UDK 903’12/’15(4)“633/634”


Documenta Praehistorica XXXI 

The nature of early farming
in Central and South-east Europe


Amy Bogaard 

Department of Archaeology, University of Nottingham, UK
Amy.Bogaard@nottingham.ac.uk


ABSTRACT – This paper summarises models of crop and animal husbandry in Neolithic Europe and 
reviews the relevant evidence from three regions: the western loess belt and Alpine Foreland; the 
Great Hungarian Plain; and the southern Balkans and Greece. Intensive mixed farming (small-scale, 
labour-intensive cultivation integrated with small-scale herding) emerges as the most plausible model 
across these regions. Such continuity is in some ways counter-intuitive given climatic variability 
across Europe and archaeological diversity in settlement and house forms etc. It is argued that variability in the form of Neolithic settlements (nucleated versus dispersed, ‘tell’ versus ‘flat’ sites) 
should be understood not as a reflection of radically different farming practices but rather as different social permutations of the same basic farming and herding pattern. 

IZVLE
EK – V 
lanku povzemamo modele za poljedelstvo in ivinorejo v neolitski Evropi in pregledamo ustrezne podatke s treh podro
ij: zahodni aluvialni pas v alpskem predgorju; Panonska niina; 
juni Balkan in Gr
ija. Intenzivno meano kmetovanje (v malem obsegu, obdelovanje zemlje z intenzivnim ro
nim delom, manje 
rede) se kae kot najverjetneji model po vseh treh obmo
jih. 
Takna enotnost je na nek na
in nenavadna glede na razli
ne klimatske razmere po Evropi, arheoloko razli
nost naselbin in oblik hi itd. Menimo, da raznolikost oblik neolitskih naselbin (jedrne 
proti razprenim, ‘tell’ proti ‘ravnim’ najdi
em) ne kae na zelo razli
ne na
ine kmetovanja, ampak bi jo morali razumeti kot razli
ne drubene permutacije istega temeljnega vzorca kmetovanja. 

KEY WORDS – Central Europe; South-east Europe; crop husbandry; animal husbandry 

INTRODUCTION 

“Students of civilization have often credited the central and south-east Europe was intensive – builds 
development of intensive agriculture to revolutio-on a long-standing criticism of technology-driven 
nary inventions such as metal tools, the plow, and evolutionary models of agricultural development. A 
domesticated draft animals ... or to particular en-more subtle evolutionary framework was proposed 
vironments which challenged the creative powers by Boserup (1965), who identified demographic 
of the inhabitants ... Comparative evidence now pressure rather than technological innovation per 
suggests that a great many peoples practice inten-se as the cause of intensification. According to this 
sive cultivation with rudimentary tools, and that view, early forms of agriculture were extensive, in-
the necessary knowledge need not be diffused from volving long fallow periods and low energy inputs 
a few centers of cultural innovation but may be de-per unit area, and only became more intensive as a 
veloped to meet localized needs.” (Netting 1971.21) result of technological change fuelled by population 

pressure. Boserup (1965) ignored the beneficial ef-
This statement illustrates several points that form a fects of ‘rudimentary’ measures such as manuring, 
useful introduction to this paper. First, it shows that middening, careful hand tillage and weeding on crop 
the central argument made here – early farming in yields (Grigg 1979). Following Kruk (1973), Sherratt 


Amy Bogaard 

(1980) rejected the notion of a ‘primeval’ phase of 
shifting cultivation in Neolithic Europe but preserved the idea of low inputs per unit area by arguing 
that early ‘horticulture’ was confined to naturally 
fertile floodplain plots, recharged by spring flooding and requiring minimal soil preparation. This paper, however, will present evidence of labour-intensive cultivation, characterised by close integration of 
crop and livestock husbandry. 

Second, Netting’s statement raises the question of 
local (re-)invention of intensive farming methods. 
Given that the technology required is minimal, to 
argue that intensive agriculture represents the ‘norm’ 
across much of Neolithic Europe is not to deny the 
potentially diverse origins of Neolithic communities 
(cf. Zvelebil 2000), or to insist on a single ‘centre of 
cultural innovation’. Rather, the intention here is, by 
demonstrating the intensive nature of early farming, 
to focus attention on the daily, seasonal and annual 
exigencies of farming in the Neolithic. 

A third issue raised by Netting’s comments is what 
constitutes ‘intensification’ of farming. This term is 
often used to refer to the application of farming technologies such as ard-tillage and ox-traction, but in 
fact these methods are associated with an extensification of agriculture: as the scale of cultivation expands due to the greater efficiency of the ox-drawn 
ard and metal harvesting tools, so inputs of labour 
per unit area are reduced (Halstead 1992). 

MODELS OF NEOLITHIC FARMING IN EUROPE 

A range of crop and animal husbandry models has 
emerged for various parts of Europe in the Neolithic. 
Table 1 presents a simplified summary of these models. Animal husbandry can broadly be characterised as intensive or extensive. Extensive animal husbandry refers to large-scale herding and consequently the need to move herds over considerable distances in order to find adequate grazing (Halstead 
1987; 1996a; 1996b; 2000; Russell 1988.15–16). 

This form of animal husbandry is associated with a 
lack of manuring since animals are often herded well 
away from arable land. Crop husbandry regimes compatible with extensive herding, therefore, would involve little or no manure input per unit area. Such 
extensive crop husbandry regimes are: shifting cultivation, in which crops are grown over a few seasons 
on newly cleared forest soil fertilised by ash; extensive ard cultivation, in which crops are grown on a 
large-scale with the help of the ox-drawn ard; and 
floodplain cultivation, which exploits fertile crop 
growing conditions created by seasonal flooding of 
alluvium and the downward movement of water 
and nutrients from surrounding slopes. As indicated 
in Table 1, there are various ways in which these 
forms of low intensity cultivation may relate to animal husbandry. The closest integration is seen in the 
use and management of oxen maintained to pull the 
ard plough – such animals are kept close to the settlement, are stalled through the winter and supplied 
with fodder. The manure from stalled oxen may be 
spread on to arable fields, but the large scale of ard 
cultivation is such that manuring inputs and crop 
yields per unit area remain low. The chronic shortage of manure in this sort of system is evident from 
the scale of cultivation as it compares with the manure produced by traction animals. Ethnographic evidence suggests that a pair of oxen can cultivate c. 
5–10 ha or more per year (Halstead 1995; Forbes 
2000), while each animal produces about 12 tons of 
manure per year (Rowley-Conwy 1981). Given that 
intensive manuring may require something like c. 
30–100 tons of manure per hectare (cf. Alcock et 
al. 1994; P. Halstead field notes from Asturias, 
Spain), it is evident that a pair of oxen cannot provide enough manure to treat the area cultivated intensively. 

By contrast, intensive garden cultivation represents 
a form of farming that is closely tied to similarly 
small-scale and intensive livestock management 
(Halstead 1987; 1996a; 1996b; 2000; cf. Russell 
1988.15) (Tab. 1). The nature of this interdependence between crops and livestock is summarised 

Crop husbandry models Animal husbandry models Integration of crops and animals 
Shifting cultivation Regenerating plots may be used as pasture 
Extensive ard cultivation Cattle traction to pull carts and the ard plough 
Floodplain cultivation The floodplain also offers seasonal pasture 
Intensive garden cultivation Intensive herding Complex interdependence (see Table 2) 
Extensive herding 
Tab. 1. Simplified summary of crop and animal husbandry models, showing relationships between crops 
and animals. 


The nature of early farming in Central and South-east Europe 

Animal contribution to crop husbandry 

Crop contribution to animal husbandry 

Manure to fertilise the soil, provided by animals grazing 

Crop by-products and products (spoiled or surplus) used as 

crops/stubble or by spreading of collected manure 

fodder 

Grazing of unripe crops to prevent lodging and 

Cultivation plots, which may be surrounded by hedges or 

promote tillering 

fencing, provide grazing 

Tab. 2. Interdependence between crop and animal husbandry in intensive mixed farming. 

in Table 2. Movements of herds around settlements 
are relatively small-scale, resulting in a conservation 
of manure for use on arable plots. Particularly over 
the winter, animals kept close to the settlement require shelter and fodder, which may include surplus 
or spoiled crops and crop by-products as well as 
leafy hay/branch fodder. With careful management, 
a household herd consisting of a few cattle, sheep/ 
goats and pigs (cf. Suter and Schibler 1996) would 
produce enough manure to maintain high fertility 
levels in small-scale cultivation (e.g. 1–2 ha per household). Animal manure may be applied directly, by 
spreading of collected manure from penned areas 
or stalls, or indirectly, by allowing animals to graze 
stubble. Historical and ethnographic evidence (Tusser 1984.105; Forbes 1995; 1998; Burns 2003; P. 
Halstead, field notes from Asturias and Greece) 
also attests to the use of sheep and goats to graze 
unripe cereals at a vegetative stage of growth in order to promote tillering (the production of multiple 
stems per plant), resulting in relatively short, dense 
crop plants that are less prone to lodging (falling 
over). Otherwise, high fertility encourages the growth 
of tall plants and hence may increase the danger of 
lodging, though other factors (weed infestation, weather, straw-length of cereal variety) also contribute. 

In small-scale intensive management, animals are 
generally kept for their meat and perhaps also for 
milk and wool/hair, though the culling pattern is not 
geared towards intensive dairying or wool/hair production (Halstead 1981; 1996a; 1996b; 2000). This 
‘multi-purpose’ exploitation of livestock may extend 
to include use of unspecialised traction animals, such 
as cows (e.g. those that do not produce much milk), 
which can be used to reduce human labour expended on tillage but do not greatly increase the scale 
of cultivation (Halstead 1995; Bogaard 2004). 

Anthropologists and archaeologists have for some 
time recognised the adaptive advantages of intensive cultivation for farming families as well as the 
social significance of this form of husbandry, for 
example in the emergence of permanent social inequalities (Netting 1971; 1990; Halstead 1989b). 

Halstead’s work on Neolithic Greece (1981; 1996a; 
1996b; 2000) has focussed on archaeozoological and 
environmental evidence to build a case for intensive 
herding and cultivation. More recently, analyses of 
archaeobotanical assemblages from Neolithic sites 
in the western loess belt and Alpine Foreland (Bogaard 2004) and the Great Hungarian Plain (Bogaard et al. in press a, b) have made use of new ecological techniques (e.g. Charles et al. 2002) for the 
inference of crop growing conditions from arable 
weeds associated with crop remains. These studies 
suggest that intensive garden cultivation combined 
with intensive herding represent the ‘norm’ across 
central and south-east Europe during the Neolithic. 
Such general continuity in farming methods may appear surprising given the considerable differences 
in climate from the south-east to north-west, i.e. 
from the Mediterranean pattern of wet, frost-free 
winters and hot, dry summers, through the frosty 
winters and hot summers of central Europe to the 
cooler, wetter summers of the north-west. On the 
other hand, the ‘buffered’ and artificial character of 
intensive crop growing conditions would facilitate 
continuity in this form of husbandry (Bogaard 
2004). 

The following sections briefly review the evidence 
for intensive mixed farming in three adjacent regions of central and south-east Europe – the western 
loess belt and the Alpine Foreland; the Great Hungarian Plain; and the southern Balkans and Greece 
(Fig. 1). These regions will be dealt with in this order – the reverse of a chronological arrangement according to the timing of the agricultural transition – 
because the author’s own research (Bogaard 2004) 
has mostly concentrated on the first region to be discussed. 

Western loess belt and Alpine foreland 

Bogaard (2004) carried out a series of ecological 
comparisons between modern weed floras from 
known crop husbandry regimes and archaeobotanical samples of arable weeds associated with charred 
crop material from Neolithic sites (c. 5500–2200 BC) 


Amy Bogaard 

in the western loess belt (mostly 
Germany) and the Alpine Foreland. The results indicate that cultivation plots tended to be permanent – that is, used for an extended period of time such as decades or even centuries, thus ruling 
out shifting cultivation (see also 
Bogaard 2002). Furthermore, the 
major cereal crops (mostly einkorn and emmer) were autumn-
sown, with the implication that, 
even where it was topographically feasible, cultivation did not 
tend to take place within the 
spring flood zone of rivers and 
streams. Growing conditions of 
high soil disturbance and fertility 
appear to have been maintained 
with high inputs of labour, including manuring/middening, tillage 
and weeding. 

Cattle were the dominant livestock in these areas. 
There is as yet little published evidence for the mortality profiles of LBK cattle assemblages, though indications are that cattle were mostly killed as juveniles, and hence that meat production was emphasised 
(Arbogast 1994.93; Benecke 1994a.95; 1994b.122– 
3). Domesticated cattle and pigs appear to have been 
distinctly smaller than their wild counterparts throughout the earlier Neolithic (Benecke 1994a.48–55; 
Döhle 1997; Lüning 2000.105), implying a lack of 
regular cross-breeding between wild and domesticated populations and hence that herding was relatively small-scale and intensive. The only available 
demographic evidence for intensive dairying comes 
from the later Neolithic in the Alpine Foreland, 
where the scale of stock husbandry would be restricted by the lack of permanent pasture and the need 
to provide winter fodder (Higham 1967; Becker 
1981; Jacomet and Schibler 1985; Halstead 1989a; 
Gross et al. 1990; Hüster-Plogmann and Schibler 
1997; Hüster-Plogmann et al. 1999). Though livestock may have played a critical economic role as an 
‘insurance bank’ against crop failure, particularly in 
regions of harsh climate, the evidence points to 
small-scale intensive mixed farming rather than to 
large-scale, extensive cattle pastoralism alongside 
shifting, extensive ard or floodplain cultivation. 

Archaeobotanical analyses of waterlogged animal 
dung are available from several Neolithic lakeshore 
settlements of the Alpine Foreland, such as Egolzwil 

3 (Rasmussen 1993), Horgen-Scheller (Akeret and 
Jacomet 1997), Arbon-Bleiche 3 (Akeret et al. 1999) 
and Weier (Robinson and Rasmussen 1989). These 
analyses have revealed a variety of feeding practices, including twig or branch foddering (prior to leaf 
emergence) and consumption of crop material. Mostly these analyses concern sheep/goat pellets, though 
cattle foddering, as well as the spreading of manure 
across an arable plot adjacent to the settlement, have 
been documented at Weier (Robinson and Rasmussen 1989). A link between dung and winter sheep/ 
goat feeding at Arbon Bleiche 3 has been used to 
argue that herds were moved away from settlements 
in the summer as part of a transhumant cycle (Akeret et al. 1999), though an absence of dung containing summer vegetation could simply reflect the fact 
that animals were not kept in the settlement during 
this season of abundant grazing. 

There is possible evidence for the use of cows as 
traction animals as early as the LBK (Döhle 1997), 
a practice that would not alter the scale of cultivation significantly (above). The best evidence for the 
use of oxen as traction animals dates to the end of 
the Neolithic sequence in the Alpine Foreland, in the 
Corded Ware phase (Hüster-Plogmann and Schibler 
1997; Schibler and Jacomet 1999). Though there 
may have been a trend towards somewhat more extensive cultivation in some areas during the later Neolithic (Schibler and Jacomet 1999), the archaeobotanical samples available from later Neolithhic sites in 
theloessbeltandAlpineForelandappeartoreflectin

Fig. 1. Map showing the regions and sites mentioned in the text. 

The nature of early farming in Central and South-east Europe 

tensively maintained growing conditions and hence 
a restricted scale of cultivation (Bogaard 2004). 

Neolithic cultivation in the western loess belt and 
Alpine Foreland, therefore, can be characterised as 
small-scale, intensive and integrated with intensive 
livestock husbandry, but within these parameters 
there is emerging archaeobotanical evidence for variability between regions and sites and also within 
the archaeobotanical record of a single site. Regional cohesion in crop growing conditions is evident, 
for example, amongst LBK sites of the Lower Rhine-
Meuse Basin and may reflect the existence of localised crop husbandry traditions (Bogaard 2004). The 
best example of intra-site variability in growing conditions is the LBK site of Vaihingen/Enz in the Neckar 
valley (Bogaard 2004), where a relatively large set 
of archaeobotanical samples rich in potential arable 
weeds suggests a continuum from relatively high to 
relatively low intensity cultivation. Nucleation and 
enclosure of longhouses at this settlement (Krause 
2000) may have exaggerated the inevitable ‘fall off’ 
in cultivation intensity with increasing distance from 
home (cf. Jones et al. 1999). 

Great Hungarian plain 

There is increasing evidence that, contrary to earlier statements based on small samples (e.g. Kosse 
1979), the faunal assemblages of early Neolithic sites of the Körös culture (c. 6000–5500 BC) in southeast Hungary are dominated by domesticated livestock, especially sheep/goat, with a relatively minor 
component of wild fauna (Bartosiewicz in press). 
Furthermore, demographic data on sheep/goat culling patterns from the Körös site of Endrod 119 (Bökönyi 1992) and from the recently excavated Körös 
site of Ecsegfalva 23 (Bartosiewicz pers comm.; in 
press; Pike-Tay in press) point towards generalised/ 
meat-oriented management rather than intensive 
dairying or wool production. The detection of dairy 
fat residues on potsherds from Ecsegfalva (Craig et 
al. in press) is consistent with a generalised herding strategy in which livestock were exploited for a 
range of products. 

Archaeobotanical data from sites of this early Neolithic phase in the Hungarian Plain are scarce, but 
ecological analysis of the potential arable weed assemblage from Ecsegfalva 23 by Bogaard et al. (in 
press a; b) points towards intensive cultivation. Moreover, the topography of the area suggests that 
high dry ground in the vicinity was far more than 
sufficient to accommodate small-scale cultivation 

(Bogaard et al. in press a; b). Microwear analysis 
of sheep/goat mandibles from Ecsegfalva 23 by 
Mainland (in press) points towards high soil ingestion and over-grazing in penned areas, while Mac-
Phail (in press) has detected soil micromorphological evidence for ‘stalling refuse’ at the site, again 
consistent with small-scale and intensive herd management integrated with arable farming. 

Clearly, more interdisciplinary investigations such 
as those focussed on Ecsegfalva 23 are required in 
order to broaden this picture of early Neolithic crop 
and animal husbandry, but initial indications are that 
intensive mixed farming can be traced from the LBK 
back to the earlier Neolithic of the Hungarian plain. 

Southern Balkans and Greece 

Halstead (1981; 1996a; 1996b; 2000) has drawn together evidence for intensive mixed farming in Neolithic Greece (seventh-fourth millennium BC). Arguments include a lack of evidence for wide-scale woodland clearance in the pollen record or for ox-traction in faunal assemblages, the predominance of 
sheep (a species associated with open vegetation), 
mortality evidence that sheep were exploited for 
meat and a decrease in the size of domestic pig and 
cattle through the Neolithic (consistent with a lack 
of interbreeding with wild relatives). Moreover, Hal-
stead (1981; 1996a; 1996b; 2000) estimates that 
Greek tell villages would require implausibly large 
herds to be supported primarily by livestock and 
concludes that cereals and pulses provided the bulk 
of the diet, though livestock offered a vital alternative source of food in times of crop failure. 

Until recently there has been little archaeobotanical evidence for Neolithic arable weed floras in the 
southern Balkans or Greece, though Halstead (1981; 
1996a; 1996b; 2000) has emphasised the diversity 
and prevalence of labour-intensive pulse crops. The 
work of Marinova (2001), therefore, on weeds associated with charred crop remains (including crop 
stores) at several Neolithic tell sites in southern Bulgaria is particularly critical. Floristically, these weed 
assemblages overlap considerably with those of central Europe and hence appear to be consistent with 
intensive cultivation (though this remains to be demonstrated by statistical and ecological analysis of 
the particular combinations of weed species occurring on a sample by sample basis). Recent studies of 
Late Neolithic-Early Bronze Age archaeobotanical assemblages in northern Greece (Valamoti and Jones 
2003; Valamoti 2004) shed important new light on 


Amy Bogaard 

the use of livestock dung as fuel – implying that 
herds were kept near the settlement – as well as on 
animal feeding practices, including grazing of weeds 
in stubble/fallow fields and possible feeding of crop 
material to livestock. 

Ongoing archaeobotanical work by the author further north, in the Teleorman valley of south-central 
Romania (Bogaard 2001, unpublished), has so far 
produced small assemblages of potential arable 
weeds from ‘flat’ sites of the Cris, Dudesti and Boian 
cultures (sixth-early fifth millennium BC). The limited evidence recovered so far would again appear to 
reflect intensive, small-scale cultivation given the occurrence of annual weed species common on Neolithic sites in central Europe, such as Fat Hen (Chenopodium album), Black Night-shade (Solanum nigrum) and Black Bindweed (Fallopia convolvulus). 
A recently found cache of Chenopodium album 
seeds at Sultana-Malu Rosu(Bogaard and Stavrescu-
Bedivan unpublished), a Gumelnita culture (later 
5th millennium BC) tell site in southern Romania, 
echoes occasional similar finds at LBK and later sites 
in central Europe (Helbaek 1960; Knörzer 1967; 
Kroll 1990; Bakels 1991; Brombacher and Jacomet 
1997; Lüning 2000.92). Given the suitability of Fat 
Hen as a separately collected wild plant food (Stokes 
and Rowley-Conwy 2002), such finds urge caution 
in the uncritical use of this species as an indicator of 
intensive cultivation (see also Bogaard 2004). At the 
same time, it is possible that intensive cultivation in 
arable plots played a dual role for both successful cereal/pulse husbandry and the encouragement of alternative food sources such as Fat Hen. 

DISCUSSION 

Given the obvious relevance of routine practice for 
apprehending culture as lived experience (e.g. Whittle 2003.22–49), the nature of early farming practices in Neolithic Europe is of fundamental importance 
if we wish to understand the societies that emerged 
from the agricultural transition. The practice of small-
scale, intensive farming in south-east and central Europe reflects a similar series of constraints and possibilities for the development of Neolithic communities in these areas. In addition to constraints on mobility for at least part of the community, for example, intensive mixed farming would encourage the 
development of household claims to fixed plots of 
land (Bogaard 2004). 

Against this backdrop of similar constraints and potentialities, however, Neolithic communities in south

east and central Europe clearly took on a range of 
forms in terms of settlements and houses, distribution, longevity etc. Kotsakis (1999) has recently considered the different implications of Neolithic ‘tell’ 
settlements versus ‘flat’ sites in northern Greece, 
concluding that the more dispersed form of flat sites 
would allow more labour-intensive cultivation of 
plots interspersed between houses than would be 
feasible beyond the edges of nucleated tells. While 
new studies such as that of Valamoti (2004) will clarify this contrast in Greece, there is evidence that differential nucleation of longhouses among LBK settlements in central Europe was associated with different degrees of variability in cultivation intensity 
(above, Bogaard 2004). The implication is that different degrees of nucleation could amplify the potential for emerging differences in productivity between households, unless mechanisms were in place 
to ensure an even distribution of cultivation plots at 
varying distances from home (cf. Forbes 1982.353; 
2000). Thus, the marked ‘separation between household and productive space’ (Kotsakis 1999.73) evident in nucleated settlements such as tells would 
have the effect of creating an extended continuum 
of cultivation intensity and hence more scope for 
differences in productivity between households than 
in more dispersed settlements. Moreover, a greater 
continuum of cultivation intensity surrounding nucleated settlements could accelerate inter-household 
competition, promoting tell formation in areas with 
a tradition of mud-brick architecture and superimposed rebuilding (Halstead 1999). 

In this perspective, it is misleading to invoke radical differences in crop husbandry between tells and 
flat sites, such as a shift from manual horticulture 
to ard-based agriculture (cf. Chapman 1990). As Kotsakis (1999) suggests, the fundamental difference 
lies not in tillage method but in social attitudes to 
household versus productive space and continuity in 
the use of household space through time. It has been 
argued elsewhere (Bogaard 2004; Bogaard et al. in 
press b) that long-lived, intensively cultivated plots 
would themselves be the object of descent-based 
claims. Perhaps the contrast between tells and flat sites reflects a difference in emphasis between claims 
on household space, on the one hand, and productive space, on the other: in tells, the identity of the 
household is linked to household space and to its 
place in the community structure, whereas in flat 
sites with no superimposed rebuilding and greater 
household dispersal, proximal house replacement 
over time reflects a predominant concern with claims 
over ‘sectors’ of the residential area together with 


The nature of early farming in Central and South-east Europe 

surrounding arable plots (cf. Bogaard 2004; Bogaard et al. in press b). 

An issue raised at the start of this paper concerned 
the problem of identifying the ‘origins’ of intensive 
mixed farming, given its technological simplicity. 
Notwithstanding the possibility that intensive cultivation could have developed independently in different areas, the apparent continuity of intensive 
mixed farming across south-east and central Europe 
raises the possibility that the range of crops and livestock adopted in south-east Europe were already 
embedded and integrated in earlier patterns of intensive mixed farming in the Near East. This question lies beyond the remit of the present paper (Bo

gaard in prep) but may help to explain the ‘packaged’ nature of Neolithic life from its beginnings in 
the Fertile Crescent. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I would like to thank Mike Charles and Paul Halstead 
for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. I am also grateful to Paul Halstead for access to 
his field notes from Greece and Asturias, to Elena Marinova for information on her archaeobotanical work 
on Neolithic sites in Bulgaria, to László Bartosiewicz 
for discussion of Körös faunal assemblages and to 
Hamish Forbes for useful references on grazing of 
unripe cereals to prevent lodging. 


 
REFERENCES 

AKERET Ö. and JACOMET S. 1997. Analysis of plant 
macrofossils in goat/sheep faeces from the Neolithic 
lake shore settlement of Horgen Scheller – an indication of prehistoric transhumance? Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 6: 235–239. 

AKERET Ö., HAAS J. N., LEUZINGER U. and JACOMET 

S. 1999. Plant macrofossils and pollen in goat/sheep 
faeces from the Neolithic lake-shore settlement Arbon Bleiche 3, Switzerland. The Holocene 9: 175– 
182. 
ALCOCK S. E., CHERRY J. F. and DAVIS J. L. 1994. Intensive survey, agricultural practice and the classical 
landscape of Greece. In I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece: ancient histories and modern archaeologies: 
137–170. 

ARBOGAST R.-M. 1994. Premiers élevages néolithiques du nord-est de la France, Liege. Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liege. 

BAKELS C. C. 1991. Tracing crop processing in the 
Bandkeramik culture. In J. Renfrew (ed.), New Light 
on Early Farming: 281–288. 

BARTOSIEWICZ L. in press. Animal bone. In A. Whittle (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture 
site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. 

BECKER C. 1981. Besprechung der Tierarten, 1: Säugetiere. In C. Becker and F. Johansson (eds.), Die 
neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann II: Tierknochenfunde 2: mittleres und oberes Schichtpacket (MS und OS) der Cortalloid-Kultur: 35–77. 

BENECKE N. 1994a. Archäozoologische Studien zur 
Entwicklung der Haustierhaltung in Mitteleuropa 
und Südskandinavien von den Anfängen bis zum 
ausgehenden Mittelalter. Akademie Verlag. Berlin. 

1994b. Der Mensch und seine Haustiere. Stuttgart: Theiss. 

BOGAARD A. 2001. Charred plant remains from flotation in 2000. In D. W. Bailey et al. http://www.cf. 
ac.uk/srap/Srapmain.html. 

2002. Questioning the relevance of shifting cultivation to Neolithic farming in the loess belt of 
western-central Europe: evidence from the Hambach Forest experiment. Vegetation History and 
Archaeobotany 11: 155–168. 

2004. Neolithic Farming in Central Europe. Rout-
ledge. London. 

BOGAARD A., BENDING J. and JONES G. in press a. Archaeobotanical evidence for plant husbandry and use 
at Ecsegfalva 23. In A. Whittle (ed.), The Early Neoli


Amy Bogaard 

thic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of 
the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. 

(in press b). Crop husbandry and its social significance in the Körös and LBK periods. In D. Bailey, 

A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds.), New Perspectives on Neolithic Sedentism. 
BÖKÖNYI S. 1992. The Early Neolithic vertebrate 
fauna of Endrod 119. In S. Bökönyi (ed.), Cultural 
and landscape changes in South-East Hungary I. 
Reports on the Gyomaendrod Project: 195–300. 

BOSERUP E. 1965. The Conditions of Agricultural 
Growth. Aldine Publishing Company. New York. 

BROMBACHER C. and JACOMET S. 1997. Ackerbau, 
Sammelwirtschaft und Umwelt: Ergebnisse archäobotanischer Untersuchungen. In J. Schibler, H. Hüster-Plogmann, S. Jacomet, C. Brombacher, E. Gross-
Klee and A. Rast-Eicher (eds.), Ökonomie und Ökologie neolithischer und bronzezeitlicher Ufersiedlungen am Zürichsee: 220–291. 

BURNS J. 2003. Turnips keep ewes well fed. Farmer’s Weekly, October 24–30: 32. 

CHAPMAN J. 1990. The Neolithic in the Morava-Danube confluence area: a regional assessment of settlement pattern. In R. Tringham and D. Krsti (eds.), 
Selevac: a Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia: 33–53. 

CHARLES M., BOGAARD A., JONES G., HODGSON J. 

G. and HALSTEAD P. 2002. Towards the archaeobotanical identification of intensive cereal cultivation: 
present-day ecological investigation in the mountains 
of Asturias, northwest Spain. Vegetation History and 
Archaeobotany 11: 133–142. 
CRAIG O. E., CHAPMAN J., HERON C., WILLIS L. H., 
TAYLOR G., WHITTLE A. and COLLINS M. in press. 

Did Europe’s first farmers produce dairy foods? 

Proceeding of the Royal Society. 

DÖHLE H.-J. 1997. Zum Stand der Untersuchungen 
an neolithischen Tierknochen aus Mitteldeutschland. 

Jahresschrift für mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 79: 
111–147. 

FORBES H. 1982. Strategies and Soils: technology, 
production and environment in the peninsula of 
Methana, Greece (PhD dissertation, University of 
Pennsylvania). University Microfilms International. 
Ann Arbor. 

1995. The identification of pastoralist sites within the context of estate-based agriculture in ancient Greece: beyond the ‘transhumance versus 
agro-pastoralism’ debate. Annual of the British 
School at Athens 90: 325–338. 

1998. European agriculture viewed bottom-side 
upwards: fodder- and forage-provision in a traditional Greek community. Environmental Archaeology 1: 19–34. 

2000. Dowry and inheritance: their relationship 
to land fragmentation and risk reduction on Me-
thana. In S. B. Sutton (ed.), Contingent Countryside: settlement and land use in the southern 
Argolid since 1700: 200–227. 

GRIGG D. 1979. Ester Boserup’s theory of agrarian 
change: a critical review. Progress in Human Geography 3: 64–84. 

GROSS E., JACOMET S. and SCHIBLER J. 1990. Stand 
und Ziele der Wirtschaftsarchäologischen Forschung 
an neolithischen Ufer- und Inselsiedlungen im unteren Zürichseeraum (Kt. Zürich, Schweiz). In J. Schibler, J. Sedlmeier and H. Spycher (eds.), Beiträge 
zur Archäozoologie, Archäologie, Anthropologie, 
Geologie und Paläotologie (Festschrift H. R. Stampfli): 77–100. 

HALSTEAD P. 1981. Counting sheep in Neolithic and 
Bronze Age Greece. In I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N. 
Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past: Studies in 
Honour of David Clarke: 307–339. 

1987. Traditional and ancient rural economy in 
mediterranean Europe: plus ça change? Journal 
of Hellenic Studies 107: 77–87. 

1989a. Like rising damp? An ecological approach 
to the spread of farming in south-east and central 
Europe. In A. Milles, D. Williams and N. Gardner 
(eds.), The Beginnings of Agriculture: 23–53. 

1989b. The economy has a normal surplus: economic stability and social change among early 
farming communities of Thessaly, Greece. In P. 
Halstead and J. O’Shea (eds.), Bad Year Economics: cultural responses to risk and uncertainty: 68–80. 

1992. Agriculture in the bronze age Aegean – towards a model of palatial economy. In B. Wells 
(ed.), Agriculture in Ancient Greece: 105–117. 


The nature of early farming in Central and South-east Europe 

1995. Plough and power: the economic and social significance of cultivation with the ox-drawn 
ard in the Mediterranean. Bulletin on Sumerian 
Agriculture 8: 11–22. 

1996a. Pastoralism or household-herding? Problems of scale and specialization in early Greek 
animal husbandry. World Archaeology 28: 20–42. 

1996b. The development of agriculture and pastoralism in Greece: when, how, who and what? In D. 

R. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: 296– 309. 
1999. Neighbours from hell? The household in 
Neolithic Greece. In P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic 
Society in Greece: 77–95. 

2000. Land use in postglacial Greece: cultural causes and environmental effects. In P. Halstead and 

C. Frederick (eds.), Landscape and Land Use in 
Postglacial Greece: 110–128. 
HELBAEK H. 1960. Comment on Chenopodium album as a food plant in prehistory. Berichte des Geobotanischen Instituts Eidgenössische Technische 
Hochschule Stiftung Rübel 31: 16–19. 

HIGHAM C. F. W. 1967. Stock rearing as a cultural 
factor in prehistoric Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 6: 84–106. 

HÜSTER-PLOGMANN H. and SCHIBLER J. 1997. Archäozoologie. In J. Schibler, H. Hüster-Plogmann, S. 
Jacomet, C. Brombacher, E. Gross-Klee and A. Rast-
Eicher (eds.), Ökonomie und Ökologie neolithischer 
und bronzezeitlicher Ufersiedlungen am Zürichsee: 40–121. 

HÜSTER-PLOGMANN H., SCHIBLER J. and JACOMET 

S. 1999. The significance of aurochs as hunted animal in the swiss Neolithic. In G.-C. Weniger (ed.), 
Archäologie und Biologie des Auerochsen: 151– 

160. 
JACOMET S. and SCHIBLER J. 1985. Die Nahrungsversorgung eines jungsteinzeitlichen Pfynerdorfes 
am unteren Zürichsee. Archäologie der Schweiz 8: 
125–141. 

JONES G., BOGAARD A., HALSTEAD P., CHARLES M. 
and SMITH H. 1999. Identifying the intensity of crop 
husbandry practices on the basis of weed floras. Annual of the British School at Athens 94: 167–189. 

KNÖRZER K.-H. 1967. Subfossile Pflanzenreste von 
bandkeramischen Fundstellen im Rheinland. Archaeo-
Physika 2: 3–29. 

KOSSE K. 1979. Settlement Ecology of the Early and 
Middle Neolithic Körös and Linear Pottery Cultures in Hungary. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 64. Oxford. 

KOTSAKIS K. 1999. What tells can tell: social space 
and settlement in the Greek Neolithic. In P. Halstead 
(ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece: 66–76. 

KROLL H. 1990. Melde von Feudvar, Vojvodina. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 65: 46–48. 

KRAUSE R. 2000. Die bandkeramische Siedlung bei 
Vaihingen. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen 
Kommission 79: 7–32. 

KRUK J. 1973. Studia Osadnicze nad Neolitem 
Wyzyn Lessowych. Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut 
Historii Kultury Materialnej. Warsaw. 

LÜNING J. 2000. Steinzeitliche Bauern in Deutschland – die Landwirtschaft im Neolithikum. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH. Bonn. 

MARINOVA E. M. 2001. Vergleichende paläoethnobotanische Untersuchung zur Vegetationsgeschichte und zur Entwicklung der prähistorischen 
Landnutzung in Bulgarien. PhD dissertation, Rheinisch Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn. 

MacPHAIL R. L. in press. Soil micromorphology. In 

A. Whittle (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great 
Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. 
MAINLAND I. in press. A microwear analysis of selected sheep and goat mandibles from Ecsegfalva. In A. 
Whittle (ed.), The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: investigations of the Körös culture 
site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. 

NETTING R. McC. 1971. The Ecological Approach 
to Cultural Study. Addison-Wesley Modular Publications. 

1990. Population, permanent agriculture and polities: unpacking the evolutionary portmanteau. 
In S. Upham (ed.), The Evolution of Political Systems: 21-61. 


Amy Bogaard 

PIKE-TAY A. in press. Skeletochronological evidence 
for seasonal culling of ovicaprids. In A. Whittle (ed.), 

The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: 
investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. 

RASMUSSEN P. 1993. Analysis of sheep/goat faeces 
from Egolzwil 3, Switzerland: evidence for branch 
and twig foddering of livestock in the Neolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 20: 479–502. 

ROBINSON D. and RASMUSSEN P. 1989. Botanical investigations at the Neolithic lake village at Weier, 
north east Switzerland: leaf hay and cereals as animal fodder. In A. Milles, D. Williams and N. Gardner 
(eds.), The Beginnings of Agriculture: 149–63. 

ROWLEY-CONWY P. 1981. Slash and burn in the 
temperate European Neolithic. In R. Mercer (ed.), 
Farming Practice in British Prehistory: 85–96. 

RUSSELL K. W. 1988. After Eden: the behavioural 
ecology of early food productionin the Near East 
and North Africa. British Archaeological Reports, 
International Series 391. Oxford. 

SCHIBLER J. and JACOMET S. 1999. Archaeozoological and archaeobotanical evidence of human impact 
on Neolithic environments in Switzerland. In N. Benecke (ed.), The Holocene History of the European 
Vertebrate Fauna: 339–354. 

SHERRATT A. 1980. Water, soil and seasonality in 
early cereal cultivation. World Archaeology 2: 313– 

330. 
STOKES P. and ROWLEY-CONWY P. 2002. Iron Age 
cultigen? Experimental return rates for Fat Hen (Chenopodium album L.). Environmental Archaeology 

7: 95–99. 
SUTER P. J. and SCHIBLER J. 1996. Ernährung während der Jungsteinzeit am Bielersee: Modelle und 
Hypothesen. In H.-J. Beier (ed.), Studien zum Siedlungswesen im Jungneolithikum: 23–42. 

TUSSER T. 1984. Five Hundred Points of Good Husbandry. Oxford University Press. Oxford. 

VALAMOTI S. 2004. Plants and People in Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Northern Greece: an 
archaeobotanical investigation. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1258. Oxford. 

VALAMOTI S. and JONES G. 2003. Plant diversity and 
storage at Mandalo, Macedonia, Greece: archaeobotanical evidence from the Final Neolithic and Early 
Bronze Age. Annual of the British School at Athens 

98: 1–35. 
WHITTLE A. 2003. The Archaeology of People: dimensions of Neolithic life. Routledge. London. 

ZVELEBIL M. 2000. The social context of the agricultural transition in Europe. In C. Renfrew and K. 
Boyle (eds.), Archaeogenetics: DNA and the population prehistory of Europe: 57–79. 

cont ent s