54
Documenta Praehistorica XLVIII (2021)
The Iron Gates Mesolithic
in a regional context
Du[an Mihailović
Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Beograd, RS
dmihailo10@gmail.com
ABSTRACT – The specific character of the Iron Gates Mesolithic material culture derives from the
geomorphological and ecological features of the Iron Gates gorge in the Early Holocene. However,
the Mesolithic of this geographic area can be entirely linked to the general flows of Mesolithic deve-
lopment in Europe as well as to the phenomena observed in the Adriatic-Ionian and Aegean zones.
This demonstrates that the cultural, technological and economic changes which occurred during the
Early Holocene were influenced by the same or similar factors as the entire area of the Balkan Pen-
insula. The absence of Mesolithic settlements outside the Iron Gates raises the question of whether
the interior parts of the Central Balkans were inhabited during the Early Holocene. As hinted by the
research in the Iron Gates and the Adriatic hinterland, Mesolithic settlements were probably located
outside the denser forested areas (in the littoral and high-altitude zones) but this remains to be con-
firmed. Based on the assessment of the demographic potential of Mesolithic and Neolithic communi-
ties, four scenarios of Neolithisation of different parts of the Balkan Peninsula have been proposed.
IZVLE∞EK – Posebnost mezolitske materialne kulture na obmo≠ju Ωeleznih vrat izhaja iz geomorfo-
lo∏kih in ekolo∏kih zna≠ilnosti te soteske v zgodnjem holocenu. Lahko pa mezolitik na tem geograf-
skem obmo≠ju v celoti povezujemo s splo∏nimi tokovi mezolitskega razvoja v Evropi, kakor tudi s po-
javi na obmo≠ju Jadranskega in Jonskega ter Egejskega morja. To dokazuje, da so na kulturne, teh-
nolo∏ke in gospodarske spremembe v zgodnjem holocenu vplivali enaki ali podobni dejavniki na
celotnem obmo≠ju Balkanskega polotoka. Zaradi odsotnosti mezolitskih naselij izven obmo≠ja Ωelez-
nih vrat ostaja vpra∏anje, ali so bila obmo≠ja v notranjosti osrednjega Balkana v zgodnjem holocenu
sploh poseljena. Raziskave na obmo≠ju Ωeleznih vrat in v zaledju Jadranskega morja ka∫ejo na to,
da so bila mezolitska naselja verjetno izven gostej∏ih gozdnih obmo≠ij (v primorskem in visokogors-
kem pasu), kar pa bi bilo potrebno ∏e dokon≠no potrditi. Na podlagi ocene demografskega potenci-
ala mezolitskih in neolitskih skupnosti predlagamo ∏tiri mo∫ne scenarije neolitizacije razli≠nih de-
lov Balkanskega polotoka.
KEY WORDS – Mesolithic; Balkans; Iron Gates; Neolithisation; population movements
KLJU∞NE BESEDE – mezolitik; Balkan; Ωelezna vrata; neolitizacija; selitve prebivalstva
Mezolitik na obmo;ju ?eleznih vrat
znotraj regionalnega konteksta
DOI> 10.4312\dp.48.2
Introduction
In Serbia, the Mesolithic has so far been confirmed
only in the area of the Iron Gates, where detailed
surveys and archaeological excavations were under-
taken during the 1960s and 1970s, due to the con-
struction of hydroelectric power stations on the Da-
nube. A large number of Mesolithic sites were thus
discovered and explored in a very short period of
time (Fig. 1). The remains of distinct architecture
The Iron Gates Mesolithic in a regional context
55
sition. Although these represent rather general is-
sues, we believe that the Mesolithic of the Iron Gates
cannot be approached without looking at the regio-
nal scale. We are also convinced that the nature of
the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Southeast Eu-
rope cannot be understood until there is sufficient
archaeological evidence on the distribution and size
of the local Mesolithic population.
Geographical position and ecology of the Iron
Gates
The Iron Gates (∑erdap) gorge represents the larg-
est and longest gorge in Europe. It separates the
northern from the southern part of the Carpathian-
Balkan Massif, connecting the Pannonian Basin with
the Wallachian Plain. In the past, however, the gorge
was more of an obstacle than a communication
route, especially when it comes to the right bank of
the Danube. The narrow parts of the gorge were
almost impassable before the flooding by the arti-
ficial Lake ∑erdap, while communication with the
mountainous hinterland, with rare exceptions (e.g.,
the Cerna valley in Romania) was significantly lim-
ited. Due to this, the mobility of the communities
that inhabited the Iron Gates was focused on the
use of resources within the gorge itself, as evidenced
by the low population of the gorge in earlier periods.
There are indications that the Iron Gates represent-
ed a refugium for flora and fauna, and, presumably,
human populations, during the Last Glacial Maxi-
mum (Mi∏i≤ 1981). The climate (which today be-
longs to the Danube variant of the continental plu-
viometric regime) is milder than in the neighbour-
ing areas and is characterized by increased humid-
and graves were discovered at many locations, while
the site of Lepenski Vir yielded stone sculptures (Fig.
2) which still represent a unique phenomenon with-
in the Mesolithic (Srejovi≤ 1969; Radovanovi≤ 1996).
These discoveries caused a strong interest in the Iron
Gates Mesolithic, which continues today.
The research that followed was initially focused on
determining the cultural-stratigraphic sequence and
correlation of phenomena observed at different sites,
while later research focused on anthropological and
bioarchaeological studies, as well as archaeometric
studies of samples and materials (Cook et al. 2002;
Bori≤, Miracle 2004; Bori≤, Dimitrijevi≤ 2007; Bo-
ri≤ et al. 2018; Bonsall et al. 2004; 2015a; 2015b;
Nehlich et al. 2010; Jovanovi≤ et al. 2019). After dat-
ing numerous samples from almost all of the known
sites, the issue of the chronology of the late phase of
the Iron Gates Mesolithic was largely resolved, while
genetic and isotopic studies (Bori≤, Price 2013; Ma-
thieson et al. 2017) enabled a good insight into the
nature of interactions Mesolithic and Neolithic popu-
lations.
However, despite the fact that recent years have
brought significant progress in the research of the
Iron Gates Mesolithic, there have been few attempts
to examine this phenomenon in a regional context
(Radovanovi≤ 1996; Merkyte 2003; Mihailovi≤
2007a). The discrepancy in the intensity of the re-
search conducted in the Iron Gates and the neigh-
bouring areas only increased over time, which
strengthened the initial impression that the Iron
Gates Mesolithic represented an exceptional but ra-
ther solitary phenomenon.
To mitigate this impression,
we considered the issues that
we believe best reveal the
connections of the Iron Gates
with the surrounding areas.
These questions refer to (a)
the causes and consequences
of the settlement of littoral
areas in the Early Holocene,
(b) the factors which led to
the establishment of a linear
settlement system and inten-
sification in the procurement
of aquatic resources in the
Late Mesolithic, and (c) under-
standing of cultural transfor-
mations and interactions at
the Mesolithic-Neolithic tran- Fig. 1. Map of the Iron Gates with Mesolithic sites.
Du[an Mihailović
56
ity and smaller annual temperature deviations (Ra-
dovanovi≤ 1996; Boroneant 2011). A similar situ-
ation probably prevailed in earlier periods, although
direct evidence of a human presence in the Iron
Gates is lacking. In contrast, the Climente II, Cuina
Turcului (layer I) and Hotilor Caves in Romania
yielded rich palaeontological material dated to the
Late Glacial (Bølling-Allerød oscillation), allowing
insights into the palaeoecology of the period (Boro-
neant 2011; Bonsall et al. 2016). The material from
these sites mostly consisted of warmth-loving fauna
(deer, beaver, wild boar), but cold-loving species
(e.g., Pyrrhocorax graculus) were also found. The
layer II of Cuina Turcului, recently dated to the very
beginning of the Holocene (Bonsall et al. 2015a),
also contains mixed fauna, which, along with the re-
sults of pollen analyses (Pop et al. 1970; Carciuma-
ru 1985), indicates that the Pleistocene-Holocene
transition in the Iron Gates may not have been as
abrupt as in the neighbouring areas.
The faunal remains found at the Iron Gates archae-
ological sites testify to the high ecological capacity
of this region in the Early Holocene (Radovanovi≤
1996). However, one of the defining ecological cha-
racteristics of the Early Holocene of the Iron Gates
is a richness of fish stock, which included cyprinids
(especially the European carp), catfish, pike, perch
and salmonids (Dinu 2010; Ωivaljevi≤ 2017), but
also anadromous species (beluga sturgeon) which
swam upstream from the Black Sea into the Danube
for spawning. There is little data on climate and eco-
logical changes in the Early Holocene, but it is as-
sumed that the sudden decrease in global tempera-
tures at approx. 8200 cal BP (Berger, Guilaine 2009)
may have caused the temporary abandonment of
previously inhabited sites (Bonsall et al. 2002).
Iron Gates Mesolithic
Early Mesolithic
The earliest evidence for the settlement of the Iron
Gates gorge following the Last Glacial Maximum
comes from sites located in present-day Romania.
Numerous artefacts, fireplaces and graves, as well as
engraved bone tools and perforated mollusc shells
were documented at the Climente II Cave and the
Cuina Turcului rock shelter (Păunescu 1979; Boro-
neant 2000; Bonsall et al. 2016). The remains of
fauna testify to the hunting of various animal spe-
cies, including ibex, which was intensively hunted in
the Cuina Turcului II phase (Bolomey 1970; 1973).
Recent analyses show that fishing already played a
significant role at that time. This is evidenced not
only by the fish bones recovered from Cuina Turcu-
lui (Dinu 2010) but also by the elevated nitrogen
stable isotope (δ15N) values recorded for the human
remains from Climente II (Bonsall et al. 2016).
Other evidence of the early settlement of the banks
of the Danube is rather scarce. The lower layers (I-
II) of the Ostrovul Banului site, which yielded a cha-
racteristic Epipalaeolithic industry, were once thought
to be of Early Mesolithic age, but are now dated to
the end of the 8th millennium BC (Boroneant 2011).
Similar material comes from the lower stratigraph-
ic levels of the Veterani terrace, but these are not
dated yet. On the other hand, dates for individual
samples from the sites of Padina, Lepenski Vir and
Vlasac showed that the territory of Danube’s right
bank was inhabited as early as the end of the 10th
and the beginning of the 9th millennium cal BC (Bo-
ri≤ 2011; Bonsall et al. 2015a). The dates obtained
for human bones confirmed that a specific funeral
ritual (i.e. burials of individuals in lotus position)
was practised in the Iron Gates at that time, but
other samples could not be linked to the defined
archaeological horizons or material found in them
(Bori≤ 2011). Therefore, it is currently not possible
to understand the character of settlement and mate-
rial culture in this period.
The situation observed at Padina is somewhat more
favourable. Horizon A in sector II of Padina yielded
stone and pebble platforms (work surfaces or house
Fig. 2. The ‘Progenitor’ stone sculpture from the
site of Lepenski Vir.
The Iron Gates Mesolithic in a regional context
57
bases) with numerous stone and bone artefacts,
while a stone structure with graves was recorded
in sector III (Jovanovi≤ 2008). Samples from both
sectors were dated to the end of the 9th and the be-
ginning of the 8th millennium cal BC. We believe
there is little reason to doubt that the industry from
sector II indeed corresponds to the obtained dates
(Bori≤ 2011), due to the fact the samples came from
the vicinity of the zone where the highest concentra-
tion of artefacts have been recorded, and for which
very few finds from later periods are recorded (Ra-
dovanovi≤ 1981; Jovanovi≤ 2008). However, it
would certainly be desirable to date samples from
the zone’s surface as well.
Regardless of the small number of recorded sites, it
seems there are enough elements to understand the
settlement pattern of the late Upper Palaeolithic and
Early Mesolithic, which has already been discussed
(Radovanovi≤ 1996; Bonsall 2008; Bori≤ 2011). Re-
cent analyses have confirmed that the activity focus,
even in the earliest (Bølling-Allerød) phase of settle-
ment, was on the river and its immediate hinter-
land; in some phases (Cuina Turcului II) even ibex
was intensively hunted (Mihailovi≤ 2008). In the
final Palaeolithic, however, communities episodical-
ly inhabited the interior of the Iron Gates (e.g., Ho-
tilor Cave), which was not the case in the Early Me-
solithic. The question remains why no more settle-
ments from this period have been discovered. Al-
though there are different opinions regarding this
question, most authors agree that the layers with
Early Mesolithic remains at most sites were either
washed away by erosion or disturbed by the activi-
ties of subsequent communities (Radovanovi≤ 1996;
Bonsall 2008; Mihailovi≤ 2008; Bori≤ 2011; Boro-
neant 2011).
The industry from the Climente II site was attributed
to the so-called Clisurian (Boroneant 2000; Bonsall
et al. 2016), which is in no way different from the
final Epigravettian known from the southwestern
Balkans and the Apennine Peninsula. On the other
hand, artefacts from the Early Holocene strata of
Cuina Turcului and Padina were attributed to the
Epipalaeolithic (Radovanovi≤ 1981; 1996), that is,
to the Epigravettian of the Holocene. These indus-
tries display a technological decline which is mani-
fested in the reduced presence of Epigravettian ele-
ments and the ever-increasing presence of tools
made on flakes struck from irregular and bipolar
cores (Mihailovi≤ 2001). This phenomenon, which
can be entirely linked to the so-called expedient tech-
nology (Binford 1979), was initially explained by
territorial and social isolation (Radovanovi≤ 1981),
while later interpretations linked it to environmen-
tal factors, i.e. changes in mobility and resource pro-
curement patterns (Mihailovi≤ 2001). Regardless of
that, the cultural and social closure within this peri-
od is not disputed at all (Mihailovi≤ 2007a), and is
actually evidenced by the fact that Early Mesolithic
sites show very little evidence of the long-distance
exchange of non-utilitarian objects (Bori≤ 2011).
Late Mesolithic – early phase
The beginning of the Late Mesolithic in the Iron
Gates around 7200 cal BC (Bonsall 2008) is mark-
ed by the appearance of a number of settlements
with house structures, graves and numerous archa-
eological finds, mainly concentrated in the Lower
Gorge (Icoana, Răzvrata, Hajdu≠ka Vodenica) and
downstream from the gorge (Schela Cladovei, Os-
trovul Banului, Ostrovul Corbului, Kula), while the
Upper Gorge records only two settlements – Vlasac
and Lepenski Vir (Radovanovi≤ 1996; Jovanovi≤
2008; Bonsall 2008; Bori≤ 2011). The intensity and
continuity in the settlement of the Iron Gates in this
period were probably mainly influenced by envi-
ronmental and perhaps demographic factors. Settle-
ments were built on locations suitable for fishing
(Bartosiewicz et al. 2008; Dinu 2010; Ωivaljevi≤
2017), and fish played an extremely important role
in the nutrition of Mesolithic communities, as in-
ferred by the results of archaeozoological and iso-
topic analyses (Jovanovi≤ et al. 2019).
There have been few attempts to reconstruct the set-
tlement system in this period (Radovanovi≤ 1996).
The lack of sites in the hilly-mountainous hinterland,
confirmed by recent field surveys (Radovanovi≤ et
al. 2014), indicates that the activities of human
communities in this period were focused exclusive-
ly on riverbanks. However, it remains unclear for
how long the communities stayed in particular lo-
cations, that is, whether they moved along the river
coast depending on the seasonal availability of re-
sources. The abundance of remains, graves and va-
rious indicators of seasonality suggests, however,
that most of these sites were inhabited during dif-
ferent seasons and that there is reason to assume
that a relatively sedentary lifestyle developed in the
Iron Gates at that time (Dimitrijevi≤ et al. 2016).
This settlement model probably followed the achie-
vement of a certain level of social and cultural com-
plexity, as indicated by organized and systematic
big-game fishing, indirect evidence of storage, evi-
dence of dog domestication and the complexity of
the funeral ritual.
Du[an Mihailović
58
The knapping technology displays a continuation
of the trends from the previous period: the indus-
try from Vlasac (Kozłowski, Kozłowski 1982) is
very similar to the industry from Padina, the Epi-
gravettian component is weakly expressed (except
within the lower layers of Ostrovul Banului, if these
strata were really deposited in the Late Mesolithic),
while the industries from the sites in the Lower
Gorge take on an almost entirely quartz character
(Radovanovi≤ 1996; Boroneant 2000; Mihailovi≤
2001; 2008). However, there are also some changes,
primarily manifested in the emergence of bladelet
technology (including micro-retouched bladelets of
the ‘Pontic’ type) and microlithic trapezoid tools
(Kozłowski, Kozłowski 1982). The bone tool in-
dustry also blooms during this phase (Radovanovi≤
1996), and various tools made of horn are numer-
ous at most sites. Massive pebble tools (mallets,
‘sceptres’, weights, etc.) which were probably used
in fishing are also characteristic (Srejovi≤, Letica
1978; Antonovi≤ 2008).
There is a revival of social contact, as evidenced not
only by the changes in technology but also by the
exchange of non-utilitarian objects such as Cyclope
neritea marine gastropod shells, which might have
originated from the Black Sea and are recorded at
the sites of Vlasac and Ostrovul Banului (Bori≤
2011). Numerous similarities in the organisation of
settlements, burials, sculptures, and habitation con-
struction have been observed between the sites in
the Iron Gates and those of the Pre-Pottery Neoli-
thic (Mihailovi≤ 2007a), some of which are elabo-
rated in detail (Bori≤ 2007), demonstrating that the
connections between the Balkans and Anatolia might
be much older. Connections with the Aegean coast
of Turkey are also indicated by the recent analysis
of domesticated cereal starch grains entrapped in
the dental calculus of human individuals buried at
Vlasac and Lepenski Vir (Cristiani et al. 2016). How-
ever, it is difficult to make any definite conclusions
given the geographical distance between these two
regions.
Late Mesolithic – late phase
After obtaining an entire series of AMS dates, it
seems that most of the settlements in the Iron Gates
became abandoned about 6200 cal BC. This aban-
donment is explained by the floods that occurred be-
cause of global climate deterioration (Bonsall et al.
2002), but this is not confirmed yet. The period be-
tween 6200 and 5900 cal BC is represented by the
trapezoidal buildings at Lepenski Vir I-II and Padi-
na B, a few graves at Vlasac and the remains from
Alibeg (Romania) for which there is currently only
one absolute date available (Boroneant 2011). It
was found that there is only a brief chronological
overlap with the earliest Neolithic settlements down-
stream from the Iron Gates gorge (Bonsall et al.
2015b), but it is also possible that older settlements
do exist in this area due to the presence of pottery
in the Lepenski Vir horizon I (Gara∏anin, Radova-
novi≤ 2001) and the fact that several Neolithic sites
older than 6000 cal BC have in fact been recorded
in the region (Whittle et al. 2002).
Understanding of the Late Mesolithic chronological
relations did not resolve the dilemmas regarding the
cultural attribution of Lepenski Vir. While most au-
thors continue to treat Lepenski Vir as a Mesolithic
settlement, some are still inclined to associate the
site with the Neolithic (Peri≤, Nikoli≤ 2016), while
others avoid the issue by classifying it as a transfor-
mational/Early Neolithic (Bori≤ 2011). Regardless
of how we describe this period (transformation or
contact phase, etc.), Lepenski Vir can undoubtedly
be associated with the Mesolithic in almost all ele-
ments (settlement organisation, funerary ritual, eco-
nomy, symbolism), while the Neolithic aspects ap-
pear only in the technological domain (Mihailovi≤
2004; Antonovi≤ 2008). This phenomenon seems
to be rightly attributed to the interactions between
the local population and the neighbouring Neolithic
communities (Radovanovi≤, Voytek 1997; Radova-
novi≤ 2006).
The function of the Lepenski Vir settlement is dif-
ficult to understand given the specific character of
the remains and a small number of contemporane-
ous sites. The settlement at Lepenski Vir filled the
entire cove, where large numbers of trapezoidal buil-
dings, graves and stone sculptures were discovered
(Srejovi≤ 1969). Exhaustive discussions regarding
the organisation of settlement and the simultaneity
and manner of habitat construction were conduct-
ed in the past, and more recently the discussion has
shifted from the sphere of stratigraphic considera-
tions and relative-chronological correlations to that
of dating individual contexts (Radovanovi≤ 1996;
Gara∏anin, Radovanovi≤ 2001; Bori≤ 2002; 2011;
2019; Peri≤, Nikoli≤ 2016; Bori≤ et al. 2018). These
discussions gave rise to many original ideas about
different aspects of the site of Lepenski Vir. Eventu-
ally, however, it turned out that partially published
documentation, regardless of the number of obtain-
ed absolute dates (almost on a decade scale), does
The Iron Gates Mesolithic in a regional context
59
not actually provide insights into the rhythm of con-
struction activities and the appearance and duration
of buildings from individual phases.
It is now clear, however, that Lepenski Vir was in-
tensively inhabited for about 200 years (Bori≤ et
al. 2018), that burial took place within the settle-
ment (inside and between the houses) and that the
sacral component (most convincingly evidenced by
funeral rituals and stone sculptures) was very pro-
nounced (Srejovi≤ 1969; Radovanovi≤ 1996; Bori≤
2016). In this context, the question arises as to what
gave rise to such a specific form of religious expres-
sion at Lepenski Vir, which led some researchers to
treat the site as a religious centre (Roksandic 2012)
and the habitations within it as sanctuaries (Srejo-
vi≤ 1969), regardless of the evidence that everyday
activities were also conducted at the site (Radova-
novi≤ 1996; Dimitrijevi≤ 2008). Reasons for this
may lie in the general uncertainty caused, on the
one hand, by the disturbance of ecological stability
of the Danube and the floods at 6300 cal BC (Bon-
sall et al. 2002), and on the other, by the endanger-
ment of the identity of Iron Gates communities after
the influx of the Neolithic population (Radovanovi≤,
Voytek 1997). Material remains show evidence of
strict social control over the key elements of social
and cultural identity during this period, including
the construction of trapezoidal buildings, a clearly
defined funeral ritual and religious symbolism.
Leaving aside the ideological aspects of Lepenski Vir
not directly related to the topic of this study, we will
only say that the research results also show that
fishing (including big-game fishing) played a signifi-
cant role in this phase as well (Bartosiewicz et al.
2008; Dinu 2010; Ωivaljevi≤ 2017), and that there
is no evidence of domesticated plants and animals
in the diet prior to the beginning of the 6th millen-
nium BC (Bori≤, Dimitrijevi≤ 2007; Jovanovi≤ et al.
2021). However, a different situation has been ob-
served in the field of toolmaking technology: clas-
sic Neolithic blades, including those made of the so-
called Balkan flint (Mihailovi≤ 2004) were found
along with bipolar pieces and tools on flakes; in ad-
dition to massive stone tools, tools with the Neoli-
thic-type cutting edges were also found (Antonovi≤
2008); typical Neolithic spatulas were recorded along
with characteristic tools made of bone and horn
(Radovanovi≤ 1996). All this underlines that there
was a significant degree of interaction between the
Mesolithic and Neolithic populations, which is also
evidenced by the presence of individuals of non-lo-
cal origin in the Iron Gates in the period before
6200–6000 cal BC (Bori≤, Price 2013; Mathieson et
al. 2017).
Regional context
Postglacial adaptation
Recent research into the Palaeolithic of the Central
Balkans has shown that hunting and gathering com-
munities episodically inhabited gorges and canyons
before, during, and after the Last Glacial Maximum
(Fig. 3), sometimes due to specialised activities
(Gamble 1997; Bori≤, Cristiani 2016; Hauck et al.
2016). Their exploitation continued during the Late
Glacial, when the settlement system was probably
residential in character, as evidenced by numerous
sites in the Adriatic-Ionian region and its immediate
hinterland (Mihailovi≤ 2007b). All this shows that
the settlement of the Iron Gates gorge at the end of
the Late Glacial and beginning of the Holocene was
not related to the exploitation of water resources,
but rather that it has roots in the previous period.
However, the question arises as to why there are no
confirmed Mesolithic sites in the interior of the Bal-
kans (apart from those in the Iron Gates). It was as-
sumed that this was due to poor research, but even
after intensive field surveys and numerous archae-
ological excavations (only rarely thematic in char-
acter; Radovanovi≤ et al. 2014), Mesolithic finds
were recorded only at one site: Bukovac Cave near
Despotovac. The remains of fauna (including fish
bones) were found in the partially preserved layer
dated to the Early Holocene (Ωivaljevi≤ et al. 2018).
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that some
authors have concluded that the Balkan Peninsula
was very sparsely populated in the Early Holocene
and that Mesolithic communities probably erected
ephemeral camps which left little trace in the archa-
eological record (Perlès 2003; Runnels 2003; Pilaar
Birch, Vander Linden 2017).
Different interpretations have also emerged, among
which the one of Maria Gurova and Clive Bonsall
(Gurova, Bonsall 2014) stands out. These authors
pointed to the fact that dense forest vegetation (up
to a height of 700m) developed in the Balkans at
the beginning of the Holocene, which complicated
the resource supply and communication, thus lead-
ing to an increased settlement of coastal areas. Ac-
cording to the same study, the Balkans did not pro-
vide favourable conditions for human settlement
because the Peninsula included only a few large and
navigable rivers and lakes (Gurova, Bonsall 2014).
However, we do not completely agree with this in-
Du[an Mihailović
60
terpretation. The hydrographic network
of the Balkans was very developed at
that time, so the aggregation of human
populations in the river valleys (Danube,
Sava, Velika Morava; Fig. 4), cannot be
excluded. As indicated by the position of
the oldest settlements in the Iron Gates
(Srejovi≤ 1969; Jovanovi≤ 2008), pro-
bably only a narrow coastal belt was in-
habited, and this had to be preceded by
vegetation clearing. The remains of these
settlements are today probably sub-
merged, eroded, or covered with a thick
alluvium layer – as Clarke (1976) point-
ed out – so it is not realistic to expect
that they should have been noticed in
the archaeological record by now (Per-
lès 2003). To discover these sites, it
would be necessary to undertake the-
matic field surveys that would include
the lowest terraces and profiles of river-
banks. This kind of research, however,
has not been conducted so far.
Previous research has undoubtedly
shown that hunting of predominantly
forest fauna played a significant role
during this period, but the use of alternative terre-
strial resources (especially molluscs) has been re-
corded at almost all the sites (Lubell 2004). Evidence
of fishing has been confirmed in the Iron Gates
(Dinu 2010; Ωivaljevi≤ 2017), the cave Zala in the
Dalmatian hinterland (Karavani≤ et al. 2015), as
well as on the Greek islands (Sampson 2014), but
not in Franchthi Cave (Perlès 1999; Stiner, Munro
2011), or on the Adriatic islands (the Vela Spila, Ko-
pa≠ina and Vlakno Caves) which were connected to
the mainland at that time (Miracle 2007; Pilaar
Birch, Vander Linden 2017).
Reduced mobility and changes in the procurement
of resources seem to have left a mark in the techno-
logical domain as well. Many industries attributed
to the Holocene Epigravettian show a tendency to-
wards a technological decline, reflected in the grad-
ual decrease of Epigravettian elements, deteriora-
tion of the quality of raw materials used for knap-
ping and in an increased presence of flakes and for-
mal tools on flakes. Initially, this phenomenon could
be observed only at Franchthi Cave (Perlès 1990)
and at the sites in the Iron Gates (Radovanovi≤
1981). Later, however, it was found that the pheno-
menon was widespread (Mihailovi≤ 2001), and can
be traced to all the Early Holocene sites in the Bal-
kans: in the central Adriatic, Montenegro, Greece and
even in Slovenia (Kavur 2006; Vukosavljevi≤ et al.
2011; 2014). Certain regional differences were also
observed between the industries found at these
sites, which are mainly manifested as different de-
grees of representation of Epigravettian and Sauve-
terrian elements, and the presence/absence of micro-
blade technology (Kom∏o 2006; Mihailovi≤ 2009;
Kaczanowska, Kozłowski 2014).
The question remains to what extent cultural regio-
nalisation in the Early Holocene was influenced by
social closure, which could have occurred due to geo-
graphical isolation (Radovanovi≤ 1981) or reduced
mobility, i.e. difficult communications (Mihailovi≤
2007a). Although, for now, there is little evidence of
contact between more distant communities in the
interval from the beginning of the Holocene to the
middle of the 8th millennium, we still believe that
the technological decline of the Early Holocene in-
dustries in the Balkans was more likely related to
changes in the settlement and resource supply pat-
terns than to cultural and social isolation.
Social complexity and contacts
Even though the Iron Gates Mesolithic still cannot
be linked to any particular model of social comple-
Fig. 3. Possible routes of residential movements during the Fi-
nal Palaeolithic in the Balkans: A between the coast and the
palaeo-Adriatic plain; B between the coast and the mountain-
ous interior; C between the river valleys and the mountainous
zone. The distribution of sites follows Mihailovi≤ 2009.
The Iron Gates Mesolithic in a regional context
61
xity (Price, Brown 1985), there are undoubtedly
many elements that point to both organisational
complexity and complexity that arose to preserve
social stability and implementation of activities re-
lated to the procurement of resources (Binford
2001). The question as to how much social com-
plexity can be related to sedentarisation (which by
itself represents a rather debatable concept) remains
unresolved (Kelly 1992; Whitecross 2016). In this
context, however, it must be pointed out that inten-
sive fishing (especially of large fish) implies a longer
duration of settlements. In such circumstances, the
number of community members might have risen,
as indicated by the numerous graves within settle-
ments, at least in the Iron Gates region. Rather than
looking at these cultural phenomena from an evolu-
tionary standpoint, we are inclined to observe them
from an ecological perspective, having in mind the
ecological stability during the Boreal, which enabled
intensive and continuous fishing, not only in the Iron
Gates but in the marine coastal zone as well.
The Late Mesolithic in most parts of Europe was
marked by technological innovations (the pressure
knapping technique, appearance of trapezoids) and
new techniques of resource procurement, the caus-
es and expansion directions of which cannot be pre-
cisely characterized (Kozłowski 2009; Binder et al.
2012). Unlike Sauveterrian, which has not been re-
corded south of Istria (Kom∏o 2009), Castelnovian
of the Adriatic coast spread all the way to the south-
ern Adriatic, while Greece records industries which
(in addition to Epigravettian and Sauveterrian ele-
ments) display bladelet technology and a specific
microlithic repertoire – a unique feature of the re-
gion (Kaczanowska, Kozłowski 2014). On the other
hand, micro-retouched bladelets were recorded in
the Iron Gates Mesolithic, but many other elements
characteristic of the Black Sea region (e.g., bullet
cores) were not (Kozłowski, Kozłowski 1982; Koz-
łowski 2009).
Along with the spread of technological innovations,
the exchange network for non-utilitarian objects was
being revived, as evidenced by numerous finds both
in the Iron Gates and the Adriatic zone (Bori≤, Cri-
stiani 2019). Within the latter, Vrbi≠ka Cave in Mon-
tenegro documents worked cyprinid teeth which
originated from the Danube (Bori≤, Cristiani 2016;
Bori≤ et al. 2019). Intensive (maritime) communica-
tion has also been confirmed in the Aegean (Samp-
son 2014), so we should not rule out the possibility
that the Eastern Mediterranean commu-
nication zone at one point included the
Balkans, as suggested (but still not con-
firmed) by data from the Iron Gates Me-
solithic.
The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition
As inferred by the available absolute
dates, a sudden expansion of the Neoli-
thic from Anatolia occurred around 6500
cal BC (Brami, Zanotti 2015). On the
stretch from the Aegean to the southern
part of the Pannonian Basin alone, the
Neolithic progressed more than 1000km
in 200–250 years (Weninger et al. 2014;
Fort 2015). When it became clear that
the rate of expansion could not be ex-
plained by classical models of progres-
sion, whether it be colonisation (Am-
merman, Cavalli-Sforza 1971; Van An-
del, Runnels 1995) or agricultural fron-
tier mobility (Zvelebil 1986) models, it
became obvious that the initial expan-
sion must have been caused by some
major event, as was previously assumed
(Cauvin 2000). More recently, climate
and environmental changes – not only
those of the so-called ‘Hudson Bay’ 8.2
Fig. 4. Possible routes of residential movements during the Me-
solithic in the Balkans: A between the coast and the palaeo-Adri-
atic plain; B between the coast and the mountainous interior;
C between the river valleys and the mountainous zone; D along
rivers and lakes; E along maritime routes. The distribution of
archaeological sites follows Pilaar Birch, Vander Linden 2017.
Du[an Mihailović
62
ka cal BP cooling event (Berger, Guilaine 2009) but
also those of the entire Rapid Climate Change (RCC)
interval, which lasted from c. 6600 to c. 6000 cal BC
(Weninger et al. 2014) – are considered to repre-
sent the main causes for the rapid expansion of the
Neolithic. It is quite possible, however, that the pace
and directions of expansion could have been great-
ly influenced by demographic, economic, and social
factors (Orton et al. 2016; Vander Linden 2011).
So far, the problem of Neolithisation of the interior
of the Balkan Peninsula has been mainly studied
from the aspect of colonisation, within the frame-
work of traditional models (Jovanovi≤ 1968; Gara-
∏anin 1979), while the possibility that local commu-
nities participated in the process has been discus-
sed only in regard to the Iron Gates (Srejovi≤ 1969;
Radovanovi≤, Voytek 1997; Radovanovi≤ 2006; Bo-
ri≤ 2011), with rare exceptions (Whittle et al. 2002).
In this context, the recent attempt by Marko Por≠i≤
et al. (2016) to use the summed calibrated radio-
carbon probability distributions (SCPD) to gain a
broader view of the demographic situation in the
Balkans in the Early Neolithic must be mentioned.
According to their study, there was a significant po-
pulation growth after c. 6200 cal BC, which is in
accordance with the Neolithic Demographic Transi-
tion (DMT) model formulated by Jean-Pierre Bocquet-
Appel (2008). Without going into the main objec-
tions to the application of this model (Weninger et
al. 2014), we would only point out that it cannot be
successfully applied to the process of Neolithisation
in the Balkans due to uneven archaeological pres-
sure (French, Collins 2015), i.e. due to scarce evi-
dence for the presence of Mesolithic populations in
the southern part of the Pannonian Basin and the in-
terior of the Balkans (Ωivaljevi≤ et al. 2018; 2021).
Several Mesolithic sites have been recorded in the
Adriatic zone. In contrast to the Iron Gates, there is
a significantly higher number of Early rather than
Late Mesolithic sites in this area (Kom∏o 2009). Ac-
cording to previous interpretations, the scarcity of
Late Mesolithic sites and discontinuity in settlement
relative to the Neolithic could be explained by chan-
ges in the settlement pattern (i.e. cessation of life in
caves and building of open-air settlements) rather
than a demographic crisis (Forenbaher, Miracle
2006). Continuity in settlement, as detected at the
southern Adriatic sites, could indicate the gradual
adoption of elements of the ‘Neolithic package’ in ac-
cordance with Marek Zvelebil’s predictions (Zvele-
bil 1986; Zvelebil, Lillie 2002). According to Sta∏o
Forenbaher and Preston Miracle (2006), the initial
colonisation was probably a maritime one, when re-
search expeditions of the Neolithic communities in-
habited the coastal zone; Neolithisation of the local
communities in the hinterlands only occurred later,
after the Neolithic peoples established their first coa-
stal enclaves.
The central parts of the Balkans were probably po-
pulated from the direction of the Morava valley (Po-
moravlje), and perhaps from the direction of the Da-
nube, as indicated by the absolute dates obtained
for the initial Neolithic of this area (Whittle et al.
2002; Weninger et al. 2014). Judging by the num-
bers of sites and finds, but also by the estimated
rates of progress, the first wave of colonisation pos-
sibly had greater demographic potential, but this is
difficult to demonstrate as absolute dates are lacking
for most sites. Therefore, several scenarios should
be kept in mind when considering the Mesolithic-
Neolithic transition in the Central Balkans (Fig. 5):
(a) If the population density of the Balkan Mesoli-
thic groups was low and that of the first wave of
Neolithic groups was high, there is no doubt that
rapid assimilation of local communities could have
occurred. This could be especially true for the valleys
of large rivers (Velika Morava, Danube) which are
suitable for agriculture (van Andel, Runnels 1995).
Middle and late phase
Early phase ● territorial competition< possible conflicts<
Large
● infiltration of Neolithic groups< acculturation withdrawal of hunter-gatherers< return in the
according to the ‘availability model’ late phase due to attraction factorsMesolithic
● Iron Gates, possibly coastal areas ● Iron Gates, possibly Velika and Zapadna Mo-population
rava River valleyssize
Early phase Late phase
Small
● acculturation according to the ‘availability ● consolidation\assimilation
model’ ● Danube (Podunavlje) region and marine
● coastal areas coastal zone
Small Large
Neolithic population size
Fig. 5. Possible forms of interactions between Mesolithic and Neolithic communities.
The Iron Gates Mesolithic in a regional context
63
However, if the Mesolithic groups in those areas had
higher population densities (as discussed previous-
ly) there was certainly a territorial competition,
which could have resulted in a short-term withdraw-
al of Mesolithic peoples to the hilly hinterlands (Fig.
6). If that was in fact the case, the acculturation oc-
curred later, via the so-called push-and-pull factors
(Radovanovi≤ 2006).
(b) If the demographic capacity of Neolithic groups
was small and progress was slow or successive, the
tempo of Neolithisation could have largely depend-
ed on the size and geographical distribution of local
communities (Guilaine 2000; Zvelebil, Lillie 2000).
In the case that the local population was larger, the
acculturation process could have lasted longer and
included all stages of the so-called availability mo-
del. If, however, both populations were small, the
attraction factors could have had a decisive influ-
ence, in line with the ‘psycho-cultural’ consequences
of contact between the Mesolithic and Neolithic
groups (Cauvin 2000). These factors could have
been especially important after the for-
mation of the first Neolithic settlements.
For now, it seems that the conditions
for a rapid advance of Neolithic popula-
tions existed primarily in the Morava
(Pomoravlje) and Danube (Podunavlje)
valleys, regardless of the population
density of the Mesolithic groups living
in those regions. The withdrawal of lo-
cal populations is indicated by the situ-
ation observed in the upper part of the
Iron Gates gorge, where there was a
concentration of Mesolithic sites dated
to 6300–5900 cal BC; we cannot ex-
clude the possibility that similar proces-
ses took place in the Adriatic coastal
zone, as data for Crvena Stijena, Odmut,
and Vrbi≠ka Caves (Kozłowski et al.
1994; Mihailovi≤ 2009; Bori≤ et al.
2019) suggest an Early Holocene recolo-
nisation of the mountainous hinterland
of the Dinaric Alps. Yet, for now, there
is no conclusive evidence of a greater
presence of Neolithic groups in both re-
gions at such an early period.
The second scenario (where there was
low-intensity colonisation) is indicated
by the presence of pottery and other
Neolithic artefacts at Lepenski Vir and
various (for now few) testimonies of cul-
tural interactions at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transi-
tion both in the Iron Gates and the Adriatic zone.
Within the Iron Gates, all three stages of accultura-
tion of local communities (Zvelebil 1986) are well
represented: availability (Vlasac), substitution (Le-
penski Vir, Padina B), and consolidation (Velesnica,
Padina and other sites). Similar phenomena have
been recorded in the Adriatic coastal zone as well
(Zvelebil, Lillie 2002), but there are issues regarding
the stratigraphic integrity of the layers containing
Mesolithic and Neolithic artefacts or domesticated
animal remains (Mihailovi≤ 2009).
Even if acculturation did in fact take place, the que-
stion arises as to how it could have been so rapid
and why it did not leave more traces in the archaeo-
logical record. The only possible explanation is that
the emergence of Neolithic populations led to the
fragmentation of Mesolithic groups, which could
have survived only in the geographically isolated
area of the Iron Gates, where there were optimal
conditions for their survival and where strong social
Fig. 6. The possible directions of the advance of the Neolithic
(I-IV) and the zones of interaction between the Mesolithic and
Neolithic communities. Within the zones of interaction push
factors could have been active during the early phase of Neoli-
thisation and pull factors could have been active during the
late phase. The distribution of archaeological sites follows Pi-
laar Birch, Vander Linden (2017).
Du[an Mihailović
64
and ideological integration took place earlier. How-
ever, the final transformation and full integration
into the Neolithic cultural koiné could have taken
place only with the acceptance of Neolithic values,
which may have occurred because of population out-
flow (due to the action of pull factors). Ultimately,
only future research can show which of these scena-
rios is the most appropriate to explain Neolithisa-
tion of the different parts of the Balkans.
Conclusion
The Iron Gates sequence holds the most complete
Balkan record of climatic, ecological and cultural
changes of the Late Glacial to the Early Neolithic in-
terval, and is unique in the Balkans in terms of evi-
dence of Mesolithic adaptation and (partial) chro-
nological overlap with the onset of the Neolithic. The
peculiarity of the Iron Gates Mesolithic largely deri-
ves from the geomorphological and ecological speci-
fics of the area. The Iron Gates is the only gorge in
Europe in which a linear settlement system could
have been developed and where, among other things,
it was possible to catch large anadromous fish. The-
refore, it should come as no surprise that the Danube
River played a significant role not only in terms of
the economy, but also in the ideological sphere, in-
cluding funerary rituals.
However, the phenomena within the Iron Gates Me-
solithic only reflect the changes that also took place
in many other parts of Europe (and the Balkans it-
self) at the beginning of the Holocene, which under-
lines the inseparable connection of climatic and eco-
logical factors, settlement models and patterns in
techno-economic behaviour. The settlement of gor-
ges did not start suddenly but has its roots in the
earlier periods; in the Early Holocene, it was undoub-
tedly related to fishing, regardless of the importance
of fish in the survival of human communities (Ra-
dovanovi≤ 1996). It is not realistic to assume that
this settlement pattern was limited to the Iron Gates
and that large parts of the Balkan Peninsula and the
southern part of the Pannonian Basin were uninha-
bited at the time. We believe that the settlements
were probably concentrated on the edges of the river
and lake basins and former wetlands, and thus are
likely to remain ‘hidden’ (Ωivaljevi≤ et al. 2021) un-
til detailed field surveys of lake and river terraces
are undertaken.
Changes in the procurement of resources are also in-
dicated by changes in technology, which definitely
takes on an expedient character during this period
and where there are actually very few differences
between the Iron Gates industries and those of the
marine coastal zone. Although the association be-
tween expedient technology and reduced mobility/
sedentary lifestyle is hard to establish (Vaquero, Ro-
magnoli 2018), the data from the Balkans, and
above all from the Iron Gates, is perhaps best at de-
monstrating this (Mihailovi≤ 2001).
Research in the Iron Gates confirmed that social fac-
tors and demographic trends significantly influenced
cultural changes during the Late Mesolithic. Evidence
for the renewal of social networks dates back to the
end of the 8th millennium cal BC and reaches its
peak after the middle of the 7th millennium cal BC
(Mihailovi≤ 2007a; Bori≤ 2011). It is still unclear to
what extent the ideological integration in the Iron
Gates became influenced by the general insecurity
caused by the 8.2 ka cal BP cooling event and to
what extent by the possible presence of Neolithic
communities in the area (Bonsall et al. 2002; Rado-
vanovi≤ 2006). The distribution and chronology of
sites from this period indicate that the emergence of
the Neolithic in the Balkans was accompanied by the
withdrawal of local communities and the fragmenta-
tion of the territory they inhabited. The Iron Gates
shows evidence that a brief period of interaction
with the newcomers was followed by complete as-
similation of the local groups into the Neolithic po-
pulation – although the procurement of aquatic re-
sources continued to play a significant role (Cramp
et al. 2019). However, it became obvious that the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition did not follow the
same pattern everywhere, which necessitates the
need for archaeological testing of different models
of Neolithisation in each of the individual regions.
This paper is the result of the project no. 177023
funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and
Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Iron Gates Mesolithic in a regional context
65
Ammerman A. J., Cavalli-Sforza L. L. 1971. Measuring the
rate and spread of early farming in Europe. Man 6: 784–
688.
Antonovi≤ D. 2006. Stone tools from Lepenski Vir. Insti-
tute of Archaeology. Beograd.
Bartosiewicz L., Bonsall C., and Sisu V. 2008. Sturgeon
fishing along the Middle and Lower Danube. In C. Bon-
sall, V. Boroneant, and I. Radovanovi≤ (eds.), The Iron
Gates in Prehistory: new perspectives. BAR Internatio-
nal Series 1893. Archaeopress. Oxford: 39–54.
Berger J.-F., Guilaine J. 2009. The 8200 cal BP abrupt en-
vironmental change and the Neolithic transition: a Medi-
terranean perspective. Quaternary International 200:
31–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2008.05.013
Binder D., Collina C., Guilbert R., Perrin T., and García Pu-
chol O. 2012. Pressure-knapping blade production in the
north-western Mediterranean region during the seventh
millennium cal B.C. In P. Desrosiers (ed.), The Emergence
of Pressure Blade Making: From Origin to Modern Ex-
perimentation. Springer-Verlag. New York: 199–217.
Binford L. 1979. Organization and Formation Processes:
Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropolo-
gical Research 35: 255–273.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3629902
2001. Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analyti-
cal Method for the Archaeological Use of Hunter-Ga-
therer and Environmental Data Sets. University of Ca-
lifornia Press. Berkeley.
Bocquet-Appel J.-P. 2008. Explaining the Neolithic Demo-
graphic Transition. In J.-P. Bocquet-Appel, O. Bar-Yosef
(eds.), The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its
Consequences. Springer. Berlin: 35–55.
Bolomey A. 1970. Cîteva Observatii Asupra Faunei de Ma-
mifere din Straturile Romanello-Aziliene de la Cuina Tur-
cului. Studii si Cercetari de Istorie Veche 21: 37–39.
1973. An outline of the late Epipalaeolithic economy at
the Iron Gates: The evidence on bones. Dacia 17: 41–52.
Bonsall C. 2008. The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates. In G. N.
Bailey, P. Spikins (eds.), Mesolithic Europe. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge: 238–279.
Bonsall C., Cook G., Lennon R., Harkness D., Scott M., Bar-
tosiewicz L., and McSweeney K. 2000. Stable isotopes, ra-
diocarbon and the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the
Iron Gates. Documenta Praehistorica 27: 119–132.
Bonsall C., Macklin M. G., Payton R. W., and Boroneant A.
2002. Climate, floods and river gods: environmental
change and the Meso-Neolithic transition in southeast Eu-
rope. Before Farming 3–4: 1–15. http://www.waspress.
co.uk/journals/beforefarming/journal_20023_4/abstrac
ts/download.php?filename=20023_4_02.pdf
Bonsall C., Cook G. T., Hedges R. E. M., Higham T. F. G.,
Pickard C., and Radovanovi≤ I. 2004. Radiocarbon and
stable isotope evidence of the dietary change from the
Mesolithic to the Middle Ages in the Iron Gates: new re-
sults from Lepenski Vir. Radiocarbon 46: 293–300.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200039606
Bonsall C., Vasi≤ R., Boroneant A., +9 authors, and Cook
G. 2015a. New AMS 14C Dates for Human Remains from
Stone Age Sites in the Iron Gates Reach of the Danube,
Southeast Europe. Radiocarbon 57(1): 33–46.
https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_rc.57.18188
Bonsall C., Cook G., Pickard C., +6 authors, and Borone-
ant A. 2015b. Food for thought: re-assessing Mesolithic
diets in the Iron Gates. Radiocarbon 57(4): 689–699.
https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_rc.57.18440
Bonsall C., Boroneant A., Evatt A., +5 authors, and Pickard
C. 2016. The ‘Clisurean’ finds from Climente II cave, Iron
Gates, Romania. Quaternary International 423: 303–
314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.017
Bori≤ D. 2002. The Lepenski Vir conundrum: reinterpre-
tation of the Mesolithic and Neolithic sequences in the Da-
nube Gorges. Antiquity 76: 1026–1039.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00091833
2007. The House between Grand Narrative and Micro-
history: a house society in the Balkans. In R. A. Beck
(ed.), The Durable House: House Society Models in
Archaeology. Center for Archaeological Investigation
Press. Carbondale: 97–129.
2011. Adaptations and transformations of the Danube
Gorges foragers (c. 13,000–5500 BC): an overview. In
R. Krauß (ed.), Beginnings – New Research in the
Appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Ana-
tolia and the Carpathian Basin. Papers of the Interna-
tional Workshop 8th–9th April 2009, Istanbul. Verlag
Marie Leidorf Gmbh. Rahden: 157–203.
2016. Deathways at Lepenski Vir. Patterns in Mortu-
ary Practice. Serbian Archaeological Society. Beograd.
2019. Lepenski Vir Chronology and Stratigraphy Re-
visited. Starinar LXIX: 9–60.
References
Du[an Mihailović
Bori≤ D., Miracle P. 2004. Mesolithic and Neolithic (dis)-
continuities in the Danube Gorges: new AMS dates from
Padina and Hajdu≠ka Vodenica (Serbia). Oxford Journal
of Archaeology 23(4): 341–371.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0092.2004.00215.x
Bori≤ D., Dimitrijevi≤ V. 2007. When did the ‘Neolithic
package’ reach Lepenski Vir? Radiometric and faunal evi-
dence. Documenta Praehistorica 34: 52–71.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.34.5
Bori≤ D., Price T. D. 2013. Strontium isotopes document
greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neoli-
thic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
110(9): 3298–3303.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211474110
Bori≤ D., Cristiani E. 2016. Social networks and connecti-
vity among the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic foragers of the
Balkans and Italy. In R. Krauß, H. Floss (eds.), Southeast
Europe before the Neolithisation. Verlag Marie Leidorf
Gmbh. Rahden-Westfalen: 73–112.
2019. Taking beads seriously. Prehistoric Forager Orna-
mental Traditions in Southeastern Europe. Paleo Anthro-
pology 2019: 208–239. doi: 10.4207/ PA.2019.ART132
Bori≤ D., Higham T., Cristiani E., +7 authors, and Buckley
M. 2018. High-Resolution AMS Dating of Architecture,
Boulder Artworks and the Transition to Farming at Lepen-
ski Vir. Scientific Reports 8: 14221.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-31884-7
Bori≤ D., Borovini≤ N., ∑uri≠i≤, Lj., +5 authors, and Cristi-
ani E. 2019. Spearheading into the Neolithic: Last Foragers
and First Farmers in the Dinaric Alps of Montenegro. Eu-
ropean Journal of Archaeology 22(4): 470–498.
https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.14
Boroneant A. 2011. The Mesolithic in Banat. In F. Draso-
vean, B. Jovanovi≤ (eds.), The Prehistory of Banat I –
The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. The Publishing House
of the Romanian Academy. Bucharest: 103–141.
2000. Paléolithique supérieur et épipaléolithique dans
la zone des Portes de Fer. Editura Silex. Bucuresti.
Brami M., Zanotti A. 2015. Modelling the initial expansion
of the Neolithic out of Anatolia. Documenta Praehistorica
42: 103–116. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.42.6
Cârciumaru M. 1985. La relation homme-environnement
élément important de la dynamique de la sociéte humaine
au cours du paléolithique et l’épipaléolithique sur le terri-
toire de la Roumanie. Dacia n. s. XXIX(1–2): 7–34.
Cauvin J. 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins
of Agriculture. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Clarke D. L. 1976. Mesolithic Europe: The economic basis.
In G. de Sieveking, I. H. Longworth, and K. E. Wilson
(eds.), Problems in Social and Economic Archaeology.
Duckworth. London: 449–482.
Cook G. T., Bonsall C., Hedges R. E., McSweeney K., Bo-
roneant V., Bartosiewicz L., and Pettitt P. B. 2002. Prob-
lems of dating human bones from the Iron Gates. Anti-
quity 76(291): 77–85.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00089821
Cramp L. J. E., Ethier J., Urem-Kotsou D., +7 authors, and
Ivanova M. 2019. Regional diversity in subsistence among
early farmers in Southeast Europe revealed by archaeolo-
gical organic residues. Proceedings of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences 286(1894): 20182347.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.2347
Cristiani E., Radini A., Edinborough M., and Bori≤ D. 2016.
Dental calculus reveals Mesolithic foragers in the Balkans
consumed domesticated plant foods. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 113(37): 10298–10303.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1603477113
Dimitrijevi≤ V. 2008. Lepenski Vir animal bones: what
was left in the houses? In C. Bonsall, V. Boroneant, and I.
Radovanovi≤ (eds.), The Iron Gates in Prehistory. New
perspectives. BAR International Series 1893. Archaeo-
press. Oxford: 117–130.
Dimitrijevi≤ V., Ωivaljevi≤ I., and Stefanovi≤ S. 2016. Be-
coming sedentary? The seasonality of food resource ex-
ploitation in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Danube Gorges. Do-
cumenta Praehistorica 43: 103–122.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.43.4
Dinu A. 2010. Mesolithic fish and fishermen of the Lo-
wer Danube (Iron Gates). Documenta Praehistorica 37:
299–310. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.37.26
Forenbaher S., Miracle P. T. 2006. The spread of farming
in the Eastern Adriatic. Documenta Praehistorica 33:
89–100. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.33.10
Fort J. 2015. Demic and cultural diffusion propagated the
Neolithic transition across different regions of Europe.
Journal of the Royal Society Interface 12: 20150166.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0166
French J., Collins C. 2015. Upper Palaeolithic population
histories of Southwestern France: a comparison of the de-
mographic signatures of 14C date distributions and archa-
eological site counts. Journal of Archaeological Science
55: 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.01.001
Gamble C. 1997. The Animal Bones from Klithi. In G. Bai-
ley (ed.), Klithi: Palaeolithic settlement and Quaternary
landscapes in nortwest Greece. Vol. 1: Excavation and
66
The Iron Gates Mesolithic in a regional context
67
Intra-site Analysis at Klithi. McDonald Institute for Ar-
chaeological Research. Cambridge: 207–244.
Gara∏anin M. 1979. Centralnobalkanska zona. In A. Be-
nac (ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, II. Centar
za balkanolo∏ka ispitivanja ANUBiH. Svjetlost. Sarajevo:
79–212.
Gara∏anin M., Radovanovi≤ I. 2001. A pot in house 54 at
Lepenski Vir. Antiquity 75: 118–125.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00052819
Guilaine J. 2000. La diffusion de l’agriculture en Europe:
une hypothèse arythmique. Zephyrus 53: 267–272.
Gurova M., Bonsall C. 2014. ‘Pre-Neolithic’ in Southeast
Europe: a Bulgarian perspective. Documenta Praehisto-
rica 41: 95–109. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.41.5
Hauck T., Nolde N., Ruka R., Gjipali I., Dreier J., and Ma-
yer N. 2016. After the cold: Epigravettian hunter-gatherers
in Blazi Cave (Albania). Quaternary International 450:
150–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.11.045
Jovanovi≤ B. 1968. Istorijat kerami≠ke industrije u neoli-
tu i ranom eneolitu centralnog Balkana. In L. Trifunovi≤
(ed.), Neolit centralnog Balkana. Narodni muzej u Beo-
gradu. Beograd: 107–176.
2008. Micro-regions of the Lepenski Vir culture: Padi-
na in the Upper Gorge and Hajdu≠ka Vodenica in the
Lower Gorge of the Danube. Documenta Praehistori-
ca 35: 289–324. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.35.21
Jovanovi≤ J., Power R. C., de Becdelièvre C., Goude G.,
and Stefanovi≤ S. 2021. Microbotanical evidence for the
spread of cereal use during the Mesolithic-Neolithic transi-
tion in the Southeastern Europe (Danube Gorges): Data
from dental calculus analysis. Journal of Archaeological
Science 125: 105288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2020.105288
Jovanovi≤ J., de Becdelièvre C., Stefanovi≤ S., Ωivaljevi≤ I.,
Dimitrijevi≤ V., and Goude G. 2019. Last hunters–first far-
mers: new insight into subsistence strategies in the Cen-
tral Balkans through isotopic analysis. Archaeological
and Anthropological Sciences 11: 3279–3298.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0744-1
Kaczanowska M., Kozłowski J. K. 2014. The Aegean Meso-
lithic: material culture, chronology, and networks of con-
tact. Eurasian Prehistory 11: 31–62.
Karavani≤ I., Vukosavljevi≤ N., πo∏i≤ Kilind∫i≤ R., Ahern
J., and Smith F. 2015. πpilja Zala u dijahronijskoj perspek-
tivi: sa∫etak rezultata. In N. Vukosavljevi≤, I. Karavani≤
(eds.), Arheologija ∏pilje Zale – od paleoliti≠kih lovaca
sakuplja≠a do rimskih osvaja≠a. Katedra ∞akavskog sa-
bora Modru∏e. Modru∏: 213–216.
Kavur B. 2006. Stone Tools. In A. Gaspari (ed.), Zalog
near Verd. Stone Age hunters’ camp at the western edge
of the Ljubljansko barje. Zalo∫ba ZRC. Ljubljana: 45–120.
Kelly R. L. 1992. Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeo-
logical Measures and Effects. Annual Review of Anthro-
pology 21: 43–66.
Kom∏o D. 2006. The Mesolithic in Croatia. Opuscula Ar-
chaeologica 30: 55–92.
Kozłowski J. K., Kozłowski S. K. 1982. Lithic industries
from the multi-layered Mesolithic site Vlasac in Yugosla-
via. In J. K. Kozłowski (ed.), Origin of the Chipped Stone
Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in the Balkans.
Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Warszawa-Kraków:
11–109.
Kozłowski J. K., Kozłowski S. K., and Radovanovi≤ I. 1994.
Meso- and Neolithic Sequence from the Odmut Cave
(Montenegro). Wydawnictwa Univwersytetu Warszawski-
ego. Warszawa.
Kozłowski S. K. 2009. Thinking the Mesolithic. Oxbow
Books. Oxford.
Lubell D. 2004. Are land snails a signature for the Meso-
lithic-Neolithic transition? Documenta Praehistorica 21:
1–24.
Mathieson I., Alpaslan-Roodenberg S., Posth C., +113 au-
thors, and Reich D. 2017. The genomic history of south-
eastern Europe. Nature 555(7695): 197–203.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25778
Merkyte I. 2003. The Mesolithic Syndrome in South-east-
ern Europe. Acta Archaeologica 74: 307–317.
Mihailovi≤ D. 2001. Technological decline of the Early
Holocene chipped stone industries in South-East Europe.
In R. Kertész, J. Makkay (eds.), From the Mesolithic to the
Neolithic. Archaeolingua. Budapest: 339–347.
2004. Chipped Stone Industry from horizons A and B
at the site Padina in the Iron Gates. In P. Crombe (ed.),
The Mesolithic: Section 7 of the Acts of the XIVth UISPP
Congress 2001, actes de la session Late Foragers and
Early Farmers of the Lepenski Vir-Schela Cladovei Cul-
ture in the Iron Gates Gorges. BAR International Se-
ries 1302. Archaeopress. Oxford: 61–68.
2007a. Social Aspects of the Transition to Farming in
the Balkans. Documenta Praehistorica 34: 73–88.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.34.6
Du[an Mihailović
68
2007b. Social and Cultural Integration in the Late Up-
per Palaeolithic of the Western Balkans. In R. Whallon
(ed.), Late Paleolithic Environments and Cultural Re-
lations around the Adriatic. BAR International Series
1716. Archaeopress. Oxford: 53–59.
2008. Lithic technology and settlement systems of the
Final Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic in the Iron Gates.
In C. Bonsall, V. Boroneant, and I. Radovanovi≤ (eds.),
The Iron Gates in Prehistory: new perspectives. BAR
International Series 1893. Archaeopress. Oxford: 11–18.
2009. Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Chipped Stone
Industries from Crvena Stijena. Faculty of Philosophy.
University of Beograd. Beograd.
Miracle P. 2007. The Late Glacial ‘Great Adriatic Plain’:
‘Garden of Eden’ or ‘No Man’s Land’ during the Epipa-
leolithic? A view from Istria (Croatia). In R. Whallon (ed.),
Late Paleolithic Environments and Cultural Relations
Around the Adriatic. BAR International Series 1716. Ar-
chaeopress. Oxford: 41–51.
Mi∏i≤ V. 1981. πumska vegetacija klisura i kanjona Is-
to≠ne Srbije. Institut za biolo∏ka istra∫ivanja Sini∏a Stan-
kovi≤. Beograd.
Nehlich O., Bori≤ D., Stefanovi≤ S., and Richards M. P.
2010. Sulphur isotope evidence for freshwater fish con-
sumption: a case study from the Danube Gorges, SE Eu-
rope. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 1131–
1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.12.013
Păunescu A. 1979. Cercetările arheologice de la Cuina
Turcului-Dubova (jud. Mehedinti). Tibiscus. Istorie-Arheo-
logie Timisoara 5: 11–56.
Orton D., Gaastra J., and Vander Linden M. 2016. Between
the Danube and the Deep Blue Sea: zooarchaeological
meta-analysis reveals variability in the spread and devel-
opment of Neolithic farming across the western Balkans.
Open Quaternary 2: 1–26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/oq.28
Peri≤ S., Nikoli≤ D. 2004. Stratigraphic, Cultural and Chro-
nological Characteristics of the Pottery from Lepenski
Vir – 1965 Excavations. In S. Peri≤ (ed.), The Central Po-
moravlje in Neolithisation of South-East Europe. The
Neolithic in the Middle Morava Valley 1. Archaeological
Institute. Beograd: 157–217.
Perlès C. 1990. Les industries lithiques taillées de Fran-
chthi (Argolide, Grèce). Tome II: Les industries du Mé-
solithique et du Néolithique initial. Indiana University
Press. Bloomington, Indianapolis.
1999. Long–term perspectives on the occupation of the
Franchthi cave: continuity and discontinuity. In G. Bai-
ley, E. Adam, C. Perlès, E. Panagopoulou, and K. Zachos
(eds.), The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and
Adjacent Areas. British School at Athens. London:
311–318.
2003. An alternate (and old-fashioned) view of Neoli-
thisation in Greece. Documenta Praehistorica 30: 99–
113. https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.30.5
Pilaar Birch S., Vander Linden M. 2017. A long hard road
… Reviewing the evidence for environmental change and
population history in the eastern Adriatic and western
Balkans during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene.
Quaternary International 465(Part B): 177–191.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.12.035
Pop E., Boscaiu N., and Lupsa V. 1970. Analiza sporo-po-
linica a sedimentelor de la Cuina Turcului – Dubova. Stu-
dii si Cercetari de Istorie Veche 21: 31–34.
Por≠i≤ M., Blagojevi≤ T., and Stefanovi≤ S. 2016. Demogra-
phy of the Early Neolithic Population in Central Balkans:
Population Dynamics Reconstruction Using Summed Ra-
diocarbon Probability Distributions. PLoS ONE 11(8):
e0160832. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160832
Price T. D., Brown J. A. 1985. Aspects of Hunter-Gatherer
Complexity. In T. D. Price, J. A. Brown (eds.), Prehistoric
Hunter-Gatherers. The Emergence of Cultural Comple-
xity. Academic Press. Inc. Orlando, Florida: 3–20.
Radovanovi≤ I. 1981. Padina: ranoholocenska kremena
industrija sa lokaliteta Padina u ∑erdapu. Arheolo∏ki
institut. Beograd.
1996. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. International Mono-
graphs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series 11. Ann Ar-
bor. Michigan.
2006. Further notes on Mesolithic-Neolithic contacts in
the Iron Gates region and the Central Balkans. Docu-
menta Praehistorica 33: 107–124.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.33.12
Radovanovi≤ I., Voytek B. 1997. Hunters, fishers or far-
mers: sedentism, subsistence and social complexity in the
∑erdap Mesolithic. In A. Van Gijn, C. Bakels, and M. Zve-
lebil (eds.), Ideology and Social Structure of Stone Age
Communities in Europe. Analecta Praehistorica Leiden-
sia 29. Leiden University. Leiden: 19–31.
Radovanovi≤ I., Mandel R., and Mihailovi≤ D. 2014. Meso-
lithic settlement in the Iron Gates region: integrating cur-
The Iron Gates Mesolithic in a regional context
69
rent archaeological and geoarchaeological evidence. In D.
Mihailovi≤ (ed.), Palaeolithic and Mesolithic research in
the Central Balkans. Serbian Archaeological Society. Beo-
grad: 139–151.
Roksandi≤ M. 2012. Mobile and Terrestrial but Firmly Ro-
oted on the River Banks: Biological Anthropology of Le-
penski Vir and the Iron Gates Gorge Mesolithic. Advances
in Anthropology 2(3): 117–124.
DOI: 10.4236/aa.2012.23014
Runnels C. 2003. The origins of the Greek Neolithic: a
personal view. In A. J. Ammerman, P. Biagi (eds.), The
Widening Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe:
Looking Back, Looking Forward. Archaeological Insti-
tute of America, Boston: 121–132.
Sampson A. 2014. The Aegean Mesolithic: environment,
economy, and voyaging. Eurasian Prehistory 11: 63–74.
Srejovi≤ D. 1969. Lepenski Vir: Nova praistorijska kul-
tura u Podunavlju. Srpska Knji∫evna Zadruga. Beograd.
Srejovi≤ D., Letica Z. 1978. Vlasac. Mezolitsko naselje u
∑erdapu (I arheologija). Srpska akademija nauka i umet-
nosti. Beograd.
Stiner M. C., Munro N. D. 2011. On the evolution of diet
and landscape during the Upper Paleolithic through Meso-
lithic at Franchthi cave (Peloponnese, Greece). Journal
of Human Evolution 60: 618–636.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2010.12.005
Van Andel T. H., Runnels C. N. 1995. The earliest farm-
ers in Europe. Antiquity 69(264): 481–500.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00081886
Vander Linden M. 2011. In constant motion? Recent ad-
vances in mathematical modelling and radiocarbon chro-
nology of the neolithisation of Europe. In A. Hadjikoumis,
E. Robinson, and S. Viner (eds.), Dynamics of Neolithisa-
tion: Studies in Honour of Andrew Sherratt. Oxbow.
Oxford: 41–61.
Vaquero M., Romagnoli F. 2018. Searching for lazy peo-
ple: the significance of expedient behavior in the inter-
pretation of Paleolithic assemblages. Journal of Archaeo-
logical Method and Theory 25: 334–367.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-017-9339-x
Vukosavljevi≤ N., Perho≠ Z., ∞e≠uk B., and Karavani≤ I.
2011. Late glacial knapped stone industry of Kopa≠ina
cave. Vjesnik za Arheologiju i Povijest Dalmatinsku 104:
7–54.
Vukosavljevi≤ N., Perho≠ Z., and Altherr R. 2014. Prijelaz
iz pleistocena u holocen u pe≤ini Vlakno na Dugom oto-
ku (Dalmacija, Hrvatska) – liti≠ka perspektiva. Prilozi In-
stituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 31: 5–72.
Weninger B., Clare L., Gerritsen F., +4 authors, and Roh-
linget E. 2014. Neolithisation of the Aegean and Southeast
Europe during the 6600–6000 calBC period of Rapid Cli-
mate Change. Documenta Praehistorica 41: 1–31.
https://doi.org/10.4312/dp.41.1
Whitecross R. 2016. Ambiguity and the Self-evident in
the Study of Sedentism. PhD thesis. Faculty of Arts and
Social Sciences. University of Sydney. Sydney.
Whittle A., Bartosiewicz L., Bori≤ D., Pettitt P., and Ri-
chards M. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates
for the Early Neolithic in Northern Serbia and South-East
Hungary. Antaeus 25: 63–117.
Ωivaljevi≤ I. 2017. Ribolov na ∑erdapu u ranom holoce-
nu (10.–6. milenijum pre n. e.). Unpublished PhD thesis.
Faculty of Philosophy. University of Beograd. Beograd.
Ωivaljevi≤ I. Dimitrijevi≤ V., Jovanovi≤ J., +10 authors,
and Stefanovi≤ S. 2021. Revealing the “hidden” Panno-
nian and Central Balkan Mesolithic: new radiocarbon evi-
dence from Serbia. Quaternary International 574: 52–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.11.043
Ωivaljevi≤ I., Dimitrijevi≤ V., Dogand∫i≤ T., Talamo S., and
Mihailovi≤ D. 2018. An inquiry into the “missing” Cen-
tral Balkans Mesolithic: faunal remains from Bukovac
cave, Serbia. 13th ICAZ International Conference. Ankara:
19–20.
Zvelebil M. 1986. Mesolithic prelude and Neolithic revo-
lution. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in Transition: Meso-
lithic Societies of Temperate Europe and Their Transi-
tion to Farming. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge:
5–15.
Zvelebil M., Lillie M. 2000. Transition to agriculture in
Eastern Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe’s first farm-
ers. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 57–92.