UDK 903.2(398)"633/634":575.I.291.37
Documenta Praehistorica XXXVI (2009)
Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic diffusion in Southeastern Europe
Mihael Budja
Department of Archaeology, Ljubljana University, SI miha.budja@ff.uni-lj.si
ABSTRACT - The 14C gradient of pottery dispersal suggests that the sites in the southern Balkans are not significantly older than those in the northern and eastern Balkans. A gradual demic diffusion model from south to north and a millennium time span vector thus find no confirmation in the set of AMS14C dates and associated contexts that mark pottery dispersal within Southeastern Europe. The first 'demic event' that was hypothesised to reshape significantly European population structure and generate a uniform process of neolithisation of southestern Europe has no confirmation in frequency of Y-chromosome subhaplogroups J2b and E3b1 distribution within modern population in Southeastern Europe.
IZVLEČEK - 14C datumi prve keramike kažejo, da zgodnje neolitska najdišča na jugu Balkana niso starejša od onih na severu. AMS 14C datumi ne potrjujejo modela postopne demske difuzije od juga proti severu in tisočletni časovni zamik pri širitvi keramike. Prvi 'demski dogodek', ki naj bi domnevno preoblikoval evropsko populacijsko sestavo, v jugovzhodni Evropi pa povzročil proces enovite neo-litizacije, ni potrjen s pogostostjo pojavljanja Y-kromosomskih haploskupin J2b in E3b1 pri sedanjih populacijah v jugovzhodni Evropi.
KEY WORDS - Southeastern Europe; Early Neolithic; pottery; AMS 14C dates; Y-chromosome haplo-groups
Introduction
Pottery has become archaeologically conceptualized by an interpretative triad suggesting that in the context of human social evolution, 'lower barbarism' (Neolithic) can be distinguished from 'upper savagery' (Mesolithic) by the presence of vessels (Morgan 1878), that territorial distributions of pottery types reflect 'sharply defined archaeological cultural provinces' (Kossina 1911.3), and that the invention of ceramic technology and pottery making was 'the earliest conscious utilization by man of a chemical change... in the quality of the material... the conversion of mud or dust into stone' in the Neolithic (Childe 1951.76-77).
It is worth remembering that pottery distributions became highly ideologized and politicised after Lex Kossinae formalized the 'cultural province', an entity defined not from regional geography, but an in-
ductive category deriving from regional distributions of 'Linear' and 'Corded' pottery that 'correspond, unquestionably, with the areas of particular people or tribes'. These people were hypothesised Proto-Indo-Europeans of 'Neolithic Germany' who migrated from the area between the North Sea and Baltic Sea and colonized the rest of Europe (Kossina 1911; 1936). Childe agreed that Neolithic pottery was a universal indicator of both, 'cultural identities' and 'distributions of ethnic groups' (Childe 1929.v-iv). But he strongly disagreed that its invention and primary distribution can be found within the Europe. He actualized an old Montelius' 'normative principle to pre-historians in Western Europe' that postulates European prehistory as 'a pale reflexion of Oriental culture' (Childe 1939.10). There was no room either for technological innovations, or for structural changes in economy and ideology that could have occurred
DOI: 10.4312/dp.36.7
117
in Europe autonomously and that could have been linked to the Mesolithic-Neolithic cultural transformations at the 'Dawn of European Civilization' (Childe 1925; 1928).
Childe (1939.25-26) postulated a Neolithic zonal model in which, along with 'true cities and little townships in the Orient', in "Thessaly, Macedonia and the Morava-Maros region beyond the Balkans, Neolithic villages are permanently occupied by experienced farmers who are content to do without metal... North of the Maros Körös, herdsmen and Bükkian troglodytes are grazing and tilling patches of löss and then moving on; still farther north, Danubian I hoe-cultivators are shifting their hamlets of twenty-odd huts every few years to fresh fields till they reach the confines of the löss... Beyond these, on the North European plain are only scattered bands of food-gatherers hunting, fowling and fishing and collecting nuts or shell-fish...". Because of interrelated assumptions that all cultural innovations must have originated in those areas where civilizations flourished at the earliest date (Orient), and that they were diffused in the area where cultural continuity was attested (Europe), he denoted this model diffusionist.
However, in the same year (1939) Coon introduced the migration model. He postulated the gradual invasion of the 'Danubian agriculturalists of the Early Neolithic' that brought a 'food-producing economy
into central Europe from the East'. These people were 'Mediterranean', a new population in Europe that originated in western Asia in a Natufian cultural context. The model was grounded on the metrical and morphological characteristics of skeletal remains of Neolithic 'Danubian immigrants' and on the distribution of 'Danubian painted pottery', that shows 'definite Asiatic similarities'. Both, the invasion of farmers and pottery dispersal were supposed to have occurred from Eastern Mediterranean 'up the Danube Valley' into the Carpathian basin, Central Europe and further to the west, to the Paris basin.
One of his basic interpretative premises relates to interaction between essentially different populations on the agricultural frontier. He relates it to a continuous blending of populations, suggesting that, "When the food producers entered the territory formerly occupied by Upper Palaeolithic hunters, the former were much more numerous than the latter, who either retired to environmental pockets economically unfavorable to the food producers, or were absorbed into the ethnic corpus of the latter. The adjustment of the earlier population element to the new conditions and their re-emergence through the Mediterranean group made a combination of the two basic racial elements in a genetic sense necessary." (Coon 1939.647) (Fig. 1a).
It is worth remembering the frontier thesis had been entertained since Herodotus identified it as the agri-
Fig. 1. The map of frequency distribution of morphological and anthropometric characteristics and associated physical types (a) that was hypothesised to corresponds with the Neolithic invasion of Mediterraneans in Europe and with the process of 'Dinaricization' (Coon 1972.Map 8; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, Piazza 1994.Fig. 5.4.1), and the map of genetic landscape (b) of the first principal components that was hypothesised to corresponds with Neolithic 'demic diffusion' (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, Piazza 1994.Map 4).
cultural boundary and the meeting point of the civilized and barbarian worlds. Turner (1893) introduced a similar notion, referring to the American frontier and colonial conquest of America's Great West thus "The first ideal of the pioneer was that of conquest. It was his task to fight with nature for the chance to exist... Vast forests blocked the way; mountainous ramparts interposed; desolate, grass-clad prairies, barren oceans of rolling plains, arid deserts, and a fierce race of savages, all had to be met and defeated." (cfr. Klein 1997.81; see also Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy 1986; Zvelebil 2000).
The interaction between the populations of Mesoli-thic hunter-gatherers (the Alpines) and Neolithic newcomers (the Mediterraneans), was believed to be determined by a 'dinaricization' process in which the 'Mediterranean type seems to be a brachycepha-lized by some non-Mediterranean agency'. A new phenotype appeared that can be recognized in modern populations in Europe by its modified craniofacial morphological characteristics: the 'occipital flattening and, the nasal bridge that become prominent'. The process was completed by the end of the Neolithic and, there were remained no other populations than the 'Dinaric' in most of Europe. The 'Mediterraneans' survived on the Iberian Peninsula, and the 'Alpines' in northern Scandinavia (Coon 1939.647648).
The interpretative spiral
Coon's biologically determinate migration model was never recognized in archaeology, although the migration of Mediterraneans, the concept of blending populations, and the cultural and populational frontiers have remained focal points in interpreting the European Neolithic. The repeated waves of migrations from Asia Minor and the establishment of Neolithic diaspora and colonial centres of Neolithiza-tion have been hypothesised in rich catchments in the Balkans and central Europe (Weinberg 1965. 308; Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; van Andel and Runnels 1995; Bogucki 1996; Özdogan 2008). The colonist's physical remains were suggested to be found in marginal areas of the Danube Gorges, where 'small and gracile male individuals' were buried together with the 'robust indigenous foragers' (Mikic 1980; Menk and Nemeskeri 1989; for comments, see Roksandic 2000). The Mediterraneans were hypothesised as having married in to the Danube Gorges from 'outside', from agricultural communities (Chapman 1993), and the appearance of new burial practices in the gorges, it was sugge-
sted, 'can only be explained in terms of either acculturation or immigration' (Bonsall 2008.271).
Pinhasi indeed suggests morphological affinities between the Balkan and Anatolian Çatal Höyük populations, but, surprisingly, not with earlier Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic populations (Pinhasi 2003; 2006; Pinhasi and Pluciennik 2004; Pinhasi, Fort, Ammerman 2005). In a recent interpretation based on a 'null evolutionary model of isolation-by-geographic and temporal distance' and on the correlation of Mesolithic and Neolithic craniometric data with the classic genetic marker dispersal within modern European populations, Pinhasi and von Cramon-Tauba-del (2009) suggest that crania metric data support the continuous dispersal of people from Southwest Asia to Europe. They found, contrary to Coon, no strong support for a significant admixture of contemporaneous Mesolithic and Neolithic populations in Europe. They suggest that their results 'best fit a model of continuous demic diffusion' into Europe from the south-western Asian, and that the indigenous Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Europe played almost no role in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Europe.
An excellent illustration, however, of the mixing of 'crania metric characteristics' in a funerary context is shown in the trapezoidal structure 21 at Lepenski Vir (Fig. 2). Apart from the extended inhumation inside the burial pit cut through the floor, there was a disarticulated human skull placed on the left shoulder and facing the deceased. Next to the right side, aurochs and deer skulls with antlers were placed. A sculpted boulder had been placed on the building floor, above the skull. A comparison of human skull morphology reveals that they are very different in terms of size and robustness. While the disarticulated skull is decidedly robust and has been traditionally attributed to a very robust Mesolithic population, the adult man's skeleton in the burial pit was recognized as gracile and has been attributed to a Neolithic population (for a discussion, see Boric 2005.24). Both the skeleton and the disarticulated human skull are dated - after a correction for the freshwater reservoir effect - to an overlapping age range from 6216-5884 and 6080-5728 calBC at 2g - (Boric and Dimitrijevic 2009). Stable isotope g15N values indicate that the skulls show differences in dietary practices. While the isotopic signature of the 'robust' one indicates a diet heavily based on riverine resources, the 'gracile' one shows a mixed diet based on terrestrial and riverine resources. These differences, however, cannot be easily interpreted as
Fig. 2. Lepenski Vir, trapezoidal structure No. 21. An extended inhumation of an adult man, placed in a burial pit cut through the floor ('gracile' skull, left). The disarticulated human skull ('robust' skull, right) was placed on shoulder of the deceased. Aurochs and deer skulls with antlers were placed next to his right side. A sculpted boulder had been placed on the building floor, above the skull (after Srejović 1969.Fig. 69; Ra-dovanović 1996.Fig. 4.3; Borić 2005.Fig. 3.3; Babović 2006.Figs. 313, 314).
marking a clear break between Mesolithic and Neolithic subsistence (Boric et al. 2004; Borić 2005). The materiality of this Lepenski Vir burial context suggests that both 'cranial phenotypes' participated in a funeral rite, and that ancestral principle may have played a key role.
Parallel to Coon's1 racial taxonomy and human phe-notype dispersals, the distribution of pottery types and ornaments has been discussed in archaeology in the context of the colonization of southeast Europe in the Early Neolithic. The pottery was recognized 'as the most accessible manifestation of the material culture available, without any breaks, for the comparative study of development' (Theocharis 197339), and also as 'the most obvious diagnostic element' for tracing 'waves of migrations' from Asia Minor (Scha-chermeyr 1976.43-46).
In the most influential interpretation in the sixties, Southeastern Europe was recognized as a 'western province of the Near Eastern peasant cultures', created by the processes of colonisation and acculturation' (Piggot 1965.49-50; see also Roden 1965). This assertion was grounded on the identification of 'common traditions in pottery styles' between the regions and in the distribution of 'oriental stamp-seals' and female figurines, and 'sometimes of animals, which may relate to religious cults'. Nandris (1970.193, 202) suggested that this dispersal marks Early Neolithic 'cultural unity', which was 'greater than was
ever subsequently achieved in this area of southeast Europe, down to the present day'. In this context, Greece was suggested as being the location of the 'foundation' and 'construction of the main features of Neolithic culture' in Europe (Theocharis 1973. 58). The reconstruction of colonizing and accultura-ting logic was reduced to identifying the geographical distribution of 'monochrome' and painted pottery. Both achieved paradigmatic status as cultural and ethnic markers of the Neolithic diaspora, in which farming 'oriental' communities dispersed across the Peloponnese and Thessaly on the southern tip of the Balkan Peninsula. By the end of the Aegean Early Neolithic, the diaspora was hypothesised as having spread to northern regions, and farming communities were established in the Balkans and Carpathian basin. A wave of migrations along the Vardar and Morava rivers, marked by the spread of white and red painted pottery, was hypothesied. Differences in decorative motifs and ornamental composition constituted clusters of cultures 'Anzabegovo-Vrsnik' 'Starčevo', 'Körös', 'Cri§', 'Kremikovci', and 'Karanovo' in neighbouring areas (Nandris 1970; Garasanin 1979).
The rate of diffusion was first calculated from the small series of 14C dates available at the time. It was recognized as 'a pure scientific approach in the chronological determination of the expansion of farming culture', based on the 'radiocarbon dating of materials from the actual settlements of the prehistoric
1 The last reprint of his book 'The Races of Europe' was published by Greenwood Publisher, Connecticut in 1972.
cultivators themselves' (Clark 1965a). Clark allocated dates to three temporal zones running from Near East to Atlantic Europe: (i) earlier than 5200 BC, (ii) between 5200 and 4000 BC, and (iii) 4000 and 2800 BC. He suggested that decreasing values of these dates be arranged in a southeast-northwest gradient, and that the sequential settlement distribution reflects 'the gradual spread of farming culture and the Neolithic way of life from the Near East over Europe'. The second zone, however, was associated with the 'expansion of Neolithic culture north of the Mediterranean' (Clark 1965b.66).
Genetic gradients
A few years later, Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1971; 1973; see also Gkiasta et al. 2003) gave an average speed of diffusion of about 1 km/y. At the same time, they were the first to emphasize the role of demic diffusion and to point out the strong agreement between the calculated average rate of spread of the Neolithic and that predicted by the demic wave-of-advance model. The model, borrowed from the population biology, proposed that active population growth at the farming frontier, in combination with local migratory activity, would have produced a population expansion that moved outwards in all directions and advanced at a relatively steady rate. They also postulated the mixing of Neolithic and Me-solithic populations on the agricultural frontier that may have led to genetic gradients with extreme gene frequencies in those areas with the oldest Neolithic sites.
The demic 'wave-of-advance' model was first introduced in 1978. The geneticists Menozzi, Piazza and Ca-valli-Sforza shifted the focus from phenotype to genotype, from cranial characteristic to classic genetic markers, from races to populations. They linked the first principal component of 38 gene frequencies of 'classic', non-DNA marker dispersal (allele frequencies for blood groups, the tissue antigen HLA system, and some enzymes) in modern European populations with the distribution of Early Neolithic farming settlements in south-western Asia and Europe. A similar 'southeast-northwest gradient or cline' of geographical distribution was suggested to support the spread of early farming in Europe, and that it was 'a demic spread rather than a cultural diffusion of farming technology' (Menozzi, Piazza and Cavalli-Sforza 1978.786). Six years later, Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1984.xv, 137) postulated, similar to Coone, that 'cultural events in the remote past played a major role in shaping the genetic structure of human populations'. In Europe, they continue, 'the
Neolithic transition forms the backbone of the geographic distribution of genes'. Different clines of contour maps of three principal components distributions show, they hypothesised, a sequence of three 'major demic events'. They linked the first to the migration of Neolithic farmers from Near East. The second and third, they guessed, 'can perhaps also be interpreted in terms of population movements other than the spread of early farming', and can be associated with migrations 'of groups of pastoral nomads' in the third millennium BC from central Asia, and with the 'expansion of Indo-European speaking people from the north of the Black Sea'.
The first 'demic event' has become legitimized archa-eologically by the definition of the catalogue of artefacts recognized as being brought into Europe by migrating farmers. White and red painted pottery has retained an axiomatic interpretative position (Renfrew 1987.Fig. 7.9; see Budja 2005).
The new synthetic map of the first principal component in classic genetic markers of 95 gene frequency dispersals across Europe and the Near East appeared in 1993. It has perpetuated the legitimacy of the Neolithic ancestry of modern Europeans, and the question 'Who are the Europeans?' that Alberto Piazza (1993) addressed in this context was not at all rhetorical. A more sophisticated interpretation of this synthetic map became available a year later in the monumental volume The History and Geography of Human Genes (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza 1994). In a palimpsest of seven principal components and associated genetic landscapes, the first was linked to the Near East, which was recognized as an ancestral homeland for the current population in Europe. The authors hypothesised that the transition to farming in Europe correlates with a massive movement of population from the Near East, without substantial contact with local Mesolithic populations. The elimination of the European hunter-gatherer population was assumed, despite only a 27% total variation in classical marker frequencies attributed to Neolithic populations across Europe. Only some clear outliers, such as Basques and Lapps were shown to have emerged from this homogeneous Neolithic entity as relic Palaeolithic hunter-gathers.
It is noteworthy that phenotype replacement with genotype, and the concept of race with the concept of population, has been an increasingly significant issue, with serious implications for physical anthropology, population genetics and archaeology. Research into human genetics has highlighted that
more genetic variation exists within than between populations, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries (Wiercinski and Bielicki 1962; Lewontin 1972; Serre and Pääbo 2004; Rosenberg et al. 2002; 2005; Li et al. 2008). In 1996, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists issued the political statement that "Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today; nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past'2. After the abolition of the concept of race and in the context of a political and scientific battle between the new physical anthropology and genetics to classifying humans, Coon's approach was labelled as 'scientific' racism and the last gasp of an outdated scientific methodology (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza 1994.267; see also Barbujani 2002). The contour maps of classic human genetic marker distribution have replaced the frequency map of the distribution of morphological and anthropometric characteristics. It was suggested recently, however, that the magnitude of the relative regional proportion of human phenotypic variance in crania correlates with the magnitude of regional molecular genetic variance (Rosseman and Weaver 2007). This led Pinhasi and von Cramon-Taubadel (2009), as noted above, to build a 'hypothetical' interpretative model to update demic diffusion and waves of advance by correlating the Mesolithic and Neolithic craniometric data with the gradient of the first principal component of classic genetic markers within modern European populations.
Since the revolution in the study of the human genome, the debate has shifted from the classic markers of certain genes to the loci in humans - the mitochondrial DNA present in both sexes, but inherited only in the maternal line; and the Y-chromosome present only in males and inherited exclusively through males. Because they are non-recombinant and highly polymorphic, they are seen as ideal for reconstructing human evolution, population history, and ancestral migration patterns. The analyses of uniparentally inherited marker systems allow population geneticists to study the genetic diversity of maternal and paternal lineages in various Eurasian populations, as well as the environmental and cul-
tural processes that might have been involved in the shaping of this variety. Thus different human nuclear DNA polymorphic markers of modern populations have been used to study genomic diversity and to define maternal and paternal lineage clusters - haplogroups - and to trace their (pre)historic genealogical trees, and chronological and spatial trajectories. In human genetics a haplogroup is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor with a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation. These special mutations are extremely rare, and identify a group of people - all the male descendants of the single person who first showed a particular mutation, over a period of tens of thousands of years. The SNP markers allow the construction of intact haplotypes and thus male-mediated migration can be readily recognized.
The phylogenies of the human Y-chromosome as defined by unique event polymorphisms and the geographic distribution of haplogroups have ultimately replaced the classic genetic markers and associated contour maps of principal component distributions.
Semino et al. (2000) and Rosser et al. (2000) hypothesised that, because of the southeast-northwest cline of frequencies of the haplogroups Eu4, Eu9, Eu10 and Eu11 (J2, E3b1 and g)3 within the modern populations in south-western Asia and Europe, and calculated expansion time, they represent the male contribution of a demic diffusion of Levantine farmers to European Neolithic. The authors suggest that the European gene pool was of Palaeolithic origin, as the Neolithic lineages comprise only ~22% of the variation. A reanalysis of the data two years later by the maximum-likelihood admixture estimation method, claimed an average Neolithic contribution of 50% across all samples, 56% for the Mediterranean subset, and 44% in non-Mediterranean samples (Chikhi et al. 2002; see also Dupanloup 2004). In later studies of the origin, differentiation and diffusion of the Y-chromosomal Neolithic haplogroups E3b and J, it becomes evident that the history of the European population was certainly more complex -and the expansions from the Middle East toward Europe - regardless of whether the coalescence dating calculated for a generation time of 25 or 30 years 'most likely occurred during and after the Neolithic'
2	American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Statement of biological aspects of race. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 101: 569-570 (1996).
3	The haplogroup's nomenclature was changed after the introduction of the Y-chromosomal binary haplogroup nomenclature system (Hammer 2002). For the human Y chromosome haplogroup tree, nomenclature and phylogeography see also Hammer and Zegura (2002). For revised phylogenetic relationships and nomenclature see Sengupta et al. (2006). For the most recent version of haplogroup tree Karafet et al. (2008).
(Semino at al. 2004.1032). The findings of the many biallelic markers which subdivide the haplogroups J and E suggest that the large-scale clinal patterns cannot be read as markers of a uniform and time limited spread of people from a single parental Near Eastern population, but a multi-period process of numerous small-scale, more regional population movements, replacements, and subsequent expansions overlying previous ranges. The consensus on the proportion of these lineages in Europe is at around 20% (Di Giacomo et al. 2004. 36; Cinnioglu et al. 2004.133-135; Peričić et al. 2005; 2006; Luca et al. 2007; Novelletto 2007).
The haplogroup J become archaeologically instru-mentalized by correlating the frequency distribution of its genetic marker (m172) within the modern European and Asian populations, and the Early Neolithic distribution of painted pottery and ceramic female figurines within the same area. King and Under-hill (2002.714) postulated that "The Eu9 haplo-group is the best genetic predictor of the appearance of Neolithic painted pottery and figurines at various European sites".
Parallel to this interpretative postulate, ceramic female figurines have been noted as specific markers of an oriental 'expansionist' religion that became a powerful social force in the Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic (Cauvin 2000). Cauvin postulated an interlinked economic and religious transformation, which explains why hunter-gatherers in villages outside the Levant did not develop subsistence production for themselves: their failure to 'humanise' their art and adopt new deities would have prevented them from making the transition to a new type of economy. Accordingly, Europe could not have become Neolithic until the 'wave of advance' and ceramic female figurines had reached the Balkans.
However, the invention of ceramic and the introduction of ceramic female statuettes and animal figurines was certainly not within the cultural domain of earlier Levantine hunter-gatherer societies, nor did they only appear on the 'eve of the appearance of an agricultural economy', as Cauvin (2000.25) suggested.
Knowledge of ceramic technology had been an element of Eurasian hunter-gatherer cultures for many millennia before the appearance of food-producing agricultural societies. We must also note two other facts: first, that the making of ceramic figurines predates the making of pottery, and second, that pot-
tery was not necessarily associated with the emergence of farming, as ceramic vessels had been made before early agriculture appeared in East Asia.
The tradition of making ceramic figurines can be traced back to the Central European Pavlovian cultural context, and then across the Russian Plain into southern Siberia, and ultimately back to the Levant and North Africa. It is now clear that the clay-figurine-tradition was deeply embedded in pre-existing Eurasian hunter-gatherer social and symbolic contexts and that the dates of these figures begin as early as 26 000 years BP (Verpoorte 2001; Einwögerer and Simon 2008).
If we look more closely at the contexts in which early hunter-gatherer ceramics were produced, we may assume that they were of social significance. In Central Europe, a total of sixteen thousand ceramic objects - over nine hundred figural ceramics - have been found in Gravettian and Pavlovian hunter-gatherer camps, which indicates that ceramic production, was widespread. At Dolni Vestonice there was an oven-like hearth in the centre of a hut-like structure in which 'two thousand pieces of ceramics, among which about one hundred and seventy-five with traces of modelling' were dispersed. In addition, other ceramic finds had been deposited near a single male burial, around a triple burial, and in the vicinity of a large hearth. The available statistics indicate that almost all the figurines and statuettes were deliberately fragmented, although many of the pellets and balls which comprise a large quantity of the ceramic inventory were found intact (Soffer et al. 2000; Verpoorte 2001.56, 128).
Early pottery first occurred in Eastern Eurasia in the context of small-scale sedentary or semi-sedentary communities, in southeast China (Yuchanyan Cave), where it has been dated to as early as 18 300 to 17 500 calBP (Boaretto et al. 2009). Later pottery assemblages on the Japanese archipelago and in southern Siberia are dated to the fourteenth and thirteenth millennia calBP (Kuzmin 2006; Kuzmin and Vetrov 2007).
We may postulate that the ceramic female figurines are thus as much 'predictors', to paraphrase King and Underhill, of Palaeolithic Gravettian hunter-gatherers' haplogroups, as of Neolithic farmers (Semino et al. 2000; Budja 2005).
The postulate that the geographically overlapping distribution of Early Neolithic artefacts and allele fre-
quency clines reflects an individual and time limited demic diffusion of farmers that resulted in the colonization of Europe and the replacement of populations has lost its interpretative, or any other, power. Recent studies of the Neolithic paternal haplogroups E (M78) and J1 (M267) and J2 (M172) strongly suggest continuous Mesolithic, Neolithic and post-Neolithic gene flows within southeast Europe, and between Europe and the Near East in both directions.
The Neolithic haplogroup E (M78) is represented in Europe by its internal lineages E3b1a and E3b1a2 (E-V13 polymorphism). It constitutes about 85% of the European E-M78 chromosomes, with a clinal pattern of frequency distribution from the southern Balkan Peninsula (19.6%) to west Europe (2.5%). This haplogroup reached the southern Balkans after 17 000 calBP and its phylogeny reveals signatures of several demographic population expansions within Europe. Cruciani et al. (2007), Pompei et al. (2008) and King et al. (2008) agree that the earliest expansion was linked to Mesolithic demographic expansion from western Asia into Europe, and that the later series of Neolithic and Bronze Age expansions were restricted regionally within southeast Europe. Thus the first demographic expansion within Europe, from the Peloponnese to Thessaly and Greek Macedonia, was calculated at 8600 calBP (King et al. 2008.211). All of the demographic expansion within the Balkans of the later haplogroups, E3b1a and E3b1a2, post-date the transition to farming in the region.
The haplogroup J is subdivided into two major sub-haplogroups, J1 (M267) and J2 (M172). The latter was hypothesised as representing an important signature of Neolithic demic diffusion and to have been associated with the appearance of painted pottery and figurines. It became clear recently that it mainly constitutes the signatures of several post Neolithic expansions within Europe, and not demic diffusion into Europe. The J2 subclade frequencies in southeast Europe show two distinct clusters. While the J2a (M410) subclades are frequent in the Peloponnese, Crete and Anatolia, but rare in the Balkans, the J2b (M12) subclades are, conversely, the most frequent in the Balkans and in the Mediterranean (King et al. 2008; Battaglia et al. 2009). The expansion time for the J2b (M12) subhaplogroup and associated migration from the southern Balkans toward the Carpathian basin is consistent with the Late Neolithic (King et al. 2008.209). The geographical origin of the J2b subclade remains unknown, although it shows a trend of decreasing frequency from the Bal-
kans (7-9%) to Anatolia (1.7%) (King et al. 2008). Interestingly, in the region where the PPNA-C sites at Çayônû, Göbekli Tepe and Hallan Çemi are located, the 4.7% clade frequency is significantly lower than those in the Balkans.
Barac et al. (2003) and Pericic et al. (2005; 2006) recently observed that a lower frequency of subha-plogroups J2b and E3b1 significantly distinguishes the populations of the western Balkans and the Adriatic (7.9%) from neighbouring populations of the Vardar-Morava river system in the eastern Balkans (21.9%). This corresponds with the recently identified pre-Neolithic I haplogroup and its subclade I1b* (I2a2 -M423 after Underbill et al. 2005) with a frequency distribution that reaches a maximum in the western Balkans, the Adriatic (52%-64%), and the central Balkans (<70%). Haplogroup I is the only ha-plogroup almost entirely restricted to the European continent. It appeared in Europe, probably before the Last Glacial Maximum, with frequency peaks of reached in two distinct regions - in the Nordic populations of Scandinavia, and in the Balkan populations of Southern Europe. Subhaplogroup I1b* expanded from a refuge in southeast Europe before the Neolithic, and a gene flow from the Balkans to Anatolia has also been suggested (Semino et al. 2000; Barač et al. 2003; Rootsi et al. 2004; 2006; Cinnioglu et al. 2004; Peričic et al. 2005; 2006; Battaglia 2009).
Geneticists suggest that the peopling of Europe was a complex process, and that the view of the spread of the Neolithic in Europe as a result of a single, unique and homogeneous process is too simplistic. The paternal heritage of Southeastern Europe reveals that the region was both an important source and recipient of continuous gene flow. In addition, the low frequency and variance associated with I (M423) and E (V13) in Anatolia and the Middle East support the European Mesolithic origin of these two cla-des. The Neolithic and post Neolithic component in the gene pool is most clearly marked by the presence of the J (M241) lineage and its expansion signals associated with Balkan micro-satellite variation. Its frequency in south-east European populations ranges from 2% to 20%. The remaining genetic variations are associated with pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer ha-plogroups E, I, and R.
Pottery distribution gradients
Since Childe (1929; 1939) introduced a ceramics diffusion gradient from the Middle East to Europe, pottery has remained a multifunctional, chronological, cultural and ethnic vector in interpretations of the
European Neolithic. Parallel to the gradual spread of pottery from the Near East to Europe - whether based on 'typological comparability and comparative stratigraphy' (Milojčić 1949; Parzinger 1993) or standard 14C dating (Breunig 1987) - cultural and ethnic distinctions were suggested. While red and white painted pottery was believed to indicate an Anatolian population and culture, coarse pottery was perceived as something so local to the Balkans that "we do not believe that this primitive pottery was introduced from Asia Minor" (Theocharis 1967. 173; cfr. Thissen 2000.163).
Pottery assemblages with 'impresso' decoration made with the fingernail and shell impressions, or by pinching clay between finger and thumb, and 'barbo-tine' pottery with the application of a slip in the form of thick patches or trails that comprise the most popular types of pottery in the Balkans were explained simply as showing 'a clear regression in pottery production' (Milojčić 1960.32). In Thessaly, this pottery was linked to an interruption in the 'painted ware tradition' (Nandris 1970.200). Milojčić, von Zum-busch and Milojčić (1971.34, 151) have suggested the interruption was associated with 'barbarian local production' brought into the region by a migrating population from the 'north', and marked by 'burnt layers' and settlement destruction in northern Thessaly at the end of the Early Neolithic.
Meanwhile, it was suggested that white painted pottery marked 'a breakthrough' by Anatolian 'ethnic components' and Early Neolithic culture from Thes-saly to the Northern Balkans and the Carpathian Basin (Garasanin 1979; Pavlu 1989; Garasanin & Ra-dovanović 2001.121-122). A similar migratory event was hypothesised in a 'leapfrog' or 'salutatory' demographic model that suggests migrations from one suitable environment to another. Van Andel and Runnels (1995) hypothesised that Anatolian farmers had moved towards the Danube and Carpathian basin after reaching demographic saturation in Thes-saly, which they had settled first. The Larissa plain in Thessaly was believed to be the only region in the southern Balkans that provided a reasonably assured and large enough harvest for the significant population growth that led to the next migratory move north. It was calculated that farmers needed 1500 years to reach saturation point and to migrate to the northern Balkans.
The interpretative paradigm constructed around the dichotomy 'civilized/barbarian' continued to be highly significant in the context of academic controversy
over the Neolithisation process in southeast Europe. It was embedded in both interpretative models - the 'Balkan-Anatolian cultural complex' and the 'frontier model' - determining differences between European and Oriental materiality and potential, and postulating a frontier between indigenous Mesolithic societies and the incoming farmers from surrounding areas. Both models maintain a perception of an allochthonous Anatolian population in association with a well-developed farming economy and pottery technology, and an autochthonous Balkan population able to produce only simple and coarse pottery that selectively adopts crop production and animal husbandry (Benac, Garasanin, Srejović 1979; To-dorova 1998.; Garasanin & Radovanović 2001; Pe-rić 2002; Tringham 2000; Zvelebil and Lillie 2000; Lichardus-Itten and Lichardus 2003; Borić and Miracle 2004; Sanev 2004; Boroneanf and Dinu 2006).
The distributions of material items, such as female figurines, sometimes exaggerated in form, stamp seals, anthropomorphic, zoomorphic and polypod vessels, which indeed connect south-east Europe and west Anatolia, continue to support the perception of migrating farmers and the gradual distribution of the Near Eastern Neolithic package (Lichter 2005; Özdogan 2008). We cannot ignore, however, different regional patterns in the use of cereals within these areas. Cyprus is believed to relate culturally to the Levant, but their archaeobotanical assemblages have much less in common. The differences between the varieties of Neolithic wheat compositions recovered on mainland Greece and those on Crete are well known. The Karanovo, Starčevo and Körös cultures in the Balkans and the southern Carpathian Basin are recognized as forming a homogenous Neolithic cultural complex, but the composition of the plant suites found in the Balkan regions could hardly be more different (Perlès 2001.62; Colledge et al. 2004; Kreuz et al. 2005; Coward et al. 2008).
It is worth remembering that the beginning of the Neolithic in Southeastern Europe was marked neither by ceramic female figurine nor painted pottery dispersal. When the figurines appeared in the Balkans, they remained highly schematised, sometimes to the extent that their identification as anthropomorphic is debatable (Vajsov 1998; Perlès 2001; for a general overview, see Hansen 2007).
Unpainted vessels were clearly the first to appear in Europe. Since coloured ornaments were attached to the pots in northern Balkans and Carpathians at
approximately 6000 calBC at 1g, a dichotomy of colour and motif perception in the European Early Neolithic becomes evident. Red and brown geometric and floral motifs were limited to the Peloponnese and the southern Balkans; white painted dots and spiral motifs were distributed across the northern and eastern Balkans and southern Carpathians. None of them appeared in the Early Neolithic on the eastern Adriatic (Schubert 1999; 2005; Müller 1994; Budja 2001).
We mentioned above that the standard 14C dating model postulates a gradual spread of farmers and pottery, and suggests an interval of a millennium between the initial pottery distributions in the Aegean and Danube regions, respectively. A similar time span vector has been integrated into the demographic model of the Neolithic transition and population dynamics (Pinhasi et al. 2005).
The earliest pottery in Thessaly is chronologically contextualized within a 1g range of 6500-6200 calBC, with a high peak at about 6400, and one slightly less high at c. 6200 calBC. In general terms, the Early Neolithic (EN I) settlements and associated pottery assemblages with monochrome pottery, and 'a very limited use of painting' at Argissa, Sesklo, Achilleion and Nea Nikemedeia, were founded at about 6400-6300 calBC {Perles 2001; Thissen 2005; 2009; Reingruber and Thissen 2009).
As already pointed out by several authors, there is now abundant evidence from AMS 14C dating to show that pottery distribution in the northern Balkans and south-western Carpathian basin can be traced from c. 6200 calBC at the latest (Whittle et al. 2002; Tasić 2003; Borić and Miracle 2004; Biagi and Spataro 2005; Biagi et al. 2005; Reingruber and Thissen 2005; Bonsall 2008; Luca et al. 2008; Luca, Suciu 2008; Borić and Dimitrijević 2009; Thissen 2009). The earliest pottery assemblages from the northern Balkans "... differ in important aspects from these NW Anatolian potteries, and foremost in their categorical structure, as well as in essential details, signifying differences in manipulation and positioning of the vessels. NW Anatolian features such as flat bases and two differing handle sets do not occur in the Danube sites, nor are the large dishes with roughened exteriors, so typical for the SE European sites, part of the Anatolian repertoire..." (Thissen 2009.10).
Pottery from Lepenski Vir and Padina in the northern Balkans was contextualized within trapezoidal
structures having lime-plastered floors, while some were associated with pairs of stone sculptures and neonatal and infant burials. The context is traditionally interpreted as Late Mesolithic, and associated with hunter-gatherers' symbolic behavioural and funeral practices. Recently, it was recognized as Early Neolithic (Borić and Dimitrijević 2009). The trapezoidal structures 4, 24 and 36, and at Lepenski Vir, and 17 at Padina are dated within 6213-6093 (62266068), 6213-6092 (6231-6060), 6394-6072 (64116022) and 6228-6099 (6353- 6054) calBC at 68,2% (95,4%) probability (Tabs. 1 and 2).
At Grivac, a well stratified Early Neolithic settlement in central Serbia, the monochrome pottery was con-textualized in a pit dwelling dated to 6219-6031 (6368-5979) calBC at 68,2% (95,4%) probability.
An even earlier context, with monochrome pottery ranging from 6441-5989 (6462-5923) calBC at 68,2% (95,4%) probability, is the well known Polja-nica-Platoto Early Neolithic settlement in north-eastern Bulgaria. The pottery assemblages consist of 'monochrome' and impressed pottery. The pottery is associated with 'typical trapezes' and only two (einkorn and lentil) of the ten crop species cultivated in Neolithic Bulgaria (Todorova 1989.11-12; 2003; Kreuz et al. 2005.243; Weninger et al. 2006.415).
In a contemporary context at Poljna (Blagotin) settlement in the West Morava valley in Serbia, pottery analysis shows that 91% of the total quantity of ceramics is undecorated. Of the remaining 9% of the decorated pottery, the impressed ware is predominant, at 43% of all decorated pieces. Barbotine ornaments comprise 5%, and painted pottery, 0.2% (Vu-ković 2004). The assemblage is chronologically embedded in time span 6400-6030 (6430-6018) calBC at 68,2% (95,4%) probability. The dates relate to ritual contexts, marked by a red deer skull deposited in the pit, and to a new born infant skeleton buried in an ashy layer within the same building context (Nikolić and Zecević 2001.6; Whittle et al. 2002.66).
The later pottery assemblage at Lepenski Vir continues to be associated with funeral practices and symbolic behaviour. A globular vessel with a pair of plastic spirals on opposite sides was deposited in the 'ash-place' in a centrally positioned trapezoidal built structure No. 54 (Garasanin and Radovanović 2001. 119). It was associated with newborn and infant burials at the rear of the structure, the secondary burial of the mandible of a mature woman within the rectangular hearth, with a mortar and a pair of colou-
red stone sculptures behind it. The context is dated to 6015-5811 (6085-5720) calBC at 68,2% (95,4%) probability.
Within this chronological horizon, white painted pottery was embedded for the first time in settle-
ment contexts at Divostin (6090-5809 [6241-5713]) in the northern Balkans, at Donja Branjevina (60625635 [6100-5571]) and Magareći Mlin (6060-5926 [6203-5880]) in the southern Pannonain Plain, and at Gura Baciului in the Southern Carpathians (60545988 [6084-5911]) calBC at 68,2% [95,4%] probabi-
Lab code	Context	Conventional radiocarbon age (BP)	Cal HC age range 68,2% probabilifv	CalBC age range 95,454 probability	Summed probability distributions cal BC	Pottery	
Bin-1511 Bln-1613 Bln-1613A Bin-1521	PDljanica-Plaloto hori?oo 1 Qu. 49 horizon 1. Qu. 153 horizon 1. Qu. 153 horizon 1. Qu. 153	7535160 7380*60 7275160 7140160	6461-6274 6371-6123 6213-6076 6066-5927	6476-6248 6392-6093 6242-6019 6205-5889	68.2% probability 6441 {14.2%) 6372 BC 6251 (53.2%) 5989 BC 95.4% probability 6462 (92.9%) 5979 BC	'monochrome1	Weninger et at- 2000. Tab- 11.
Bln-740a Hln-7401)	Lepenski Vir trapezoidal structure 36. floor	73101100 73601100	6331-6059 6366-6101	6392-6011 6428-6054	68.2% probability 6349 (9,5%) 6311 BC 6262 (58.7%) 6072 BC 95.4% probability 6411 (95,4%)6022 BC	'monochrome1	Tisten 2009. Tab. 4.
OxA-16084	Lepenski Vir trapezoidal vhk tun 4. floor	7285137	6213-6093	6226-6068	68.2% probability 6213 (53.3%) 6133 BC 6117 (14.9%) 6093 BC 95.4% probability 6226 (95.4%) 6068 BC	'monochrome1	Boric and Dimitrijević 2009. 36. Tab. 1.
OxAX-2176-lS	Lepenski Vir trapezoidal structure 24, floor	7285145	6213-6132	6231-6060	68.2% probability 6213 (50.6%) 6132 BC 6121 ( 17.6%) 6091 BC 95.4% probability 6231 (95.4%)6060 BC	'monochrome1	Borii and Dimitrijević 2009. 3). Tab. 1.
Bln-653 Z-143 KN-407 Bln-738 Z-115	Lepenski Vir trapezoidal structura 54 heanli hearth hearth hcanh	70401100 73001124 72801160 72251100 6984194	6015-5811 6339-6031 6354-6006 6212-6016 59SI-577I	6085-5720 6427-5930 6452-5846 6355-5899 6031-5676	MM probability 6230 (38.7%) 6008 BC 5986 (29.5%) 5893 BC 95.4% probability 6380 (95.4%) 5746 BC	'mctnochrome1	Qarasanin and Radovanović 2001. 1/9
OxA-11103	Padina trapezoidal structure I7d hearth	7315155	6228-6099	6353-6054	68.2% probability 6228 (68.2%) 6099 BC 95.4% probability 6353 (4.6%) 6309 BC 6265 (90.8%) 6054 BC	'monochrome1	Boric and Miracle 2004. Tab. 4.
Bln-869	<,riv:u' pit dwelling 1	72501100	6219-6031	6368-5924	68-2% probability 6219 (68.2%) 6031 BC 95.4% probability 6368(93.8%) 5979 BC	'monochrome1	Bogdamvlć 2004. 497.
OxA-8608 OxA-8609 OxA-8760	Polju (Blagolin) dwelling 7, pit dwelling 7, burial dwelling 7	7480155 7270150 7230150	6421-6262 6212-6074 6206-602 S	6437-6239 6231-6032 6205-5889	68.2% probability 6090 (68.2%) 5809 BC 95.4% probability 6246(95.4%) 5713 BC	'monochrome1 'white' and 'retl1 painted	Whinle et al. 2002. 113. Fig. 9,
GrN-15974 GrN-15976 GrN-15975 OiA-8557 QxA-8556	Don j a Hranjcvina trench WS6-37, pit dwell ig, hearth trench V/86-87, outside pit dwelling trench W86-87, outside pit dwelling trench 11/87. under house remains trench 11/87. under house	7155U0 71401« 6955150 7080155 6775*60	6062-5992 6089-5901 3891-5767 6014-5902 5717-5636	6204-5911 6221-5841 5978-5732 6055-5845 5778-5563	68.2% probability 6062 (22.1%) 5974 BC 5951 (7.0%) 5917 BC 5796 (391%) 5635 BC 95.4% probability 6100(94.9%) 5616 BC	'inonochmmc1 'white' antf 'red1 painted	Whittle ettd. 2001.114. Fig. 9.: Taste 203.184: Karmansltl 2003. 71.
OxA-8555 GrN-24609	trench 11/87. hearth trench XXX/96, pit 7	6845155 6S10±30	5775-5666 S 762-5630	5843-5636 5883-5564			
GrN-15973	Magareći Mlin house no. 3. hearth	7130160	6060-5926	6203-5880	63.2% probability 6060(58.5%) 5981 BC 95.4% probability 6105 (93.8%) 5880 BC	'while painted'	Tasti 203.184b
Bln-823 Bln-866 Bln-866a Bln-931	□Ivostin feature I5(earth-cabin 5} house M, beneath floor house 14, beneath floor house 14, beneath floor	70801180 70601100 72001100 70501100	6096-5743 6031-5838 6211-5992 6021-5814	6355-5637 6202-5726 6343-5849 6098-5721	63.2% probability 6090 (68.2%) 5809 BC 95.4% probability 6246(95.4%) 5713 BC	'while painted'	Tissen 2009 Table 4: Tasié 203.183.
QrA-24137	Gura Baciului pit dwelling BIBG	7140145	6054-5988	6084-5911	63.2% probability 6054 (68.2%) 5988 BC 95.4% probability 6084 (84.2%) 5971 BC 5954(11,2%) 5911 BC	"white painted1	Biagietai 2005. 46-47; Litea and Sieu 2008 44.
GrN-28114	Strni dwelling LI, slone lloor foundation	7070160	6009-5897	6061-5811	63.2% probability 6009 (68.2%) 5897 BC 95.4% probability 6061 (94.2%) 5836 BC	'while painted'	Biagi et at. 2005. 49; Luea and Sicu 2008.44.
GrN-28520 Poz-24697 GrN29954	FeMpMSnwca Slblulul pil dwelling BIO pit dwelling BI7 pit G26	7050170 7030150 7010140	6006-5849 5986-5879 5978-5846	6052-5775 6011-5795 5990-5794	63.2% probability 5984 (63.4%) 5876 BC 95.4% probability 6020 (95.4%) 5778 BC	'white painted'	Luea et ai 2003. 323, Flg. 19.
QxA-9336	Pitvaros pil 3/B	7060145	5994-5901	6019-5845	68.2% probability 5994 (68.2%) 5901 BC 95.4% probability 6019(95.4%) 5845 BC	'white painted'	Whittle et al. 2002: 115. Fig 9
Tab. 1. All available 14C-ages for the initial Neolithic in the northern and north eastern Balkans, the southern Pannonian Plain, and Carpathians. All calculations are carried out with OxCal v4.1.3 fBronk Ramsey 2009/
lity. This age range set is followed by later ranges at Seusa (6009-5897 [6061-5811]) and Pet-ris-Miercurea Sibiului (5984-5848 [60205778]) in Transylvania, and Pitvaros in the Tisza River catchment (5994-5901 [60195845]) calBC at 68,2% [95,4%] probability (Tab. 1 and Tab. 2).
The appearance of white painted pottery in the northern Balkans and the southern Pannonian Plain chronologically corresponds with its appearance at Anzabegovo (Anza) in Macedonia in the southern Balkans. The 14C series embedded the Anzabegovo assemblage within 6097-5561 (64535322) calBC at 68,2% (95,4%) probability. We have already mentioned that the white-painted motifs differ significantly between these regions. While white floral motifs and stepped triangles comprise the main ornamental motifs in the south, patterns of white dots and grids predominate in the north (see Schubert 1999; 2005; Budja 2001) (Fig. 3).
It is worth remembering that there is no evidence of painted ware on the Eastern Adriatic before 55395480 calBC. However, the dates of the earliest pottery production in northern Ionia (Sidari) sum at 6641-6119 (6801-5897) calBC at 68,2% (95,4%) probability. In the Eastern Adriatic catchment, the dates range between 6228-5811 (6391-5716) in Vela Spila, 6076-5741 (6208-5728) in Gudnja Cave, 6004-5232 (6203-4844) at Tinj, 5988-5808 (60465726) in Gospodska pećina, 5987-5847 (6017-5772) in Grapceva spila and at Vižula 5877-4960 (60504851) calBC at 68,2% (95,4%) probability (calculated with OxCal v4.1.3; for data set see Forenbaher and Miracle 2006.Tab. 13.2 and 13.3). The ornamental system is based exclusively on incised, impressed and cardium-impressed ornaments. The old question of why painted pottery and female figurines were not distributed throughout the eastern Adriatic catchment in the Early Neolithic remains to be answered.
The 14C gradient of pottery dispersal suggests that the sites in the southern Balkans are not significantly older than those in the northern and eastern Balkans (Tabs. 1 and 2). A gradual demic diffusion model from south to north and a millennium time span vector thus find no confirmation in the set of AMS 14C dates and associated contexts that mark pottery dispersal within Southeastern Europe (Fig. 4). We may postulate a widespread, contemporary adoption and adaptation of pottery manufacturing techniques by local populations which not neces-
3. Early Neolithic pottery from Anzabegovo (Anza) Donja Branjevina.
sarily coincide with the adoption of farming. In this context, we have to examine the various ornamental patterns and techniques and colour application as much as the above-mentioned heterogeneity of Early Neolithic wheat and plant compositions within the region.
Concluding remarks
A critical reflection on the demic diffusion model and hypothesised population replacement during the initial European Neolithic in population genetics and archaeology shows that two basic assumptions - the continuously moving boundary between savagery and civilization and population replacement at the onset of the Neolithic - remain speculative. The hypothesis of gradual pottery distribution and the suggested time span vector believed to mark migration and acculturation - the absorption of hunter-gather groups by farmers in an interaction which took place through culture contact and emulation between two groups - are unrealistic.
Geneticists suggest that the peopling of Europe is a complex process and that the view of the spread of the Neolithic in Europe being the result of a unique and homogeneous process is too simplistic. Y-chromosomal paternal lineages reveal the signatures of several demographic population expansions within Europe, and between Europe and western Asia in both directions. This continuous gene flow and demographic expansion have been calculated for the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods, and seem to be more visible in the frequency of Y-chromosome markers in modern populations in the Balkans and Mediterranean than in other regions.
Recent phylogenetic analyses of ancient maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA have yielded contradictory results. Thus the phylogeographic analysis of the Iberian Peninsula suggests a long period of genetic continuity between the Neolithic population
and modern populations in Spain, but not with the Middle East group (Sampietro et al. 2007). The comparison of the ancient mitochondrial DNA sequences from late hunter-gatherer skeletons with those from Neolithic farmers and with modern populations in Central and North Europe show that modern European sample are 'significantly different from the early farmer and from the hunter-gatherer' (Bra-manti et al. 2009.2). The characteristic mtDNA type N1a with a frequency distribution of 25% among Neolithic LBK farmers in Central Europe shows in
Tab. 2. Sum probability distributions plot of initial Neolithic pottery distribution based on available 14C- data from Argissa, Sesklo, Nea Nikome-deia, Achilleion, Anzabegovov (Anza) and Hoca Çe§me (Reingruber and Thissen 2005); Poljanica (Weninger et al. 2006.Tab. 11), Lepenski Vir, Padina, Poljna, Divostin, Donja Branjevina, Magareći Mlin and Pitvaros (Borić and Dimitrijević 2009.Tab. 1; Tissen 2009.Tab. 4; Whittle et al. 2002. 115, Fig. 9); Grivac (Bogdanović 2004.497); GuraBaciului, Seusa andPet-ris (Biagi et al. 2005.46-47; Luca and Sicu 2008.44; Luca et al. 2008.328, Fig. 19). All calculations are carried out with OxCal v4.1.3 (Bronk Ramsey 2009; Reimer et al. 2004).
contrast low frequency of 0.2% in modern mtDNA samples in the same area (Haak et al. 2005). The N1a type was not observed in hunter-gatherer samples from western and northern Europe and this led Bramanti et al. (2009.3) to reject a direct continuity between hunter-gatherers and early farmers, and between hunter gatherers and modern Europeans, but assume 'continuity between early farmers and modern Europeans'. The assumption is supported by coalescent simulations which were performed to test if the genetic differences between the population samples could be explained by the null-hypothesis of genetic drift over time in a continuous population. They suggest a 'substantial influx of people' from the Pannonian Plain in Central and North Europe who did not mix significantly with the resident female hunter-gatherers. Shen-nan and Edinborough proposed, however, an alternative scenario in which the lost of N1a type relates to 'a population crash of enormous magnitude' after 5000 BC. They recognized the latter in a marked decrease in occupation intensity at the end of the LBK by applying the analysis of summed probability distributions of radiocarbon dates of settlement contexts in the region (Shennan and Edinbo-rough 2007; Shennan 2007).
Initial pottery distribution in southeast Europe shows the wide-spread and contemporary appearance of pottery making techniques. The various structures, ornamental patterns and differences in colour application reflect Balkan cultural complexity and local knowledge and not the hypothesized axial transfer of the Near Eastern artefact and nutrition package along the gradual Neolithic frontier displacements across the Balkans. This pottery predates artefact assemblage consist-
Fig. 4. Frequency distributions of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Y-chromosome ha-plogroups I (M423), E (V13) andJ (M241) (after Battaglia et al. 2009.Fig. 4), and the sites with pottery assemblages and 14C ranges and sum probability distributions listed on Table 1 and Table 2.
ing of female figurines, stamp seals, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic vessels, and poly-pod vessels and tripods, with distribution in both regions, the Balkans and Anatolia, and was traditionally assumed to be associated with either de-mic diffusion or the leap-frog
colonization of Europe. It is _
worth remembering that neither this assemblage nor painted pottery was distributed in the Dinaric region or the eastern Adriatic coast.
We suggest that interpretations of the transformation process and transition to farming cannot be marginalized neither to contacts in frontier zones nor to the gradual axial dispersal of Early Neolithic material culture and Y-chromosome markers and associated paternal lineages from western Asia to Southeastern Europe. The paternal heritage of Southeastern Europe reveals continuous Mesolithic, Neolithic and post-Neolithic gene flows within southeastern Europe, and between Europe and the Near East in both
directions. The 14C gradient of pottery dispersal suggests that the sites in the southern Balkans are not significantly older than those in the northern and eastern Balkans. The earliest pottery assemblages differ morphologically and ornamentally between the Anatolia and the Balkans and between southern and northern Balkan regions. The first 'demic event' that was hypothesised to reshape significantly European population structure and generate a uniform process of neolithisation of Southestern Europe has no confirmation in frequency of Y-chromosome sub-haplogroups J2b and E3b1 distribution and in initial Neolithic pottery dispersal.
REFERENCES
AMMERMAN A. J. and CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L.1971. Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in Europe. Man 6: 674-688.
1973. A population model for the diffusion of early farming in Europe. In C. Renfrew (ed.), The Explanation of Culture Change. Duckworth, London: 343-357.
1984. The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe. Princeton University Press. Princeton. New Jersey.
BABOVIĆ L. Sanctuaries of Lepenski Vir. Arheological Monographies17. National Museum Belgrade. Publikum. Beograd.
BARAĆ L., PERIČIĆ M., MARTINOVIĆ KLARIĆ I., ROOTSI S., JANICIJEVIĆ B., KIVISILD T., PARIK J., RUDAN I., VILLEMS R. and RUDAN P. 2003. Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates. European Journal of Human Genetics 11:535-542.
BARBUJANI G. 2002. Race: Genetic aspects. In N. J. Smel-ser, P. B. Baltes (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 19. Pergamon Press. Oxford: 12694-12700.
BATTAGLIA V., FORNARINO S., AL-ZAHERY N., OLIVIERI A., PALA M., N. MYRES M., KING R. J., ROOTSI S., MARJANO-VIC D., PRIMORAC D., HADZISELIMOVIC R., VIDOVIC S., DROBNIC K., DURMISHI N., TORRONI A., SANTACHIARA-
BENERECETTI A. S., UNDERHILL P. A., SEMINO O. 2009. Y-chromosomal evidence of the cultural diffusion of agriculture in southeast Europe. European Journal of Human Genetics 17(6): 820-830.
BENAC A., GARASANIN M., SREJOVIC D. 1979. Uvod. Pra-istorija jugoslovanskih zemalja II. Neolitsko doba. Akademija Nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za Balkanoloska ispitivanja. Sarajevo: 11-31.
BIAGI P. and SPATARO M. 2005. New observations on the radiocarbon chronology of the Starčevo-Cri§ and Körös cultures. In L. Nikolova and J. Higgins (eds.), Prehistoric archaeology & anthropological theory and education. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 6-7: 35-40.
BIAGI P., SHENNAN S. and SPATARO M. 2005. Rapid rivers and slow seas? New data for the radiocarbon chronology of the Balkan peninsula. In L. Nikolova and J. Hig-gins (eds.), Prehistoric archaeology & anthropological theory and education. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 6-7: 41-50.
BOARETTO E., WU X., YUAN J., BAR-YOSEF O., CHU V., PAN Y., LIU K., COHEN D., JIAO T., LI S., GU H., GOLDBERG P., and WEINER S. 2009. Radiocarbon dating of charcoal and bone collagen associated with early pottery at Yuchanyan Cave, Hunan Province, China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106(24): 9595-9600. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900539106
BOGDANOVIC M. 2004. Grivac. Naseljaprotostarčevač-ke i vinčanske kulture. Centar za naučna istraživanja Srpske akademije nauka I umjetnosti i Univerziteta u Kragu-jevcu I Narodni muzej u Kragujevcu. Kragujevac.
BOGUCKI P. 1996. The spread of early farming in Europe. American Scientist 84(3): 242-253.
BONSALL C. 2008. The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates. In G. Bailey and P. Spikins (eds.), Mesolithic Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 238-279.
BORIC D. 2005. Deconstructing essentialism: unsettling frontiers of the Meso-Neolithic Balkans. In D. Bailey, A. Whitlle, and V. Cummings (eds.), (Un)settling the Neolithic. Oxbow Books, Oxford: 16-31.
BORIC 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): 341-71.
BORIC D., GRUPE G., PETERS J., MIKIC Ž. 2004. Is the Me-solithic-Neolithic subsistence dichotomy real? New stable isotope evidence from the Danube Gorges. European Journal of Archaeology 7(3): 221-248.
BORIC D. and DIMITRIJEVIC V. 2009. Absolute chronology and stratigraphy of Lepenski Vir. Starinar LVII: 9-55.
BORONEANT A. and DINU A. 2006. The Romanian Meso-lithic and the transition to farming. A case study: the Iron Gate. Studii de Preistorie 3: 41-76.
BRAMANTI B., THOMAS M. G., HAAK W., UNTERLAENDER M., JORES P., TAMBETS K., ANTANAITIS-JACOBS I., HAIDLE M. N., JANKAUSKAS R., KIND C.-J., LUETH F., TERBERGER T., HILLER J., MATSUMURA S., FORSTER P., BURGER J. 2009. Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter-Gatherers and Central Europe's First Farmers. Science 326 (5949): 137-140. DOI: 10.1126/science.1176869
BREUNIG B. 1987. C14-chronologie des vorderasiatischen, sudost-und mitteleuropaischen Neolithikums. Fundamenta. Monographien zur Urgescichte A13.
BRONK RAMSEY C. 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337-360.
BUDJA M. 2001. The transition to farming in Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery. In M. Budja (ed.), 8th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 28:27-48.
2005. The process of Neolithisation in South-eastern Europe: from ceramic female figurines and cereal grains to entoptics and human nuclear DNA polymorphic markers. In M. Budja (ed.), 12th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 32:53-72.
CAUVIN J. 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge
CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L., MENOZZI P., PIAZZA A. 1994. The History and Geography of Hu-man Genes. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New York.
CHAPMAN J. 1993. Social Power in the Iron GatesGorge. In J. Chapman and P. Dolukhanov (eds.), Cultural Transformations and Interactions in Eastern Europe. Worldwide archaeology series 6; 5, Centre for the Archaeology of Central and Eastern Europe monograph 1 Avebury. Aldershot, Brookfield: 71-121.
CHIKHI L., NICHOLS R. A., BARBUJANI G., BEAUMONT M. A. 2002. Y genetic data support the Neolithic demic diffusion model. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the USA 99(17): 11008-11013.
CHILDE V. G. 1925. The Dawn of European Civilization. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner. London.
1928. The Most Ancient East: the Oriental Prelude to European Prehistory. Kegan Paul. London.
1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Clarendon Press. Oxford.
1939. The Orient and Europe. American Journal of Archaeology 43(1): 10-26.
1951. Man Makes Himself. Watts & Co. London.
CINNIOGLU C., KING R., KIVISILD T., KALFOGLU E., ATA-SOY S., CAVALLERI G. L., LILLIE A. S., ROSEMAN C. C., LIN A. A., PRINCE K., OEFNER P. J., SHEN P., SEMINO O., CA-VALLI-SFORZA L. L., UNDERHILL P. A. 2004. Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia. Human Genetics 114:127-148.
CLARK J. G. D. 1965a. Radiocarbon dating and the spread of farming economy. Antiquity 39: 45-48.
1965b. Radiocarbon dating and the expansion of farming culture from the Near East over Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. N. S. 31:58-73.
COLLEDGE S., CONOLLY J., SHERMAN S. 2004. Archaeobo-tanical Evidence for the Spread of Farming in the Eastern Mediterranean. Current Anthropology 45, Supplement: 35-58.
COON C. S. 1939. The Races of Europe. The Macmillan Company. New York
COWARD F., SHENNAN S., COLLEDGE S., CONOLLY J., COLLARD M. 2008. The spread of Neolithic plant economies from the Near East to northwest Europe: a phyloge-netic analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:4256.
CRUCIANI F., LA FRATTA R., TROMBETTA B., SANTOLA-MAZZA P., SELLITTO D., BERAUD COLOMB E., DUGOUJON J.-M., CRIVELLARO F., BENINCASA T., PASCONE R., MORAL P., WATSON E., MELEGH B., BARBUJANI, FUSELLI G. S., VONA G., ZAGRADISNIK B., ASSUM G., BRDICKA R., KOZLOV A. I., EFREMOV G. D., COPPA A., NOVELLETTO A. and SCOZZARI R. 2007. Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12. Molecular Biology and Evolution 24(6): 13001311.
DI GIACOMO F., LUCA F., POPA L. O., AKAR N., ANAGNOU N., BANYKO J., BRDICKA R., BARBUJANI G., PAPOLA F., CIAVARELLA G., CUCCI F., DI STASI L., GAVRILA L., KERI-MOVA M. G., KOVATCHEV D., KOZLOV A. I., LOUTRADIS A., MANDARINO V., MAMMI' C., MICHALODIMITRAKIS E. N., PAOLI G., PAPPA K. I., PEDICINI G., TERRENATO L., TOFA-NELLI S., MALASPINA P., NOVELLETTO A. 2004. Y chromosomal haplogroup J as a signature of the post-Neolithic colonization of Europe. Human Genetics 115:357-371.
DUPANLOUP I., BERTORELLE G., CHIKHI L., BARBUJANI G. 2004. Estimating the impact of prehistoric admixture on the genome of Europeans. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21(7): 1361-1372.
EINWÖGERER T. and SIMON U. 2008. Die Gravettienfund-strllr Krems-Wachtberg. Archäologie Österreichs 19(1): 38-42.
FORENBAHER S. and MIRACLE P. 2006. Pupicina Cave and the Spread of Farming in the Estern Adriatic. In Miracle P. and Forenbaher S. (eds.), Prehistoric herders of Northern Istria: the archaeology of Pupicina Cave. Vol. 1. Monografije i katalozi 14. Arheološki muzej Istre. Pula: 483523.
GKIASTA M., RUSSELL T., SHENNAN S., STEELE J. 2003. Neolithic transition in Europe: the radiocarbon record re-visted. Antiquity 77(295): 45-62.
GARASANIN M. 1979. Centralnobalkanska zona. Praisto-rija jugoslovenskih zemalja II. Neolitsko doba. Akademija Nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za Balkanološka ispitivanja. Sarajevo: 79-212.
GARASANIN M. & RADOVANOVIC I. 2001. A pot in house 54 at Lepenski Vir I. Antiquity 75(287): 118-125.
HAAK W., FORSTER P., BRAMANTI B., MATSUMURA S., BRANDT G., TÄNZER M., VILLEMS R., RENFREW C., GRO-NENBORN D., WERNER ALT K. W., BURGER J. 2005. Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites. Science 310 (5750): 1016-1018.
HAMMER M. F. 2002. A Nomenclature System for the Tree of Human Y-Chromosomal Binary Haplogroups. Genome Research 12: 339-348.
HAMMER M. F., ZEGURA S. L. 2002. The Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup Tree: Nomenclature and Phylogeo-graphy of Its Major Divisions. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:303-321.
HANSEN S. 2007. Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. Untersuchungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa. Archäologie in Eurasien 20. Philipp von Zabern. Mainz.
KARAFET T. M., MENDEZ F. L., MEILERMAN M. B., UNDERHILL P. A., ZEGURA S. L., HAMMER M. F. 2008. New binary polymorphisms reshape and increase resolution of the human Y chromosomal haplogroup tree. Genome Research 18: 830-838.
KING R. and UNDERHILL P. A. 2002. Congruent distribution of Neolithic painted pottery and ceramic figurines with Y-chromosome lineages. Antiquity 76(293): 707714.
KING R. J., ÖZCAN S. S., CARTER T., KALFOGLU E., ATA-SOY S., TRIANTAPHYLLIDIS C., KOUVATSI A., LIN A. A., CHOW C-E. T., ZHIVOTOVSKY L. A., MICHALODIMITRAKIS M. and UNDERHILL P. A. 2008. Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian Influences on the Greek and Cretan Neolithic. Annals of Human Genetics 72:205-214.
KLEIN K. L. 1997. Frontiers of historical imagination. Narrating the European conquest of Native America, 1890-1990. University of California Press. Berkeley.
KOSSINNA G. 1911. Die Herkunft der Germanen. Zur Methode der Siedlungsarchäologie. Mannus-Bibliothek, Band 6. Würzburg.
KOSSINNA G. 1936. Die Deutsche Vorgeschichte - eine hervorragend nationale Wissenschaft. Leipzig.
KREUZ A., MARINOVA E., SCHÄFER E., WIETHOLD J. 2005. A comparison of early Neolithic crop and weed assemblages from the Linearbandkeramik and the Bulgarian Neolithic cultures: differences and similarities. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14:237-258.
KUZMIN Y. V. 2006. Chronology of the earliest pottery in East Asia: progress and pitfalls. Antiquity 80(308): 362371.
KUZMIN Y. V. and VETROV V. M. 2007. The earliest Neolithic complex in Siberia: the Ust-Karenga 12 site and its significance for the Neolithisation process in Eurasia. In M. Budja (ed.), 14th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehi-storica 34: 9-20.
LAHR M. M., FOLEY R. A. & PINHASI R. 2000. Expected regional patterns of Mesolithic-Neolithic human population admixture in Europe based on archaeological evidence. In C. Renfrew & K. V. Boyle (eds.), Molecular Genetics and Early Europe: Papers in Population Prehistory. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge: 81-88.
LEWONTIN R. C. 1972. The apportionment of human diversity. Evolutionary Biology 6:381-398.
LI J. Z., ABSHER D. M., TANG H., SOUTHWICK A. M., CASTO A. M., RAMACHANDRAN S., CANN H. M., BARSH G. S., FELDMAN M., CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L., MYERS R. M. 2008. Worldwide human relationships inferred from genome wide patterns of variation. Science 319 (1100): 11001104.
LICHARDUS-ITTEN M. and LICHARDUS J. 2003. Strukturelle Grundlagen zum Verständnis der Neolithisierungs-prozesse in Südostund Mitteleuropa. In E. Jerem and P. Raczky (eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschriftfür Nândor Kalicz zum 75. Geburstag. Archa-eolingua, Budapest: 61-81.
LICHTER C. 2005. Western Anatolia in the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic: the actual state of research. In C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe. Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC. Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul, 20-22 May 2004. BYZAS 2. Istanbul: 59-74.
LUCA F., DI GIACOMO F., BENINCASA T., POPA L. O., BANYKO J., KRACMAROVA A., MALASPINA P., NOVELLET-TO A. and BRDICKA R. 2007. Y-Chromosomal Variation in the Czech Republic. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132(1): 132-139.
LUCA S. A., SUCIU C. I. 2008. Migrations and local evolution in the Early Neolithic of Transylvania. The typological-stylistic analysis and the radiocarbon data. In S. A. Luca (ed.), Proceedings of the International Colloquium: The Carpathian Basin and its Role in the Neolithisation of the Balkan Peninsula. Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis VII: 39-56.
LUCA S. A., DIACONESCU D., and SUCIU C. I. 2008. Archaeological research in Miercurea Sibiului - Petri§ (Sibiu County, Romania) The Starčevo-Cri§ level during 19972005. In M. Budja (ed.), 15th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 35:325-343.
MENK R. and NEMESKÉRI J. 1989. The transition from Me-solithic to Erly Neolithic in southeastern and eastern Europe: an anthropological outline. In I. Hershkovitz (ed.), People and culture in change: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. British Archeological Reports, International Series S508, Oxford: 531-540.
MENOZZI P., PIAZZA A. and CAVALLI-SFORZA L. 1978. Synthetic maps of human gene frequencies in Europeans. Science 201: 786-792.
MIKIC Ž. 1980. Anthropologische Typen der Djerdap (Eisernen- Tor)-Serie. In J. K. Kozlowski and J. Machnik (eds.), Problemes de la neolithisation dans certaines regionsde l'Europe. Polska Akademia Nauk - Oddizial w Krakowie, Krakow: 151-162.
MILOJČIĆ V. 1949 Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzet Steinzeit Mittel- und Südosteuropas. Mann. Berlin.
1960. Praekeramisches Neolithikum auf der Balkanhalbinsel. Germania 38(3/4): 320-335.
MILOJCIC-VON ZUMBUSCH J. und MILOJCIC V. 1971. Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien I. Das frühe Neolithikum. Beiträge zur Ur- und Früfgeschidhtlichen Archäologie des Mittlemeer-Kultur-raumes 10. Rudolf Habelt Verlag GMBH. Bonn.
MÜLLER J. 1994. Das ostadriatische Frühneolithikum. Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adria-raumes. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 9. Wissenschaftsverlag Volker Spiess. Berlin.
NANDRIS J. 1970. The development and relationships of the earlier Greek Neolithic. Man N. S. 5:192-213.
NIKOLIC D. and ZEČEVIĆ J. 2001. Blagotin. Istraživanja (Excavation and Research) 1989-1999. Beograd.
NOVELLETTO A. 2007. Y chromosome variation in Europe: Continental and local processes in the formation of the extant gene pool. Annals of Human Biology 34(2): 139-72.
ÖZDOGAN M. 2008. An Alternative Approach in Tracing Changes in Demographic Composition The Westward Expansion of the Neolithic Way of Life. In J.-P. Bocquet-Ap-pel and O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences. Springer, New York: 139-178.
PARZINGER H. 1993. Studien zur Chronologie und Kulturgeschichte der Jungstein-, Kupfer- und Frühbronzezeit zwischen Karpaten und Mittlerem Taurus. RömischGermanische Forschungen 52. Frankfurt a. M.
PAVLU I. 1989. Early Neolithic white painted pottery in SE Europe. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II: 217-222.
PERIC S. 2002. Der kulturelle Charakter die Chronologie der Starčevo-Elemente im Neolithikum der westlichen Balkanregionen. Starinar LI: 9-40.
PERIČIC M., BARAC LAUC L., MARTINOVIC KLARIC I., RO-OTSI S., JANIČIJEVIC B., RUDAN I., TERZIC R., ČOLAK I., KVESIC A., POPOVIC D., SIJAČKI A., BEHLULI I., ĐORĐE-VIC D., EFREMOVSKA L., BAJEC Đ. D., STEFANOVIC B. D., VILLEMS R. and RUDAN P. 2005. High-Resolution Phylo-genetic Analysis of Southeastern Europe Traces Major Episodes of Paternal Gene Flow among Slavic Populations. Molecular Biology and Evolution 22(10): 1964-1975.
PERIČIC M., BARAC LAUC L., MARTINOVIC KLARIC I., RA-JIC SIKANJIC P., JANIČIJEVIC B., RUDAN P. 2006. The role of Southeastern Europe (SEE) in origins and diffusion of major paternal lineages. In M. Budja (ed.), 13th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 33:11-16.
PERLÈS C. 2001. The early Neolithic in Greece. The first farming communities in Europe. Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
PIAZZA A. 1993. Who are the Europeans? Science 260 (5115): 1767-1769.
PIGGOTT S. 1965. Ancient Europe from the Beginnings of Agriculture to Classical Antiquity. Edinburgh University Press. Edinburgh.
PINHASI R. 2003. A new model for the spread of the first farmers in Europe In M. Budja (ed.), 10th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 30:1-47.
2006. Neolithic skull shapes and demic diffusion: a bio-archaeological investigation into the nature of the Neolithic transition. In M. Budja (ed.), 13th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 33: 61-70.
PINHASI R. and PLUCIENNIK M. 2004. A regional biological approach to the spread of farming in Europe: Anatolia, the Levant, South-Eastern Europe, and the Mediterranean. Current Anthropology 45:59-82.
PINHASI R., FORT J., AMMERMAN A. J. 2005. Tracing the Origin and Spread of Agriculture in Europe. PLoS (Public Library of Science) Biology 3(12): 2220-2228.
PINHASI R., VON CRAMON-TAUBADEL N. 2009. Craniomet-ric Data Supports Demic Diffusion Model for the Spread of Agriculture into Europe. PLoS (Public Library of Science) One 4(8). e6747. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006747
POMPEI F., CRUCIANI F., SCOZZARI R., NOVELLETTO A. 2008. Phylogeography of Y chromosomal haplogroups as reporters of Neolithic and post-Neolithic population processes in the Mediterranean area. In M. Budja (ed.), 15th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 35: 55-64.
RADOVANOVIC I. 1996. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. International Monographs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series 11. Ann Arbor. Michigan.
REIMER P., BAILLIE M., BARD E., BAYLISS A., BECK J., BERTRAND C., BLACKWELL P., BUCK C., BURR G., CUTLER K., DAMON P., EDWARDS R., FAIRBANKS R., FRIEDRICH M., GUILDERSON T., HOGG A., HUGHEN K., KROMER B., MCCORMAC F., MANNING S., BRONK RAMSEY C., REIMER R., REMMELE S., SOUTHON J., STUIVER M., TALAMO S., TAYLOR F., van der PLICHT J. and WEYHENMEYER C. 2004. 'IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 026 cal Kyr BP'. Radiocarbon 46:1029-58.
REINGRUBER A., THISSEN L. 2005. CANeW 14C databases and 14C charts. Aegean Catchment. (E. Greece, S. Balkans and W. Turkey) 10000-5500 cal B.C. [http://www.canew. org/data.html]
REINGRUBER A. and THISSEN L. 2009. Depending on 14C data: chronological frameworks in the neolithic and chal-colithic of southeastern Europe. Radiocarbon 51(2): 751770.
RENFREW C. 1987. Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Penguin Books. London.
RODDEN R. J. 1965. An Early Neolithic village in Greece. Scientific American 212(4): 82-92.
ROKSANDIC M. 2000. Between Foragers and Farmers in the Iron Gates Gorge: Physical Anthropology Perspective Djerdap Population in Transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic. In M. Budja (ed.), 7th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 27:1-1000.
ROSEMAN C. C. and WEAVER T. D. 2007. Molecules versus morphology? Not for the human cranium. BioEssays 29:1185-1188.
ROSENBERG N. A., PRITCHARD J. K., WEBER J. L, CANN H. M., KIDD K. K., ZHIVOTOVSKY L. A., FELDMAN M. W. 2002. Genetic structure of human populations. Science 298 (5602): 2381-2385.
ROSENBERG N. A., MAHAJAN S., RAMACHANDRAN S., ZHAO C., PRITCHARD J. K., FELDMAN M. W. 2005. Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure. PLoS(Public Library of Science) Genetics 1(6): 660-671.
ROSSER Z. H., ZERJAL T., HURLES M. E., ADOJAAN M., ALA-VANTIC D., AMORIM A., AMOS W., ARMENTEROS M., ARROYO E., BARBUJANI G., BECKMAN G., BECKMAN L., BERTRANPETIT J., BOSCH E., BRADLEY D. G., BREDE G., COOPER G., CÔRTE-REAL H. B. S. M., DE KNIJFF P., DECORTE R., DUBROVA Y. E., EVGRAFOV O., GILISSEN A., GLISIC S., GÖLGE M., HILL E. W., JEZIOROWSKA A., KALAYDJIEVA L., KAYSER M., KIVISILD T., KRAVCHENKO S. A., KRUMINA A., KUČINSKAS V., LAVINHA J., LIVSHITS L. A., MALASPINA P., MARIA S., MCELREAVEY K., MEITINGER T. A., MIKELSAAR A.-V., MITCHELL R. J., NAFA K., NICHOLSON J., N0RBY S., PANDYA A., PARIK J., PATSALIS P. C., PEREIRA L., PETER-LIN B., PIELBERG G., JOÄO PRATA M., PREVIDERÉ C., ROE-WER L., ROOTSI S., RUBINSZTEIN D. C., SAILLARD J., SANTOS F. R., STEFANESCU G., SYKES B. C.,TOLUN A., VILLEMS R., TYLER-SMITH C.. JOBLING M. A. 2000. Y-chromosomal diversity in Europe is clinal and influenced primarily by geography, rather than by language. The American Journal of Human Genetics 67:1526-1543.
ROOTSI S., MAGRI C., KIVISILD T., BENUZZI G., HELP H., BERMISHEVA M., KUTUEV I., BARAC L., PERIČIC M., BALA-NOVSKY O., PSHENICHNOV A., DION D., GROBEI M., ZHI-VOTOVSKY L. A., BATTAGLIA V., ACHILLI A., AL-ZAHERY N., PARIK J., KING R., CINNIOGLU C., KHUSNUTDINOVA E., RUDAN P., BALANOVSKA E., SCHEFFRAHN W., SIMONESCU M., BREHM A., GONCALVES R., ROSA A., MOISAN J.-P., CHAVENTRE A., FERAK V., FÜREDI S., OEFNER P. J., SHEN P., BECKMAN L., MIKEREZI I., TERZIC R., PRIMORAC D., CAMBON-THOMSEN A., KRUMINA A., TORRONI A., UNDER-HILL P. A., SANTACHIARA-BENERECETTI A. S., VILLEMS R., and SEMINO O. 2004. Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup I Reveals Distinct Domains of Prehistoric Gene Flow in Europe. American Journal of Human Genetics 75:128-137.
ROOTSI S. 2006. Y-Chromosome haplogroup I prehistoric gene flow in Europe. In M. Budja (ed.), 13th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica 33:17-20.
SAMPIETRO M. L., LAO O., CARAMELLI D., LARI M., POU R., MARTI M., BERTRANPETIT J. and LALUEZA-FOX C. 2007. Palaeogenetic evidence supports a dual model of Neolith spreading into Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society. Biology 274:161-2167.
SCHACHERMEYER F. 1976. Die Ägäische Frühzeit I. Die Vormykenischen Periode. Des griechichen festlandes und der Kykladen. Österreichiche Akademia der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 303. Band. Wien.
SCHUBERT H. 1999. Die bemalte Keramik des Frühneolithikums in Südosteuropa, Italien und Westanatolien. Internationale Archäologie 47. Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH. Radhen/Westf.
SCHUBERT H. 2005. Everyone's black box - Where does the European ornamentation come from? In C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC (Byzas 2). Ya-yinlari, Istanbul: 239-254.
SANEV V. 2004. Some characteristics of the Anzabegovo-Vrsnik cultural group in Macedonia. In S. Peric (ed.), The Neolithic in the Middle Morava Valley 1. Archaeological Institute SANU. Beograd: 35-48.
SEMINO O., PASSARINO G., OEFNER P. J., LIN A. A., ARBU-ZOVA S., BECKMAN L. E., DE BENEDICTIS G., FRANCA-LACCI P., KOUVATSI A., LIMBORSKA S., MARCIKIC M., MIKA A., MIKA B., PRIMORAC D., SANTACHIARA-BENE-RECETTI A. S., CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L., UNDERHILL P. A. 2000. The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans: a Y-chromosome perspective. Science 290 (5494): 1155-1159.
SEMINO O., PASSARINO G., QUINTANA-MURCI L., LIU A., BÉRES J., CZEIZEL A., SANTACHIARA-BENERECETTI A. S., 2004. Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithiza-tion of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area. American Journal of Human Genetics 74: 1023-1034.
SENGUPTA S., ZHIVOTOVSKY L. A., KING R., MEHDI S. Q., EDMONDS C. A., CHOW C.-E. T., LIN A. A., MITRA M,. SIL S. K., RAMESH A., RANI M. V. U., THAKUR C. M., CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L., MAJUMDER P. P., UNDERHILL P. A. 2006. Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influ-
ence of Central Asian Pastoralists. The American Journal of Human Genetics 78:202-221.
SERRE D. and PÄÄBO S. 2004. Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents. Genome Research 14:1679-1685.
SHENNAN S. 2007. The spread of farming into Central Europe and its consequences: evolutionary models. In T. Kohler and S. E. van der Leeuw (eds.), The Model-Based Archaeology of Socionatural Systems. SAR Press, Santa Fe: 141-156.
SHENNAN S., EDINBOROUGH K. 2007. Prehistoric population history: from the Late Glacial to the Late Neolithic in Central and Northern Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 34:1339-1345.
SOFFER O., ADOVASIO J. M., ILLINGWORTH J. S., AMIR-KHANOV H. A., PRASLOV N. D. & STREET M. 2000. Palaeolithic perishables made permanent. Antiquity 74(286): 812-821.
SREJOVIC D. 1969. Lepenski Vir. Srpska književna zadruga. Beograd.
TASIC N. 2003. The White Painted Ornament of the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Central Balkans. In L. Nikolo-va (ed.), Early Symbolic System for Communication in Southeast Europe I. BAR International Series 1139. Oxford: 181-191.
THEOCHARIS R. D. 1973. Neolithic Greece. National Bank of Greece. Athens.
THISSEN L. 2000. Early Village Communities in natoloia and the Balkans, 6500.5000 calBC. Studies in chronology and culture contact. PhD Thessis, Universitet Leiden. Leiden.
2005. Coming to grips with the Aregean in Prehistory: an outline of the temporal framework 10,000-5500 calBC. In C. Lichter (ed.), How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC (Byzas 2). Yayinlari, Istanbul: 2940.
2009. First ceramic assemblages in the Danube catchment, SE Europe - a synthesis of the radiocarbon evidence. Buletinul muzeului Judefean Teleorman. Seria Arheologie 1: 9-30.
TODOROVA H. 1989. Das Frühneolithikum Nordbulgariens im kontakte des ostbalkanischen Neolithikums. Tell Karanovo und das Balkan-Neolithikum. Gesamte Beiträge zum Internationalen Kolloquim in Salzburg, 20-22 Oktober 1988. Salzburg: 9-26.
1998. Der balkano-anatolische Kulturbereich vom Neolithikum bis zur Frühbronzezeit. In M. Stefanovich, H. Todorova, H. Hauptmann (eds.), In The Steps of James Harvey Gaul. Vol. 1. Sofia: 27-54.
2003. Neue Angaben zur Neolithisierung der Balkanhalbinsel. In E. Jerem and P. Raczky (eds.), Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel- und Südosteuropa. Festschriftfür Nän-dor Kalicz zum 75. Geburtstag. Archaeolingua 15. Ar-chaeolingua Alapitvany. Budapest: 83-88.
TRINHGAM R. 2000. Southeastern Europe in the transition to agriculture in Europe: bridge, buffer, or mosaic. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe's First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 19-56.
UNDERHILL P. A., MYRES N. M., ROOTSI S., CHOW C.-E. T., LIN A. A., OTILLAR R. P., KING R., ZHIVOTOVSKY L. A., BA-LANOVSKY O., PSHENICHNOV A., RITCHIE K. H., CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L., KIVISILD T., VILLEMS R. & WOODWARD S. R. 2005. New Phylogenetic Relationships for Y-chromosome Haplogroup I: Reappraising its Phylogeography and Prehistory. In P. Mellars, C. Stringer, O. Bar-Yosef, K. Boyle (eds.), Rethinking the human revolution: New behavioural and biological perspectives on the origin and dispersal of modern humans. McDonald Institute for Archaeological, Cambridge: 33-42.
VAJSOV I. 1998. The Typology of the Anthropomorphic Figurines From Northeastern Bulgaria. In Stefanovich, To-dorova H., Hauptman H. (eds.), James Harvey Gaul. In memoriam. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul Volume 1. Sofia: 107-142.
Van ANDEL H. T. and RUNNELS N. C. 1995. The earliest farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69(264): 481-500.
VERPOORTE A. 2001. Places of Art, traces of Fire. Archaeological Studies Leiden University 8 (Dolm Vëstonice Studies 6). Faculty of Archaeology, University of Leiden & Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Leiden, Brno.
VUKOVIC J. 2004. Statistic and typological analyses of the Eraly Neolithic pottery excavated in the structure 03. In S. Peric (ed.), The Neolithic in the Middle Morava Valley 1. Archaeological Institute SANU. Beograd: 83-156.
WEINBERG S. 1965. The relative chronology of the Aegean in the stone and early bronze ages. In R. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World archaeology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 265-320.
WENINGER B., ALRAM-STEM E., BAUER E., CLARE L., DANZEGLOCKE U., JÖRIS O., KUBATZKI C., ROLLEFSON G., TODOROVA H., VAN ANDEL T. 2006. Climate forcing due to the 8200 cal yr BP event observed at Early
Neolithic sites in the eastern Mediterranean. Quaternary Research 66: 401-420.
WHITTLE A., BARTOSIEWICZ L., BORIC D., PETTITT P., RICHARDS M. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and southeast Hungary. In E. Banffy (ed.), Prehistoric Studies in memoriam Ida Bognar-Kutzian. Antaeus 25:15-62.
WIERCINSKI A. and BIELICKI T. 1962. The racial analysis of human populations in relation to their ethnogenesis. Current Anthropology 3(1): 2-46.
ZVELEBIL M. The Social Context of the the Agricultural Transition in Europe. In C. Renfrew & K. V. Boyle (eds.),
Molecular Genetics and Early Europe: Papers in Population Prehistory. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge: 57-80.
ZVELEBIL M. and ROWLEY-CONWY P. 1986. Foragers and farmers in Atlantic Europe. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition: Mesolithic societies of temperate Euroasia and their transition to farming. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 67-93.
ZVELEBIL M. and LILLIE M. 2000. Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe. In D. T. Price (ed.), Europe's first farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 57-92.