167 Documenta Praehistorica XLIII (2016) A network of the steppe and forest steppe along the Prut and Lower Danube rivers during the 6th millennium BC Agathe Reingruber Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, DE areingruber@zedat.fu-berlin.de History of research Traditionally, Neolithic cultures of the forest and coastal steppes of the northern and north-western Pontic regions are known by the names of rivers (Dnepr, Bug, Dniestr), outlining concurrently the geographical area of the respective archaeological culture. This naming was also used for the western- most exclave of the steppe belt, the Alföld, along the Tisza and Lower Körös rivers. In contrast, in the western Pontic area, and the Balkans in general, those sites that were excavated early in the 20th cen- tury gave names to cultures covering geographically diverse entities, extending on both sides not only of broad rivers, but also of steep mountains (e.g., Ka- ranovo or Star≠evo cultures). This distinct approach might be explained by the fact that in the forest and coastal steppes no metre-high tell-sites with a verti- cal stratigraphy and only sites with a horizontal stra- tigraphy developed during the Neolithic, whereas in Southeast Europe it is precisely such sites that have served as chronological backbones for the whole re- gion and beyond, and all subsequently excavated ma- terials, even from distant areas, were related to such sites. Additionally, modern history shaped the different terminological systems: the vastness of the north- ABSTRACT – The transition from a (predominantly) mobile way of life relying on hunting, fishing and gathering to a (predominantly) sedentary life-style based on farming and animal husbandry is considered in the western Pontic archaeological tradition almost exclusively from a southern, Aegean- Anatolian perspective. Contacts between the steppe and forest steppe of the north-eastern Balkans and the north-western Pontic were seen as linear and unidirectional; ‘cultures’ were defined almost exclusively on the basis of pottery styles. Not only such traditional viewpoints, but also the political conditions of the 20th century further biased prehistoric research. However, the outer Carpathian region should not be treated as a periphery of the inner Carpathian Cris culture, but as a region of multidirectional exchange networks. Moreover, certain traditions are obviously rooted in the Meso- lithic of that area. IZVLE∞EK – Prehod od (prete∫no) mobilnega na≠ina ∫ivljenja, ki je temeljil na lovu, ribolovu in na- biralni∏tvu, na (prete∫no) sedentaren na≠in ∫ivljenja, ki je temeljil na poljedelstvu in ∫ivinoreji, se obravnava v arheolo∏kih tradicijah na obmo≠ju zahodnega ∞rnega morja predvsem iz ju∫ne, torej egejsko-anatolske perspektive. Kontakti med obmo≠jema stepe in gozdne stepe na severovzhodnem Balkanu in severozahodnem ∞rnem morju naj bi potekali linearno in enosmerno; ‘kulture’ so defi- nirane skoraj izklju≠no na podlagi zna≠ilnosti okrasa na lon≠enini. Poleg tradicionalnih pogledov v stroki so tovrstno pristranskost do prazgodovinskega raziskovanja podkrepile tudi politi≠ne razmere v 20. stoletju. Ne glede na to, obmo≠je zunanjih Karpatov ne bi smeli obravnavati lo≠eno od notra- nje karpatske kulture Cris, saj gre za regijo, kjer so potekale mre∫e izmenjav v razli≠nih smereh. Poleg tega imajo nekatere tradicije o≠iten izvor v obdobju mezolitika na tem obmo≠ju. KEY WORDS – Eastern Lower Danube area; Prut valley; steppe; forest steppe; Cris culture; ‘Star≠evo- Cris IV phenomenon’; exchange networks DOI> 10.4312\dp.43.8 Agathe Reingruber 168 ern Pontic area was not divided into several coun- tries during the 20th century, but was covered by the Soviet Union (USSR). In contrast, the Balkans and the Carpathian Basin were divided by many nation- al borders that additionally shifted during the world wars and had to be renegotiated throughout the 20th century. For example, Romania was submitted to many transformations that are also reflected in archaeological approaches. Therefore, some post-war interpretations need re-appraisal, especially when they touch upon the problematic political relation- ship between Romania and two of its neighbours during the 20th century. On the one hand, the King- dom of Romania (1881–1947) and with it Greater Romania (1918–1940) as well as the Socialist Repub- lic of Romania (1947–1989) were in strong compe- tition with its neighbour to the west, the Kingdom of Hungary under the regime of Admiral Horthy (1920– 1944; Fig. 1), followed by the Hungarian People’s Republic until 1989. On the other hand, the tense re- lationship with the dominant Soviet Union (1922– 1991) and, as part of it, the Moldavian SSR (1944– 1991) also did not favour cooperative scientific pro- jects (Fig. 2). 1944–1989 in West Romania Historical events influenced archaeological interpre- tations during the 20th century essentially. For exam- ple, until 1918 Transylvania was part of the Austrian- Hungarian Empire, and afterwards part of Romania; between 1940 and 1944 its northern part was under Hungarian rule, and since 1945 it has again been un- der Romanian administration (Figs. 1, 2). A child of that period, János Banner (1888–1971), received his PhD in 1911 from the University of Kolozsvár (nowadays Cluj). Du- ring connection of northern Tran- sylvania with Hungary, he publi- shed his basic book on the Tisza- Maros-Körös area (Banner 1942) and led excavations in Hódmező- vásárhely until 1944. In the same year, there appeared what is still a fundamental book on the Körös cul- ture by Ida Bognár-Kutzian (1919– 2001) (Bognár-Kutzian 1944). Thus, the Early Neolithic (hence- forth, EN) of eastern Hungary was defined when Transylvania was under Hungarian rule. The EN Star≠evo culture was named after a site near Pan≠evo (southeast of Belgrade) excavated in the early 1930s (Fewkes et al. 1933). Vladimir Miloj≠i≤ (1918– 1978) included some of the materials in the PhD that he submitted in Vienna (Miloj≠i≤ 1944). Deriving from this study, he published in his influential book on chronology in 1949, in which he established four major phases of Star≠evo culture. According to the evolutionist understanding of archaeological cultures of his time, the culture started with a monochrome phase I, evolved through the simple white and later sophisticated polychrome painted phases II–III and ended with phase IV, a phase in decline (the latter being attestable only in northern Serbia (Miloj≠i≤ 1949.71)). Draga Arandjelovi≤-Gara∏anin in 1954 and Stojan Dimitrijevi≤ in 1974 adopted this system with some changes. Yet, it was not until 1979 that the EN chronology for western Romania was developed in detail by Ghe- orghe Lazarovici (*1941). He extended the territory of Star≠evo culture from Serbia into western Roma- nia and expanded the periodisation by adding new sub-phases. Although in his view the Körös culture cannot be seen as a group in its own right (Lazaro- vici 1979.60), he adopted the same name (Cris is the Romanian name for the river Körös – compare Figures 1 and 2) for the EN culture in western Roma- nia. Whereas the first three phases of the Star≠evo- Cris culture were located in the Banat, Transylvania and Oltenia, in phase IV Star≠evo-Cris also expand- ed to Moldova (Lazarovici 1979.53–55). Interest- ingly, he chose to label with ‘Star≠evo-Cris IV’ (writ- ten by him in quotation marks in order to differen- tiate it from the chronological phase IV) a ‘phenome- non’ (Lazarovici 1979.55–56) that is not part of the Fig. 1. Territories under Romanian administration between 1941 and 1944. A network of the steppe and forest steppe along the Prut and Lower Danube rivers during the 6th millennium BC 169 Star≠evo-Cris culture, but for which no other name would be necessary, although the pottery of the out- er Carpathian area, decorated with incisions in zig- zags, ripples and channelling, is strikingly different (see below). In addition to the impediment imposed by national borders, another shortcoming throughout the 20th century was the perpetuation of methodologically outdated approaches. Namely, the uncritical appli- cation of Miloj≠i≤s’ sophisticated, but, without any adjustments (e.g., absolute data) highly problematic system based exclusively on relative chronology led to partial interpretations. Miloj≠i≤ was very clear about the requirements the method of comparative stratigraphy based on typological comparability in- volved: not only pottery shapes, but also figurines, ornaments, burial customs, tools, construction tech- niques, and settlement patterns must be analysed before establishing a temporal relationship between two sites (Miloj≠i≤ 1949.4–5). These requirements were not always met, either by himself or the gene- ration following him. Instead of describing Star≠e- vo culture based on a detailed analysis of all the ele- ments mentioned above that are essential for the definition of a ‘culture’, Miloj≠i≤ used only one of these elements: pottery styles. Moreover, he relied on personal communications from Miodrag Grbi≠ and not on a verified/verifiable analysis (Miloj≠i≤ 1949.122, footnote 4). Thus, his demand to over- come ‘scientific intuition’ (Miloj≠i≤ 1949.1) as a basis for chronological analysis was hardly being achieved, at least not in the case of Star≠evo culture. In many subsequent studies, this key method of pre-radiocar- bon dating was narrowed down to a comparison of specific pottery traits, stressing single, exceptional elements (the occurrence or absence of paint) rather than working out and elaborating the basic rules. Even Miloj≠i≤s strong rejection for 14C dates seems to have persisted in some recent publications. As a result, the definition of Star≠evo culture, and with it of Cris culture, is not grounded on precise stratigraphic observations; on the contrary, the chro- nological system is based on subjective interpreta- tions and assumptions. Even less helpful was the transplantation of concepts and results from the Aegean to the Balkans, such as the issue of the ‘Mo- nochrome Horizon’. Furthermore, the evolutionist approach, characteristic of that time, led to the inter- pretation of Star≠evo IV as a phase in decline, there- by neglecting its importance. Whereas doubts con- cerning the ‘Monochrome Horizon’ have lately been advanced (Stojanovski 2014; Krauß et al. 2014; Reingruber in print a), the poorly defined phase IV (contemporaneous with Vin≠a A) has never been a topic for in-depth analysis. 1944–1991 in East Romania It was not until 1983 that materials of the EN in the eastern part of Romania, in the counties of Moldova and Bucovina, were analytically studied and consi- dered to pertain to the Cris culture (Ursulescu 1984). Previous interpretations were ignored. Yet, it was Fritz Schachermeyr (1895–1987) who proposed already in 1955 the term ‘Glăvănesti culture’ for a specific type of pottery that was first described by Ion Nestor (1905–1974) for the site of Glăvănestii Vechi near Iasi (Nestor 1951). In this respect, Schachermeyr was sup- ported by Miloj≠i≤ (whom he thanked in footnote 67). Miloj≠i≤, who can be considered as one of the best con- noisseurs of Star≠evo and Körös pot- tery of his time, had not identified common elements between Star≠evo pottery and the finds from Glăvăne- stii Vechi, and he had not advised Schachermeyr to draw comparisons of this sort. Nevertheless, through two articles published by its repre- sentatives in the same year of 1958 the Romanian Academy imposed the view that the whole territory of mo- dern Romania had been uniformly covered by the same Neolithic cul- ture. In a harsh critique, Vladimir Du- mitrescu (1902–1991) unequivocal- Fig. 2. Romania (after 1947) and the Republic of Moldova (after 1991). Agathe Reingruber 170 ly rejected the definition of a separate cultural enti- ty, since the outer Carpathian areas were also occu- pied by Cris culture (Dumitrescu 1958). Mircea Pe- trescu-Dîmbovita (1915–2013) also promulgated this view (Petrescu-Dîmbovita 1958). Moreover, Silvia Marinescu-Bîlcu (*1935) insisted that Cris culture had spread not only in Romania, but also in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova (Marinescu-Bîlcu 1981). This latter claim was remarkable, since the general- ly accepted view in Soviet times was that the Bug- Dniestr culture had evolved in Moldova (Markevich 1974). But with perestroika and the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1991, almost all sites were redefined as Cris sites instead of Bug-Dniestr (Dergachev et al. 1991; Larina 1994.Fig. 2), except for those sites si- tuated in the Dniestr-valley itself (e.g., Soroca). A more cautious interpretation was given by Klaus P. Wechler (2001) who proposed an eastern and west- ern variant of the Bug-Dniestr culture, with strong Cris-influences in the west. Nevertheless, he also ac- cepted the Cris designation, as it is generally still ac- cepted in the archaeological community. The problems related to research during the 20th century, both during the ‘hot’ and the ‘cold’ wars, are manifold. The shifting of national borders and their new negotiations during the 20th century did not favour international research within geographi- cal well-defined entities shared by neighbouring countries. During dictatorships – both rightist and leftist – politically biased research within the confi- nements of modern states’ borders was stimulated, favouring theories and concepts with an inherent and strong national component. History and prehi- story were used to legitimise territories repeatedly lost and regained before and after WW II. Certainly, not only in the Balkans, but also throughout Europe, archaeology and nationalism during the last century were “inextricably intertwined” (Díaz-Andreu, Champion 1996.21). Actually, also discourses of our times, as Yannis Hamilakis (1996.977) rightly points out, need careful examination, since subjectivity is inherent in archaeological interpretation. Apart from the unfavourable historical background, an outdated methodology excluding natural scientif- ic approaches has also led to biased or partial results. The strong focus during post-war research on pot- tery and stratigraphy, the opening of very narrow but metre-long trenches resulted in mainly limited analysis, further submitted to subjective interpreta- tions. Exceptional painted sherds, always few in the pottery inventories, were used to define whole cul- tures instead of applying statistical, quantitative ana- Fig. 3. Map from 1985 showing “Romania’s integration in the climate and natural vegetation of Europe” (Atlas 1985.9). The red line corresponds approximately to the limits of the steppe in Fig. 4. A network of the steppe and forest steppe along the Prut and Lower Danube rivers during the 6th millennium BC 171 lysis. In this way, the qualitative method used in the early days of pottery analysis was perpetuated rather than critically re-evaluated. Natural sciences were only casually applied, so radiocarbon dates are even now few and ambiguous. Nevertheless, with the application of 14C dates, not only must relative chronological sequences be veri- fied, but also the concept of culture as defined main- ly by pottery styles be questioned. In a cross-region- al comparative approach, priority should be given not to single decorated sherds and poorly defined assemblages, but to the general climatic, ecological, and geographical setting in which people were liv- ing and striving, exploiting the given resources and adapting to the environment and its conditions. Climatic and ecological zones of the inner and outer Carpathians During the communist regime in Romania, unifor- mity was imposed both on society and the economy. Even climate and vegetation were regarded as uni- form throughout the territory of the modern state (Fig. 3), so it is not surprising that their advantages and/or disadvantages were not treated in archaeo- logical studies. Yet, both the climatic conditions and the vegetation cover are diverse, the Carpathian Mountains being a major dividing factor in this respect: they separate the temperate inner Carpathian climate from the more arid conditions of the steppe and forest steppe. Recently reconstructed temperatures for Lake Brazi in the Southern Carpathians accorded with inner Carpathian records (Tóth et al. 2015.578). For the outer Carpathian area, such palaeoclimate recon- structions are still only few (Mayewski et al. 2004; Weninger, Harper 2015). In its western extension, this region is distinguished by the bow described by the Prut and Danube rivers. It is a border region, peripheral to both the arid Pontic steppe farther northeast and to the temperate Balkan zone to the south-west. In Neolithic studies, its connectivity has often been underestimated. Additionally to modern political frontiers, climatic boundaries have also been located between Ukraine and Romania. Gene- rally, only few archaeological maps deal with trans- frontier climatic zones, although the Encyclopedia of Earth (Hogan 2013) considers that the steppe also covers southeastern Romania (compare Wenin- ger, Harper 2015.Fig. 3). Even in recent archaeolo- gical publications (Anthony, Brown 2011.139, Fig. 4; Gaskevych 2011.Fig. 2) does the Pontic-Caspian steppe stop in the west near the Danube Delta (Fig. 4). The assumed antagonism between the steppic nomads and the sedentary farmers of the Lower Danube area ap- pears thus more aggravated than prehistoric circumstan- ces would allow for. During the last 100 years, ma- jor activities related to defor- estation, drainage, river regu- lation, extensive land use, and overgrazing have changed dramatically both the land- scape and vegetation cover. In a region where only few scientific investigations have targeted the reconstruction of the landscape based on dril- lings and pollen analysis, old maps are especially valuable. Such a map was created by El- len M. Sanders in 1923, show- ing the typical mosaic of steppe – wetland – floodplain forest (Fig. 5). Sanders very meticulously describes theFig. 4. Extension of the steppe (according to Anthony, Brown 2011.Fig. 4). Agathe Reingruber 172 steppe areas with “no trees” and with “some trees” (i.e. forest steppe, a transitional zone of mixed gras- slands and temperate broadleaf and mixed forests). It appears that large areas of the outer Carpathian arch belong climatically to the Pontic steppe region, especially those areas close to the Prut and the east- ern Lower Danube. Another area of both primary and secondary steppe stretches along the Tisza River (compare also Tölgyesi et al. 2015), in an area inha- bited by the EN Körös culture in the Alföld (Bánffy 2013.Fig. 3). On the geographical map of the Lower Danube, the dominant feature is the presence or absence of sur- rounding mountains (Fig. 6). The western area is en- closed on three sides by mountains and forests (up to the River Vedea), and, in contrast, the eastern part is open towards three sides. This favours dif- ferent directions of prevailing winds and different quantities of precipitation. Whereas in Oltenia (like in the Banat) the Austuru brings warm and dry air from the west at an average of 20–30km/h, in Mun- tenia, as well as in Moldova and Dobrogea, the Cri- vătul, a strong wind reaching up to 120km/h, sweeps from the east with cold air and blizzards in winter and hot and dry air in summer. Hence, in the west- ern part, precipitation is between 500–700mm/a, whereas in the eastern part, precipitation is less than 400mm/a (Atlas 1985). Certainly, this has a strong influence on the vegetation cover: much of the outer Carpathian bow is covered primarily by steppe grasses and open forests of the silvosteppe, interspersed with wet meadows in the river valleys. Therefore, both climate and vegetation are compar- able to that of the north-western Pontic steppe region. That we do not deal in Muntenia with secondary steppe areas is proven by investigations carried out by an interdisciplinary team working in Pietrele, jud. Giurgiu. There, for the 5th millennium BC, the bones of steppe-preferring species such as horses and au- rochs, as well as a high percentage of grasses in the pollen record were attested (Benecke et al. 2013; A. Röpke in Hansen et al. 2012). The Lower Danube Region is thus far from being cli- matically uniform, but divided into different zones. The zone extending over both the eastern Lower Da- nube area and the Prut-Siret area is described as arid. The transitional zone between sub-Mediterranean and arid areas runs along the Vedea and Teleorman rivers north of the Danube and the Yantra south of the Danube (Atlas 1985.28, 42–43). This line (Fig. 6) can be regarded as an approximate separation between a western area (part of the temperate zone of Southeast Europe) and an eastern one (part of the much more arid zone of the Pontic region). In the modern era, these zones and their ‘ecological biogeography’ (Huggett 2004) are of little relevance. But populations responding to their physical and living surroundings, to both the abiotic (e.g., tem- perature, soils, water, air currents) and the biotic en- vironment (different species, parasites, diseases, pre- dators) were dependent on these factors. Differences in ecozones were certainly of major importance in pre-Neolithic times, when Mesolithic communities relied on their biomasses. With the emergence of a producing economy and the import of domesticated species, such dependencies were of less importance. If the view proposed here is accepted, whereby local Mesolithic communities participated actively in the Neolithisation process, then these ecozones should be considered as relevant also for the EN period. Limits in the definition of archaeological cul- tures: the case of the ‘Star≠evo-Cris IV pheno- menon’ In the traditional view, the definition of an archaeo- logical culture is based mainly on material culture (Wotzka 2014.139–144). Following Philippe Desco- la (2014.39), cultures can be further outlined accord- ing to their geographical boundaries. Not only are the remains of Cris culture east of the Carpathians insufficiently described, but also the geographical setting in- and outside the Carpathian Basin, two climatically and geographically quite distinct zones, has hardly ever been discussed. The easternmost stretches of the Pannonian Plain (‘Câmpia de Vest’, in western Romania) are bounded by the three Cris rivers (Fig. 6), but the sites labelled as Cris are in fact not located in the Crisana, the Cris Basin, but farther east, in the Somes catchment and farther south, in the catchments of the Mures (Transylvania) and Timis (Banat) rivers. This, for non-specialists, slightly confusing situation is further impaired by the transfer of the culture’s name Cris to the east (the county of Moldova and the Republic of Molodo- va). As a result, the earliest Neolithic evidence in the outer Carpathian bow, extending as far east as the Dniestr, is named after a river’s course from west of the mountains either as Cris or as ‘Star≠evo-Cris IV’ (compare Lazarovici 1979, above). Thus it must be possible to ask on what grounds the definition of this culture relies (apart from pottery styles), and how well-founded is its interpretation as a comprehensive cultural phenomenon (apart from the effort to sub- A network of the steppe and forest steppe along the Prut and Lower Danube rivers during the 6th millennium BC 173 sume Neolithic cultures occupying the territory of present-day Romania under the same label). No clear boundaries and no geographically or clima- tically well-defined area can thus be connected to Cris culture, as it is supposed to have spanned both the inner and outer Carpathian regions. The latter, the Prut-Danube region, is climatically a steppe/fo- rest steppe area. Rather than attaching this climati- cally, hydrologically, and culturally distinct region to the inner Carpathian basin, it should be envisaged as an important and not interchangeable living en- vironment in its own right. The transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in the Prut-Danube area should not be viewed through results obtained else- where, nor should assumptions be built on them, but be described according to the conditions given in the area east of the Carpathians. Apart from the lack of well-defined geographical boundaries, the temporal limits of the culture are also vague. When one compares 14C dates from dif- ferent sites of Cris culture, the problematic division into phases and, moreover, the deficiencies deriving from poorly applied stratigraphic comparisons be- come obvious, even for the heartland of the culture (Reingruber, Thissen 2016; Thissen, Reingruber in print). The first phase, Pre-Cris, is presumed to have antedated the 6000 BC margin by several hundred years (Ciută 2005.124), similarly to Proto-Star≠evo (Srejovi≤ 1988) and Pre-Karanovo (Todorova 2003). These early stages were connected to an allegedly ‘Monochrome Horizon’. As has been shown else- where (Reingruber in print a), this horizon cannot be verified stratigraphically in the whole of the Balkans. Its 14C dates vary between 6000 and 5500 BC (Reingruber, Thissen 2016), and cover the whole duration of Star≠evo-Cris culture; therefore, monochrome pottery is not limited to a distinct phase, but concomitant with all other phases. Apart from this, the concept of the ‘Monochrome Horizon’ derives from the Thessalian EN (Reingruber 2008. 211–213) and is not directly applicable to pottery from the Middle and Lower Danube area, especially not to the Ludogorie Plateau in north-eastern Bulga- ria. There, the pottery of the Koprivets culture (5900–5700 BC) has been linked to the (not only unpainted but also undecorated) Aegean ‘Mono- chrome Horizon’ (c. 6400 BC), although the vessels from Koprivets are decorated with impressions, in- cisions and plastic knobs (Fig. 7). Interestingly, inci- sions and impressions and the absence of paint are characteristic and defining elements of Bug-Dniestr pottery of the early 6th millennium BC (Wechler 2001). In the intermediate region of the Prut and Siret rivers again this kind of ornament prevailed in the pottery of the mid-6th millennium BC (Fig. 8). Therefore, rather than claiming direct contacts with distant Aegean regions solely due to the absence of paint, the (also unpainted) pottery inventories of the directly neighbouring Pontic region should be envisaged for comparisons first. Especially poorly defined is the final stage of the EN. Owing to an evolutionist perception of pottery pro- duction and of cultural development in general, the last phase of Cris culture was thought to be one of decline and decay: paint was no lon- ger applied, pots were of rougher appearance (Ursule- scu 1984.31–34, 37). This in- terpretation justified the des- ignation of sites from the out- er Carpathian bow as Cris, making a more thorough and independent analysis of the material culture seemingly dis- pensable, even though the (in- deed only few) absolute dates pointed not to a co-existence but to a temporal succession between Star≠evo-Cris and the ‘Star≠evo-Cris IV phenome- non’. Star≠evo-Cris culture ends in the west, in Serbia, according to 14C dates around Fig. 5. Climatic map of Romania and neighbouring areas (after Sanders 1923.387). Agathe Reingruber 174 5500 BC (Thissen, Reingruber in print). In the outer Carpathian area of Oltenia (southwest Romania) the ‘Star≠evo-Cris IV phenomenon’ has been dated at Câr- cea Viaduct and Valea Răii-Copăcelu to 5400–5300 BC (Mantu 1999–2000.98). In Moldova, at the Tre- stiana site (Popusoi 1983.36), the ‘Star≠evo-Cris IV phenomenon’ is assumed to have started around 5500 BC, ending with ‘Music Note Pottery’, a late va- riant of Linearband culture (LBK) at c. 5300 BC (Rein- gruber in print a). At the moment, we do not pos- sess enough data to characterise these two impor- tant centuries, between 5500 and 5300 BC, harbin- ger of major transformations in both the Lower and Middle Danube areas with the transitions to the Ka- ranovo III and Vin≠a cultures. Yet the contribution from the Prut-Danube region to the formation of cul- tures further upstream from the Danube, like Dude- sti at 5500 BC (Thissen in print) and Vin≠a at 5300 BC (Schier 1996), should not be underestimated. The Prut–Danube network of the north-western Pontic steppe: burial rites and stone tools Hence, a well-founded analytical description of a presumed cultural unity spreading both east and west of the Carpathian Mountains has not yet been provided. Pottery styles would rather point to large- ly independent, and radiocarbon dates to subsequent, phenomena re- garding the Star≠evo-Cris cultures in the west and ‘Star≠evo-Cris IV’ in the east. Certainly, pottery styles do dis- play regional variations, but through- out the whole area of the Prut-Da- nube river system they are (almost exclusively) unpainted and bear de- corations that are incised and/or im- pressed. This is a characteristic that can also be claimed for the western- most exclave of the steppe belt, the territory of Körös culture, where pot- tery surfaces were roughened by joining additional clay (barbotine), paint being applied only exception- ally. Recently, Mihael Budja has pointed out, in a wider European context, two major pottery tradi- tions: a northern one, never paint- ed, embedded within a hunter-ga- therer context and a southern one, with coloured decoration, connected to early farming communities of Near-Eastern origin (Budja 2015.546, Fig. 28.5). Pottery styles as described above (Figs. 7–8) are only one feature pointing to a network of contacts and exchange. Shared traditions are also traceable in other cultural features. The dominant funerary burial tradition in western Ukraine entailed burial in the supine position (Gaskevych 2015), unlike Aegean rites in which bodies were placed out in a crouched, hocker position (Lichter 2002). Inhuma- tion in an extended supine position was also a com- mon practice during the Mesolithic of the Iron Gates (Boroneant, Bonsall 2012), but in Lepenski Vir it was replaced after 6000 BC by the hocker position (Bori≤ 2015). Along the eastern Lower Danube area and the Black Sea coast (Cernica and Cernavodă, Du- rankulak and Varna), the supine burial position was used even during the late 6th and 5th millennia (Lich- ter 2001.151–152). For this reason, Lichter conclud- es that Mesolithic burial traditions in these regions survived until the Copper Age (Lichter in print). Furthermore, certain animal sacrificial rites in this area are, according to Valentina Voinea (2010), not only of Pontic but even of earlier Mesolithic tradi- tions. A strong argument for substantiating Pontic tradi- tions and influences in the Balkans are chipped stone tools, especially bullet cores used to produce parallel- Fig. 6. Topographical map with the mountainous arc described by the Carpathians and its continuation into a southern arc which, with Stara Planina, surrounds the western Lower Danube area. A network of the steppe and forest steppe along the Prut and Lower Danube rivers during the 6th millennium BC 175 sided bladelets. Ivan Gatsov recently pointed out that bullet core technology is of Anatolian origin and probably did not continue north of the Sea of Mar- mara, since in Bulgaria no such items have (yet) been found (Gatsov et al. in print). One could argue that, generally, very little is known from the Mesoli- thic in present-day Bulgaria, a period that should especially be targeted in future investigations. As Paolo Biagi and Dmytro Kiosak have shown for areas further north, bullet cores and the fine regular blades obtained from them, are typical of the Meso- lithic cultures of south-western Ukraine, especially the Kukrek and Grebenyky cultures, which spread as far west as the Prut (Biagi, Kiosak 2010.23–24). From its most important site, Myrne, close to the northernmost Chilia branch of the Danube Delta, geometric microliths (isosceles and rectangular tra- pezes) and bullet cores were recently dated to 7500– 7300 BC (Biagi, Kiosak 2010.Fig 1, Tab. 3). According to some authors, there are no differences between the tools of the Kukrek cultures and the north-western Pontic ‘Tardenoisian’ of Romania (Bia- gi, Kiosak 2010.25). Also, for northern Bulgaria a century-long use of microliths has been pointed out: in Ohoden, trapezes and segments were in use throughout the occupation (Gurova 2014.97), dated to c. 5700–5600 BC (Thissen, Reingruber in print). Further south, in Kova≠evo, they were replaced only in phases Ic–Id (dated to after 5700 BC; Reingruber, Thissen 2005) by so-called macroblades. The macroblade industry prevailed throughout the EN in Thrace. From sin- gle-platform cores, big regular blades were removed by punching with a hard hammer; also characteristic is the sub- sequently applied high and steep re- touch (Gatsov et al. in print.Fig. 1). In- terestingly, a specific kind of flint, a high-quality yellow flint with white spots, so-called ‘Balkan flint’ (hence- forth BF) is related to this technique (Gurova 2008.Figs. 2–12). The flint most probably derived from the Pleven-Niko- pol region in NNW Bulgaria (Gurova 2014.95), where it was extracted until c. 5500 BC; afterwards, its use declined in the Karanovo III/IV period. North of Stara Planina, the use of BF started in the so-called Pre-Karanovo period, or rather the Koprivets culture (Vajsov 2002), and is attested in the lowest levels of Dzhulyunitsa around 6050 cal BC (Krauß et al. 2014). South of Stara Planina, in the lowest levels of Tell Azmak and Tell Karanovo, its use can be dated to only after 5900/5800 BC. Farther south, in south- west Bulgaria, it does not occur in the earliest Neo- lithic occupation phase at Kova≠evo but only in later ones. Maria Gurova (2014.96) draws our attention to the fact that in north-eastern and northern Bulgaria, no macroblades (‘formal tools’, in her words) were in use in early contexts (e.g., Ohoden and Dzhulyu- nitsa). Consequently, Gurova and Clive Bonsall re- fer to different traditions north and south of Stara Planina (Gurova, Bonsall 2014.103). This very lim- ited evidence may, nevertheless, indicate that the Neolithic use of BF began earlier in northern Bulga- ria and, one would add, since the sources are in the north, it might be indicative of an exchange network already in use there before it expanded across the Balkan Mountains towards the south. Discussion: cultures and networks The elements required to define archaeological cul- tures were enumerated by, for example, Miloj≠i≤ (supra) in the mid-20th century; their territorial boundaries often coincided with the national bor- Fig. 7. Pottery from Koprivets (after Stefanova 1996). Agathe Reingruber 176 ders of the time. Changes were mainly explained by massive unidirectional mi- grations, by ‘penetrations’ from area A into area B (Ursulescu 1984). Yet, for an explanation of the complex trans- formation processes that led, for exam- ple, to the Neolithisation of Southeast Europe around 6000 BC or to the tran- sition from the MN to the LN around 5500/5300 BC, such approaches, if they exclude the natural sciences, are insuf- ficient. It is essential to understand transcultural and diachronic networks based on reciprocity and exchange, de- veloping in a given ecological setting and using natural communication and transportation routes. In this perspec- tive, pottery is only one among several elements to be studied: at least as im- portant are studies of raw material sources and their distribution, of ani- mal bones, of human remains. No pala- eogenetic or isotopic determinations have been carried out on individuals from the Prut-Danube area, but the studies of human bone material from two Körös sites yielded astonishing re- sults: the genome of a male from the more norther- ly farming site of Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza (c. 5700 BC) displays a hunter-gatherer background, whereas the genome of a female up to 100 years younger from the more southerly site of Berettyóújfalu-Mo- rotva-liget clusters with later Neolithic individuals (Gamba et al. 2014.3, Tab. 1). Although two sam- ples are a very thin basis for drawing any conclu- sions, it appears that in the steppe area of the Kö- rös region, direct contacts between Mesolithic and Neolithic groups occurred. On a much broader ba- sis, a system of patrilocal residential rules among early farmers was indeed proposed by Anna Szécsé- nyi-Nagy et alii (2015). This corresponds well with results obtained by Du∏an Bori≤ and Douglas T. Price (2013) from the Danube Gorges based on isotopic studies in which mainly women were of extra-local origin. In all three interconnected areas of the Prut-Danube river system – the area covered by 1) the Koprivets culture in north-eastern Bulgaria (as defined by Ivan Vajsov), 2) the area of the ‘Star≠evo IV phenomenon’ in Muntenia and Moldova (as defined by Gheorghe Lazarovici) inclusive of Glăvănesti culture (as it was named by Fritz Schachermeyr, but not accepted in the Romanian literature), and 3) the area of the for- mer Bug-Dniestr culture in the Republic of Moldova (redefined as Cris) – we meet similar characteristics, both climatically, hydrologically, and culturally. Here, it is plausible that an exchange network exist- ed along the outer Carpathian area. According to the conventions of the terminology used for Neo- lithic cultures in the steppe, this network should be named after the major rivers of the region, the Prut and Danube. The network was in use already during the Mesolithic (according to evidence from stone tools) and was afterwards enlarged in Neolithic times (according to evidence from pottery). The radiocar- bon dates for the sites participating in this network are few and often ambiguous: dates even older than 6000 BC derive from the northern sites west of the Dniestr (e.g., Soroca II-Trifăuti), but they must be treated with caution (Gaskevych 2010). From its cen- tral part, the oldest dates are 5900–5700 BC (e.g., Poiana Slatinei – compare Weller, Dumitroaia 2005. Fig. 6), and the dates from the southern reaches (the Koprivets culture) are similar. The network can be followed up until at least 5500/5300 BC (e.g., Soro- ca V and Trestiana) (Thissen, Reingruber in print). Subsequently, an expansion along the Danube to- wards the west is marked by the pottery with Noten- kopf (Music Note) decoration, which is found in Fig. 8. 1–5 pottery from Trestiana (after Ursulescu, Dergachev 1991.Fig. 3; Popusoi 1983.Fig. 4.12–13); 6–8 pottery from Sa- carovca (after Dergachev et al. 1991.Fig. 4). A network of the steppe and forest steppe along the Prut and Lower Danube rivers during the 6th millennium BC 177 Pietrele and Vădastra (Reingruber in print a.Fig. 1). Therefore, major transcultural networks can be pointed out that developed along the different river systems (highlighted in different colours on Fig. 6): ● operating along the Axios/Vardar-Struma-Morava rivers and Danube-Timis-southern Tisza-Mures (Niko- lov in print) and along the Maritsa-Tundzha and Yantra-Vit-Vedea-Olt (Reingruber in print b) is the network that connects the Balkans and the inner Carpathians, comprising roughly the archaeological cultures of Amzabegovo-Vr∏nik, Karanovo and Star- ≠evo-Cris with, e.g., white painted vessels, hocker burials and with a macroblade technology as well as tell-settlements (in Thrace). ● another network is that of the steppe and forest steppe, comprising the sites both west and east of the river Prut (formerly ascribed to Bug-Dniestr cul- ture or attributed to the ‘Star≠evo-Cris IV phenome- non’) and sites of the eastern Lower Danube catch- ment. It is characterised by incised and impressed decorations on pots, flat settlements (if tells formed, then only late, after 4800 BC), supine burial posi- tions and simple blade technology. The different networks are connected in the east- west and west-east directions by the Danube, which facilitated communication and exchange between the regions. Building upon Richard Huggetts ecological biogeo- graphy, three zones can be defined for Southeast Europe: ● the First Neolithic of the circum-Aegean zone, starting around 6700/6600 BC (Reingruber 2015), covering the Mediterranean subtropical zone (Hug- gett 2004.102) between roughly 35° and 42° north; ● the First Temperate Neolithic of the Balkans and eastern Central Europe, between 6000 and 5500 BC (Thissen in print) in the Humid mid-latitude zone (Huggett 2004.102) of SE Europe, north and south of the 45th parallel north; ● the First Neolithic of the western and north-west- ern Pontic steppe and forest steppe of the Arid mid- latitude zone (Huggett 2004.102), with an early stage between 5900–5500 BC and a later stage between 5500–5300 BC. As indicated in Fig. 6, these zones were intercon- nected by the courses of the different rivers that were essential for maintaining transcultural ex- change networks. Especially in present-days north- eastern Bulgaria, a contact zone between the two lat- ter entities emerges: concerning, the white painted pottery of the Thracian tradition appears also on the northern fringes of Stara Planina, whereas in the Lu- dogorie basically incisions and impressions of steppe traditions were used; on the other hand, the raw material was from the Nikopol region, highly valued also south of Stara Planina. Conclusions The Neolithic discoveries west of the Dniestr River are in the opinion of both Moldavian (Dergachev et al. 1991) and Ukrainian archaeologists (Nadja Kotova, personal comm. 07.11.2015) indeed dif- ferent from Bug-Dniestr material culture. According to the above notions, it is also different from the inner Carpathian Cris culture. It is therefore not advisable to speak of Cris culture (in its Star≠evo variant) in the outer Carpathian area, in areas of present-day eastern Muntenia and Moldova, since the basic criteria for the definition of a culture are not met, not to speak of the extremely different eco- system of the inner and the outer Carpathian arch. Yet, for the outer Carpathian area pottery styles, bu- rial traditions, and tool manufacturing attest to a certain degree of exchange, even to perpetuations of traditions from the previous Mesolithic period. Faci- litated by the Prut, Danube, and Siret rivers, a net- work was established in this region that operated si- multaneously with those west of the Carpathians or south of the Balkan Mountains (Fig. 6). It certainly deserves more careful and detailed treatment in the future. The more thoroughly we are able to understand and accept the Prut-Danube area as an interconnected network system of its own, not caught between na- tionalist and politically motivated approaches, the better are the chances of understanding develop- ments in the broader area between 5900 and 5300 BC. Anatolian-Aegean-centric views do not explain all the transformations appearing after 6000 BC in the northern Balkans, especially not those occurring after 5500 BC. Around the middle of the 6th millen- nium BC, major transformations have been noted, like the shift to largely unpainted pottery styles and the exploitation of new raw material sources in Ka- ranovo III and Vin≠a A phases. The beginning of the Dudesti cultures in Muntenia and Vin≠a-Dudesti in Oltenia in particular are poorly defined. In terms of radiocarbon dates, the site of Măgura-Buduiasca near Anthony D. W., Brown D. R. 2011. The Secondary Pro- ducts Revolution, Horse-Riding, and Mounted Warfare. Journal of World Prehistory 24: 131–160. Arandjelovi≤-Gara∏anin D. 1954. Star≠eva≠ka kultura. Univerza v Ljubljani. Arheolo∏ki seminar. Ljubljana. Atlas 1985. Atlas Geografic: Republica Socialistă Româ- nia. Editura didactică si pedagogică. Bucuresti. Bánffy E. 2013. The Early Neolithic in the Danube-Tisza interfluve. Archaeolingua Central European Series 7. Bri- tish Archaeological Reports IS 2584. Archaeopress. Oxford. Banner J. 1942. Das Tisza-Maros-Körös-Gebiet bis zur Entwicklung der Bronzezeit. Archäologisches Institut der Miklós Horthy-Universität. Szeged. Benecke N., Hansen S., Nowacki D., Reingruber A., Ritchie K. and Wunderlich J. 2013. Pietrele in the Lower Danube region: integrating archaeological, faunal and environmen- tal investigations. Documenta Praehistorica 40: 175–193. Biagi P., Kiosak D. 2010. The Mesolithic of the northwest- ern Pontic region: New AMS dates for the origin and spread of the blade and trapeze industries in southeastern Europe. Eurasia Antiqua 16: 21–41. Bognár-Kutzian I. 1944. A Körös kultúra. Institut für Münz- kunde und Archäologie der Péter Pázmány Universität. Budapest. Bori≤ D. 2015. Mortuary practices, bodies and persons in the Neolithic and Early-Middle Copper Age of Southeast Europe. In Chr. Fowler, J. Harding and D. Hofmann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe. Oxford Uni- versity Press. Oxford: 927–957. Bori≤ D., Price T. D. 2013. Strontium isotopes document greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neoli- thic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110(9): 3298–3303. Boroneant A., Bonsall C. 2012. Burial practices in the Iron Gates Mesolithic. In R. Kogălniceanu, R.-G. Curcă, M. Gligor and S. Stratton (eds.), Homines, Funera, Astra. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Funerary Anthropology, Alba Iulia 2011. British Archaeological Reports IS 2410. Archaeopress. Oxford: 45–56. Budja M. 2015. Pots and Pottery in the Mesolithic–Neo- lithic Transition in South-East Europe. In Chr. Fowler, J. Harding and D. Hofmann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe. Oxford University Press. Oxford: 535–553. Ciută M.-M. 2005. Începuturile neoliticului timpuriu în spatiul intracarpatic transilvănean. Aeternitas. Alba Iulia. Dergachev V., Sherratt A. and Larina O. 1991. Recent re- sults of Neolithic research in Moldavia (USSR). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 10(1): 1–16. Descola Ph. 2014. Die Ökologie der Anderen: Die An- thropologie und die Frage der Natur. Matthes & Seitz. Berlin. Díaz-Andreu M., Champion T. (ed) 1996. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. University College London Press. London. Dimitrijevi≤ S. 1974. Das Problem der Gliederung der Star≠evo-Kultur mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den Beitrag der südpannonischen Fundstellen zur Lösung dieses Prob- Agathe Reingruber 178 Alexandria antedates the Vin≠a tell by c. 200 years (Thissen, Reingruber in print). These two centuries, 5500–5300 BC, will hardly be understood without acknowledging the contribution and role played by the Prut-Danube area in the formation or expansion of networks in the western Lower Danube area and even farther upstream after 5500 BC. Future inter- I am especially grateful to Clemens Lichter and Laurens Thissen for sharing their views on burial customs and Early Neolithic pottery production with me. I further wish to thank Ivan Gatsov, Petranka Nedelcheva, and Vas- sil Nikolov for allowing me to use unpublished manuscripts. I am much obliged to the two anonymous review- ers who contributed to clarifying the line of argument. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS References ∴ disciplinary trans-regional and trans-frontier studies will certainly help clarify some of misunderstandings and problems we are confronted with nowadays. The input and importance of this network in transforma- tion processes following the Danube farther upstream certainly will then be better appreciated. A network of the steppe and forest steppe along the Prut and Lower Danube rivers during the 6th millennium BC 179 lems. In Les débuts des civilisations agricole en Voivo- dine er an Serbie danubiennes. Materijali 10: 93–107. Dumitrescu V. 1958. Review: Fritz Schachermeyr, Die ältesten Kulturen Griechenlands, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1955. Studii si Cercetări de Istorie Veche si Arheologie 9(1): 195–204. Fewkes V., Goldman H. and Ehrich R. 1933. Excavations at Star≠evo, Yugoslavia, seasons 1931 and 1932. A preli- minary report. Bulletin of the American School of Pre- historic Research 9: 33–54. Gamba C. and 16 authors. 2014. Genome flux and sta- sis in a five millennium transect of European prehistory. Nature Communications 5: 1–9. Gaskevych D. 2010. Severo-pontiyskoe impresso: prois- khozhdenie neoliticheskoy keramiki s grebenchatym or- namentom na yuge Vostochnoy Evropy (North-Pontic Im- presso: Origin of the Neolithic Pottery with Comb Decora- tion in the South of Eastern Europe). Stratum Plus 2010 (2): 213–251. (in Russian) 2011. A new approach to the problem of the Neolithi- sation of the North-Pontic area: is there a north-eastern kind of Mediterranean Impresso pottery? Documenta Praehistorica 38: 275–290. 2015. Pogrebenyya Bugo- dnestrovskoy neolytycheskoy kul’turi: kriticheskij analiz istochnikov (Burials of the Bug-Dniestr Neolithic culture: a critical analysis of sour- ces). Stratum Plus 2015(2): 181–206. (in Russian) Gatsov I., Nedelcheva P., Kozłowski J. and Kaczanowska M. in print. Lithic industries and their role in Neolithisa- tion models in Southeast Europe. In A. Reingruber, Z. Tsir- tsoni and P. Nedelcheva (eds.), Going West? The Dissemi- nation of Neolithic Innovations between Bosporus and the Carpathians. Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014. EAA Monograph Series: Themes in Con- temporary Archaeology. Taylor & Francis Group, Abing- don-on-Thames. In print. Gurova M. 2008. Towards an understanding of Early Neo- lithic populations: a flint perspective from Bulgaria. Docu- menta Praehistorica 35: 111–129. 2014. Neolithic flint assemblages from Bulgaria. An overview. Samarskij nau≠nyj vestnik 3(8): 94–107. Gurova M., Bonsall C. 2014. ‘Pre-Neolithic’ in Southeast Europe: a Bulgarian perspective. Documenta Praehisto- rica 41: 95–109. Hamilakis Y. 1996. Through the looking glass: nationalism, archaeology and the politics of identity. Antiquity 70: 975–978. Hansen S. and 13 co-authors. 2012. Pietrele an der Un- teren Donau. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen und geomor- phologischen Untersuchungen im Sommer 2011. Eura- sia Antiqua 18: 1–68. Hogan C. M. 2013. Pontic steppe. Retrieved from http:// www.eoearth.org/view/article/178216 Published: July 21, 2012, 12:00 am, Updated: April 30, 2013, 4:11 pm. Last accessed 3.3.2016. Huggett R. J. 2004. Fundamentals of Biogeography. Routledge fundamentals of physical geography series. Psychology Press. London, New York. Krauß R., Elenski N., Weninger B., Clare L., Çakırlar C. and Zidarov P. 2014. Beginnings of the Neolithic in Southeast Europe: the Early Neolithic sequence and ab- solute dates from D∫uljunica-Smărde∏ (Bulgaria). Docu- menta Praehistorica 41: 51–77. Larina O. 1994. Culturi din epoca neolitică. Stiinta. Chi- sinău. Lazarovici Gh. 1979. Neoliticul Banatului. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, IV. Comitetul pentru cultură si educa- tie socialistă al judetului Cluj. Cluj-Napoca. Lichter C. 2001. Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungs- sitten des südosteuropäischen Neolithikums und Chal- kolithikums. Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Internationale Interakademische Kommission für die Er- forschung der Vorgeschichte des Balkans V. Zabern. Mainz. 2002. Burial customs of the Lower Danube and Eastern Balkans in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. Cultură si ci- vilizatie la Dunărea de Jos 19: 26–42. in print. The Transition from the Mesolithic to the Neo- lithic between Western Anatolia and the Lower Danube: Evidence from Burial Customs. In A. Reingruber, Z. Tsir- tsoni and P. Nedelcheva (eds.), Going West? The Dis- semination of Neolithic Innovations between Bospo- rus and the Carpathians. Proceedings of the EAA Con- ference, Istanbul 2014. EAA Monograph Series: Themes in Contemporary Archaeology. Taylor & Francis Group, Abingdon-on-Thames. In print. Mantu C. 1999–2000. Relative and absolute chronology of the Romanian Neolithic. Analele Banatului 7–8: 75–105. Marinescu-Bîlcu S. 1981. În legătură cu câteva opinii ale unor cercetători stră ini asupra neo-eneoliticului româ- nesc. Pontica 14: 39–46. Markevich V. I. 1974. Bugo-dnestrovskaja kul’tura na te- ritorii Moldavii. Stiinta. Chisinău. Agathe Reingruber 180 Mayewski P. A., Rohling E. E. and 14 co-authors. 2004. Ho- locene climate variability. Quaternary Research 62: 243– 255. Miloj≠i≤ V. 1944. Das ältere Neolithikum in Serbien. Dis- sertation. Philosophische Fakultät der Universität Wien. Wien. 1949. Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Mittel- und Südosteuropas. Mann. Berlin. Nestor I. 1951. Cultura ceramicii lineare în Moldova (pe baza săpăturilor arheologice de la Glăvănestii Vechi, Iasi). Studii si Cercetări de Istorie Veche si Arheologie 2(2): 17–26. Nikolov V. in print. Thrace, post-6000 BC. In A. Reingru- ber, Z. Tsirtsoni and P. Nedelcheva (eds.), Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Innovations between Bosporus and the Carpathians. Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014. EAA Monograph Series: The- mes in Contemporary Archaeology. Taylor & Francis Group, Abingdon-on-Thames. In print. Petrescu-Dîmbovita M. 1958. Contributions au probleme de la culture Criaaa en Moldavie. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 9: 53–68. Popusoi E. 1983. Săpăturile arheologice de la Trestiana, com. Grivita (jud. Vaslui). Materiale si Cercetări Arheo- logice 15: 28–36. Reingruber A. 2008. Die Argissa Magula. Das frühe und das beginnende Neolithikum im Lichte transägäischer Beziehungen. Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Ar- gissa Magula II. Beiträge zur Ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeerraums 35. Habelt. Bonn. 2015. Preceramic, Aceramic or Early Ceramic? The radio- carbon dated beginning of the Neolithic in the Aegean. Documenta Praehistorica 42: 147–158. in print a. The Beginning of the Neolithic Way of Life in the Eastern Lower Danube Area: A View from the North In A. Reingruber, Z. Tsirtsoni and P. Nedelcheva (eds.), Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic In- novations between Bosporus and the Carpathians. Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014. EAA Monograph Series: Themes in Contemporary Archaeo- logy. Taylor & Francis Group, Abingdon-on-Thames. In print. in print b. Coastal and Riverine Thrace during the Me- solithic and the Neolithic Period. In K. Bacvarov, R. Gle- ser (eds.), Southeast Europe and Anatolia in prehis- tory: essays in honor of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th an- niversary. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie Habelt. Bonn. Reingruber A., Thissen L. 2005. 14C database for the Aegean Catchment (Eastern Greece, Southern Balkans and Western Turkey) 10.000–5500 cal BC. In C. Lichter (ed.), How did farming reach Europe? Anatolian-Euro- pean 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. BYZAS 2 Veroffentlichungen des Deutsches Archaeologi- schen Instituts Istanbul. Ege Yayınları. Istanbul: 295– 327. 2016. The 14SEA Project: A 14C database for Southeast Europe and Anatolia (10,000–30,000 cal BC). http:// www.14sea.org/ Last accessed 28.11.2016. Reingruber A., Tsirtsoni Z. and Nedelcheva P. (eds.) in print. Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic In- novations between Bosporus and the Carpathians. Pro- ceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014. EAA Mono- graph Series: Themes in Contemporary Archaeology. Tay- lor & Francis Group, Abingdon-on-Thames. In print. Sanders E. M. 1923. The New Rumanian State: Regions and Resources. Geographical Review 13 (3): 377–397. Schachermeyr F. 1955. Die ältesten Kulturen Griechen- lands. Kohlhammer. Stuttgart. Schier W. 1996. The Relative and Absolute Chronology of Vin≠a: New Evidence from the Type Site. In F. Drasovean (ed.), The Vin≠a Culture, its Role and Cultural Connec- tions. International Symposion 1995. Mirton. Timisoara: 141–162. Srejovi≤ D. 1988. The Neolithic of Serbia: archaeological research 1948–1988. The University of Belgrade. Faculty of Philosophy. Centre for Archaeological Research. Bel- grade. Stefanova T. 1996. Comparative Analysis of Pottery from the “Monochrome Early Neolithic Horizon” and “Karano- vo I Horizon” and the Problems of the Neolithization of Bulgaria. Poro≠ilo o raziskovanju paleolika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 23: 15–38. Stojanovski, D., Nacev T. and Arzarello M. 2014. Pottery typology and the monochrome Neolithic phase in the Re- public of Macedonia. In W. Schier, F. Drasovean (eds.), The Neolithic and Eneolithic in Southeast Europe. New ap- proaches to dating and cultural dynamics in the 6th to 4th millennium BC. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südost- europa 28. Verlag Marie Leidorf. Rahden/Westf.: 9–27. Szécsényi-Nagy A. and 27 co-authors. 2015. Tracing the genetic origin of Europe’s first farmers reveals insights into their social organization. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 282: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0339 A network of the steppe and forest steppe along the Prut and Lower Danube rivers during the 6th millennium BC 181 Thissen L. in print. The Beginning of the Neolithic Way of Life in the Eastern Lower Danube Area: A View from the North. In A. Reingruber, Z. Tsirtsoni and P. Nedelcheva (eds.), Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic Inno- vations between Bosporus and the Carpathians. Proce- edings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014. EAA Mono- graph Series: Themes in Contemporary Archaeology. Tay- lor & Francis Group, Abingdon-on-Thames. In print. Thissen L., Reingruber A. in print. Appendix: 14C Database for Southeast Europe and Adjacent Areas (6600–5000 cal BC). In A. Reingruber, Z. Tsirtsoni and P. Nedelcheva (eds.), Going West? The Dissemination of Neolithic In- novations between Bosporus and the Carpathians. Pro- ceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014. EAA Mo- nograph Series: Themes in Contemporary Archaeology. Taylor & Francis Group, Abingdon-on-Thames. In print. Todorova H. 2003. Neue Angaben zur Neolithisierung der Balkanhalbinsel. In E. Jerem, P. Raczky (eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschich- te in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Archaeolingua Alapítvány. Budapest: 83–88. Tóth M., Magyari E. K., Buczkó K., Braun M., Panagiotopou- los K. and Heiri O. 2015. Chironomid-inferred Holocene temperature changes in the South Carpathians (Roma- nia). The Holocene 25(4): 569–582. Tölgyesi C., Bátori Z., Erdős L., Gallé R. and Körmöczi L. 2015. Plant diversity patterns of a Hungarian steppe-wet- land mosaic in relation to grazing regime and land use hi- story. Tuexenia 35: 399–416. Ursulescu N. 1984. Evolutia culturii Star≠evo-Cris pe te- ritoriul Moldovei. Muzeul Judetean Suceava. Suceava. Ursulescu N., Dergacev V. 1991. Influences de type Vin≠a dans le néolithique ancien de Moldavie. Banatica 11: 156–172. Vajsov I. 2002. Early monochrome Neolithic in Bulgaria. In Abstract book to the 9th Neolithic Seminar: The Neo- lithization of Eurasia – Reflections in Archaeology and Archaeogenetics. Ljubljana, 28 November – 1 December 2002. http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/seminars/a9.html (last accessed 9.12.2015). Voinea V. 2010. Funeral rites in the Hamangia culture: animal sacrifice. Sprawozdania Archaeologiczne 62: 65– 91. Wechler K.-P. 2001. Studien zum Neolithikum der osteu- ropäischen Steppe. Archäologie in Eurasien 12. Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Mainz. Weller O., Dumitroaia Gh. 2005. The earliest salt produc- tion in the world: An early Neolithic exploitation in Poiana Slatinei-Lunca, Romania. Antiquity 79(306): Project Gal- lery. http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/weller/ Weninger B. and Harper Th. 2015. The Geographic Corri- dor for Rapid Climate Change in Southeast Europe and Ukraine. In S. Hansen, P. Ráczky, A. Anders and A. Rein- gruber (eds.), Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea. Chronologies and Technologies from the 6th to the 4th Millennium BCE. Ar- chäologie in Eurasien 31. Habelt-Verlag. Bonn: 475–505. Wotzka H.-P. 2014. Kulturbegriff. In D. Mölders, S. Wol- fram (eds.), Schlüsselbegriffe der Prähistorischen Archä- ologie. Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher. Wax- mann. Münster, New York: 139–144. .