeni-Sălaş: Early Neolithic intra-settlement special organization. Paper presented at the second annual meeting of the archaeologists of the Banat. Pančevo.

Greenfield, H.J. and Draşovean, F. 1994 - Preliminary Report on the 1992 Excavations at Foeni-Sălaş: An Early Neolithic Settlement in the Romanian Banat. Analele Banatului, III: 45-85. Timişoara.

Jovanović, B. 1987 - Die Architektur und Keramik der Siedlung Padina B am Eisener Tor, Jugoslawien. Germania, 65 (1): 1-16.

Juhász, J. 2004 - Palynological Evidence of Preneolithisation in South-Western Transdanubia. Antaeus, 27: 213-225. Budapest.

Kalmar, Z., Bagozki, C. and Lazarovici, G. 1987 - Cercetări etno-arheologice şi sondaje în Munţii Banatului. Banatica, 9: 65-85. Reşiţa.

Karmanski, S. 2005 - Donja Branjevina: an Early Neolithic Site near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 10. Trieste.

Kuijt, I. 1994 - Foeni, Romania, 1992 Preliminary Report: Analysis of Chipped Tools. Analele Banatului, III: 86-93. Timişoara.

Lazarovici, G. 1979a - Neoliticul Banatului. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, IV. Cluj-Napoca.

Lazarovici, G. 1979b - Neoliticul timpuriu în Clisura Dunării. Studii şi Comunicări, II: 27-31. Caransebeş.

Lazarovici, G. 1983 - Neoliticul timpuriu din zona Porţile de Fier (Clisură). Banatica, 7: 9-34. Reşiţa.

Lazarovici, G. 1996 - The Process of the Neolithisation and the Developement of the First Neolithic Civilizations in the Bankans. In Grifoni Cremonesi, R., Guilaine, J. and L’Elgouac’h, J. (eds.) The Neolithic in The Near East and Europe. International Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Colloquium XVII: 21-38. A.B.A.C.O., Forlì.

Lazarovici, G. 1998 - About the Neolithisation Process of the Second Migration of The Early Neolithic. In Draşovean, F. (ed.) The Late Neolithic of the Middle Danube Region. Bibliotheca Historica Archaeologica Banatica, XIV: 7-37. Eurobit, Timişoara.

76 –

Lazarovici, G. 2001 - Despre locul descoperirilor de la Şeuşa în neoliticul timpuriu din sud-estul Europei. In Matei, A. (ed.) Studia Archaeologica et Historica Nicolao Gudea Dicata: 37-47. Zalău.

Lazarovici, G. 2006 - The Anzabegovo-Gura Baciului Axis and the First Stage of the Neolithisation Process in Southern-Central Europe and the Balkans. In Tasić, N. and Grozdanov, C. (eds.) Homage to Milutin Garašanin. SASA Special Edition, Belgrade: 111-158.

Lazarovici, G. and Maxim, Z. 1995 - Gura Baciului. Monografie Arheologică. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, XI. Cluj-Napoca.

Lazarovici, G., Resch, F. and Germann, C. 1981 - Aşezarea preistorică de la Unip. Analele Banatului, I: 13-20. Timişoara.

Marinković, S. 2006 - Starčevo Culture in Banat. In Brukner, B. (ed.) Current Problems of the Transition Period from the Starčevo to the Vinča Culture. National Museum Zrenjanin, 1: 63-79. Zrenjanin.

Nica, M. 1977 - Nouvelles données sur le néolithique ancien d’Olténie. Dacia, XXI: 13-53. Bucharest.

Nica, M. 1981 - Grădinile. O nouă aşezare a neoliticului timpuriu în sud-estul Olteniei. Arhivele Olteniei, 3: 27-39. Craiova.

Paul, I. 1995 - VorgeschichtlicheUntersuchungen in Siebenburgen. Bibliotheca Universitatis Apulensis, I. Alba Iulia.

Păunescu, A. 1970 - Evoluţia uneltelor şi armelor de piatră cioplită descoperite pe teritoriul României. Bibliotheca de Arheologie, XV. Bucharest.

Păunescu, A. 1979 - Cercetările arheologice de la Cuina Turcului-Dubova (jud. Mehedinţi). Tibiscus, 5: 11-56. Timişoara.

Radovanović, I. 1996a - The Iron Gates Mesolithic. International Monographs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series, 11. Ann Arbor.

Radovanović, I. 1996b - Mesolihic/Neolithic Contacts: A Case of The Iron Gates Region. Documenta Praehistorica, XXIII: 39-48. Ljubljana.

Radovanović, I. 2006 - Not just a Good Place for Fishing: Meso-Neolithic Contact at the Site of Lepenski Vir in View of the New AMS and Stable Isotope Evidence. In Tasić, N.N. and Grozdanov, C. (eds.) Homage to Milutin Garašanin. SASA Special Editions, Belgrade: 69-77.

Spataro, M. 2003 - Scientific Study of Ancient Pottery Production: A Case-Study from the Early Neolithic Site of Foeni Gaz (Timiş County, Romania). Patrimonium Banaticum, II: 7-26. Timişoara.

Spataro, M. 2005 - Early Neolithic pottery production in the Balkans: minero-petrographic analyses of the ceramics from the Starčevo-Criş site of Foeni-Sălaş (Banat, Romania). Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, XIV: 25-43. Trieste.

Spataro, M. 2006 - Pottery typology versus technological choices: an Early Neolithic case study from Banat (Romania). Analele Banatului, XIV: 63-77. Timişoara.

Srejović, D. 1969 - Lepenski Vir. Doba praistorijska kultura u Podumavlju. Srpska književna zadruga, Belgrade.

Srejović, D. 1979 - Protoneolit-kultura Lepenskog Vira. In Praistorija Jugoslovenskih Zemalja, II: 33-76. Svjetlost, Sarajevo.

Tasić, N.N. 1988 - Comparative C-14 dates for the Neolithic Settlements in Serbia. In Srejović, D. (ed.) The Neolithic of Serbia: 45-47. Belgrade.

Trogmayer, O. 1989 - Frühneolithische Importgegenstände aus dem Marosmündgebiet. In Bökönyi, S. (ed.) Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. Varia Archeologica Hungarica, II: 311-316. Budapest.

Trogmayer, O. 2003 - Röszke-Lúdvár. Ősrégészeti Levelek, 5: 8-20. Budapest.

Voytek, B. and Tringham, R. 1989 - Rethinking the mesolithic: the case of South East Europe. In Bonsall, C. (ed.) The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers presented at the third international symposium: 492-499. John Donald, Edinburgh.

Whittle, A. 2004 - Connections in the Körös Culture World: Exchange as an Organising Principle. Antaeus, 27: 17-26. Budapest.


Whittle, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Borić, D., Pettitt, P. and Richards, M. 2005 - New Radiocarbon Dates for The Early Neolithic in Northern Serbia and South-East Hungary: Some Omissions and Corrections. Antaeus, 28: 347-355. Budapest.

Zăvoianu, I. 1979 - Hidrografia, in Judeţul Timiş. Editura Academiei, Bucharest.

Zăvoianu, I. and Ardelean, V. 1979 - Solutile, vegetaţia, fauna, in Judeţul Timiş. Editura Academiei, Bucharest.

Author’s Address:FLORIN DRAŞOVEAN, Muzeul Banatului, Piaţa Huniade nr. 1 – RO - 30002 TIMIŞOARAe-mail: [email protected]

– 77

ADRIAN SABIN LUCA and COSMIN SUCIU*

MIGRATIONS AND LOCAL EVOLUTION IN THE EARLY NEOLITHIC IN TRANSYLVANIA:

THE TYPOLOGICAL-STYLISTIC ANALYSIS AND THE RADIOCARBON DATA

SUMMARY - Migrations and local evolution in the Early Neolithic in Transylvania: the typological-stylistic analysis and the radiocarbon data. The earliest Neolithic sites are located in southwestern Transylvania (the Haţeg region), in the middle Mureş Valley, and along its tributaries and the Someş River (in the Cluj county region). New radiocarbon results, typological and statistical observations, indicate that a fully Neolithic culture appeared in Transylvania around 7200 uncal BP. In Transylvania, the term Starčevo-Criş is used to define a cultural phenomenon spread over a long period of time, with four stages of evolution, which span from the appearance of the first Neolithic to the arrival of the first Vinča communities. The term Pre-Criş deals with the process of Neolithisation, or the first two stages of the Starčevo-Criş Culture. The stylistic-typological and statistical analyses that have been made in recent years force us to consider as most suitable the theory, at least in Transylvania, of a gradual development, in the form a unitary complex closely related to the nearby surroundings at the south of the Danube.

RIASSUNTO - Migrazioni ed evoluzione locale del Neolitico antico della Transilvania: l’analisi tipologico stilistica e i dati radiocarbonici. Le più antiche comunità di agricoltori si stanziarono nella regione di Haţeg, nella Transilvania sudorientale, nella media valle del Mureş e lungo i suoi affluenti, ed il fiume Someş, nella regione di Cluj. Nuove datazioni radiocarboniche e le osservazioni tipologiche e statistiche delle ceramiche, indicano che una cultura pienamente neolitica fece la sua comparsa in Transilvania intorno al 7200 uncal BP, con manufatti simili a quelli delle comunità a sud del Danubio. L’analisi stilistico-tipologica delle ceramiche, e soprattutto quella statistica, ci spingono a considerare come ipotesi più adeguata, almeno per quanto riguarda la Transilvania meridionale, quella uno sviluppo graduale di un complesso unitario molto simile a quello delle regioni a sud del Danubio.

THE BEGINNING OF THE NEOLITHIC

The earliest Neolithic of Transylvania is represented by the Starčevo-Criş Culture (Vlassa, 1966: 9-48; Lazarovici, 1975: 8-12; 1977: 34-42; 1979: 39-56; 1983: 9-34; 1984: 49-104; 1992: 25-59; 1993; Dumitrescu et al., 1983, 69; Ursulescu, 1984: 90 and following; Paul, 1989: 3-28). The explanation of the origin of the Early Neolithic has oscillated between the autochthonous theory (Berciu, 1958; 1966: 32; Boroneanţ, 1968; 1973; 1980; 1996; Păunescu, 1958: 269-271; 1970: 25-26; Dumitrescu, 1970: 190-191; Srejović, 1969; 1971; 1978; Gimbutas, 1989; 1997), and that which identifies the Near East, where the Neolithisation process origi-nated, as the source of the European Neolithic, a theory that many archaeologists have agreed with during the last decades.

The existence of an aceramic or preceramic Neolithic cannot be demonstrated for Transylvania. The near-est site, previously supposed to belong to this cultural and chronological horizon (although its chronology is not specified) is Dârţu-Ceahlău (Berciu, 1958: 91-98; Păunescu, 1958: 269-271), although it was proved to be, in fact, of a later period (Vlassa, 1964: 463-464). According to Lazarovici, the first Neolithic communities diffused in Transylvania in three migration waves. The problems related to the first and second migrations are treated in this paper (Lazarovici and Kalmar, 1995: 30, 199-200; Luca et al., 2004: 99-103).

The earliest Neolithic sites in Transylvania are those of Gura Baciului I (Vlassa, 1976: 198-264; Lazaro-vici and Kalmar, 1995: 199, 201), Ocna Sibiului-Triguri I and II (Paul, 1989; 1995, 28-68), Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii (Ciută, 1998; 2000), and Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş (Luca and Georgescu, 1998; 1999; Luca et al., 2000a; 2001; 2002; Luca, 2002; 2004). The most important site seems to be Gura Baciului, near Cluj-Napoca. The



——————————* National Brukenthal Museum and Lucian Blaga University, Sibiu, Romania

78 –

first horizon (Vlassa, 1976: 257-269) yielded a cultural assemblage, which can be referred to as phase IA (?) of the Starčevo-Criş Culture (Lazarovici and Kalmar, 1995: 5, 63, 68-79).

The excavators consider hut H2A to be the oldest discovered at this site and also the most important. Besides hut H10, pit P1a, huts H8, H2A1, pit P11, hut H9B, pit P33, and H2B, there are some assemblages recovered from the earliest horizon (Lazarovici and Kalmar 1995: 68-69) that N. Vlassa (1976: 257-269) considered contemporary with the Protosesklo stage.

Ocna Sibiului-Triguri (Paul, 1989; 1995: 28-68) is particularly important for both its stratigraphic sequence and the material culture assemblages. The three earliest occupation layers (Ia-IIa) belong to the Protosesklo horizon. Layer IIb might represent the transitional phase to the Criş Culture (contemporary with Gura Baciului II), while the last two layers (IIIa and IIIb) belong to the Starčevo-Criş Culture. I. Paul (1989: 11) pointed out that the Protosesklo horizon appeared as a “distinct culture with a quite long evolution”, which he called Pre-Criş. He subdivided this culture into two regional northern Danube aspects, those of Cârcea (in Oltenia), and Ocna Sibiului-Gura Baciului (in Transylvania), and into two stages of development (I and II).

Given his opposition to a unitarian evolution of the Early Neolithic in the northern Balkans, namely the Starčevo-Criş cultural complex (Lazarovici, 1992: 27), I. Paul tries to vary the first, and partially, the second

phases of the Lazarovici seriation system through Pre-Criş I-II, although this has not been demonstrated by the latest discoveries made in Transylvania at Gura Baciului (new excavations by G. Lazarovici) or Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş. At the same time I. Paul could not provide clear observations concerning the dwellings and the pottery evolution in the successive occupation levels.

Considering Transylvania, the term Pre-Criş Culture (Paul, 1989; 1995; Ciută, 1998; 2000; 2001) is based, in our opinion, on too little information (Lazarovici 2001: 42-45; 2005), because it is based on sites excavated through small trenches and without statistical analysis of the material culture assemblages, as well as proper horizontal and vertical stratigraphies (with the exception of Gura Baciului, Miercurea Sibiului, and Cauce Cave). This impression has been confirmed by the discovery and the excavations carried out at Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş, a site which belongs to the earliest Neolithic of the region. The site was first mentioned when the monograph on the Petreşti Culture was published (Paul, 1992: 141, point 29a). The material belonging to the Turdaş and Petreşti Chalcolithic Cultures, accidentally discovered at the city boundaries, is mentioned in this paper.

POTTERY STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The archaeological material was studied quantitatively and qualitatively. Description of the ceramic mate-rial was carried out, considering shapes, rim variants, bases and handles, decoration (technique and type), sort, blending (mixture), surface treatment or burned and colours of potsherds. The structure was designed in the Bazarh system, in the Department of Prehistory, Cluj University (since 1984). After 1988 the work with the database was carried out by means of system ‘ZEUS’ (Tarcea and Lazarovici, 1996). In this paper we present only a small part of our statistical work from complexes B1 from Gura Baciului; H1 (B1), H10 (B10) and H9 (B9) from Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş; L1 from Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii and Cauce Cave. We focus on H1 (B1) and H10 (B10) from Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş. All the tables show a great unity in this first Early Neolithic wave, which confirms the results of the absolute dates (Biagi et al., 2005: table 1), although some different typological characteristics are to be mentioned.

We analysed 1245 potsherds: 188 from B1 Gura Baciului (Lazarovici and Maxim, 1995: 69-71), 382 from H10 and 141 from H1 at Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş, 423 from L1 at Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii and 111 from Cauce Cave (Cerişor-Peştera Cauce) (tables 1 to 6). The tables below were made using the AplWin seriation programme (Lazarovici and Micle, 2001: 121-125).

Description of H1 (B1), H10 (B10) from Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş

The site Petriş is located some 500 m east of the Miercurea Băi, 50-80 m north of the national motorway Sebeş-Sibiu, at the edge of a long terrace, 4-5 m higher than the flooded meadow of the Secaş River. The ar-chaeological finds are spread on a surface of 300x80-100 m along the terrace parallel to the river.

In 1997, the excavation of the site was carried out in collaboration with the ‘Lucian Blaga’ University and the Brukenthal National Museum, Historical Department (Sibiu). Between 1997 and 2000 a few trial trenches were opened, whose purpose was to check the archaeological sequence of the settlement (Luca and

– 79

Georgescu, 1998; 1999; Luca et al., 2000a; 2001). The excavation revealed the presence of surface dwell-ings (habitation structures), fireplaces, rubbish pits, foundation ditches, postholes and 5th century AD Gepid graves.

In 2001 an area 20x20 m (SI/2001-2003) was opened. In 2001 and 2002 we excavated the Petreşti occupa-tion layer, represented by surface dwelling (2 houses), the most recent Chalcolithic structures of the site (Luca et al., 2002). During the same season the remains of a few surface dwellings, which belong to the ancient Vinča horizon (2 structures) were excavated. In 2003, we finished the excavation of the oldest Vinča Culture (phase A) layer (5 pit dwellings), other pits and early Starčevo-Criş (3 pit dwellings, 3 other pits). In 2003, we began the excavation of trench SII (15x16 m), which was completed in 2004 and 2005. At this stage of the research, we suggested that layer Ia represented the first Neolithic horizon of this site, defined by hut H10 (2003), a rec-tangular dwelling, with rounded corners, partially cut, in the north-western corner, by another hut foundation: hut H1 (1998, 2003) belonging to later stage (Ib layer) of the same culture.

Hut H10 belongs to the Starčevo-Criş IB Culture. The fine and semi-fine potsherds represent almost 83% instead of 17% of coarse one with percentages similar to the other complexes analysed in this study. From the potsherds we analysed from this structure, 76% are well-burned and 49% have polished surfaces. The external colour of potsherds presented the following percentages: reddish (27%), red-brick (19%), dark brown (11%), whitish brown (10%) and grey (11%). We can also notice a reasonable quantity of dark red surfaces (7%). The H10 (B10) assemblage is clearly dominated by polished (185 specimens) and smoothed ceramics (185 speci-mens) (table 4) in equal proportions.

The study of the ceramic assemblage shows that hut H10 is one of the oldest dwellings of the Romanian Neolithic. This structure was almost entirely excavated. Regarding the pottery, parallels can be found with Gura Baciului I. It did not show any trace of disturbance by other archaeological complexes. Its deposit yielded some unusual finds, such as one single potsherd of well-burnished red ware with white-yellowish painted dots, also characteristic of Gura Baciului I. The radiocarbon date from this complex is 7050±70 uncal BP (GrN-28520) (Biagi et al., 2005: 49).

Hut H1 belongs to the Starčevo-Criş IC-IIA Culture. This is another very old dwelling, which is more re-cent than hut H10. Unfortunately it was seriously damaged by the Vinča period hut H4. H1 is a large structure, measuring 6x4 m and, according to its stratigraphic position, belongs to horizon Ib, which has been attributed to the SC Culture, period IC or IIA.

The pottery is very similar to that of H10: 78% of the potsherds are of fine or semi-fine fabrics (table 1), 94% contains chaff (table 5), 6% has sand inclusions, a percentage lower than that in level Ia, 49% are polished (table 4), while 74% are well burned. 14% are highly fired, to the point of vitrification.

The colour of their outer surfaces varies (table 3): the reddish ones represent 13% of the total assemblage, while that of the red brick ones is higher (23%). A peculiar bull’s head figurine, 3.7 cm high and 2 cm wide was found inside this structurs. The tips of its horns are broken. The body is rounded, somewhat thickened, decorated on the front part with deep, parallel zigzag incisions. This stylised object is made of fine pottery with black, well-polished surfaces.

These objects have been published under the name of bucrane idols or labrets. They are made of clay, stone, bone or other materials (Karmanski, 1986: 11). In Romania, they belong to the Starčevo-Criş Culture, phase IIA (Lazarovici, 1983: 13; Ciobotaru, 1998: 75; Draşovean, 2001).

Their occurrence together with characteristic pottery in hut H1 suggests that this item is to be referred to the same period of the archaeological complex, which is to SC phase IC-IIA. As a consequence, it is contemporary with Gura Baciului I (a part of the complexes, hut H8, hut H2A1, pit P11, hut H9b, pit P33, hut H10 and hut H2b (Lazarovici and Kalmar, 1995: 68-79) or with Pre-Criş Ib - pit dwelling 9 at Ocna Sibiului-Triguri (Paul, 1995: 30-31, Abb. 2, 5-6), Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii (dwelling 1/1997) (Ciută, 1998; 2000) and the Cauce Cave (Luca et al., 2004: 80-103). The radiocarbon date from this complex (H10) is 6920±70 uncal BP (GrN-28521) (Biagi et al., 2005: 49).

Description of pit-house B1 GB from Gura Baciului

B1 GB belongs to Starčevo-Criş IB. It contained a large quantity of painted ceramics with white decora-tion composed of spots, oblique lines, spots in arcades, lines without a precise contour on the light red or dark background of the pot. The majority of the pots were of finer fabric, the sandy monochrome paste having the colours: red, dark red and brown. Potsherds decorated with impressions, pinches and prominences are absent, only one fragment with polished lines being found.

80 –

The materials from this context are defined as Starčevo-Criş IB with IC elements. At this early stage, some very fine ceramic fragments appear, decorated by ‘unsmoothing’ or ‘pseudo-barbotine’, actually wadding soft clay applied with the fingers, leaving a row of uneven levels, not being actually a barbotine (ledge applied). The finest potsherds represent 31% of this assemblage, against 39% of semi-fine and 30% of coarse fabrics. The B1, Gura Baciului assemblage, has almost double the percentage of coarse wares and a smaller percentage of fine ceramics compared with the other complexes discussed here. It is different in the high quantity of chaff and sand (where the chaff prevails) in the potsherds’ fabric.

Other characteristics (see table 5) differentiate it from the other complexes analysed in this study and this is the reason the computer seriation process pushes it to the end of the series. The radiocarbon date from this complex is 7140±45 uncal BP (GrA-24137) (Biagi et al., 2005: 49) and it is the oldest from Transylvania.

Description of Cauce Cave assemblage from Cerişor

This assemblage is from the fill of a cave in the mountain area. The existence of a new monochrome horizon might be suggested on the basis of the discoveries made at Cauce Cave. A layer with fine, polished pottery ex-ists in this cave, but we could not assign it a clear chronological significance (Luca et al., 2004: 103). Semi-fine wares accounted fot 57% of the potsherds analysed (table 1).

The finest wares represent 37% of the assemblage, close to the other complexes analysed, but the difference is in small amount of coarse wares (6%). The smoothed potsherds are almost twice as common as the polished ones (table 4). The fabric inclusions occur in similar proportions to those in the other complexes (table 5).

We must mention that painted pottery has not been found here. The existence of these settlements in Romania is known thanks to the discovery of Iosaş-Anele (Luca and Barbu, 1992-1994). A few Romanian archaeologists would attribute the Early Neolithic settlements without painted pottery (Monochrome horizon, following Dimitrijević [1974]) to phase IC-IIA of the Starčevo-Criş Culture, a chronological horizon in which the painted ware disappears or is scarcely represented.

At present, we know that ceramics with white painted dots characterise phases IB and IC of the Starčevo-Criş Culture; the presence of this kind of pottery during other phases of the same culture might be accidental. At Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii, pottery with white painted motifs is very rare (3-4 fragments: Ciută, 2000: 67-68, fig. 25/1-3), although the same paper questions the existence of a Monochrome horizon in Romania (Ciută, 2000: 76). This Monochrome period of Dimitrijević would represent the second migration period suggested by G. Lazarovici and Z. Kalmar, later than Monochrome (Frühkeramik) from Thessaly (Lazarovici and Kalmar, 1995: 200; Lazarovici, 2001: 42; 2005: 42).

Description of L1/1997 from Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii

The dwelling L1 is situated at the base of the archaeological occupation from Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii. It is a house built on a “stone-floor foundation” (Ciută 2000: 55). A special category is represented by the external surface of a small emispherical pot, painted with white-yellowish dots, on a grey brick-coloured background. The dots are arranged in oblique parallel rows.

The painting of the second fragment consists of a row of white dots on a purple background. A third frag-ment is a brown-reddish rim, with a light coloured band 8 mm wide. Complete pots have not been discovered and only in four cases was it possible to restore the vessels to obtain a full profile (Ciută, 2000: 63). The au-thor assigns this dwelling to the Pre-Criş I Culture (Paul’s system) or to Starčevo-Criş IC Culture (Lazarovici system) (Ciută, 2000: 75).

We attribute this dwelling to the IC-IIA phase. The fine and semi fine potsherds (table 1) represent almost 83% in this complex against 17% of coarse wares, percentages similar to those in the other complexes analysed in this study. The radiocarbon date from this complex is 7070±60 uncal BP (GrN-28114) (Biagi et al., 2005: 49).

In conclusion, the typological similarities between materials from H1 and H10 (Miercurea Sibiului), L1 (Şeuşa), B1 (Gura Baciului) and Cauce Cave is shown in tables 1 to 6. They belong to the same chronological horizon with a closer relationship between B1 (Gura Baciului), L1 Şeuşa and B10 Miercurea Sibiului.

Cauce Cave shares the same basic characteristics, but almost has some individual traits. In all clusters (tables 1-6) the complexes are similar to each other, and show a great uniformity in almost all characteristics. This is a dif-ferent image compared with complex H9 (from a later phase see below). Soon we will be capable to compare more complexes from all phases of Starčevo-Criş Culture and to describe subtle differences between complexes and define perfectly each evolutionary phase.

– 81

Colour/Site H10 (B10) H1(B1) Cauce Cave L1 Şeuşa B1 GB

Reddish 104 18 8 37 1Grey 42 9 7 10 10Whitish-brown 40 26 23 56 9Red brick 71 32 16 82 42Dark red 26 16 6 48 14Black 7 0 3 0 6Reddish-brown 1 2 1 16 0Yellowish 18 8 10 85 17Black-grey 5 1 5 13 7Light brown 19 12 10 46 29Rainbow 0 0 0 1 0Brown 3 1 2 12 7Ashen 0 0 0 4 8Red 1 0 0 0 10Orange 0 0 1 0 11

Table 3 - Colours of the external surface of the potsherds and their numerical occurrence by site.

Decoration/Site B1GB Cauce Cave H10 (B10) L1 Şeuşa H1 (B1)

Painting 20 0 1 3 0Incision 2 5 0 1 0Impression 6 8 2 3 1Excision 1 3 0 2 0Pseudo Barbotine 7 0 2 37 2Pinching 4 0 1 26 0Alveolar 0 4 6 11 7Plastic 2 5 0 32 0

Table 2 - Pottery decorative patterns and their numerical occurrence by site.

Site/Category Semi-fine Fine Coarse Total Cauce Cave 63 41 7 111L1 Şeuşa 193 160 70 423H10 (B10) 155 162 65 382H1 (B1) 52 58 31 141B1 GB 74 58 56 188Total 537 479 229 1245

Table 1 - Pottery main categories and potsherd numbers by site mentioned in the text.

82 –

Surface/Site H10 (B10) L1 Şeuşa H1 (B1) Cauce Cave B1 GB

Ledge 2 52 2 0 1

Flour-like 6 10 0 3 0

Polished 185 120 56 24 38

Smoothed 185 185 79 65 64

Polished slip 1 14 3 1 10

Rough 1 5 0 6 61

Slipped 1 0 0 0 12

Filler/Site H10 (B10) L1 Şeuşa H1 (B1) Cauce Cave B1 GB

Sand, Chamotte, Silt 1 0 0 0 0

Chaff, Silt 0 1 0 0 0

Chaff, Sand, Gravel 0 32 1 6 0

Sand, Chamotte, Silt 24 46 1 6 0

Sand, Chaff 327 291 115 58 66

Fine sand 10 13 5 1 12

Sand, Graphite 0 0 0 1 0

Coarse sand 5 7 0 1 9

Chaff, Sand 15 30 18 39 54

Chaff, Chamotte 0 1 0 0 1

Sand, Gravel 0 1 0 1 2

Sand, Chamotte 0 0 1 0 5

Sand, Silt 0 1 0 0 11

Sand, Mica 0 0 0 0 29

Table 4 - Pottery external surface characteristics and their numerical occurrence by site.

Table 5 - Pottery visible fillers and their numerical occurrence by site.

– 83

Rim type/site B1 GB L1 Şeuşa H10 (B10) H1 (B1) Cauce Cave

B 6 0 1 0 0N 5 1 0 1 0M 7 5 0 1 0K 3 3 0 0 0G 1 1 2 0 0I 1 2 3 1 0V 1 0 0 2 2Y 5 6 11 6 6E 2 3 0 2 10A 1 13 2 1 6H 1 16 3 3 6C 0 2 0 0 0P 0 2 0 0 0Z 0 1 0 0 0D 0 0 1 0 0L 0 0 1 0 0Q 0 0 2 0 0S 0 0 3 0 0F 0 13 4 4 0R 0 0 1 1 0J 0 1 0 3 1U 0 0 0 1 1

Table 6 - Characteristic rim types (after Maxim, 1999: fig. 29) and their numerical occurrence in the sites mentioned in the text.

84 –

THE MIGRATION WAVES

The First Migration

The above stylistic and typological pottery analyses aw well as the radiocarbon chronology (Biagi et al., 2005: figs. 2-4) indicate that the earliest Neolithic com-munities reached the northern Danube basin, in Romania, through Oltenia and western Transylvania. They reached the Danube, after having crossed the Timok Valley, followed the route along the Oltenia sub-Carpathians, travelled across the mountains and settled in the area of the middle Mureş Valley, its tributaries and the Someşul Mic River (fig. 1).

Considering the Vardar-Morava route we easily understand why one can reach Oltenia coming from the Timok Valley. Thus it is clear why they chose to settle the higher areas of Oltenia. The hardest part is to prove how they crossed the mountains. Taking into account more recent routes contemporary researchers are tempted to believe that the passages of the Jiu and Olt rivers were used. But these have only been opened to travellers since Roman times and the Middle Ages.

The route along the northern and southern transverse valleys of the mountains is more credible. In the oral tradition of recent centuries it is called “the route of the cuckoo” (or more conventionally in English “as the crow flies”).

It was used by villagers to avoid authorities (the distance could be covered with the cattle in three or four days) but it was also a way used for transhumance from ancient times. In our days it is still used by shepherds for transhumance. The first Neolithic people may have used this route. In Transylvania, Miercurea Sibiului, Şeuşa, Gura Baciului and Ocna Sibiului settlements are located near open-air salt deposits. At Gura Baciului, sheep and goat represent 33.2% of bone identifications, and at Şeuşa they represent almost 57.1%. Cattle bones are 41.8% at Gura Baciului and 30.8% at Şeuşa (Luca et al., 2005: 106), while the bones from Miercurea Sibiului are still being studied. This shows us shepherd communities who searched for salt for their herds (Nandris, 1990: 16).

The latest data indicate another possible migration route through the Banat and south Crişana. This new route was revealed after reanalysing the archaeological remains from Lepenski Vir, the radiocarbon dates from Foeni and the materials from Iosaş-Anele.

The lack of research made this hypothesis almost impossible to demonstrate. All new radiocarbon data suggest that the first phase of the Starčevo-Criş Culture (IA-IB) appeared during the last two centuries of the 8th millen-nium uncal BP (7200-7000 uncal BP), and probably lasted slightly more than 100 years (Biagi et al., 2005).

Fig. 1 - First Migration sites: Gura Baciului (1); Ocna Sibiului (2); Şeuşa (3); Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş (4); Cârcea (5); Grădinile (6); Verbiţa (7); Icoana (8); Lepenski Vir (9); Foeni (10); Iosaş Anele (11).

Fig. 2 - Second Migration sites: Balogu (1); Crăciuneşti (2); Balşa (3); Simeria (?) (4); 5. Peştisul Mic (5); Dumbrava (?) (6); Manerău (7); Cauce Cave (8); Haţeg (9); Cioclovina (10); Ohaba Ponor-Bordu Mare (11); Gura Baciului (12); Uioara de Sus (13); Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii (14); Limba-Bordane (15); Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş (16); Ocna Sibiului (17); Valea Răii (Copăcelu) (18); Cârcea (19); Verbiţa (20); Basarabi (21); Schela Cladovei (22); Ogradena (23); Icoana (24); Dubova-Cuina Turcului (25); Lepenski Vir (26); Gornea (27); Coronini-Pescari (28); Ilidia (29); Caraşova (30); Foeni (31); Giulvăz (32); Uliuc (33); Fratelia (34); Comloşu Mare (35); Dudeştii Vechi (36); Cenad (37); Iosaş-Anele (38); Măgura-Topliţa (39).

– 85

The Second Migration

The first phase was later followed by another, just after 7000 uncal BP (5900 Cal BC) (fig. 2). Some sites continued to be occupied during this phase (Cârcea, Ocna Sibiului, Miercurea Sibiului, Şeuşa, Gura Baciului), while others were newly settled. The radiocarbon dates of this phase follow those of the preceding one, without any break. The second phase also appears to have lasted some 100 years (Biagi and Spataro, 2004: 10; Biagi et al., 2005).

The way of living reveals new access routes during the second migration, by crossing the Poiana Ruscă Mountains after going through Banat. The sheep-goat (Ovis/Capra) husbandry complex represents at Cauce Cave almost 75% from all bone remains, the pig (Sus scrofa) almost 11.9%, and Bos Taurus only 3.5% (Luca et al., 2005: 98).

By the end of the Starčevo-Criş phase IIB in Transylvania, the so-called “starčevisation” phenomenon begins (Paul, 1989: 18). The settlement of Ocna Sibiului-Triguri lost its importance and did not develop the black painting characteristics of the late horizons of this cultural complex (Paul, 1989: 21).

The cultural movement influenced Transylvania from west and south-west. The inhabitants of the Early Neolithic sites of the middle Mureş River (Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş and Pustia (Luncă), Orăştie-Dealul Pemilor, point X8, Limba-Bordane and others) began to use ceramic decorative elements such as slip, applied decorations, incision or impressed patterns (Paul, 1989: 21), besides black painting (Draşovean, 1989: 42) or altars with stands or with pierced stands. These characteristics indicate a wide territory with cultural unity (Paul, 1989: 24), known as the Starčevo-Criş cultural complex. Ocna Sibiului-Triguri, IIb and Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş, hut H9/2003 (level Ic) belong to this phase. Coarse pottery accounts for 23% of the potsherds recovered from hut H9, with a similar quantity of fine pottery (20%). The percentage of the semi-fine ware is overwhelming (57%). 75% of the potsherds are well burned and only 23% of them are polished. Slip occurs on 28% of the potsherds, which indicates clearly the beginning of the evolution to the classic stage of the culture. We find the colours (external surface of the potsherds) in equal proportions (black, black grey, light brown and dark brown, brown and whitish brown), except for red-brick (28%).

The Third Migration and the final stages of the Early Neolithic

From phase III of Lazarovici’s sequence, one can easily detect the cultural influences on Transylvania from Banat, the Tisza Plain and from the regions south of the Danube. The first Vinča communities appear in Transylvania by the middle of this phase (Luca, 1995-1996; Luca et al., 2000; 2000b).

To conclude, we can see here, at this stage of research, several cultural horizons, some of them contempo-rary around the end of the Early Neolithic:1) Starčevo-Criş IIIA-IVA communities, such as Orăştie-Dealul Pemilor-X8 (Luca et al., 1998), Hunedoara-

Biserica Reformată (Draşovean, 1989), Miercurea Sibiului-Pustia (Luncă) (unpublished materials).2) Communities that appeared under the impact of the polychromic technology, in southeastern Transylvania.

The main settlement of this type is Leţ (Zaharia, 1962; 1964).3) Early Vinča communities, such as Romos-La Făgădău (Luca, 1995-1996), Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş,

horizon II and Limba (Berciu and Berciu, 1949; Ciugudean, 1978: 50, 52, Fig. 8/3-16) (for a synthesis of the early period of development of the Vinča Culture in Transylvania see Luca et al., 2000; 2000b).

4) Communities where Starčevo-Criş and Vinča materials are set in distinct and successive layers, such as Limba-Bordane (Ciută, 2002) and Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş (horizon Ia-Ic - Starčevo-Criş and horizon IIa-IIb - Vinča).

5) Communities with an evolution towards linear ceramic (LBK) technologies (Luca et al., 2000: 57-63; 2000b: 22-29).

AknowledgementsThe research team is led by S.A. Luca (‘Lucian Blaga’ University, Sibiu), field director, and A. Georgescu (Brukenthal National Museum, Sibiu), member. A. Gonciar (Ottawa University, Canada) joined this team in 2001 and D. Diaconescu (Corvin’s Castle Museum, Hunedoara) and C. Suciu (‘Lucian Blaga’ University, Sibiu) in 2003. Thanks are due to Prof. Dr. G. Lazarovici for the materials and the database from Gura Baciului, Dr. M. Ciută, who made available archaeological materials from Şeuşa-La cărarea morii for study, and Dr. M. Spataro and Prof. Dr. P. Biagi who kindly revised this paper and helped us with advice. Since this paper was submitted at the end of 2005, other structures from the Early Neolithic were discovered at Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş.

86 –

R E F E R E N C E S

Berciu, D. 1958 - Neoliticul preceramic în Balcani. Studii şi comunicări de istorie veche, 9 (1): 91-100. Bucharest.

Berciu, D. 1966 - Zorile istoriei în Carpaţi şi la Dunăre. Bucharest.

Berciu, D. and Berciu, I. 1949 - Săpături şi cercetări arheologice în anii 1944-1947. Apulum, 3: 1-43. Alba Iulia.

Biagi, P., Shennan, S. and Spataro, M., 2005 - Rapid Rivers and Slow Seas? New Data for the Radiocarbon Chronology of the Balkan Peninsula. In Nikolova, L., Fritz, J. and Higgins, J. (eds.) Prehistoric Archaeology & Anthropological Theory and Education. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects, 6-7: 41-50. Salt Lake City - Karlovo.

Biagi, P. and Spataro, M. 2004 - New radiocarbon dates from Criş Culture settlements of Banat and Transylvania (Romania). Patrimo-nium Banaticum, 3: 7-20. Timişoara.

Boroneanţ, V. 1968 - Neoliticul timpuriu în zona Porţilor de Fier. Comunicări, 7: 1-5. Craiova.

Boroneanţ, V. 1973 - Recherches archéologiques sur la culture Schela Cladovei de la zone des Portes de Fer. Dacia, 17: 5-39. Bucharest.

Boroneanţ V. 1980 - Probleme ale culturii Schela Cladovei-Lepenski Vir în lumina noilor cercetări. Drobeta, 4: 27-42. Turnu Severin.

Boroneanţ, V. 1996 - La 30 de ani de la începerea săpăturilor arheologice de la Schela Cladovei. Drobeta, 7: 3-11. Turnu Severin.

Ciobotaru, D.L. 1998 - Plastica neolitică din aşezarea de la Foeni-Sălaş (jud. Timiş). Analele Banatului (serie nouă), 6: 73-82. Timişoara.

Ciugudean, I. 1978 - Noi cercetări arheologice pe teritoriul judeţului Alba (I). Apulum, 16: 39-53. Alba Iulia.

Ciută, M.M. 1998 - O locuinţă de suprafaţă aparţinând neoliticului timpuriu de la Şeuşa-La cărarea morii (com. Ciugud, jud. Alba). Apulum, 35: 1-14. Alba Iulia.

Ciută, M.M. 2000 - Contribuţii la cunoaşterea celui mai vechi orizont al neoliticului timpuriu din România. Cultura Pre-Criş - desco-peririle arheologice de la Şeuşa-La cărarea morii. Apulum, 37 (1): 51-101. Alba Iulia.

Ciută, M.M. 2001 - Contribuţii la cunoaşterea celui mai vechi orizont al neoliticului timpuriu din România: cultura Pre-Criş (II). Apulum, 38 (1): 9-26. Alba Iulia.

Ciută, M.M. 2002 - O locuinţă neolitică timpurie descoperită în situl de la Limba-Bordane (jud. Alba). Apulum, 39: 1-30. Alba Iulia.

Draşovean, F. 1989 - Cultura Starčevo-Criş în bazinul Mureşului mijlociu. Apulum, 26: 9-47. Alba Iulia.

Draşovean, F. 2001 - Early Neolithic settlement at Timişoara-Fratelia, In Draşovean, F. (ed.) Festschrift für Gheorghe Lazarovici Zum 60. Geburtstag. Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica, XXX: 33-40. Mirton, Timişoara.

Dimitrijević, S. 1974 - Das Problem der Gliederung der Starčevo-kultur mit besonder Rucksicht auf den Beiträg der südpannonischen Fundstellen zur Lösung dieses Problems. Materijali, X: 59-121. Belgrade.

Dumitrescu, V. 1970 - Cu privire la cea mai veche cultură neolitică din România. Studii şi comunicări de istorie veche şi arheologie, 21 (2): 187-198. Bucharest.

Dumitrescu, V., Bolomey, A. and Mogoşanu, M. 1983 - Esquisse d’une préhistoire de la Roumanie. Bucharest.

Karmanski, S. 1986 - Donja Branjevina. Published by the author, Odžaci.

Lazarovici, G. 1975 - Unele probleme ale ceramicii neoliticului din Banat. Banatica, 3: 7-24. Reşiţa.

Lazarovici, G. 1977 - Gornea. Preistorie. Caiete Banatica series, 5. Reşiţa.

Lazarovici, G. 1979 - Neoliticul Banatului. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, IV. Cluj-Napoca.

Lazarovici, G. 1983 - Neoliticul timpuriu din zona Porţilor de Fier (Clisură). Banatica, 7: 9-34. Reşiţa.

Lazarovici, G. 1984 - Neoliticul timpuriu în România. Acta Musei Porolissensis, 8: 40-104. Zalău.

Lazarovici, G. 1992 - Aşezarea neolitică timpurie de la Zăuan şi câteva dintre problemele privind neoliticul timpuriu din Balcani. Acta Musei Napocensis, 16: 25-59. Cluj-Napoca.

Lazarovici, G. 1993 - Les Carpates Meridionales et la Transylvanie. In Kozłowski, J. (ed.) Atlas du Néolithique Européen, L`Europe Orientale 1. ERAUL, 45: 243-284. Liége.

Lazarovici, G. 2001 - Despre locul descoperirilor de la Şeuşa în neoliticul timpuriu din sud-estul Europei. Bibliotheca Musei Porolis-sensis, 4: 37-47. Zalău.

Lazarovici, G. 2005 - Culturile Pre-Criş - I, Pre-Criş - II şi Postcriş I, Postcriş II. Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis, 4: 23-78. Sibiu.

Lazarovici, G. and Kalmar, Z.M. 1995 - Gura Baciului. Monografie Archeologica. Biblioteca Musei Napocensis, XI. Cluj-Napoca.

Lazarovici, G. and Micle, D. 2001 - Introducere în Arheologia informatizată. Bilbiotheca Historica et Archaeologica Universitatis Timisensis, III. Timişoara.

Luca, S.A. 1995-1996 - Die Vinča-Siedlung aus Rumess. Die A-Phase der Vinča-Kultur in Siebenbürgen. Sargetia, 26: 45-62. Deva.

– 87

Luca, S.A. and Barbu, M. 1992-1994 - Aşezarea neolitică de la Iosaş-Anele (jud. Arad). Sargetia, 25: 13-24. Deva.

Luca, S.A., Ciugudean, H. and Roman, C., 2000b - Die frühphase der Vinča- Kultur in Siebenbürgen. Anhaltspunkte des chronologischen und ethnokulturellen horizontes. Apulum, 37 (1): 1-50. Alba Iulia.

Luca, S.A., Ciugudean, H., Roman, C. and Dragotă, A. 2000 - Faza timpurie a culturii Vinča în Transilvania. Repere ale orizontului cronologic şi cultural. Angustia, 5: 37-72. Sfintu Gheorghe.

Luca, S.A. and Georgescu, A., 1998 - Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş. Cronica cercetărilor arheologice, 1998: 44. Bucharest.

Luca, S.A. and Georgescu, A., 1999 - Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş. Cronica cercetărilor arheologice, 1999: 64. Bucharest.

Luca, S.A., Georgescu, A., Gonciar, A., Batiuk, S. and Suciu, C. 2002 - Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş. Cronica cercetărilor arheologice, 2002: 204. Bucharest.

Luca, S.A., Georgescu, A. and Spânu, A.L. 2000a - Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş. Cronica cercetărilor arheologice, 2000: 86. Bucharest.

Luca, S.A., Georgescu, A. and Suciu, C. 2001 - Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş. Cronica cercetărilor arheologice, 2001: 143. Bucharest.

Luca, S.A., Roman, C. and Diaconescu, D. 2004 - Cercetări arheologice în Peştera Cauce (I). Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis, IV. Sibiu.

Luca, S.A., Roman, C., Diaconescu, D., Ciugudean, H., El Susi. G. and Beldiman, C., 2005 - Cercetări arheologice în Peştera Cauce (II). Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis, V. Sibiu.

Maxim, Z. 1999 - Neo-Eneoliticul din Transilvania-date arheologice şi matematico-statistice. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, XIX. Cluj-Napoca.

Nandris, J.G. 1990 - Practical and theoretical considerations in highland zone exploitation from ethnoarchaeological fieldwork in south-east Europe. In Biagi, P. (ed.) The Neolithisation of the Alpine Region. Monografie di Natura Bresciana, 13: 7-22. Brescia.

Paul, I. 1989 - Unele probleme ale neoliticului timpuriu din zona carpato-dunăreană. Studii şi comunicări de istorie veche şi arheologie, 40 (1): 3-28. Bucharest.

Paul, I. 1992 - Cultura Petreşti. Editura Museion, Bucharest.

Paul, I. 1995 - Vorgeschichtliche Untersuchungen in Siebenbürgen. Bibliotheca Universitatis Apulensis, I. Alba Iulia.

Păunescu, A. 1958 - Locuirea neolitică de la Dârţu-Ceahlău. Studii şi comunicări de istorie veche, 9 (2): 269-271. Bucharest.

Păunescu, A. 1970 - Evoluţia uneltelor şi armelor de piatră descoperite pe teritoriul României. Biblioteca de Arheologie, XV. Bucharest.

Păunescu, A. 1979 - Cercetările arheologice de la Cuina Turcului-Dubova (jud. Mehedinţi). Tibiscus, 5: 11-56. Timişoara.

Tarcea, L., and Lazarovici, G. 1996 - Zeus, sistem pentru gestiunea şi prelucrarea datelor arheologice. Acta Musei Napocensis, 31 (1): 683-689. Cluj-Napoca.

Ursulescu, N. 1984 - Evoluţia culturii Starčevo-Criş pe teritoriul Moldovei. Suceava County Museum, Suceava.

Vlassa, N. 1964 - În legătură cu neoliticul timpuriu de la Dârţu-Ceahlău. Acta Musei Napocensis, 1: 463-464. Cluj-Napoca.

Vlassa, N. 1966 - Cultura Criş în Transilvania. Acta Musei Napocensis, 3: 9-48. Cluj-Napoca.

Vlassa, N. 1976 - Neoliticul Transilvaniei. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, III. Cluj-Napoca

Zaharia, E. 1962 - Considerations sur la civilisation de Criş à la lumière des sondages de Leţ. Dacia, 6: 5-51. Bucharest.

Zaharia, E. 1964 - Consideraţii asupra civilizaţiei Criş în lumina sondajelor de la Leţ. Studii şi comunicări de istorie veche şi arheologie, 15 (1): 19-44. Bucharest.

Authors’ Addresses:ADRIAN S. LUCA and COSMIN SUCIU, Institute for the Study and Valorisation of the Transylvanian Patrimony in European Context, ‘Lucian Blaga’ University, B-dul Victoriei Nr. 5-7 – RO - 550024 SIBIUe-mails: [email protected] and [email protected]

– 89

LOLITA NIKOLOVA*

TOWARD AN EVOLUTIONARY MODEL OF GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL COMPLEXITY AMONG THE NEOLITHIC POTTERY

COMMUNITIES IN THE BALKANS (CULTURAL-CHRONOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL-ANTHROPOLOGICAL PROBLEMS)

SUMMARY - Toward an evolutionary model of gradual development of social complexity among the Neolithic pottery communities in the Balkans (cultural-chronological and cultural-anthropological problems). Based on the recent data on the earlier Neolithic material culture, we distinguish five general stages of development in social complexity during the Neolithic in the Balkans, from the emergence of sedentary pottery-making communities to the culmination of the Neolithic cultures’ development in the latest Neolithic, including the introduction of metallurgy. In this approach we will discuss cultural-chronological and cultural-anthropological problems mainly of the first stage of Neolithic development in the Balkans, using in some cases a prospective analysis, from the later chronological periods. Of primary importance for the chronological conclusions are the radiocarbon dates, while the social models are based on the general theories in cultural and social anthropology, sociology and especially the anthropology of everydayness. This approach has also proposed that our understanding of the problems of the earliest pottery-making complex societies in the Balkans would benefit from further intensification of micro-regional interdisciplinary investigations from the point of view of the anthropology of everydayness, by constructing micro- and medium-social models of social reproduction.

RIASSUNTO - Per un modello di sviluppo graduale della complessità sociale delle comunità neolitiche ceramiche dei Balcani (problemi cronologico-culturali e antropologico-culturali). Grazie ai dati disponibili riguardanti i reperti della cultura materiale del Neolitico più antico, possiamo attualmente distinguere cinque fasi di sviluppo della complessità sociale del Neolitico dei Balcani, a partire dalle prime comunità sedentarie di popolazioni produttrici di ceramica, alla fine del Neolitico quando venne introdotto il metallo. In questo lavoro vengono discussi i problemi cronologico-culturali e antropologico-culturali riguardanti principalmente l’inizio del Neolitico, utilizzando, in alcuni casi, un’analisi prospettica. Le datazioni radiocarboniche sono di importanza fondamentale, per quanto riguarda le conclusioni cronologiche, mentre i modelli sociali sono basati su teorie generali prese dall’antropologia sociale e culturale e, in particolar modo, dall’antropologia di tutti i giorni. Questo approccio metodologico mostra come la comprensione dei problemi relativi alle prime comunità produttrici di ceramica dei Balcani potrebbe migliorare notevolmente qualora vi fosse un incremento degli studi microregionali nell’antropologia di tutti i giorni, grazie alla costruzione di modelli riproduttivi micro e medio sociali.

INTRODUCTION: GENERAL RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

Graduate models of Neolithisation of the Balkans have become the most popular in contemporary archae-ology. Although the data included may have a variety of interpretations followed even by alternative conclu-sions (Parzinger, 1993; Whittle, 1996: 39; Budja, 1998; Vajsov, 1998; Boyadzhiev, 2000; Nikolova, 2000; Thissen, 2000; Biagi et al., 2005), the models themselves are theoretically valuable contributions to this field of research.

We would point to two fundamental aspects: demographic growth (increasing population density in the Bal-kans), and social change (the gradual increase in social complexity). The latter is the subject of our approach.

Based on the recent data on the earlier Neolithic material culture, we are able to distinguish five general stages of development in social complexity during the Neolithic in the Balkans, from the emergence of sedentary pottery-making communities to the culmination of the Neolithic cultures’ development in the latest Neolithic, including the introduction of metallurgy (Topolnitsa, unpublished). We would briefly describe the evolutionary social scheme as follows:



——————————* University of Utah and International Institute of Anthropology, Salt Lake City, USA

90 –

1. An initial development of the earliest pottery-making communities (in the later 7th millennium cal BC), and the emergence of archaic white-painted pottery communities (in the latest 7th millennium cal BC), which is still documented in only some parts of the Balkans (the so-called monochrome phase and the phase of Kovachevo Ia/b and related sites). With further research and additional data, we believe that in future it will become clear whether we can differentiate two sub-stages or even two independent stages in the later 7th millennium cal BC.

2. The classical white painted pottery-making communities covering a broader region of the Balkans (early Karanovo I, early Starčevo horizon), characterised by a demographic boom in the Balkans at the beginning of the 6th millennium cal BC.

3. Late white painted and polychrome pottery-making communities with a variety of regional models, and the development of a network of dense micro-regional settlement systems with multi-scale and multi-variation interaction systems (later Karanovo I, Karanovo II, later Starčevo horizon) during the second quarter of the 6th millennium cal BC.

4. Late polychrome and dark burnished pottery communities (late Starčevo, Karanovo III and related cultures), c. the third quarter of the 6th millennium cal BC. According to the recent evidence, it is also believed that Hamangia is the first Neolithic culture in the northeast part of the Balkans, whose beginning was possibly contemporaneous with later Karanovo III Culture.

5. Encrusted, pricked and dark burnished pottery-making communities (early Vinča, Topolnitsa, Karanovo IV, early Boian, Hamangia and related cultures), c. the fourth quarter of the 6th millennium cal BC.During the first two stages, the most parts of the Balkans between the Drina River and the Black Sea, and

the Carpathians and the Aegean, were gradually occupied by pottery-making communities; during the next three stages the Neolithic complexity was reproduced, developed and expanded, representing, on the whole, a typical evolutionary model of development of complexity in prehistory, indicating possibly the existence of powerful systems of economic and political multi-scale social strategies and networks that kept the social systems stable.

In this approach we will discuss cultural-chronological and cultural-anthropological problems mainly of the first stage of Neolithic development in the Balkans, using in some cases a prospective analysis (from the later chronological periods). Of primary importance for the chronological conclusions are the radiocarbon dates, while the social models are based on general theories in cultural and social anthropology, sociology and especially the anthropology of everydayness (Featherstone, 1992; Chaney, 2002).

CULTURAL-CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS

To study the problem archaeologically, of special importance are the new results of the Kovachevo ex-cavations (Lichardus-Itten et al., 2000; 2006) and the radiocarbon dates from this site, the newly published data from the Struma Valley (Chokhadzhiev, 2001), the publication of Donja Branjevina (Karmanski, 2005) and Koprivets (Popov, 1996) and other sites in the lower Danube (Elenski, 2005; Elenski and Leshtakov, 2006), and the theoretical contribution of N.N. Tasić (2003) to the white-painted pottery settlements of Starčevo Culture.

It is worth considering the thematic studies of the Iron Gates data (Bonsall et al., 2000; 2002; 2004), the new data from Lepenski Vir (Borić, pers. comm. 2006), and a Macedonian survey project (Wilkie and Savina,1997).The new archaeological compilation of sites from Bulgaria should be also added, despite the chronological problems of some sites and theoretical controversy of the model discussed (Elenski, 2005; Elenski and Lesktakov, 2006; Weninger et al., in press).

Our basic chronological framework of Balkan Neolithic sequences was argued in Nikolova (1998). It seems like the new evidence confirmed that for the time being, there are no archaeological arguments to divide the monochrome horizon as an independent stage of the development of the Early Neolithic in the Balkans while the publications after 1998 allow us to update the scheme, including especially Kovachevo.

THE EARLIEST POTTERY SETTLEMENTS IN THE BALKANS

We propose the following two typological and cultural-chronological horizons for the earliest Neolithic (c. 6300-c. 6000 cal BC) between the Danube and the Aegean:

– 91

1. Hoca Çeşme 4-3, Krajnitsi 1, Divostin 1, Koprivets 1, Dzhulyunitsa, Smurdesh 1. This horizon is known as the monochrome pottery with an incipient painted pottery horizon (c. ?6300-6200/6100 cal BC). The period between c. 6300 and 6000 cal BC coincides with the so-called 8.2 ka event.

2. Kovachevo 1a/b, Vaksevo-Studena Voda 1-2, Nevestino 1, Anzabegovo Ia, Donja Branjevina II and related sites (earliest white-painted pottery horizon (c. 6200/6100-6000 cal BC). We cannot precisely date the beginning and the end of the two horizons because there are no radiocarbon

dates available from most of the settlements investigated and the records come from different distant regions. In other words, horizon 1 could have overlapped with horizon 2, on the one hand. On the other hand, the radiocarbon dates from earlier Karanovo I Culture (c. 6000 cal BC and later) suggest that the first pottery-making settlements in Thrace (e.g., Kovachevo Ia/b, Rakitovo) could be before the beginning of 6th millennium cal BC. Then, we have three basic problems: 1. What are the cultural and chronological interrelations between Horizon 1 and Horizon 2 formulated

above? 2. What is the relationship of the beginning of Karanovo I Culture to these Horizons? 3. How were both horizons influenced by the 8.2 ka event (c. 6300-6000 cal BC), since the most probably

probable chronological span of Horizon 1 and Horizon 2 completely overlaps with this interruption in the early Holocene climate?

The first Neolithic typological and cultural-chronological horizon

The identification of the monochrome pottery stage as the earliest Neolithic chronological horizon in the Balkans was initially formulated by Srejović (1988: 85-86) on the basis of data from Eastern Serbia. Later the concept became popular since other archaeologists believed that they had documented monochrome pottery sites: in southwest Bulgaria (Krajnitsi I), northeast Bulgaria (for instance Polyanitsa-Platoto and Koprivets I), Romania (Gura Baciului Ia), the Vojvodina (Donja Branjevina III), European Turkey (Hoca Ceşme IV) and other sites. The stage is also called proto-Starčevo and was documented for instance, in Makresani-Ornice.

In light of the recent data, the site of Hoca Çeşme is of special value. Most researchers share the opinion that Hoca Çeşme preceded Karanovo I (Parzinger and Özdoğan, 1996; Nikolova, 1998). Li-chardus and Iliev (2000:81) suggested a different interpretation. They did not accept the analogies with Hacilar and with Karanovo I proposed in the preliminary publication of Parzinger and Özdoğan (1996) and they believed that the earliest analogies with Thrace can be found in the Karanovo II cul-ture. But the radiocarbon dates (c. 6300-6200 cal BC) strengthen the hypothesis that the earliest level of Hoca Çeşme (IV) belongs to the Balkan earliest pottery chronological horizon (Nikolova, 1998). According to the excavators of Hoca Çeşme, painted pottery was documented even in the earliest phase of this site. At the same time, some monochrome pottery sites from the Central Balkans and from the Lower Danube do not have radiocarbon dates. We also need to keep in mind the typology of the pot-tery of the first Balkan cultural-chronological ceramic horizon is not well elaborated, only small areas of the monochrome pottery sites have been excavated, and even during the classical Early Neolithic it is possible that painted pottery has simply been missed. The conclusion seems to be supported by the new excavations at Dzhulyunitsa-Smurdesh (central northern Bulgaria, Veliko Turnovo District), where according to the preliminary excavation reports (Elenski, 2005; Elenski and Leshtakov, 2006) pottery was discovered with analogies at Hoca Çeşme III-IV. A peculiarity is “a painting with a dark color/slip, like the vessel was washed with a slip” (Elenski, 2005: 22). The author dates the layer from pre-white painted stage of Early Neolithic in the Balkans. The site of Okhoden in northwest Bulgaria was proposed as a monochrome settlement (the final phase of Proto-Starčevo [Ganetsovski, 2005: 23]), but the preliminary information about a radiocarbon date from this site (5710±40 cal BC: Ganetsovski, 2005: 30) points to later phase (Weninger et al., in press).

For the time being, let us assume that there are undiscovered monochrome pottery villages in the Upper Thracian valley that theoretically allow us to presume the stage overlapped with the white-painted stage. In this sense it is possible to question the real existence of the monochrome pottery stage (Thissen, 2000: 196-197).

In light of the recent evidence, it is a problem not only the synchronization of the earlier painted pottery sites from Upper Thrace with the monochromic sites, but also with the earliest painted pottery sites from the basin of the Struma. At Kovachevo, analogies with Upper Thrace can be found only during the third phase of Early Neolithic settlement, which may indicate a stage of independent development of the two painted styles.

92 –

Alternatively, we have to accept for the time being, that the pottery discovered in Upper Thrace is later than the earliest painted pottery in the basin of the Struma River.

As we stressed above, according to M. Özdoğan (1998), painted pottery fragments occurred in the earliest level of the village of Hoca Çeşme IV. If these sherds were found in their original stratigraphic context, they may indicate that the earliest stage of the Neolithic in the Balkans could not be absolutely monochromic, or that Hoca Çeşme IV is not contemporaneous with the earliest known monochrome pottery sites or that there were contacts with the painted pottery communities, so Hoca Çeşme IV represents a transition from the monochrome to the painted pottery in the Balkans.

Having in mind some typological similarities between the monochrome pottery and early white-painted pottery, in the chronological scheme the former can be defined as the earliest phase in the first stage of the gradual Neolithisation of the Balkans in the sense of foundation of pottery-using settlements. It dates from the later third quarter of the 7th millennium cal BC, since the calibrated dates from Hoca Çeşme IV and Polyanitsa-Platoto date from 6200-5800 cal BC, a span that overlaps with the dates of the earliest painted pottery in the Balkans (Nikolova, 1998: diagram 1).

The chronology of Hoca Çeşme III is important to define the chronology of Hoca Çeşme IV. According to Özdoğan (1998), Hoca Çeşme III preceded Karanovo I. Most of the radiocarbon dates date the third level to after the beginning of the 6th millennium cal BC, but computer modelling (Nikolova, 1998: diagram 3) means the beginning of Hoca Çeşme III can be dated to the very end of the 7th millennium cal BC, and Hoca Çeşme IV to before 6100 cal BC.

Since there are no radiocarbon dates from Krajnitsi, Divostin and Koprivets, they may have actually pre-ceded even Hoca Çeşme IV, and we may have to date the beginning of the monochrome pottery horizon to before 6300 cal BC. New radiocarbon dates would help precisely to determine the horizon.

The second Neolithic typological and cultural-chronological horizon

The earliest data about white-painted pottery from Kovachevo were a base for proposing a cultural group (Lichardus-Itten et al., 2000: 35) that includes the most southwest Bulgaria and the north regions of Nea Nikomedea and Giannitsa. It is believed this group was the ancestor of the Karanovo I Culture. Important elements are the documented southern elements in the ceramic style, an influence from Ses-klo (Achilleion, Tsani), which according to the recent data occurred in the phase Ib/c at Kovachevo (Lichardus-Itten et al., 2000: 34, note 44).

The similarity includes chess motifs (dark brown on light brown), although the technology was different (Lichardus-Itten et al., 2000: 34; for Nea Nikomedea and Anzabegovo see Thissen, 2000: 194-195). The set-tlements analysed by N.N. Tasić (2003) with the earliest painted pottery in the western-central Balkans includes sites within a relatively wide chronological diapason (c. 6100 cal BC and the beginning of the 6th millennium cal BC) and would only partly cover our second horizon.

In southwest Bulgaria, impressive typological similarities with Kovachevo Ia/b in white-painted ornamen-tation are found at the sites of Nevestino 1 and Vaksevo-Studena Voda 1-2 (fig. 1). All these assemblages may relate to the earliest white-painted pottery at Donja Branjevina in the Vojvodina (Serbia) (fig. 2). The common elements may indicate interactions or common origins while the differences point to local peculiarities and/or some chronological differences.

Most of the published radiocarbon dates from Kovachevo (Reingruber and Thissen, 2005) come from the earliest phase. They verify our hypothesis that Kovachevo Ia-b could be dated to the last century of the 7th millennium cal BC.

A specific problem is the relationship of the earliest pottery Neolithic settlements to the Lepenski Vir Cul-ture. Recently, new radiocarbon data were interpreted in terms of the 8.2 ka event and according to Bonsall (et al., 2000; 2002; 2004) with co-authors, there were changes in the settlement pattern in the Iron Gates area during the later 7th millennium cal BC, whereas at Lepenski Vir itself there was continuity.

The radiocarbon data favour possible co-existence of the hunter-gatherer communities and the earli-est sedentary pottery communities in the Balkans in the earlier 6th millennium cal BC. However, we need more recently excavated evidence for deeper structural analysis. Possible DNA samples from Divostin, the Iron Gates and Dzhulyunitsa-Smurdyak would also help to construct models of interrelations between the Balkan non-pottery hunter-gatherers and the earliest pottery-using communities, whose economy was based on sedentary farming, semi-sedentary farming and/or stockbreeding, depending on the micro-re-gional environment.

– 93

Fig 1 - Similarity in the ornamentation in sites from the second typological and cultural-chronological horizon (after different authors).

94 –

Fig. 2 - Earlier white-painted pottery from Donja Branjevina (after Karmanski, 2005).

CULTURAL-ANTHROPOLOGICAL PROBLEMS

The Neolithisation in the Balkans as a problem

Following the archaeological paradigm above, we have to point to the emergence of a new lifestyle, sed-entary and semi-sedentary/semi-mobile pottery-using communities, in short or long-lived villages, founding in many cases the first prehistoric tells. Neolithisation in the Balkans means pottery, plant and animal domesticates and a new social network of stable early complex communities.

– 95

However, at a micro-regional level the questions are rather different: why one environment was chosen and not another, for instance, living on the riverside or next to a mineral spring, why one subsistence strategy was adopted and not another (completely sedentary or semi-sedentary and even semi-mobile to mobile way of life), what was the rate of population growth, of artistic and ideological presentations, etc. In other words, the ancient population had many more problems to resolve than those problems framed by the traditional Neolithisation paradigm (domestication and diffusion of the Neolithic package).

In our case, if we preserve the term Neolithisation it just means “formation of the early complex society based on productive economy by multi-faceted social processes in the different micro-regions” (Findlay et al., 1997; Özdoğan, 2002). In this context I believe we deal with one of the most amazing moments in human his-tory, because our distant ancestors discovered and patterned the foundation of our modern life, the homes, in which we live, the food that we eat, and the bases of the multi-level and multi-scale social interrelations and interactions and especially the fundamentals of what we name enculturation. In some regions Neolithic com-munities even developed social strategies of investment, up to discovering gold and jewellery as an opportunity to accumulate and reproduce wealth (the Hamangia Culture).

Neolithisation of the Balkans and the 8.2 ka event

The 8.2 ka event has been recognized as “the most prominent climatic event occurring in the early Holocene” documented by the climate researchers. It is the result of a salinity anomaly in the North Atlantic, which was caused by the outflow of two Laurentide glacial lakes, “transferring its effects globally through oceanic and atmospheric redistribution of energy” (Sugden, 2005).

In point of fact, the role of the 8.2 ka event in the earlier prehistory of Eurasia has become a popular topic for scholars interested either in the Neolithisation of Europe or in the economic and demographic crises in Near East and in Anatolia. The simplified thesis argues that the 8.2 ka event caused a crisis in Anatolia and stimulated a migration towards Europe. It is stated that in archaeological terms the climatic change known as 8.2 ka event coincides with the earliest pottery settlements in the Balkans (the so-called monochrome pottery horizon) from the second half of the 7th millennium cal BC. This at first view makes a strong argument that the Neolithisation of the Balkans was a result of the interruption in the Holocene climate known as the 8.2 ka event, or in other words the latter caused migrations and demographic changes in Eurasia including a wave of immigrants who occupied the Balkans.

Regarding Balkan prehistory, the problem was discussed by Bonsall (et al., 2000; 2002; 2004) at the mi-cro-regional level: the Iron Gates case study, as well as more globally for the Balkans and Europe by Weninger and collaborators (Weninger et al., in press). For the time being, it is noticeable in the Balkans a transition to pottery settlements most probably began within the span of the 8.2 ka event or a little bit earlier. It is sug-gested the climate to the south of the Danube was dryer during the 8.2 ka event that before and after the event (Bonsall, 2006), but as L. Sugden (2005) stated “the event induced environmental responses globally, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, but the magnitude, spatial expression and mechanisms of this response are not well understood”.

Following this line of opinion, the best conditions for a graduate biological and social reproduction within the Neolithic pottery population in the Balkans occurred actually after the 8.2 ka event, since the beginning of the 6th millennium cal BC was the period of tremendous expansion of the pottery settlements. Of the newly-discovered sites we would mention the village of Ilindentsi, which was founded on high ter-race of the Struma Valley, probably in the period of the classical white painted pottery (Karanovo Ic and Id analogies were documented by the excavator [Grebska-Kulova, 2005: 42]). This case study supports an expansion of the white pottery settlements from south to north, but a period of population growth would also have led to the subdivision (segmentation) of existing communities and gradually increasing settlement density in the lower Struma Valley.

The conclusion would be that the 8.2 ka event did not favour, and possibly slowed the Neolithisation process in the Balkans. Further palaeoclimatic and archaeological data would allow further research in depth of this contentious problem.

Neolithisation, Enculturation and Anthropology of Everydayness

Although the Neolithisation of the Balkans is a deep-rooted theme in Balkan archaeology, the different schools of thought discuss familiar problems such as: Neolithisation and migrations; Neolithisation and the

96 –

autochthonous population; Neolithisation and emergence of the earliest Neolithic archaeological cultures (Ka-ranovo I, Starčevo, etc.); Neolithisation and the monochrome ceramic horizon, etc.

In the 1990s R. Tringham (2000) and A. Whittle (1996: 37-46) offered different theoretical models of the Neolithisation of southeast Europe, while in general terms it has become clear that none of the current theo-ries (migration, colonization, economic change, disaster-like events, climatic change, psychological factors, accumulation etc.) (Cauvin, 2000) can itself completely explain the archaeological data on one hand, and the cultural process on the other, in any region of Neolithisation.

Anthropology of everydayness is also a traditional theme in archaeology. However, what makes the modern development of this theory actual and powerful are its methodological principles: from a description of artefacts of everydayness toward constructing structural models of prehistoric everydayness as a continuing development, in which we can find reproducing traditions, ideas and enduring changes.

Anthropology of everydayness has attempted to develop not only as a theory of explanation of ancient lives, but also it is strongly oriented toward the developing modern technique of excavating and documenting structures and artefacts for constructing micro-cultural as well as macro-cultural processes. Usually the re-searcher asks Why questions and answers as an outsider (e.g. “They migrated because there was A (B, C...) type of circumstances”). Conversely, we might say “They chose A or B as the most successful social reproduction strategy for the community”, which makes the ancient population not a subject and victim of nature and external circumstances, but active social actors with clear and well-defined social reproduction strategies. This is the place to point to at least two theoretical insights that could be useful for prehistoric cultural anthropology:1. Evolution itself does not embody the trend of increasing complexity (Hodgson and Knudsen, 2006: 17). 2. Unlike the classical evolutionary schemes that posited “a uniform direction of change from simple to complex

form, and from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous” (Smith, 1976: 35), one can argue for multi-evolutional and even devolution traits and search not only for the successful socially-reproduced strategies but also for the errors since “copying error is much more destructive to complexity than other forms of error, particularly in environmental interactions or individual development” (Hodgson and Knudsen, 2006: 17).The contemporary development of the concept of cultural reproduction is associated with the work of

P. Bourdieau and the growing interest in everyday social practices, while it is generally assumed that social reproduction is the process of reproduction of social relationships (Nikolova, 2006). We have emphasised that reproduction does not mean the reiteration of certain traditions: in most cases social strategies are based on different kinds of variations.

It seems that the increasing interest in the cultural-anthropological aspects of the earlier Neolithic from the point of view of the anthropology of everydayness would in turn increase the value of cultural models as in the case of the Iron Gates. Regarding the earliest pottery sites in the Balkans, we still are able to work only with a few sites, which are situated at long distances from one another. On the other hand, there is only excep-tional chronological continuity documented and respectively no opportunity for a detail analysis of the social reproduction on-site.

A general model of social replication (fig. 3) includes several steps in social reproduction: mating (com-petition, choice) and parenting (Betzig et al., 1988) followed by biological and social reproduction (kinship grouping and social grouping by age, gender and/or interest).

For the time being, among the best records for social reproduction are the burials in the settlements (Nikolova, 2006) interpreted not only as evidence of the cult of the dead (Tilley, 1996: 215) but also an element in the social reproduction strategies for enhancing of the living community. A strong case study are the burials from northwest Anatolia (Early Neolithic Ilipinar), where on the periphery of the village were buried exclusively children. Such a concentration of earlier Neolithic burials, for the time being, has been recorded in the Balkans only at Maluk Preslavets painted pottery village (northeast Bulgaria), where the ages of the deceased vary (Infans I, Infans II, Juvenilis, Adultus, Maturus [Yordanov and Dimitrova, 1996: 108]). However, isolated or grouped single, or more rarely double and triple burials were typical of the Early Neolithic Balkans (Lichter, 2001).

Whittle (1996: 37, 39), who contrasts the foraging way of life to that of Neolithic sedentary communities, includes in his comparison the increasing reverence of the dead as ancestors and for the principle of descent. However, the village burials in Upper Thrace are not comparable either with those of Lepenski Vir nor with those at Ilipinar. It is possible that flat cemeteries have not yet been discovered in Upper Thrace, but it also looks likely that despite the communal manner of life, the cult of the dead during the Early Neolithic in the Balkans was integrated into the household realm of traditions, and the graves were therefore dispersed. In other words, the communal life did not require a communal cemetery, and according to the available data it is in the later Neolithic when a central place of the ancestors was founded, for instance in the northeast Balkans

– 97

Fig. 3 - A simplified model of social replication, which was embodied in the Early Neolithic societies and has been reproducing till nowadays.

(e.g. Durankulak). Curiously, the large cemetery occurred in an area with a relatively mobile population. Ac-cordingly, in the early stages of civilization the settlement and the cemeteries complement each other - big villages with no or smaller cemeteries, and a mobile or semi-sedentary (semi-mobile) - population with a large cemetery as a central place.

We can also presume that cult of the ancestors (respectively the social memory of the ancestors), was the framework of the everyday social life within the different sedentary and semi-sedentary communities. As Whit-tle (1996: 37) has pointed out, the clay figurines may have represented ancestors, although they could also represent mythic figures. The expressive finding from Thessaly, places the prehistoric figurines closer to the ancestor beliefs (Coles, 1998), while the common stylistic peculiarities replicated over vast territories, and the absence of individualized characteristics, may support their interpretation as mythic images. If one combines both alternatives, including also a presumed divine function, probably we could be closer to the past reality; mythic ancestors who connected the social-natural worlds of the communities and generations during feasts and rituals, combining the vertical and horizontal aspects of enculturation, the so-called “ein Medium der Kommunikation” (Cauvin, 2000: 29f. for the Near East; Hansen, 2006: 142). The role of the ancestors is very well documented among traditional cultures and can be thought even as the original owners of the land (Kuper, 1982: 15).

Towards the Neolithic Social Complexity

Despite the broader database on the Neolithisation of the Balkans, recently there are still irresolvable prob-lems that make research in depth difficult and leave the Neolithic experts at the level of general hypotheses:

We still have a limited knowledge about the development and the demographic destiny and peculiarities of the hunter-gathering communities in the Central and Eastern Balkans in later 7th millennium cal BC, and especially about what happened to them during the latest 7th and the beginning of the 6th millennia cal BC. The data can be interpreted using different models and methodologies that permits two opposing models of Neolithisation to co-exist: autochthonous, which is more plausible in the light of the newest data from the Iron Gates, and pure migration, which connects the Neolithisation with immigrants from southeast and/or south only. The analysis of the social complexity in the Iron Gates (Borić, 2005; Budja, pers. comm. 2006; Bonsall, pers. comm. 2006) and the new radiocarbon data from the Iron Gates (Borić, 2005: 25) stimulate research into the

98 –

transformation of hunting-gathering strategies, keeping in mind that the earliest pottery sites occur in regions closer to the Iron Gates (eastern Serbia and the Struma Valley). In archaeological terms, one possible next step is to try to bridge socially the grave 7 (from House 21 at Lepenski Vir) discovered with an aurochs skull (Borić, 2005: 23-24) and the Neolithic data about social complexity. 1. The emergence of the earliest pottery settlements cannot answer the question of who founded those vil-

lages, camps or central places, since all hypotheses have been based on pottery data and burial evidence is practically absent. However, the innovation of the fired pottery (ceramic) production can easily diffuse and can be accepted in everyday life, as either as a replacement for wooden vessels or in the context of revolutionary changes in diet and the development of the subsistence economy.

2. The role of the population from the latest 7th millennium cal BC in the settlement and the cultural explo-sion during the first half of the 6th millennium cal BC cannot be evaluated realistically and cannot exclude a possible new migration, since the evidence again makes possible only general hypotheses and allows the co-existence of complementary and even of opposing explanation models.In our opinion, Neolithisation represents a long-term process of gradual foundation and reproduction of

the earliest pottery-using complex societies and their spread over the whole territory of the Balkans. The flat migration model of Neolithisation is based on distribution of societies in the space, while the social model of Neolithisation stressed the gradual distribution of social complexity.

Fig. 4 - Model 1.1. A flat migration model of Neolithisation. Society 1 occupies social space 1 and later the same community occupies social space 2 (top). Model 1.2. A social model of distribution of the Neolithic complexity in the Balkans. Society 1 occupies social space 1 and the reproduced (more complex) society 1/1 occupies social space 2.

In theory the Balkan data support Model 1.2 (fig. 4) since any later Neolithic horizon is more complex that the previous. The wider distribution of the white painted pottery is a stage of development of social com-plexity, while the social strategies of economic and social stability required solidarity and possibly stimulated macro-regional similarity in ceramic style over vast territories. But our understanding is that archaeological similarity between households does not necessarily indicate social equality, since there are many archaeologi-cally invisible distinctions. A special problem is how the land was exploited and its role in the development of the Neolithic social complexity, but it is an unexplored theme that has been waiting for researchers specialised in economic anthropology. It is usually believed that the land in prehistory provided the subsistence while the accumulation of the wealth and the development of social hierarchy was a result of trade in exotic objects and the emergence of metallurgy.

A special problem in earlier Balkan prehistory is the initial development of social stratification and the biography of prestige objects.

Possible prestige items in the Early Neolithic in the Balkans include some exotic items like the obsidian knife from Kliment-Banyata, in the Upper Stryama Valley, from the later Early Neolithic. Obsidian items have been also reported from Kurdzhali, which marks one of the possible trade routes, along the Maritsa Valley from the Aegean or Anatolia. However, obsidian was also distributed in the Carpathians and their neighbourhood (Biagi et al., 2007) and in the Adriatic (Spataro, 2002: 12 and references cited there, pp. 201-202), and its function in the Balkan macro-region would be different because of the existence of different resources and perhaps because of a different understanding of its value. The Early Neolithic was exactly the period in which these prestige items were first used not only in everyday life but also as a possible investment and as a source of accumulation of wealth.

However, the most prominent and expressive were some jewellery items. From the Early Neolithic, they become in many cases emblems of social prosperity and wealth (e.g. finds from Hoca Çeşme (Turkish Thrace) and Gulubnic (Pernik District, western central Bulgaria) and later from Durankulak (northeast Bulgaria). This fact allows us to propose that a specially important role in our model of the evolution of the social complexity

Society A/1 Society A 1/2

Society 1/1 Society 1 1/2

– 99

would have been played by customs associated with marriages (respectively the bride wealth and marriage exchange) and generally the development of systems of hierarchical exchanges well-known from traditional cultures (Kuper, 1982: 14 ff.; LiPuma, 1988: 148 ff.)

Researching these problems in depth and using these examples, it is possible that some pottery shapes and especially painted pottery diffused into the Balkan as status symbols and not as everyday objects. Over time the exotic and high-status items became more common in most of the communities because of the opportunity for large-scale replication. But imports (see above about Kovachevo) and limited diffusion of some stylistic types indicate that pottery has a specific cultural function in the social strategies of the Balkan prehistoric com-munities. In other words, we have been posing generally the question of the development of the social meaning of prehistoric objects. Applied to the topic of our study, the wide distribution of white-painted pottery itself would be a sign of increasing complexity in the Balkans, and the differentiation of the functions of the pottery productions and its ability to connect and distinguish communities through communication of or avoiding a transmission of stylistic similarities. Further discussions, new data and critical considerations would probably in future help to advance the understanding of the social aspects of development of complexity among the Neolithic societies in the Balkans.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of the present evidence there are still many unresolved problems regarding the synchronization of the earliest Neolithic pottery settlements in the different micro-regions of the Balkans. This makes any cultural interpretations hypothetical and impedes in-depth research.

Within our 5-stage scheme of evolution of social complexity in Neolithic Balkans we have proposed two typological and cultural-chronological horizons of the earliest Balkan pottery settlements (stage 1 of Balkan Neolithic Social Evolution):1. The initial pottery horizon: Hoca-Çeşme 4, Krajnitsi 1, earliest Divostin, Koprivets 1, Dzhulyunitsa-

Smurdyak 1, Donja Branjevina III (c. ?6300/6200-6100 cal BC).2. Earlier white-painted pottery horizon Kovachevo Ia/b, Donja Branjevina II, Vaksevo-Studena Voda 1-2,

Nevestino 1, Hoca Çeşme 3 (c. 6200/6100-c. 6000 cal BC). Based on the comparative analysis of the pot-tery from earlier Kovachevo and Rakitovo, it is possible that the Karanovo I Culture started during this horizon, but we do not have direct evidence for a precise synchronisation. The analysis of the data shows that the limited evidence of pottery-using settlements in the Balkans before

6000 cal BC may relate to the 8.2 ka event, while the real start of flourishing pottery long-term settlements in the Balkans occurred just after the end of the 7th millennium cal BC; in other words, after the 8.2 ka event. The 8.2 ka event would therefore had a decisive role in the Neolithisation of the Balkans.

This approach has also proposed that our understanding of the problems of the earliest pottery com-plex societies in the Balkans would benefit from further intensification of micro-regional interdisciplinary investigations from the point of view of the anthropology of everydayness, by constructing micro- and me-dium-social models of social reproduction. We also proposed a diachronic model of evolution of Neolithic complexity in the Balkans, believing that in the earliest stage even painted pottery would have related to the prestige items. Burials were a very important component of the social reproduction strategies working towards development of the ancestry ideology of the kinship-based Neolithic society. Last but not least, we believe that in the Neolithic Balkans the figurines were multifunctional, but their leading social function, representing real and/or mythical ancestors, was to connect generations and communities over vast areas as one of the strongest symbolic means of communication. Future in-depth research would add new arguments and updates to the topics of this study.

AcknowledgementsFirst of all I would like to thank Professor P. Biagi and Dr. M. Spataro for their invitation to participate in the London Seminar in 2005. To prepare this communication for publication, I benefited from my consultations with and/or kindly submitted offprints and papers in press from Professors S. Chokhadzhiev, C. Bonsall, N.N. Tasić and B. Weninger, to whom I am indebted indeed. My presentation at the Neolithic Seminar in Ljubljana (2006) and the guest-lecture on 30 November 2006 at the Free University in Berlin, in collaboration with the Eurasian Department of the German Archaeological Institute, allowed me not only to discuss the problems, but also to use the method of simulation models of social strategies, and I would like to thank all participants. The presentations at the Neolithic Seminar in Ljubljana (2006) and the latest discussions on the topic and/or generally on prehistory with Professors M. Budja, S. Hansen, W. Schier and Dr. R. Kraus were also extremely important for shaping my thesis and final conclusions in this approach.

100 –

R E F E R E N C E S

Betzig, L., Mulder, M.B. and Turke, P. 1988 - Human Reproductive Behaviour. A Darwinian Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Biagi, P., De Francesco, A.M. and Bocci, M. 2007 - New data on the archaeological obsidian from the Middle-Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites of the Banat and Transylvania. In Kozłowski, J.K. and Raczky, P. (eds.) The Lengyel, Polgár and related cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe. Polska Akademia Umiejętności, Kraków: 309-326.

Biagi, P., Shennan, S. and Spataro, M. 2005 - Rapid River and Slow Seas? New Data for the Radiocarbon Chronology of the Balkan Peninsula. In Nikolova, L., Fritz, J. and Higgins, J. (eds.) Prehistoric Archaeology & Anthropological Theory and Education. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects, 6-7: 41-50. International Institute of Anthropology. Salt Lake City - Karlovo.

Bonsall C. 2006 - When was the Neolithic transition in the Iron Gates? In Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds.) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12: 53-66. Trieste.

Bonsall, C., Cook, G.T., Hedges, R.E.M., Higham, T.F.G., Pickard, C. and Radovanović, I. 2004 - Radiocarbon and stable isotope evidence of dietary change from the Mesolithic to the Middle Ages in the Iron Gates: new results from Lepenski Vir. Radio-carbon, 46 (1): 293-300.

Bonsall, C., Cook, G., Lennon, R., Harkness, D., Scott, M., Bartosiewicz, L. and McSweeney, K. 2000 - Stable isotopes, radio-carbon and the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Iron Gates. Documenta Praehistorica, XXVII: 119-132. Ljubljana.

Bonsall, C., Macklin, M.G., Payton, R.W. and Boroneanţ, A., 2002 - Climate, floods and river gods: environmental change and the Meso-Neolithic transition in south-east Europe. Before Farming: the archaeology of Old World hunter-gatherers, 3-4 (2): 1-15.

Borić, D. 2005 - Deconstructing essentialisms: unsettling frontiers of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Balkans. In Bailey, D., Whittle, A. and Cummings, V. (eds.) (Un)settling the Neolithic. Oxbow Books, Oxford: 16-31.

Boyadzhiev, Y. 2000 - Razvitie na rannoneolitnite kulturi v Trakiya v svetlinata na radiovuglerodnite dati. Godishnik na Departament Arkheologiya, 4-5: 55-62. Sofia.

Budja, M. 1998 - The process of Neolithisation in south-eastern Europe: from ceramic female figurines and cereal grains to entoptics and human nuclear DNA polymorphic markers. Documenta Praehistorica, XXXII: 53-72. Ljubljana.

Cauvin, J. 2000 - The Birth of the Gods and the Origin of Agriculture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Chaney, D. 2002 - Cultural Change and Everyday Life. Palgrave, New York.

Chokhadzhiev, S. 2001 - Vaksevo. Praistoricheski selishta. Faber, Veliko Turnovo.

Coles, B. 1998 - Wood Species for Wooden Figurines: A Glimpse of a Pattern. In Gibson, A. and Simpson, D. (eds.) Prehistoric Ritual and Religion. Sutton Publishing, Phoenix Mill: 163-173.

Elenski, N. 2005 - Sondazhni rouchvaniya na rannoneolitnoto selishte Dzhulyunitsa-Smurdesh, Velikoturnovsko. In Nikov, K. (ed.) Arkheologicheski otkritiya i razkopki prez 2004 g. XLIV Natsionalna arkheologicheska konferentsiya. AIM pri BAN, Sofia: 21-23.

Elenski, N. and Leshtakov, P. 2006 - Sondazhni prouchvaniya na rannoneolitnoto selishte Dzhulyunitsa-Smurdesh, Velikoturnosvko. In Dimitrov, P. (ed.) Arkheologicheski otkritiya i razkopki prez 2005 g. XLV Natsionalna arkheologicheska konferentsiya. AIM pri BAN, Sofia: 36-39.

Featherstone, M. 1992 - The Heroic Life and Everyday Life. In Featherstone, M. (ed.) Cultural Theory and Cultural Change. Sage, London, Newbury Park & New Delhi: 159-182.

Findlay, P., Jones, S., McIver, S. Billeaud, J. and Weiman, T. 1997 - Complex society. At: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/glossary/findlaygloss/complex.html

Ganetsovski, G. 2005 - Arkheologicheski prouchvaniya na rannoneolitnoto selishte v m. Valoga (Dolnite Luki) kraj s. Okhoden. In Nikov, K. (ed.) Arkheologicheski otkritiya i razkopki prez 2004 g. XLIV Natsionalna arkheologicheska konferentsiya. AIM pri BAN, Sofia: 23-24.

Grebska-Kulova, M. 2005 - Sondazhni prouchvaniya na rannoneolitnoto selishte pri s. Ilindentsi, m. Vrushnik/Masovets. In Nikov, K. (ed.) Arkheologicheski otkritiya i razkopki prez 2004 g. XLIV Natsionalna arkheologicheska konferentsiya. AIM pri BAN, Sofia: 41-43.

Hansen, S. 2006 - Frühe Statuetten in Griechenland and ihre Vorbilder. In Gatsov, I. and Schwarzberg, H. (eds.) Aegean - Marmara - Black Sea. Present Stage of Research of the early Neolithic. Beier & Beran, Langenweissbach: 135-150.

Hodgson, G.M. and Knudsen, T. 2006 - Replication, Information and Complexity. At http://etss.net/files/Hodgson_Knudsen_06_01.pdf

Karmanski, S. 2005 - Donja Branjevina: a Neolithic settlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 10. Trieste.

Kuper, A. 1982 - Wives for Cattle Bridewealth and Marriage in Southern Africa. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

– 101

Lichardus, J. and Iliev, I.K. 2000 - Das frühe und mittlere Neolithikum an der unteren Tundža (Südostbulgarien). Ein Beitrag zu den chronologischen und kulturellen Beziehungen. In Hiller, S. and Nikolov, V. (eds.) Karanovo III. Beiträge zur Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Phoibos, Wien: 75-108.

Lichardus-Itten, M., Demoule, J.-P., Perničeva, L., Grebska-Kulova, M., Kulov, I. 2000 - Zur bemalten Keramik aus der frühneoli-thischen Siedlung von Kovačevo (SW-Bulgarien). In Hiller, S. and Nikolov, V. (eds.) Karanovo III. Beiträge zur Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Phoibos, Wien: 27-50.

Lichardus-Itten, M., Demoule, J.-P., Pernicheva, L., Grebska-Kulova, M., Kulov, I. 2006 - Kovačevo, an Early Neolithic Site in South-West Bulgaria and Its Importance for European Neolithization. In Gatsov, I. and Schwarzberg, H. (eds.) Aegean - Marmara - Black Sea. Present Stage of Research of the early Neolithic. Beier & Beran, Langenweissbach.

Lichter, C. 2001 - Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssitten des südosteuropäischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.

LiPuma, E. 1988 - The Gift of Kinship. Structure and Practice in Maring Social Organization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Nikolova, L. 1998 - Neolithic sequence: the upper Stryama valley in western Thrace (With an appendix: radiocarbon dating of the Balkan Neolithic). Documenta Praehistorica, XXV: 99-131. Ljubljana.

Nikolova, L. (ed.) 2000 - Technology, Style and Society. Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehis-tory. BAR International Series, 854. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Nikolova, L. (ed.) 2003 - Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe. BAR International Series, 1139. Archaeo-press, Oxford.

Nikolova, L. 2006 - The Village-Interments and the Social Reproduction during the Neolithic. In Gatsov, I. and Schwarzberg, H. (eds.) Aegean - Marmara - Black Sea. Present Stage of Research of the early Neolithic. Beier & Beran, Langenweissbach: 97-116.

Özdoğan, M. 1998 - Hoca Çeşme: An Early Neolithic Anatolian Colony in the Balkans? In Anreiter, P., Bartosiewicz, L., Jerem, E. and Meid, W. (eds.) Man and the Animal World. Archaeolingua, 8: 435-45. Budapest.

Özdoğan, M. 2002 - The Bronze Age in Thrace in Relation to the Emergence of Complex Societies in Anatolia and in the Aegean. In Yalçin, Ü. (ed.) Anatolian Metal II. Die Anschnitt, 15: 67-76. Bochum.

Parzinger, H. 1993 - Studien zur Chronologie und Kulturgeschichte der Jungstein-, Kupfer- und Frühbronzezeit zwischen Karpaten und Mittleren Taurus. Phillip von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.

Parzinger, H. and Özdoğan, M. 1996 - Die Ausgrabungen in Kirklareli (Türkisch-Thrakien) und ihre Bedeutung für die Kulturbez-iehungen zwischen Anatolien und dem Balkan vom Neolithikum bis zur Frühbronzezeit. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommision, 76: 5-30.

Popov, V. 1996 - Periodizatsiya i khronologiya na neolitnite i khalkolitnite kulturi ot porechieto na r. Rusenski Lom. Self-published, Ruse.

Reingruber, A. and Thissen, L. 2005 - Aegean Catchment (E Greece, S Balkans and W Turkey) 14C databases: 10,000 - 5500 cal BC. At http://www.canew.org/aegeancatch14cbox.html

Smith, A.D. 1976 - Social Change. Social Theory and Historical Processes. Longman, London & New York.

Spataro, M. 2002 - The first farming communities of the Adriatic: pottery production and circulation in the Early and Middle Neolithic. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 9. Trieste.

Srejoviċ, D. (ed.) 1988 - The Neolithic in Serbia. Archaeological Research 1948-1988. The University of Belgrade, Belgrade.

Sugden, L. 2005 - The 8.2ka Event. At: http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/s9741828/8.2ka.html

Tasić, N.N. 2003 - The White Painted Ornament of the Early and Middle Neolithic of the Central Balkans. In Nikolova. L. (ed.) Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe. BAR International Series, 1139 (1): 181-192. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Thissen, L.. 2000 - A Chronological Framework for the Neolithization of the Southern Balkans. In Hiller, S. and Nikolov, V. (eds.) Karanovo III. Beiträge zur Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Phoibos, Wien: 193-212.

Tilley, C. 1996 - An Ethnography of the Neolithic. Early Prehistoric Societies in Southern Scandinavia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Tringham, R. 2000 - Southeastern Europe in the transition to agriculture in Europe: bridge, buffer, or mosaic. In Price, T.D. (ed.) Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 19-56.

Vajsov, I. 1998 - The Typology of the Anthropomorphic Figurines from Northeastern Bulgaria. In: Stefanovich, M., Todorova, H. and Hauptmann, H. (eds.) In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, 1: 107-141. James Harvey Gaul in Memoriam. James Harvey Gaul Foundation, Sofia.

Weninger, B., Alram-Stern, E., Bauer, E., Clare, L., Danzeglocke, U., Jöris, O., Kubatzki, C., Rollefson, G., Todorova, H. and van Andel, T. in press - Abrupt Climate Forcing Observed at Early Neolithic Sites in South-East Europe and the Near East. In Stefanovic, M. (ed.) In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul. James Harvey Gaul Foundation, 2: 19-40. Sofia.

Wilkie, N.C. and Savina, M.E. 1997 - The earliest farmers in Macedonia. Antiquity, 71: 201-207.

102 –

Whittle. A. 1996 - Europe in the Neolithic. The Creation of New Worlds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Yordanov, Y. And Dimitrova, B.. 1996 - Antropologichni danni za pogrebenite v intramuralen nekropol v selishte ot ranniya risuvan neolit - s. Maluk Preslavets, Silistrinsko. Godishnik na Departament Arkheologiya, 2-3: 106-117. Sofia.

Author’s Address: LOLITA NIKOLOVA, University of Utah and International Institute of Anthropology, 29 State Street 206 – USA - SALT LAKE CITY, Utah 84111e-mail: [email protected]

– 103

NENAD TASIĆ*

TELL-TALE SQUARES

SUMMARY - Tell-tale squares. In this paper the author discusses the origins of the earliest Neolithic cultures on the Balkan Peninsula. For this purpose he analyses a symbolic system which appears as decoration on Neolithic pottery in the Balkans and Anatolia. Observing the attraction of using geometrical forms in an identical manner and disposition, producing the same motifs, but also observing numerous other details discussed in the text, the author concludes that these two regions must have been a part of an identical cultural environment, and that the presence of the same population in the Balkans is the most plausible explanation.

RIASSUNTO - I quadrati raccontano. In questo lavoro l’Autore prende in esame il problema delle origini delle culture del Neolitico antico della Penisola Balcanica. A questo scopo egli analizza un sistema simbolico di decorazioni presenti sulle forme vascolari dei Balcani e dell’Anatolia. Dopo aver osservato l’impiego di motivi geometrici ricorrenti, anche nei pannelli decorativi, che vengono a proporre motivi identici, ed altri numerosi dettagli discussi nel testo, l’Autore conclude che le due regioni devono aver fatto parte di uno stesso ambiente culturale, e che la presenza di una stessa popolazione, nella Penisola Balcanica, sembrerebbe l’interpretazione più plausibile.

INTRODUCTION

Having studied the prehistory of the Balkans in an environment where sharp differences in explaining the origins of Neolithic culture existed, it was not an easy task for a novice in the field to decide on which of two views to adopt. One was that of D. Srejović who, after having discovered the culture of Lepenski Vir, put all his efforts into linking the origins of the Starčevo Culture to the Mesolithic of the Iron Gates. His entire chronological framework of the period of Early and Middle Neolithic has been marked by his famous discovery. The introduction of terms such as Proto Starčevo was consequently aimed to accentuate the continuity between these two cultural phenomena of the Central Balkans.

The other circle of Serbian prehistorians formed around M. Garašanin, excavator of Anzabegovo, Macedonia, who advocated an idea of closer links of the Balkan Neolithic culture with that of the Anatolian plateau. His term ‘Balkan-Anatolian complex’ was aimed at explaining similarities in the material culture of these two regions.

Eventually, two episodes helped me in taking sides in this complicated matter. The first one occurred in the spring of 2000 when, as an Alexander von Humboldt scholar, I visited museums and sites throughout southeastern Europe, in the pursuit of material for my project dedicated to the chronology of the Early Neolithic. Thanks to K. Kotsakis, of Aristotle’s University in Thessaloniki, and P. Chrisostomou, of the Museum in Giannitsa, I was able to look at the material from the Early Neolithic site of Giannitsa. The other important factor for my final decision on the origins of the Neolithic in the Balkans came about at the moment I acquired Özdoğan and Başglen’s (1999) book “Neolithic in Turkey - the cradle of civilization”. This book, and particularly the chapter by R. Duru (1999) “The Neolithic of the Lake District”, has unravelled for me the world of Neolithic painted pottery of southern Anatolia.

The key problem in synchronizing the Early Neolithic of the Balkan Peninsula with the Anatolian Neolithic used to be the difference in the colour of the ornament: in the Central Balkans the Neolithic starts with white painted decoration, whereas Early Neolithic pottery in Anatolia was decorated with red colour on a pale surface. Unfortunately this was enough for some of our colleagues to stop looking for common features among these cultural phenomena.



——————————* Department of Archaeology, University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia

104 –

Long before these events I had a special affinity with the early white painting of the Neolithic of the central Balkans. It had enchanted me for its diversity of combinations, mixture of linear and curvilinear motifs, but also for the fact that it avoids a coherent systematization, so much preferred among fellow archaeologists. It also turned out to be rather difficult to verbalize the content of this elaborately painted pottery.

The two pots shown here, different in size, shape and decoration, with one in white painting from Giannitsa (fig. 1) (Chrisostomou, 1994) and the other painted red on buff from Kuruçay (fig. 2) (Duru, 1994), more than a thousand kilometres away, helped me comprehend that neither the colour of the ornament, nor the shape of pot or the motif itself, but the way of thinking and appreciation of geometrical forms, inherent in both pieces was the ‘fil rouge’ which could link the entire phase of Early Neolithic in both regions.

In the vast region of the Balkans speckled with sites of the Early Neolithic which have a similar ornamental system structure in painted pottery, stretching from Podgorie, Albania in the south-west to Kovačevo, Bulgaria in the east and from Giannitsa in the south up to Donja Branjevina in the north, a tendency to represent geometrical motifs can ascertained. The square, which occurs on a number of pots in the Balkans and southern Anatolia, is perhaps the most striking of all. But there are not just squares depicted on pottery. Along with them, ‘steps-shaped’ motifs, straight lines, nets, triangles, wavy lines and leaf-shaped motifs are also common.

Fig. 1 - Painted pot from Giannitsa. Fig. 2 - Painted pot from Kuruçay.

Squares

Only few pots with apparent squares have been discovered in the Balkans so far, which is probably the reason they have not been recognised earlier as crucial for the understanding the Early Neolithic ornamental system. The Giannitsa findings, discovered in 1991 have been mentioned above. Along with those there are fragments of pottery discovered in Nea Nikomedeia (fig. 3, nos. 9, 12, 15; Yiouni, 1996) where we can see an identical disposition of vertical and diagonal lines that resemble the one from Giannitsa. From the site of Kovačevo there is one fragment (fig. 3, n. 14) decorated in the same manner (Perničeva, 1995). However, there are many more pottery fragments with diagonal lines (straight, wavy or zigzag), which can be reconstructed to form the square disposition. It is my belief that simple diagonal lines stand for the square in later phases of the Early and Middle Neolithic (e.g. Kovačevo: fig. 3, n. 11 or Nea Nikomedeia fig. 3, n. 15). But squares can be found on different types of objects as well, such as house models, altars and censers, and they are always associated with a circle and/or diagonals. The square as a concept can be traced all the way to the sites of the Lake District in Western Anatolia, like Kuruçay Höyük or Haçilar (Mellaart, 1970; Duru, 1994; 1999). At these sites we can see identical treatment of metopes, related to the circumference of the rim of the pot. Sometimes the calculations become even more complicated and the metope is divided into 4 smaller ones. There are also vertical lines between metopes, with the identical role of compensating for the even distribution of squares around the pot (examples from Haçilar: Melaart, 1965; Duru, 1999; fig. 3, n. 2).

However, along with quadrates and rectangular metopes, a strict geometrical disposition can be also observed in the proportions of an ascoid vessel from Höyücek, but also in the disposition of a reclining female figurine (Duru, 1999: figs. 21, 22). The square appears also on a miniature table from the same site. As we can see from the chronological table for the Lake District (Duru, 1999) the sites of this region are somewhat earlier than the Early Neolithic sites in the Balkans, so it appears that this tradition must have originated in their primary inhabitation zone. The background for geometry has been probably set with the accumulated building traditions of early settled communities of Anatolia. The masterpieces of architecture discovered at Aşykli Höyük, Cafer

– 105

Höyük and Nevali Çori with perfect rectilinear floor-plans, or Çayonü with intriguing grill-plan buildings, could explain the importance of geometry and its high standards (Özdoğan and Başlegen, 1999).

When we think of the fact that the square is almost totally absent from the natural world, then we become puzzled by Neolithic geometry. Quadrate form is utterly artificial and represents an opposition to the circle (e.g. Lawlor, 1989). Being a two-dimensional shadow of the sphere, the circle represents the natural world, and is regarded throughout cultural history as a symbol of the ‘indescribable oneness’. On the other hand, the square represents the manifest and comprehensible world. It would appear then that the clash between circle and square represents society’s battle with nature and the attempt to break free from its ruthless temper.

Steps, zigzags

As we can see from numerous examples, a square is almost always associated with steps or wavy lines. A steps-shaped motif is apparently a very important one and can be encountered over a very long period of time. It can be found in the course of entire Early and Middle Neolithic of the Balkans. When painted, steps are almost always organized together with some other ornament and are placed diagonally in relation to the rim e.g. Anzabegovo, (fig. 3, n. 13) or Gradinile in Romania (fig. 3, n. 10) (Nica, 1992).

Steps are occasionally represented in negative, as it is the case on a white painted pot from Kovačevo, Bulgaria (Perničeva, 1995). Occasionally the steps are hidden within some other ornament (Perničeva, 1995: Plate I/7). When incised they have a form of a zigzag ornament. The zigzag motif is almost exclusively placed diagonally relative to the rim. There are also plastic zigzag ornaments (possibly handles) on Early Neolithic pottery (Donja Branjevina) and altars (Kovačevo, cube). The importance of steps or zigzag motifs regardless of the material or technique can be also ascertained on the basis of a representation of a zigzag shaped pendant represented on a female figurine discovered at the site of Donja Branjevina. One of those pendants has been recently discovered at the site of Blagotin, Serbia (Nikolić and Zečević, 2001) (fig. 4). As we can see from the examples from Kovačevo and Donja Branjevina (fig. 5), zigzag lines are closely associated with houses and women. The decoration incised on the buttocks on these female figurines corresponds well with the ornamental system regularly represented on altars or censers.

Altars

If we take a closer look at altars and house models from Kovačevo (Perničeva, 1995), Vršnik (Garašanin, 1979), Lepenski Vir, Donja Branjevina (Karmanski, 2005) and other sites of the early Neolithic of the Central Balkans we can conclude that these representations are most probably associated with the idea of domus. Female attributes often placed on the legs of altars associate them with women as well. There is a variety of motifs that can be found on these objects. However, the most frequent are zigzag lines, diagonally placed steps, moulded breasts and sometimes female busts (fig. 6). Regardless of the technique of decoration, steps find their place in almost every altar and house model of the Early and Middle Neolithic of southeastern Europe. Another striking feature exclusively found on altars would be the association of square and circle in three dimensions. Numerous examples show that the base of an altar always bears a circular receptacle. Sometimes, as we can see from altars from Donja Branjevina, we discover diagonal lines carved in or moulded on the lower side of a base. The example from Obrež, Serbia (Brukner, 1960) demonstrates the longevity of this phenomenon (fig. 7). This piece is dated to the end of the Starčevo Culture, and there are opinions that it coincides with the beginning of the Vinča Culture.

Fig. 3 - Painted pots from different sites: Giannitsa, Greece (1, 4 and 7); Hacilar V, Anatolia, Turkey (2); Kuruçay 13, Anatolia, Turkey (3); Kuruçay 11, Anatolia, Turkey (5); Podgorie, Alba-nia (6); Anzabegovo, Macedonia (8 and 13); Nea Nikomedeia, Greece (9 and 12); Gradinile, Romania (10); Kovačevo, Bulgaria (11 and 14).

106 –

Fig. 4 - Donja Branjevina, Serbia (1-3, 7 and 8); Blagotin, Serbia (4); Grivac, Serbia (5); Vršnik, Macedonia (6); Goljama Tumba, Macedonia (9).

– 107

Spectacular findings from Lepenski Vir, and here I do not mean the famous stone sculptures, but altars discovered in Neolithic layers of the site, show how deeply the potters of the Early Neolithic could have plunged thinking about abstract forms such as square, cube, sphere and other three dimensional forms (Srejović, 1971). Mounted on a pedestal, represented by a cube-shaped home (domus), similar to those from other Early Neolithic sites in Macedonia, there is a receptacle in the form of a square wrapped over a sphere! The question of the relationship between these finds and the Mesolithic strata of Lepenski Vir, which is also an important issue, will not be discussed here.

PRINCIPLES OF NEOLITHIC GEOMETRY

I would like to return to the pot from Giannitsa once more (fig. 1). In that case the height of the motif is almost identical to the radius of the pot. Since there are more examples from the same period representing an identical strategy (fig. 3) we could agree that this is definitely not a mere coincidence. In order to achieve such a decoration on a pot one would have to be well aware of the basics of geometry.

In order to demonstrate the complexity of this way of thinking I shall present one of the approaches towards solving the legendary mathematical problem of squaring the circle. If the circle with the radius 1 is rotated along the surface for 180o the line between points A and B will equal number Π. If we draw the semicircle with the radius AC=AB+1 and extend the radius of the right circle until it bisects the semicircle at a point D then we will thus obtain following equation ABxBC=BD2 which would solve the problem of the squaring of a circle since AB=Π and BC=1. The bizarre fact is that the pot from Giannitsa shown at figure 1 has a rim identical to the circle of diameter AC, the dimensions of the metopes are identical to the square produced above and the base of the pot identical to the circle with the radius 1.

It is quite clear that Neolithic potters were not aware of this dilemma in the form quoted above, and did not decide on the height of the decoration because of some abstract geometrical problem. On the other hand, it is evident that the ancient potters must have had a serious problem when attempting to paint the square with the side equal to the radius of the pot without having an empty space between the squares or metopes. This disposition would probably not deserve such attention if the circle (in these examples determined by the dimension of the rim of a vessel) was to be divided in 4, 8 or 16. In the cases of Giannitsa, Rakitovo, Kuruçay and some other, we can see that there were 6 metopes, so more than simple bisection of the circle was needed. Vertical lines were placed between squares (sometimes two and sometimes three of them), which have helped to compensate

for the impossibility of applying the above-mentioned equation using either algebraic or geometrical methods (fig. 7).

More examples of elaborate geometrical calculations can be observed at the pots from Podgorie, Albania and Donja Branjevina, Serbia (fig. 8). On both pots the potter had to calculate the size of each triangle (or a square made of two triangles) relative to the perimeter of the pot very precisely. In order to apply this attractive decoration - where red and white triangles encircle the pot in friezes and cover entire surface of the pot - the calculation had to be relative to the diameter of the pot but also to the sphere and the diameter of the base of the pot (fig. 9). It is amazing that a small cylindrical pot has been discovered at Giannitsa (fig. 10,

Fig. 6 - Altar from Obrež, Serbia.

Fig. 5 - Figurines from Kovačevo (a) and Donja Branjevina (b and c).

A BC

D

108 –

Fig. 7 - Geometrical calculations recorded on Neolithic pottery from Podgorie, Giannitsa and Kuruçay.

– 109

left), which can be regarded as a geometrical exercise. It seems that the decoration has been left unfinished, as if the potter was caught halfway through in laying out the grid for friezes of triangles. The shape of the pot is also not standard for this period but makes it easier for the potter to practice this complicated calculation. Further examples of identical geometrical ideas can be found at Hacilar, and other sites mentioned above (fig. 10, right).

But why did ancient potters decide to promote geometry as a standard for decoration of their display

pottery? Was it a simple replica of the decoration applied in some other media such as basketry or weaving (Cootner, 1990), where geometrical motifs are determined by the material and the structure of the product itself? A voice against the idea that the elements of decorative system found at Early Neolithic pottery was derived from weaving is that of M. Mallet (1994), who argues that very few of the elements from Haçilar V pottery, could be successfully duplicated in the slit-weave tapestry of Anatolia. She informs us further that “colour intersections aligned vertically and numerous narrow parallel verticals or diagonals are features that experienced tapestry weavers try their best to avoid.” Subsequently, it must have been something other than aesthetics that stood behind this elaborate geometrical decoration. In my opinion it is plausible to argue that the affinity towards complicated geometrical calculations with squares painted on the pottery of Lake District and Central Balkans, represented on altars, censers and house models, originates from the tradition of house building from the beginnings of the Neolithic in the primary Neolithisation zone, or more precisely its northern part.

The devotion to home and its benefits could have been celebrated in this way by newly settled humans. But, if we remember that among other benefits of the transition to a sedentary way of life and food production, the most important and the most visible one was

a population boom and much better chance of raising healthy offspring, then we must agree that the Neolithic ‘new deal’ must have had much more impact on women than on men. There are fair chances that in the course of Neolithisation woman acquired a key role in the domestic realm. Her new duties were probably focused on the household, food consumption and storage planning, care of children and the elderly and organization of social life in the village. All of a sudden she became a decision-maker. The process of sedentarisation has been observed in the 1960s in the Huottuja, hunter-gatherer society of southern Venezuela. M. Melnyk (1993) informs us that in their transition to a sedentary way of life women had

the decisive role when determining their future. Numerous Neolithic female figurines associated with domus seem to confirm the newly acquired status of women.

Pottery making was, according to K. Vitelli (1993), probably another one of her new activities and interests. If so, the ornamental system on the Early Neolithic pottery must have been an expression of the lady of the house. The entire symbolical system preserved on pottery fragments with squares and circles, zigzag motifs and complex geometry most probably represent women’s rational and yet emotional statement, which

Fig. 8 - Painted pottery from Donja Branjevina (left) and Podgorie (right).

Fig. 9 - Altars from Lepenski Vir (1 and 4), Donja Branjevina (2) and Padina (3).

Fig. 10 - Painted vessels from Giannitsa (left) and Haçilar (right).

110 –

is praising the idea of domus and the settled way of life. The power of this idea, visualized through squares, circles and geometry, is evident in the fact that it was dispersed across continents and sustained there for a long time. Recorded on pottery of the two regions we have an ideological system, which explains how far in abstract thinking those people reached. It is also shows an awareness that this way of thinking made them prosperous.

It is probably unwise to expect that the proof for cultural links among the populations of the Balkans and Anatolia would emanate merely through identical colour used to paint a pot, or in a preference towards a particular type of inclusion in the clay or in the shape of a pot. On the other hand the way of thinking that could have lain behind the geometry on the pottery, as I have tried to demonstrate above, can be confirmed in contemporaneous archaeological sites more than a thousand kilometres apart. This speaks in favour of the existence of a common cultural and ideological sphere. Being utterly abstract, this complex and elaborate ideological scheme probably could not be transferred by a means other than narrative, which indicates that proficient verbal and symbolic communication must have existed among these communities.

– 111

R E F E R E N C E S

Bogdanović, M. 2004 - Grivac: Naselja Protostarčevačke i Vinčanske kulture. Centar za naučna istraživanja SANU i Univerziteta u Kragujevcu. Narodni muzej, Kragujevac.

Brukner, B.1960 - Baštine-Obrež-Srem - Naselje. Arheološki pregled, 2: 18-23. Belgrade.

Chrisostomou, P. 1994 - Neolithic excavation in the city and the area of Giannitsa in 1991. To Arhaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki, 5: 111-125. Thessaloniki.

Cootner, C. 1980 - Anatolian Kilims. Philip Wilson, San Francisco.

Duru, R. 1994 - Kuruçay Höyük I - 1978-1988 Kazılarının Sonuçları-Neolitik ve Erken Kalkolitik Çağ Yerleşmeleri. TTK, Bez Ciltli. Kitap çok Temizdir, Ankara.

Duru, R. 1999 - The Neolithic of the Lake District. In Özdoğan, M. and Başgelen, N. (eds.) Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization, 1: 165-192. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari, Istanbul.

Garašanin, M. 1979 - Centralnobalkanska zona. In Garašanin, M. (ed.) Praistorija Jugoslavenskih zemalja, II: 79-213. Svjetlost i Akademija nauka Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo.

Haaland, R. 1997 - Emergence of sedentism: new ways of living, new ways of symbolizing. Antiquity, 71: 374-385.

Karmanski, S. 2005 - Donja Branjevina: A Neolithic settlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 10. Trieste.

Korkuti, M. 1995 - Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in Albanien. Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Internationale Kommission Erforschung Vorgesch. Balkans. Monographien, 4. Zabern, Heidelberg.

Lawlor, R. 1989 - Sacred Geometry: Philosophy and Practice. Thames and Hudson, London.

Mallet, M. 1994 - Tracking the Archetype: Technique-Generated Designs and their Mutant Offspring. Oriental Rug Review, 14 (2): http://www.marlamallett.com/archetyp.htm

Matsanova, V. 2003 - Cult Practices in the Early Neolithic Village of Rakitovo. In Nikolova, L. (ed.) Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe. BAR International Series, 1139 (1): 65-70. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Melaart, J. 1965 - Earliest Civilizations of the Near East. Thames and Hudson, London.

Melnyk, M. 1993 - The effects of sedentarization on agriculture and forest resources in Southern Venezuela. Rural Development Forestry Network. Network paper, 16b. (http://www.odifpeg.org.uk/publications/rdfn/16/rdfn-16b.pdf)

Nica, M. 1992 - Le grupe culturel Circea-Gradinile dans le contexte du Néolithique Balkanique. Zbornik radova Narodnog muzeja u Beogradu, XIV: 103-112. Belgrade.

Nikolić, D. and Zečević, J. 2001 - Blagotin istraživanja 1989-1999. Centar za arheološka istraživanja, Belgrade.

Özdoğan, M. and Başgelen, N. (eds.) Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayinlari, Istanbul.

Perničeva, L. 1995 - Prehistoric Cultures in the Middle Struma Valley: Neolithic and Eneolithic. In Bailey, D.W. and Panayotov, I. (eds.) Prehistoric Bulgaria. Monographs in World Archaeology, 22: 99-140. Prehistory Press, Madison.

Srejović, D. 1971 - Die Lepenski Vir-Kultur und der Beginn der Jungsteinzeit an der mittleren Donau. Die Anfänge des Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa, II. Fundamenta, A-3. Köln.

Vitelli, K. 1999 - Looking up at Early Ceramics in Greece. In Skibo, J.M. and Feinman, G.M. (eds.) Pottery and people a dynamic interaction: 184-198. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Yiouni, P. 1996 - The Early Neolithic Pottery. In Rodden, R.J. and Wardle, K.A. (eds.) Nea Nekomedeia I. The excavation and the ceramic assemblage. The British School at Athens. Supplementary Volume, 25: 55-194. Alden Press, Oxford and Northampton.

Author’s Address:NENAD TASIĆ, Department of Archaeology, University of Belgrade, Čika Ljubina 18-20 – YU - 11000 BEOGRADe-mail: [email protected]

– 113

MUZAFER KORKUTI*

THE EARLY NEOLITHIC OF ALBANIA IN A BALKAN PERSPECTIVE

SUMMARY - The Early Neolithic of Albania in a Balkan perspective. The first phase of the Early Neolithic in Albania, which is relatively short, is characterised by the presence of coarse and very plain ware. All the assemblages considered so far include a few impressed fragments, but not the classical Impressed Ware, and red monochrome, while painted ware is entirely absent. The developed phase of the Early Neolithic (or second phase), which is relatively longer, is represented by painted ware and by important technological changes in stone tool and ceramic production. The ceramics consist of red monochrome and painted ware with very thin walls and impressed and barbotine decorated pottery. A distinctive element of this phase is the introduction of a new ritual behaviour, such as burials inside the house and the Magna mater cult, which is evidenced by the discovery of anthropomorphic figurines.

RIASSUNTO - Il Neolitico Antico dell’Albania in una prospettiva balcanica. La prima fase del Neolitico Antico in Albania, che rappresenta un periodo piuttosto breve, è caratterizzata dall’impiego di ceramica grossolana, priva di decorazioni. Tutti i complessi studiati sinora hanno restituito pochi frammenti impressi, non attribuibili alla Cultura della Ceramica Impressa classica, mentre la ceramica rossa monocroma e quella dipinta sono totalmente assenti. La fase avanzata del Neolitico Antico (o seconda fase), relativamente più lunga della precedente, è rappresentata da ceramica dipinta e da importanti cambiamenti tecnologici nell’industria litica e nella produzione vascolare. Quest’ultima consiste in ceramica rossa monocroma e dipinta, con pareti molto sottili e decorazioni ad impressioni e a barbotino. Un elemento particolare di questa fase è l’introduzione di un nuovo comportamento rituale: il seppellimento all’interno della casa ed il culto della Magna mater, evidente in base alla scoperta di figurine antropomorfe.

INTRODUCTION

The study of Neolithic cultures in Albania has followed two principal paths. The first is the intensive inves-tigation of southeastern Albania (specifically the Korça basin) through systematic excavations in the settlements of Maliqi, Tren, Vashtëmi, Podgorie, Barçi, Burimas and Dërsnik. Secondly there have been short seasonal excavations in the rest of the territory, in the settlements of Kamnik, Cakran, Kolsh, Blaz, Nezir, Gradec, Cetush, Burim, Rajcë, Rashtan, Vlusha, Bënjë and Konispol (Korkuti, 1987) (fig. 1).

These excavations provide evidence of the density of inhabitation of the territory of Albania since the Neo-lithic, and continuous development from the Neolithic to the Copper Age. The Neolithic settlements are spread throughout the entire country, with the only exception of the western coastal lowland, where Early Neolithic settlements have not so far been discovered.

THE SITES AND THEIR POTTERY ASSEMBLAGES

As a result of systematic excavations, the Early Neolithic is represented by the settlements of Vlusha, Podgorie I, Vashtëmi, Barçi I (Korça district), Burim I, Cetush I (Dibra district), Kolsh I (Kukës district), Blaz II (Mat district), Katundas I (Berati district) and Konispol III (Saranda district). There is also evidence of the existence of other, so far unexcavated sites.

Landscape conditions have determined two types of settlements: the first includes those sites, which are located on low hills and fluvial terraces, or at wetland edges, such as the fertile river valleys. This includes the settlements of Podgorie, Burim Kolsh, etc. There are cases when the location of the settlement offers very good natural protection, as is the case at Kolsh and Cetush. The second type is represented by cave

——————————* Institute of Archaeology, Tirana, Albania



114 –

sites located in valleys with favourable conditions, such as the caves of Nezir, Blaz, Katundas, Konispol etc. (Korkuti and Prendi, 1995: 99-103).

Based on the techniques of pottery production, which is considered as a prin-cipal indicator of development, the Early Neolithic in Albania incorporates two main phases (Prendi, 1990: 399; Korkuti, 1995: 251-261): a) Early Neolithic with coarse ware, and b) Early Neolithic with fine and painted wares.

The first phase of the Early Neolithic in Albania, which is relatively short, is characterised by the use of coarse and plain wares. All the assemblages considered so far include a few impressed fragments, but not the classical Impressed Ware, while red monochrome and painted ware is entirely absent.

Vlusha, Konispol and Burim are the typical settlements of this period. The ce-ramic assemblages are usually coarse. The fabric consists of a mixture of clay and sand, poorly baked, which produces a rough surface and a grey or a slightly darkish grey colour. The shape of the vessels is relatively simple, with straight rims, occasionally turned slightly inwards, as well as bowls of different sizes, etc. The bottoms are usually flat; handles are simple: only a few of them are of a bearded shape. The decorative pat-terns are also very simple: a few impressed fragments, and a few with impressed stripes in relief (fig. 2). The same situation has been encountered at Sidari (Corfu), where the earliest cultural context of level C has yielded coarse monochrome wares, simi-lar to those from Konispol III and Vlusha (Sordinas, 1969: 401-407).

A few similarities can also be noticed between the coarse ware of this earliest phase (from Vlusha and Koni-spol), especially the main types, and the inland Balkan cultures represented by Starčevo I (Benac, 1971: 98).

It is important to notice that the coarse ware in Vlusha occurs together with lunate microliths, which provides evidence of the continuation of the Mesolithic tradition in the flint industry (Prendi, 1990: 401) (fig. 3).

The discovery of flint tools of Mesolithic tradition at Vlusha, together with the production of ceramics, seem to demonstrte that the new culture developed on the basis of a Mesolithic tradition. Vlusha is the only case to refer to, when considering the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic in Albania, a process, which is still not well understood, due to the scarcity of data (Korkuti, 1995: 32).

The developed phase of the Early Neolithic (or second phase), which is longer, is represented by painted ware and is characterised by important technological changes in stone tool and ceramic production. The ceram-ics consist of red monochrome and painted wares with very thin walls and impressed and barbotine decorated pottery. A distinctive element of this phase is the introduction of a new ritual behavior, with burials inside the house and the Magna mater cult, which is evidenced by the discovery of anthropomorphic figurines (Korkuti, 1995: 34-36).

Fig. 1 - Distribution map of the Neolithic settlements mentioned in the text.

Early NeolithicMiddle NeolithicLate NeolithicCopper Age

– 115

On the basis of the most important ceramic decorations, there are three main variants of the second phase of the Albanian Early Neolithic:1. The Korça basin Culture, represented by Podgorie I, whose distinctive feature is the impressed decoration

of the devollite style (fig. 4), and the white paint on a red surface (fig. 5 top). The latter pattern suggests cultural and chronological similarities with Early Neolithic in Thessaly (Presesklo Culture, Magoulitza phase) and in Macedonia (Veršnik and Anzabegovo I Cultures) (Prendi, 1990: figs. 6-11).

Fig. 2 - Impressed Wares from Konispol Cave (top) and Burim (bottom).

Fig. 3 - Vlusha: Microlithic lunates (1 and 2) and potsherds (3 and 4) (after Korkuti, 1995: tables 3 and 4).

Fig. 4 - Podgorie: devollite style Impressed Ware pottery.

Fig. 5 - White-on-red painted pottery from Podgorie (top) and Impressed Ware potsherds from Vashtëmi (bottom).

Fig. 6 - Kolsh: brown-on-red painted (top) and Starčevo Impressed potsherds (bottom).

116 –

2. The Northeastern Culture, represented by Kolsh I, whose distinctive feature is the brown paint on the red surface (fig. 6), culturally and chronologically related to Rudnik III in Kosovo, and to phase Ib of the Starčevo Culture of the inland Balkans (Korkuti, 1995: 71-72).

3. Blaz II in Mat, whose distinctive feature is the Cardium Impressed Ware (fig. 7 top) related to the Eastern Adriatic cultures represented by Smilčić I style (Prendi, 1990: 419-422).

4. The establishment of a relative chronology for the main Early Neolithic settlements is at present problematic, mainly because of the diferent regions in which they occur (the Korça basin, Mati region, Drini I Zi middle valley, Kukësi and Berat-Skrapar region), variations in the length of the site occupation and different intensity of inhabitation. According to the available chronological sequence, the settlement of Vlusha repre-sents the earliest phase, followed by Podgorie Ia, Podgorie Ib, Vashtëmi, Kolsh I, Blaz II, Burim I, Cetushi I, Blaz I and II, Katundas I, etc. Most of these settlements are considered to be more or less chronologically contemporaneous.

CONCLUSION

Analogies with the cultures of the neighboring countries of the Balkan and the Adriatic coast would produce the following results: 1. Vlusha = Starčevo I, Sidari C, Protosesklo.2. Podgorie I = Presesklo (Magoulitza phase) and early Sesklo, Anza-

begovo-Veršnik I-Velushko Porodin I-II-Nea Nikomedia.3. Kolsh I = Starčevo IIb, Rudnik III.4. Blaz I and II = Zelena Pečina III, Obre I (phase II), Adriatic I (Car-

dium Impressed Ware II phase).

Fig. 7 - Eastern Adriatic Impressed Wares from Blaz (top) and impressed potsherds from Katundas (bottom).

– 117

R E F E R E N C E S

Benac, A. 1971 - Le Néolithique ancien dans les Balkans du Nord-Ouest et ses relations avec les régions voisines. Actes du VIIIe Congres International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques. Tome premier, Rapports Généraux: 97-108. Belgrade.

Korkuti, M. 1987 - 25 years of research on the Neolithic and Aeneolithic in Albania. Iliria, 2: 5-12. Tirana.

Korkuti, M. 1995 - Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in Albanien. Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Internationale Interaka-demische Kommission für die Erforschung der Vorgeschichte des Balkans. Monographien, IV. von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.

Korkuti, M. and Prendi, F. 1995 - Modelli e strutture insediative durante il Neolitico e l’Eneolitico in Albania. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, Sezione Scienze dell’Uomo, 1999 (4): 99-103. Verona.

Prendi, F. 1990 - Néolithique ancien en Albanie. Germania, 68 (2): 399-426.

Sordinas, A. 1969 - Investigations of the Prehistory of Corfu during 1964-1966. Balkan Studies, 10 (2): 393-424. Thessaloniki.

Author’s Address:MUZAFER KORKUTI, Institute of Archaeology, TIRANA, Albania e-mail: [email protected]

– 119



IVAN GATSOV*

THE NEOLITHISATION PROCESS BETWEEN ANATOLIA AND THE BALKANS: A LITHIC PERSPECTIVE

FROM THE REGION AROUND THE SEA OF MARMARA

SUMMARY - The Neolithisation process between Anatolia and the Balkans: a lithic perspective from the region around the Sea of Marmara. The main goal of this paper is to present technological and typological features of the chipped stone assemblages connected with the earliest evidence of the Neolithisation in the area around Marmara Sea. In this connection special attention was deserved to the appearance and spreading out of the bullet cores and corresponding techniques - from the Crimean peninsula to the south Marmara region as well. The idea is that the occurrence of this type of core suggests the existence of some local element in the formation of the Neolithic flint industries. This local element could be detected in the shape of bullet core techniques in the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic assemblages in the area of northwestern Pontic and Turkish Black Sea shore as well.

RIASSUNTO - Il processo di neolitizzazione tra l’Anatolia e I Balcani: le caratteristiche delle industrie litiche della regione del Mar di Marmara. Lo scopo di questo lavoro è di presentare gli aspetti tecnologici e tipologici dei complessi in pietra scheggiata che riguardano i momenti più antichi della neolitizzazione della regione del Mar di Marmara. Attenzione particolare è stata rivolta alla comparsa e alla diffusione dei nuclei a palla di fucile ed alle tecniche corrispondenti, dalla penisola di Crimea alla regione a sud del Mar di Marmara. L’idea della comparsa di questa tipologia di nuclei suggerisce la presenza di alcuni elementi locali nella formazione delle industrie neolitiche in selce. Questi elementi potrebbero essere individuati nelle tecniche impiegate per la produzione del nucleo a palla di fucile, all’interno dei complessi Epipaleolitici/Mesolitici del Ponto nordoccidentale e della costa Turca del Mar Nero.

INTRODUCTION

The problem of the Pleistocene-Holocene tran sition in Bulgarian prehistory is still more or less underestimated. The very uneven level of in vestigation of the palaeoenvironment is one of the main reasons for a lack of evidence for a period covering a time-span of some 2000 years. In most of the research little attention has been paid to the processes of accumu lation and the investigation of the palaeosoils, palaeoclimate, etc. (Gatsov, in press).

For the time being, on the basis of the technological and typological features, the ‘Dikilitash collection’ from the north Bulgarian Black Sea shore has much in common with the Epi/Tardigravettian tradition in the Iron Gates region of the Danube River - 11th-8th millennium uncal BP (Gatsov, 2001).

The other problem is linked to the occurrence of the so-called Monochrome period in Bulgaria, which is one of most debated issues in the prehistoric literature. The period was defined by H. Todorova in 1973 on the basis of evidence from the Polianica Platoto site near Tragoviste, in northern Bulgaria (Todorova, 1989) and even now this is the only radiocarbon-dated settlement of that period (Bojadziev, 2006: 9-16).

The Monochrome Neolithic period in Bulgaria poses some research and methodological problems. First of all, the territory where the first evidence of the Monochrome phase has been found does not display any cultural remains of the transitional Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic period. Except for unstratified material from Dikilitash, no artefact, which might be referred to the end of the Pleistocene or the beginning of the Holocene has been found. The absence of absolute dates does not allow the definition of the chronology of these finds.

Furthermore, from technological and typological points of view, the artefacts from Dikilitash are absolutely different to those from the Monochrome in northeastern Bulgaria, where the material from the very important site at Koprivets deserves particular attention (Zlateva, 1999). The same observation could be made about the

——————————* Department of Archaeology, New Bulgarian University, Sofia, Bulgaria

120 –

chipped stone assemblages from the white-painted pottery horizon in northern or Bulgarian Thrace mentioned below.

At this stage of research in northern Thrace, the earliest Neolithic settlements are those with white-painted ceramics. The best-known settlements are: Karanovo I, Azmak - Early Neolithic layer, and Capitan Dimitrievo (Gatsov, 1999).

THE CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGES

A very characteristic blade technology is the manufacture of long blades with high semi-abrupt or abrupt retouch from high quality flint of yellow, yellow/brownish colour. The Early Neolithic chipped stone assem-blages in northern Thrace reflect a standardised blade production, which suggests the existence of specialised artisans and a certain degree of labour organisation and control (fig. 1).

Some significant changes in the utilisation of the raw material and the dimensions of the blanks of the chipped stone assemblages have been observed after 5500 cal BC. The chipped stone assemblages from Tell Karanovo (phases II-III, III, III-IV and IV) reflect in the raw material technology, and blank and tool dimen-sions. The high quality flint was replaced by a lower quality variety, chert and quartzite, and the chipped stone industry was orientated to the production of smaller size blanks, mainly irregular flakes and a lower number of blades (Gatsov, 2005).

The chipped stone assemblages from the very important site of Capitan Dimitrievo and the Late Neolithic layers of other settlements in southwest Bulgaria are also represented by smaller artefacts obtained from lower quality, local raw material varieties than in earlier phases of the Neolithic. On the whole, all assemblages more recent than 5500 cal BC of this region show a significant technological decline, as well as an abrupt change in the supply system of lower quality, local raw material.

At the same time, the main technological and typological characteristics of the Early Neolithic chipped stone assemblages of northern Thrace are different to those of the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic collections from the Black Sea shore and the assemblages from the Monochrome phase, such as the Koprivets material.

The earliest Neolithic chipped stone assemblages from Hoca Çeşme in Turkey (Gatsov, 2000) are made with very homogenous raw material and flake blank structure, which indicates a local raw material supply (fig. 1). No changes in the raw material, technology and typological structure have been recorded within the different cultural phases. The only exceptions to this uniformity are a few flint blades with thick semi-abrupt retouch, very characteristic of the Early Neolithic chipped stone assemblages in Bulgarian Thrace, among which are those of Karanovo I, Karanovo II and Azmak (Early Neolithic layer). These blades are undoubt-edly imported from northern Thrace.

From a technological point of view, there are recognisable differences between the Hoca Çeşme assemblages, the Bulgarian Early Neolithic ones and those from the south Marmara region. The differences can be found in the basic raw materials, and in the typological features. In conclusion the chipped stone assemblage from Hoca Çeşme is different to all the other assemblages presented in this report in several respects.

Keeping in mind the main features of the lithic industry of Hoca Çeşme, a huge technological gap between Hoca Çeşme and the assemblages from Ağaçli group and the Early Neolithic industries from northern Thrace and the south Marmara region should be pointed out. The knapping process at Hoca Çeşme was based on the exploitation of multidirectional flake cores. Flakes were always detached using hard hammer percussion. In this way, the Hoca Çeşme flaked assemblages are absolutely different to the single platform reduction tech-niques, typical of the Ağaçli group and of the chipped stone assemblages from Ilipinar, Fikir-tepe, Pendik, and Menteşe (fig. 2).

The reason for the unique character of the Hoca Çeşme flaked industry is unclear. It is possible that the Hoca Çeşme population could represent part of the first Neolithisation wave from Anatolia to this region (Özdoğan, 1998). In this case, the difference between the technology of Hoca Çeşme and the chipped stone assemblages of the Ağaçli group and the Marmara region sites might reflect different episodes and ways of adaptation.

My knowledge of the Monochrome period at Koprivets, in the Russe region of northern Bulgaria, allows me to suggest the existence of some parallels between Hoca Çeşme and the industry of this site. In this case the amorphous character of their flaked stone assemblages and the similarities of their technological features might suggest some contacts between the Maric delta and north-east Bulgaria at the very end of the 9th millennium uncal BP, via the Marica, Tundza, and Sazlijka Valleys.

– 121

Fig. 1 - Blades with high, semi-abrupt retouch from Karanovo (1 and 2), Azmak (3 and 4) and Hoca Çeşme (5 and 6).

DISCUSSION

Absolute dates from secure stratigraphical sequences at Koprivets and other carefully investigated settle-ments could support or reject this suggestion. This hypothesis cannot be seen as an alternative to the role of the Struma Valley in the process of Neolithisation (Nikolov, 2003: 99-106).

Bojadziev (2006: 9-16) describes the spread of the earliest Neolithic in the eastern part of the Balkan Penin-sula using dates connected with the earliest evidence of Neolithic population in present Bulgaria and European Turkey, which can be separated into a few groups. The settlements of Hoca Çeşme 4 and Poljanica-Platoto in north-eastern Bulgaria date approximately to the period 6200-6000 cal BC.

The dates from Galabnik I (Struma Valley) and Karanovo I in northern Thrace, which “mark the beginning of white painted pottery cultures”, correspond to 6000-5900 cal BC. According to Bojadziev (in press) “about 6100 Cal BC ...The material culture of Hoca Çeşme IV indicates parallels with Koprivets Culture.... we can

122 –

assume a second route of penetration of neolithic people: along the valley of the river Marica, then along the valley of the Tundza and the Sazlijka rivers and through the passes of Stara Planina into Northern Bulgaria (the basin of the Jantra river)”.

The importance of this area as a contact zone was clearly marked by Lichardus et al. (2000: 10) „...Die kürzeste Landverbindung zwischen dem Norden und dem Süden, d. h. zwischen den Steppen und dem östlichen Mittelmeer, verläuft von der Dobrudza aus zunächst entlang des Flusses Luda Kamcija ein Stück nach Westen, überquert am Karnobat-Durchbruch die Stara Planina und zieht sich an deren Südflanke entlang der Mocurica, die bei Jambol in die Tundza mündet (Deliradev, 1953). Über die Tundza führt der Weg weiter südwärts bis zur Mündung in die Marica und dann entlang der Marica bis zum Mittelmeer. Dieser wichtige prähistorische Weg, der zudem durch antike Überlieferungen bekannt ist, wurde bislang allerdings nicht genauer erforscht und für die Vorgeschichte kaum in Betracht gezogen. Weitere prähistorische Wege aus dem Raum um Jambol in die Landschaften nördlich des Balkan führen über mehrere Pässe im Gebiet nördlich von Sliven (Kotel-Pass, Tvärdos-Pass u.a.). Dass alle diese Pässe sehr gute Verbindungen zwischen den beiden Räumen Ermöglichen, zeigt sich an deren für verschiedene prähistorische Perioden nachgewiesenen kultu rellen Beziehungen“

As for the settlements located in northwest Turkey, eastern Thrace and the south Marmara region, the dif-ferences between the stone industries of Hoca Çeşme from оne side and Ilipinar, Fikir-tepe, Pendik and Menteşe from the other - might be explained as different ways of adaptation or different cultural routes, which led to the occurrence of different types of activities. The former reflected the varying technological and typological aspects of the Hoca Çeşme flaked assemblages and also the utilisation of different raw materials.

A totally different core knapping technique is known from the south Marmara region. It is characteristic of the stone assemblages from Ilipinar, Fikir-tepe, Pendik and Menteşe. Here, the presence of bullet cores and the pressure-flaking technique show similarities in core reduction techniques between these assemblages and could be regarded as the main technological feature (Szymczak, 2002). Bullet cores have also been found in the chipped stone assemblages from the Turkish Black Sea shore, which belong to the Ağaçli group (Gatsov and Özdoğan, 1994).

In other words, a clear technological gap existed between the industry of Hoca Çeşme and those from the south Marmara region (Ilipinar, Menteşe, Fikir-tepe and Pendik). This suggestion is based mainly on the presence or absence of bullet core techniques. The occurrence of bullet cores, together with the blade pressure technique suggests that some similarities existed between the Ağaçli groups and the chipped stone assemblages from Ilipinar, Pendik, Fikir-tepe and Menteşe (figs. 3 and 4).

Fig. 2 - Distribution map of the Early Neolithic sites in Bulgaria.

– 123

Fig. 3 - Distribution map of the Early Neolithic sites in eastern Thrace and south Marmara regions.

Fig. 4 - Distribution map of the bullet cores in the northwestern Pontic and south Marmara regions.

124 –

Fig. 5 - Bullet cores from Ilipinar (1 and 2), Çatal Hüyük (3-5) and Hacilar (6-8).

– 125

Fig. 6 - Bullet cores from Varvarovka (1-4), Mirne (5 and 6), Erbicheni (7) and Frumushika (8 and 9).

126 –

The absolute dates from the first phase at Menteşe, which fall at the end of the 7th millennium cal BC, pro-vide a new perspective to M. Özdoğan’s idea about the western expansion of the Neolithic cultures (Özdoğan and Gatsov, 1998), which sooner or later could be confirmed by excavation results. The fact that the basal layer of Mentese settlement has been dated at 6400 cal BC indicates that it is “the oldest village in Northwestern Anatolia” (Roodenberg et al., 2003: 36) and might indicate that this part of Anatolia was inhabited earlier. In this connection it is not excluded that some of the groups reached this region via land, but not by sea.

Bullet cores and reduction practices based on pressure techniques were not recorded in Northern Thrace. The same can be said for the Dikilitash flint collection (Gatsov, 2001), which displays a completely different method of core reduction to flaked assemblages in northwest Pontic and to those of Ağaçli group.

So far, bullet cores have not been found in Bulgaria in either the Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic, or the Early Neo-lithic. Chipped stone assemblages from the Early Neolithic in northern Thrace, are characterised by a core knapping process orientated towards blade production. In most cases punch or indirect percussion was applied.

Based on the occurrence of bullet cores, it could be presumed that more or less similar technological features in core reduction processes were practised in the 7th-6th millennium cal BC in the northwest Pontic region, east-ern Thrace, and the south Marmara region (figs. 5 and 6). 7th-6th millennium cal BC chipped stone assemblages from the territory between the Prut, Seret basin, and the Crimean Peninsula are also characterised by pressure processing techniques and the appearance of a blade technology connected to bullet cores (Stanko, 1982).

In conclusion, there is a clear similarity in core reduction techniques in the area around the Black Sea, including the Crimean Peninsula and the northwest Pontic coast. The only exception is the Bulgarian Black Sea shore and northern Thrace, whereas in the regions of eastern Thrace and south Marmara this technique is dominant. The occurrence of bullet core techniques therefore suggests the existence of some local element in the formation of the Neolithic flint industries.

– 127

R E F E R E N C E S

Bojadziev, J. in press - The role of absolute chronology in clarifying the Neolithization of the eastern half of the Balkan Peninsula. Aegean - Marmara - Black Sea: present state of the research of the Early Neolithic. In Schwarzberg, H. and Gatsov, I. (eds.) Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichtes Schwarzmeerraumes, 5: 9-16.

Deliradev, P. 1953 - Prinos kam istoriceskata geografia na Trakia. Sofia (in Bulgarian).

Gatsov, I. 1999 - Chipped stone assemblages from Neolithic and Chalcolithic Settlement “Capitan Dimitrievo”. In Nikolov, V. (ed.) Selisna mogia “Capitan Dimitrievo”, Razkopki 1998-1999: 115-123. Peshtera, Sofia.

Gatsov, I. 2000 - Chipped stone assemblages from south and south-west Bulgaria and north-west Turkey. In Nikolova, L. (ed.) Technol-ogy, Style, and Society, Contributions to the Innovations Between the Alps and The Black Sea in Prehistory. BAR International Series, 854: 1-28. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Gatsov, I. 2001 - Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic, Neolithic Periods. Chipped stone assemblages from Southern Bulgaria and Northwest Turkey: Similarities and Differences. TUBA-AR, IV: 101-112. Istanbul.

Gatsov, 2005 - Feursteinartefakte. Typologie. In Hiller, S. and Nikolov, V. (eds.) Karanovo IV. Band IV (1): 375-386. Wien.

Gatsov, I. in press - The state of research into the problem of Pleistocene-Holocene transition in the present area of Bulgaria. Marmara - Black Sea: present state of the research of the Early Neolithic. In Schwarzberg, H. and Gatsov, I. (eds.) Schriften des Zentrums für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichtes Schwarzmeerraumes, 5: 153-158.

Gatsov, I. and Özdoğan, M. 1994 - Some Epi-palaeolithic sites from NW Turkey. Ağaçli, Domali, Gumusdere. Anatolica, XX: 97-120.

Lichardus, J., Fol, A., Getov, L., Bertemes, F., Echt, R., Katincarov, R. and Iliev, I. 2000 - Drama 1983-1999: 10. Habelt, Bonn.

Nikolov, V. 2003 - Periodisation of the Neolithic along the Struma valley. In honorem annorum LXX Alexandri Fol. Thracia, 15: 99-106. Sofia.

Özdoğan, M. 1998 - Hoca Çeşme. An early Neolithic Anatolian colony in the Balkans? In Anreiter, P., Bartosiewicz, L., Jerem, E. and Meid, W. (eds.) Man and the Animal World. Archaeolingua, 8: 435-451. Budapest.

Özdoğan, M. and Gatsov, I. 1998 - The Aceramic Neolithic period in Western Turkey and in the Aegean. Anatolica, XXIV: 209-232.

Roodenberg, J., Asvan A., Jacobs, L. and Wijnen, M.H. 2003 - Early settlement in the plain of Yenişehir (NW Anatolia). Anatolica, XXIX: 17-59.

Stanko, V.N. 1982 - Mirnoe. Problema mezolita stepej Severnogo Prichernomor’ja [Myrne. Problem of the Mesolithic of the northern Prychornomor’a steppes]. Naukova dumka, Kyiv (in Russian).

Szymczak, K. 2002 - A problem of the bullet shaped cores: a global perspective. Swiatowit, IV (XLV), B: 229-242. Warsaw.

Zlateva-Uzunova, R. 1997 - Early Holocene flint assemblages from the valley of river Rusenski Lom. Thesis submitted for MA Degree (unpublished) (in Bulgarian).

Author’s Address:IVAN GATSOV, New Bulgarian University, Department of Archaeology, Body 1, Office 219, 21 Montevideo str. – BG - 1618 SOFIAe-mail: [email protected]

– 129

PAOLO BIAGI*, BERNARD GRATUZE** and SOPHIE BOUCETTA**

NEW DATA ON THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL OBSIDIANS FROM THE BANAT AND TRANSYLVANIA (ROMANIA)

SUMMARY - New data on the archaeological obsidians from the Banat and Transylvania (Romania). This paper deals with the study of a limited number of obsidian artefacts from the earliest FTN Criş sites of the Banat and Transylvania. The first impression is that the first FTN farmers, who settled in the region at the turn of the 8th millennium uncal BP, had a limited local supply of bad quality lithic raw materials. The pioneer search for workable stones, north of the maximum spread of the FTN, led to the discovery of the Slovak (Cejkov e Kašov: Carpathian 1) and Hungarian (Mád: Carpathian 2E), Tokaj deposits, which both started to be exploited on a very small scale. The pattern began to vary during the successive stages of the FTN and, more dramatically, since the beginning of the Middle Neolithic Vinča Culture. From this time on, the Slovak sources started to be more intensively exploited, as indicated by the recovery of a greater number of unretouched artefacts and functional tools, and the first of trans-Carpathian Volhynian flints to be imported.

RIASSUNTO - Nuovi dati sulle ossidiane dei siti archeologici del Banat e della Transilvania (Romania). Il presente lavoro riguarda lo studio di un gruppo limitato di manufatti di ossidiana provenienti da siti del Neolitico più antico del Banat e della Transilvania ap-partenenti al gruppo culturale di Criş. L’impressione generale che deriva dall’analisi dei reperti è che le prime popolazioni di agricol-tori-allevatori dell’FTN, che insediarono la regione subito prima dell’inizio del settimo millennio uncal BP, avessero a disposizione localmente pochissimo materiale litico scheggiabile, per di più di qualità scadente. La ricerca pionieristica di fonti di approvvigionamento portò alla scoperta di giacimenti di ossidiana ubicati ben oltre il limite più settentrionale dell’espansione più settentrionale dell’FTN, con un conseguente primo limitato sfruttamento dei depositi dei Monti Tokaj sia della Slovacchia (Cejkov e Kašov: Carpathian 1), sia dell’Ungheria (Mád: Carpathian 2E). Il quadro iniziò a mutare lentamente durante lo sviluppo dell’FTN, e più drasticamente durante la Cultura di Vinča, nel Neolitico Medio, con uno sfruttamento più intensivo principalmente delle fonti Slovacche, che si riflette nella maggiore quantità di prodotti rinvenuti nei siti archeologici e anche dalla confezione di oggetti funzionali, e nell’inizio dell’importazione di selce Volhynian dai giacimenti transcarpatici.

INTRODUCTION

The Carpathian obsidian sources exploited between the Middle Palaeolithic and the Iron Age (Cărciumaru et al., 1985; Biró, 2004) were systematically surveyed for the first time in the 1970s (Nandris, 1975; Williams and Nandris, 1977). A few years later archaeological obsidian artefacts from several central and east European sites were characterised for the first time. The results led to the identification of archaeological obsidians from their original sources according to their different periods of exploitation. The distribution and chrono-cultural maps developed by Williams Thorpe et al. (1984: figs. 4 and 8) are very indicative. Among the other things they clearly show that obsidian artefacts from very few Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites were scientifically analysed in the 1980s.

The scope of this paper is to contribute to the interpretation of the reasons and the ways the Early Neolithic farmers of the FTN Criş group of the Banat and Transylvania exploited obsidian raw material sources. We know that the Neolithisation of these two regions of present-day Romania was a rapid phenomenon that took place along a few main river courses (Kaczanowska and Kozłowski, 2003: 242; Biagi and Spataro, 2005). Although many details of this process are still insufficiently known, the available radiocarbon dates indicate that 1) the spread of the earliest farmers, which the pottery typologists attribute to the PreCriş or Criş I aspects, accord-ing to the terminology proposed respectively by Paul (1995) or Lazarovici (1993), began during the last two centuries of the 8th millennium uncal BP, and 2) the number of sites attributable to this early stage is very small



——————————** Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità e del Vicino Oriente, Ca’ Foscari University, Venice, Italy** IRAMAT, Institut de Recherche sur les Archéomatériaux, C.N.R.S., Orléans, France

130 –

(Ciută, 2001: fig. 1; 2005: 147-155; Draşovean, 2007; Luca and Suciu, 2007), restricted to specific territories, sometimes close to salt outcrops (Nandris, 1990: 15), often along important waterways, while other fluvial routes across the Carpathians were not followed during this process.

New scientific analyses, among which are radiocarbon dates (Biagi et al., 2005) and pottery manufacture studies (Spataro, 2007), show that Criş was most probably a ‘continuous’ cultural group that lasted some 800 years (Biagi et al., 2005), and not a recurrent, interrupted series of (three or four main) migration waves as suggested first by Lazarovici (1993), and more recently by Luca and Suciu (2007).

As mentioned above, a first important question concerns when and to what extent the earliest farmers began to exploit the Carpathian obsidian sources. J. Makkay (2007: 232) recently argued that “the spread of the Méht-elek group ..... was hindered by local Late Mesolithic bands, which occupied the area of the stone resources and were interested in trading stones to the southern groups with the Méhtelek Körös industry”. This argument is hardly tenable for two main reasons: 1) ethnographical, since “foraging groups are by nature transitory” (Smith, 1981: 42), and they consider outcrops “as a focus within the peripheral intersection of several group territories, which would exploit that resource at different seasons of the year” (Clarke, 1979: 277); and 2) chronological, given that Méhtelek-Nádas is not one of the earliest FTN Neolithic sites of the Carpathian region as a whole. Another different view was expressed by Sherratt (1987: 195), who believes that “as agricultural communities reached the obsidian sources of the Zemplén Mountains in the north, this material came into widespread use. At Méhtelek ..... formed up to 80% of the chipped stone ..... It was traded both to surrounding Mesolithic groups in Moravia and Little Poland ..... and southwards to the agricultural communities of the Plain”.

Other important questions regard the transport or trade (?) radius of the Carpathian obsidian, its rate of dispersal, and the maximum distance reached by its trade. A territorial gap of at least 400 km is attested dur-ing this period between the northernmost distribution of the Melian and the south-easternmost spread of the Carpathian obsidian, which is partly filled by the discovery of two single archaeological specimens in Bulgaria (Nikolov, 2005: 8). This gap was covered by the end of the Neolithic (Biagi et al., 2007: 310), when Carpathian obsidians were traded southwards as far as Western Macedonia (Kilikoglou et al., 1996).

Other problems concern 1) the scarcity of high-quality raw material sources in the two study regions and 2) the absence of both rich chipped stone assemblages and workshops from the earliest FTN sites in the area (Comşa, 1976). The only exception is represented by the site of Iosaş-Anele, in the Arad district, along the course of the White Criş, where a pit structure, excavated by Luca and Barbu (1992-1994: 17), attributed to an early stage in the development of the Criş aspect, has been interpreted as an atelier for the manufacture of Banat flint implements (?).

It is important to point out that the distribution map by Williams Thorpe et al. (1984: fig. 8) includes twelve FTN sites, from two only of which obsidian tools were characterised: Méhtelek, in north-eastern Hungary (Kalicz and Makkay, 1976; Chapman, 1987; Starnini, 1994; Kozłowski, 2001; Makkay, 2007), radiocarbon-dated, from charcoal, to 6835±60 (Bln-1331: Pit 1-3/α), 6655±60 (Bln-1332) and 6625±50 uncal BP (GrN-6897: Pit 4-5/α), and Gura Baciului, in central Transylvania (Lazarovici and Maxim, 1995), from which only one radiocarbon date has been obtained from a bone tool collected from a structure of the lowermost occupation layers (GrA-24137: 7140±45uncal BP) (Biagi et al., 2005: 46). Mainly Carpathian 1 (Slovak) obsidians have been identified at Méhtelek (Starnini, 1994: 67) “although the Carpathian 2 variety (Erdöbénje type) is also present in a small percentage ..... determined only macroscopically”; whilst both Carpathian 1 (Slovak) and 2b (Hungarian) artefacts are known from Gura Baciului, a Transylvanian multi-stratified site, with structures that yielded material culture remains attributed to all the four Criş phases (Spataro, in press). It is important to point out that, while the radiocarbon dates from Méhtelek show that the site probably flourished during the third Criş phase (Biagi et al., 2005: 44), the chronological attribution of the characterised obsidians from Gura Baciului is uncertain, since they come from the entire settlement sequence (Lazarovici and Maxim, 1995: 156).

THE SITES AND THE CHIPPED STONE ASSEMBLAGES

During the last two years, obsidian samples have been characterised from seven Criş sites attributed to dif-ferent periods. They are: Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş (Sibiu), Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii (Alba Iulia), Limba Bordane (Alba Iulia), Dudeştii Vechi (Timişoara), Silagiu-Valea Secerii (Timişoara), Leţ (Cluj) and Seimi Cărămidărie (Maramureş) (fig. 1).a) Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş (Sibiu-Transylvania), a few kilometres west of the homonymous village, is located

on the left bank of the Secaş River, a southern tributary of the Mureş (fig. 2). The excavations carried out

– 131

Fig. 1 - Distribution map of the FTN Criş sites mentioned in text: 1) Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş, 2) Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii, 3) Limba Bordane, 4) Dudeştii Vechi, 5) Silagiu-Valea Secerii, 6) Leţ, 7) Seimi Cărămidărie (drawing by P. Biagi).

between 1997 and 2007, and still under way (Luca et al., 2006; Luca and Suciu, 2007), revealed three main phases of occupation attributed to the Criş, Vinča and Petreşti cultural aspects respectively. The Criş layer yielded different types of features consisting of pits of variable size and shape, but no houses of the type so far known from the FTN groups (Trogmayer, 1966; Nandris, 1977: 51; Kalicz and Raczky, 1980-81; Raczky, 2006). Seven radiocarbon dates, obtained from different structures (fig. 2), show that the first Criş occupation took place between the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 7th millennium uncal BP, and that the site was resettled some five centuries later, by the beginning of the Middle Neolithic Vinča period (fig. 3). The chipped stone assemblages from the two main Neolithic complexes (Criş and Vinča) show different characteristics1. The Criş assemblage is very poor. It is composed of 31 artefacts, 16 of which come from 8 features and 15 from the archaeological layer.

They include 2 cores, 1 short end scraper, 1 truncation, 5 retouched blades, 1 crested blade and 1 plung-ing blade all from flint or radiolarites. The preliminary results of the traceological analyses by B.A. Voytek (pers. comm., 2006; Biagi and Voytek, in press) are shown in table 1 and fig. 4. They indicate that 8 tools were utilised for different activities among which is the harvesting of cereals, as suggested by the presence of two oblique sickle blades and caryopses of domestic wheat (Nisbet, in press). The commonest materials employed for chipping artefacts are the so-called Banat flint (Comşa, 1971: 100; 1976: 241) (11 specimens: 35.4%), and a few varieties of radiolarite (11 specimens: 35.4%). They are

——————————1 The data presented in this paper refer exclusively to the assemblages from the 1997-2005 excavations.

132 –

FTN

Criş

asp

ect

stru

ctu

re/

laye

rra

w m

ater

ial

typo

logy

(Lap

lace

, 196

4)di

men

sion

s (m

m)

cond

ition

anal

ytic

al m

etho

d-an

alys

is n

umbe

rw

eigh

t (gr

)w

ear t

race

sfig

ure

4

10fli

ntfl

(23)

x(10

)x4

fragm

ent,

burn

t0.

25

10op

aque

che

rtpr

ism

atic

(?) f

lake

let c

ore

30x3

4x16

com

plet

e20

10“B

anat

” flin

tT2

dis

t [Ap

d]/A

md.

Smm

39x1

3x4

com

plet

e2

haft

(?) s

en.c

ut h

ard

dex

n. 3

14“C

entra

l Ban

at” H

uned

oara

?e

33x2

7x7

com

plet

e6

19“B

anat

” flin

tL1

[Sm

d di

st]

44x1

5x5

com

plet

e4

n. 1

1

19“B

anat

” flin

tee

e11

x5x2

com

plet

e0.

25

19C

arpa

thia

n 2E

obs

idia

nee

e11

x15x

3co

mpl

ete

XRF-

103

1

20lig

ht g

rey

flint

fl(2

0)x1

5x5

fragm

ent,

corti

cate

d2

sick

le g

loss

obl

dis

t sen

n. 8

21re

d ra

diol

arite

ee21

x26x

11co

mpl

ete,

cor

ticat

ed4

21“B

anat

” flin

tL0

(2

5)x1

4x5

fragm

ent

3

21lig

ht g

rey

radi

olar

iteee

13x1

2x3

com

plet

e, c

ortic

ated

0.50

21“B

anat

” flin

tG

3/Sm

d se

n15

x13x

5co

mpl

ete

0.50

haft

prox

.scr

ape

hard

dis

tn.

2

26“B

anat

” flin

tfl

(20)

x10x

2fra

gmen

t0.

25

26“B

anat

” flin

tL0

(24)

x12x

4fra

gmen

t1

sick

le g

loss

obl

pro

x de

xn.

7

27br

own

radi

olar

iteL1

[Spm

sen

]60

x28x

10co

mpl

ete,

cor

ticat

ed16

hand

hel

d se

n di

st.c

ut

woo

d de

xn.

4

28lig

ht g

rey

radi

olar

itee

26x3

8x10

com

plet

e, c

ortic

ated

8

laye

rbr

own

radi

olar

itesu

bcon

ical

bla

dele

t cor

e35

x42x

33co

rtica

ted

54n.

1

laye

rbr

own

radi

olar

iteL1

[Sm

i sen

dis

t]40

x21x

7co

mpl

ete,

cor

ticat

ed6

cut h

ard

woo

d se

nn.

5

laye

rlig

ht g

rey

radi

olar

iteE

54x3

5x18

com

plet

e, c

ortic

ated

30

laye

rbr

own

radi

olar

itee

42x3

5x9

com

plet

e, c

ortic

ated

16

laye

rlig

ht g

rey

radi

olar

itee

36x2

8x9

com

plet

e8

laye

rbr

own

radi

olar

itee

21x3

3x10

com

plet

e4

laye

rbr

own

radi

olar

itecr

este

d b

lade

31x1

4x5

dist

al fr

agm

ent

2

laye

rra

diol

arite

fe(3

1)x1

8x3

fragm

ent,

burn

t2

laye

r“B

anat

” flin

tee

18x1

3x5

com

plet

e0.

50

laye

r“B

anat

” flin

tL2

[Spi

dex

]38

x19x

7co

mpl

ete

4ha

ft de

x.cu

t med

ium

sen

n. 6

laye

r“B

anat

” flin

tL0

(2

2)x1

8x4

mes

ial f

ragm

ent

2gl

oss

cut v

eget

atio

n se

nn.

9

laye

rC

arpa

thia

n 1

obsi

dian

fll(1

1)x1

1x2

mes

ial f

ragm

ent

LA-IC

P-M

S-1

0.25

cut m

ediu

m d

exn.

12

laye

rC

arpa

thia

n 1

obsi

dian

L1 S

mi d

ex(2

4)x1

5x2

prox

imal

frag

men

tXR

F-10

21.

50cu

t med

ium

dex

n. 1

0

laye

rC

arpa

thia

n 1

obsi

dian

ee20

x17x

2co

mpl

ete

XRF-

101

3

laye

rC

arpa

thia

n 1

obsi

dian

plun

ging

bla

de(4

4)x1

9x7

dist

al fr

agm

ent

XRF-

100

6

Table 1 - Main characteristics of the chipped stone artefacts from the Criş occupation at Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş (excavations 1997-2005). In both tables 1 and 2 the dimensions are indicated as follows: ee = microflakelet, e = flakelet, E = flake, ll = microbladelet, l = bladelet, L = blade; ee and ll, 1.25-2.50 cm, e and l, 2.50-5.00 cm; E and L, 5.00-10.00 cm. f = fragment.

– 133

followed by obsidian (5 specimens: 16.1%), which is represented by 4 artefacts of Carpathian 1 and 1 of Carpathian 2E source. In contrast, the Vinča period assemblage is much richer. It is composed of 185 artefacts, 39 of which are from obsidian (21.08% of the total assemblage), 35 from Carpathian 1 and 3 from Carpathian 2E source, among which are 6 retouched tools and 2 core residuals. This indicates that during this latter period, at least part of the obsidian tools were manufactured within the settlement site (Biagi et al., 2007).

b) Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii (Alba Iulia, Transylvania). The site is located on the left terrace of the Secaş, a small, left affluent of the Mureş River, in an open pasture upland, close to a deposit of bentonite, at 46°02’29”N-23°38’06”E. (Ciută, 1998: plate 1) (fig. 5). The excavations carried out in 1997 brought to light a complex stratigraphic sequence (Ciută, 2005), the bottom of which yielded a rectangular ‘surface house’ (Ciută, 2000: fig. 4) containing a material culture assemblage attributed to the earliest FTN Criş group, radiocarbon-dated to 7070±60 uncal BP (GrN-28114) (Biagi et al., 2005: 46-47). The chipped stone industry is represented mainly by unretouched flakelets and very rare bladelets obtained from quartzite and flint as well as 7 obsidian microflakelets (Ciută, 2000: figs. 5 and 6).

c) Limba Bordane is located on the left terrace of the Mureş, in front of a large island, in the middle of the river itself (Ciută, 2002: fig. 1), a few km from Alba Iulia (Transylvania). Its exact location is 46°02’11”N-23°35’07”E. The excavations carried out in 1998 yielded an Early Neolithic ‘surface house’ with materials attributable to the beginning of the Criş period and later Criş IIIB and IV occupations (Ciută, 2005: 150). Both these later periods have been radiocarbon-dated (Biagi et al., 2005: 46-47) (fig. 6 bottom).

d) Dudeştii Vechi. The FTN Criş site Movila lui Deciov, is located in the Timiş district, north-west of the vil-lage of Dudeştii Vechi, 8 km west of Sânnicolau Mare, close to the Hungarian and Serbian borderlines at 46°03’49”N-20°28’38”E. The site, that lies in an area of Holocene river sediments, some 400 m east of the Gornja Aranca canal (El Susi, 2002; Maillol et al., 2004; Spataro, unpubl.) is known since the beginning

Fig. 2 - Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş: Pit 26, belonging to the early FTN Criş aspect, filled with domestic cattle skull remains, radiocarbon-dated to 7010±40 uncal BP (GrN-29954) (photograph by P. Biagi).

134 –

of the last century (Kisleghi, 1909; 1911). It is an oval-shaped mound, about 75 m in maximum diameter (Maillol et al., 2004: fig. 3) with a Neolithic sequence some 1.50 m deep, attributed to the Starčevo-Criş phases IIB and IIIA (Spataro, 2006; unpubl.), according to the characteristics of the pottery assemblages, radiocarbon-dated between 6990±50 (GrN-28111) and 6815±70 uncal BP (GrN-28876) (Biagi et al., 2005: 46-47) (fig. 6 top).

e) Silagiu-Valea Secerii, in the Buziaş district (Banat), is located in a terraced vineyard, just to the east of the stream that bears the same name, close to a lower-lying cultivated plain at an altitude of some 170 m (Lazarovici and Sfectu, 1990). A concentration of potsherds and stone artefacts was noticed on the site surface during a summer 2006 visit at 45°37’44”N-21°36’57”E. Silagiu is the only Criş site so far known

Fig. 3 - Radiocarbon (top) and calibrated dates (bottom) from the Criş and Vinča occupations at Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş, irrespective of stratigraphy.

7500BP 7000BP 6500BP 6000BP

– 135

Fig. 4 - Chipped stone implements from the Criş occupation at Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş (excavations 1997-2005): 1) bladelet core; 2) short end scraper; 3) truncation; 4, 6, 9, 10 and 12) retouched bladelets; 5, 7, 8 and 11) unretouched bladelets. Symbols: H) hafting; SH) scrape hard; PHH) pressure hand held; CW) cut wood; CHW) cut hard wood; CM) cut medium; S) sickle gloss; CV) cut vegetation (drawings by P. Biagi and G. Almerigogna; traces of wear by B.A. Voytek).

south of the Timiş River, east of Timişoara, along the piedmont course of this important river. The pottery assemblage from this site has been attributed to the IIB-IIIA phase of the Criş aspect, while three obsidian samples analysed by PIXE and XRF are supposed to derive from undefined Tokaj sources (Constantinescu et al., 2002). The characterised obsidian artefacts include 4 specimens among which are 1 flakelet and 1 microflakelet, both of Carpathian 1 material; 1 microbladelet subconical cores and 1 straight perforator of Carpathian 2E source (fig. 7, nn. 1-3).

f) Leţ. The multi-stratified site of Leţ-Várhegy in the Covasna district (Transylvania) is located on a terrace of the River Neagru (Zaharia, 1964). Amongst the other more recent occupations (Păunescu, 2001: 376), the site yielded three levels attributed to the Criş aspect attributed to the IIIB-IVB phases (Maxim, 1999: 166). The chipped stone artefacts are mainly obtained from greyish flint, while obsidians represent 3% of the total assemblage (Păunescu, 1970: 153).

g) Seimi Cărămidărie. This site in the Maramureş district is reported by Z. Maxim (1999: 183) as belonging to the Tiszapolgár Culture, even though from its surface comes a chipped stone assemblage that includes obsidian artefacts attributed to a late Criş period (fig. 7, nn. 4-9) (Maxim, pers. comm. 2004; Biagi et al., 2007).

136 –

OBSIDIAN IDENTIFICATION METHODS

The obsidian presented in this paper were characterised with two different methods: those from Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii, Limba Bordane, Dudeştii Vechi, Silagiu-Valea Secerii, Leţ, Seimi Cărămidărie and one single specimen from Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş, were analysed by LA-ICP-MS in January 2005, while the remaining 34 specimens from the latter site, including also two broken bladelets from the Chalcolithic Petreşti occupation, were characterised by XRF in December of the same year (fig. 8).

The first method (LA-ICP-MS) allows a quantitative analysis. It is almost undestructive: the diameter of the ablation crater ranges from 60 to 100 μm, and its depth is some 250 μm. The instruments are a VG Plasma Quad PQXS Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometer and a VG UV Laser probe laser ablation, sam-pling device. The specimen is sampled by the laser beam generated by a Nd YAG pulsed laser. Its frequency is quadruplicated in order to operate in the ultraviolet region at 266 nm. An argon gas flow carries the ablated aerosol to the injector inlet of the plasma torch, where the matter is dissociated, atomised and ionised. The ions are then injected into the vacuum chamber of a quadruple system, which filters the ions depending on their mass-to-charge ratio. They are then collected by a channel electron multiplier. Calibration is carried out using a NIST glass standard SRM610. The concentration of 19 elements is determined for each sample. Among them Zr, Y, Nb, Ba, Sr, Ce, La and Ti are used to discriminate amongst the obsidian outcrops (Gratuze, 1999).

The second procedure (XRF) permits to compare directly the net-normalised X-rays fluorescence signals of the archaeological artefacts with those of the obsidian geological samples without determining their composition. It is possible to obtain absolute concentrations by using classical linear regressions, because the coefficient of each element is calculated by comparing the net-measured signal from each single obsidian reference sample with its concentration value. This method allows a good discrimination of all the Mediterranean (Lipari, Sardinia, Parmarola, Pantelleria, Melos and Giali) and Carpathian (1, 2E and 2T) sources. To classify the archaeological samples, we use the net signal measured for 11 minor and trace elements present in obsidian: K, Ca, Ti, Mn, Fe, Zn, As, Rb, Sr, Y and Zr. Geological and archaeological samples are conjointly analysed and the data are compared using simple binary diagrams.

Fig. 5 - Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii: site location in the foreground, and white, bentonite deposits in the background (photograph by P. Biagi).

– 137

Fig. 6 - Radiocarbon and calibrated dates from Dudeştii Vechi (top), and Limba Bordane (bottom).

7400BP 7200BP 7000BP 6800BP 6600BP

7000BP 6800BP 6600BP 6400BP 6200BP

138 –

The x-rays portable spectrometer can be employed also for on-site analysis. It is equipped with two different x-ray tubes, one with a molybdenum, and one with a tungsten cathode. The analysis is conducted thanks to the tungsten tube. The measurement parameters are: tube voltage 50kV, current intensity 0.8 mA, measurement duration 20 minutes, no filter, X-rays collimator 1.5mm (Astruc et al., in press).

DISCUSSION

There are a few important points to discuss on the exploitation of the Car-pathian obsidian sources in a period of major transformations, between the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 7th millen-nium uncal BP. They regard 1) the early demography of the study region, 2) the way the obsidian sources were exploited and transported, and 3) the raw material utilised by the first FTN farmers who set-tled in the Banat and Transylvania.

The early demography

As mentioned above, the new radiocarbon assays show that farming spread rapidly across the central Balkans as far north as the Hungarian Plain (Starnini, 2002: fig. 7; Whittle et al., 2002; 2005; Biagi et al., 2005: fig. 5). This phenomenon took place following well-defined and selected watercourses, along a few river routes crossing the Carpathians that can be most probably compared with those followed by transhumant shepherds until the beginning of the 20th century (Jarman et al., fig. 107). In this territory, apart from the Iron Gates (Radovanović, 1996), no evidence of Mesolithic occupation is so far known.

The only exception, in the whole Banat and the province of Arad (Crisana), a region very poor in high-qual-ity raw material stone resources (Păunescu, 2001: 135-222), is Alibeg, along the northern bank of the Danube, where a sequence with over-imposed Mesolithic and Starčevo-Criş assemblages, was excavated within the same archaeological layer. A radiocarbon date of 7195±100 uncal BP (Bln-1193), from charcoal, is referred to the Mesolithic occupation. It yielded an assemblage obtained from flint, black schist and quartzite, represented by cores, end scrapers, denticulated tools, but no geometric microliths (Păunescu, 2001: 156-159).

The low population density of this Early Neolithic horizon (Sherratt, 1972: 517) can be assumed also for the Banat, where only three early FTN Criş sites are so far known along the terraces of the Timiş, some 40-50 km west of Timişoara: Foeni-Sălaş (Greenfield and Draşovean, 1994; Draşovean, 2007) and Foeni-Gaz (Spataro, 2003), respectively radiocarbon-dated to 7080±50 uncal BP (GrN-28454) and 6925±45 uncal BP (GrA-25621), and Fratelia (Draşovean, 2001). A ‘continuous’ series of five dates, spanning from 6990±50 (GrA-28111) to 6815±70 uncal BP (GrN-28876) (fig. 6), has been recently obtained from Dudeştii Vechi, along the course of the Aranca River, a right tributary of the Tisza (Biagi et al., 2005: 46), close to an area rich in FTN Körös, riverine settlements of various periods, which shows a noticeable concentration in the Tiszazug region, further to the north (Nandris, 1970: maps 1-3; Kosse, 1979: 119; Jarman et al., 1982: fig. 74). All the above Banat sites yielded very few unretouched obsidian artefacts (see also Kuijt, 1994: table 2 and appendix 1).

The situation in Transylvania is rather similar. A few obsidian artefacts come from the oldest occupation layers at Gura Baciului (Lazarovici and Maxim, 1995: fig. 15), Ocna Sibiului (Paul, 1995: 36), Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii (Ciută, 2005: plate IV) and Miercurea Sibiului (Luca et al., 2006). The finds from these sites indicate

Fig. 7 - Obsidian artefacts from other FTN Criş sites mentioned in the text: 1-3) Silagiu-Valea Secerii, 4-9) Seimi-Cărămidărie. For the description see table 2 (drawings by P. Biagi and G. Almerigogna).

– 139

Fig. 8 - Diagrams of Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş obsidian artefacts characterised in December 2005 at Centre Ernest Babelon by XRF: Nb versus Y, showing that they all refer to the Carpathian sources (top); Fe versus Ca with their repartition between the two Carpathian sources 1 and 2E (bottom).

that, already between the last two centuries of the 8th and the very beginning of the following millennium uncal BP, both Carpathian 1 and 2E obsidians had been transported (traded?), although in very small quantities, as far as some 300 km south-east, as the crow flies, of their original sources.

The exploitation of the obsidian sources

A problem of fundamental importance regards the peopling of the Tokaj mountains of Hungary and Slovakia, where the obsidian sources are located, and their rate and mode(s) of exploitation by both Mesolithic hunter-

Palmarola

140 –

gatherers, if any, and FTN Neolithic farmers around the turn of the 8th millennium uncal BP. Given that these mountains lie well beyond the northernmost limit reached by the spread of the Early Neolithic FTN (Kalicz et al., 1998: fig. 1), this evidence poses one more question to the chronology and dynamic of the exploitation of these very important resources.

As already suggested for hunter-forager groups, whose annual complex moves (Brantingham, 2006) are supposed to cover a radius of some (al least?) 150 km (Grimaldi, 2005: 84), “raw materials and com-modities would have been gathered from one spot and circulated with and amongst the family bands from one resource or quarry outcrop that may often simultaneously ..... serve as a focus within the peripheral intersection of several group territories, which would exploit that resource at different season of the year“ (Clarke, 1979: 277). Furthermore it has been pointed out that no extractive or other implement are normally left at their quarrying place “if obsidian was collected without modification at the sources, even less well-used areas would exhibit little evidence of having served as quarries” (Sappington, 1984: 25). According to the ethnographic sources, there is no prove that hunter-gatherers ever ‘controlled’ (Bánffy, 2004: 393) or ‘supervised’ (Kalicz et al., 1998: 168) any raw material sources, which are periodically, or seasonally, peacefully exploited by different groups, coming from several base-camps (Bettinger, 1982: 113). In effect, as pointed out by Lee and DeVore (1968: 12; see also Rowley-Conwy, 2001: 40) “frequent visiting between resource areas prevents any one group from becoming too strongly attached to any single area”. It is also important to remark that, 1) given the same energy expenditure, a forager never matters what is the prov-enance source of the tools he carries (Wilson, 2007: 406), 2) the material he employs does not necessarily derive from the best or the closest source (Jeske, 1989: 44), and, 3) what is most important, “raw materials used in the manufacture of implements are normally obtained incidentally to the execution of basic subsist-ence tasks” (Binford, 1979: 259)

Although, in general, the raw material exploitable zones show different characteristics, represented by sites without any visible remains - like the Tokaj obsidian sources (Nandris, pers. comm. 2007) - or with evident traces of quarrying by pits - Szentgál radiolarites for instance (Biró, 1995) -, this pattern can be extended to other lithic raw material sources, whose exploitation by Mesolithic bands most probably took place follow-ing either a procedure very similar to that described in the preceding paragraphs, or unearthing blocks of raw material “from just below the surface of the ground” (Gould, 1980: 125), from which to remove a few flakes on the spot and eventually retouch just a small number of them (Binford and O’Connell, 1984), undoubtedly not by ‘quarrying’ in the way suggested by Bánffy (2004: 346).

The raw material availability

The evidence available to-date, shows that the inhabitants of the earliest FTN Criş sites mentioned in the text exploited mainly local raw material sources. Their chipped stone assemblages are very poor, as it is often the case for the industries of this period, apart perhaps from those of the Iron Gates (Băltean, 2005); furthermore the raw materials employed are very variable and of a low technological quality. The typical tools are few: they are represented by obliquely-inserted sickle blades, regular isosceles trapezes, straight truncations, short end scrapers and retouched blades. As far as we know, they were utilised for harvesting, cutting grass, cutting and scraping (Voytek, pers. comm. 2007 and table 1).

A low number of obsidian artefacts is known from both the Banat and Transylvanian sites in the form of unretouched flake(let)s and bladelets, rarely used for cutting, indicating that both Carpathian 1 (Cejkov and Kašov in Slovakia) and 2E (Mád in Hungary) sources were exploited on a very small scale, while the formerly supposed occurrence of obsidians from other ‘local’ (Oaş Mountains) and southern sources (Melos Island) (Boroneanţ, 2005) does not find any confirmation from the characterisations so far obtained. The ‘local’ raw materials available within a 40 km radius, according to the terminology proposed by Gould (1980: 145), might include also Banat flint, whose sources are known both in the Hunedoara region (Luca et al., 2004: 66) and, in the form of small, isolated boulders, in the hills south of Faget, south of the course of the Bega (Spataro, pers. comm. 2007).

If we take into consideration all the factors that influence the raw material choices, among which is also quality (Wilson, 2007: 396-400), we have to point out the scarcity of ‘excellent’ material exploited by the earli-est FTN populations of the study region that can be restricted only to the Carpathian 1 obsidian. It is important to remark that it forms 80.0% (4 specimens) of the obsidians and 12.9% of the total amount of chipped stones at Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş, Criş occupation (table 1).

– 141

CONCLUSIONS

To conclude: the study of the archaeological obsidians from the FTN Criş sites of the above-mentioned two regions of the Carpathian Basin leads to a number of observations that only more numerous analyses might confirm or reject.

At the present state of research the general impression is that 1) the Tokaj mountains were not settled during the early Holocene, prior to the advent of the Neolithic,

and that the Early FTN communities did not inhabit the area of the obsidian sources (Kaczanowska and Kozłowski, 1994: 51; Gillings, 1997: 164), which is located north of the northernmost limit reached by the Körös communities (see Kalicz et al., 1998: fig. 1). The supposed presence of Late Mesolithic sites in the area (Chapman, 1994; Kertész, 1996) is still disputed. It does not find confirmation both in the techno-typological characteristics of the chipped stone assemblages yielded by the excavations, which are mostly manufactured from Matra radiolarites and limnoquartzites, opposite to what happens, for instance in Slovakia, at the Early Mesolithic site of Barca (Bárta, 1966), and in the radiocarbon dates so far obtained (Starnini, 2000; 2002; Kozłowski, 2007: fig. 2). Broadly speaking, this picture can be compared with that of eastern Slovakia, although, in this latter case, the previously uninhabited region was firstly settled by specific groups of Linear Pottery (LBK) farmers (Kaczanowska and Kozłowski, 1997);

2) the beginning of the limited exploitation of both Carpathian 1 and 2E sources, at the turn of the 8th mil-lennium uncal BP, might derive from the first exploration of the Tokaj territories by early FTN scouts, in search for good workable stones, given the low quality raw materials locally available to the farmers set-tled in the plains of the Banat and in the uplands of Transylvania, as indicated by the characteristics of the chipped stone assemblages so far analysed (Comşa, 1976; Kuijt, 1994; Băltean, 2005; Boroneanţ, 2005; Biagi et al., 2007; Draşovean, 2007);

3) this pattern seems to start changing during following stages of the FTN, when the number of obsidian artefacts increases slowly, and retouched obsidian tools make their appearance at some later Criş sites (see table 2) and, more dramatically, during the Middle Neolithic Vinča Culture, when the Carpathian 1 deposits were more intensively exploited, and the first trans-Carpathian, Volhynian flint started to be traded, as the discoveries made at Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş indicate (Biagi and Voytek, in press). These data show subsequent stages of an increasing more intensive exploitation of lithic resources external to the study area, most probably mainly for functional purposes (Biagi et al., 2007) more than for their intrinsic attractiveness (Chapman, 2007), although these latter characteristics might have played a significant role as already observed for the obsidians of Mediterranean region (Tykot, 1996: 56): they contribute to reinforce “the impression of a set of characteristic land utilization patterns for successive archaeological periods” (Sherratt, 1972: 514), throughout the entire 7th millennium uncal BP;

4) the distance of the earliest FTN settlement sites under discussion from the Tokaj obsidian sources, located some 300 km northwest of Miecurea Sibiului-Petriş, as the crow flies, although it might have been quite greater if we take into consideration the terrain difficulties (Renfrew, 1977), does not seem to have played a significant role. The available evidence, at least from Transylvania, shows that, throughout a period comprised between the very beginning of the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic, roughly between the last two centuries of the 8th and the end of the 6th millennium uncal BP, the exploitation of the raw material sources varied noticeably. The studies so far conducted on a very limited number of assemblages, shows a slow, although continuous and systematic replacement in the raw material procurement through the time, towards excellent quality sources, independently from their distance and their easy access by watercourses (Reid, 1986), as might have been the case for the Tokaj obsidian outcrops;

5) at the light of the new discoveries, the above pattern can be schematically synthesized in the following successive stages a) earliest FTN: exploitation of local, bad quality sources and search for better exotic raw materials amongst which are both Carpathian 1 and 2E Tokaj obsidians; b) successive FTN periods: increasing utilisation of better quality, local raw materials and beginning of the systematic exploitation of the Slovak Tokaj obsidian source; c) Vinča Culture: more extensive exploitation of both local, higher qual-ity (Banat flint), and exogenous, excellent quality (Carpathian 1), raw material outcrops and beginning of small-scale imports of trans-Carpathian Volhynian flints; d) Chalcolithic: (almost exclusive?) utilisation of excellent exotic raw materials, from great distances, among which are Carpathian 1 obsidians, Volhynian flints and small quantities of Transdanubian radiolarites (Biagi and Voytek, 2006). This oversimplified pattern, which is mainly based on the evidence from two very different key sites in Transylvania, Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş (with non-continuous occupations from the earliest FTN to the Petreşti Culture) and Peştera

142 –

FTN

Criş

asp

ect

arch

aeol

ogic

al s

iteob

sidi

an s

ourc

ety

polo

gy (L

apla

ce, 1

964)

dim

ensi

ons

(mm

)co

nditi

onan

alyt

ical

met

hod-

anal

ysis

nu

mbe

rw

eigh

t (gr

)fig

ure

7

Şeuş

aC

arpa

thia

n 1

fee

(22)

x(17

)x4

prox

imal

frag

men

t LA

-ICP-

MS-

S12

Şeuş

aC

arpa

thia

n 2E

ee

21x2

7x4

com

plet

eLA

-ICP-

MS-

S22

Dud

eştii

Vec

hiC

arpa

thia

n 1

ee13

x25x

?co

mpl

ete

LA-IC

P-M

S-D

V11.

50

Dud

eştii

Vec

hiC

arpa

thia

n 1

ee10

x13x

?fra

gmen

tLA

-ICP-

MS-

DV3

0.50

Dud

eştii

Vec

hiC

arpa

thia

n 1

ee10

x7x?

fragm

ent

LA-IC

P-M

S-D

V40.

25

Dud

eştii

Vec

hiC

arpa

thia

n 1

ll9x

10x?

fragm

ent

LA-IC

P-M

S-D

V20.

50

Sila

giu-

Vale

a Se

cerii

Car

path

ian

1 e

20x3

7x6

com

plet

eLA

-ICP-

MS-

SVL2

2

Sila

giu-

Vale

a Se

cerii

Car

path

ian

1 su

bcon

ical

mic

robl

adel

et c

ore

15x1

0x7

com

plet

eLA

-ICP-

MS-

SVL1

1n.

1

Sila

giu-

Vale

a Se

cerii

Car

path

ian

2E

subc

onic

al m

icro

blad

elet

cor

e12

x17x

13co

mpl

ete

LA-IC

P-M

S-SV

L31.

50n.

2

Sila

giu-

Vale

a Se

cerii

Car

path

ian

2E

Bc2

[Apd

+Apd

](2

1)x1

0x5

dist

al fr

agm

ent

LA-IC

P-M

S-SV

L42

n. 3

Lim

ba B

orda

neC

arpa

thia

n 1

D2

lat-t

ra [S

pd]

19x2

6x5

com

plet

eLA

-ICP-

MS-

LB1

2

Leţ

Car

path

ian

1 fll

(11)

x9x3

prox

imal

frag

men

t LA

-ICP-

MS-

LET1

0.50

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1 ee

21x1

6x6

com

plet

eXR

F-SC

30.

50

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1 co

re tr

imm

ing

flake

let

20x1

7x8

com

plet

e, c

ortic

ated

XRF-

SC4

2

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1fll

(20)

x8x3

prox

imal

frag

men

t XR

F-SC

51

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1 ll

24x1

4x3

com

plet

eXR

F-SC

81

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1 ee

18x1

5x5

com

plet

eXR

F-SC

21

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1 ee

16x1

8x4

com

plet

e, c

ortic

ated

XRF-

SC10

1

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1 fll

(21)

x10x

4pr

oxim

al fr

agm

ent

XRF-

SC11

1

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1 fll

(18)

x10x

3m

ediu

m fr

agm

ent

XRF-

SC1

1

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1 LD

2[Ap

d se

n]/.S

md

(31)

x11x

5pr

oxim

al fr

agm

ent

XRF-

SC6

2n.

5

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1 fll

(19)

x13x

3pr

oxim

al fr

agm

ent

XRF-

SC7

1

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1 fl

(24)

x13x

4pr

oxim

al fr

agm

ent

XRF-

SC9

1n.

6

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1su

bcon

ical

mic

robl

adel

et c

ore

23x2

2x15

com

plet

eby

vis

ual

8n.

4

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1T2

rect

dir/

-Am

d bi

l(1

3)x1

0x3

dist

al fr

agm

ent

by v

isua

l1

n. 7

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1T2

obl

dir.

T3 o

bl d

ir (1

9)x1

0x4

fragm

ent

by v

isua

l1

n. 8

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1T2

con

c(1

5)x1

1x6

dist

al fr

agm

ent,

corti

cata

ted

by v

isua

l1

n. 9

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1ll

(14)

x8x2

mes

ial f

ragm

ent

by v

isua

l0.

25

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1ee

19x2

0x5

com

plet

e, c

ortic

ated

by v

isua

l2

Seim

i Căr

ămid

ărie

Car

path

ian

1ee

17x1

3x4

com

plet

eby

vis

ual

1

Table 2 - Main characteristics of the obsidian artefacts from the other sites mentioned in the text.

– 143

Ungurească in the Cheile Turzii gorge (from the Petreşti Culture to the beginning of the Bronze Age) (Biagi et al., 2007), will necessitate corrections according to the results obtained from new, under-way systematic analyses. Nevertheless, the above data may contribute to a better understanding of the raw material fall-off curves (Renfrew, 1975), and the use of the territory by the inhabitants of each site and, more broadly, the strategy of landscape exploitation by each cultural unit during the entire Atlantic climatic period (Wilson, 2007: 406).

AknowledgementsThe authors are very grateful to all the Romanian colleagues who were kind enough to provide archaeological obsidians for analysis: Drs. D. Ciobotaru and F. Draşovean (Banat Museum, Timişoara), Prof. S.A. Luca (Sibiu University), Dr. Z. Maxim Kalmar (Cluj-Napoca Museum) and Prof. I. Paul and Dr. M. Ciută (Alba Iulia University). Special thanks are due to Prof. J.K. Kozłowski (Kraków Univerisity - PL) and Dr. J. Nandris (Cantemir Consultancy, Oxford - UK) for their comments, suggestions and the re-reading of the original English text, to Dr. B.A. Voytek (Berkeley University, USA) for the traceological analysis of the chipped stone assemblage from Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş, and to Dr. M. Spataro (British Museum, London, UK) for information about her survey work in the Banat piedmont. We also thank Dr. K.T. Biró (Hungarian National Museum, Budapest - H) for providing us with the geological reference samples from the Hungarian and Slovak obsidian sources.

This paper has been made possible by the financial support of the Italian Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MAE) with our thanks.

144 –

R E F E R E N C E S

Astruc, L., Gratuze, B., Pelegrin, J. and Akkermans, P. in press - From production to use: a parcel of obsidian bladelets at Sabi Abyad II. In Astruc L., Binder, D. and Briois, F. (eds.) La diversité des systèmes techniques des communautés du Néolithique pré-céra-mique vers la caractérisation des comportements sociaux. APDCA, Antibes.

Băltean, I.C. 2005 - Stadiul actual al cercetărilor privind industria litică cioplită în neoliticul ntimporiu din Banat. Patrimonium Bana-ticum, IV: 7-25. Timişoara (in Romanian).

Bánffy, E. 2004 - The 6th Millennium BC Boundary in Western Transdanubia and its Role in the Central European Neolithic Transition (The Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb Settlement). Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, XV. Budapest.

Bánffy, E. 2006 - Eastern, Central and Western Hungary, variations of Neolithisation models. Documenta Praehistorica, XXXIII: 125-142. Ljubljana.

Bárta, J. 1966 - Slovensko v starsej a strednej dobe kamennej. Bratislava (in Slovak).

Bettinger, R.L. 1982 - Aboriginal Exchange and Territoriality in Owens Valley, California. In Ericson, J.E. and Earle, T.K. (eds.) Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange. Academic Press, New York: 103-127.

Biagi, P., De Francesco, A.M. and Bocci, M. 2007 - New data on the Archaeological Obsidian from the Middle-Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites of the Banat and Transylvania. In Kozłowski, J.K. and Raczky, P. (eds.) The Lengyel, Polgár and related cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe. Polska Akademia Umiejętności, Kraków: 309-326.

Biagi, P., Shennan, S., and Spataro, M. 2005 - Rapid Rivers and Slow Seas? New Data for the Radiocarbon Chronology of the Balkan Peninsula. In Nikolova, L., Fritz, J. and Higgings, J. (eds.) Prehistoric Archaeology & Anthropological Theory and Education. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects, 6-7: 41-50. Salt Lake City - Karlovo.

Biagi, P. and Spataro, M. 2005 - New Observations on the Radiocarbon Chronology of the Starčevo-Criş and Körös Cultures. In Nikolova, L., Fritz, J. and Higgings, J. (eds.) Prehistoric Archaeology & Anthropological Theory and Education. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects, 6-7: 35-40. Salt Lake City - Karlovo.

Biagi, P. and Voytek, B.A. 2006 - Excavations at Peştera Ungurească (Caprelor) (Cheile Turzii, Petreşti de Jos, Transylvania) 2003-2004: A preliminary report on the chipped stone assemblages from the Toarte Pastilate (Bodrogkeresztúr) Chalcolithic layers. Analele Banatului, XIV (1): 177-202. Timişoara.

Biagi, P. and Voytek, B.A. in press - Preliminary results of the analysis of two Neolithic and Chalcolithic chipped stone assemblages from Transylvania. In Biagi, P., Ciobotaru, D., Draşovean, F. and Spataro, M. (eds.) Ten Years After: the Neolithic of the Balkans, as uncovered by the last decade of research. Timişoara.

Binford, L.R. 1979 - Organization and Formation Processes: Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research, 35 (3): 255-273.

Binford, L.R. and O’Connell, J.F. 1984 - An Alyawara Day: The Stone Quarry. Journal of Anthropological Research, 40: 406-432.

Biró, K.T. 1995 - H 8 Szentgál-Tűzköveshegy, Veszprém County. Archaeologia Polona, 33: 402-408. Warsaw.

Biró, K.T. 2004 - A Kárpáti obszidiánok: legenda és valóság. Archeometriai Mühely, I (1): 3-8. Budapest (in Hungarian).

Boroneanţ, A. 2005 - Early Neolithic Lithic Industries (The Banat and Transylvania). In Honorem Silvia Marinescu-Bîlcu. Cultura şi Civilizaţie La Dunărea de Jos, XXII: 19-35. Călăraşi.

Brantingham, P.J. 2006 - Measuring Forager Mobility. Current Anthropology, 47 (3): 435-459.

Cărciumaru, M., Muraru, A., Cărciumaru, E. and Otea, A. 1985 - Contribuţii la cunoaşterea surselor de obsidian ca materie prim pentru confecţionarea uneltelor Paleolitice de pe teritoriul României. Memoria Antiquitatis, IX-XI: 561-603. Piatra Neamţ (in Romanian).

Chapman, J. 1987 - Technological and stylistic analyses of the Early Neolithic chipped stone assemblage from Méhtelek, Hungary. In Biró, K. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on prehistoric flint mining and lithic raw material identification in the Carpathian Basin. Rota Press, Budapest: 31-52.

Chapman, J. 1994 - The Origins of Farming in South East Europe. Préhistoire Européenne, 6: 133-156.

Chapman, J. 2007 - Engaging with the exotic: the production of early farming communities in south-east and central Europe. In Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds.) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12: 207-222. Trieste.

Ciută, M.M. 1998 - O locuinţă de suprafaţă aparţinând neoliticului timpuriu de la Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii (com. Ciugud, jud. Alba). Apulum, XXXV: 1-14. Alba Iulia (in Romanian).

Ciută, M.M. 2000 - Contribuţii la cunoaşterea celui mai vechi orizont al neoliticului timpuriu din România. Cultura Pre-Criş - desco-peririle arheologice de la Şeuşa-La Cărarea Morii. Apulum, XXXVII (1): 51-101. Alba Iulia (in Romanian).

Ciută, M.M. 2001 - Contribuţii la repertoriul descoperirilor arheologice aparţinând Culturii Precriş. Patrimonium Apulense, I: 9-32. Alba Iulia (in Romanian).

– 145

Ciută, M.M. 2002 - O locuinţă neolitică timpurie descoperită în situl de la Limba-Bordane (jud. Alba). Apulum, XXXIX: 1-30. Alba Iulia (in Romanian).

Ciută, M.M. 2005 - Începuturile neoliticului timpuriu în spaţiul intracarpatic Transilvănean. Bibliotheca Universitatis Apulensis, XII. Aeternitas, Alba Iulia (in Romanian).

Clarke, D.L. 1979 - The Economic Context of Trade and Industry in Barbican Europe till Roman Times. In His Colleagues (eds.) Analytical Archaeologist. Collected Papers of David L. Clarke. Academic Press, London: 263-331.

Comşa, E. 1971 - L’état actuel des recherches sur les outils Néolithiques de silex en territoire Roumain. In Kozłowski, J.K. (ed.) Études sur Industries de la Pierre Tailée du Néo-Enéolithique: 100-114. Societé Archeologique Polonaise, Musée Archéologique de Cracovie. Kraków.

Comşa, E. 1976 - Les matières premières en usage chez les hommes Néolithiques de l’actuel territoire Roumain. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica, XVI: 239-249. Kraków.

Constantinescu, B., Bugoi, R. and Sziki, G. 2002 - Obsidian provenance studies of Transylvanian’s Neolithic tools using PIXE, micro-PIXE and XRF. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, B 189: 373-377.

Draşovean, F. 2001 - Early Neolithic Settlement at Timişoara-Fratelia. In Draşovean, F. (ed.) Festschrift für Gheorghe Lazarovici zum 60. Geburtstag. Mirton, Timişoara: 33-40.

Draşovean, F. 2007 - Regional aspects in the process of Neolithisation of the Banat (south-western Romania): the settlement of Foeni-Sălaş. In Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds.) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12: 67-76. Trieste.

El Susi, G. 2002 - Cercetări arheozoologice preliminare în situri Starčevo-Criş timpurii din Câmpia Banatului. Fauna de la Foeni-Gaz şi Dudeştii Vechi (jud. Timiş). Analele Banatului, IX: 15-40. Timişoara (in Romanian).

Gillings, M. 1997 - Spatial Organisation in the Tisza Flood Plain: Dynamic Landscapes and GIS. In Chapman, J. and Dolukha-nov, P. (eds.) Landscapes in Flux. Central and Eastern Europe in Antiquity. Colloquia Pontica, 3: 163-179. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Gould, R.A. 1980 - Living Archaeology. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Gratuze, B. 1999 - Obsidian characterisation by laser ablation ICP-MS and its application to the prehistoric trade in the Mediterranean and the Near East: The sources and distribution of obsidian within the Aegean and Anatolia. Journal of Archaeological Sciences, 26: 869-881.

Greenfield, H.J. and Draşovean, F. 1994 - Preliminary report on the 1992 excavations at Foeni-Sălaş: an early Neolithic Starčevo-Criş settlement in the Romanian Banat. Analele Banatului, III: 45-85. Timişoara.

Grimaldi, S. 2005 - Un tentativo di definire un modello di territorio e mobilità per i cacciatori raccoglitori sauveterriani dell’Italia nord-orientale. Preistoria Alpina, 41: 73-88. Trento.

Kaczanowska, M. and Kozłowski, J.K. 1994 - Environment and Highland Zone Exploitation in the Western Carpathians (VII-VI millen-nium BP). In Biagi, P. and Nandris, J. (eds.) Highland Zone Exploitation in Southern Europe. Monografie di «Natura Bresciana», 20: 49-71. Brescia.

Kaczanowska, M. and Kozłowski, J.K. 1997 - Lithic Industries. In Kozłowski, J.K. (ed.) The Early Linear Pottery Culture in Eastern Slovakia. Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat, 1: 177-253. Kraków.

Kaczanowska, M. and Kozłowski, J.K. 2003 - Origins of the Linear Pottery Complex and the Neolithic Transition in Central Europe. In Ammerman, A.J. and Biagi, P. (eds.) The Widening Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Colloquia and Conference Papers, 6: 227-248. Archaeological Institute of America, Boston.

Kalicz, N. and Makkay, J. 1976 - Frühneolitische Siedlung in Méhtelek-Nádas. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Unga-rischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 6: 13-24. Budapest.

Kalicz, N. and Raczky, P. 1980-81 - Siedlungen der Körös-Kultur in Szolnok-Szanda. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 10-11: 13-24. Budapest.

Kalicz, N., Virág, Z.M. and Biró, K.T. 1998 - The northern periphery of the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture in South-western Hungary: a case study of an excavation at Lake Balaton. Documenta Praehistorica, XXV: 151-187. Ljubljana.

Kertész, R. 1996 - The mesolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain: A survey of evidence. In Tálas, L. (ed.) At the fringes of three worlds. Hunters-gatherers in the Middle Tisza valley: 5-39. Szolnok.

Kilikoglou, V., Bassiakos, Y., Grimanis, A.P. and Souvatzis, K. 1996 - Carpathian Obsidian in Macedonia, Greece. Journal of Archaeo-logical Science, 23: 343-349.

Kisleghi, N.G. 1909 - Az Óbessenyői Őstelep (Torontál M.). Archaeologiai Értesitő, XXIX (2): 146-154. Budapest (in Hungarian).

Kisleghi, N.G. 1911 - Az Óbessenyői Őstelep. Archaeologiai Értesitő, XXXI (2): 147-164. Budapest (in Hungarian).

Kosse, K. 1979 - Settlement Ecology of the Körös and Linear Pottery Cultures in Hungary. BAR International Series, 64. Oxford.

Kozłowski, J.K. 2001 - Evolution of Lithic Industries of the Eastern Linear Pottery Culture. In Kertész, R. and Makkay, J. (eds.) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Archaeolingua, 11: 247-260. Budapest.

146 –

Kozłowski, J.K. 2007 - Western Anatolia, the Aegean basin and the Balkans in the Neolithisation of Europe. In Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds.) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12: 39-52. Trieste.

Kuijt, I. 1994 - Foeni, Romania 1992. Preliminary Report. Analysis of Chipped Stone Tools. Analele Banatului, III: 86-93. Timişoara.

Jarman, M.R., Bailey, G.N. and Jarman, H.N. (eds.) 1982 - Early European agriculture. Its foundation and development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jeske, R. 1989 - Economies in raw material use by prehistoric hunter-gatherers. In Torrence, R. (ed.) Time, energy and stone tools. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 34-45.

Laplace, G. 1964 - Essay de Typologie Systématique. Annali dell’Università di Ferrara, Sezione Paleontologia Umana e Paletnologia, Supplemento II al Volume I. Ferrara.

Lazarovici, G. 1993 - Les Carpates Méridionales et la Transylvanie. In Kozłowski, J. (ed.) Atlas du Néolithique Européen. L’Europe Orientale. ERAUL, 45 (1): 243-284. Liège.

Lazarovici, G. and Maxim, Z. 1995 - Gura Baciului. Monografie Arheologică. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, IX. Cluj-Napoca (in Romanian).

Lazarovici, G. and Sfectu, O. 1990 - Descoperiri arheologice de la Silagiu - Buziaş. Banatica, 10: 45-57. Reşiţa (in Romanian).

Lee, R.B. and DeVore, I. 1968 - Problems in the Study of Hunters and Gatherers. In Lee, R.I. and DeVore, I. (eds.) Man the hunter. Aldine, New York: 3-12.

Luca, S.A. and Barbu, M. 1992-1994 - Aşezarea neolitică de la Iosaş-Anele (jus. Arad). Sargeţia, XXV: 13-24. Deva (in Romanian).

Luca, S.A., Diaconescu, D., Georgescu, A. and Suciu, C. 2006 - Săpăturile arheologice de la Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş, (jud. Sibiu) campanile anilor 1997-2005. Stratigrafie şi cronologie. Brukental Acta Musei, 1 (1): 9-19. Sibiu (in Romanian).

Luca, S.A., Roman, C. and Diaconescu D., 2004 - Cercetări arheologice in Peştera Cauce. Bibliotheca Septemcastrensis, IV. Editura Economica, Sibiu (in Romanian).

Luca, S.A. and Suciu, C. 2007 - Migrations and local evolution in the Early Neolithic in Transylvania: the typological-stylistic analy-sis and the radiocarbon data. In Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds.) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12: 77-87. Trieste.

Maillol, J.M., Ciobotaru, D.L. and Moravetz, I. 2004 - Analize geofizice în situl arheologic Movila lui Deciov, comuna Dudeştii Vechi. Patrimonium Banaticum, III: 21-36. Timişoara (in Romanian).

Makkay, J. 2007 - The excavations of the Early Neolithic sites of the Körös Culture in the Körös Valley, Hungary: the final report. Volume I. The excavations: stratigraphy, structures and graves. Starnini, E. and Biagi, P. (eds.) Società per la Preistoria e Proto-storia della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 11. Trieste.

Maxim, Z. 1999 - Neo-Eneoliticul din Transilvania. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, XIX. Cluj-Napoca (in Romanian).

Nandris, J. 1970 - Ground water as a factor in the First Temperate Neolithic settlement of the Körös region. Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja u Beogradu, VI: 59-71. Belgrade.

Nandris, J. 1975 - A Re-consideration of the South-East European Sources of Archaeological Obsidian. Bulletin London University Institute of Archaeology, 12: 71-94.

Nandris, J. 1977 - The Perspectives of Long-term Change in South-east Europe. In Carter, F.W. (ed.) An Historical Geography of the Balkans. Academic Press, London: 26-57.

Nandris, J.G. 1990 - Practical and theoretical considerations in highland zone exploitation from ethnoarchaeological fieldwork in south-east Europe. In Biagi, P. (ed.) The Neolithisation of the Alpine Region. Monografie di Natura Bresciana, 13: 7-22. Brescia.

Nikolov, V. 2005 - Prestige and signs of prestige in the Neolithic societies. Arheologia, XLVI (1-4): 7-17. Sofia (in Bulgarian).

Nisbet, R. in press - New evidence of Neolithic and Copper Age agriculture and wood use in Transylvania and the Banat. In Biagi, P., Ciobotaru, D., Draşovean, F. and Spataro, M. (eds.) Ten Years After: The Neolithic of the Balkans, as uncovered by the last decade of research. Timişoara.

Paul, I. 1995 - Vorgeschichtliche Untersuchungen in Siebenbürgen. Bibliotheca Universitatis Apulensis, I. Alba Iulia.

Păunescu, Al. 1970 - Evoluţia uneltelor şi armelor de piatră cioplită descoperite pe teritoriul României. Biblioteca de Arheologie, XV. Editura Academiei Republiciii Socialiste România, Bucharest (in Romanian).

Păunescu, Al. 2001 - Paleoliticul şi Mezoliticul din spaţiul Transilvan. AGIR, Bucharest (in Romanian).

Raczky, P. 2006 - House-structures under change on the Great Hungarian Plain in Earlier Phases of the Neolithic. In Tasić, N. and Grozdanov, C. (eds.) Homage to Milutin Garašanin. SASA Special Edition, Cicero Press, Belgrade: 379-398.

Radovanović, I. 1996 - The Iron Gates Mesolithic. International Monographs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series, 11. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

– 147

Reid, P. 1986 - Models for prehistoric exchange in Middle Great Lakes’ Basin. Ontario Archaeology, 46: 33-44.

Renfrew, C. 1975 - Trade as action at a distance. In Sabloff, J.A. and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. (eds.) Ancient Civilisation and Trade. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque: 3-59.

Renfrew, C. 1977 - Alternative models for exchange and spatial distribution. In Earle, T.K. and Ericson, J.E. (eds.) Exchange systems in prehistory. Academic Press, New York: 71-90.

Rowley-Conwy, P. 2001 - Time, change and the archaeology of hunter-gatherers: how original is the ‘Original Affluent Society’?. In Panther-Brick, C., Layton, R.H. and Rowley-Conwy, P. (eds.) Hunter-Gatherers An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Biological Society Symposium Series, 13: 39-72. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sappington, R.L. 1984 - Procurement without quarry production: examples from southwestern Idaho. In Ericson, J.E. and Purdy, B.A. (eds.) Prehistoric quarries and lithic production. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 23-34.

Sherratt, A. 1972 - Socio-economic and demographic models for the Neolithic and Bronze Ages of Europe. In Clarke, D.L. (ed.) Models in Archaeology. Methuen & Co., London. 477-542.

Sherratt, A. 1987 - Neolithic exchange systems in central Europe 5000-3000 bc. In Sieveking, G. de G. and Newcomer, M.H. (eds.) The human uses of flint and chert. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 193-204.

Smith, E.A. 1981 - The Application of Optimal Foraging Theory to the Analysis of Hunter-Gatherers Group Size. In Winterhalter, B. and Smith, E.A. (eds.) Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies. Prehistoric Archaeology and Ecology Series. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 36-65.

Spataro, M. 2003 - Scientific study of ancient pottery production: a case-study from the Early Neolithic site of Foeni-Gaz (Timiş County, Romania). Patrimonium Banaticum, II: 7-26. Timişoara.

Spataro, M. 2006 - Pottery typology versus technological choices: an Early Neolithic case study from Banat (Romania). Analele Banatului, XIV (1): 63-77. Timişoara.

Spataro, M. 2007 - Everyday ceramics and cult objects: a millennium of cultural transmission. In Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds.) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12: 149-160. Trieste.

Spataro, M. in press - Early Neolithic pottery production in Romania: Gura Baciului and Şeuşa La-Cărarea Morii (Transylvania). In Bailey, D.W., Whittle, A. and Cunnings, V. (eds.) (Un)settling the Neolithic. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Spataro, M. unpubl. - Pottery production and technological choices at the site of Dudeştii Vechi (Banat, RO). Manuscript presented for publication to the Banat Museum, Timişoara (unpublished)

Starnini, E. 1994 - Typological and technological analyses of the Körös Culture chipped, polished and ground stone assemblages of Méhtelek-Nádas (north-eastern Hungary). Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, VIII: 29-96. Trieste.

Starnini, E. 2000 - Stone industries of the Early Neolithic cultures in Hungary and their relationships with the Mesolithic background. In Biagi, P. (ed.) Studi sul Paleolitico, Mesolitico e Neolitico del bacino dell’Adriatico in ricordo di A.M. Radmilli. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 8: 207-220. Trieste.

Starnini, E. 2002 - La transizione mesolitico/neolitico in Ungheria: uno sguardo critico sullo stato della ricerca. In Omaggio a Santo Tiné. Miscellanea di Studi di Archeologia Preistorica e Protostorica. Pubblicazioni del D.Ar.Fi.Cl.Et., NS 26: 173-190. Università di Genova, Genova.

Starnini, E. and Szakmány, Gy. 2000 - The lithic industry of the Neolithic sites of Szarvas and Endrőd (south-eastern Hungary): techno-typological and archaeometrical aspects. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 50: 279-342. Budapest.

Trogmayer, O. 1966 - Ein Neolithisches Hausmodellfragment von Röszke. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica, X: 11-26. Szeged.

Tykot, R.H., 1996 - Obsidian Procurement and Distribution in the Central and Western Mediterranean. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 9 (1): 39-82.


Whittle, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Borić, D., Pettitt, P. and Richards, M. 2005 - New radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary: some omissions and corrections. Antaeus, 28: 347-355. Budapest.

Williams, O. and Nandris, J. 1977 - The Hungarian and Slovak Sources of Archaeological Obsidian: an Interim Report on Further Fieldwork, with a Note on Tektites. Journal of Archaeological Science, 4 (3). 207-219.

Williams Thorpe, O., Warren, S.E. and Nandris, J. G. 1984 - The Distribution and Provenance of Archaeological Obsidian in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science, 11 (3): 183-212.

Wilson, L. 2007 - Understanding Prehistoric Lithic Raw Material Selection: Application of a Gravity Model. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14: 388-411.

Zaharia, E. 1964 - Consideraţii despre cultura Criş pe baza sondajelor de la Leţ. Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi archeologie, 15 (1): 19-44. Bucharest (in Romanian).

148 –

Authors’ Addresses:PAOLO BIAGI, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità e del Vicino Oriente, Università Ca’ Foscari, Palazzo Malcanton Marcorà, Dorsoduro 3484D – I - 30123 VENEZIAe-mail: [email protected]

BERNARD GRATUZE and SOPHIE BOUCETTA, IRAMAT, Institut de Recherches sur les Archéomatériaux, Centre Ernest Babelon, C.N.R.S., 3D rue de la Férollerie – F - 45071 ORLÉANS cedex 2e-mail: [email protected]

– 149



MICHELA SPATARO*

EVERYDAY CERAMICS AND CULT OBJECTS: A MILLENNIUM OF CULTURAL TRANSMISSION

SUMMARY - Everyday ceramics and cult objects: a millennium of cultural transmission. The Author discusses the results of the ceramic and fired clay objects’ analyses obtained during her research on Early Neolithic pottery manufacture and provenance in the central Balkans. The homogeneous results of the ceramic analyses indicate the use by the Starčevo-Criş potters of a consistent ‘formula’ for the ceramic production. New radiocarbon dates indicate that this ‘formula’ was used for almost a millennium, throughout a wide geographical territory. A discussion follows in which the results are used as indicators of social structure in the earliest Neolithic com-munities, which appear to have been tightly bound to cultural traditions, even if not completely isolated.

RIASSUNTO - Ceramica di uso quotidiano ed oggetti di culto: un millennio di trasmissione culturale. L’autore discute i risultati delle analisi ottenute durante un progetto di ricerca sulla manifattura e la provenienza degli oggetti in ceramica del Neolitico antico dei Balcani centrali. L’omogeneità dei risultati delle analisi ceramiche, associata a quelli delle nuove date radiocarboniche, suggerisce l’impiego di un’unica ‘formula’ per la produzione ceramica, il cui uso è stato perpetrato per quasi un millennio dai vasai della Cultura di Starčevo-Criş, in un territorio molto ampio. Segue una discussione sul possibile tipo di società che avrebbe potuto caratterizzare le prime comunità neolitiche della regione: probabilmente una società strettamente legata alle tradizioni culturali, anche se non completa-mente chiusa in se stessa.

INTRODUCTION

Pottery first appears in Europe during the earliest Neolithic. Though we still know very little about the communities which settled in the southeastern and central Balkans at this time, as far as ceramics are concerned they seem to share a common heritage, although local differences have to be taken into account (eg. Karanovo, see Nikolov, 2004).

Ceramic assemblages from Early Neolithic sites feature a recurrent set of forms, including globular vessels with everted rims, open bowls, large oval-shaped pots, short-necked deep vessels, pedestalled vases, conical and straight deep pots.

These vessels were decorated using a variety of common surface treatments, such as burnishing, mono-chrome or white-on-red paint, impressions, and barbotine or channelled barbotine treatment (Lazarovici, 1993).

Besides everyday pottery, these assemblages include cult objects made of fired clay, in particular female and zoomorphic figurines (Maxim, 1999), which again are similar in form and decoration. Ritual life in these communities is also represented by fired clay ‘altars’, which have been interpreted as objects used to burn offer-ings, as lamps or as idols (Maxim, 1999: 230; see also Tasić, 2007). They are three- or four-legged stands with a shallow receptacle, which can be of different shapes (oval, circular, triangular, rectangular, etc.; see Maxim, 1999: 204-209). The altars’ legs and body can be plain, or richly decorated with incisions, inlays, impressions, and painting.

These small farming communities with a common approach to the manufacture of pottery vessels and ritual/cult objects are collectively known to us as the Starčevo-Criş (SC) Culture, which flourished throughout the central Balkans for much of the 6th millennium cal BC.

The aim of this article is to show the importance of the scientific analysis of ceramics in the interpretation of this archaeological phenomenon.——————————* Institute of Archaeology, UCL, London, UK

150 –

Over the last three years I have worked on the analysis of the pottery production from 20 Early Neolithic settlements in Serbia, Slavonia, and Romania1 (fig. 1). I analysed between 20 and 40 samples of everyday pot-tery from each site2 using two different techniques of petrographic analysis: optical microscopy of thin sections and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM-EDS)3 analysis (fig. 2). To obtain a more complete picture of the fired clay objects in use at these sites, I also studied altars, figurines, spindle-whorls, net weights, and daub fragments using the same techniques. Results from individual sites have already been published or are in the course of publication (Spataro, 2003a; 2004a; 2005; 2006a; 2006b; in press a). Another aspect of the project was the radiocarbon dating of short-lived materials from most of these sites, the results of which have already been published or are in press (Biagi and Spataro, 2004; Biagi et al., 2005; Spataro, in press b).

Fig. 1 - Map of the Balkans showing the locations of the sites sampled. Key to sites: CC - Cauce Cave; DBR - Donja Branjevina; DDV - Dudeştii Vechi; FGZ - Foeni-Gaz; FNS - Foeni-Sălaş; FRT - Fratelia; GBC - Gura Baciului; GLV - Giulvăz; GLK - Golokut-Vizić; LMB - Limba Bordane; MST- Mostonga; MRS - Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş; PRT - Parţa; OCS - Ocna Sibiului; ORS - Orăştie; SLM - Şeuşa-La cǎrarea morii; VNK - Vinkovci; ZDR - Ždralovi (drawing by M. Spataro and J. Meadows).

INITIAL OBSERVATIONS

The petrographic analyses permit the definition of mineralogical fabric groups among the ceramic objects, which reflect the exploitation of different clay sources. By comparing these groups to the mineralogical com-position of local clays, the fabric groups can be used to identify the presence (and possibly the source) of im-ported pottery. Several fabric groups were defined at each site, but these clays are mineralogically very similar. ——————————1 The research was carried out at the Institute of Archaeology, UCL, between 2003-2006. The project, entitled “The early Neolithic in the Balkans: ceramic analysis and cultural processes”, was supported by a Leverhulme Trust grant.2 The only exception was the site of Gura Baciului in Romania (Lazarovici and Maxim, 1995), where 80 ceramic samples were studied, in order to provide a reasonable sample of pottery from each of the four occupational phases.3 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) was used in combination with Energy Dispersive Spectrometry (EDS) in order to identify the chemical composition of the potsherds.

– 151

Fig. 2 - Micrograph of a bulk analysis by SEM-EDS (Back Scattered Electron image) of the compact matrix of sample 5 from Golokut (Serbia) and its spectrum. The voids left by the burning of the organic matter are clearly visible in the lower left corner (photograph and analysis by M. Spataro).

152 –

The different groups indicate that different clay sources, or simply different areas within the same clay basin, were exploited at the same time (Spataro, 2003a; 2005). The clays were probably collected from river terraces, which are the typical settings of the SC settlements, and are characterised by non-micritic pastes, rich in micas and quartz sand. Indeed, soil samples collected in the proximity of the archaeological settlements show strong similarities with the main pottery fabric groups.

Petrographic analyses may also identify the technological processes behind pottery production (Maggetti, 1982). Fabric sub-groups may be defined by the presence (or absence) of added temper. Most of the vessels studied were tempered with abundant vegetal matter in order to make the clays more workable. The organic material includes cultivated cereals, such as barley and wheat, and might indicate a connection between the potters and another part of the SC community, the farmers (if we accept the idea of division of roles). Sand temper was also used, but less frequently.

A consistent feature of the pottery studied is the presence of unburnt vegetal material in the fabrics’ pastes. This indicates that firing took place for a rather short time and at relatively low temperatures, not allowing vegetal matter to burn out of the clay completely4. Furthermore, the fabrics of the vessels and their cross sec-tions suggest firing in bonfires, and that the use of kilns was not required5.

Ritual or cult objects were also manufactured using non-micritic and micaceous clays, rich in fine quartz sand. Most of the anthropomorphic figurines, like the pottery, were tempered with vegetal matter6. The altars were manufactured using the same clays and techniques as the everyday ceramics: almost all of them7 were heavily tempered with organic matter (fig. 3; Spataro, forthcoming).

——————————4 The rather low temperatures, which never exceeded 850º C, are also testified by the non-vitrified sample matrices (Rice, 1987: 431).5 Evidence of kilns from Starčevo-Criş sites is so far rather scarce (see Zadubravljie: Minichreiter, 2005; 2007; Lepenski Vir: Srejović, 1969).6 A few, however, were not tempered at all (though these are all from the same site, Donja Branjevina, and have similar typological characteristics; Spataro, forthcoming).

Fig. 3 - Micrograph of a thin section of an altar fragment from the site of Donja Branjevina. The sample shows a non-micritic and mi-caceous fabric rich in naturally present fine quartz sand and abundant added organic matter (N+, X40; photograph by M. Spataro).

– 153

In contrast to the pottery vessels and the cult objects, there seems not to have been a rule, or precise formula, for the production of the most utilitarian objects, such as net weights or spindle whorls. Most net weights do not show any temper addition, and spindle-whorls were made both with and without organic temper.

EMERGING PATTERNS

All the objects sampled appear to have been locally produced; not one imported clay object was detected, suggesting that the exchange of pottery or cult objects between sites was extremely rare, if it took place at all. This conclusion is based on the mineralogical similarities between the fabric groups (clay sources), local soil samples, and samples of archaeological daub. Although the clay sources available near the sites sampled are all fairly similar, the SEM-EDS results support this interpretation of the thin section analyses: different fabric groups from the same site tend to be chemically more similar to each other than to fabrics found at other sites (fig. 4).

Fig. 4 - Canonical Discriminant Analysis of SEM-EDS compositional data from samples from the following sites, all in the Romanian portion of the Banat plain (fig. 1): Foeni-Sălaş (FNS; phase SCIIA), Fratelia (FRT; phase SCIIA), and Giulvăz (GLV; phase SCIIIA). Sample FNS23 was a spindle whorl; the other samples were all potsherds. Each sample belongs to a different fabric group. The rays indicate which compounds are more abundant in different sectors of the graph (and thus in the clay sources represented by the various fabric groups). The satisfactory separation of fabric groups according to site is consistent with the local production of all the fired clay objects. Sample GLV1 is chemically very similar to the FNS sherds, but the sand it contained is finer, and stylistically these sites belong to different phases (analysis by M. Spataro, figure by J. Meadows).

The idea of local production is reinforced by the comparison of fabric groups from neighbouring contem-porary sites, such as Foeni-Sălaş and Foeni-Gaz in southwestern Romania, and Vinkovci and Ždralovi in eastern Croatia (Spataro, 2005), which tend to be different between sites. If very much pottery had been exchanged between these near neighbours, these differences would have been obscured. As all the sites apparently pro-duced pottery, none of the sites could be described as a specialised production centre for either pottery vessels or cult objects.

Local production also implies that potters used the same kind of clays and the same pottery production technology across the central Balkans, from the north to the south, from Slavonia to the Serbian Banat, and from the west to the east, from the Vojvodina to central-eastern Transylvania (fig. 5). Although contemporary sites in Macedonia to the south, and Hungary to the north were not sampled during this project, it seems likely that the same technological formula was used throughout the Starčevo-Criş-Körös Culture. There is a clear contrast, however, between this formula and the technology of pottery production at contemporary Impressed Ware sites on the Dalmatian coast (see below).

154 –

The Starčevo-Criş ‘formula’ for pottery production was also consistent over time, despite the typological development that has allowed the definition of four distinct phases (Lazarovici, 1993). All four typologi-cal phases are represented at Gura Baciului, in Transylvania. I analysed 80 potsherds from this site, with the aim of covering the complete stratigraphy of the settlement, from SC phase I to the final phase (SC IV) (Spataro, in press a). The results show that the potters used clay collected from a local basin and tempered it with domestic cereals throughout the different phases. This does not seem to be an isolated case; at Dudeştii Vechi (SC III A/B), Giulvăz and Parţa (SC IIIA) in Banat, and Limba-Bordane (SC IIIB) in Transylvania, Vinkovci (Linear B, Girlandoid, Spiraloid A and B) in Slavonia, and Golokut (SC IIIB) in Serbia, pottery continued to be made using the same technology employed at the typologically earliest sites.

Radiocarbon results from Gura Baciului and the other sites sampled for this project (Biagi et al., 2005; Spataro, in press b) demonstrate that the four phases represent a period of about 800 calendar years. Before the start of this period (in about 6000 cal BC), pottery was not produced in the area at all. There are currently no studies of pottery production in the central Balkans in the period immediately following the Starčevo-Criş Culture (the Vinča Culture), so it is uncertain how long this technological tradition was maintained, but it clearly lasted for many human generations (fig. 6).

Pottery production and Starčevo-Criş society

Just as pottery technology did not change with the introduction of new vessel forms, the results indicate that there is no relationship, even within a single phase, between the shape of a vessel and its fabric (Spataro, 2006a). Different surface treatments were applied to vessels made using the same fabric, and different fabrics were given the same surface treatment and shape. At no point in the production process are we able to identify the role of a specialist: a range of raw materials was used without regard to vessel function, the firing temperatures

Fig. 5 - Micrographs of four thin sections of potsherds from the following sites: Gura Baciului (a; sample GBC20), Foeni-Sălaş (b; sample FNS14), Foeni-Gaz (c; sample FGZ3), and Vinkovci (d; sample VNK15). The samples show a non-micritic and micaceous fabric with naturally present fine quartz sand and artificially added organic matter (N+, X40; photographs by M. Spataro).

– 155

necessary could have been reached without the use of kilns, and decoration was unrelated to the pottery fabric. The use of large quantities of organic temper may also have been a simple solution to the technical problems posed by variable raw materials and uneven firing conditions.

Nevertheless, it is far from certain that each household produced its own pottery and cult objects. The identification of a single technological formula for pottery production may mean that most pots were made by a

Fig. 6 - Calibration of radiocarbon results obtained under the Leverhulme project (Biagi et al., 2005; Spataro, in press b with new dates). Sites: LMB - Limba Bordane; GBC - Gura Baciului; PRT and PRT2: Parţa; DDV - Dudeştii Vechi; MST- Mostonga; FGZ - Foeni-Gaz; DBR - Donja Branjevina; MRS - Miercurea Sibiului-Petriş; SLM - Şeuşa-La Cǎrarea Morii; OCS - Ocna Sibiului (figure made in OxCal 3.10).

Starčevo

156 –

few individuals, and the consistent reproduction of a wide range of vessel forms throughout the region suggests some investment of time in learning the craft. It is conceivable that aspects of the pottery production process were divided between workers, with the more skilled or experienced potters responsible for decoration. There is no basis, however, for attributing cult object production to a different set of potters than those who produced everyday pottery vessels.

On the other hand, it might be argued that the most utilitarian fired clay objects, such as spindle whorls and net weights, were made without a well-defined technological formula, and therefore perhaps without any significant level of expertise. Compared to these artefacts, it is clear that the production of pottery vessels was more demanding, and it seems likely that the necessary skills were preserved and passed on by a few individuals. The lack of evidence of imported pottery strongly suggests that each community included some individuals with the skills required. Starčevo-Criş communities appear to have been fairly small, however, probably consisting of no more than 10-20 dwellings (Lazarovici and Maxim, 1995: 354; Maxim, 1999: 226), and it seems unlikely that they would have needed, or could have supported, full-time specialist potters.

It is feasible that pots were made locally, but by itinerant specialist potters, a possibility also indicated in Greece at Early Neolithic Achilleion (Björk, 1995: 134). The petrographic evidence cannot directly address this issue, but, as indicated above, the technology of pottery production was not particularly sophisticated, and it seems at least as plausible that local residents manufactured the bulk of the pottery found at each site. The necessary craft skills would therefore have been passed from one generation to the next. The more significant role of itinerant potters, if such existed, may have been to spread new vessel forms and styles of decoration between communities.

The choice of clay sources used must also have been influenced by the social context of pottery produc-tion. At all the sites studied, there were a few recurrent fabric groups, each representing a slightly different clay source. No functional basis was detected for the provenance of raw materials, which might imply that different clays represent the sources available to different potters or workshops. The longevity of fabric groups means that the different clay sources cannot simply represent different individual potters, although they could represent the work of family lineages8.

A possible way of checking this theory would be a contextual analysis of the fabric groups, with some spatial patterning within sites expected if different households consistently exploited different clay sources and the exchange of pottery within the site was limited. At Gura Baciului, however, I compared pottery from different pit houses within the same phase and found that each assemblage included several different fabric groups, and that the more common clay sources were represented in both assemblages. At most of the sites, the sherds studied cannot be assigned to particular pit houses, but the fact that one clay source was generally used far more than the others suggests that access to that source was not restricted.

So far I have emphasised questions that can be answered by the empirical data, but beside these questions there are issues that cannot be addressed using petrographic evidence. Pottery vessels and cult objects were made using the same raw materials and techniques, probably by the same people, but what was the role of each object? If they were manufactured using the same techniques, without the use of ‘special’ raw materials, does this suggest that the archaeological subdivision into ‘everyday’ and ‘ritual’ is only a modern construct?

It is difficult to determine how many pots were in use in a household at any point in time, and containers made of wood or leather may be archaeologically invisible. The practical importance of pottery might, therefore, have been overstated. Pottery vessels, like figurines and altars, may have had important symbolic functions (as gifts, heirlooms, or feasting cups, for example), and have been acquired mainly for display purposes. Nev-ertheless, even if pottery was relatively rare in Starčevo-Criş households, the fact that it was always produced and used locally is significant. Although it would have been possible to acquire pottery and cult objects from other Starčevo-Criş communities, in practice each site was apparently self-sufficient in these artefacts, which suggests that although physically portable, these objects had a particularly local significance.

Figurines, although far fewer in number than everyday pottery vessels, may have been as common as some of the more decorated vessel types (eg. white-on-red painted), and we may ask whether the latter were any less important symbolically than were figurines. It is interesting that anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines were made using the same material and techniques as pottery vessels. This, as Björk (1995: 131) anticipated, like the lack of identifiable cult places, might reinforce the idea of lack of division between the secular and the profane, which is a dichotomy defined rather late by humanity (Hodder, 1987). ——————————8 At Gura Baciului, for example, the same clay source is represented in phases IB/IC, IC/IIA, IIA, IIA/IIB, and phase IV (no phase III sherds were available for analysis; Spataro, forthcoming).

– 157

Starčevo-Criş pottery in a regional context

The Starčevo-Criş Culture, which covers most of the central Balkans, meets the contemporary Impressed Ware (IW) Culture at a certain point in Bosnia (see Obre I, Benac, 1973). The earliest aspects of the latter, characterised by pottery decorated with Cardium motifs, occur in the Adriatic region, along the southeastern Italian coastline and the Dalmatian shore (Müller, 1994: 211). Chronologically, the SC and the IW are more or less contemporary (Spataro, 2002; Biagi et al., 2005), but they feature different types of pottery and cult objects. SC altars are unknown in IW assemblages, which include a different type of cult object, the rhyton, not found in SC assemblages9.

Besides their typological differences, these two cultures differ in their technological choices in mak-ing pottery. I analysed sherds from 11 IW sites distributed along the eastern and the western Adriatic coastlines, and found that IW potters hardly ever used organic temper, preferring to use local crushed minerals for temper (Spataro, 2002; 2004a). The minerals used were probably determined by the local geological background: calcite and limestone along the islands and the inland sites of the eastern Adriatic shore10, volcanic sand in south-eastern Italy11, and flint or granite rock fragments in central-eastern Italy12 (Spataro, 2002). Although locally produced, IW ceramics reflect a ‘standard’ range of shapes and decora-tive motifs13, and we can also infer that IW potters used a consistent ‘formula’ to manufacture ceramics: the use of local clays, tempered with autochthonous minerals, and fired in bonfires at temperatures lower than 750º C (Spataro, 2002: 196).

The picture becomes even more interesting if we move north, and consider the Malo Korenovo (MK) Culture, contemporary with the latest phases of the IW and SC. The MK is the south-westernmost aspect of the better-known Linearbandkeramik (LBK), and covers the eastern Croatian region between the Sava and Drava Rivers (Dimitrijević, 1978; Težak-Gregl, 1993: 61). Some potsherds from two MK Culture sites, Malo Korenovo and Tomašica, were analysed. In both cases, the pottery was manufactured using local clays without any addition of organic matter. When temper was utilised, very rarely and probably only for cooking pots, granitic rock fragments were the only choice (Spataro, 2003b; 2006b). In contrast, pottery from the Starčevo sites of Vinkovci and Ždralovi, located only a few kilometres from the two MK sites (Spataro, 2006b: fig. 1) was manufactured using the same ‘formula’ as at the other SC sites: organic temper was found in most of the samples analysed. These four sites share the same geological setting and are roughly contemporary, but the MK sites belong to a different technological tradition to the SC sites.

These comparisons indicate that the SC Culture was relatively insulated from its neighbours, not only from a typological but also from a technological point of view. From a ceramic perspective, the stylistic similarities and technological consistency within the SC culture seem to reflect ongoing contacts between SC communities over many generations (800 years), during which they were not obviously influenced by their IW or MK neigh-bours. This pattern is similar to a modern tribal system, where pottery manufacture follows the same rules for millennia, and things change very rarely, even when they lose their original meaning (eg. decorative motifs in the pottery production of the Thar Desert in Sindh [Pakistan]: Spataro, 2004b). Nevertheless, SC communities certainly had contacts with the outside world, as they imported other materials, such as obsidian (eg. see Biagi et al., 2007; 2007a; Chapman, 2007).

CONCLUSION

Pottery production and decoration remain the best-understood aspects of the SC Culture, and the evidence discussed here indicates a relatively consistent approach to pottery production during the Early Neolithic throughout the central Balkans (cf. Nikolov, 2007, for Karanovo; Korkuti, 2007, for Albania). Given our current state of knowledge, however, it is conceivable that there were significant regional or temporal differences in —————————— 9 With the exception of a single example from Donja Branjevina in the Vojvodina (Biagi, 2003; Karmanski, 2005: 154-155).10 Eg. sites such as Jami na Sredi, Vela Jama, Smilčić, Tinj, etc. (Spataro, 2002: 43-113).11 Scamuso (Spataro, 2002: 166-175).12 Fornace Cappuccini, Maddalena di Muccia, and Ripabianca di Monterado in Romagna and Marche regions (Spataro, 2002: 137-163).13 Though there are some differences in particular between those of the eastern and southwestern Adriatic coast, and those of the Middle Adriatic of central Italy (Müller, 1994).

158 –

other aspects of the SC culture, for which we currently have only local or regional studies, such as subsistence practices (El Susi, 1996; Colledge et al., 2007), settlement patterns (Minichreiter, 2007), external contacts (Biagi et al., 2007a; Chapman, 2007), and mortuary behaviour (cf. Bacvarov, 2007, for the Early Neolithic of the Vardar and Struma Valleys). Until such variation is demonstrated, however, it is possible to talk of SC as a coherent cultural phenomenon. This naturally raises the questions of where this culture emerged, when, and how. Linkages with Anatolia (eg white-on-red painted pottery decoration [Nikolov, 2007]); food plants and weeds: Colledge et al. (2007), suggest that future research should focus on comparing pottery technology between Anatolia, Thrace, and the central Balkans during the Early Neolithic.

Further research can also look at intra-site patterns, including the spatial distribution of pottery produc-tion and use, in order to better understand the place of the household in Early Neolithic communities. Social organisation in this period is rarely discussed, perhaps because of a lack of evidence of inequality, conflict, or redistribution centres. Analysis of ceramic artefacts, including ‘cult’ objects, decorated and undecorated pot-tery, may provide the means of identifying whether there were differences between households in access to imported or high-status items, and whether these may be correlated with other signs of prestige or disadvantage. The Leverhulme project has broadened the research agenda for the Starčevo-Criş Culture and explicitly linked pottery production and use to other aspects of life in a Neolithic society.

AcknowledgementsThis work has been possible thanks to the financial support of The Leverhulme Trust (F/07 134/AD) and the British Academy Small Research Project (The Early Neolithic cultural processes of Banat (Romania) through the scientific analysis of pottery). The author would like to thank Drs. F. Draşovean and D. Ciobotaru (Museum of Banat, Timişoara, RO), Prof. I. Paul and Dr. M. Ciută (Alba Iulia University, RO), Professors S.A. Luca (Sibiu University, RO) and G. Lazarovici (Reşiţa University, RO), Dr. Z. Maxim (Cluj-Napoca Museum, RO), Prof. B. Brukner (Novi Sad Serbian Academy of Sciences), Prof. T. Težak-Gregl and Mr. M. Burić (Zagreb University, HR), Dr. K. Minichreither (Zagreb Academy of Science, HR), Mr. S. Karmanski (Odžaci, Serbia), for kindly allowing the analyses of their archaeological materials, and all the people who made it possible.Special thanks are also due to Professors P. Biagi (Ca’ Foscari, Venice University, I) and S. Shennan (Institute of Archaeology, UCL, UK) for their support, and to Prof. I. Freestone (Cardiff University, UK), Dr. R. Macphail and Mr. K. Reeves (Institute of Archaeology, UCL) for their valuable comments on the scientific analyses.My deepest thanks are for Dr. J. Meadows (Institute of Archaeology, UCL) for his comments, discussion, and suggestions.

– 159

R E F E R E N C E S

Bacvarov, K. 2007 - Jar burials as early settlement markers in southeast European Neolithic. In Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds.) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12: 189-205. Trieste.

Benac, A. 1973 - Obre I - A Neolithic settlement of the Starčevo-Impresso and Kakanj Cultures at Raskršće. Wissenschaftliche Mittei-lungen des Bosnisch-Herzegowinischen Landesmuseums, III (A): 327-3430. Sarajevo.

Biagi, P. 2003 - The Rhyton of the Balkan Peninsula: Chronology, Origin, Dispersion and Function of a Neolithic “Cult” Vessel. Journal of Prehistoric Religion, XVI-XVII: 16-26. Paul Åström, Sävedalen.

Biagi, P., De Francesco, A.M. and Bocci, M. 2007 - New data on the Archaeological Obsidian from the Middle-Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic sites of the Banat and Trasylvania. In Kozłowski, J.K. and Raczky, P. (eds.) The Lengyel, Polgár and related cultures in the Middle/Late Neolithic in Central Europe. Polska Akademia Umiejetności, Kraków: 309-326.

Biagi, P., Gratuze, B. and Boucetta, S. 2007a - New data on the archaeological obsidians from the Banat and Transylvania. In Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds.) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12: 129-148. Trieste.

Biagi, P., Shennan, S., and Spataro, M. 2005 - Rapid Rivers and Slow Seas? New Data for the Radiocarbon Chronology of the Balkan Peninsula. In Nikolova, L., Fritz, J. and Higgings, J. (eds.) Prehistoric Archaeology & Anthropological Theory and Education. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects, 6-7: 41-50. Salt Lake City - Karlovo.

Biagi, P. and Spataro, M. 2004 - New Radiocarbon Dates from the Criş Culture Settlements of Banat and Transylvania. Patrimonium Banaticum, III: 7-20. Timişoara.

Björk, C. 1995 - Early Pottery in Greece: a Technological and Functional Analysis of the Evidence from Neolithic Achilleion, Thessaly. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, CXV. Paul Åströms Förlag, Jonsered.

Chapman, J. 2007 - Engaging with the exotic: the production of early farming communities in south-east and central Europe. In Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds.) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12: 207-222. Trieste.

Colledge, S. and Conolly, J. 2007 - The neolithisation of the Balkans: a review of the archaeobotanical evidence. In Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds.) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12: 25-38. Trieste.

Dimitrijević, S. 1978 - Neolit u sjeverozapadnoj Hrvatskoj,Arheološka istraživanja u sjeverozapadnoj Hrvatskoj. Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, 2: 71-128. Zagreb.

El Susi, G. 1996 - Vănători, pescari şi crescători de animale în Banatul mileniilor VI Î.Ch – I D.Ch. Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeo-logica Banatica, III. Mirton, Timişoara.

Hodder, I. 1987 - Contextual Archaeology: an interpretation of Çatal Hüyük and a Discussion of the Origins of Agriculture. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeolgy, 24: 43-56.

Karmanski, S. 2005 - Donja Branjevina: a Neolithic settlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). Biagi, P. (ed.) Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 10. Trieste.

Korkuti, M. 2007 - The Early Neolithic of Albania in a Balkan perspective. In Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds.) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12: 113-117. Trieste.

Lazarovici, G. 1993 - Les Carpates Méridionales et la Transylvanie. In Kozłowski, J. (ed.) Atlas du Néolithique Européen. L’Europe Orientale. ERAUL, 45 (1): 243-284. Liège.

Lazarovici, G. and Maxim, Z. 1995 - Gura Baciului. Monografie Arheologică. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, IX. Cluj-Napoca.

Maggetti, M. 1982 - Phase Analysis and its Significance for Technology and Origin. In Olin, J.S. and Franklin, A.D. (eds.) Archaeo-logical Ceramics: papers presented at a seminar on Ceramics as Archaeological Material held at the Smithsonian Institution: 121-133. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Maxim, Z. 1999 - Neo-Eneoliticul din Transilvania. Date Arheologice şi matematico-statistice. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, XIX. Cluj-Napoca.

Minichreiter, K. 2005 - Zadubravlje-kultni predmeti u naselju starčevačke kulture. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 22: 5-24. Zagreb.

Minichreiter, K. 2007 - The first farmers of northern Croatia. In Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds.) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12: 171-181. Trieste.

Müller, J. 1994 - Das ostadriatische Frühneolithikum. Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, 9. Volker Spiess, Berlin.

Nikolov, V. 2004 - Dynamics of the Cultural Processes in Neolithic Thrace. In Nikolov, V., Băčvarov, K. and Kalchev, P. (eds.) Prehistoric Thrace. Institute of Archaeology with Museum - BAS Regional Museum of History, Sofia, Stara Zagora.

160 –

Nikolov, V. 2007 - Problems of the early stages of the neolithization in the southeast Balkans. In Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds.) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12: 183-188. Trieste.

Rice, P.M. 1987 - Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Spataro, M. 2002 - The First Farming Communities of the Adriatic: Pottery Production and Circulation in the Early and Middle Neolithic. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 9. Trieste.

Spataro, M. 2003a - Scientific study of ancient ceramic production and a case-study: The site of Foeni-Gaz (Timiş County, Romania). Patrimonium Banaticum, II: 7-26. Timişoara.

Spataro, M. 2003b - Pottery technology and manufacture at the Korenovo Culture (LBK) site of Malo Korenovo (Bjelovar, Croatia). Opuscola Archaeologica, 27: 49-61. Zagreb.

Spataro, M. 2004a - Differences and similarities in the pottery production of the Early Neolithic Starčevo-Criş and Impressed Ware Cultures. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, LIV: 321-336. Florence.

Spataro, M. 2004b - Pottery production in the Thar Desert (Sindh, Pakistan): three case-studies (Hindwari, Pir chebo, and Hingorja). Rivista di Archeologia, XXVIII: 171-180 (2004). Venice.

Spataro, M. 2005 - Early Neolithic Pottery production in the Balkans: minero-petrographic analyses of the ceramics from the Starčevo-Criş site of Foeni-Sălaş (Banat, Romania). Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, XIV: 25-43. Trieste.

Spataro, M. 2006a - Pottery typology versus technological choices: an Early Neolithic case study from Banat (Romania). Analele Banatului, XIV: 63-77. Timişoara.

Spataro, M. 2006b - Pottery production at a Linearbandkeramik site: a different ceramic technology from that of the Starčevo Culture? A case-study: the site of Tomašica (Garešnica, HR). Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, XV: 117-134. Trieste.

Spataro, M. in press a - Early Neolithic pottery production in Romania: Gura Baciului and Şeuşa La-Cărarea Morii (Transylvania). In Bailey, D.W., Whittle, A. and Cunnings, V. (eds.) (Un)settling the Neolithic. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Spataro, M. in press b - The Neolithisation of the Central Balkans: leapfrogging diffusion and cultural transmission. In Gronenborn, D. and Petrasch J. (eds.) Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas / The spread of the Neolithic to central Europe. RGZM, Tagungen.

Spataro, M. forthcoming - Balkan Neolithic in Perspective: The Neolithisation of Southeastern Europe. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 14. Trieste.

Srejović, D. 1969 - Naslednici. Lepenski Vir, nova praistorijska kultura u Podunavlju. Srpska književna zadruga, Belgrade.

Tasić, N. 2007 - Tell-tale squares. In Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds.) A Short Walk through the Balkans: the First Farmers of the Carpathian Basin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12: 103-111. Trieste.

Težak-Gregl, T. 1993 - Kultura Linearnotrakaste Keramike u Središnjoj Hrvatskoj. Arheološki Zavod Filozofskog Fkulteta Sveučiličta u Zagrebu. Disertacije Monografie, 2. Zagreb.

Author’s Address:MICHELA SPATARO, Institute of Archaeology UCL, 31-34 Gordon Square – UK - LONDON WC1H 0PY e-mail: [email protected]

– 161



JOHANNES MÜLLER*

DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AND NEOLITHIC IDEOLOGY

SUMMARY - Demographic variables and Neolithic ideology. Estimates of Neolithic population sizes are of significant importance for the reconstruction of social and political matters. This is particularly true for the evaluation of the Neolithisation process in south-east and central Europe: colonisation, acculturation and the role of the Neolithic ideology were linked to changes in the demographic impact. In this paper new results for the reconstruction of Early and Late Neolithic population densities are presented and connected to the ideological context of the Neolithisation process.

RIASSUNTO - Variabilità demografica e ideologia neolitica. Le stime delle dimensioni del popolamento Neolitico sono importanti per la ricostruzione dei problemi sociali e politici. Questo è vero soprattutto per quanto riguarda il processo di neolitizzazione dell’Europa sudorientale: colonizzazione, acculturazione e ruolo dell’ideologia neolitica sono collegati ai cambiamenti dovuti all’impatto demografico. In questo lavoro vengono presentati i nuovi risultati della ricostruzione della densità di popolazione nel Neolitico Antico e Medio, connessi all’ideologia del processo di neolitizzazione.

THE QUESTION

Beside the reconstruction of ecological, economical and social constraints of prehistoric societies, the evaluation of demographic sizes is one of the most necessary tasks for archaeologists. Firstly, social stratifica-tion is based in many cases on demographic group size. Secondly, models of emigration and immigration are dependent on estimated population growth rates. Thirdly, the intensity of interaction between social groups is linked to demographic factors.

This is particularly relevant to the southeast European Neolithic, as until now archaeologists have discussed demographic changes assuming constant emigration and immigration. Nevertheless, demographic reconstruc-tions for test regions are. This is due to a lack of proper archaeological data and problems in spatial analyses.

In this paper I will describe some new attempts to reconstruct Neolithic population sizes. The results should be seen in a broader perspective: an interpretation will be formulated linked to ideas about Neolithic ideology.

THE PROBLEM

The process of the Neolithisation of southeast and central Europe is still debated by different ‘schools’. There are those who prefer a scenario of moving farmers, invading Mesolithic areas and starting agriculture in formerly remote regions.

Other prehistorians still try to find evidence for interregional networks of foraging communities, which function as communication catalysers; Neolithisation is thus seen as a matter of acculturation, which starts with a few Neolithic elements in a foraging environment and ends with the full adoption of the Neolithic life style.

Not surprisingly many archaeologists are in favour of some kind of compromise between the two models, recently described as a ‘mosaic pattern’ (Whittle et al., 2002): small islands of farming communities were established all over south-east Europe in an act of ‘leapfrogging’. These isolated sites are the base for the acculturation of neighbouring Mesolithic communities after decades or centuries of more or less peaceful interaction.——————————* Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Universität Kiel, Germany

162 –

The topic is not only bound to the compilation of all available archaeological data in respect of Meso-lithic-Neolithic transitions but also to the identification of a Neolithic ideology. Is the Neolithic some kind of economic process to adopt a more productive as well as a more slavish subsistence system? Or is the Neolithic a new way of life, which is strictly aligned with new forms of thinking, social organisation, behaviour and economies? Whereas the first question implies possibilities for gradual changes from Mesolithic to Neolithic societies, the second points to a clearer separation between foraging and farming groups. Such a separation would imply a more fundamental approach: foragers would be forced to adopt the Neolithic without major changes in the Neolithic ideology.

The recent state of research implies a longer duration of the Neolithisation process in Southeast Europe. A rapid spread of Neolithic villages is observed around 6200-6000 cal BC from Macedonia to Hungary, but the establishment of villages, in contrast to small farmsteads, was delayed in most regions until the beginning of the Middle Neolithic at around 5500 cal BC. In conclusion, after the establishment of first farming communities the creation of the Neolithic and the spatial dispersal within each region is not only an external colonisation, but also an internal landnam process lasting centuries.

In respect of the question of Neolithic ideology/Neolithic acculturation, the group size of our archaeologi-cal units is of great importance. The behaviour of communities and the necessity of interaction depend on the demographic parameters of societies. In the following example, the demographic parameters of three Neolithic societies will be: Early Neolithic Thessaly (6500-5900 cal BC), Late Neolithic Bosnia (5300-4700 cal BC) and Early Neolithic Rhineland (5300-4800 cal BC). The diversity of these examples is due to the lack of proper data or experimental research for most other southeast European regions. Nevertheless, a structural comparison of Early Neolithic communities in Thessaly, Late Neolithic groups in Bosnia and contemporary Early Neolithic groups in western Germany might contribute to the questions raised. But first of all we should summarize the general ideas about demographic reconstructions.

RECONSTRUCTION OF POPULATION DENSITIES: FROM THE NEAR EAST TO CENTRAL EUROPE

For decades Near Eastern archaeologists have engaged in studies of population sizes. In the middle of last century, based on huge excavations of settlement mounds, J.C. Russell (1958) assumed about 125 inhabitants per 1 hectare domestic area. During survey activities this estimate was used several times for the reconstruc-tion of population densities in broader Near Eastern landscapes. In spite of subsequent correction of Russell’s estimate, based on newer excavation results and several ethnographical analogies (cf. Wilkinson, 1999: 46f.), his demographic reference value was used for population modelling outside the Near East.

The calculations of R.W. Dennell and D. Webley (1975: 106f.) for Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age settlement in the region of Nova Zagora were pioneering. They used on the one hand a calculated agrarian capacity of the region as the upper population limit, and on the other hand the calculation of village popula-tions based on tell area, were using Russell’s formula. A population density of about 10 inhabitants per square kilometre and settlement sizes of on average 375 inhabitants per settlement mound was obtained for southern Bulgaria. Large villages could reach up to 500 inhabitants.

Recently N. Kalicz (2001: 157) presented calculations of population densities based on new methods. He used the results of latest excavated Herpály tells. Often one quarter of the whole settlement mound was exca-vated. Thus the estimate of population sizes from the number of houses was successful. About 20-30 houses with 100-150 inhabitants per settlement were estimated. The earliest Herpály phase is described as an area of about 3000 sq km with presumably 2500-3750 inhabitants, or 1-1.25 inhabitants per sq km. Even though the reckoning of the population of all Hungarian Late Neolithic groups is uncertain, 45,000-50,000 inhabitants for all Late Neolithic Hungary (Theiß-Herpály-Csöszhalom-Lengyel) seems to be plausible, giving a population density about 0.5 inhabitants/sq km (Kalicz, 2001: 160).

By contrast, the population estimates for the central European Early Neolithic societies are based on large scale excavations (Lüning, 1988: 38 note 33) as well as small regional studies (Milisauskas and Kruk, 1984; cf. also Zimmermann, 1996). We begin with the tremendous archaeological works at the Aldenhovener Platte: large areas were investigated in advance of opencast coal mining and all Linearbandkeramik features excavated. Supported by correspondence analysis and spatial models, a chronological system with “Hausgenerationen” (chronological units of 20-30 years) was created, which permits statements about the contemporary existence of houses within and between domestic sites (Stehli, 1994). The architecture and characteristics of Bandkeramik houses make it plausible, that about 5-10 persons lived in such a homestead.

– 163

If the regional results of the Aldenhovener Platte are transferred to all Central European loess zones, the population density figures around 1.45 inhabitants/sq km (Lüning, 1982: 26). In a recent approach A. Zimmer-mann (2004: 73) has qualified this statement. Obviously, not all loess areas were settled by Linearbandkeramik groups. Consequently, the population density in central Europe during the Early Neolithic should be around 0.44 inhabitants/sq km.

In summary, a reliable approach to the calculation of population densities was presented. Furthermore, models of calorific requirements and demand for building material enable us to reconstruct necessary clearing and cultivation areas around the domestic sites (Zimmermann, 2002: 30, fig. 13; Ebersbach and Schade, 2004). Apparently the Linearbandkeramik settlement pattern is characterised by cleared islands within the virgin oak and lime tree forest, which was used for pasture.

Example: Late Neolithic Bosnia

A test region to evaluate settlement sizes and population densities is the Late Neolithic occupation of the Bosnian Visoko basin (fig. 1). Since 2002 field work has taken place here as a joint research project of the Bosnian-Herzegovina National Museum Sarajevo (Zilka Kujundžić-Vejzagić), the Visoko Museum (Senar J. Hodović), the Römisch-Germanische-Kommission Frankfurt (Knut Rassmann) and the Christian-Albrechts Universität Kiel (Johannes Müller) (Kujundžić-Vejzagić et al., 2003; 2004a; 2004b).

Surveys and excavations concentrate on the settlement mound of Okolište, situated 30 km northwest of Sarajevo at the river Bosna. Within three “Siedlungskammern” along the Bosna there are 34 sites with Butmir ceramics (5300-4700 cal BC). The Visoko basin has a size of 110 sq km, 400-410 m above sea level. It is formed by Pleistocene river terraces and Para brown soils. Miocene mountains up to 1000 m (marl and sandstone with rendzinas) encircle the basin (fig. 2). Six Late Neolithic tells are known from the area by surveys and prospec-tions. To the north, the Kakanj basin shows a similar distribution of settlement mounds.

Fig. 1 - Late Neolithic occupation and the location of the Visoko basin.

164 –

Two aspects are most important for our enquiry. First, Okolište the latest settlement horizon is reconstructed with household densities and functional diversities by surveys and ongoing excavation (fig. 3). Second, further Late Neolithic sites within the Visoko basin are surveyed and partly excavated, which means that in the light

of the Okolište results the occupation time-span and the ap-proximate number of houses of the last occupation layer is reasonably evident. Most of the Visoko sites came to an end around 4800-4700 cal BC. The calculation of population densities for this Butmir phase is possible.

In detail the surveys and excavations at Okolište indicate a big settlement mound (height 3.5 m, 7.5 hectares) with an organized structure at least during the latest horizon of oc-cupation: beside the geometrical layout of the rows of houses, a huge defensive system of three ditches and one rampart with a palisade existed in Butmir II times (4800-4700 cal BC), which surrounded 3-5 ha of the site (after Schulz, 2003; Kujundžić-Vejzagić et al., 2003; 2004a; 2004b; Müller et al., 2005) (figs. 3 and 4).

Probably the geomagnetically surveyed and partly ex-cavated houses are contemporary - the ceramic assemblages are of Butmir IIb character and the 14C dates belong mainly to the 48th-47th century cal BC. At least 200 houses existed, if we transfer the pattern of documented houses to the area of the whole defended settlement. They were destroyed in a huge fire, which is fortunately responsible for the good geomagnetic results.

As already mentioned, we are reasonably well informed about the Late Neolithic domestic sites of the Visoko basin and the areas around Kakanj (inter alia Perić, 1995). For example, the site of Obre II was excavated in the sixties (Benac, 1973; Gimbutas, 1974) and geomagnetically sur-veyed in our project. Domestic sites are 2-3 ha in size with an internal layout, which can be compared to Okolište but for the absence of defence systems (figs. 2 and 5).

Settlement sizes give us an estimate of the number of houses, assuming a similar housing density (per houses per hectare) as at Okolište. and the size of the. About 50-150 houses existed at the same time in each settlement, except in Okolište where there were not less than 200 houses. Consequently we are dealing with not less than 700 houses in the Visoko basin in the Butmir period. Because of the small household size (60 sq m), about 5 people are calculated for each household, giving a total of 3500 inhabitants around 4800 cal BC in the Visoko basin.

Botanical analyses from Obre II and Okolište, indicates agriculture with emmer, einkorn, barley and millet (Renfrew, 1974; Bittmann and Kučan, 2003).

Archaeozoological analyses prove the domi-nance of cattle at Okolište (Kujundžić-Vejzagić et al., 2004: 80), while at Obre II a more balanced reliance on cattle, pig and sheep/goat is docu-mented (Bökönyi, 1974: 66). The pedological and climatic properties of the Visoko basin suggest similar agricultural potential, as we would expect in central Europe (cf. Zimmermann, 2002: 26ff.; Ebersbach, 2003: 74ff.; Ebersbach and Schade,

Fig. 2 - The Central Bosnian Visoko basin with Late Neo-lithic domestic sites (from Kujundžić-Vejzagić et al., 2004a: 70, fig. 1 with supplements: map by W. Schulz).

Fig. 3 - The settlement mound of Okolište. Geomorphology: light grey: Pleistocene terraces; grey: Holocene terraces; dark grey: Tell (from Kujundžić-Vejzagić et al., 2004a: 70, fig. 2: map by W. Schulz).

– 165

Fig. 4 - The results of the geomagnetic survey Okolište 2003 (from Kujundžić-Vejzagić et al., 2004a: 77, fig. 9).

Fig. 5 - The geomagnetic survey of Obre II 2003. Included are the trenches of Benac and Gimbutas with Butmir II houses. In contrast to the rows of houses the visible ditch is a modern disturbance (from Kujundžić-Vejzagić et al., 2004a: 80, fig. 11).

166 –

2004). If we take different calorie requirement models, which are based on ethnoarchaeological research (Gregg, 1988; Ebersbach, 2002: 81 and 107ff.), a household of 5 people requires 1.5 ha cultivated land and 50 ha pasture land.

In consequence, 10.5 sq km cultivated land and at least 350 sq km pasture area (in the surrounding moun-tains) were necessary to feed the 3500 inhabitants of the Visoko Basin around 4800 cal BC. In fig. 6 boundaries of the settlements were modelled with the help of weighted Voronoi polygons. Arable land near the sites is marked. Obviously we should think of an open landscape along the Bosna River without any non-arable areas

in between the settlements. 350 sq km pasture area was required. As only c. 250 sq km were easily accessible from the settlements, some kind of mobile stock farm-ing was necessary in mountainous areas lying at some distance.

Seasonal transhumance (see Ebersbach, 2002: 158ff.) was ethnographically documented for the Adri-atic basin and Bosnia as well as postulated for the Adri-atic Early Neolithic (Beuermann, 1967; Müller, 1994: 69f.). Adequate resources existed in the non-occupied landscape of the Butmir group.

Let us go one hypothetical step further. In the Visoko basin (a core area of the Butmir society) the population density figures were around 31 inhabitants/sq km (3500 inhabitants in 110 sq km). If the population density was similar in the other Butmir core areas, we are forced to think of about 32,000 inhabitants in the 1000 sq km. of the main distribution area.

If we count half the mountainous landscape between Butmir and other groups as belonging to Butmir, there are around 18,000 sq km., which belong to Butmir, too. Accordingly, we are talking about an overall popula-tion density of about 1.8 sq km. for the Butmir group (table 1).

Example: Population size in Early Neolithic Thessaly

Recently new ideas about the development of the early Neolithic in Greece were formulated by Catherine Perlès (2001). One important part of her work is a re-evaluation of the Thessalian evidence (Perlès, 2001: 121ff.). In Early Neolithic 1 to 3 (6500-5900 cal BC), she found similar settlement patterns: “No positive relation can be established between settlement choice

or settlement density and natural features such as water proximity, floods, soils, and varied topography…On the contrary, the most striking result of these analyses is the regularity of the distribution pattern in settled areas…” (Perlès, 2001: 143). “This independence vis-à-vis natural feature seems to indicate a pattern of expansion determined more by socioeconomic factors than by environmental ones” (Perlès, 2001: 151).

Furthermore, the surveys and excavations in Thessaly good enough to estimate that nearly all Neolithic sites are visible as tells. Perlès counts the number of sites: 24 in EN1; 96 in EN2 and 42 in EN3, but probably 50 MN domestic sites are contemporary with the EN3 sites.

A picture arises, that around 25 sites existed at 6500 cal BC and about 100 after 6300 cal BC. These tells have a size of usually 0.5-2 ha; a general estimate of 100 to 300 inhabitants per settlement is realistic (Perlès, 2001: 176ff.). This means that in the area of Thessaly, including unsettled surroundings (100x100 km.), there may have been about 5000 people (0.5 inhabitants/sq km) during EN1 and about 20,000 inhabit-ants (2 inhabitants/sq km) in EN2 and EN3. In the core area of Mid Thessaly and the plains (1150 sq km) the population density would have been 5 (EN1) or 20 inhabitants per sq km (EN2 and EN3).

Fig. 6 - The Central Bosnian Visoko basin with Late Neolithic domestic sites. Cultivated areas are reconstructed and boundaries modelled with Voronoi polygons.

– 167

CONSEQUENCES

First of all, from a technical point of view the results for the Bosnian Late Neolithic population densities correspond to Russell’s formula. It is of interest that independently of Russell’s method of enquiry, the estimate of 125 persons per 1 ha domestic area ‘works’ properly. Therefore, the calculations for the Thessalian case seem to be reasonable.

Secondly, the relatively low population density in EN1 Thessaly and the Early Neolithic Rhineland contrast with the higher population densities of the developed Early Neolithic Thessaly and Late Neolithic Bosnia. This is true both for the core areas as well as the general density of occupation (table 2). The internal occupation took place later, visible in the increasing population density within the already occupied areas. From the structural point of view this seems to be some kind of rule in both southeast Europe and central Europe. Nevertheless, in some areas there might have been no population growth because of ecological limits.

In respect of a Neolithic ideology, small groups of farmers were able to establish the Neolithic way of life not dependent on spatial clustering. There were core areas with a Neolithic pattern, but there was still enough space within these areas for a rising population and an expansion of the areas of cultivated land.

Visoko-basin Okolište Dolni Mostre

Contemporary houses 700 200 100

Inhabitants (5i/house) 3500 1000 500

Arable land (0.3 ha/i) 1050 ha = 10.5 sq km 300 ha = 3 sq km 150 ha = 1.5 sq km

Pasture land (10ha/i) 35,000 ha = 350 sq km 10,000 = 100 sq km 5000 ha = 50 sq km

Table 1 - Population sizes and cultivated land of the central site Okolište, a normal-sized site, Dolni Mostre, and the Visoko basin.

Region Population density in core areas (inhabitants/sq km)

Population density in general (inhabitants/sq km)

Thessaly Early Neolithic 1 5 0.5

Thessaly Early Neolithic 2 20 2

Rhineland Early Neolithic 5-10 0.5

Bosnia Late Neolithic 30 2

Table 2 - A comparison of population estimates.

168 –

R E F E R E N C E S

Benac, A. (ed.) 1973 - Obre II - A neolithic settlement of the Butmir Group at Gornje Polje. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des Bosnisch-Herzegowinischen Landesmuseums, 3: 5-191. Sarajevo.

Beuermann, A. 1967 - Fernweidewirtschaft in Südosteuropa. Westermann, Braunschweig.

Bittmann, F. and Kučan, D. 2004 - Erste archäobotanische Untersuchungen in Okolište 2002. www.jungsteinSITE.de.

Bökönyi, S 1974 - The vertebrate fauna. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des Bosnisch-Herzegowinischen Landesmuseums, 4A: 55-154. Sarajevo.

Dennell, R.W. and Webley, W. 1975 - Prehistoric settlement and land use in southern Bulgaria. In Higgs, E.S. (ed.) Palaeoeconomy: 97-109. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ebersbach, R. 2002 - Von Bauern und Rindern. Eine Ökosystemanalyse zur Bedeutung der Rinderhaltung in bäuerlichen Gesellschaften als Grundlage zur Modellbildung im Neolithikum. Basler Beiträge zur Archäologie, 15. Monograph, 263. Basel.

Ebersbach, R. 2003 - Palaeoecological Reconstruction and Calculation of Calorie Requirements at Lake Zurich. In Kunow, J. and Müller, J. (eds.) Landschaftsarchäologie und geographische Informationssysteme. Prognosekarten, Besiedlungsdynamik und prähistorische Raumordnungen. Archäoprognose Brandenburg, I: 69-88. Brandenburgisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Wünsdorf.

Ebersbach, R. and Schade, C. 2004 - Modelling the Intensity of Linear Pottery Land Use - An Example from the Mörlener Bucht in the Wetterau Basin, Hesse, Germany. In Ausserer, K.F., Börner, W., Goriany, M. and Karlhuber-Vöckl, L. (eds.) [Enter the Past] The E-way into the Four Dimensions of Cultural Heritage. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, 337. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Gimbutas, M. 1974 - Introduction - Obre and its place in Old Europe. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des Bosnisch-Herzegowinischen Landesmuseums, 4: 5-13. Sarajevo.

Gregg, S. 1988 - Foragers and Farmers. University press, Chicago.

Kalicz, N. 2001 - Zusammenhänge zwischen Siedlungswesen und der Bevölkerungszahl während des Spätneolithikums in Ungarn. In Lippert, A., Schultz, M., Shennan, S. and Teschler-Nicola, M. (eds.) Mensch und Umwelt während des Neolithikums und der Frühbronzezeit in Mitteleuropa: 151-170. Leidorf, Rahden.

Kujundžić-Vejzagić, Z., Müller, J., Rassmann, K. and Schüler, T. 2004 - Okolište - Grabung und Geomagnetik eines zentralbosnischen Tells aus der ersten Hälfte des 5. vorchristlichen Jahrtausends. www.jungsteinSITE.de.

Kujundžić-Vejzagić, Z., Müller, J., Rassmann, K. and Schüler, T. 2004a - Okolište - Grabung und Geomagnetik eines zentralbosnischen Tells aus der ersten Hälfte des 5. vorchristlichen Jahrtausends. In Hänsel, B. (ed.) Parerga Praehistorica. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, 100: 69-81. Bonn.

Kujundžić-Vejzagić, Z., Müller, J., Rassmann, K. and Schüler, T. 2004b - Okolište -Iskopavanje i geofizicka prospekcija centralno-bosanskog tel-naselja iz prve polovine petog milenija p.n.e. Godišnjak, 31: 13-32. Belgrade.

Lüning, J. 1982 - Research into the Bandkeramik settlement of the Aldenhovener Platte in the Rhineland. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 15: 1-29.

Lüning, J. 1988 - Frühe Bauern in Mitteleuropa im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Jahrbuch Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseums, 35: 27-93.

Milisauskas, S. and Kruk, J. 1984 - Settlement Organization and Appearance of Low Level Hierachical Societies during the Neolithic in the Bronocice Microregion, Southeastern Poland. Germania, 62: 1-30.

Müller, J. 1994 - Das ostadriatische Frühneolithikum. Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa. Berlin.

Müller, J., Rassmann, K. and Schüler, T. 2005 - Okolište und Obre - geophysikalische Prospektionen auf neolithischen Siedlungshügeln in Zentralbosnien. In de Bruyn, W. (ed.) Georadar und andere zerstörungsfreie Untersuchungsmethoden von Bodendenkmälern: 201-218. Firdling-Buch-und-Zeitschr.-Verlag, Neuenhagen.

Perić, S. 1995 - Butmirska kultura. Geneza i razvoj. Butmir culture. Origin and development. Posebna Izdanja Archeoloski Institut, 29. Belgrade.

Perlès, C. 2001 - The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge World Archaeology, Cambridge.

Renfrew, J.M. 1974 - Report on Carbonized Grains and Seeds from Obre I, Kakanj and Obre II. Mitteilungen des Bosnisch-Herzego-winischen Landesmuseums, 4A: 47-53. Sarajevo.

Russell, J.C. 1958 - Late ancient and medieval populations. Transactions of the American Philological Society, 48 (3): 1-152.

Schulz, W. 2004 - Erste Ergebnisse geomorphologischer Untersuchungen im Umfeld des Tells Okolište. www.jungsteinSITE.de.

Stehli, P. 1994 - Chronologie der Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal. In Lüning, J. and Stehli, P. (eds.) Die Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal auf der Aldenhovener Platte. Beiträge zur neolithischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte, 5: 79-191. Habelt, Bonn.


– 169

Wilkinson, T. 1999 - Demographic Trends from Archaeological Survey: Case Studies from the Levant and Near East. In Bintliff, J. and Sbonias, K. (eds.) Reconstructing Past Population Trends in Mediterranean Europe (3000 BC - AD 1800): 45-64. Oxbow books, Oxford.

Zimmermann, A. 1996 - Zur Bevölkerungsdichte in der Urgeschichte Mitteleuropas. In Campen, I., Uerpmann, M. and Hahn, J. (eds.) Spuren der Jagd - Die Jagd nach Spuren (Festschrift Müller-Beck). Tübinger Monographien zur Urgeschichte, 11: 49-61. Tübingen.

Zimmermann, A. 2002 - Landesarchäologie I. Die Bandkeramik auf der Aldenhovener Platte. Bericht der Römisch - Germanischen Kommission, 83: 17-38.

Zimmermann, A., Richter, J., Frank, T. and Wendt, P. 2004 - Landesarchäologie II. Überlegungen zu Prinzipien einer Landesarchäologie. Bericht der Römisch - Germanischen Kommission, 85: 37-95.

Author’s Address:JOHANNES MÜLLER, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Johanna-Mestorf-Str. 2-6 – D - 24098 KIELe-mail: [email protected]

– 171



KORNELIJA MINICHREITER*

THE FIRST FARMERS OF NORTHERN CROATIA

SUMMARY - The first farmers of northern Croatia. In south-eastern Europe, in the area of northern Croatia between the rivers Drava, Danube and Sava (southern Pannonia), the first Neolithic settlements developed during the Early and Middle Neolithic (c. 6000-4800 cal BC). The numerous archaeological excavations and 100 settlements recorded in the past 25 years in northern Croatia have enabled a review of the development of Starčevo Culture settlement from its beginnings (Linear A phase) to the final stage of its development (Spiraloid B phase). The two oldest agricultural settlements have been explored in the Sava Valley (Zadubravlje and Slavonski Brod), while the third was excavated at Pepelana in the Drava Valley. The results of this research allow us to identify the basic elements of the ‘urban’ growth of these settlements, and the arrangement, form, and purpose of the pit structures in them: this will serve as fundamental material for the further investigation of the very first cultures in these areas, and the process of the spread of the Neolithic through south-eastern Europe.

RIASSUNTO - I primi agricoltori della Croazia settentrionale. Nella Croazia settentrionale, fra il corso dei fiumi Drava, Danubio e Sava (Pannonia meridionale) si svilupparono i primi abitati neolitici durante il Neolitico antico e medio (circa 6000-4800 cal BC). I numerosi scavi archeologici condotti negli ultimi 25 anni, hanno portato ad una revisione degli insediamenti della Cultura di Starčevo, dalla sua fase più antica (Lineare A) a quella finale (Spiraloide B). Sono stati studiati i due siti più antichi della Valle della Sava (Zadubravlje e Slavonski Brod), mentre un terzo è stato oggetto di scavo a Pepelana (Lineare C), nella Valle della Drava. I risultati ottenuti permettono di riconoscere gli elementi di sviluppo dei villaggi, la loro forma e distribuzione, oltre che la funzione delle strutture a pozzetto. Questi dati sono di fondamentale importanza per la continuazione degli studi sulle prime culture neolitiche di questa regione e sull’analisi del processo di neolitizzazione dell’Europa sudorientale.

INTRODUCTION

Extensive archaeological research, complemented by topographic information about the natural environ-ment of numerous early farming settlements, provides a clear picture of the hydrographic situation in northern Croatia 8000 years ago.

Numerous watercourses provided the oldest land traffic routes, linking the Black Sea in the east through the Danube River Basin all the way to the Italian Peninsula in the west, and from the Pannonian Plain in the north down to the Mediterranean in the south.

This resulted in the criss-crossing of the Central European, the Danube and Mediterranean cultural influences and in some periods also the spreading of cultures from this region to the other European areas.

In southeast Europe, in the area of northern Croatia between the rivers Drava, Danube and Sava, geo-graphically belonging to southern Pannonia, the first agricultural and pottery-using cultures developed during the Early and Middle Neolithic (about 6000-4000 cal BC) as parts of the common Starčevo cultural complex, basically related in terms of material and spiritual culture, but nonetheless different in the cultural and territo-rial sense (fig. 1).

Although almost one hundred years have passed since the first discovery of the Starčevo Culture in Croatia (Dimitrijević, 1969: 12) very little is known about the development of the culture itself. Until 1968, Starčevo finds were known only from eastern Slavonia, hence this was considered to be the westernmost border of the spread of the Starčevo Culture.

The discovery of Starčevo finds at Ždralovi near Bjelovar (1968) caused the border of its distribution to be shifted almost 200 km to the west (Dimitrijević, 1969: 16).——————————* Institute of Archaeology, Zagreb University, Croatia

172 –

THE TYPOLOGICAL SEQUENCE

Numerous archaeological excavations in the last 25 years have provided an overview of the development of Starčevo Culture settlements. To date, 100 sites of this culture have been documented in northern Croatia, dating from the Linear A phase to the end of Spiraloid B.

The problems of a unified chronological system for the Starčevo Culture have still not been solved. The broad distribution of, primarily, single layered settlements, means that four chronological systems are currently in use: V. Milojčić (1950: 109-111), D. Aranđelović-Garašanin (1954: 131-141), S. Dimitrijević (1979: 237-252) and D. Srejović (1969: 173-178), each of which can be applied to a certain geographical region. Of these authors, S. Dimitrijević was most involved with the Starčevo Culture and its relations to neighbouring cultures and he divided it (according to the stylistic traits of findings in southern Pannonia) into 7 phases: monochrome, Linear A, Linear B, Girlandoid, Spiraloid A, Spiraloid B, and a final phase. Through a comparison of these

Fig. 1 - Distribution map of the Starčevo (1-8) and Impressed Ware (9-16) sites in the study region: 1) Sarvaš, 2) Vučedol, 3) Vinkovci, 4) Zadubravlje, 5) Igrač, 6) Cernička Šagovina, 7) Ždralovi, 9) Medulin, 10) Jami na Sredi (Cres), 11) Vorganska peć (Krk), 12) Smilčić, 13) Krković, 14) Škarin Samograd, 15) Markova špilja (Hvar), 16 Gudnja.

– 173

four chronological systems, a division of the Starčevo Culture can be coordinated in the following manner. The earliest phases were named by the authors as Starčevo I (Milojčić), Starčevo I and IIa (Garašanin), the Monochrome and Linear A phases (Dimitrijević), and Proto-Starčevo I and II (Srejović). These phases, ac-cording to S. Dimitrijević (1979: 242-243), represent the pre-classic Starčevo Culture, which differs from the classic developmental stages in that the vessels lack decoration with channelled barbotine. The decoration of coarse ware with channelled barbotine begins only in the Linear B phase, denoting the beginning of the classic Starčevo Culture.

The characteristics of the Linear A phase of the Early Neolithic have been confirmed by rescue excavations in 1989 and 1990 at the Starčevo settlement at Zadubravlje (Minichreiter, 1992: 29, 37, 41-43; 1998: 2001; 2001a; 2005) and the systematic excavations of the Starčevo settlement with a ritual-burial area at Slavonski Brod (annual excavations from 1997 until now), which have not produced a single example of decoration with channelled barbotine (Minichreiter, 1999; 2000; 2001; 2002; 2003; 2004). The painted motifs are linear, and the vessel shapes rounded, with no biconical forms. The classic developmental phase of the Starčevo Culture begins in the Linear B period, according to S. Dimitrijević, with the widespread use of barbotine decoration on pottery vessels, which remains to the end of this culture, to the end of the Spiraloid B phase. The classic Starčevo Culture, in addition to linear painting, is also characterised by painted motifs of garlands (the Girlan-doid phase), and, in the final stages of Spiraloid A and B, by spiral decorations as well.

Archaeological excavation in the northern Croatia after 1985 has confirmed the chronological system of S. Dimitrijević for this region. Settlements of the Linear A phase were discovered at Zadubravlje and Slavonski Brod, 20 years after S. Dimitrijević (1974: 59-93) had hypothetically suggested the existence of a Linear A phase. A supplement and a minor correction to this chronological system was published in 1985, after the excavations at Pepelana, whose archaeological material was placed by K. Minichreiter (1992: 17-20) into a newly defined Linear C phase. Additionally, we consider that the other sites in western Slavonia can be placed in the Linear C stage, and not to the final phase of Starčevo Culture as defined by S. Dimitrijević.

Zadubravlje

The Early Neolithic settlement near Zadubravlje is located 17 km east of Slavonski Brod along the Zagreb-Lipovac highway. During rescue excavations in 1989 and 1990 an area of 6200 sq m was uncovered, containing workshops for the production of pottery vessels, stone objects and fabrics (Minichreiter, 1992; 1998, 2001; 2001a; 2005; Marković and Minichreiter, 2003: 151-152, plate 1).

The settlement was organised so that each part had a specific purpose with additional buildings essential in the life of a tribal community (Minichreiter, 2001: fig. 4, fig. 10): 1) an area for storing and preparing food, 2) a workshop for producing stone tools, 3) cult and residential areas, 4) courtyards for weaving fabric and fruit processing, 5) pottery workshops with pits for extracting clay, and kilns for firing small and large pottery vessels and clay objects.

In the eastern part of the settlement, postholes were uncovered, probably used to support an aboveground storage area for food, with a large open hearth next to it, where food was prepared for the population of the entire settlement. Hearths were not found in the pit dwellings, making this the only hearth in the settlement (Minichreiter, 2000: fig. 10). In the vicinity of the open hearth there were several pits for the disposal of ashes. Further towards the centre of the settlement was a workshop for the production of stone tools and weapons (some 2000 artefacts were recovered, among which were cores, chips, flakes, debitage, blades, scrapers, and whetstones).

The central area of the settlement contained two pit dwellings (northern and southern) and a circular en-closed area of unknown purpose between them. It probably served as a gathering point for the population during certain rites and cult activities. Each pit dwelling contained several rooms, in one of which there was a feature of unknown function - perhaps a house sanctuary: in a pit 2.5 m long and 0.20-0.30 m wide, dug 0.20 m below the level of the pit dwelling base, remains were discovered of densely aligned vertical stakes, strengthened near the base with applied clay. The purpose of these features shall at present remain a supposition. Pits with identical ground-plan but empty or containing animal sacrifices were discovered in Neolithic settlements in Branč (Vladar and Lichardus, 1968: 273-283), Endrőd-Öregszőlőg 119 (Makkay, 1992: 131-132, plates 37: 1-2; 39: 1-4; 40: 1-4; 2007: 126-188), and in continental Croatia in Pepelana (Minichreiter, 1990, 18), Cernička Šagovina (Minichreiter, 1992: 12), Vinkovci-Tržnica (Marketplace) (Dimitrijević, 1969: 39-42) and Kneževi Vinogradi in Baranja (Šimić, 1986: 40). These features within pit dwellings at Zadubravlje are the oldest among features of this kind. Although they have been discovered at several Neolithic sites, there are still not enough

174 –

data to determine their function. In the northern room of the southern pit dwelling, in the vicinity of the ‘house sanctuary’ there was a group of bowls and pots with pieces of animal bones (remains of a feast), and at the base below them there was a cult burial of a bovine horn (Minichreiter, 1992c: 19), for which A. Benac supposed in the case of Obre that it was buried as a sacrifice on the occasion of building an important pit dwelling in the settlement (Benac, 1973: 16). A cattle horn was buried in the same way beneath a pile of pots and bowls in the central part of the large pit dwelling 9 within the ritual-burial enclosure of the Starčevo settlement at Slavonski Brod, where three human skeletons were buried (Minichreiter, 1999: fig. 9). The southern pit dwelling had a semicircular courtyard enclosed by a wooden fence (Minichreiter, 2001: fig. 8). Along the southern fence 50 weights from a vertical loom were found, where the loom was probably supported. Nearby were numerous remains of stone querns, indicating the grinding of grain and other foodstuffs and food preparation for the entire community. The central area of the settlement was protected on the western side from animal intrusion by a wooden fence, which also connected the northwest working pit with the kilns and ovens and the southern pit dwelling. Beyond the fence, on the western side, a well was dug (Minichreiter, 1998: 25-38). The well in its uppermost section had a widened platform (2.5 m in diameter), with thin posts lined up as a protective fence on the western side, which is logical, as only from this side could people (children) or animals fall into the well. No enclosure was necessary on the eastern side, as the main central area of the settlement, fenced off in a large circle, was not far from the well. In the eastern part of the well platform there was a dug out step, on which a thick wooden beam was probably placed to aid in drawing water. The southern side of the platform had a small access step, and only from this side could one stand next to the well. The well had a diameter of 1.5 m, and water appeared at a depth of 4.9 m during the investigations. The well was probably even deeper when it was in use. Several pottery fragments and stone tools were found inside, the finest find being a jug with four lugs and a high cylindrical neck, used for drawing water.

The western part of the settlement contained pottery workshops with kilns and working pits for the extrac-tion and treatment of clay - from the digging out of clay to the final phase of the firing and decoration of vessels. Clay was extracted from four auxiliary pits. Next to them, by a small wooden fence, the vessels were formed and dried, and the firing process took place in three working pit dwellings (Minichreiter, 1992b: abb. 7). A working pit contained two cylindrical kilns, attached to each other, for firing large vessels, and two bread ovens (hemispherical forms). This part of the settlement also had two working pits with 3 elongated kilns which were used to fire vessels of smaller dimensions of finer production and with painted patterns (Minichreiter, 1992b: abb. 2, 5 and 6).

The pottery vessels from Zadubravlje were pots, bowls, and pedestalled bowls, of globular or hemispheri-cal form with a rounded base and flat or short cylindrical necks. They were decorated with relief-applied ele-ments, the impressed technique (impressions made by fingernail, finger, pinching, or stabbing), and relief bands with finger impressions, brush marks, and shallow incisions (Minichreiter, 2001a: 5-20). The painted pottery was decorated only with the linear geometrical motifs. The pottery objects found included altars on four legs, sacrificial vessels, anthropomorphic sculpture and zoomorphic sculpture (Minichreiter, 2005: 5-24, figs. 2-4). Archaeological material belongs to the early phase of the Starčevo Culture - Linear A. The results of the radio-carbon dating are placed in the period 6000-5000 Cal BC (Krajcar-Bronić et al., 2004: 238-239).

Slavonski Brod

The second large Early Neolithic settlement was discovered in the eastern part of the city of Slavonski Brod, where since 1997 every year systematic archaeological excavations have been carried out.

In the excavated area of 2600 sq m a part of the settlement of the Starčevo Culture was discovered, con-taining a ritual-burial space within. Pit dwellings with human skeletons were enclosed by semicircular wooden fences and thus separated from the rest of the settlement. In the excavated part of the ritual-burial space were discovered the large pit dwelling 9 (15x7 m) with three human skeletons and the small pit dwelling 15 (5x5 m) with one human skeleton (Minichreiter, 1999: 12-16). The entrance to the large pit dwelling 9 lay at its eastern side in the central part. A step led into the interior of the pit dwelling. In this central space a group of pots and bowls was uncovered, beneath which there was a ritual burial of a bovine horn, analogous to the pit dwelling 10 m in Zadubravlje and the house K in Obre (Benac, 1973: note 24). In the northern part of the pit dwelling 9, along its edge, two parallel kilns with rectangular bases were built. The firing-holes were on the outside, whereas the backs of the kilns were inside the pit dwelling. The assumption is that these two kilns were used for ritual purposes and not for firing clay vessels, unlike the identical ones in the pit dwelling 155 in the set-tlement outside the ritual-burial enclosure (Minichreiter, 2004: 6-9). Both kilns contained remains of charred wood. A 30 cm high vessel leg and the back of a kiln floor, which was plastered with raw clay, are consistent

– 175

with the use of these kilns for ritual purposes. Two individuals were buried in the centre of pit dwelling 9 in a contracted position: a man (complete skeleton) aged 40-50, positioned on the left hip in the north-south direc-tion, and to the southeast of him, a woman (headless) aged 35-40, on the right hip in the west-east direction (Minichreiter, 1999: 12-14). In the southern part of the large pit dwelling 9 three groups of ceramic vessels and the skeleton of a headless man between 25 and 30 years of age were found. The skeleton was placed on the hip in the east-west direction, facing the centre of the pit dwelling. In front of him were placed a lump of ochre and a miniature altar in the shape of an animal bearing a small offering vessel (Minichreiter, 2002: 20, table 5/2). All the individuals were buried on a layer of black earth with pottery sherds at the bottom of the pit dwelling where the skeletons were covered with earth mixed with occasional sherds of pottery and lithics. On the basis of post-holes and a “bench” along the northern edge of the pit dwelling, we suppose that the pit dwell-ing was only partially roofed and that the northern part was covered by wooden poles laid horizontally on the bench. This method of pit dwelling roofing was reconstructed by S. Dimitrijević (1978: fig. 8) at the Neolithic settlement at Gornji Brezovljani.

The small pit dwelling 15 was built in the western part of the ritual-burial area, 5 m from the large pit dwelling 9. The entrance to the small pit dwelling 15 was at its northern side. In the western part of the small pit dwelling, the skeleton of a man 35-40 years of age was buried in a contracted position, on the left hip in the north-south direction. The head lacked facial bones, and had only the back parts of the skull. The skeleton was covered with earth mixed with pottery sherds, small stone tools, clay discs and the head of a ceramic duck (Minichreiter, 1999a: 25, plates 1a and b). A group of small stone tools and 5 polished stone axes, probably deposited in honour of the deceased, was discovered east of the entrance. The axe is a symbol of lightning, a sign of power, fury and annihilation, and is often a symbol of supreme deities (Težak-Gregl, 2002: 16). Deposition of polished stone axes beside graves was documented at Obre I, where in A. Benac’s opinion they had a cult significance, which indicates that the axe cult already existed at the time of the Starčevo and Impressed Ware Culture (Benac, 1973: 29-35, 39-40). Small stake-holes were uncovered at the pit dwelling edges, and around the pit dwelling postholes 30 cm in diameter were placed at regular intervals in double rows, so that above the entrance a wide porch was formed. This points to a particularly ceremonial character of this pit dwelling, in which a distinguished member of the tribal community was probably buried. The pit dwelling might have been roofed in several ways (Minichreiter, 2001b: 13, fig. 6), perhaps like the polygonal house with a tent at Parţa in Banat (Lazarovici and Lazarovici, 2003: 387, fig. 58), each of which indicated the high status of the deceased in the tribal community.

At the northwestern side the ritual-burial space was protected by a semicircular wooden fence some 13 m long. Continuing from the fence was the western access gate (two lines of posts that perhaps supported a porch), which connected this enclosure with the settlement. South of the western access was a self-supporting double fence, with a crescent-shaped ground plan. Its function is not entirely clear, so it is supposed that it was probably used for cult purposes.

Further westwards, seven pit dwellings and several smaller refuse pits were excavated. All the pit dwellings had approximately same dimensions, 15-17x5 m. Two of these were orientated in the north-south direction with the entrance at the east, like large pit dwelling 9 with the burials. Two pit dwellings in the northern part of the settlement had several rooms and lines of large postholes, which supported the roof, probably double-sloped. The northernmost pit dwelling, 37, was constructed on a north-south axis, northwest of the fences. The remaining six were grouped, orientated radially along their longer axes in a semicircle toward the western side of the site.

In this part of the settlement, for the first time, two construction phases were discovered. In the older phase, the ritual-burial area occupied a much larger surface within the settlement, evident in the position of two wooden fences that divided the residential from the burial part of the settlement. Wooden fences 15 m long surrounded the two pit dwellings and the small pit with the deceased as well as the three cult structures where rituals in honour of the dead were probably carried out. In the second phase, some 200 years later, according to the radiocarbon results, the settlement expanded towards the pit dwellings with the deceased and thus decreased the surface of the ritual and burial area. Three large pit dwellings were built beyond the western cult structure and its northern wooden fence, which lost its function on account of the new construction. Respecting the tradition and significance of the eastern cult structure, the group of new pit dwellings was built in a semicircle around it, and not in the north-south direction, which was the orientation of the other pit dwellings. The new partition, 87, was built between the eastern cult structure and the pit dwellings, in order to separate the ritual area from the residential, so that the burial space was also enclosed on this side. In two working pits (155 and 205) remains of dome-shaped bread ovens were discovered, as well as kilns of elongated rectangular shape for firing small vessels and clay artefacts (Minichreiter, 2004: 5-18). In both pits numerous loom weights were

176 –

found. Particularly prominent in this respect is the discovery in pit 205 of 30 small pyramidal weights next to the remains of a wooden frame of the vertical loom (unpublished).

Artefacts discovered in the pit dwellings and pits in these two settlements (Zadubravlje and Slavonski Brod) possess all the features of the Linear A phase. Vessels with white painted motifs in pit dwelling 9 containing human burials and the working pit 206 at Slavonski Brod confirm the opinion of S. Dimitrijević (1979: 237), who also named the Linear A phase the White Linear.

Clay vessels can be classified into pots, bowls and cups. The vessels are hemispherical with flat or inverted rim, or spherical with cylindrical or ‘S’-shaped profile. Vessel rims are flat, everted or inverted. Vessel bottoms are flat or slightly raised in the form of a foot or a short leg. Handles on some vessels were horizontal with oval section. Some vessels - mostly of a fine texture - had on four opposite sides a decorative knob, whereas in the case of coarse vessels double or triple knobs served as holders for strings on which the vessels hung. Among pots with coarse surfaces there were many specimens coloured in red on the outside, inside or on both sides. Pottery coloured in this way was certainly not used for preparation of food, but for storage or for specific cult purposes.

Decoration techniques on coarse pottery can be classified into four groups: incision, impression, stabbing and relief modelling (Minichreiter, 2003: 15-26). Incision was used for vertical lines, zigzag lines and rectangles forming a net pattern (Minichreiter, 2003: fig. 4/1-4). According to S. Dimitrijević (1974: 67), incision was used for pottery decoration in all phases of the Starčevo Culture, with analogous motifs from Donja Branjevina stratum III’ and II’ (Karmanski, 1979: plates XX, LXVIII, LXXIII), Lepenski Vir IIIa (Srejović, 1969: 161-170) and Starčevo IIa phase (Aranđelović-Garašanin, 1954: plate VI). Perhaps the zigzag lines motif was meant to symbolically represent animal fur (Karmanski, 2005: plate XLI), human hair (Aranđelović-Garašanin, 1954: plate III, fig. 10) or water - a river course, rain, or sea waves (Durman, 2000: 68).

Fingertip or fingernail impressions produced sequences of pinched motifs, dubbed “ear impression” or “ear pattern in relief” by S. Dimitrijević (1974: 83). Such motifs, often combined with stripes in relief with fingertip impressions, were a characteristic form of vessel decoration in this phase (Minichreiter, 2003: fig. 4/5-9).

Decoration made by stabbing with a narrow stick of circular section is rare. Among several thousand sherds from Zadubravlje and Slavonski Brod, only five vessels were decorated by this technique.

On four vessels stabs are distributed irregularly over the entire surface of the belly, while on one vessel, an ‘S’-profiled spherical pot with everted neck, a stylised figure, perhaps a bird, was depicted using the technique of stabbing (Minichreiter, 2003: fig. 5/3). Rare analogous specimens with stabbed decoration were discovered at Donja Branjevina (Karmanski, 1979: plate LXXIII/2; 2005: plate CCVII/8 and CCVIII/6, 7, 8), Starčevo (Aranđelović-Garašanin, 1954: plate VIII/29), Tečić - Spiraloid A phase (Dimitrijević, 1974: plate VII/4), Vinkovci - Spiraloid B phase (Dimitrijević, 1974: plate XIX/6) and at several Starčevo settlements from the final developmental phases - Kusovac near Kragujevac in Serbia (Srejović, 1988: 71) and Šašinci in Srijem - Vojvodina (Srejović, 1988: 94). This technique of pottery decoration was used in the Linear A and Spiraloid A and B phases.

The technique of relief modelling was used to decorate vessels by attaching knobs or relief stripes with fin-gertip impressions (Minichreiter, 2003: fig. 6). Relief stripes with fingertip impressions were composed in diverse motifs: horizontal stripe on the neck, vertical near the bottom of the belly, horizontal on a smooth vessel wall, or horizontal on the vessel wall with a ‘pinched’ motif. On some vessels, relief stripes with fingertip impressions were composed in circles, garlands or spirals, and the vessel walls were of uneven surface or decorated with series of ‘pinched’ patterns. Relief stripes, with or without fingertip impressions, represented a serpent. In the early linear phases of the Neolithic the serpent was represented with relief stripes on coarse vessels at numerous Neolithic sites, such as ‘Igrač’ in Bukovlje near Slavonski Brod (Minichreiter, 1992: plate 1/1-3) and many others.

During the Neolithic, in the later spiral phases, the serpent was represented in the form of a spiral or a zigzag motif not only on coarse pottery but also on painted vessels. The serpent as a protome on Neolithic altars is known from Donja Branjevina (Karmanski, 2000: plate XXVIII/4a, 4b; 2005: plate XXVIII/4a, 4b) and from Porodino in Macedonia (Garašanin, 1979: 112, plate VI/4). The serpent cult, which in Greek religion symbolised immortality and the possibility of bringing humans back to life (Hoti, 1993: 108), probably had a very important role in the beliefs of the oldest agricultural populations of the Neolithic. A particularly fine ex-ample of relief modelling is the representation of a female figure with arms raised in prayer, executed in relief stripes with fingertip impressions - a unique specimen so far from the Starčevo settlement at Slavonski Brod (Minichreiter, 2000: 5-15, fig. 1). In Early Neolithic settlements of the Starčevo and Körös Cultures, figures on coarse vessels are stylised, executed in the form of a relief stripe with one or two hands raised in prayer, because the intention was to emphasize the prayer to the forces of nature for a good yield and cattle fertility, on which their survival directly depended.

– 177

Fine pottery consisted of smaller sized pots, bowls, and bowls on a short pedestal. On almost all specimens of bowls on a short pedestal, traces of red colouring are visible, and the surface of some bowls is coloured in red on both the outside and the inside. The fine smooth surface of vessels is, as a rule, coloured in red, and some specimens are decorated with painted rectilinear ornaments executed in brown or white paint. Straight lines, hanging triangles filled with oblique lines or hatched are painted in brown, whereas the drop-like motifs, straight lines and flower petals (?) were painted in white after firing the vessels, so that the paint is barely preserved. The closest analogies to vessels painted in this way are from Donja Branjevina in horizon II (Karmanski, 1968: plates I-V), which is contemporary with the Linear A phase.

The most significant and famous cult artefacts in the Starčevo Culture complex were altars and figurines. Until recently, it was believed that these artefacts were indicative of the Vinča Culture, but extensive investiga-tions of Starčevo settlements in the past two decades have radically changed this picture. The Slavonski Brod assemblage includes some 105 altars, 30 of which are complete (Minichreiter, 2002; 2004). They form two basic groups: ordinary and zoomorphic. Among the rare examples of sacrificial altars, one animal protome was found - a realistically shaped wild boar head, among the most beautiful examples of this animal at Neolithic sites (Minichreiter, 2004: fig. 7/1a, 1b).

Along with sheep and goats, the pig was domesticated during the Early Neolithic and represented a fertility symbol. Already in the Neolithic the bull was a symbol of fertility and as such closely connected to the great mother-goddess, the symbol of fertile land. A clay figurine of a doe is the first find of its kind from the Early Neolithic period in northern Croatia (Minichreiter, 2004: fig. 8/5a, 5b). The doe figurine is realistically shaped and its body is ornamented with zigzag lines, just as that of the chamois-shaped censer from Donja Branjevina (Karmanski, 1990: tables I-III). Zoomorphic figurines have been found at sites throughout the Starčevo Culture area, and, unlike anthropomorphic figurines, are stylistically similar throughout this period, which prevents stylistic dating.

The ordinary altars have a basic form in common, a rectangular base on four legs. The receptacle appears in different shapes, so that five varieties can be defined: type 1 - the sacrificial table; type 2 - altars with four legs and a vessel in the middle of the rectangular base; type 3 - altars with four legs and rectangular base with animal protomes at the corners; type 4 - altars on four legs with ritual vessel that is rectangular from the outside and circular from the inside,

with protomes at the corners; and type 5 - altars resembling a church altar (Minichreiter, 2002; 2004).

Altars of types 1, 2 and 5 have numerous analogies in the early Neolithic settlements of the Starčevo and Körös Cultures in Vojvodina (Serbia) and southern Hungary, whereas altars of types 3 and 4 have so far been discovered only at Slavonski Brod, with analogies at Lanycsok in Hungary (Kalicz, 1990: table 11) and the somewhat later Kaniška Iva in western Slavonia (Minichreiter, 1992a: table 5/2). We can stress that altar types 3 and 4 have been discovered only in the Sava River basin, and can - with the other altars from Slavonski Brod - be dated among the oldest altars in Croatia (Linear A).

Zoomorphic altars bear the shapes of certain animals with a realistically represented anatomy. On the back they have a deep, flat or erected conical receptacle. This type of altar is particularly rare in Starčevo settlements, whereas its number significantly increases in the Late Neolithic cultures. The bull-shaped altar from Slavonski Brod with flat receptacle on its back is, so far, a unique example of an altar in the Starčevo cultural complex, even though ceramic bull-figurines are common finds in Starčevo pit dwellings (Minich-reiter, 2002: table 5/1).

Cattle horns were buried as a sacrifice in the centre of large and significant pit dwellings at Starčevo sites (see above). Another important group of cult artefacts is anthropomorphic figurines. Those discovered at Slavonski Brod show that in the earliest stage of the Starčevo Culture their form was already pillared/bell-shaped, their eyes indicated by engravings, their nose and hands slightly emphasised and their hair or cap represented as a relief (Minichreiter, 2002: table 6/1-3; 2004: fig. 8/2-4). Stylised human figurines were abstract and did not represent particular deities. At first they were probably made of wood, with engraved eyes and hair. This shape remained throughout all the phases of the Starčevo Culture, and at the beginning of the Vinča Culture the figurines became more and more human-shaped. Based on numerous finds of cult artefacts at Slavonski Brod, one can conclude that at the beginning of the development of the Starčevo Cul-ture all groups of cult artefacts were represented, albeit in somewhat smaller number, and that later on their number grew considerably. In the course of development certain types disappeared, but no other new group appeared.

178 –

Stone artefacts were abundant in pit dwellings at Zadubravlje and Slavonski Brod. At Zadubravlje a special working pit was discovered, a workshop for the production of polished and chipped stone tools. More than 6000 artefacts were found at each site, including pebbles, cores, chisels, wedges, whetstones, axes, scrapers, small blades, small saws, arrowheads, and flakes. Large numbers of stone tools provide an indicator of a strong Mesolithic tradition in the incipient phases of development of the Starčevo Culture, whereas the quantity of stone tools considerably decreases towards the end of its development. Prominent among the stone artefacts are polished axes, which were of particular importance in cult rituals.

Analyses of archaeozoological samples have contributed to a new understanding of the first phases of do-mestication, diet and cult rituals. At Zadubravlje and Slavonski Brod, goat, sheep, cattle, pig, red deer, fish and bird bones were found, which indicates that the diet of the inhabitants was diverse (Trbojević-Vukičević and Babić, 1999: 63-70). Ritual burial of a bovine horn beneath a group of vessels in the central part of the large ritual pit dwelling with human burials proves the cult function of sacrificed animals.

Pepelana

Pepelana is located in the Drava river basin in northern Croatia, 20 km southeast of Virovitica, in the valley of the Brežnica, at a pass over the Bilogora range between the Drava and the Sava basins. A rescue excavation was carried out in 1985 on the route of the gas pipeline from Pepelana to Suhopolje, and a surface area of 400 mq was investigated to an average depth of 2 m. The multi-strata prehistoric settlement extends over an area of 1000x800 m. The site was composed of a large tell, 90x90 m, 4 m in height, and two elongated hills that gently descend to the banks of the Brežnica River (Minichreiter, 1990: 14-40). In its centre of the tell a trial probe found 8 cultural horizons of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods: the Starčevo and Korenovo Cultures, the Brezovljani type of the Sopot Culture, three horizons of Pepelana type of the Sopot Culture and three of the Retz-Gajary Culture (Minichreiter, 1990a: 19-38). Because of the relatively limited area excavated at Pepe-lana, the arrangement of the structures within the settlement could not be determined, although the excavated pit dwellings showed a previously unknown shape of construction on two levels (ground and first floor). A pit dwelling with a length of 25 m and width of 10 m was shaped like a letter ‘T’ with a wide southern and central area, and eastern, northern, and western arms. The eastern section of the central area contained a passageway 5 m long and 1.5 m wide that connected the southern, lower part of the ground floor of the pit dwelling, and the upper first floor. From the central part of the passageway, one step led to the eastern arm of the pit dwelling. Across three steps the northern arm was reached, which was connected to the western arm of the pit dwelling across a platform in the central section.

The southern section of the pit dwelling had a deeper refuse pit, which contained discarded pottery frag-ments, and in the western section many weights for an upright loom were discovered. A large hearth was also discovered in the southern area, 1.5 m in diameter and 30 cm thick, and opposite this, the remains of a human skeleton were buried in a contracted position. The northern and the central part of the pit dwelling contained postholes from large perpendicular columns that held up the roof. Two small working pits were discovered northeast of the pit dwelling. The pit dwelling inventory consisted of pots, bowls, and legged bowls of hemi-spherical shape, biconical with a gentle transition and thickened bottom (Minichreiter, 1990: plates 2-7). Lithic finds consisted of cores, flakes, small blades, small saws, scrapers and axes.

Decoration on pottery is typical of the Linear B phase, except that the channelled barbotine predominates. Relief applications are much larger, and appear also in the form of rows of knobs, reflecting the influence of the Körös Culture, existing at the same period not far from Pepelana in the areas on the opposite bank of the Drava River (Kutzian, 1944: plate XXIX/1-4). In this phase the technique of impression continues to be used for the impresso decoration, while the technique of relief modelling is rarely employed for stripes with fin-gertip impressions. Button-shaped handles are numerous and bear most diverse decorations (Kutzian, 1944: plate XXXVIII/2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10). Double and triple knobs on pots of coarse texture, which were most probably suspended on a string, appear less frequently. There is only one clay artefact decorated with wide-line inci-sions - perhaps part of an altar. Transitional and fine pottery consists of spherical, hemispherical, conical and biconical bowls on a short ring-shaped pedestal. Prominent among them is a small hemispherical bowl on four short legs, a shape that often appears in the Körös Culture of neighbouring Hungary (Kutzian, 1944: plates XXXII/7; XXXIII/6, 8, 9, 11). Painted motifs on fine pottery are done in two ways: painting before or after firing. Most vessels were painted after firing, so the paint tends to peel off. The background of all pieces is polished both inside and outside, and the surface of more than half the vessels was coloured in dark red prior to firing. Motifs were executed in dark brown colour (Minichreiter, 1996: 1-9), while two pieces were painted

– 179

white (Minichreiter, 1996: plate 5/2, 5). Motifs were done in ways characteristic of the Starčevo Culture, with impasto or slip (Dimitrijević, 1979: 242). On most vessels motifs are done in slip painting - with thin or thick brush strokes with diluted paint. Smaller numbers of vessels are painted with paste - a dense paint that peels off. Painted motifs cover the entire vessel surface, and only in the case of bowls with knobs do the lines on the belly bypass the knob.

The richest part of the ornament is represented on the most conspicuous part of the vessel, while towards the bottom the decoration becomes simpler. Painted motifs on vessels are almost all rectilinear: out of 119 painted sherds, there are 114 rectilinear motifs, 3 have arched stripes and 2 have vertical stripes and wavy lines. Rectilinear motifs on pottery display various combinations: one, two or three horizontal borders appear below vessel rims, and the net motif also occurs. Below the borderlines are vertical stripes, regularly distributed over the vessel, or in bundles of 3, 5 or 8 stripes. Bundles of vertical stripes appear in combination with hanging filled triangles, or the bundles of sloping and vertical stripes are ordered into standing or hanging triangles. Curved motifs consist of sequences of vertical curved stripes (Minichreiter, 1996: plates 6/1; 8/1; 9/6), or combinations of vertical rectilinear and curvilinear stripes (Minichreiter, 1996: plate 6/3, 5, 6 and 8/5-7), which resemble the guilloche motif from Tečić (Dimitrijević, 1974: plate VIII/17) and linked S-motifs from Crnokalačka Bara (Tasić and Tomić, 1969: fig. 7).

Painted ceramics from Pepelana can, on account of the mostly rectilinear geometric patterns, be compared to contemporary ceramics from Donja Branjevina I, Obre I and Gornja Tuzla VIb in Bosnia, in phase II and the beginning of phase III at Anzabegovo, in the middle phase of the Körös Culture in Hungary, in the Kolsh Culture in Albania, and in the advanced phases of the Sesklo Culture in Greece. Clay spindle-whorls and weights for the vertical loom were of various shapes: circular, discoid and conical. A spool with a channelled barbotine decora-tion is also worthy of mention. In the northern part of the pit dwelling, pieces of an altar were found, a unique find in northern Croatia. Half of the middle part of the altar was preserved, with a large opening in the centre, raised above the rectangular base. On the neck of the central opening, two deeply incised parallel vertical lines (stylised decoration on clothes or stripes hanging from hair) descend to the borderline of fingertip impressions. The closest analogies to this altar type are found at Donja Branjevina and at Govrlevo in Macedonia, where an altar with a statuette of the Great Mother Goddess was discovered (Bilbija, 1986: 35-36, fig. 4).

The Pepelana vessels reflect the particular features of the development of the Starčevo Culture in western Croatia. The predominance of channelled barbotine in the decoration of coarse pottery, the poorly marked biconical forms of the fine vessels, and the rare spiral painted motifs are traits of the Spiraloid A phase. How-ever, the numerical dominance of linear (geometric) motifs over spiral ones distinguished this material as a separate Linear C phase. The Late Classical phase of the Starčevo Culture is marked by the spiral as a new motif on painted pottery. In this period the Starčevo Culture acquires regional particularities. In western parts of continental Croatia, Starčevo settlements belong to the Linear C phase, whereas contemporary settlements in the eastern part belong to the Spiraloid A phase.

CONSIDERATIONS

The numerous archaeological excavations, and 100 sites recorded in the past 25 years in northern Croatia, have favoured a review of the development of the Starčevo Culture from its beginnings to the final stage of its development. The results of research have enabled us to identify the basic elements of the ‘urban’ growth of these settlements, and the arrangement, form, and purpose of the pit structures in them; this will serve as fundamental material for the further investigation of the very first Neolithic cultures in these areas, and the process of the spread of the Neolithic throughout southern Europe.

180 –

R E F E R E N C E S

Aranđelović-Garašanin, D. 1954 - Starčevačka kultura. University of Ljubljana.

Benac, A. 1973 - Obre I, Neolitsko naselje starčevačko-impresso i kakanjske kulture na Raskršću. Glasnik zemaljskog muzeja, XXVII/XXVIII: 5-172. Sarajevo.

Bilbija, M. 1986 - Cerje, neolitsko naselje. Arheološki pregled, 26: 35-36. Ljubljana.

Dimitrijević, S. 1969 - Starčevačka kultura u slavonsko-srijemskom prostoru i problem prijelaza starijeg u srednji neolit u srpskom i hrvatskom podunavlju. Neolit i eneolit u Slavoniji: 9-97. Vukovar.

Dimitrijević, S. 1974 - Problem stupnjevanja starčevačke kulture s posebnim obzirom na doprinos južnopanonskih nalazišta rješavanju ovog problema. Počeci ranih zemljoradničkih kultura u Vojvodini i srpskom Podunavlj. Materijali, X: 59-121. Belgrade.

Dimitrijević, S. 1978 - Neolit u sjeverozapadnoj Hrvatskoj. Arheološka istraživanja u sjeverozapadnoj Hrvatskoj. Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, 2: 71-128. Zagreb.

Dimitrijević, S. 1979 - Sjeverna zona. In Garašanin, M. (ed.) Praistorija Jugoslavenskih zemalja, II: 229-362. Svjetlost i Akademija nauka Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo.

Durman, A. 2000 - Vučedolski orion i najstariji europski kalenda. Vukovar.

Garašanin, M. 1979 - Centralnobalkanska zona. In Garašanin, M. (ed.) Praistorija Jugoslavenskih zemalja, II: 79-213. Svjetlost i Akademija nauka Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo.

Gimbutas, M. 1982 - The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe: 6500 - 3500 BC: Myths and Cult images. University of California Press, Los Angeles.

Hoti, M. 1993 - Prethistorijski korijeni nekih aspekata grčke religije. Thesis submitted for PhD Degree, Zagreb University (unpublished).

Kalicz, N. 1990 - Frühneolithisches Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae, IV. Budapest.

Karmanski, S. 1968 - Neolitski lokaliteti jugozapadne Bačke. Odžaci.

Karmanski, S. 1979 - Donja Branjevina. Odžaci.

Karmanski, S. 1990 - Einige Neufunde zoomorphen Idolplastik aus Donja Branjevina. Odžaci.

Karmanski, S. 2000 - Donja Branjevina, arheološka monografija. Odžaci.

Karmanski, S. 2005 - Donja Branjevina: a Neolithic settlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). Biagi, P. (ed.) Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 10. Trieste.

Krajcar-Bronić, I., Minichreiter, K., Obelić, B. and Horvatinčić, N., 2004 - The Oldest Early Neolithic (Starčevo Culture) settlements in Croatia: Zadubravlje-Dužine and Slavonski Brod-Galovo. Radiocarbon and Archaeology, Fourth International Symposium. Oxford University, School of Archaeology Monograph, 62: 229-245. Oxford.

Kutzian, I. 1944 - The Körös Culture. Budapest. I-LXXV plates.

Kutzian, I. 1947 - The Körös Culture. Budapest.

Lazarovici, G. and Lazarovici, M. 2003 - The Neo-Eneolithic Architecture in Banat, Transylvania and Moldavia. In Grammenos, D.V. (ed.) Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans. Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, 3: 369-486. Thessaloniki.

Makkay, J. 1992 - Excavations at the Körös culture settlement of Endrőd-Öregszőlőg 119 in 1986- 1989. Cultural and Lanscape Changes in South-East Hungary I, Reports on the Gyomaendröd Project. Archaeolingua, 1: 121-193. Budapest.

Makkay, J. 2007 - The excavations of the Early Neolithic sites of the Körös Culture in the Körös Valley, Hungary: the final report. Vol-ume I The excavations: stratigraphy, structure and graves. Starnini, E. and Biagi, P. (eds.) Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 12. Trieste.

Marković, Z. and Minichreiter, K. 2003 - Investigation of the Prehistoric sites in Croatia from 1990 to 2002. In Grammenos, D.V. (ed.) Recent Research in the Prehistory of the Balkans. Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece, 3: 129-175. Thessaloniki.

Milojčić, V. 1950 - Körös - Starčevo - Vinča. Reinecke Festschrift: 108-120. Mainz.

Minichreiter, K. 1990 - Starčevačko naselje u Pepelanama kod Virovitice. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, 3, serija, XXIII: 17-40. Zagreb.

Minichreiter, K. 1990a - Prvi rezultati arheoloških istraživanja u Pepelanama godine 1985. Arheološka istraživanja u Podravini i kalničko-bilogorskoj regiji. Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, 14: 19-38. Zagreb.

Minichreiter, K. 1992 - Starčevačka kultura u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj. Dissertationes et Monographie, 1. Zagreb.

Minichreiter, K. 1992a - Kultni predmeti starčevačke kulture u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 9: 7-22. Zagreb.

– 181

Minichreiter, K. 1992b - Pećinu starčevačkom naselju kod Zadubravlja. Opvscvla Archaeologica, 6: 37-47. Zagreb.

Minichreiter, K. 1992c - Ranoneolitička arhitektura sjeverne Hrvatske. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji, XX: 17-26. Ljubljana.

Minichreiter, K. 1996 - Slikana keramika starčevačke kulture iz Pepelane usjeverozapadnoj Slavoniji. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 10: 7-22. Zagreb.

Minichreiter, K. 1998 - The oldest Neolithic Water-Well in Croatia from the Early Starčevo Settlement near Slavonski Brod. In Brunnen der Jungsteinzeit. Internationales Symposium in Erkelenz 27-29 October 1997. Materialien zur Bodendenkmalpflege im Reinland, 11: 25-31.

Minichreiter, K. 1999 - Ranoneolitički ukopi i pogrebni običaji u naseljima starčevačkog kulturnog kompleksa. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 15-16: 5-19. Zagreb.

Minichreiter, K. 1999a - Zoomorfna idoloplastika obredno-ukopnog prostora starčevačkog lokaliteta na Galovu u Slavonskom Brodu. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 13-14: 7-22. Zagreb.

Minichreiter, K. 2000 - Reljefni prikaz ženskog lika na posudama starčevačke kulture. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 17: 5-15. Zagreb.

Minichreiter, K. 2001 - The architecture of Early and Middle Neolithic settlements of the Starčevo culture in Northern Croatia. Docu-menta Praehistorica, XXVIII: 199-214. Ljubljana.

Minichreiter, K. 2001a - Tipološka klasifikacija keramike rane starčevačke kulture iz stambene zemunice 10 u Zadubravlju. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 18: 5-20. Zagreb.

Minichreiter, K. 2001b - Arhitektura obredno-ukopnog prostora starčevačkog naselja u Slavonskom Brodu. Osječki Zbornik, XXIV-XXV: 9-21. Osijek.

Minichreiter, K. 2002 - Žrtvenici i idoli starčevačkog naselja na Galovu u Slavonskom Brodu. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 19: 11-24. Zagreb.

Minichreiter, K. 2003 - Prilog poznavanju ornamentike na gruboj keramici starčevačkog naselja na Galovu u Slavonskom Brodu. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 20: 15-26. Zagreb.

Minichreiter, K. 2004 - Radionica glinenih predmeta i tkanina u naselju starčevačke kulture na Galovu u Slavonskom Brodu. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 21: 5-18. Zagreb.

Minichreiter, K. 2005 - Zadubravlje-kultni predmeti u naselju starčevačke kulture. Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu, 22: 5-24. Zagreb.

Srejović, D. 1969 - Naslednici. Lepenski Vir, nova praistorijska kultura u Podunavlju. Srpska književna zadruga, Beograd.

Srejović, D. (ed.) 1988 - The Neolithic of Serbia. Belgrade.

Šimić, J. 1986 - Nastavak istraživanja ranoneolitičkog lokaliteta u Kneževim Vinogradima. Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, 3: 35-36. Zagreb.

Tasić, N. and Tomić, E. 1969 - Crnokalačka bara, naselje starčevačke i vinčanske Culture: 9-82. Belgrade.

Težak-Gregl, T. 2002 - Polished stone implements of the Neolithic Starčevo Culture in Northern Croatia. Opuscola Archaeologica, 26: 13-17. Zagreb.

Trbojević-Vukičević, T. and Babić, K. 1999 - Analiza animalnih ostataka iskopanih godine 1997. iz arheološkog iskopišta lokacije Ciglana - Slavonski Brod. Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, 3: 63-70. Zagreb.

Vladar, J. and Lichardus, J. 1968 - Erforschung der Frühaneolithischen Siedlung in Branč, Slovenska Archaeologia, XVI (2): 273-283. Nitra-Hrad.

Author’s Address:KORNELIJA MINICHREITER, Institute of Archaeology, Zagreb University, Ul. grada Vukovara 68 – HR - 10000 ZAGREBe-mail: [email protected]

– 183



VASSIL NIKOLOV*

PROBLEMS OF THE EARLY STAGES OF THE NEOLITHIZATION IN THE SOUTHEAST BALKANS

SUMMARY - Problems of the early stages of the Neolithization in the southeast Balkans. A “mosaic” of cultural phenomena was estab-lished at the beginning of the Early Neolithic in the southeast Balkans. These phenomena have been differentiated mainly on the basis of pottery decoration, because the earliest Neolithic developments usually featured significant differences in decoration. However, if there was painted decoration, it was always made with white paint. Without listing these phenomena here, it is possible to define several smaller or larger zones in the study area. This “mosaic” does not allow us to unambiguously solve the complexities of the Neolithization process in the southeast Balkans. A hypothesis of multiple Neolithization processes is proposed.

RIASSUNTO - Problemi riguardanti le prime fasi della neolitizzazione dei Balcani sudorientali. All’inizio del Neolitico antico, la re-gione sudorientale dei Balcani è caratterizzata da un mosaico di aspetti culturali. Questi aspetti sono stati distinti in base alle decorazioni presenti sui prodotti vascolari, in quanto quelle dei momenti più antichi del Neolitico si differenziano in modo significativo dalle altre. Inoltre, nel caso in cui siano presenti motivi dipinti, questi sono sempre stati eseguiti con pittura di colore bianco. Benché non si ritenga necessario elencare tutti questi fenomeni nella sede presente, è possibile definire delle aree di distribuzione più e meno estese nella regione presa in considerazione. Questo mosaico non ci permette comunque di risolvere in modo chiaro la complessità del processo di neolitizzazione dei Balcani sudorientali. L’autore propone un’ipotesi che contempla processi multipli di neolitizzazione.

INTRODUCTION

The origin of the Early Neolithic painted pottery cultures in the central parts of the Balkan Peninsula is largely related to south and mostly southwest Anatolia. Important indications in this sense are not only the undisputed typological similarities in the material culture but also the geographical connection between the two regions which, along with the Aegean islands, form a clearly defined arc from the Taurus Mountains to the Carpathian Basin. Two other neighbouring regions, north and especially northwest Anatolia, and the eastern parts of the Balkan Peninsula (up to Moldova) remain between this ‘outer arc’ and the Black Sea; unlike the ‘outer arc’, the Early Neolithic culture in the ‘inner arc’ is characterized by dark unpainted pottery.

In previous research (Nikolov, 1987; 1989) I have established the use of the Mesta and especially the Struma River valleys as routes through which Anatolian elements spread from south to north in the central Balkans during the early Balkan Neolithic. A hypothesis was advanced that the Early Neolithic culture in Thrace had spread out through the Central Balkans. Meanwhile, part of the area of Hoca Çeşme at the Maritsa River mouth has been excavated. The first results of these excavations again aroused the interest in an earlier hypothesis that the Neolithic development in Thrace (as well as in southeastern Europe) had been due to contacts with Anatolia through the Straights.

According to data from Hoca Çeşme (Özdoğan, 1998), a small early farming group appeared towards the end of the 7th millennium cal BC along the Aegean coast of eastern Thrace, near the Maritsa River mouth. This group had a specific material culture that differed significantly from the culture in Thrace. Undoubt-edly, this group came from the western Mediterranean coast of Anatolia. As soon as the site of the Anatolian settlers was established, although on a crest, it was surrounded by a massive stone-wall. During the first two phases of its development the houses were small and round and the walls were built of stone or had a timber-and-stone structure. There were no ovens or silos. The ceramic vessels found have flat bottoms, orange-red ——————————* National Institute of Archaeology and Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria

184 –

or black smoothed non-slipped surfaces without decoration. During the third phase the plan and character of the settlement changed but the stone-wall enclosure remained. In shape and structure, the houses resembled those from inland Thrace; they were rectangular, with walls of wattle-and-daub construction. Along with the traditional unpainted pottery, red-slipped vessels with white-painted ornamentation appeared that were common in the Early Neolithic in inland Thrace. Later on the Anatolian settlers were obviously completely assimilated.

In Thrace, the material culture of Hoca Çeşme type has been known only from the eponymous site at the Maritsa River mouth. Only one site from the first half of the 6th millennium cal BC has been excavated in the eastern parts of Eastern Thrace, the Yarımburgaz Cave near Istanbul (Özdoğan et al., 1991). During this period it was occupied by an early farming group belonging to the Fikirtepe Culture, which spread over northwest Anatolia. It is only in the pottery technology that elements of Hoca Çeşme influence can be observed (specific color and method of surface polishing). The sites of the Karanovo I Culture in Thrace which are geographically closest to Hoca Çeşme, are those at Krumovgrad and Kardzhali in the east Rhodope Moun-tains. Only at Krumovgrad, have two potsherds been found, similar to the pottery of the first two phases of Hoca Çeşme. At Makri in Western Thrace, near the Maritsa River mouth, a head of a female clay figurine has been found, belonging to an Anatolian type (Efstratiou, 1993). This was an unstratified find but could be chronologically related to the Makri I layer that is contemporaneous with the later phases of Karanovo I Culture. No other evidence of possible spreading of elements of the material culture of the Anatolian group in Thrace has been established.

The hypothesis of the migration route through the Straights, which has been theoretically suggested many years ago, was not supported even by the studies on the earliest Neolithic sites in the Marmara Sea area, includ-ing Pendik, Yarımburgaz, Ilıpınar and Menteşe. M. Özdoğan and L. Thissen (Nikolov, 2002) have argued that northwest Anatolia had no role in the Balkan Neolithization. Therefore, I will not examine these arguments again. After having analyzed the data on Hoca Çeşme, the area of the lower course of Maritsa, including the east Rhodope, can also be eliminated as a hypothetical contact zone at that time between Anatolia and the Bal-kans through the high central and western divides of the Rhodope Mountains, which reaches the Mesta River valley to the west.

Therefore, I will focus my attention on Mesta, Struma and Vardar River Valleys, which geographically connect the Aegean area with the Carpathian Basin. The many particular indications for connections between Anatolia and the Central Balkans, which I have considered in previous research, refer exclusively to the second half of the Early Neolithic in the valleys of these three Balkan rivers. The material culture of the first half of the Early Neolithic in the same area, however, does not suggest contacts with Anatolia at this stage. This situation presents an interesting research problem that I will consider here.

The culture of the earliest farmers in the Central Balkans has been insufficiently studied since all the evi-dence comes from excavations carried out over the last two decades, which have been only partially published. The red and brown rounded pottery vessels are the common element in the material culture of the area; some of them are white-painted.

The use of white paint only in the ornamentation is a distinguishing feature of the first half of the early Neolithic in the Central Balkans that should be dated towards the end of the 7th and beginning of the 6th millen-nium cal BC. According to the stylistic and iconographic features of the painted ornamentation of that period, several territorially limited phenomena can be identified, which I will consider from south to north in the catch-ment areas of the three meridial rivers as well as in areas related to them (fig. 1).

THE EARLY NEOLITHIC REGIONS

The Vardar Area

Nea Nikomedeia and Gianitsa B. have been studied in the Gianitsa Plain (Chrysostomou and Chrysostomou, 1993; Rodden and Wardle, 1996). The pottery of their lower layers includes rounded white-painted vessels, though rarely light-red painted pottery is also occasionally encountered. The latter indicates certain relationships with Thessaly to the south. The white-painted ornamentation shows filled-in ‘pseudo-floral’ motifs as well as motifs of thin parallel straight or undulating lines. The first stylistic group has some parallels to the north along the Vardar River valley whereas motifs similar to the second group can be found at Kovačevo (Lichardus-Itten et al., 2002) in the Struma River Valley.

– 185

Fig. 1 - Distribution map of the earliest sites of the Early Neolithic in the south-central Balkans.

An Early Neolithic pottery group has been established along the middle Vardar, which is represented in the lowest layers of the stratified sites at Anzabegovo and Vršnik. The white-painted ornamentation of some deep rounded vessels shows floral motifs, shaded triangles, parallel zigzag bands or bands of large dots. The first stylistic group has parallels to the south, in the area already described, as well as to the northeast along the upper Struma.

The Struma Area

No cultural phenomenon dating back to the beginning of the Early Neolithic has so far been recorded along the lower river course.

Along the middle River Struma course, between the Rupel and Kresna ravines, a pottery assemblage with rounded and slightly biconical shapes developed at the beginning of the Early Neolithic. Up to now this assem-blage has been investigated at the lowermost layers of the stratified site at Kovačevo (Lichardus-Itten et al., 2002) but also known from other sites in the area. Some vessels are white-painted. One of the stylistic groups is characterized by motifs with thin straight or undulating parallel lines flanked with small dots. The second stylistic group is represented by similar motifs but in combination with triangular or sigma elements. The third stylistic group includes shaded triangles or bands. This early assemblage from Kovačevo has certain stylistic and iconographic parallels in the Gianitsa Plain, Vardar River Valley, the area to the north along the Struma and, particularly, the Upper Mesta.

Another cultural phenomenon has been established in the southern part of the Upper Struma course, which is represented in the lowermost layers of the stratified sites at Vaksevo and Nevestino (Chohadzhiev, 2001).

186 –

The pottery vessels are mainly rounded in shape but there are also slightly biconical bowls. The white-painted ornamentation is represented by several stylistic groups that involve ‘pseudo-floral’ motifs, thin parallel lines, shaded triangles and bands, rows of small or large dots, sigma-shaped elements. These stylistic groups have contemporary parallels in all directions.

A short-lived cultural phenomenon has been investigated along the upper Dzherman River, possibly si-multaneous with the early phases of the neighbouring cultural groups. Its pottery assemblage involves deep rounded shapes but without painted decoration. Probably after a short interruption, life in that place continued with a material culture of the type established at Vaksevo.

A later cultural phenomenon - Gălăbnik І - has been established in the northern part of the Upper Struma, in the Radomir basin (Pavúk and Bakămska, 2000). Most ceramic shapes are rounded but slightly biconical shapes can also be found. The white-painted ornamentation is composed of inseparably interconnected motifs that involve filled-in or shaded fields as well as negative elements in-between including spiral meanders. Similar stylistic phenomena can be found mainly to the south in the Struma valley.

Further north, in the eastern part of the Sofia Basin, the Slatina cultural group developed at the beginning of the early Neolithic (Nikolov et al., 1992). The pottery vessels are rounded and mostly deep. Some are white-painted. The compositions are strictly organized and involve diamond-shaped and triangular motifs that are often shaded as well as compositions of negative interconnected spiral meanders. The motifs are often flanked with dots. The stylistic and iconographic parallels of this ornamentation can be identified in the westernmost parts of Thrace and along the Upper Mesta River.

The Mesta Area

No Early Neolithic evidence has been so far found along the lower river course and the area at its middle course was probably uninhabited during that period.

A cultural phenomenon existed at the Upper Mesta at the beginning of the Early Neolithic that has been established at Eleshnitsa (Nikolov and Maslarov, 1987). The pottery assemblage involves rounded and slightly biconical shapes. Some vessels have white-painted ornamentation represented mainly by triangular and dia-mond-shaped motifs, often shaded. Compositions including negative spiral meanders can also be found as well as compositions of garlands. Some of these compositions have stylistic parallels at Kovačevo along the middle Struma River; other parallels can be found in the western parts of Thrace and the Slatina cultural group in the Sofia Basin.

The only so far pottery assemblage from the first half of the Early Neolithic in Thrace comes from the lowermost layer of Tell Kapitan Dimitrievo in the western part of this area (Nikolov, 1999). The ceramic shapes are rounded and some vessels are white-painted. Triangular and diamond-shaped motifs prevail that are often shaded, as well as compositions of garlands and negative spiral meanders. By its stylistic features this orna-mentation can be associated with contemporary assemblages from Eleshnitsa and Slatina.

The pottery assemblages of that period to the north of the areas presented in the Central Balkans, insofar as these assemblages exist, differ considerably from those already described and therefore remain outside the scope of this paper.

CONCLUSION

I have identified nine pottery groups in the southern part of the Central Balkans that refer to the first half of the Early Neolithic, i.e. to the end of the 7th and beginning of the 6th millennium cal BC. Future excavations will probably increase their number. Each territorially identified group has definite iconographic and stylistic specifics in terms of ornamentation and at the same time it shows certain similarities to the ornamentation of neighbouring groups. It is not possible here to analyze the similarities and differences in detail but I will sug-gest some general conclusions. A limited number of similar pottery shapes were used in all groups: shallow or deep bowls, pots, and hemispherical bowls. The vessels have a non-segmented rounded body but there are also bowls of slightly biconical shape. A small portion of the pottery is ornamented in white. Despite the specifics in style and iconography of each group, a certain territorial grouping seems feasible. The groups from the Vardar and Struma areas up to and including Gălăbnik І, show closer similarity based primarily on floral motifs as well as motifs of several parallel straight or undulating lines. The Eleshnitsa, Kapitan Dimitrievo and Slatina groups outline another stylistic and iconographic area that is characterized by the use of geometric motifs as

– 187

well as by compositions of negative spiral meanders. However, the site at Kovačevo, which is located at the watershed between Struma and Mesta, shows signs not only of the western but also of the eastern area; I mean the ornamentation of the Eleshnitsa type in the lowermost layer. This suggests not only the location of the site on a communications route between the Struma and Mesta Valleys but also the spreading of the Eleshnitsa group to the south up to the middle course of Mesta.

The identification of two stylistic and iconographic areas during the first half of the Early Neolithic in the southern part of the Central Balkans as well as the characteristics of the decorative patterns give food for thought. The pottery shapes in these areas find similarities in the central and western part of Anatolia but their ornamentation has no direct parallels there. However, the pottery decoration of that period in these areas of Anatolia was sporadic and poor. The existence of two stylistic and iconographic areas in the Central Balkans is probably due to the different areas of origin of the possible migration groups from Anatolia as well as to reasons occurring after their settlement in the Balkans, e.g. the need for permanent settlements in view of the challenges of the local natural environment. The mosaic of pottery assemblages, distinct although close in shape, style and iconography, from the beginning of the Early Neolithic in the southern part of the Central Balkans probably hints at a chronological sequence in the migration of human groups from Anatolia, who gradually settled the next unoccupied ecological niche to the north along the valleys of the three rivers and adopted certain basic ornamental principles from their neighbors that had moved to the area before them, or to the adjoining naturally confined zone, be it a valley or basin. I would even suggest that the white-painted ornamentation - note that red paint was used in the ‘homeland’! - appeared at the new place, in the Balkans, after the first migration wave, mainly as a result of the need for consolidation and self-identification of the newly formed community whose immigrants probably had come from various sites in the original Anatolian area. Therefore, the search for the roots of the earliest Balkan farming material culture in Anatolia will be a very difficult task especially with regard to the pottery assemblage and its painted ornamentation.

188 –

R E F E R E N C E S

Chohadzhiev, S. 2001 - Vaksevo. Praistoricheski selishta. Faber, Veliko Tarnovo.

Chrysostomou, P. and Chrysostomou, P. 1993 - Neolithikes erevnes sta Yianitsa ke stin periohi tous. To arheoloyiko ergo sti Makedonia ke Thraki, 4: 169-186. Thessaloniki.

Efstratiou, N. 1993 - New prehistoric finds from Western Thrace, Greece. Anatolica, 19: 34-40. Leiden.

Lichardus-Itten, M., Demoule, J.-P., Perničeva, L., Grebska-Kulova, M. and Kulov, I. 2002 - The site of Kovačevo and the Begin-nings of the Neolithic Period in Southwestern Bulgaria. The French-Bulgarian excavations 1986-2000. In Lichardus-Itten, M., Lichardus, J. and Nikolov, V. (eds.) Beiträge zu jungsteinzeitlichen Forschungen in Bulgarien. Saarbrücker Beiträgen zum Altertumskunde, 74: 99-158. Habelt, Bonn.

Nikolov, V. 1987 - Beiträge zu den Beziehungen zwischen Vorderasien und Südosteuropa auf-grund der frühneolithischen bemalten Keramik aus dem Zentralbalkan. Acta praehistorica et archaeologica, 19: 7-18. Berlin.

Nikolov, V. 1989 - Das Flusstal der Struma als Teil der Strasse von Anatolien nach Mitteleuropa. In Bökönyi, S. and Raczky, P. (eds.) Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, 2: 191-199. Institute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest.

Nikolov, V. 2002 - Nochmals über die Kontakte zwischen Anatolien und dem Balkan im 6. Jt. v. Ch. In Aslan, A., Blum, S., Kastl, G., Schweizer, F. and Thumm, D. (eds.) Mauerschau: Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann, 2: 673-678. Remshalden-Grünbach, Greiner.

Nikolov, V. (ed.) 1999 - Selishtna mogila Kapitan Dimitrievo. Razkopki 1998-1999. Arheologicheski institut s muzey, Sofia-Peshtera.

Nikolov, V., Grigorova, K. and Sirakova, E. 1992 - Die Ausgrabungen in der frühneolithischen Siedlung von Sofia-Slatina, Bulgarien, in der Jahren 1985-1988. Acta praehistorica et archaeologica, 24: 221-233. Berlin.

Nikolov, V. and Maslarov, K. 1987 - Ancient Settlements near Eleshnitsa. Sofia Press, Sofia.

Özdoğan, M. 1998 - Hoca Çeşme. An early Neolithic Anatolian colony in the Balkans? In Anreiter, P., Bartosiewicz, L., Jerem, E. and Meid, W. (eds.) Man and the animal world. Archaeolingua, 8: 435-451. Budapest.

Özdoğan, M., Miyake, Y., and Özbaşaran Dede, N. 1991 - An interim report on excavations at Yarımburgaz and Toptepe in Eastern Thrace. Anatolica, 17: 59-121.

Pavúk, J. and Bakămska, A. 2000 - Typologie und Stratigraphie der verzierten Keramik aus der neolithischen Tellsiedlung in Gălăbnik. In Hiller, S. and Nikolov, V. (eds.) Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa: 263-272. Phoibos, Wien.

Rodden R. and Wardle, K. (eds.) 1996 - Nea Nikomedeia. The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961-1964. Vol. 1. The Excavation and the Ceramic Assemblage. The British School at Athens, Supp. Vol. London.

Author’s Address:VASSIL NIKOLOV, National Institute of Archaeology and Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2 Saborna St. – BG - 1000 SOFIAe-mail: [email protected]

– 189



KRUM BACVAROV*

JAR BURIALS AS EARLY SETTLEMENT MARKERS IN SOUTHEAST EUROPEAN NEOLITHIC

SUMMARY - Jar burials as early settlement markers in southeast European Neolithic. Jar burials, as a specific manifestation of pre-historic mortuary practices, are related to an early phase of Neolithic development in southeast Europe, and probably even to Neolithiza-tion itself. Found sporadically in the broader context of other disposal types related to the domestic/mortuary space, including formal or secondary inhumation or even cremation, jar burials nevertheless show certain cultural and chronological features, which could be considered in relation to the problems of the directions and results of early farming interactions in the southeast European Neolithic. The fact that the area of the Struma and Vardar Valleys, and the west Rhodope emerged as a core area of jar burial distribution, is in keeping with the overall picture of the Neolithic development in the Balkans. The significance of these specific infant burials in the living space of the Neolithic societies stands out as a cultural marker, not least related to their special role in the early farming cult.

RIASSUNTO - Le sepolture in urna come indicatori di insediamenti antichi nel Neolitico dell’Europa sud-orientale. Le sepulture in urna, una manifestazione specifica delle pratiche funerarie preistoriche, sono connesse allo sviluppo del Neolitico dell’Europa sud-orientale, e probabilmente anche alla sua stessa neolitizzazione. Benché rinvenute sporadicamente nell’insieme di altre deposizioni nello spazio domestico/funerario, che comprende anche l’inumazione formale e secondaria o persino la cremazione, presentano alcune caratteristiche culturali e cronologiche, che potrebbero venire prese in considerazione nel quadro dei problemi relativi ai primi agricoltori dell’Europa sud-orientale. Nello sviluppo del Neolitico nei Balcani, le regioni dello Struma, del Vardar ed il Rodope occidentale, rappresentano l’area centrale della distribuzione delle sepolture in urna. Queste particolari sepolture di bambini, all’interno dello spazio domestico delle società neolitiche, si presentano come indicatori culturali non meno importanti di quello cultuale dei primi agricoltori.

INTRODUCTION

Because of their small number in the similarly scanty burial sample of southeast European later prehistory, as well as because of their sporadic appearance and usually unclear contexts in the archaeological record, buri-als in ceramic vessels were more or less ignored in general studies on the Neolithic. The rare examples from this wide territory - almost always, published in ‘unreadable’ languages - were normally dismissed as curious exceptions.

However, an unbiased consideration of these specific mortuary practices shows that jar burial - which is the earliest type of burial in ceramic vessels - is related to the earlier phases of the Neolithic. A typical product of early farmers’ symbolism, jar burial appeared at an early phase of southeast European Neolithization, although certainly not at the very beginning.

Early jar burial development in southeast Europe displays two distinct chronological levels, which could be defined as two separate chronological and territorial waves: an Early Neolithic core area in the Struma and Vardar River Valleys and the west Rhodope, and later, Late/Final Neolithic and/or Chalcolithic - depending on local terminology - manifestations scattered in various places across the study area.

Jar burial seems related to certain later developments, such as the cremation burials in clay urns that were excavated in Thrace and Thessaly. Besides, if one considers these practices in the wider territorial framework of Anatolia and the Levant, it becomes obvious that parallels do exist and that they are more or less contem-poraneous. It is in such a wide territorial and cultural context that jar burial should be examined, in order to trace back its origins and development as well as its symbolic content and its place in the prehistoric mortuary practices (fig. 1).——————————* National Institute of Archaeology and Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria

190 –

Fig. 1 - Distribution map of the southeastern European and central Anatolian jar burial sites (1), and of the Levantine jar burial sites (2): ○ Earlier jar burials; ● Later jar burials.

– 191

INTERPRETATIVE FRAMEWORK

The ordinary pit is reasonably conceived as the archetype of the grave structure. It is obviously the sim-plest but sufficiently definite form of fulfillment of the idea of human remains’ disposal through burial, which developed after the original covering of the deceased on the ground with grass, tree branches or hides, and later with soil and/or stones. Many of those who have explored southeast European Neolithic burials believe that the grave pit and hence the very burial of the dead had not been paid special attention; they illustrate their case with examples of trash pits usage (Jоvanović, 1967: 13; Garašanin, 1973: 27; Brukner, 1974). It was even proposed that intramural burials had not belonged to local community members but to their defeated foes, and that the dead of the same Neolithic community had been buried in extramural cemeteries (Csalog, 1965). In my opinion, the main reason for the wide circulation of this thesis in one form or another is the fact that most Neolithic burials lack any grave goods and that the pits’ backfill is the same soil as the cultural deposit, which contains various artefacts; hence the seemingly reasonable conclusion that the dead were ‘thrown away’ but not buried.

Such an argument is unacceptable, especially if one considers the fact that, at least for the area of southeast Europe, it is based on the incorrect interpretation of grave pits as refuse pits. Certainly their backfill is often identical to that of the refuse pits, and the difference between them is rather ‘archaeologically elusive’. The presence of a great number of sherds and animal bones does not automatically transform pits into refuse pits, as is obvious, for instance, from two ritual pits at Parţa I (Resch, 1991; see also the analysis of the so-called structured deposition in Chapman, 2000).

Besides, there is the case of the re-use of existing pits, for instance pits left from clay digging, as was shown at Ajmana in the Danube Gorges (Stalio, 1992: 65f.), and of silos, as at Nea Nikomedeia in western Macedonia (Rodden, 1962: 286). On the other hand, there are unquestionable examples of rejection or isolation of the de-ceased, as at Vaxevo in the Struma Valley, where the situation unambiguously demonstrated that the dead body had been thrown in the pit (Cholakov, 1991: 231f.; fig. 1; Chohadzhiev, 2001: 170f.; fig. 10). Quite instructive in this respect is burial 285 at Çatal Höyük, which is the only one outside the buildings. The anthropological analysis shows pathological changes suggesting that the deceased young man probably suffered all his life from a serious disease, which was the cause of external deformities (Molleson et al., 1998).

Last but not least, the refuse pits interpretations always fail to consider the graves beneath house floors, which are especially valuable as arguments against this thesis. Their position does not allow us to suppose that they belong to rejected individuals; neither are they limited to infants and children only in order to be explained as sacrifices, although it is not very clear either why these so-called sacrifices should be related to children. In this sense, it is worth remembering that the burials in the Anatolian Neolithic and early Chalcolithic are most often not interpreted as belonging to marginal members of the local communities, and they generally correspond to the southeast European burials, both culturally and formally.

The grave pit was considered in the same semantic context as the contracted position of the body. If the symbolic meaning of the body position is interpreted as embryonic, it is completely reasonable to view the pit as the womb of the divinity. The later megalithic tombs in northern Europe had similar significance; their entrance was viewed as the divine vagina, and the bringing of the dead body into the tomb imitated an act of impregnation (Gräslund, 1994: 22ff.). Of course, burial structures of a semantically similar plan existed as early as the Starčevo period at Zlatara in Srem and at Vinča-Belo Brdo (Vasić, 1936: 9ff.; Leković, 1985: 159ff.), and are a logical evolution of the ordinary pits. It is clear that, as a whole, the mortuary rituals reproduced the mythological act of Creation and the burial structures played a fundamental role in them.

An additional argument here is the group of graves in southeast Europe where the human remains were buried in clay pots. This practice was common in the Levant, both in earlier and contemporary contexts. The clay pot itself was also considered as a womb but this symbolic aspect had been secondarily augmented in burial contexts, as is the case with the later Alishar Hüyük, where two of the urns were modeled with conical breasts (Schmidt, 1932: 72). In its symbolic aspect of a vessel, a container, the womb of the divinity, the pot - without respect to the material - played a significant role in many rituals, even in historical times. One specific feature of the burial in clay pots in the Neolithic, which differentiates it from the evolution of this practice in later periods, is the re-use of vessels, which originally had a different function and had not been made especially for the burial. The original purpose - both real and symbolic - of the clay pots from Neolithic sites has remained unknown but the tradition of burying in silos can be traced back to the Levant, for instance, at Eynan (Mellaart, 1975: 37). It is worth considering the burials from Ajmana and Nea Nikomedeia again and especially the original purpose of the grave pits: the former was a pit left from clay digging and the latter was an old silo. Certainly one should

192 –

not belittle the expedient aspects of pit re-use either, but it is evident that there is a semantic similarity to the clay pot on the one hand, and to the grain, on the other. The burial in a vessel/pit - which is a container/womb - obviously reproduced the mythological act of creation; it confirms again the symbolic relationship between grave/death/burial and grain/fertility/rebirth (Bacvarov, 2003: 129ff.). In this sense, on a practical level, these clay pots were originally used as food containers, cooking pots or for other purposes and were later re-used in burials as death-containing vessels; on a symbolic level they were originally used as containers of culturally transformed or transforming matter, or matter prepared for transformation in the future and were later re-used in burials as birth-giving vessels. All these were different aspects of the same concept in the religio-mythologi-cal beliefs of the early farmers.

BURIAL TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION

However, the burials in clay pots are not a homogenous entity, but can be separated into three different types with specific features of their own: typical jar burials, secondary burials and cremation burials. Before the detailed analysis of jar burials, I will consider the other two types, with respect to their origins and territo-rial distribution.

Only one Early Neolithic secondary collective burial has been found so far. It was discovered in Layer III at Tell Azmak in Upper Thrace and belongs to the Karanovo I Culture. The clay pot contained several skulls (the excavator did not give the exact number) as well as separate bones (Georgiev, 1966: 9f.). This find, how-ever, is not unique in a broader chronological framework; a separate skull of a small girl (0-3 months) was buried in a high-pedestalled bowl (fig. 3, n. 2) at the prehistoric cemetery of Mórágy-Tűzkődomb in southern Transdanubia (Zalai-Gaál, 2002: 123; Taf. 46f.). Another skull was placed in the bottom of a broken jar at the late Neolithic Alepotrypa cave in Laconia (Papathanassopoulos, 1996: 175). Besides, secondary burial in ceramic vessels could be related to the secondary burials in ordinary pits, for instance, from Layers II and IV of Tell Karanovo (Bacvarov, 2000).

This is not the case with the second type known from as many as nine sites in southeast Europe and related to the cremation burial. A large (?) clay pot containing the burnt bones of a child was found close to the oven in a house from the Early Neolithic layer at Tell Azmak (fig. 2, n. 4). The pot was most probably buried beneath the house floor, but this is not explicitly stated in the only source available: the ground plan of the house published in 1972 (Georgiev, 1972: 17, Abb. 4). This burial is not unique in southeast Europe, although it is the only one found in Thrace. Cremation burials in clay pots were found in the late Starčevo layer at Vinča-Belo Brdo, at the Körös site of Gorza in the Tisza Valley and in the Late Neolithic layer at Vršac in the Banat (Vasić, 1936: 182; Milleker, 1938: 166; Garašanin, 1956: 209; Gazdapusztai, 1957). The burials from Vinča, Gorza and Vršac formally correspond to the Azmak complex; the calcined bones were interred in clay pots.

More numerous examples of cremation burials in pots come from Souphli Magoula and Plateia Ma-goula Zarkou and Dimini in eastern Thessaly (Gallis, 1975; 1996a; 1996b) as well as in Suplacu de Barcău and Tăşad in Transylvania (Ignat, 1985). At Souphli, besides the charred skeletal remains buried in round pits with grave goods and belonging to the Early Neolithic Protosesklo Culture, seven pots containing charred bones were found to the south of the Magoula, belonging to the Tzangli-Larissa phase of the Di-mini Culture. The cemetery of Plateia was excavated at less than 500 m from the site; it contained more than seventy cremation burials in clay pots covered with other pots, in one case a zoomorphic vessel. The grave pits were surrounded with stones or, in some cases, the bottom of the pits was covered with a layer of pebbles. Smaller vessels were buried as grave goods. At Dimini the partially burnt bones of a small child were found in a carinated bowl, and at Suplacu de Barcău a cremation burial of a young woman with two more vessels was excavated.

Cremation was known as a ritual practice as early as the Late Palaeolithic but the bones were often only superficially burnt (Binant, 1991: 145f.). Such burials were found at Epipalaeolithic sites as well, though rather occasionally: in the Kebara Cave in the Levant, at Beldibi in southeast Anatolia, at Franchthi in eastern Peloponnesus and at Vlasac in the Danube Gorges (Bostanci, 1959: 147; Angel, 1969: 380; Srejović and Letica, 1978: 149; Bar-Yosef, 1987: 229; Cullen, 1995). However, it is possible that burnt human bones have not always been distinguished from animal bones. At Franchthi cave, the skeletal remains of about thirty human individuals were recovered after careful sieving of the soil and analysis of the animal bones (Cullen, 1995: 274).

– 193

There are many different interpretations of Neolithic cremation burials, ranging from a means of pu-rification to a way of releasing the spirit. Ina Wunn (2001: 134ff.) assumes that the burials from Souphli and Plateia are clear indicators of the belief in the existence of a soul, which detaches from its earthly shell through cremation, thus facilitating its transformation into another existential form. I cannot agree with the idea that these practices come as a result of elaboration of the concepts of the after-world because they ap-peared too early. It is rather that cremation burial was considered in the same religio-mythological context as inhumation in a contracted position, but in an aspect, more closely related to the fire. This conclusion is supported by the fact that in most cases the cremated human remains were interred in clay pots whose symbolic meaning has already been considered here. The position of the Azmak burial near the oven should be viewed in the same light.

Another clue to the symbolic interpretation of cremation burials in clay pots is the fact that the complexes from Tell Azmak and Gorza are earlier, whereas the rest are of a later date. The Azmak burial - and probably the burial from Gorza? - belonged to a child, which maybe relates it more closely to the formal individual inhumations than to the ‘classical’ Late Neolithic cremation burials; it should also be noted that it was found beneath a house floor.

JAR BURIALS: THE DATA SET

Four cases of formal inhumation in a ceramic vessel - or jar burials - have been found in the Early Neo-lithic of southeast Europe: two at Kovačevo in the Struma River Valley, one at Rakitovo in the west Rhodope Mountains and one at Anza in the Vardar River Valley (fig. 1, n. 1). The skeletal remains belong to newborn or stillborn infants, buried in a contracted position.

KovačevoKovačevo is a stratified site in the Struma River Valley which covers an area of c. 7 ha (Lichardus-Itten

et al., 2002). It has been excavated since the 1980s by a joint Bulgarian-French team (M. Lichardus-Itten, J.-P. Demoule and L. Pernicheva). Cultural deposits extend to a depth of c. 2 m. The partially destroyed upper layers - Kovačevo III and II - contain Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age material. The lower four layers - Kovačevo Ia-Id - belong to the Early Neolithic and represent a southwestern variant of the Karanovo I Culture.

Later periods - Iron Age, Roman, Middle Ages etc. - are sporadically present. Different phases could be dis-tinguished within Kovačevo II and III, based on typological observation, since there is no stratigraphic evidence to separate them on the site. The four Early Neolithic periods are established on the grounds of stratigraphic evidence. These four periods possibly contain several phases of occupation.

Five pit burials were found in the Kovačevo I layer; two more came from the layer, defined as Middle Neolithic. The burials belong to newborn or even stillborn infants and children up to 6.5 years of age. They had been interred between houses in a flexed or crouched position, on the side or in a semi-seated position, and were aligned with their heads to the east, west or north. In three of the burials, it is assumed that children had been wrapped up in a thick fabric, most probably a leather bag or a mat. Various contexts in the site - for instance, pits - yielded separate fragments of human bones.

Two jar burials were found in the Early Neolithic Kovačevo Id layer. The first burial belongs to a stillborn infant, buried in a pot (c. 30 cm high) covered with a clay lid. The skeleton was complete; the boy has been buried in a hyperflexed position on the right side, with the head aligned to the north (fig. 2, n. 1). The second child burial has still to be published. It probably belongs to a very young infant, again buried in a clay pot.

RakitovoRakitovo is a stratified site in the west Rhodope Mountains, completely excavated in 1974-1975 by A.

Raduncheva and V. Matsanova. It covered an area of c. 3300 sq m. The destroyed upper layers belonged to the Late Neolithic Karanovo III-IV period and probably to the early Neolithic Karanovo I Culture. Both lower lay-ers were preserved, extending to 54 m and 80 cm depth, respectively. Both belonged to the Karanovo I Culture (Raduncheva et al., 2002).

The only jar burial was found in Layer II, under the floor of house 16, by the western wall. It belonged to a neonate, buried in a fine-ware necked jar (fig. 2, n. 2). The soil in the jar yielded grave goods, which is very rare for an early Neolithic infant burial: lumps of red ochre and a flint blade.

194 –

Fig. 2 - Jar burial from Kovačevo (1) (after Lichardus-Itten et al., 2002); jar burial from Rakitovo (2) (after Raduncheva et al., 2002); jar burial from Anza (3) (after Gimbutas, 1976); Cremation burial from Azmak (4) (after Georgiev, 1972).

– 195

AnzaAnzabegovo is a stratified site in the Vardar River Valley, excavated by M. Garašanin and M. Gimbutas

in 1969-1970 (Gimbutas, 1976; Garašanin, 1998). Three Early Neolithic layers (Anza III-I) were revealed, yielding painted pottery. Anza layer IV is equivalent to Vinča A.

The three Early Neolithic layers and the Vinča А layer yielded skeletal remains of at least thirty-four indi-viduals - in most cases, separate bones - representing seventeen new-born babies and children, five juveniles, and twelve adults.

Five inhumations in a crouched position were excavated under house floors in M. Garašanin’s trench. Infant bones were found in a pit from the Anza Ic layer; the same layer yielded a grave of two young females buried in a crouched position, one on top of the other.

A jar burial was found in the Anza Ic layer. It belonged to a neonate buried in a necked jar, whose four handles have been broken together with the bottom, most probably intentionally (fig. 2, n. 3).

The Regional Context

The later sites considered here, extend the regional context of jar burial’s core area (fig. 1, n. 1).

EzeroEzero is a tell site in Upper Thrace, near the town of Nova Zagora (Georgiev et al., 1979). Cultural deposits

extend to c. 10 m depth. It was excavated by G.I. Georgiev and N.Y. Merpert in 1960s and the early 1970s. Covering an area of c. 3500 sq m, the excavations yielded Early Bronze Age, Chalcolithic and Late Neolithic layers. Layers IV and III belong to the Late Neolithic Karanovo II-III, Karanovo III, Karanovo III-IV and Karanovo IV periods.

A jar burial was found in the southwestern trench, layer IV, horizon V (Karanovo III period), in a shallow pit under a house floor. The skeletal remains belonged to a neonate, covered by a deep dark-burnished bowl with channeling. This burial yielded grave goods, too: a shell and a retouched flint blade.

Polgár, site 7Polgár, site 7 is a stratified site in the Great Hungarian Plain. It was excavated by P. Raczky in 1994,

in the M3 motorway salvage project framework. The remains belong to the Alföld Linear Pottery (ALP) Culture.

A jar burial was found in a deep pit near a long house of the ALP. The skeletal remains belonged to an infant, buried in a large jar.1

Mórágy-TűzkődombMórágy-Tűzkődomb is a prehistoric cemetery in southern Transdanubia. It was excavated by I. Zalai-Gaál

in the 1980s and generally belongs to the Late Neolithic Lengyel Culture (Zalai-Gaál, 2002).Two jar burials were found in the so-called Gräbergruppe-B1. Both belong to individuals 0-5 months old,

buried in high-pedestalled bowls, crouched on the right side, with their heads aligned to the west or southwest and facing to the south or northeast respectively (fig. 3).

DurankulakThe prehistoric cemetery at Durankulak yielded more than 1200 burials (fig. 4, n. 1). It was excavated

by H. Todorova in the 1980s and 1990s and belongs to Hamangia I-II, III and IV, Varna I and II-III Cultures (Todorova, 2002).

Two jar burials were found there belonging to the Hamangia III phase (4950/4900-4650/4600 cal BC), which has been defined as Early Chalcolithic (= Maritsa I-III, Dikilitash II, Sitagroi III, classical Dimini, Boian-Vidra etc.)

The first burial belonged to an infant put in two necked jars lying horizontally, with the mouths pushed close to each other. Six clay vessels were deposited over the burial with their bottoms up. More sherds covered the surface under the burial (fig. 4, n. 3).

The second infant was buried in a conical bowl, which was put in a larger bowl and covered with a clay lid (fig. 4, n. 2). A cattle skull accompanied this burial.——————————1 This jar burial is unpublished. I am most grateful to P. Raczky, who kindly shared the information about it with me.

196 –

Fig. 3 - Mórágy-Tűzkődomb: jar burials (after Zalai-Gaál, 2002).

– 197

Fig. 4 - Durankulak: jar burials (after Todorova, 2002).

198 –

LernaLerna is a low tell in the foothills of Mount Pontikos, near the Lerna Lake, on the western coast of Argolis.

It was excavated by J.L. Caskey in the 1950s and yielded layers from the Early, Late and Final Neolithic, as well as the Early and Middle Bronze Age (Caskey, 1957).

Five burials came from the Early Neolithic layer, all of them representing formal inhumations in pits and containing articulated skeletons in crouched position on their sides. A black burnished clay vessel was found near the head of a five-years old child.

The Final Neolithic of Lerna II yielded a neonate burial in a patterned beaker, found in a layer consisting of successive floors of Neolithic houses (fig. 5, n. 1).

AlepochoriThe Kouveleiki Cave is located some 5 km to the south of Alepochori village in Laconia. Deep archaeologi-

cal deposits accumulated in both chambers of the cave. The dates of 4947-4362 cal BC for the inner chamber, and 4922-4360 cal BC for the outer chamber generally refer them to the Final Neolithic (Papathanassopoulos, 1996).

The only jar burial was of an infant, in a carinated pot with two vertical lugs (fig. 5, n. 2) inserted in an open-mouth jar tapering down to its bottom, with four horizontal lugs on the belly (fig. 5, n. 3). The bottom was pierced after firing, most probably in relation to its funerary use.

RachmaniRachmani is a tell in Thessaly, excavated by Wace and Thompson in 1910. Cultural deposits extended to

8.10 m in depth and yielded four layers, belonging to the Final Neolithic (Wace and Thompson, 1912).Two infant jar burials were found there, in layers II and IV respectively (fig. 5, nn. 5 and 6). Unfortunately,

no more information has been published by the excavators.

KephalaThe site and cemetery of Kephala are located on a headland on the northwest coast of the Cycladic island

of Keos; they represents the best evidence for initial settlement of the island during the second major coloniza-tion of the Aegean in the Final Neolithic (3300-3200 cal BC).

They were excavated in the 1960s by a team from the University of Cincinnati and by J. Coleman in the 1970s (Fowler, 2004).

Four infant jar burials were found in the cemetery, all of them disturbed by later interments. One of these burials belonged to two infants put together in a large jar. Two female figurines were discovered as grave goods in another jar burial (fig. 5, n. 4).

The Anatolian parallels

The early practice of jar burial had no parallels in the neighboring areas, both culturally and chronologi-cally. The closest analogies are the jar burials from Kösk Höyük and Pınarbaşı-Bor in Central Anatolia, which were found beneath house floors, as was the Rakitovo grave, and belong to the Anatolian Late Neolithic or Early Chalcolithic (fig. 1, n. 1).

Kösk HöyükKösk Höyük is a central Anatolian tell, located in the town of Bahçeli. It is c. 15 m high and has a diameter of

c. 80 m. It was excavated in the 1980s by U. Silistreli (1984; 1988; 1989) and in the 1990s by A. Öztan (2003). Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic layers were recorded there, as well as a pool from Roman times.

Three jar burials were found under house floors during Silistreli’s excavations; more jar burials came from Öztan’s excavations.

Pınarbaşı-BorPınarbaşı is a central Anatolian tell, located to the west-northwest of the town of Bor. It is 8 m high and has

a diameter of c. 100 m. It was excavated in 1982 by U. Silistreli (1984), yielding Late Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age layers.

A jar closed off with a stone slab was excavated beneath the floor of a square room, under its eastern wall, containing the skeletal remains of an infant.

– 199

Fig. 5 - Jar burial from Lerna II (1) (after Caskey, 1957); jar burial from Alepochori (2 and 3) (after Papathanassopoulos, 1996); the cemetery at Kephala (4) (after Fowler, 2004); jar burials from Rachmani (5 and 6) (after Wace and Thompson, 1912).

200 –

THE LEVANTINE PERSPECTIVE

The strong influence of the Levantine traditions on the life and death at Kösk Höyük manifested itself in the local variant of the ‘skull cult’, which was observed at that Anatolian site and was not common in this area (cf. Bonogofsky, 2004). The earliest ‘decorated’ skulls of this kind were found at Jericho. The skulls from Kösk Höyük, however, were found in Layer III, which resembles the Late Neolithic at Çatal Höyük, whereas the skulls from Jericho are of a much earlier date (fig. 1, n. 2).

The southern Levant

ByblosByblos lies c. 30 km northeast of Beirut on the Mediterranean coast. The ancient site was excavated almost

continuously by M. Dunand from 1925 to 1975. At least 1.5 ha has now been cleared to bedrock. The debris of the Néolithique Ancien settlement was spread over about 1.2 ha, an area that would have been more extensive originally since part of the site has been washed away on the seaward side (Moore, 1973).

A total of thirty-three burials were found. The dead were buried in the settlement between the houses. The bodies were laid in a crouched position on their left sides in shallow graves; infants were buried in jars. Two groups of adult burials were noted: single graves with a few artefacts, or with a bed of stones and more grave goods. The accompanying artifacts consisted of flint tools, polished stone axes, pottery and ornaments. The Néolithique Ancien layer includes jar burials of babies and infants, all of them in the settlement area, in or between the houses (Gopher and Orrelle, 1995: 26).

Tel DanLocated at the foot of Mount Hermon and the Golan Heights, in the northeastern corner of the Hula Valley,

the stratified remains of the Pottery Neolithic occupation at Tel Dan represent the earliest evidence of settlement at the site. They were excavated in 1984-1985 by Avraham Biran and comprise five stratigraphic phases (B1-B5).

The Pottery Neolithic layers at Tel Dan yielded two jar burials (fig. 6, n. 3). One of them was found a few centimeters beneath the floor of a house. It contained the skeletal remains of a neonate.2 The jar was lying on its side, parallel to the wall. Part of the jar has been removed in the Neolithic to allow the interment of the body, and a large body section of another jar has been used to cover the baby. The second burial was disturbed (Gopher and Greenberg, 1996: 68).

Tel Te’oTel Te’o, a stratified pre- and historic site in the Hula Valley, Israel, yielded a stratigraphic sequence beginning

with Pre-Pottery Neolithic (Strata XIII-XI), and continuing through the Pottery Neolithic (Strata X-VIII), Chalco-lithic (Strata VII-VI), Early Bronze Age I (Strata V-IV) and early Bronze Age II (Stratum III). The sequence ends with two layers of Medieval and Late Ottoman times. It was excavated in 1986 by E. Eisenberg (et al., 2001).

The human remains from Tel Te’o belong to at least seventeen individuals: ten infants, two children and five adults, plus separate bones of eighteen individuals found in the backfill.

The Pottery Neolithic Strata X-VIII yielded a total of five jar burials, containing the skeletal remains of neonates or infants (fig. 6, n. 1). Two jar burials were found in Stratum IX, both of them under house floors, in the southern and eastern part of the houses, respectively. The first baby (0-1 month) was buried in a crouched position on the left side in the lower part of a pithos, and covered with potsherds. The vertical placement of the jar distinguishes this burial from the other Pottery Neolithic baby burials, the vessels in which were laid horizontally, as in the second jar burial from Stratum IX, belonging to a neonate in a flexed position on the right side. The ovoid red-slipped jar was used for the burial after its rim and four handles had been broken. Three more infant burials belonging to neonates came from Stratum VIII, all of them under house floors. One of the skeletons was disturbed. Another jar burial was found in association with six animal bones (sheep/goat, cattle, pig) but it is unclear if this was intentional or not. The jar burial tradition continued in the early Bronze Age I (Stratum V), where three more infant burials have been found, one of them containing the articulated skeletons of two babies, approximately nine months old.——————————2 The skeletal remains were examined by D. Zorich in the field and the age was determined as six months, based on the lengths of the radius and ulna. However, according to the recent analysis by G. Kahila Bar-Gal and P. Smith, it was a much younger infant, most probably a neonate (Bar-Gal and Smith, 2001).

– 201

Nahal Zehora IIThis Wadi Rabah, Lodian, and Yarmukian site is located in the Menashe Hills, on the southern fringes of

the Jezreel Valley. It was excavated in 1987-1996 by A. Gopher.Two fetus burials were found in the northeastern part of the trench. One of them, a jar burial, was found

close to the wall of a house belonging to the Wadi Rabah period (Gopher and Orrelle, 1995: 27).

Teluliot BatashiThe site of Teluliot Batashi is located in the Sorek Valley. It was excavated by J. Kaplan in 1950s.Two burials were excavated in the Wadi Rabah layer of Teluliot Batashi III. One of them was a jar burial

of a baby (Gopher and Orrelle, 1995: 27).

QatifThe early Wadi Rabah site at Qatif lies in the coastal strip south of Gaza, some 300 m north of Tel Qatif.

It was excavated in 1973 by C. Epstein.Slightly to the south of a large circular living surface, and possibly related to it, a jar burial was found

containing the skeletal remains of one-month old infant. A broken storage jar had been used to contain the body, which lay on its side with the knees flexed, covered by the overlapping sherds of the same vessel. There were no grave goods either in or near the jar (Epstein, 1984: 210f).

The northern Levant

Tell HassunaTell Hassuna lies c. 40 km to the south of Mosul, in northern Mesopotamia, at the meeting point of two

small wadies. It is c. 7 m high and covers an area of c. 200x150 m. Cultural deposits extend to a depth of 7 m. and consist of seven layers belonging to the pre-Hassuna, Hassuna, Halaf and Obeid periods. The tell was excavated in 1943-1944 by Seton Lloyd and Fuad Safar (Seton Lloyd and Safar, 1945).

A dozen infant jar burials were found from Level 16 upwards, usually under house floors. Coarse ware, incised and painted-and-incised jars were used. One of the most uncommon burials was that of two infants in the same tall-sided incised bowl in Level II (fig. 6, n. 2).

Tell SottoTell Sotto in northern Mesopotamia was excavated in the early 1970s by Nikolai Bader. The tell is c. 2.5

m high; cultural deposits extend to 3.8 m and consist of eight layers, the lowermost of which belongs to the pre-Hassuna Culture (Bader, 1989).

A total of nine burials were excavated there, all of them infants or children up to fourteen years of age. Six of them were jar burials, found under house floors or near houses, belonging to infants or small children up to two or three years, and interred in a hyperflexed position on the left or right side or on the back (fig. 6, n. 5). In two cases there is evidence of intentional dismemberment of the body. Two burials yielded grave goods: small clay cups and beads of various materials.

Tell Hazna IITell Hazna II lies c. 25 km northeast of the town of Al Hasakah, in the Khabour River Valley, northeastern

Syria. It was excavated in 1991-1992 by a team from the Archaeological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The cultural deposits extend to 8.80 m depth and belong to the pre-Hassuna, Hassuna and Halaf periods (Munchaev et al., 1993).

Only one jar burial was found there (fig. 6, n. 4); however, it deserves special attention because the jar belongs to the most typical ware of the earliest phases of the pottery Neolithic in Mesopotamia, which seems to suggest that this was one of the earliest examples of jar burial in the study area. The one-year child was buried in a hyperflexed position on its right side, with the head aligned to the east.

The skull was lying with the face down and according to the excavators had been detached from the body before the burial. The arms and legs were flexed at an angle of c. 30 degrees. This jar burial yielded grave goods: a small clay cup, a half of a polished stone vessel and over two hundred beads of stone, copper and shells, most probably making up one complete necklace. The coarse ware thick-walled jar (with a rim diameter of more than 50 cm and the same height) had been probably covered with a discoid lid of unbaked clay, fragments of which were found inside.

202 –

Fig. 6 - Jar burials from Tel Te’o (1) (after Eisenberg et al., 2001); double jar burial from Tell Hassuna (2) (after Lloyd and Safar, 1945); jar burials from Tel Dan (3) (after Gopher and Greenberg, 1996: 68); Jar burials from Tell Hazna II (4) (after Munchaev et al., 1993); Jar burials from Tell Sotto (5) (after Bader, 1989).

– 203

Tell HalulaTell Halula is located on the right bank of the Euphrates River, between three different ecological areas:

in the fork of two wadis; the foothills of the Djebel Halula mountains; and finally, the steppe zone to the west. The tell has an oval base (360x300 m), with cultural deposits of approximately 8 m height. It was excavated in 1989-1998 by M. Molist. It has four main phases of occupation: Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (recent phases 8500-8000 uncal BP), Late Neolithic (8000-7500 uncal BP), Pre-Halaf and Halaf (7500-6700 uncal BP), and more sporadic occupation in the most recent periods (Obeid).

Burials of several types were excavated: primary inhumations as well as collective and secondary inter-ments. The pre-Halaf layer yielded an infant burial in a clay jar. The skeleton was complete and articulated; the body had been buried in a crouched position (Anfruns and Molist, 1998).

DISCUSSION

Many questions related to the appearance and development of jar burials remain unanswered, such as why there is such a huge territorial gap between the northern Levant and southeast Europe, bridged only by the two central Anatolian sites of Kösk Höyük and Pınarbaşı-Bor on?

Is it because of the irregularly excavated areas leaving ‘blind spots’ in our knowledge of the Neolithic development, or there is another reason associated with the directions and routes of the early phases of Neoli-thization? Another uncertainty is the role of early jar burial in the social reproduction and cohesion networks spread over large territory and sending distinct echoes in space and time.

A third series of problems is related to the differentiation between the infant/child burial: why were some infants buried in ceramic vessels? Was the burial practice based on gender, as seems likely, because all skeletons from early jar burials that have been sexed belong to boys?3

As it is, it seems that jar burial, as a specific manifestation of the Neolithic mortuary practices, is related to the earlier phases of Neolithic development in southeast Europe, and probably even to Neolithization itself. This ritual practice certainly influenced the other treatments of dead children in the domestic space, whether it was formal or secondary inhumation.

It seems related to certain later developments, such as the cremation burials in clay urns that were excavated in Thrace and Thessaly. The fact that the area of the Struma and Vardar Valleys, and the west Rhodope emerged as a secondary distribution center of these specific mortuary practices, is in keeping with the overall character of the Neolithic development in the Balkans. Hence, the place of infant/child burials in the living space of the Neolithic societies, as well as the treatment dead children, stand out as cultural features suggesting their special role in religio-mythological beliefs.

AcknowledgementsThe author would like to gratefully acknowledge those who helped with the research and completion of this paper. They include Elka Anastasova, Michelle Bonogofski, Avi Gopher, Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati, Françoise le Mort, Pál Raczky, and István Zalai-Gaál. Very special thanks to Panagiotis Karatasios.

——————————3 However, it should be stressed that a very few babies were DNA-sexed altogether.

204 –

R E F E R E N C E S

Anfruns, J. and Molist, M. 1998 - Prácticas funerarias en el Neolítico de Siria. Análisis de los documentos de Tell Halula (valle del Éufrates). In Cunchillos, J.-L., Galán, J.M., Zamora, J.-A. and Villanueva de Azcona, S. (eds.) Actas del Congreso “El Medi-terráneo en la Antigüedad: Oriente y Occidente”. Sapanu. Publicaciones en Internet II [http://www.labherm.filol.csic.es].

Angel, J.L. 1969 - Appendix II. Human Skeletal Material from Franchthi Cave. In Jacobsen, T. (ed.) Excavations at Porto Cheli and Vicinity, Preliminary Report, II: The Franchthi Cave, 1967-1968. Hesperia, 38: 343-381.

Bacvarov, K. 2000 - The Karanovo Neolithic Mortuary Practices in their Balkan and Anatolian Context. In Hiller, S., and Nikolov, V. (eds.) Karanovo, III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Phoibos, Wien: 137-140.

Bacvarov, K. 2003 - Neolitni pogrebalni obredi: intramuralni grobove ot balgarskite zemi v konteksta na Yugoiztochna Evropa i Anatolia. Bard, Sofia.

Bader, N.O. 1989 - Drevneyshie zemledeltsy Severnoy Mesopotamii [Earliest cultivators in Northern Mesopotaima]. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian).

Bar-Yosef, O. 1987 - Late Pleistocene Adaptations in the Levant. In Soffer, O. (ed.) The Pleistocene Old World. Regional Perspec-tives: 219-236. New York.

Binant, P. 1991 - La préhistoire de la mort: les premières sépultures en Europe. Paris.

Bonogofsky, M. 2004 - A bioarchaeological study of plastered skulls from Anatolia: new discoveries and interpretations. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 15 (2): 124-135.

Bostanci, E. Y. 1959 - A New Paleolithic Site at Beldibi near Antalya. Anatolia, 4: 129-178.

Brukner, B. 1974 - Rani neolit. In Brukner, B., Jovanović, B., Tasić, N. (eds.) Praistorija Vojvodine: 29-68. Monumenta Archeologica, I. Prosveta, Novi Sad.

Caskey, J.L. 1957 - Excavations at Lerna: 1956. Hesperia, 26: 142-162.

Chapman, J.C. 2000 - Pit-digging and Structured Deposition in the Neolithic and Copper Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 66: 1-27.

Chohadzhiev, S. 2001 - Vaksevo. Praistoricheski selishta. Faber, Veliko Tarnovo.

Cholakov, S. 1991 - Antropologichno prouchvane na kostni ostanki ot rannoneolitnoto selishte pri s. Vaksevo, Kyustendilsko. Izvestiya na Istoricheskiya muzey - Kyustendil, 3: 231-244.

Csalog, J. 1965 - Zur Frage der Körös-Gruppe in Ungarn. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica, 8: 19-25. Szeged.

Cullen, T. 1995 - Mesolithic Mortuary Ritual at Franchthi Cave, Greece. Antiquity, 69: 270-289.

Eisenberg, E., Gopher, A. and Greenberg, R. 2001 - Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 13. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Epstein, C. 1984 - A Pottery Neolithic Site near Tel Qatif. Israel Exploration Journal, 34 (4): 209-219.

Fowler, K.D. 2004 - Neolithic Mortuary Practices in Greece. BAR International Series, 1314. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Gallis, K. 1975 - Kauseis nekron apo tin Arhaisteran Neolithikin epohin tin Thessalian. Arhaiologika analekta ex Athinon, 8 (2): 241-258.

Gallis, K. 1996a - Burial Customs. In Papathanassopoulos, G. (ed.) Neolithic Culture in Greece: 171-174. Athens.

Gallis, K. 1996b - Ausgrabungen der neolithischen Siedlungen und Fiedhöfe von Platia Magoula Zarkou, Souphli-Magula und Makrychori 2 in Thessalien. In Alram-Stern, E. (ed.) Die Ägäische Frühzeit: 521-562. Wien.

Garašanin, M. 1956 - Sahranjivanje u Balkansko-anadolskom kompleksu mladeg neolita. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine (N. S.), 11: 205-236. Sarajevo.

Garašanin, M. 1973 - Praistoriya na tlu SR Srbije. Belgrade.

Garašanin, M. 1998 - Kultursrömungen im Neolithikum des südlichen Balkanraumes. Prähistorische Zeitschrift, 73 (1): 25-51.

Gazdapusztai, G. 1957 - A Körös-kultúra lakótelepe Hódmezővásárhely-Gorzsán. Archaeologiai Értesítő, 85: 3-13. Budapest.

Georgiev, G.I. 1966 - Mnogosloynoe poselenie Azmashka mogila bliz Staroy Zagory (Bolgaria). Kratkie soobshteniya Instituta arheologii, 106: 3-10. Sofia.

Georgiev, G.I. 1972 - Das Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in der Thrakischen Tiefebene (Südbulgarien). Thracia, 1 (Probleme des heutigen Forschungsstandes): 5-27. Sofia.

Georgiev, G.I., Merpert, N., Katincharov, R. and Dimitrov, D. (eds.) 1979 - Ezero. Rannobronzovoto selishte. Balgarska akademia na naukite, Sofia.

Gimbutas, M. (ed.) 1976 - Neolithic Macedonia as Reflected by Excavations at Anza, Southern Yugoslavia. Monumenta Archaeologica, 1. UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.

Gopher, A. and Greenberg, R. 1996 - The Pottery Neolithic Levels. In Biran, A., Ilan, D. and Greenberg, R. (eds.) Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs: 67-81. Hebrew Union College, Jerusalem.

– 205

Gopher, A. and Orrelle, E. 1995 - New Data on Burials from the Pottery Neolithic (6th and 5th Millennia B.C.) in Israel. In Campbell, S. and Green, S. (eds.) The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. Oxbow Monograph, 51: 24-29. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Gräslund, B. 1994 - Prehistoric Soul Beliefs in Northern Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 60: 15-26.

Ignat, D. 1985 - Un mormănt de incineratie descoperit in asezarea neolitica de la Suplacu de Barcău (judetul Bihor). Crisia, 15: 275-278. Oradea.

Jovanović, B. 1967 - Znachenje nekih kultnih elemenata starchevachke grupe. Starinar, 18: 11-22. Belgrade.

Kahila Bar-Gal, G. and Smith, P. 2001 - The Human Remains. In Eisenberg, E., Gopher, A. and Greenberg, R. (eds.) Tel Te’o: A Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Site in the Hula Valley. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports, 13: 163-169. Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem.

Leković, V. 1985 - The Starčevo Mortuary Practices - New Perspectives. Godišnjak Centra za Balkanološka ispitivanja, 23: 157-172. Belgrade.

Lichardus-Itten, M., Demoule, J.-P., Perničeva, L., Grebska-Kulova, M. and Kulov, I. 2002 - The site of Kovačevo and the Begin-nings of the Neolithic Period in Southwestern Bulgaria. The French-Bulgarian excavations 1986-2000. In Lichardus-Itten, M., Lichardus, J. and Nikolov, V. (eds.) Beiträge zu jungsteinzeitlichen Forschungen in Bulgarien. Saarbrücker Beiträgen zum Altertumskunde, 74: 99-158. Habelt, Bonn.

Lloyd, S. and Safar, F. 1945 - Tell Hassuna. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 4 (1): 255-289.

Mellaart, J. 1975 - The Neolithic of the Near East. Thames & Hudson, London.

Milleker, F. 1938 - Die Vorgeschichte des Banats (Neolithikum). Starinar, 13: 102-166. Belgrade.

Molleson, T., Andrews, P., Boz, B., Derevenski, J. and Pearson, J. 1998 - Human Remains up to 1998. In Çatalhöyük 1998 Archive Report [http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive_rep98/molleson98.html].

Moore, A.M.T. 1973 - The Late Neolithic in Palestine. Levant, 7: 36-78.

Munchaev, R.M., Merpert, N.Y., Bader, N.O. and Amirov, S.N. 1993 - Tell Hazna II - rannezemledelcheskoe poselenie v Severo-vostochnoy Sirii. Rossiiskaya arheologia, 4: 25-42. Moscow (in Russian).

Öztan, A. 2003 - A Neolithic and Chalcolithic Settlement in Anatolia: Köşk Höyük. Colloquium Anatolicum, 2.

Papathanassopoulos, G. 1996 - Burial Customs at Diros. In Papathanassopoulos, G. (ed.) Neolithic Culture in Greece: 175-177. Goulandris Foundation, Athens.

Raduncheva, A., Matsanova, V., Gatsov, I., Kovachev, G., Georgiev, G., Chakalova, E. and Bozhilova, E. 2002 - Neolitno selishte do grad Rakitovo. Razkopki I prouchvaniya, 29. Gal-Iko, Sofia.

Resch, F. 1991 - Typologische Studien kultischer Gesichtsdeckel aus der jungsteinzeitlicher Siedlung von Parţa I. Banatica, 11: 185-192. Reşiţa.

Rodden, R. 1962 - Excavations at the Early Neolithic Site at Nea Nikomedeia, Greek Macedonia (1961 season). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 28: 267-288.

Schmidt, E. F. 1932 - The Alishar Hüyük, I. Seasons of 1928 and 1929. Oriental Institute Publications, 19. University of Chicago.

Silistreli, U. 1984 - Pınarbaşı ve Köşk Höyükleri. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 5: 31-36. Ankara.

Silistreli, U. 1988 - 1987 Köşk Höyük. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 10 (1): 61-66. Ankara.

Silistreli, U. 1989 - Les fouilles de Köşk Höyük. In Emre K., Mellink M., Hrouda B. and Özgüç, N. (eds.) Anatolia and the Ancient Near East, Studies in Honour of Tahsin Özgüç: 461-463. Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, Ankara.

Srejović, D. and Letica, Z. 1978 - Vlasac, a Mesolithic Settlement in the Iron Gates I: Archaeology. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Monograph, 512. Belgrade.

Stalio, B. 1992 - Grupno sahranjivanje na Ajmani - Mala Vrbica. Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja, 14 (1): 65-78. Belgrade.

Todorova, H. (ed.) 2002 - Die prähistorischen Gräberfelder. Durankulak II. Sofia. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Sofia.

Vasić, M. 1936 - Preistoriska Vinča, II. Belgrade.

Wace, A.J.B. and Thompson, M.S. 1912 - Prehistoric Thessaly. Cambridge.

Wunn, I. 2001 - Götter, Mütter, Ahnenkult. Religionsentwiklung in der Jungsteinzeit. Oldenburg.

Zalai-Gaál, I. 2002 - Die Neolithische Gräbergruppe-B1 von Mórágy-Tűzkődomb, I. Die archäologische Funde und Befunde. Wosinsky Mór Múzeum, Szekszárd-Saarbrücken.

Author’s Address:KRUM BACVAROV, National Institute of Archaeology and Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2 Saborna St. – BG - 1000 SOFIAe-mail: krum_bacvarov@sofianet. net

– 207

JOHN CHAPMAN*

ENGAGING WITH THE EXOTIC: THE PRODUCTION OF EARLY FARMING COMMUNITIES IN SOUTH-EAST AND CENTRAL EUROPE

SUMMARY - Engaging with the exotic: the production of early farming communities in south-east and central Europe. In this article, the claim is made that the emergence of worldviews focussed on bright or brilliant objects of distinctive colours among early farmers in the Balkans and Hungary was co-emergent with the creation of their very world. The fact that a small but significant minority of these objects was acquired or exchanged from ‘foreign’ places or from the ‘other’ zone was an essential attribute of their sacred power. The incorporation of these objects into the depositional contexts of early farming communities reveals strategies of both inclusion (into houses, pits and graves) and exclusion (from special ritual deposits).

RIASSUNTO - Dedicandosi all’esotico: la produzione delle prime comunità di agricoltori dell’Europa sudorientale e centrale. In questo lavoro viene espressa l’opinione che l’origine delle visioni del mondo, da parte dei primi agricoltori della Penisola Balcanica e dell’Ungheria, si sia focalizzata su oggetti rilucenti o brillanti, di colore ben definito, e si sia sviluppata contemporaneamente alla crea-zione del loro mondo vero e proprio. Il fatto che una piccola parte, anche se significativa, di questi oggetti sia stata acquisita o scambiata da regioni ‘estranee’ o da ‘altre’ zone, è considerato un attributo del loro potere sacrale. La disposizione di questi oggetti all’interno di contesti deposizionali da parte delle prime comunità produttrici di cibo, indica strategie sia di immissione (all’interno di case, pozzetti e sepolture) sia di esclusione (da specifici depositi rituali).

INTRODUCTION

Those of us involved with - overwhelmed by - the study of Early Neolithic pottery tend to believe, perhaps implicitly, that the sheer quantity of sherds (after all, J. Makkay [2007: 14] gave up excavating Körös sites after he had recovered “millions of potsherds”) makes pottery the sole most important aspect of material culture among early farmers. However, we should not forget that the New Stone Age was first distinguished from the Old Stone Age not by the use of pottery but by the presence of polished stone tools (Lubbock, 1865). It was only in the age of cultural archaeology, ushered in by Kossinna (1896) and V. Gordon Childe (1929), that the specificity and diagnosticity of pottery styles in place and time made ceramics the obvious medium for the creation of homogenous cultural groups. Although far less common, polished stone objects were, together with pottery, both visually distinctive as well as technologically effective. It was in their exotic origins that polished stone tools, as well as other objects made from shell and metal, differentiated themselves from pottery, the vast majority of which was locally made. In this article, I propose that the creation of bright or brilliant objects of distinctive colour(s) not only helped to form the worldviews of early farmers in the Balkans and Hungary but also went far to define their material world (fig. 1). While an aesthetic of colour and brilliance was already widespread in foraging communities, especially in mortuary ritual (e.g. Skeates, 2005), it was in the Early Neolithic that such a worldview was extended and refined until it became central to the constitution of cultural order and the materiality of dwelling.

‘A shining example’, ‘a bright student’, ‘a brilliant essay’, ‘a flashing blade’, ‘a sparkling contribution’, ‘a polished performance’, ‘the luminosity of the star’ - we recognise these phrases as marking distinction and difference from the everyday and the norm - distinctions that we anticipate keenly and appreciate when they occur. It makes a difference to our emotional lives. The same is true when one enters a room: the eye moves unerringly to brightly coloured objects rather than the background wall colours that frame the shining object



——————————* Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, UK

208 –

Fig. 1 - Distribution map of important Early Neolithic sites mentioned in the text: Szarvas 23 (1); Endrőd 39 (2); Endrőd 119 (3); Szol-nok-Szanda (4); Lepenski Vir (5); Vinkovca-Tržnica (6); Obre I (7); Gălăbnik (8); Kărdzhali (9); Asmaska mogila (10); Gradeshnitsa (11); Gura Baciului (12); Poineşti (13).

and give the kitsch as much as the tasteful the chance to shine. Thoughts of dullness and lack of sparkle lead in the opposite direction.

In deep prehistory, objects with natural brilliance were rare and, especially in combination with a distinc-tive colour, always prized for their aesthetic appeal. Even on a cloudy day, nodules of quartzite, rock crystal, obsidian, jasper, malachite and azurite gleamed and sparkled against the background soil or rock. Other rocks, such as limnoquartzite, had at best uneven properties of shine and rather variegated colours. But, as with most essays, brilliance usually had to be worked at, to be created by craft and handwork (Chapman, 2002). Many rocks were dull and lacking distinctive colours until their grinding and polishing created brilliance and enhanced the natural colour by a process we have termed ‘revelation’ (Chapman and Gaydarska, 2006). It was revelation, as much as transformation, that brought out the natural colours and sheen of the Spondylus gaederopus shell in its later phases of ornament making, as each millimetre of shell removed created a new surface with different natural markings from the previous one (Chapman et al., in press). The naturally dull colour and matt surface of native copper required a cultural transformation to reveal perhaps unsuspecting sparkle and hue. These transformations revealed the inner energy and power of the objects.

One cannot, of course, ignore pottery in this context. In the past, the incidence of painting on a slipped and burnished surface was used as an index of cultural development (recall the overtly nationalistic debates between Milojčić [1965] and Makkay [1967] in the 1960s) or, in a more sophisticated manner, as a sign of special site function (e.g., the higher percentage of painted ware on the Csőszhalom tell than at the horizontal site: Raczky et al., 2002). What I find more interesting about this early pottery is the way that farming communities used what Munro (1997) has termed ‘the labour of division’ to create ‘fine wares’ so as to be deliberately different from medium or coarse wares. Indeed, the ‘fineness’ of fine wares consisted of a burnished or polished surface, often itself covered with a slip, with a distinctive red or brown colour. It is a routine assumption of Neolithic specialists that fine wares equated with eating (‘table wares’) and display (Andreou et al., 1996; Nikolov, 2002), implicitly recognising an aesthetic of colour and brilliance in acts of private consumption and public performance.

– 209

If you entered a typical windowless Early Neolithic house, which would have been smaller than the recon-structed LBK house as seen on a visit to Asparn-an-der-Zaya (Austria) but with the same general interior effect, the dull colours of the timber uprights and the thatch may well have been offset by brightly coloured wall-plaster and decorations on the posts, only partly masked by smoke from the constant hearth fire. But the only objects to attract the eye through the smoke and the gloom would have been distinctively coloured and/or shining - the white defleshed animal bones and the greenstone ornament on a shelf rather than the shadowy coarse ware bowls, goatskins and antler mattocks. Outside the house, in the bright Balkan sunlight, even the dullest coarse ware amphora could have attracted attention - but perhaps not much and certainly not as much as the elder’s gleaming new dolerite axe tied to a new beech haft with light-coloured strips of sinew or the woman’s nephrite hair-pin, the dark green ornament offset against her stunning black hair. Cooper (1993) neatly summarises this approach: “there is no vision without division”.

There is also a huge difference between touching and holding a coarse ware vessel and a finely polished, smooth surface of a painted ware cup - tactile differences that affected the feelings that prehistoric people brought to things and changed their attitudes. The heavily sculpted barbotine and relief decorations on typical Early Neolithic coarse wares were akin to the untreated raw Spondylus shell, just as the polished shell rings were as shiny and brilliant as the fine slipped and polished wares. The same is true for a carefully polished amulet, part of whose power emerged from the close tactile relationship with the body (Skeates, pers. comm.).

This visual approach to the object world meshes with the philosophical approach termed dynamic nominal-ism. Nominalism is, broadly speaking, a form of agency theory, in which structure and agency are reconciled within a single mechanism through the attribution of a more active role to identity (Chapman, 2003a). The core notion is that categories of people come into existence at the same time as kinds of people come into being to fit these categories in a two-way interaction. It is clear that there is a close parallel between the self-categorisation of emergent groups of people and the potential for naming the colours of newly emergent groups of things or hitherto unknown materials found in newly explored environments.

The process of co-emergence of colours and colourful objects seems particularly appropriate to a period of such radical change as the beginnings of the Neolithic. This picture of the visual world of early farming communities allows us to identify different contributions by a variety of objects, each of which was not only visually specific but also carried its own identity and characteristics in relation to history, origins, distance, place and people. In the next section, I examine insights from ethnography, both generally and using marine shells as an example of materiality in action.

ETHNOGRAPHIES OF COLOUR AND BRILLIANCE

The world of prehistoric communities may usefully be divided into three zones: the familiar zone of our own settlement and community area; the strange zone of foreign or alien places, beings and things; and, in between the others, the zone of otherness, inhabited by people not belonging to our community but who shared artefacts and symbols with us (Neustupný, 1998). The boundaries between these zones were permeable, crossed and criss-crossed by people and things but almost certainly not by everyone in the community; thus, it was the women who made the most prestigious objects in Gawan (Melanesia) society but the males who traded them (Munn, 1986). In societies without specialised trading institutions, most exchange was on an individual level, in social networks wider than the kinship or residential network - an integration of the familiar world with the zone of otherness. Trade partnerships confirming ties of alliance or kinship would have grown up over time - sometimes becoming hereditary - through the exchange of inalienable objects, whereby the personal links between the producer and the thing was not lost and the quality of the relationship was emphasised. The objects thus took with them, as part of their personal biography, a memory of both maker and place of origin - but they could be used and disposed of by the new owner much as they pleased. Exchanged objects could also have acted as measures of value (the worth of the person giving), media of value (the means by which the value is realised) and sometimes embodiments of value, if not the origins of those values. These values and meanings would have been worked out through performance in specific places, with changing values always possible. A person’s fame would have been inter-dependent upon the fame of the objects which s/he exchanged within the familiar and the ‘other’ zones. These objects from the ‘other’ zone we shall term ‘exotic’. Sometimes, however, communities acquired such objects from still further afield.

The remote and dangerous world of foreign places was the source of extraordinary materials and things which, if acquired, would confer significant renown on the local community by the prestige of the thing itself,

210 –

the skills and characteristics of the acquirer and the powerful nature of the distant place. We shall term such objects ‘sacred objects’ sensu Godelier (1999: 111-122) - objects with sacred powers to be used on behalf of all members of the group, constituting an essential part of each clan’s identity. Mary Helms (1993) has explored the prowess of the long-distance specialist in surviving the rigours of the foreign zone and returning home with things that embodied the existential power and energy of the distant, the strange, even the cosmological. Helms makes a powerful case for one-way acquisition in transactions that emphasise the quality of the things rather than that of the relationship. She also maintains that skilled crafting and artistic production are akin to long-distance acquisition, emphasizing that creativity is an ordering of nature for cultural purposes - a celebration of the ultimate order of the cosmos. This suggests at least three routes to the production of élite value in both hierarchical and non-hierarchical societies. Locally found or made objects, which sustain enchained relations between exchange partners, exotic things, with their values underpinned by the ‘other’ zone, and sacred objects, with their ties to ancestral origins and cosmology, are all vital in their different ways for social reproduction, as well as for identity-formation at an individual, household or corporate group level.

‘Other’ ethnographers have made the connection between brilliance and ritual power and potency. Gell’s (2002) account of Kula canoe prow-boards, that are created to dazzle traders to make them offer more shells and necklaces to the visitors, emphasises the links between dazzlingness, the magical power emanating from the boards and the enchantment immanent in all kinds of technical activity. Likewise, Morphy (1992) identifies the association in Yolngu (Australian) painting of brilliance with ancestral power and beauty, movement, light and joy, through the transformation of a painting from a rough, dull state to a clearly defined, bright state.

Archaeologists have recently built on the early ethno-archaeological research of Graeme Clark (1965) to develop ideas about the links between stone axes, the values of the material and cosmological origins (Bradley and Edmonds 1993; Whittle, 1995; Wiessner and Tumu, 1998: 359-360; Edmonds, 1999; Cooney, 2002). Equally, Keates (2002) has used the African evidence for the significance of copper in traditional Yoruba society to make a compelling case for the link between Remedello copper daggers, solar imagery and the ancestral dead in the Italian Copper Age. Less well known is the recent upsurge of research interest in the archaeology of marine shells (Claassen, 1998; Trubitt, 2003). There is now a general recognition of the significance of marine shells, whether as material symbols of interpersonal relations, as symbolic links to water and the sea, with all of their metaphorical qualities, or as a sign of inland people’s differential access to distant and rare goods (Claassen, 1998: 203-208; Trubitt, 2003). Trubitt (2003: 262-263) summarizes this research in her assertion that shell prestige goods are symbols of power and prestige associated with the exotic, to which Saunders (1999) and Glowacki (2005) would add the supernatural (the sacred).

Two particularly interesting aspects of this recent research concern the relationship between the aes-thetics of shells and their symbolism (Saunders, 1999), the potential of Spondylus shells for producing hallucinogenic effects (Glowacki, 2005) and the links between shells and personhood (Clark, 1991). These studies of marine shells in Meso- and South America and in Papua New Guinea have utilised ethno-his-tory and ethnology to create lively biographical pictures of shells based upon their specific materialities. Saunders (1999) discusses the extent to which the materiality of the pearl-oyster acted as a bridge between the mental and physical worlds of pre-Columbian indigenous American peoples. These societies saw their world as infused with spiritual brilliance that was manifested in three ways - natural phenomena (the sun, moon, water, ice and rainbows), natural materials (minerals, feathers, pearls and shells) and artefacts made from these materials. He discusses how an aesthetic of brilliance was constructed differently in different cultures, emphasising that “making shiny objects was an act of transformative creation” (Saunders, 1999: 246). The ritual significance of shells was heightened if they were procured from the deep sea - an analogy to shamanistic activity, in which a diver visited the dangerous spirit world and returned with sacred matter (Saunders, 1999: 247).

These and other ethnological studies provide a basis for the inter-penetration of the categories of shell orna-ments and persons, just as shells can be persons in the Ojibwa under certain circumstances (Morris, 1994: 9). It is important to emphasise the potential tension between two relations embodied in shells: the close material links between shells and persons - whether worn as ornaments close to the body or bearing enchained relations between persons - and the links between shells and aspects of ‘otherness’ such as the deep sea, the realm of the supernatural or simply the sea coasts that were remote for inland communities trading in shells. When colour symbolism and the aesthetic of brilliance are added to such metaphorical potential, the reasons why so many societies have incorporated some of their key cultural values into marine shells become more understandable. Clark (1991: 311) is surely right to question factors of scarcity and exchange value as the ‘explanation’ of value

– 211

in marine shells. It is important to account for the social value of shells before the development of a central role for shells in bride wealth and ceremonial exchange.

We can summarise these ethnographic narratives by saying that a shell ring was never only a shell ring - but also presenced places, peoples and spiritual powers through its materiality. It is probable that most of the exotic objects of cultural value to early farmers had built up lengthy, complex personal biographies over decades, if not centuries, in their shorter or longer walks through the Balkans. While some objects may have been acquired by a long-distance specialist and brought home in a single year, others will have passed through many hands in a series of gift exchanges, taking months or years to move hundreds of kilometres from its source. While it was the overall impression of remoteness, danger and strangeness that defined the biographies of things from the foreign zone, closer attention to biographical detail would have been paid to objects from the ‘other’ zone, since at least some of the persons in that zone would have been known to members of the exchange network, as exchange partners or enemies. What was important was the capacity of objects to stand for specific people or categories and for sets of relations that their passage sustained (Edmonds, 1998). In a very real sense, then, the creation of local relations depended upon the domestication of exotic objects. How was this achieved in the Early Neolithic of south-east and central Europe?

THE DOMESTICATION OF THE EXOTIC AND THE SACRED

Ways of dealing with the strange, the dangerous, the exotic and the sacred must have varied widely between early farming communities. The geographical diversity of the Balkan Peninsula implies that the three zones - local, ‘other’ and foreign were perceived differently by communities living in different parts of south-east Europe. Some communities lived in extensive plains like the Alföld, perhaps never seeing mountains in their lives if they relied on face-to-face exchange with people in the ‘other’ zone for desirable exotics. ‘Others’ created their worlds on islands such as Hvar or Korčula, in river gorges on the Danube and near spectacular mountain peaks, as with the Vratsa sites or the sites in the Bay of Volos - with all of the symbolic potential and varied ‘resources’ of such sea- and land-scapes (Erdogu, 2003). But ‘resources’ were never a culturally neutral term pertaining to economy or geology. For a Neolithic plains-dweller, a marine shell ornament presenced a mysteri-ous and alien force - the sea - while the local gold-bearing alluvial sands remained a ‘value-less’ part of her life until new social demands and technologies made this a ‘resource’ for her Late Copper Age descendants. Once achieved, knowledge of the ‘other’ and the foreign zones often led to a desire for its incorporation, through its natural objects or their cultural products, into local lifeways.

In a previous paper (Chapman, 2003b: 77-79), the process of biological ‘domestication’ was compared to the metaphorical reproduction of objects as objectifications of persons. The main problem for locals seeking to tame exotic objects in a domestic setting was outlined thus: how to neutralise the dangers of alien cultural values and negative biographical associations with strangers, if not enemies from the ‘other’ zone, while ensur-ing the continuing visual attractiveness and symbolic potential of the thing? In that paper, no distinction was made between exotic and sacred objects, but personal dangers from known enemies would have been replaced by a more abstract sense of threat from remote sources to the greater and more mysterious powers of part of that distant zone. The power relationships of persons remote or nearby were always commingled with object-powers in the effects of things.

General accounts of domestication do not offer much help here: for example, Hodder posited domestication as a metaphor for the control of society, but this was never related to trade and exchange (Hodder, 1990). Two potential solutions may be considered for exotica: (a) the transformation of the object through its own rite of passage; and (b) the translation of the object’s core values so as to mesh with the local cultural order.

The first solution would require a liminal place for the rite of passage, perhaps the storage of the exotic objects in a group on the margins of the settlement. This solution is poorly attested in the Balkan Early Neolithic, with perhaps the sole example being the Kraljevo axe hoard (Ljamić-Valović, 1986).

The second solution for an exotic item required the mapping of the values of the ‘other’ onto the cultural values of the local community so that an inalienable relationship could be created. The details of this process of negotiation would have changed with time and familiarity with exotic objects. Thus, the first sighting of a polished greenstone frog would have posed questions of relating the alien to the familiar - questions concerned with the symbolic significance of frogs and amphibians in relation to wild or domestic animals, land and water. It would have been easier to incorporate subsequent gifts of greenstone frogs into the local cultural order. Here, the linkage of specific historical details of the novel objects to what was already known of the ‘other’ zone was

212 –

the first step in this process, by providing a context of relations into which the objects and their biographies could have fitted. One means of achieving the translation was the narration of the object’s own story in front of the whole group, in which the long-distance specialist dramatised the passage of the exotic item into the local community. For a sacred object, the only way to reduce its dangers to the community would have been a travel narrative, in which the long-distance specialist’s own experiences of the voyage validated the object’s increasing loss of dangerous power as it moved away from its origins towards the home settlement.

Successful incorporation of exotic objects opened up a variety of potential uses for objects that were never entirely rid of their strangeness and danger. The mid-life part of an object’s biography remains the hardest part for archaeologists to understand (Chapman and Gaydarska, 2006). In most cases of Early Neolithic exotic objects, we have details of the depositional context. I turn now to the social potential for domesticated exotic objects and consider their contexts of deposition.

Brilliant materials in context

The notable aspect of the exotic materials in early farming contexts is the high proportion of objects distinguished by their brilliance and distinctive colour. This applies to both exotica and other sacred objects, including the majority of lithic raw materials (table 1) and ground and polished stone (table 2), as well as the marine shell Spondylus gaederopus (table 3) and all of the copper minerals (table 4). Unfortunately, not all of the publications listing exotic lithics and stone axes specify the colour of the objects - a small link between humanistic and scientific archaeology requiring constant attention. While there were clearly a large number of colourful and shining objects made locally, not least the fine wares, the difference from local objects and the dramatic presence of exotic objects must have made an enormous visual impression, especially when first appearing in an appropriate performance before a suitably dazzled audience.

Although the number of sacred things in circulation was probably small in relation to the quantity of exotic things, rarity increased their value so much that objects acquired from great distances (perhaps over 300-400 km) were transformed into inalienable things that could not be introduced into exchange practices. In early farming communities, we would limit the identification of sacred objects to the following examples: nephrite from the Orient; paligorskite from the Urals or Anatolia (Srejović, 1969: 173 and Pl. X): Spondylus ornaments and east Alpine axe rocks in eastern Hungary (Starnini and Szakmány, 1998: 326 and Table 6); and Carpathian or Italian obsidian in Bosnia (Benac, 1973: 346; Sterud, 1978: 400).

In addition, many exotic objects were aesthetically pleasing, showing signs of skilled crafting. The delicate polishing and faceting seen on many of the polished stone ornaments (the Gălăbnik nephrites, the Kărdzhali swastika, the Azmak marble figurine or the widespread miniature greenstone axes) betoken the skilled creation of cultural order on a small scale, consistent with display, attachment to clothes, portability and use in a variety of settings. The production of facets would have increased the number of reflective surfaces, thus increasing the brilliance of the object (Skeates, pers. comm.). The production of the finely perforated stone beads at Lepenski Vir and Gradeshnitsa shows the mastery of fine drill-work and polishing required to enhance costume display (Srejović, 1969: Pl. X; Nikolov, B. 1975: Obr. 16, 7a-b).

The rarity of exotic objects deposited in liminal areas has been noted above but, in fact, a wide variety of other depositional contexts is attested (table 5). The commonest depositional context for all categories of exotic and sacred objects (henceforth ‘ESO’) was the general settlement context, which combines the finding of an object in the general cultural layer and in an unspecified settlement context. Insofar as this class of context is the least closely connected to household spaces, we may assume that the finds have taken on an identity more related to the overall community rather than a specific house. This is not the same with settlement pits, which were generally related to a single house or group of houses. Exotic chipped stone was more common in pit contexts than other classes of finds; the uncertainty over deposition of polished stone tools is an evidential problem. The more intimate contexts of the household held far fewer associations with exotic objects, with rather more Spondylus shell ornaments than for other finds classes.

These associations betoken a full domestication of the exotic item. A close relationship could have devel-oped between a sacred object and members of the household, since sacred objects were often kept in specific high-status households. Unusual personal identities may have been taken on by those few objects from the foreign zone deposited as grave goods (e.g., Spondylus ornaments at Szolnok-Szanda and Endrőd 119 [Raczky, 1982-1983; Makkay, 1990]). Here, the linkage to personal identity probably indicated a community leader holding a sacred object on behalf of the whole community (for relative proportions of graves with grave goods by cultural group, see fig. 2).

– 213

Tabl

e 1

- The

con

text

s of e

xotic

lith

ics i

n ea

rly fa

rmin

g se

ttlem

ents

.

EXO

TIC

LITH

ICS

IN E

ARL

Y F

ARM

ING

CO

NTE

XTS

SETT

LEM

ENT

PIT

FIN

DFO

UN

DA

TIO

N P

ITFI

ND

POT

IN S

ETTL

EMEN

T LA

YER

FIN

DH

OU

SEFI

ND

GR

AV

EFI

ND

SETT

LEM

ENT

GEN

ERA

L

END

RŐD

39

HO

ARD

OF

PBPF

POIN

EŞTI

OBS

IDIA

NLE

PEN

SKI V

IR II

IPB

PFG

URA

BA

CIU

LUI

OBS

IDIA

NG

ura

Baci

ului

Flin

tO

BRE

I

BA

NA

T FL

INT

BAN

AT

L/Q

UA

RTZI

TEPI

TYER

DO

MB

SZEN

TGÁ

LTr

estia

naFl

int F

lake

s and

Bl

ades

MA

LUŞT

ENI

OBS

IDIA

NSo

fia-S

latin

aC

S Bl

ade

ARA

NY

HEG

YPI

TYER

DO

MB

SZEN

TGÁ

LR

atik

ovo

CS

MÉH

TELE

KO

BSID

IAN

GEL

LÉN

HÁ

ZAL-

QU

ART

ZITE

SK

ardz

hali

CS

BAN

AT

PITY

ERD

OM

BSZ

ENTG

ÁL

Mih

ajlo

vac

CS

Cor

eCA

RPA

THIA

N

RAD

IOLA

RITE

STA

RČEV

O-G

RAD

Bac-

Topo

laC

SG

ELLÉ

NH

ÁZA

SZEN

TGÁ

LV

ALE

A L

UPU

LUI

ÚRK

ÚT

RAD

.M

EZŐ

BERÉ

NY

OBS

IDIA

NK

UČA

JNA

(nr.

BOR)

STA

RČEV

O-G

RAD

OBS

IDIA

N

Div

ostin

Banj

a

PAD

INA

B

LEPE

NSK

I VIR

III

"oth

er"

Zone

SCH

ELA

CLA

DO

VEI

PBPF

- Pr

e-Ba

lkan

Pla

tform

Flin

tCS

- ch

ippe

d sto

neSL

AV

ON

SKI B

ROD

END

RŐD

35

END

RŐD

119

END

RŐD

6

SZA

RVA

S 23

‘oth

er’ Z

one

214 –

Tabl

e 2

- The

con

text

s of e

xotic

gro

und

and

polis

hed

ston

es in

ear

ly fa

rmin

g se

ttlem

ents

.

EXOT

IC G

ROUN

D PO

LISH

ED S

TONE

IN E

ARLY

FAR

MIN

G CO

NTEX

TS

ANZA

GREE

NSTO

NE

FROG

Lepe

nski

Vir

III

Palig

orsk

iteBe

ads

VRŠN

IKAX

E HO

ARD

Vrsa

c-K

ozlu

kPS

Axe

Anza

Mar

ble

KRAL

JEVO

AXE

HOAR

DGR

EENS

TONE

DI

SC4 P

S AX

ESGR

EENS

TONE

MÉH

TELE

KAN

DESI

TE

AXE

?ALA

BA-

STER

BEA

DSGU

RA

BACI

ULUI

AXE

FRAG

SG

ura B

aciu

lui

Gro

und

Ston

eFU

LGER

IŞ

(MOL

DAVI

A)ST

RAY

PS

AXE

SILT

STON

E AX

EEC

SEGF

ALVA

HORN

FELS

AXE

S

SLAV

ONSK

I BRO

D

6 AXE

S FR

OM

'SOUT

H-EA

ST',

NEAR

A

BURI

AL

GĂLĂ

BNIK

NEPH

RITE

RI

NGRU

MA-

ZLAT

ARA

MAR

BLE

AMUL

ETS

MET

ADOL

ERIT

E AX

ES

NEPH

RITE

SC

EPTR

E

GRAD

ESHN

ITSA

MAR

BLE

BEAD

SEL

ESHN

ITSA

JASP

ER A

MUL

ET

MAR

BLE

PEND

ANT

GĂLĂ

BNIK

MAR

BLE

FIGU

RINE

SZAR

VAS

23AM

PHIB

O-LI

TE A

XE

PS C

HISE

LPO

RODI

NGR

EENS

TONE

FR

OG

SZAR

VAS-

EGYH

ÁZFÖ

LD2 P

S AX

ESBa

nja

PS A

xe

ENDR

ŐD 11

9DO

LERI

TE A

XES

DIOR

ITE

AXES

ENDR

ŐD 39

GREE

N SC

HIST

AX

E (A

LPIN

E)

othe

r' zo

ne

SETT

LEM

ENT

PIT

FIND

POT

IN S

ETTL

EMEN

T LA

YER

FIND

HO

USE

FIND

GRA

VEFI

NDSE

TTLE

MEN

TG

ENER

ALFI

NDLA

NDSC

APE

FIND

‘oth

er’ Z

one

– 215

Tabl

e 3

- The

con

text

s of e

xotic

Spo

ndyl

us sh

ell o

rnam

ents

in e

arly

farm

ing

settl

emen

ts.

EXOT

IC SP

ONDY

LUS S

HELL

FIND

S IN

EARL

Y FA

RMIN

G CO

NTEX

TS

ENDR

ŐD 11

9RI

NG FR

AGME

NTS.

LEPE

NSKI

VIR

III

SPON

DYLU

SBE

ADS

KARA

NOVO

RING

FRAG

MENT

SHM

V-KO

TACP

ART

TRID

ACHN

A BR

ACEL

ETLE

PENS

KI V

IR II

IBE

ADS

DIVO

STIN

RING

FRAG

MENT

SSZ

OLNO

K-SZ

ANDA

RING

IN H

OUSE

BU

RIAL

SZOL

NOK-

SZAN

DARI

NG IN

HOU

SE B

URIA

LAN

ZA Ib

BEAD

S and

RIN

GS

PERF

ORAT

ED

PEND

ANT

ANZA

IIRI

NGS

GĂLĂ

BNIK

RING

IN H

OARD

OBRE

IRI

NG FR

AGM

ENTS

+ AM

BER

PEND

ANT

GORN

EARI

NG

GURA

BAC

IULU

IM

AXIL

LA O

F E. A

SINU

S HY

DRUN

TINU

SGU

RA B

ACIU

LUI

RING

FR

AGME

NTS +

BE

ADS

FOSS

IL SE

A-UR

CHIN

RUMA

-ZLA

TARA

ORNA

MENT

SCH

EVDA

ROR

NAME

NT"o

ther"

Zon

eVI

NKOV

CI-T

RŽNI

CARI

NG FR

AGME

NTKO

VACH

EVO

ORNA

MENT

EXCE

PTIO

NAL

MALĂ

K PR

ESLA

VETS

RIVE

R DA

NUBE

SHEL

LS

KARD

ZHAL

IOR

NAME

NT

SETT

LEM

ENT

PIT

FIND

POT

IN SE

TTLE

MEN

T LA

YER

FIND

SETT

LEM

ENT

(GEN

ERAL

FIND

HOUS

EFI

NDGR

AVE

FIND

216 –

The interesting negatives found in this study of depositional context concerned two contexts of primary ritual significance for the social reproduction of the community - foundation pits and shafts/wells. So far, not one single ESO has been found in a shaft or well, and only one exotic item - a single obsidian tool, was recovered from a foundation pit dug beneath a house floor at Poineşti. These exclusions of still marginally dangerous items of remote origin indicate the care with which exotic objects were used and deposited in early farming contexts.

Two or more categories of ESO were deposited at eight of the Early Neolithic settlements (figs. 3-10). There was no clear patterning in ESO deposition at these sites - only considerable variability.

In the pottery-dominated level IIIb of Lepenski Vir (fig. 3), most of the exotic objects were placed in ves-sels to separate them from other, more common finds (Srejović, 1969: 173).

For example, the necklace of paligorskite and Spondylus beads and pendants, together with some bone and buccinium, was found in a Starčevo pot placed near, but not inside, a house (Srejović, 1969: Pl. X). Similarly, a small vessel contained four small polished stone axes (Srejović, 1969: Pl. XI). Another ornament hoard in a ves-sel contained 66 white alabaster-like and 5 green jadeite-like tubular beads, 1 antler amulet with a carved animal terminal, one bone button and 4 perforated snails - found in the upper part of a pit (Srejović, 1969: 173). A similar practice concerned the imported pre-Balkan platform flint blades and cores, a high proportion of which was placed in vessels. There is no clear information regarding the depositional circumstances of obsidian. An exception to this general pattern is that the azurite and malachite pieces were found in the excavation layer, not in pits or vessels.

The four exotic objects deposited at Obre I, Bosnia (Benac, 1973: 347-359) were grouped into two op-posing pairs: copper and obsidian from the lands to the north east placed on a yard floor, Spondylus and an amber pendant from the maritime zone to the south west constituting grave goods (fig. 4). The spatial contrasts emphasised the different source zones for the items and the exchange networks through which they travelled to the site. However, were Sterud’s (1978: 400) claim to be upheld by scientific analysis, the obsidian at Obre I may also have been derived from the maritime zone to the south-west.

A different set of contrasts was found at the Early Neolithic settlement in Kărdzhali, Eastern Rhodopes (Peĭkov, 1972) (fig. 5). One chipped stone tool from the ‘other’ zone was placed in a grave as the sole grave offering, while a Spondylus ornament and the famous nephrite swastika (Peĭkov, 1972: fig. 2) were both de-posited in the settlement layer.

EXOTIC METALS IN EARLY FARMING CONTEXTS

SZARVAS 23 MALACHITE FRAGMENTS ZMAJEVAC MALACHITE FRAGMENTS

Gornea Fish-hook Lepenski Vir III Copper and Azurite beads

Balomir Awl

OBRE I COPPER (FOUND + OBSIDIAN)

other' Zone Iernut Lump of Copper

SETTLEMENT PIT FIND SETTLEMENT(GENERAL) FIND

Table 4 - The contexts of exotic metal in early farming settlements.EXOTICA BY TYPE OF CONTEXT

CHIPPED STONE X XXX X XXX X X (XX)

POL. STONE TOOLS X X X XXX X XX

POL. STONE ORNAMENTS - X X XXX X XX

SPONDYLUS - X X XXX XX XX

METAL - X - X - -

HOUSE GRAVELANDSCAPE SETTLEMENT PIT POT IN SETTLEMENT

SETTLEMENT(GENERAL)

Table 5 - The contexts of exotica by class of context.

‘other’ Zone

– 217

Fig. 2 - Relative frequencies of Early Neolithic burials with and without grave goods: percentage (top), number (bottom).

WITH 11 15 20

WITHOUT 119 95 49

KÖRÖS STARČEVO KARA I/KREM.

Two adjacent Körös settlements in the parish of Endrőd provided very different patterns of ESO deposition. The main opposition at the larger Site 39 (fig. 6) consisted of a hoard of conjoint lithics from the north or east, placed in a pit, with Alpine rocks for axe-heads from far to the west found in the cultural layer. By contrast, at the 2-house Site 119 (fig. 7), all of the lithics were deposited in the cultural layer while only the Spondylus ornaments were placed in a pit (Paluch, 2007). This marked variation in principles of ESO deposition at two sites less than 1 km apart shows the importance of local rules of engagement with exotic objects.

218 –

Szarvas 23 (fig. 8) is one of the few sites where each of the different classes of exotic objects was deposited in a different kind of context - malachite in a settlement pit, an amphibolite axe in a grave and obsidian in the cultural layer (Paluch, 2007).

A more differentiated picture comes from the larger-scale excavations at Gura Baciului, in Transylvania (fig. 9), where many classes of exotic objects were found (Lazarovici and Maxim, 1995). Grave goods consisted of ground stone and chipped stone objects from the other zone, as well as the bone of a steppe ass, Equus asinus hydruntinus, presumably brought in from the west Pontic steppe zone to the east (cf. Spassov and Iliev, 2002). Different houses contained Banat flint, axe-heads made of material from the ‘other’ zone and north Carpathian obsidian, while Spondylus ornaments were found in the cultural layer. A final, probably local, oddity concerns the fossil sea-urchin found in a grave, underlining the point that not all exotics derived from remote regions (Nandris, pers. comm.).

Finally, the nephrite ornaments at Gălăbnik were found in the same house as the well-known ornament hoard (Chokadzhiev, 1990) that also contained Spondylus ornaments (fig. 10). Ruslan Kostov (Kostov and

Fig. 4 - The context of exotic deposition at Obre I.Fig. 3 - The context of exotic deposition at Lepenski Vir III.

Fig. 6 - The context of exotic deposition at Endrőd 39.Fig. 5 - The context of exotic deposition at Kărdzhali.

KĂRDZHALI

ENDRŐD 39

Fig. 7 - The context of exotic deposition at Endrőd 119. Fig. 8 - The context of exotic deposition at Szarvas 23.

ENDRŐD

– 219

Bakamska, 2004) once claimed that this nephrite derived from far to the east - possibly as far as Afghanistan - but now, on the basis of the high density of finds of nephrite axes in the nearby Early Neolithic settlement of Kovachevo (perhaps 25% of all polished stone axes), he thinks that the nephrite has a ‘local’, south west Balkan source (Kostov, pers. comm. 2007). The marble figurine found in the cultural layer is equally local in origin.

The diversity of depositional practices among early farming communities is underlined when we scrutinise the mortuary zone. With one exception (the lithics from the ‘other’ zone at both Gura Baciului and Kărdzhali), the exotic grave good in each grave with such finds was different from the material in all other such graves. Perusal of a specific class of exotic material suggests the same diversity: Spondylus ornaments were found in a grave at Obre I, a house at Gălăbnik, a settlement pit at Endrőd 119, a vessel placed in the cultural layer at Lepenski Vir III and the cultural layers themselves at Kărdzhali and Gura Baciului. These findings suggest that different communities had found different solutions to the problem of domesticating untamed exotic objects, through depositional practices that constituted a summary of the life-course of each object since its domestication.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The exchange and/or acquisition of small numbers of sacred items from the foreign zone and rather larger numbers of exotic things from the Other zone by the earliest farmers of the Karanovo I/II, Kremikovci, Starčevo, Criş and Körös regional groups of the Early Neolithic enriched the new visual identity for this period emerging from the striking colours and brilliance of fine painted, slipped and burnished pottery. Whether local, exotic or sacred in origin, many of the major artefact classes contributed to this identity - most of all pottery, because of its numerical preponderance in the household and the settlement but also polished stone ornaments and tools, animal and human bone, burnt things, marine shell ornaments of Spondylus gaederopus and objects made of copper or copper minerals.

These objects extended both the colour spectrum and the range of shine of the foraging world (Borić, 2002), as well as creating differentiation of colour and polish in visual culture (Skeates, 2005). Increasing numbers of coloured and shining objects broadened the possibilities for metaphorical links between objects with the same colour - whether the red of the copper awls, the burnished red bowls and the autumn leaves or the green of the malachite beads, the nephrite sceptres and fresh vernal growth. This visualisation of the symbolic proper-ties of exotic objects manifested in distinctive colours and polished textures created a public and spontaneous excitement that linked such objects an their owners to the numinous and the remote - perhaps to the world of the ancestors? It was the creation of new relations through the materialisation of colour and brilliance that constituted an active and dynamic part of, in Whittle’s (1996) telling sub-title, the making of new worlds in the Early Neolithic. In this way, the process of enchaining people, persons and places through the acquisition and/or exchange of complete or fragmentary objects made a major contribution to the ‘package’ of Neolithic innovations and their individual histories.

The problem of how to domesticate exotic objects, at once dangerous and attractive, was one that stimulated many different particular responses in the wide range of Early Neolithic communities under study. But overall similarities in the range of different social practices can be discerned. The main principle is that, rather than transforming exotic items through rites of passage in liminal areas on settlement margins, most exotic objects went through a process of translation in which the alien and strange values that they embodied were mapped

Fig. 9 - The context of exotic deposition at Gura Baciului. Fig. 10 - The context of local and exotic deposition at Gălăbnik.

220 –

onto the cultural values of the home community. A travel narrative demonstrating the personal links between the sacred object and the long-distance specialist was probably essential for the domestication of these sacred objects.

A detailed study of the depositional context of exotic objects indicated that stone and shell ornaments were more frequently found in general settlement units than in the more intimate household contexts. In addition, all classes of exotic objects, except metals, were used to amplify the message of strangeness in the death of a loved one during the process of domestication in the mortuary domain. Thirdly and tellingly, exotic objects were al-most always excluded from ritual contexts vital for the social reproduction of early farming communities. While partial domestication of exotic objects, through partial familiarisation with local cultural values, was achieved in many ways and in many places, some of the core ritual practices of Balkan Early Neolithic societies plainly excluded exotic objects even when domesticated, seemingly because their otherness prevented assimilation into the core cultural values of local communities. The creation of a new aesthetic of colour and shine in the Balkan Peninsula and the Danube basin led to tensions with a co-emerging ritual core of these societies rooted in local practices of the digging of foundation-pits and deep shafts. It would not be until the mature farming period that these tensions would find partial resolution in new forms of ritual and a new emphasis on dark colours. But the rise in popularity of burnished and polished wares with dark, often black, surface colours is another story, to be narrated in a different set of cultural contexts (Chapman, 2006).

AcknowledgementsI should like to thank the conference organisers - Michela Spataro, Steve Shennan and Paolo Biagi - for their kind invitation to con-tinue my own “Short Walk through the Balkans” in the company of such a convivial and stimulating group of friends and colleagues; it was pleasant to ‘chew the fat’ with every one of them but an especial pleasure to discuss matters Balkanic and Carpathian with John Nandris, Kornelia Minichreiter, Eszter Bánffy and Alasdair Whittle. I am very grateful to János Makkay for allowing me to utilise unpublished data on Körös mortuary practices from his forthcoming Gyomaendrőd volumes and to Ivana Radovanović for informa-tion about Lepenski Vir. Thanks are due, too, to Andy Jones for his invitation to write something much longer on trade and exchange in European prehistory and to Nikola Tasić for his invitation to me to contribute to the Milutin Garašanin In Memoriam volume: this chapter has benefited from both of these texts, from which it subsequently took off to become an independent entity. Robin Skeates also provided very helpful comments on a draft of this text. I am also grateful to Ruslan Kostov for many interesting discussions about Neolithic gemmology. But my deepest thanks go to my wife, Bisserka Gaydarska, for discussions of the ideas in the chapter and her graphics skill in producing the illustrations.

– 221

R E F E R E N C E S

Andreou, S., Fotiadis, M. and Kotsakis, K. 1996 - Review of Aegean prehistory V: the Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece. American Journal of Archaeology, 100: 537-597.

Benac, A. 1973 - Obre I. a Neolithic settlement of the Starčevo-Impresso and Kakanj cultures at Raskršće. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des Bosnisch-Herzegovinischen Landesmuseums, IIIA: 327-430. Sarajevo.

Borić, D. 2002 - Apotropaism and the temporality of colours: colourful Mesolithic-Neolithic seasons in the Danube Gorges. In Jones, A. and Macgregor, G. (eds.) Colouring the past. The significance of colour in archaeological research: 23-44. Berg, Oxford.

Bradley, R. and Edmonds, M. 1993 - Interpreting the axe trade: production and exchange in Neolithic Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Chapman, J. 2002 - Colourful prehistories: the problem with the Berlin and Kay paradigm. In Jones, A. and Macgregor, G. (eds.) Colouring the past. The significance of colour in archaeological research: 45-72. Berg, Oxford.

Chapman, J. 2003a - Colour in Balkan prehistory (alternatives to the Berlin and Kay paradigm). In Nikolova, L. (ed.) Early symbolic systems for communication in Southeast Europe. BAR International Series, 1139 (1): 31-56. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Chapman, J. 2003b - Domesticating the exotic: the context of Cucuteni-Tripolye exchange with steppe and forest-steppe communi-ties. In Boyle, K., Renfrew, C. and Levine, M. (eds.) Ancient interactions: east and west in Eurasia. MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge: 75-92.

Chapman, J. 2006 - Dark burnished ware as sign: ethnicity, aesthetics and categories in the Later Neolithic of the Central Balkans. In Tasić, N. and Grozdanov, C. (eds.) Homage to Milutin Garašanin: 295-308. Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti i Makedonska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti. Cicero Press, Belgrade.

Chapman, J. and Gaydarska, B. 2006 - Parts and wholes. Categorisation and fragmentation in prehistoric context. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Chapman, J., Gaydarska, B. and Slavchev, V. in press - The life histories of Spondylus shell rings from the Varna I Eneolithic cemetery (North East Bulgaria): transformation, revelation, fragmentation and deposition. In Slavchev, V. (ed.) Proceedings of the Varna Round Table. Varna Archaeological Museum, Varna.

Childe, V.G. 1929 - The Danube in prehistory. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Chokadzhiev, S. 1990 - Ranniat neolit v Zapadna Bolgaria: poyava, razvitne, kontakti. Izvestia na Istoricheski Muzei Kjustendil, 2: 5-22 (in Bulgarian).

Claassen, C. 1998 - Shells. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Clark, J.G.D. 1965 - Traffic in stone axe and adze blades. Economic History Review, 18: 1-28.

Clark, J. 1991 - Pearlshell symbolism in Highlands Papua New Guinea, with particular reference to the Wiru people of Southern Highlands Province. Oceania, 61: 309-339.

Cooney, G. 2002 - So many shades of rock: colour symbolism and Irish stone axeheads. In Jones, A. and Macgregor, G. (eds.) Colour-ing the past. The significance of colour in archaeological research: 93-108. Berg, Oxford.

Cooper, R. 1993 - Technologies of representation. In Alionen, P. (ed.) The semiotic boundaries of politics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin: 279-312.

Edmonds, M. 1998 - Sermons in stone: identity, value and stone tools in Later Neolithic Britain. In Edmonds, M. and Richards, C. (eds.) Understanding the Neolithic of North-western Europe: 248-76. Cruithne Press, Glasgow.

Edmonds, M. 1999 - Ancestral geographies of the Neolithic. Landscapes, monuments and memory. Routledge, London.

Erdogu, B. 2003 - Visualizing the Neolithic landscape: the early settled communities in Western Anatolia and the East Aegean islands. European Journal of Archaeology, 6 (1): 7-23.

Gell, A. 1992 - The technology of enchantment and the enchantment of technology. In Coote, J. and Shelton, A. (eds.) Anthropology and aesthetics: 40-63. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Glowacki, M. 2005 - Food of the Gods or mere mortals? Hallucinogenic Spondylus and its interpretative implications for early Andean society. Antiquity, 79: 257-268.

Godelier, M. 1999 - The enigma of the gift. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Helms, M. 1993 - Crafts and the kingly ideal. Art, trade and power. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Hodder, I. 1990 - The domestication of Europe. Blackwell, Oxford.

Keates, S. 2002 - The flashing blade: copper, colour and luminosity in North Italian Copper Age society. In Jones, A. and Macgregor, G. (eds.) Colouring the past. The significance of colour in archaeological research: 109-126. Berg, Oxford.

Kossinna, G. 1896 - Die vorgeschichtliche Ausbreitung der Germanen in Deutschland. Zeitschrift des Vereins für Volkskunde, 6: 1-14.

Kostov, R. and Bakamska, A. 2004 - Nefritovi artefakti ot rannoneoloitnoto selishte Gălăbnik, Pernishko. Geologia i mineralni resursi, 4: 38-43 (in Bulgarian).

Lazarovici, G. and Maxim, Z. 1995 - Gura Baciului: monografie arheologica. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, XI. Muzeul National de Istorie a Transilvaniei, Cluj-Napoca.

222 –

Ljamić-Valović, N. 1986 - Starčevački depo u Ribnici kod Kraljeva. Naše Prošlosti, 1: 147-157.

Lubbock, J. 1865 - Pre-historic times, as illustrated by ancient remains, and the manners and customs of modern savages. Williams and Norgate, London (1st ed.).

Makkay, J. 1965 - Die wichtigsten Fragen der Körös-Starčevo-Periode. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica, 8: 3-18. Szeged.

Makkay, J. 1990 - Knochen-, Geweih- und Eberzahngegenstände der frühneolitischen Körös-Kultur. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungaricae, 1990: 23-58. Budapest.

Makkay, J. 2007 - The excavations of the Early Neolithic sites of the Körös Culture in the Körös Valley, Hungary: the final report. Vol-ume I. The excavations: stratigraphy, structures and graves. Starnini, E. and Biagi, P. (eds.) Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 11. Trieste.

Milojčić, V. 1967 - Die wichtigsten Fragen der Körös-Starčevo-Periode. Heidelberg.

Morphy, H. 1992 - From dull to brilliant: the aesthetics of spiritual power among the Yolngu. In Coote, J. and Shelton, A. (eds.) An-thropology and aesthetics: 181-208. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Morris, B. 1994 - Anthropology of the self. The individual in cultural perspective. Pluto Press, London.

Munn, N. 1986 - The fame of Gawa. A symbolic study of value transformation in a Massim (Papua New Guinea) society. Duke University Press, London.

Munro, R. 1997 - Ideas of difference: stability, social spaces and the labour of division. In Hetherington, K. and Munro, R. (eds.) Ideas of difference. Blackwell, Oxford: 3-24.

Neustupný, E. 1998 - Otherness in prehistoric times. KVHAA Konferensr, 40: 65-71.

Nikolov, B. 1975 - Selishe ot stariya neolit pri s. Gradeshnitza, Vrachanski okrug. Arkeologiya, 1975 (1): 37-38. Sofia (in Bulgarian).

Nikolov, V. 2002 - Rannoneolitna risuvana ornamentatsija. Published by the author, Sofia (in Bulgarian).

Paluch, T. 2007 - Appendix III. The Körös Culture graves. In Makkay, J. The excavations of the Early Neolithic sites of the Körös Culture in the Körös Valley, Hungary: the final report. Volume I. The excavations: stratigraphy, structures and graves. Starnini, E. and Biagi, P. (eds.) Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 11: 248-255. Trieste.

Peĭkov, A. 1972 - Sondazhni razkopki na neolitnoto selishte v Kărdzhali prez 1972 g. Ahrid, I: 7-44.

Raczky, P. 1982-1983 - Origins of the custom of burying the dead inside houses in south-east Europe. Szolnok Megyei Múzeumi Évkönyv, 1982-83: 5-10. Snolnok.

Raczky, P., Meier-Arendt, W., Anders, A., Hajdú, Zs., Nagy, E., Kurucz, K., Domboróczki, L., Sebők, K., Sümegi, P., Magyari, E., Szántó, Zs., Gulyás, S., Dobó, K., Bácskay, E., Biró, K. and Schwartz, C. 2002 - Polgár-Csőszhalom (1989-2000): Summary of the Hungarian-German excavations on a Neolithic settlement in Eastern Hungary. In Aslan, R., Blum, S.W.E., Kastl, G., Schweizer, F. and Thumm, D. (eds.) Mauerschau. Festchrift für Manfred Korfmann. Band 2: 833-860. Remshalden-Grunbach, Greiner.

Saunders, N. J. 1999 - Biographies of brilliance: pearls, transformations of matter and being, c. AD 1492. World Archaeology, 31 (2): 243-257.

Skeates, R. 2005 - Visual culture and archaeology. Art and social life in prehistoric South-East Italy. Duckworth, London.

Spassov, N. and Iliev, N. 2002 - The animal bones from the prehistoric necropolis near Durankulak (NE Bulgaria) and the latest record of Equus hydruntinus Regalia. In Todorova, H. (ed.) Durankulak Band II. Die prähistorischen Gräberfelder. Anubis, Berlin-Sofia: 131-324.

Srejović, D. 1969 - Lepenski Vir: nova praistorijska kultura u Podunavlju. Srpska Kniževna Zadruga, Belgrade (in Serbian).

Starnini, E. and Szakmány, Gy. 1998 - The lithic industry of the Neolithic sites of Szarvas and Endrőd (South-Eastern Hungary): techno-typological and archaeometrical aspects. Acta Archaeologica Hungarica, 50 (4): 279-342. Budapest.

Sterud, E.L. 1978 - Prehistoric populations of the Dinaric Alps: an investigation of interregional interaction. In Redman, C.L., Langhorne, W.T. Jnr., Berman, M.J., Versaggi, N.M., Curtin, E.V. and Wanser, J.C. (eds.) Social archeology. Beyond subsistence and dating: 381-413. Academic Press, London.

Trubitt, M.B.D. 2003 - The production and exchange of marine shell prestige goods. Journal of Archaeological Research, 11 (3): 243-277.

Vlassa, N. 1976 - Neoliticul Transilvaniei. Studii, articole, note. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, III. Cluj-Napoca (in Romanian).

Whittle, A. 1995 - Gifts from the earth: symbolic dimensions of the use and production of Neolithic flint and stone axes. Archaeologia Polona, 33: 247-259. Warsaw.

Whittle, A. 1996 - Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of new worlds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wiessner, P. and Tumu, A. 1998 - Historical vines. Enga networks of exchange, ritual and warfare in Papua New Guinea. Smithsonian Press, Washington DC.

Author’s Address: JOHN CHAPMAN, Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, South Road – UK - DURHAM DH1 3LE e-mail: [email protected]

– 223

ESZTER BÁNFFY*, IMOLA JUHÁSZ* and PÁL SÜMEGI**

A PRELUDE TO THE NEOLITHIC IN THE BALATON REGION: NEW RESULTS TO AN OLD PROBLEM

SUMMARY - A prelude to the Neolithic in the Balaton region: new results to an old problem. Opposite to an old thesis, according to which the Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin developed without any significant participation by the local hunter-foragers, quite another picture is presently emerging. This paper phocuses on Mid-Transdanubia, which is delimited by Lake Balaton and its ancient marshy surroundings. The authors collected all the available data concerning the pre-Neolithic and Early Neolithic periods of this region (7th-6th millennia cal BC): archaeological (settlement structures, material culture remains) and palaeoenvironmental (geoarchaeological, palaeo-hydrologiocal, archaeobotanical and malacological). The results provide some indications of a contact zone where both the immigrant Starčevo, Early Neolithic people and the local hunter-foragers might have participated in the formation of the Central European LBK.

RIASSUNTO - Preludio al Neolitico nella regione del Balaton: nuovi risultati su di un vecchio problema. Contrariamente a quanto sinora sostenuto, vale a dire che il Neolitico del Bacino dei Carpazi si sviluppò senza un’importante partecipazione degli aborigeni cac-ciatori-raccoglitori, il quadro che le nuove ricerche rivelano è del tutto diverso. Questo lavoro riguarda la Transdanubia centrale, in cui si trova il Lago Balaton che, in tempi preistorici, era circondato da ambienti paludosi. Gli autori hanno raccolto una quantità di dati sul Neolitico della regione e i periodi immediatamente precedenti (settimo-sesto millennio cal BC), sia di carattere archeologico (strutture insediamentali, reperti della cultura materiale), sia paleoambientale (geoarcheologici, paleoidrologici, archeobotanici e malacologici). I risultati hanno restituito alcune indicazioni riguardanti la presenza di una zona di contatto in cui i primi Neolitici della Cultura di Starčevo e i locali cacciatori-raccoglitori interagirono, partecipando alla formazione della Cultura della Ceramica Lineare dell’Europa centrale (LBK).

INTRODUCTION

Although the Carpathian Basin seems to be a unified area during the Neolithic transition, there are remark-able differences in the process between the Alföld and Transdanubia (fig. 1).

In the Early Neolithic of eastern Hungary, in the Alföld region, the appearance of the Körös Culture can be interpreted as a large-scale immigration, and there are many signs of Mesolithic-Neolithic discontinuity (Domboróczki, 2001; 2005). The recent analyses conducted at some of the earliest Linearbandkeramik (LBK) sites along the Upper Tisza, i.e. the northern fringes of the Alföld, the overwhelming Körös tradition seems to be evident, while hardly any other impact can be detected in the archaeological material (Zoffmann, 2000; Domboróczki, 2003). Similarly, in the course of our three years programme of palaeoenvironmental research, scarce hints indicated a pronounced existence of any pre-Neolithic population (e.g. Sümegi and Gulyás, 2004).

In the northwestern Alföld, close to the Danube, there is a small but famous Mesolithic area. The Jászság district yielded Mesolithic sites, among which some belong to the late aspects, but none of the transitional period (Kertész et al., 1994; Kertész, 1994a; 1996). Nevertheless, the Körös Culture, over 1000 settlements of which are known in the Alföld, which is also intensively present between the Tisza and the Danube, with its immense amount of pottery, has not been so far discovered in the Jászság. It seems that the Neolithisation of this important Mesolithic region (Kertész, 1993; 1994a; 1994b; 1996; Kertész et al., 1994; 1995) followed a scenario different from that of the Alföld (Domboróczki, 2001). It is also known that the area was occupied by developed LBK farmers, not by the Alföld variant. The Transdanubian Keszthely and Zseliz sites densely cover



——————————** Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary** Department of Geology and Palaeontology, University of Szeged, Hungary

224 –

the hilly region east of the Danube, up to the Zagyva River, which is the heart of the Jászság (almost 50 sites are known between the Danube and the Galga-Zagyva and upper Tápió Rivers: Torma, 1993). Recently, an early Transdanubian LBK site was identified at Galgahévíz (Kalicz, 2002), a fact that may urge the prehistorians to ask how the hitherto largest Mesolithic (i.e. pre-Neolithic) series of sites encountered the Neolithic immigrants and the food production package, if they ever did. In case there was a contact between the Jásztelek I type Late Mesolithic groups surviving into the Neolithic period, may they have met the late Körös-early Alföld LBK groups spreading from the southeast, or the early Transdanubian LBK groups reaching the Jászság area from the west?

By comparison with the dense Körös sites distribution in eastern Hungary, the Early Neolithic Starčevo settlements in Transdanubia (western Hungary) are badly represented (Kalicz, 1990). So far less than twenty sites are known in south Transdanubia, and until recently only four of them could be undoubtedly attributed to the latest, Spiraloid B, phase: Kaposvár, Dombovár, Becsehely and Harc. More recently, the number of these latter sites doubled: Babarc, Vörs, Gellénháza, Tihany (Simon, 1996; Kalicz et al., 1998; Bánffy, 2001; Reg-enye, in press). Three of them lie outside of the hypothesized Starčevo distribution area. Tihany is particularly important because it lies along the northern coast of Lake Balaton, facing the Szentgál flint mine in the Balaton Upland. Gellénháza is also a crucial site, because it marks the Western Transdanubia contact zone.

Nevertheless, while all the data so far available seem to point to a Mesolithic-Starčevo interaction zone (Bánffy, 2004: 328-352), we have to accept that there are almost no identified traces of Mesolithic presence in the area. In the last few years, however, a complementary help has been offered by environmental research. According to these results we believe that the absence of archaeological evidence may be considered a lack of research rather than evidence (Zatykó et al., in press).

After the researches carried out in northeastern Hungary (Sümegi and Gulyás, 2004; Gál et al., 2005; 2006), these data, which indicate the presence of a Transdanubian pre-Neolithic population, that must have been far more dense than in the Alföld, are surprising. In the following pages, we summarise the results of the new researches, complemented by the archaeological data that also speak in favour of a contact zone during the transitional period.

Fig. 1 - The Carpathian Basin in the Early/Middle Neolithic (6th millennium cal BC).

– 225

——————————1 The radiocarbon dates from Debrecen laboratory were calibrated using the INTCAL98 data set (Stuiver et al., 1998) and the pro-gram OxCal v. 3.9 (Bronk Ramsey, 1995; 1998).

THE NEW DATA

Traces of pre-Neolithic forest clearance and burning were observed at Szentgyörgyvölgy near the site Pityerdomb. Soil samples taken from the waterlogged, marshy banks of the Szentgyörgy stream indicated an intensive intentional forest burning around 8771±54 uncal BP; 7936-7821 cal BC at 1 sigma (Deb-5018)1. Both the burnt organic matter and the small-scale erosion in the area, suggest that forest burning was repeated every some 15-30 years (Cserny and Nagy-Bodor, 2006: 161).

Sárrét, waterlogged area (fig. 2). After the investigations led by C. Willis (1997) at Nádasdladány, new borings were made at Sárkeszi (Sümegi, in press a). The profile yielded several data referring to a pre-Neolithic population in the area (Sümegi, 2003; 2004), with a transitional charcoal maximum, interpreted as deriving from intentional burning, while the vegetation is typical for a lacustrine, lakeshore area (Juhász, in press). Indeed, around 8637±60 uncal BP; 7740-7580 cal BC at 1 sigma (Deb-3579) (Sümegi, 2003) a clear, some 1 m deep, freshwater lake (possibly 3 m deep in the centre, according to the molluscs), developed in the area (fig. 3). Ac-cording to the malacological evidence, Valvata piscinalis became dominant, a species which exclusively likes

Fig. 2 - The Sárrét area, northeast of Lake Balaton.

clear moving water with a high oxygen content, streams or lacustrine areas with wavy coasts (Sümegi, 2003: 378). In the light of this ecological situation, two bone harpoons are particularly important. They both were found in this area from the calcareous mud layer at Csór and Nádasdladány (Marosi, 1935; 1936) (fig. 4). One was unfortunately lost in the Székesfehérvár Museum, but the other was kept, together with an unpublished third find: a roe-deer antler found at the same spot (Marton, pers. comm. 2005). Along the sides of the antler there is a small cut mark, which might indicate that this object was used as a tool. The two harpoons were attributed to the Mesolithic on the basis of their typology; the roe deer bone justifies this attribution. Knowing the latest

226 –

results of the geological, malacological and pollen analyses, these finds can be most probably referred to the lacustrine and peat development period. Both these finds will be AMS radiocarbon-dated (project underway by R. Kertész and T. Marton). It is important to point out that after 8349±83 uncal BP; 7530-7320 cal BC at 1 sigma (Deb-3501) (Sümegi, 2003), a sudden increase in Corylus took place (Willis, 1997), with a second wave at 6874±55 uncal BP; 5840-5710 cal BC at 1 sigma (Deb-3498) (Sümegi, 2003), again with a very high Corylus ratio in the pollen profiles. In the latest Sárrét pollen profile (Juhász, in press), hazel slightly increases between 7100-6500 cal BP. In the case of Zalavár pollen core (Juhász, 2005), one can notice two or three Corylus pollen peaks. The first is dated to 7530±110 uncal BP; 6460-6260 cal BC at 1 sigma (Gif-10245), the second immedi-ately after this date, and the third to 7260±40 uncal BP; 6200-6060 cal BC at 1 sigma (Ly-11223). These sudden Corylus avellana pollen rises (from 10 to 30% and latter from 31 to 50%) are probably due to the collection of hazelnut (Juhász, 2004: 216-217).

These results indicate Mesolithic human activity, although not at a late date. According to our expectations the harpoon and the roe deer antler tool also fit into this not too late Mesolithic period. Their proposed Mesolithic attribution is based on the layer where the harpoons were found, and their typological characteristics:

1) Marosi (1936: 83) describes in detail the layer where the harpoons were found, immediately below the 1.50 m thick peat deposit. Most probably it is the same greyish-white calcareous mud layer observed during the geologi-cal investigations, dated to a period, which can be attributed to the Mesolithic (Sümegi, 2003: 375); 2) on the basis of their typological char-acteristics, they cannot be attributed to the Neolithic or later periods, because they are made from antler and their barbs are very different from those of the Neolithic specimens. The Carpathian Neolithic har-poons are thoroughly studied and published (Zalai-Gaál, 2004 with further literature). Furthermore there are a few other analo-gies, e.g. from Przemysl II (Kozłowski, 1977). According to the characteristics of this latter find it seems that the Sárrét speci-mens are to be attributed to a period prior to the Neolithic (Marton, pers. comm. 2006). In spite of this, in case the problem of the mere presence of the Mesolithic populaton is challenged, there is an important result, offered by the Sárrét marshland sediment (table 1).

Fig. 3 - Reconstruction of the Sárrét Lake in the Mesolithic period.

Fig. 4 - Harpoon from the Sárrét area (after Marosi, 1936, redrawn by T. Marton).

– 227

Table 1 - Radiocarbon dates from the Sárrét district cored sediments (Molnár et al., in press)

3) the cores made near Balatonederics (Sümegi, in press) and Zalavár (fig. 5). The profiles for palaeoecologi-cal analyses were sampled for palynological (Juhász, 2005; in press b) and, in the case of Balatonederics, also macrobotanical investigations (Jakab et al., 2005) and radiocarbon dating. A pre-Neolithic human impact can be observed in the profile (Szántó et al., in press) (table 2).

Material uncal BP cal BC at 1 sigma Lab. number

Pisidium shells 3920±40 2470-2340 Deb-10916


Lacustrine chalk 5250±80 4230-3970 Deb-10926

Lacustrine chalk 5890±80 4850-4610 Deb-10923


Pisidium shells 10,000±50 9610-9310 Poz-7975

Table 2 - Radiocarbon dates from the cores made near Balatonederics.

An increase of the herbaceous vegetation (Poaceae, Asteraceae and Artemisia) parallel to a transitional decrease of beech (Fagus), is followed by a transitional peak of hazel (Corylus) around 7600±70 uncal BP; 6510-6380 cal BC (Deb-11122), possibly due to human interference. The occurrence of willow (Salix), alder (Alnus) and ash (Fraxinus) suggests the presence of a gallery forest. Later, a second transitional decrease of Fagus (beech) parallel to a minor and transitional peak in hornbeam (Carpinus) and hazel (Corylus) can be noticed (Juhász, in press). It was radiocarbon-dated to 6900±90 uncal BP; 5880-5660 cal BC (Deb-11333) (Szántó et al., in press).

The pollen profiles of the Balaton and the marshland of the Little Balaton region indicate that there was a rapid increase of hazel in the early 6th millennium cal BC (Juhász, 2002), and that over one-half (55%) of the arboreal species was hazel around 6000 cal BC (Füzes, 1989: 143), a the period immediately preceding the Neolithisation. Together with traces of human impact, the archaeobotanical analyses have shown that south-western Transdanubia was a hazel refugium during the last glaciation and that hazel spread to other parts of the Carpathian Basin from this area (Gardner, 1998; Tinner and Lotter, 2001). The sudden expansion of the above species can hardly be explained without assuming a human manipulation of the environment. It seems likely that the growth of hazel was encouraged by forest clearance, by the creation of small clearings where this warmth-loving species, yielding storable fruit with a high nutritional value, could thrive. The increase of cereal pollens is accompanied by the decline of hazel. Hazel is a typical taxon of the southeastern deciduous and central European rich soil thickets, and also of the deciduous thickets of western Europe and western and northern central Europe communities. It has an important role in the deciduous pre- and post-forest formation; it is characteristic of forest edges, hedges and woodland recolonization and developes on soils relatively rich in nutrients, neutral or calcareous, substitution communities (Füzes, 1989: 143; Juhász, 2002).

It is to be pointed out that this is the area where an almost intact boat, a coracle, was found some decades ago. This coracle unfortunately perished and thus could not be examined by the present authors (Bakay et al., 1966: 76), but it demonstrates that the area was formerly covered with water that later became a marshland.

Depth in cm uncal BP cal BC at 1 sigma Lab. number

124.5 5090±70 3970-3790 Deb-11325

204.5 6900±90 5880-5660 Deb-11333

278.0 7600±70 6510-6380 Deb-11122

364.5 9080±90 8450-8200 Deb-11330

228 –

The palaeopedological and archaeobotanical analyses have shown that the area became eutrophic before the advent of the Neolithic (Jaskó, 1947; Nagy-Bodor and Cserny, 1997a: 99-100). The boat was undoubtedly utilised when the shoreline was there, thus the find spot of the boat was an open water-basin, before the end of the Mesolithic.

Thus, a series of palaeoenvironmental data clearly indicate the occurrence of a pre-Neolithic population in Transdanubia. This situation allows the archaeologist, no option but to seek for any hints of pre-Neolithic evidence, either in the Mesolithic period or in the form of Mesolithic impact in the latest Starčevo and the earliest LBK phases.4) As regards the earliest settlement pattern around Lake Balaton, the hydrological changes provide us with a starting point. The sedimentological and palynological analyses confirmed the observation based on satel-lite photos: the water level and the lake shoreline changed considerably over time. In some periods, the lake broke into three or four smaller lakes with clear, cold water; when the climate turned warmer and wetter, the natural dams were breached and even the northern Tapolca Basin became part of the lake (Jakab et al., 2005). During these periods, the lake flooded the north-south valleys on its southern shore down to the Kapos River, occasionally as far as the Drava Valley (Cserny, 1992-1993; 1999; Nagy-Bodor and Cserny, 1997b; Cserny and Nagy-Bodor, 1999). The lakeshore was lined with marshlands even in drier periods. In the Roman Age, for example (Lamb, 1982: 148-151; Grynaeus, 2004: 93-94; Serlegi, in press) the road led along the side of Badacsony, since it was unsafe to construct it closer to the lake. The water level of the lake was fairly low at the close of the Mesolithic (7th millennium? cal BC) (Sümegi et al., 2004: 24), rising significantly just before the advent of the first Neolithic settlement (Jakab et al., 2005: 405-431).5) It follows that the Late Mesolithic encampments, which might have existed along the lakeshore are now submerged. However, a closer look at the location of the earliest Neolithic sites around the lake shows that they are distributed all along the changed shoreline, which was even higher than the present one. The earliest Neolithic sites, presently located at a certain distance from the lakeshore, were originally in the marshland or on islands in the marshland. This settlement pattern, broadly corresponds to the Mesolithic one. It may reflect

Fig. 5 - The pollen profile of Zalavár.

– 229

the unchanged subsistence of the surviving local foragers, who, after meeting the earliest Starčevo groups, complemented their diet with a small amount of domesticated cereals. All these settlements are located in areas unsuitable for agriculture. Their pottery is a first attempt at LBK (Bánffy, 2004: 336-345) (figs. 6 and 7). Therefore, it is possible (although it is not the only plausible assumption) that most of the sixty-five settle-ments along the shore in the marshland had been occupied by adapting Mesolithic hunter-fisher communities, and that small groups of Balkan immigrants settled in this area under their influence. If this was the case, part of the ‘lost’ Mesolithic population has been found. This scenario also implies that the relationship between the Starčevo and the indigenous populations was peaceful.6) The macrobotanic finds from this period are also remarkable with their different species of domestic plants and meanwhile a very low number of plant remains. In spite of the fact that the settlements lay in an environ-ment that was unfavourable for cultivation, the macrobotanical remains from the earliest phase indicate a variety of cereal species. In addition to einkorn (Triticum monococcum) and emmer (Triticum dicoccum), the samples from Pityerdomb include common wheat (Triticum aestivum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare), as well as edible goosefoot (Chenopodium album) (Berzsényi and Dálnoki, in press). The number of remains is low for each species, never exceeding twenty specimens. This might suggest that the extent of cultivation in western Trans-danubia and the Balaton region did not exceed the possible Mesolithic type horticulture - the range of plants cultivated and tended in the open areas between the houses and in the narrow zone along the shore was simply complemented with the species adopted from the Starčevo communities together with the art of cultivation (Zólyomi, 1980; 1995; Füzes, 1989; Medzihradszky et al., 1996; Nagy et al., 1999; Medzihradszky, 2001; Juhász, 2002). Although the introduction of domestic cereals brought a qualitative change, this did not lead to a quantitative change in the subsistence in this formative phase.7) The second half of and part of the answer to this problem lies in the loess Marcal Valley of northern Trans-danubia. Recent palynological investigatons at Csögle and Mezőlak (Juhász, 2002; Juhász and Szegvári, in press), can most likely be correlated with the establishment of Neolithic settlements on the loessy soils, on the basis of the known radiocarbon dates (5500-4800 cal BC). This is exactly the period of the developed LBK Keszthely group. Independently from these results, the archaeological survey indicated that the break-through to a food producing society must have taken place in the classical, Keszthely LBK phase, as demonstrated by the abundance of sites of this aspect along the loessic area of the Marcal Valley. A third type of analysis, indicating a sudden change in the chipped stone assemblages and tools at the beginning of this phase, also harmonizes with these phenomena, with the decreasing number and percentage of various types to mainly sickle blades (Biró, 2001a; 2002). This basic change in the subsistence economy must have happened in the developed LBK phase in Transdanubia.8) Following these data, the presence of Mesolithic chipped stone tools types can be interpreted as integral to the Neolithisation process. The region around the Szentgál mine, north of Lake Balaton, is rich in microlithic trapezes and other types of Late Mesolithic tools (Mészáros, 1948; Dobosi, 1972; Biró and Regenye, 1991: 348-349). They were collected during field surveys, which makes their cultural attribution questionable. Still, their probable attribution, based on their typological traits was not challenged either by Gy. Mészáros and R. Pusztai, who published the finds, or by V.T. Dobosi, K.T. Biró, R. Kertész and T. Marton, who all examined the lithics in question (Marton, 2003).2

A closer examination of these stone artefacts revealed traces of sickle gloss on a few pieces. Three possible explanations can be cited: 1) the sickle gloss can be attributed to their use in Mesolithic horticulture as a result of cutting grass or herbs; 2) the lithics came from an Early Linear Pottery settlement preceding the occupation in the classical phase; 3) or the tools represent the survival of the diverse Mesolithic tool-kit. According to K.T. Biró (1987; 1998; 2001a; 2002b; 2006) the third possibility can be definitely ruled out, while both the first two explanations might be valid. In the first case, we can assume an indigenous group already familiar, to a certain extent, with Neolithic innovations; while the second would imply a mixed population whose subsistence was in part based still on hunting and fishing, this being the reason why the stone tools needed for these activities were still used. The rich Mesolithic tool-kit: microlithic forms, the predominance of flakes and microscrap-ers thus survived into the Early Linear Pottery period. As reported by K.T. Biró (2001: 90-91 notes) “Lithic ——————————2 To my knowledge, the only specialist, who challenges the Mesolithic character of these assemblages, including Kaposhomok, is E. Starnini (2000: 209; 2002: 175-176). Concerning this site, there are some new results. In a recent study, the re-analysis of the finds has clarified the attribution of some pieces (Marton, 2003). The Mesolithic character of the Kaposhomok assemblage was acknowledged by Kozłowski and Kozłowski (1983: fig. 2 B-B), who first attributed it to the “Tardigravettien a trapezes”, and again by Kozłowski (2005). Further studies attribute the Kaposhomok finds to the Mesolithic (Kertész, 1993; Kozłowski, 2001).

.

230 –

Fig. 6 - Earliest pottery from the Balaton upland: Starčevo features from Rezi (after Sági and Törőcsik, 1991).

– 231

Fig. 7 - Earliest pottery from the Balaton upland: oldest LBK features from Tapolca (after Sági and Törőcsik, 1989).

232 –

industry of the Early Neolithic must have been more rich and varied than expected, more than the seemingly autarchic and simplistic classical LBK material”. An interesting observation is that the disappearance of this tool-kit coincided with the changes in the settlement patterns and subsistence at the beginning of the Keszthely phase, the period when the occupants of the Transdanubian settlements began to utilise the more simple range of tools, which generally characterise the Linear Pottery Cultures, which is restricted to sickle blades and a few other types (end scrapers and abrupt retouch borers) (Biró, 1991; 2001a; 2002a; 2002b).

The Kapos Valley and the Vázsony Basin, around Lake Balaton, near the Szentgál mine, are very rich in finds of this type (Mészáros, 1948; Pusztai, 1957; Dobosi, 1972; Marton, 2003). All the Mesolithic stone tools examined to date were made from Bakony mountains red radiolarite. More recently, a tool made from the same raw material came to light under well-documented circumstances at Regöly, during an excavation in the Kapos Valley (Bánffy et al., in press; Eichmann et al., in press). Most probably, the mine and the routes leading to it, were controlled by groups who traded this valuable rock for other useful commodities and important new knowledge, perhaps including cereal seeds and the young offspring of domestic animals. The use of Szentgál raw material by Starčevo groups, well before the emergence of the Linear Pottery Culture, indicates that the Szentgál mine was not a common property. The location of this important raw material source was not part of a common knowledge, neither was it freely exploited by all the groups (Lithotheca Database).

All the different above-mentioned types of evidence indicate that, in the 6th millennium cal BC, western Transdanubia and the Balaton region represented a frontier or a contact zone between the indigenous Mesolithic population (of which little is known, although the evidence of its existence grows every year) and the Neolithic Starčevo groups spreading from the south and south-east. The geographical and ecological conditions of the region undoubtedly played a role in the development of this frontier.

Geographical conditions in Transdanubia, especially in the Balaton region, were conducive to the emer-gence of a contact zone. The dissection of this hilly region by the large lake and the north-south river valleys, contributed to slow the process of diffusion and stimulated interaction with the indigenous groups. This zone also represents an ecological barrier, the Central European-Balkanic agro-ecological barrier, to use a new term (Sümegi and Kertész, 2001: 412-414 and fig. 5). Strong sub-Mediterranean influences, providing favourable habitats for Balkan flora and fauna associations, can be noted south of this imaginary line, while mixed oceanic elements predominate to its north, with increasing continental elements to its east. The mosaic patterning of the environment in the Carpathian Basin, the refugia preserving Carpathian and Illyrian elements, emerged at the beginning of the Holocene (Sümegi, 1995; 1996; 1999). This mosaic patterning can be observed on macro, meso- and, most important, on micro-level. Holocene profiles, from which radiocarbon dates are available, indicate that this mosaic patterning remained virtually unchanged until the shift to a production economy and that it was eventually destroyed by Neolithisation and the increasing human manipulation of the environment (Sümegi et al., 2002: 19-20). The changes are undoubtedly reflected in the entire floral and faunal spectrum, and they obviously influenced the range of plants that could be successfully cultivated, as well as the range of domestic species that could be kept. The north-south dissectedness also contributed to the mosaic patterning of the ecosytem, in which the river valleys, the ‘green corridors’ (Sümegi, 1999; Kertész and Sümegi, 1999; Sümegi and Kertész, 2001) played a key role, stimulating population movement and interaction between dif-ferent groups.

It is perhaps too early to speculate on the different phases of interaction since, owing to the patchiness of the evidence on the Mesolithic, even the assumed interaction between the two populations contains a number of hypothetical elements. Still, the study of the Mesolithic-Neolithic interaction in Transdanubia will no doubt be very instructive with the increase of the body of available data. These are some of the phases described by scholars and ethnologists studying group behaviour (Sahlins, 1972; Van De Velde, 1979). It is to be hoped that prehistorians studying the Neolithisation of the Carpathian Basin will some day have sufficient evidence to raise and, more importantly, answer these questions.

The indigenous Mesolithic groups were part of the mobile hunter-fisher-gatherer population whose remains have been found in the Sárrét district, Vázsony Basin, in the Northern Balaton coast, Little Balaton region, in the Kapos Valley and in the Szentgyörgyvölgy area. The interaction between the two populations probably meant that the two distinct lifestyles and sets of values acted as a stimulus, while their mutual reliance on each other no doubt contributed to the minimalizaton of possible conflicts, promoting a peaceful co-existence or even joint occupation of settlements.

To briefly sum up, the eastern and western half of the Central Carpathian Basin shows strong differences in the density of pre-Neolithic population and, consequently, in the form of the Neolithisation. Palaeoenvironmental analyses and archaeological research show little evidence of Mesolithic impact on the Early Neolithic cultures,

– 233

in the northern Alföld. The exception is the Jászság region, but we may suspect that it had closer affinity with Transdanubia than with the Tisza region.

On the other hand, the new investigations in the Balaton region and in western Transdanubia show a much more intensive pre-Neolithic presence. The data come primarily from geoarchaeological, archaeobotanical, palaeohydrological and malacological analyses, secondarily from the search for a pre-Neolithic, local impact on the earliest Neolithic archaeological evidences, i.e. settlement pattern, architecture, pottery, cult objects and possible ritual customs, and thirdly on the basis of Mesolithic encampments and finds. The Balaton region, consequently, may have acted as an important filter in mediating the process of the Neolithisation towards the inner regions of Central Europe.

234 –

R E F E R E N C E S

Bakay, K., Sági, K. and Kalicz, N. 1966 - Magyarország régészeti topográfiája [Archaeological Topography of Hungary], 1. A keszthelyi és a tapolcai járás [The Keszthely and the Tapolca district]. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

Bánffy, E. 2001 - Neue Funde der Starčevo-Kultur in Südtransdanubien. In Draşovean, F. (ed.) Festschrift für Gheorghe Lazarovici Zum 60. Geburtstag. Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica, XXX: 41-58. Mirton, Timişoara.

Bánffy, E. 2004 - The 6th Millennium BC boundary in Western Transdanubia and its role in the Central European transition (The Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdombsettlement). Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, XV. Budapest.

Bánffy, E., Eichmann, W. J. and Marton, T. in press - Mesolithic foragers and the spread of agriculture in Western Hungary. In Kozłowski, J.K. and Nowak, M. (eds.) Mesolithic/Neolithic Interaction in the Balkans and in the Middle Danube basin. BAR International Series. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Berzsényi, B. and Dálnoki, O. 2006 - Archaeobotanikai vizsgálatok - a Szentgyörgyvölgy–Pityerdomb (Zala megye) neolit korú lelőhely földmintáinak elemzése [Archaeobotanical investigations of the soil samples from the neolithic site Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb, County Zala]. Antaeus, 28: 261-270. Budapest.

Biró, K.T. 1987 - Chipped stone industry of the Linearband Pottery culture in Hungary. In Kozłowski, J.K. and Kozłowski, S.K. (eds.) Chipped stone industries of the early farming cultures in Europe. Archaeologia Interregionalis: 131-168. Kraków.

Biró, K.T. 1991 - Mencshely-Murvagödrök kőanyaga [The lithic assemblage from Mencshely-Murvagödrök]. A Tapolcai Városi Múzeum Közleményei, 2: 51-60. Tapolca.

Biró, K.T. 1998 - Lithic implements and the circulation of raw materials in the Great Hungarian Plain during the Late Neolithic Period. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest.

Biró, K.T. 2001 - Lithic materials from the Early Neolithic in Hungary. In Kertész, R. and Makkay, J. (eds.) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in Szolnok 1996. Archaeolingua, 11: 89-100. Budapest.

Biró, K.T. 2002a - Balatonalmádi-Vörösberény - Lithic material in the Transdanubian LBC site. Antaeus, 25: 119-168. Budapest.

Biró, K.T. 2002b - Advances in the study of early neolithic lithic materials in Hungary. Antaeus, 25: 237-241. Budapest.

Biró, K.T. 2006 - The lithic finds from Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb. Antaeus, 28: 217-251. Budapest.

Biró, K.T. and Regenye, J. 1991 - Prehistoric workshop and exploitation site at Szentgál-Tűzköveshegy. Acta Archaeologica Hungariae, 43: 337-375. Budapest.

Brewer, S. 2002 - Recolonization postglaciaire de quelques taxons tempérés en Europe: une approache spatiale et temporelle. Thesis presented for PhD Dissertation. University of Marseille (unpublished).

Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995 - Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy: the OxCal Program. Radiocarbon, 37: 425-430.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 1998 - Probability and Dating. Radiocarbon, 40: 461-474.

Cserny, T. 1992-1993 (1999) - Environmental geological investigations of Lake Balaton (Hungary). Annual Report of the Geological Institute (MÁFI): 131-137. Budapest.

Cserny, T. and Nagy-Bodor, E. 1999 - Geological-palynological research of wetlands at the foothills of Alps. In Draxsler, I. and Lippert, A. (eds.) Pollenanalytische Daten und eine archäologische Bestandaufnahme zur frühen Siedlungsgeschichte im Gebiet zwischen Raab und Mur (Österreich, Slowenien, Ungarn). Abhandlungen der geologischen Bundesanstalt, 56 (1): 337-396; 383-394.

Cserny, T. and Nagy-Bodor, E. 2006 - Geological-palynological research at the foothills of the Alps. Antaeus, 28: 155-174. Budapest.

Dobosi, V.T. 1972 - Mesolithische Fundorte in Ungarn [Mezolithikus lelőhelyek Magyarországon]. In Fitz, J. (ed.) Aktuelle Fragen der Bandkeramik: 39-60. Székesfehérvár.

Domboróczki, L. 2001 - Településszerkezeti sajátosságok a középső neolitikum időszakából, Heves megye területéről [Characteristics of settlement patterns in the middle phase of the New Stone Age from the area of Heves County]. In Dani, J., Hajdú, Zs. and Nagy, E.Gy. (eds.) MΩMOSZ, I: 67-94. Debrecen.

Eichmann, W.J., Kertész, R. and Marton, T. in press - Mesolithic in the LBK heartland of Western Hungary. In Gronenborg, D. and Petrasch, J. (eds.) Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas. Internationale Tagung 24-26. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseums, Mainz 2005.

Füzes, M. 1989 - A földmívelés kezdeti szakaszának (neolitikum és rézkor) növényleletei Magyarországon (Archeobotanikai vázlat) [Die Pflanzenfunden in Ungarn der anfänglichen Entwicklungsphase des Ackerbaues (Neolithikum und Kupferzeit)]. Archäobotanische Skizze. A Tapolcai Városi Múzeum Közleményei, I: 139-238. Tapolca.

Gál, E., Juhász, I., Sümegi, P. (eds.) 2005 - Environmental archaeology in North-Eastern Hungary. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, XIX. Budapest.

Gardner, A.R. 1998 - Biotic response to Early Holocene human activity: results from palaeoenvironmental analyses of sediments from Podpesko jezero. Documenta Praehistorica, XXIV: 63-77. Ljubljana.

– 235

Grynaeus, A. 2004 - A magyarországi dendrokronológiai kutatás eredményei és új kérdései. In F. Romhányi, B., Grynaeus, A. Magyar, K. and Végh, A. (eds.) “Es tu scolaris” Ünnepi tanulmányok Kubinyi András 75. születésnapjára. Monumenta Historica Buda-pestinensia, XIII: 87-102. Budapest.

Jakab, G., Sümegi, P. and Szántó, Zs. 2005 - Késő-glaciális és holocén vízszintingadozások a Szigligeti-öbölben (Balaton) makrofosszília vizsgálatok eredményei alapján. Földtani Közlöny, 135: 405-431. Budapest.

Jaskó, S. 1947 - A Kis-Balaton tőzegterületének geológiai fejlődéstörténete [The geological history of the Kis-Balaton peat area]. An-nual Report of the Geological Institute (MÁFI), 9: 1-10. Budapest.

Juhász, I. 2002 - The palynographic reconstruction of the Late Glacial and the Holocene periods of County Zala, South West Hungary (Reconstruction palynographique de Tardiglaciaire et de l’Holocene de la région de Zala, Sudouest de la Hongrie). Thesis sub-mitted for PhD Degree Examination. Marseille-Pécs (unpublished).

Juhász, I. 2004 - Palynological evidences of Preneolithisation in South-Western Transdanubia. Antaeus, 27: 213-225. Budapest.

Juhász, I. in press a - The pollen sequence from Sárkeszi. In Zatykó, Cs., Juhász, I. and Sümegi, P. (eds.) Environmental Archaeology in Transdanubia. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest.

Juhász, I. in press b - The pollen sequence from Balatonederics. In Zatykó, Cs., Juhász, I. and Sümegi, P. (eds.) Environmental Archae-ology in Transdanubia. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest.

Juhász, I. and Szegvári, G. in press - The pollen sequence from Mezőlak. In Zatykó, Cs., Juhász, I. and Sümegi, P. (eds.) Environmental Archaeology in Transdanubia. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest.

Kalicz, N. 1990 - Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae, IV. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest.

Kalicz, N. 2002 - Die Verbreitungsgrenze der frühneolithischen Kulturen in Transdanubien (Westungarn). Preistoria Alpina, 37: 25-44. Trento.

Kalicz, N., Virág, Zs. and Biró, K. 1998 - The northern periphery of the early neolithic Starčevo culture in south-western Hungary: a case study of an excavation at Lake Balaton. Documenta Praehistorica, 25: 151-187. Ljubljana.

Kertész, R. 1993 - Data to the Mesolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain. Tisicum, 8: 81-104. Szolnok.

Kertész, R. 1994a - The present state of the research of the Mesolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain. Jász-Nagykun Megyei Múzeumok Közleményei, 49: 9-33. Szolnok.

Kertész, R. 1994b - Late Mesolithic chipped stone industry from the site Jásztelek I (Hungary). In Lőrinczy, G. (ed.) Von der Steinzeit bis zum Mitterlalter. Studien zum 60. Geburtstag von Ottó Trogmayer: 23-44. Museum of Szeged.

Kertész, R. 1995 - Az Alföld őstörténeti vázlata a mezolitikum és a kora neolitikum időszakában (A Jászsági ősrégészeti modell jelentősége). Jász Múzeum Évkönyve, 1995: 62-80. Szolnok.

Kertész, R. 1996 - The mesolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain: A survey of evidence. In Tálas, L. (ed.) At the fringes of three worlds. Hunters-gatherers in the Middle Tisza valley: 5-39. Szolnok.

Kertész, R. and Sümegi, P. 1999 - Teóriák, kritika és egy modell: miért állt meg a Körös-Starčevo kultúra terjedése a Kárpát-medence centrumában? [Theories, critiques and a model: why did the expansion of the Körös-Starčevo culture stop in the centre of the Carpathian Basin?]. Tisicum, 11: 9-23. Szolnok.

Kertész, R., Sümegi, P., Kozák, M., Braun, M. and Félegyházi, E. 1994 - Mesolithikum im nördlichen Teil der ungarischen Tiefebene. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, 36: 15-61. Nyíregyháza.

Kertész, R., Sümegi, P., Kozák, M., Braun, M. and Félegyházi, E. 1995 - Ásatások Jászberény I. lelőhelyen [Excavations at Jászberény I. Site]. Archaeologiai Értesítö, 121-122: 3-28. Budapest.

Kozłowski, J.K. 2005 - Remark to the Mesolithic in the Northern Part of the Carpathian Basin. In Gál, E., Juhász, I. and Sümegi, P. (eds) Environmental archaeology in North-Eastern Hungary. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, 19: 175-186. Budapest.

Kozłowski, J.K. and Kozłowski, S.K. 1983 - Le Mésolithique à l’Est des Alpes. Preistoria Alpina, 19: 37-56. Trento.

Kozłowski, S.K. 1977 - Harpun ze stanowiska Przemysl II [Harpoon from the site Przemysl II]. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica, 17: 139-143. Kraków.

Kozłowski, S.K. 2001 - Eco-cultural/stylistic zonation of the Mesolithic/Epipalaeolithic in Central Europe. In Kertész, R. and Makkay, J. (eds.) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996. Archaeolingua, 11: 261-282. Budapest.

Lamb, H.H. 1982 - Climate, History and the Modern World. Methuen, London.

Lithotheca Database. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. www.ace.hu/litoth

Marosi, A. 1935 - Őskőkori szigony Merítő-Pusztáról [A prehistoric harpoon from Merítő-Puszta]. Székesfehérvári Szemle: 75-76. Székesfehérvár.

Marosi, A. 1936 - A székesfehérvári múzeum őskori csontszigonya [A prehistoric bone harpoon from the Székesfehérvár Museum]. Archaeologiai Értesítö, 49: 83-85. Budapest.

236 –

Marton, T. 2003 - Mezolitikum a Dél-Dunántúlon - a somogyi leletek újraértékelése [Mesolithic in Southern Transdanubia - the Somogy finds re-evaluated]. Studia Archaeologica, IX: 39-48. Szeged.

Medzihradszky, Zs. 2001 - The holocene sequence of Keszthely-Úsztatómajor, Hungary. Annales Historiae Naturalis Musei Nationalis Hungarici, 93: 5-12. Budapest.

Medzihradszky, Zs. and Járai-Komlódi, M. 1996 - Late Holocene vegetation history and the activity of man in the Tapolca Basin. Annales Historiae Naturalis Musei Nationalis Hungarici, 88: 21-29. Budapest.

Mészáros, Gy. 1948 - A Vázsonyi-medence mezolit-és neolitkori települései [The mesolithic and neolithic settlements in the Vázsony Basin]. Veszprém.

Molnár, M., Svingor, É., Sümegi, P., and Szántó, Zs. in press - The radiocarbon dates for the Sárrét sequence. In Zatykó, Cs., Juhász, I., and Sümegi, P. (eds.) Environmental Archaeology in Transdanubia. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest.

Nagy-Bodor, E. and Cserny, T. 1997a - A keszthelyi-öböl vízzel borítottságának fejlődéstörténete [The geological history of the chang-ing water level at the Keszthely bay]. Hidrológiai közlöny, 77 (1-2): 98-100. Budapest.

Nagy-Bodor, E. and Cserny, T. 1997b - The Pre-Quaternary Morphology and Quaternary Geohistory of Lake Balaton. In Juhász, Á. and Pécsi, M. (eds) Geomorphological studies on the Transdanubian Mountains. IAG European Regional Geomorphological Conference, Hungary, April 9-12, 1996: 70-73. Budapest.

Nagy-Bodor, E. and Járai-Komlódi, M. 1999 - Palinológiai vizsgálatok a tapolcai medencében. I. Vízi és mocsári növények a holocén és későglaciális időkben. Hidrológiai közlöny, 79 (6): 332-333. Budapest.

Pusztai, R. 1957 - Mezolitikus leletek Somogyból. A Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve, 1957: 95-105. Pécs.

Regenye, J. in press (2007) - A Starčevo-kultúra települése a Tihanyi-félszigeten [Settlement of the Starčevo culture in the Tihany peninsula]. In Dani, J., Hajdú, Zs. and Nagy, E.Gy. (eds.) MΩMOSZ, III. Debrecen.

Sági, K. and Törőcsik, Z. 1989 - A Dunántúli Vonaldíszes Kerámia “Tapolcai csoportja” [The “Tapolca group” of the Transdanubian Linear Pottery culture]. A Tapolcai Városi Múzeum Közleményei, 1: 29-72. Tapolca.

Sági, K. and Törőcsik, Z. 1991 - A Dunántúli Vonaldíszes kerámia kultúrája ”Tapolcai csoportjának” Balaton környéki lelőhelyei. Fundorte der zur Kultur der Transdanubischen Linienbandkeramik gehörenden ”Tapolca-Gruppe” in der Balatongegend. Bibliotheca Musei Tapolcensis, 1. Tapolca.

Sahlins, M. 1972 - Stone Age Economics. Aldine Press, Chicago.

Serlegi, G. in press - A balatonkeresztúri “vízmérce” – környezetrégészeti információk a Balaton déli partjának római kori történetéhez [The “water gauge” of Balatonkeresztúr: environmental archaeological data on the Roman Period history of the southern shore of Lake Balaton] In Biró, Sz. (ed.) ”Firkák.” Fiatal Római Koros Kutatók Konferencia Kötete. Győr.

Simon, K.H. 1996 - Ein neuer Fundort der Starčevo-Kultur bei Gellénháza (Kom. Zala, Ungarn) und seine südliche Beziehungen. In Draşovean, F. (ed.) The Vinča culture, its role and cultural connections. Bibliotheca Historica et Archaeologica Banatica, 2: 59-92. Mirton, Timişoara.

Starnini, E. 2000 - Stone industries of the Early Neolithic cultures in Hungary and their relationships with the Mesolithic background. In Biagi, P. (ed.) Studi sul Paleolitico, Mesolitico e Neolitico del bacino dell’Adriatico in ricordo di A.M. Radmilli. Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Quaderno 8: 207-220. Trieste.

Starnini, E. 2002 - La transizione mesolitico/neolitico in Ungheria: uno sguardo critico sullo stato della ricerca. In Omaggio a Santo Tiné. Miscellanea di Studi di Archeologia Preistorica e Protostorica. Pubblicazioni del D.Ar.Fi.Cl.Et., NS. 206: 173-190. Uni-versità di Genova, Genova.

Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Beck, J.W., Burr, G.S., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., Mccormac, G., Van Der Plicht, J. and Spurk, M. 1998 - INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24000-0 cal BP. Radiocarbon, 40 (3): 1041-1083.

Sümegi, P. 1995 - Az utolsó 30.000 év változásainak rekonstrukciója őslénytani adatok alapján a Kárpát-medence centrális részén [Changes of the last 30.000 years in the Central Carpathian Basin, a reconstruction based on palaeontologic data]. “Berényi Dénes professzor születésének 95. évfordulója” tiszteletére rendezett tudományos emlékülés előadásai. MTA Debreceni Területi Bizottsága, Meteorológiai Munkabizottság és KLTE Meteorológiai Tanszék Kiadvány: 244-258. Debrecen.

Sümegi, P. 1996 - Az ÉK-magyarországi löszterületek összehasonlító őskörnyezeti és sztratigráfiai értékelése [Loess areas in north-eastern Hungary - a comparative palaeoecological and stratigraphic evaluation]. PhD Dissertation, Debrecen University (unpublished).

Sümegi, P. 1999 - Reconstruction of flora, soil and landscape evolution, and human impact on the Bereg Plain from late-glacial up to the present, based on palaeoecological analysis. In Hamar, J. and Sárkány-Kiss, A. (eds.) The Upper Tisa Valley. Tiscia Monograph Series: 173-204. Szeged.

Sümegi, P. 2003 - New chronological and malacological data from the Quaternary of the Sárrét area, Transdanubia. Acta Geologica Hungarica, 46 (4): 371-390. Budapest.

Sümegi, P. 2004 - Preneolitizáció - egy Kárpát-medencei, késő-mezolitikum során bekövetkezett életmódbeli változás környezettörténeti rekonstrukciója. In Dani, J., Hajdú, Zs. and Nagy, E.Gy. (eds) MΩMOSZ, II: 21-32. Debrecen.

Sümegi, P. in press a (2007) - Description of the sampling location at Sárkeszi. In Zatykó, Cs., Juhász, I. and Sümegi, P. (eds.) Environmental Archaeology in Transdanubia. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest.

– 237

Sümegi, P. in press b (2007) - The sediment sequence from Balatonederics. In Zatykó, Cs., Juhász, I. and Sümegi, P. (eds.) Environmental Archaeology in Transdanubia. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest.

Sümegi, P., Bodor, E., Juhász, I., Hunyadfalvi, Z., Molnár, S., Herbich, K., Szegvári, G., Imre, M. and Timár, G. 2004 - A balatoni déli autópálya régészeti lelőhelyeinek környezettörténeti feldolgozása [Environmental investigation on the archaeological sites of the south motorway at Balaton)]. MΩMOSZ, III: 399-420. Szombathely.

Sümegi, P. and Gulyás, S. (eds.) 2004 - The Geohistory of Bátorliget Marshland. An Example for the Reconstruction of Late Quater-nary Environmental Changes and Past Human Impact from the Northeastern Part of the Carpathian Basin. Archaeolingua, 16. Budapest.

Sümegi, P. and Kertész, R. 2001 - Palaeogeographic characteristics of the Carpathian Basin - an ecological trap during the Early Neo-lithic? In Kertész, R. and Makkay, J. (eds.) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Zamjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996. Archaeolingua, 11: 405-415. Budapest.

Sümegi, P., Krolopp, E. and Rudner, E. 2002 - Negyedidőszak végi őskörnyezeti változások a Kárpát-medencében térben és időben [Late quaternary environmental changes in the Carpathian Basin in space and time]. Földtani Közlöny, 132: 5-22. Különszám.

Szántó, Zs., Svingor, É., Sümegi, P. and Molnár, M. in press - The radiocarbon dates for the Balatonederics sequence. In Zatykó, Cs., Juhász, I., and Sümegi, P. (eds.) Environmental Archaeology in Transdanubia. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest.

Tinner, W. and Lotter, A.F. 2001 - Central European vegetation response to abrupt climate change at 8.2 ka. Geology, 29 (6): 551-554.

Torma, I. (ed.) 1993 - Magyarország Régészeti Topográfiája, 9. A Szobi és a Váci járás [The archaeological topography of Hungary, 9. The Szob and Vác district]. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

Velde, P. van de 1979 - On bandkeramik social structure. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, 12: 1-242.

Willis, K. 1997 - The impact of early agriculture upon the Hungarian landscape. In Chapman , J. and Dolukhanov, P. (eds.) Landscapes in flux. Central and Eastern Europe in Antiquity. Colloquia Pontica, 3: 193-207. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Zalai-Gaál, I. 2004 - Die Geweihharpunen und Harpunenfischerei im Spätneolithikum des Karpatenbeckens. Praehistorische Zeit-schrift, 79 (2): 133-144.

Zatykó, Cs., Juhász, I. and Sümegi, P. (eds.) in press - Environmental Archaeology in Transdanubia. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica, Budapest.

Zólyomi, B. 1980 - Landwirtschaftliche Kultur und Wandlung der Vegetation. Phytocoenologia, 7: 121-126.

Zólyomi, B. 1995 - Opportunities for pollen stratigraphic analysis of shallow lake sediments: the example of Lake Balaton. Geo-Journal, 36 (3): 237-241.

Authors’ Addresses:ESZTER BÁNFFY and IMOLA JUHÁSZ Archaeological Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Úri utca 49 – H - 1014 BUDAPEST e-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]

PÁL SÜMEGI, Department of Geology and Palaeontology, University of Szeged, Egyetem utca 2-6 – H - 6722 SZEGEDe-mail: [email protected]

Centralgrafica s.n.c.Loc. Bagnoli della Rosandra, 612 - San Dorligo della Valle (Trieste)

Tel. 0408325013 - Fax 0408326424 - e-mail: [email protected]

A prelude to the Neolithic in the Balaton region – new results to an old problem.

Documents