UDK 9Q3'12/15(4/5)"833/634":575.17; 903*12/*15(4/5)«633/634":574.91_______
Documenta Praehistorica XXVIII
The transition to farming in Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery
Mihael Budja
Department of Archaeology, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia miha.budja@uni«lj.si
ABSTRACT - Tlw transition to farming in the Balkans, Ionia and the Adriatic is discussed as tiie palimpsest relates to artefact assemblages, subsistence and archaeogenetic data. It is argued that it murks a dispersed and selective route to wards farming adaptation in the regions. Ihe incoming near-eastern lineages and ttw difference in values for the Balkans (-20%) and Mediterranean coastal (-10%) area are linked to a network of the circulation of goods and people over long distances which was established after Uie incipient adoption of farming.
IZVLEČEK - V članku analiziramo process neolitizacije na Balkanu ter vzhodni jadranski in jonski obali Prehod h kmetovanju obravnavamo kot palimpsest (zapisov) povezanih z oblikovanjem arte faktnih zbirov, paleogospodarstev in arfieogenetskih sekvenc. Zadnje povezujemo z vzpostavitvijo sistemu menjave blaga in ljudi na Balkanu in Mediieranu.
KEY WORDS - transition to farming; archeogenetic data; pottery
INTRODUCTION
After many years of modern investigation the transition from mainly hunter-gatherer Mesolithic to predominantly fanning Neolithic societies still remains embedded in the context of a succession of periods, a linear evolution and cultural development, which linked mobile hunter-gatherer groups with the Mesolithic, and sedentary farmers with the Neolithic. The dominant model depicted hunter-gatherer social systems as rigid patrilocal, exogamous and territorial band organizations, and related this to a scarcity of resources and the importance of hunting. Farming, on the other hand, would imply, at the first sight, different relations of production, with cultivation removing many of the risks and uncertainties of hunter-gathering, allowing accumulation, and thus making reciprocity far from desirable. Although it is broadly accepted that early farmers still made extensive use of hunted and gathered resources, it remains the paradigmatic view that the hunter-gatherer and early farming communities can be distinguished from one another in their forces of production, including
the technological sets that they employed. It still maintains the premise that hunter-gatherer's (i.e. late Mesolithic) and farmer's (i.e. early Neolithic) artefact sets, being deposited in cave sites in southeast Europe and the Mediterranean mainly, by definition belong to different (mutually exclusive) stratigra-phic, chronological and cultural contexts.
The interpretation of the transition to farming in Europe is linked to the assumption that farming emerged in the context of four critical imiovations - domestic plants and animals, polished stone tools, and ceramics. The typological determinations and spatially restricted distributions of different pottery types (the normative identification) supposed to correlate with the genesis of Early Neolithic cultures on the regional level on the one hand and, the migration of farmers bringing in all the concomitant knowledge and skills of farming (in accordance with Childean cultural and revolutionary approaches) on the other. Several mutually exclusive regional pottery distribu-
27
Mihael Budja
tions - the "Balkan-Anatolian complex of painted pottery" in Southeast Europe, the "Cardium-impres-so Pottery Culture" in Mediterranean and the "linear Pottery Culture" in Central and West Europe - were used to objectify the gradual colonisation of Europe. The first and the second have been recognized as the "secondary centres of the neolithisation of Europe", that most direct link to the cultural traditions of Asia Minor. The rate of spread of newcomers across Europe, and the colonisation of the continent, was objectified by a suggestive pattern of hundreds of radiocarbon dates relating to the earliest Neolithic settlement strata comprising pottery and domesticates. When those dates are plotted on the continental map, a south-east to north-west gradient becomes evident, suggesting that it may have taken about 2500 years for the agricultural frontier to reach the ends of the continent and to complete the process of the transition to farming in Europe {Clark 190.58-73; tuning 1988(1991 ).29-30; Breunig 1987; Parzinger 1993; Mutter 1994; Ammerman, Cavalli-Sforza 1984.58-62, Fig. 4,5).
MTERPRITATIVE BACKGROUNDS
Although it is broadly accepted that the process of neolithisation of Europe was related exclusively to the change from food collection to food production, it still remains a controversial question whether this change in the palaeoeconomy was the consequence of cultural diffusion or demic expansion. The first hypothesises that it was farming that was diffused and adopted by local foragers. The latter states that there were farmers, and their language radiated from the Middle East toward Europe, Central and South Asia, and to some extent North Africa. Perhaps the most popular recent interpretation is based on the model of an "isochronic line of agricultural expansion in Europe" {Ammerman, Cavalli-Sforza 1984.58-62, Fig. 4.5; Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza 1995; Cavalli-Sforza 1996; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, Piazza 1993639-646). Using the concepts of "demic expansion", "wave of advance" and "agricultural frontier zone" they suggest a slow expansion of people into Europe driven by population growth resulting from agricultural surpluses, and either the displacement or absorption of the less numerous hunter-gatherer populations. Thus the rate of advance of agriculture into Europe is held to be compatible with the estimation that the farmers spread, hypothesising fertility rates and mobility of early farmers comparable to those observed in eth-nographically similar situations. In correspondence
with the relocation of the agricultural frontier, shifting at a rate of 1km per year across the continent, demic expansion is supposed to have had a dramatic effect on the European gene pool. The most important consequence is that the major component of the modem European gene pool derives from Near-Eastern Neolithic farmers rather than indigenous Mesolithic foragers. In other words, the Eurasian neolithisation process in the period 9500-5500 BP was exclusively the domain of Near-Eastern farmers who were allowed to plant their genes and farming practices across Europe, Central and South Asia, and preserve their ethnic, cultural and social identity.
It is important to note here that the evidence provided by the sites where the elements of a farming economy in the contexts of typologically determined "Late Mesolithic (culture)" is rarely discussed, whether because of taphonomic filters operating in a framework of unsystematic and inconsistent research procedures and interpretative postulates which maintain that Mesolithic stone tool assemblages and elements of the "Neolithic package" are culturally, chronologically and spatially mutually exclusive, or because of prejudices toward hunter-gatherers in general and Mesolithic peoples in particular. What I would like to suggest here is that it is no longer sufficient to use the modified "Three-Age" typological paradigm as a heuristic device to direct our interpretatio-nal modelling or to minimize the social context of the agricultural transition by such claims as that "...local groups also hunted goats, probably derived from coastal herders, before the former adopted domestication..." {Chapman & Mutter 1990,132).
A recent revival of interest in the transition to farming has brought about the understanding that agriculture developed independently in several areas of the world and that clear-cut shifts from dependence on hunting, fishing and gathering to dependence on agriculture depended on a number of particular conjunctions of circumstances in particular places at particular times {Harris 1996b.553,557), and it de facto remains a problem to recognise the processes by which agriculture and pastoralism became established throughout Eurasia.
It is important, however, to stress the significance of pre-Neolithic adaptations for the development or adoption of incipient agriculture, since small-scale cultivation of (mainly) wild plants and animals is practised by indigenous foragers in the context of a "continuum of people-plant-animal interaction" {Harris 198911-26; 1996al~9). Therefore, it is a choice
28
The transition to farming m Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery
of manipulating resources rather than the actual fact of substituting wild resources with domesticates. It was suggested that instead of conceiving the transition from hunting and gathering to herding or cultivation as an evolutionary progression from one distinct type of society to another we have to be aware of the usefulness of treating hunting and gathering, herding and cultivation as alternative strategies which are, separately or in combination, appropriate to particular social or natural environments {Lay-ton, Foley and Williams 1991.255-274; Hawkes, O'Connell 199263-65). It is useful to remember that the questions of "when", "where", "why" and "who" {Haktead 1996296-309) are still of basic interest in the "late Mesolithic and early Neolithic" palimpsests in Southeast Europe and the Mediterranean. Was "Neolithic man ... the first human producer", and was there "no other before him", as Cauvin {2000,207) recently claimed? Was the origin of Neolithic plant and animal packages exclusively in the Near East, which then spread throughout Anatolia and Europe {Zohary and Ilopf2000?. Was the Mesolithic population sparse throughout Europe {Mei-klejohn etal 1997;fackes etal 1997) and was it really genetically replaced by different mechanisms of population diffusion that correlate with agro-pastoral dispersals {Zvelebil 2000,57-79? And finally, the question that might have been asked in the traditional interpretative contexts from the very beginning: was it "cardial" and "monochrome" pottery that marked the initial Neolithic cultures in the Balkans and Mediterranean, or does it, in fact, represent a widely distributed set of shapes and motifs, symbols which were recognized and used by members of different groups and served to signify specific social interactions, power relations and exchange networks (as containers for foods) within and between the late hunter-gatherer and early farming communities?
THE TRANSITION TO FARMING IN EUROPE AND THE GENETIC PALIMPSEST
We have already mentioned that perhaps the most popular interpretation recently is represented in the work of Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza. They introduce into archaeology the principle of synthetic genetic maps - geographical maps of isopleths (lines of equal value) of principal component values, calculated as optimised linear functions of all available gene frequencies of modem Eurasian populations {Menozzi, Piazza, Cavalli-Sforza 1978,786-792). Seven principal components were listed, while the first three are recognized as the most significant and
are rather arbitrarily linked with specific historical events and processes. There is no doubt, however, that "a principal components analysis represents a palimpsest of all the processes which have taken place, from the earliest human settlement to the present time." {Renfrew 20005).
Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza based the interpretation of the transition to farming in Europe on analyses of correlations of "contour maps" for the first principal component from 95 gene frequencies with the southeast (Levant) - northwest (Europe) gradient and maps of the "latest" Mesolithic occupation and the "spread of early farming to Europe" which is an updated version of the distribution of radiocarbon dated early Neolithic sites published by Clark in 1965 {Ammerman, Cavalli-Sforza 1984Figs. 4.5-6, Fig, 610; Cavalli-Sforza 199661, Fig, 41a). They believe that the "extraordinarily high" resemblance of the maps demonstrates: # there was "no prolonged chronological overlap between Mesolithic occupation and the onset of early farming" in Europe {Ammerman, Cavalli-Sforza 198460) and, m the pattern of temporal and spatial distribution of early Neolithic settlements corresponds well with the contour map of the distribution of the first principal component of gene frequencies in modern European populations {Cavalli-Sforza 199653).
However, the frontier lines of the 500 year temporal intervals of spatial distribution of early Neolithic sites that run parallel to one another over much of Europe were determined as "an isochronic line of agricultural expansion in Europe" {Ammerman, Ca-vallirSforza 1984Fig, 4.5; Sokal, Odm, Wilson 1991 Fig. 1; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, Piazza 1993 Hg 2a; CavallfSforza 1996.Fig41). In accordance with "the wave of advance model" they hypothesised the increased population densities within the agricultural frontier zones, causing demic expansion into new7 territory at an average rate of .1 km per year and a diffusive gene flow between the Neolithic farmers and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. In consequence, there would be less expectation of continuity between the two, and the contribution of the latter to the subsequent development of the genetic and cultural history of Europe is supposed to be insignificant.
Although the archaeological data cannot directly address the question of demic expansion and genetic replacement, the estimation of the dynamics at the
29
Mihael Budja
agricultural frontier is directly linked to the identification of the distribution of Early Neolithic sites in "time and space". It is hypothesised that there is a relationship between the distribution and density of archaeological sites and the distribution and density of human populations in the selected regions. An old idea that wras revived recently holds that, because of an almost total lack of evidence of Mesolithic sites in both Central and Southeast Europe and the Iberian Peninsula, the Mesolithic population must have been very sparse and, in consequence, this would have allowed farmers to expand and colonise the regions rapidly {Pinhasi, Foley, Mirazon 2000.50, 54; see also Trinhgam 196846-53, 67. Fig. 7). It was already evident that the present distribution of (late) Mesolithic (early) Neolithic was very much affected by the processes (long-term and catastrophic) that restructured the geomorphology and reshaped the relief of the regions in the Holocene. In plotting sites on a general map of Eurasia and in hypothesising a spatial discontinuity between Mesolithic and Neolithic settlements, we have to take into consideration the fact that the patterns available to research are the various outcomes of consecutive cycles of alluvation, erosion, and sedimentation of valleys and the rise in Mediterranean, Marmara and Adriatic sea-levels {Chapman 1989; 1994; van An-del Gallis and Toufexis 1995.13 1; lambeck 1996 588-611; Ryan et al 1997119-126; Okay et al 1999129; seeKotsakis in this volume). With this in mind, 1 would argue that many coastal or inland riverside sites of the Mesolithic or, more importantly, many short-term Early Neolithic sites still remain unavailable, buried under alluvium or covered by sea.
Some further thoughts on the restrictions connected with the selection and formation of artefact sets should also be considered. The distinction between Neolithic and Mesolithic sites was based on general typological categorizations, which were used to objectify hunter-gatherers and farmers "cultural" sequences. This ohjectification maintains the paradigmatic perception that farming practices could only be embedded in Neolithic "cultural" contexts {Zil hdo 199547-49; 199719-42; Budja 1996a.61-76). From this point of view it is impossible to ignore the fact that an analysis of spatial distribution of early Neolithic settlements may not reflect the actual diffusion of farming practices and changes in subsistence strategies. However, the stoiy was recorded in the genetic pattern produced by DNA from Y (male) chromosomes {CavallfSforza andMinch 1997.274-251; Sykes &Re?ifrew2000.13-15). The map for the First Principal Component, representing 28.1% of
the modern genetic variance of Europe, showed a clear gradual distribution in values between the Near East and Northwest Europe; however, it wras recently realised that:
# a principal components analysis is a palimpsest of all the processes that have taken part in the historical process it accounts for;
# a large part of the first principal component - the classic markers - may have been due to earlier gene flow processes and that the overall genetic impact of the Neolithic in Europe with a greater emphasis on is now being correlated to the initial colonization in the Palaeolithic and subsequent colonization episodes in the Mesolithic;
# the lowr proportion of variance associated with the first principal component for classical markers (28.1%) indicates a minor input by the Neolithic newcomers and the great significance of the Mesolithic contribution to later European prehistory {Renfrew 2000.5, 9; Sykes & Renfrew 200017; Sykes 2000.26).
A much more precise story is found in the pattern of mitochondrial DNA genetic gradients, giving us the female (X) picture. Before we continue, a word about die human genome - the collective name for the entire DNA in each cell. It is organized into separate volumes - chromosomes deposited in the cell nucleus. There are twenty-four dffferent chromosomes in the human genome, but wre have two sets of most of them, one from each parent Twenty-two of them are known as autosomes, the other two X and Y-chromosomes determining sex. Males have both X and Y~chromosomes, but females have a pair of X-chromosomes only. The human genome contains one other, very special piece of DNA - mitochondrial (mt) DNA - embedded in the cell cytoplasm. Unlike nuclear DNA, it is inherited from one parent only, the mother. This means that at any time in the past only one woman alive at that time was the maternal and hence the mitochondrial DNA ancestor of a particular person, which is definitely not the case with nuclear DNA, where the number of potential nuclear ancestors doubles at every generation {Sykes & Renfrew 2000.14). So far, in archeogenetic studies relating to the origins of the Neolithic and the agricultural transition in Europe, the DNA as it survives in the genes of living people has been used in sampling, sequencing, geographically patterning and interpreting events and processes in the remote past in spite of critical limitations. The methodological topics have already been discussed {Richards et al 20001251-1276), But as a non-geneticist I would suggest we remember that the reconstruction of ge-
30
The transition to farming in Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery
netic history and its explanation through migration or demic diffusion relates to the survivors, existing descent lines, whether represented in male (Y chromosomes) or female (mtDNA) markers and, that those numerous lineages which became extinct are by definition not recorded in the living record - the extant genetic palimpsest {Richards et a/ 1996185-198; Sykes & Renfrew 2000.16).
However, the "founder analysis" of mitochondrial DNA seems to be more reliable in identification and dating of migrations into new territory and in the evaluation of the suggested Neolithic demic diffusion and population replacement The analysis confirmed the southeast-northwest spatial gradient on the one hand, but showed the low values obtained for the demic component of the Neolithic expansions on the other. It was suggested that "...most of the modem European mtDNA landscape was formed neither in Early Upper Palaeolithic colonization ... not as a result of demic diffusion from the Near East ... but rather in Late glacial re-expansions within Europe itseE" {Richards &Macaulay 2000.148). Based on the results of the founder analysis of mtDNA, Richards et al conclude that <10% of extant lineages date back to the first colonization of Europe by anatomically modern humans, and that on the order of 10-20% arrived during the Neolithic, but most of the other lineages "seem most likely to have arrived during the Middle Upper Palaeolithic and to have expanded during the Late Upper Palaeolithic" {Richards et al 2000,1272). It is interesting that Neolithic contributions to extant mtDNA evidently vary regionally and that the incoming lineages, at least on the maternal side, were in the minority, in comparison with indigenous Me-solithic lineages, even in those regions where centres of secondary neolithisation and the pioneer colonization of uninhabited areas have been suggested. Regional analysis shows the Neolithic contribution - the incoming lineages with the values of -20% for Southeast, Central, Northwest and Northeast Europe. In the Mediterranean coastal area it is even lower than ~10%, similar to that in Scandinavia {Richards eta/. 2000 /27/). On the explanatory level, recognizing the major sig-
nificance of the indigenous Mesolithic lineages, they
also suggest that:
• acculturation occurred principally in Southeast Europe;
m the expansion of the LBK (Linearhankeramik) cultural complex through Central Europe did indeed include a "substantial demic component", which in consequence means that there was a "considerable replacement" of population;
m the transition to farming in the Mediterranean and Scandinavia was very late and "the impact of newcomers likely very slight" {Richards et al 20001271).
We have to note some salient points in this interpretative context concerning the results of recently available genetic studies of domestication of emmer wheat that "appears to have expanded from the Near East on two occasions, correlating closely with the observation by Richards eta/ {1L$6)" of the two incoming and chronologically distinctive Neolithic lineages {Allaby 2000J23)* It is broadly accepted that wild emmer, tertraploid wheat {Triticum dico-coides) is endemic to the Near Eastern "arc" where its domestication could only have taken place and Neolithic agriculture have originated. It was suggested also that genetic comparisons between the founder crops and their wild progenitors suggest that the wild ancestors of most of them (except for barley) were introduced into cultivation only once and at only one location {Zohary & Hop/2000.243). However, the results of the molecular phylogenetic studies of modern plants suggest that emmer wheat may have been domesticated more than once, and

Fig, L The NeoUthisatton of Europe. Primary (Thessaly) and secondary (Bttituns and western Adriatic coast) emmm ofeolonimUon (after Lfl-ningl 988(1991) Abb A).
31
MShaei Budja
that hexaploid wheats (e.g. Triticum spelta and Tri-ticum aesHvum), which arose from a hybridisation of emmer and the Mid grass Aegilops squarrosa, have multiple origins {Brown 1999.89-98).
Genetically-driven explanations are usually used to argue that the biogeography of plant domesticates can indicate "expanding populations" or a "record of human movement" {Harris 1996h.569;Allah}>2000. 321), although it is well known that genetic analysis is unable to determine whether the movement of a domesticate from one location to another was due to its being carried by group of migrating humans or if it resulted from trade between two static communities {Brown 199989-98). Discussing the archaeological data in the western Mediterranean we have already pointed out that no direct or indirect evidence of cereal agriculture has yet been found that could have correlated with the hypothesised initial colonisation and, with all due respect to the motto absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, on the Iberian Peninsula crop-husbandry appeared a few hundred years later than animaHiusbandry {Budja 1999122-128; cfr Zilhao 199123-26; Berna-heuAuhdn 199111-12). In the eastern Mediterranean, in contrast, on the tip of the Balkan Peninsula in the Grevena region, the present-day habitats for wild einkom exist {Zamanis etal 1988). It is perhaps no coincidence that among the archaeohotani-cal remains collected from the Mesolithic deposits in the nearby Theopetra cave wild einkorn wheat {Tri-ticum boeoticum) has been reported {KjparissfApostolika 2000J3T)> But the Balkans region seems to remain excluded as an area of primary domestication of wild einkom {Beun etal 1997.1312-1314; 199865-69; Zohary & Hop/2000.36-42, 243; Gopher etal in this volume). It is worth mentioning that einkorn wheat "appears to be less frequent" than two other founder cereals (emmer and barley) in the Levantine Neolithic, which is certainly not the case in the Balkans where much richer remains of einkorn wheat are available. Einkom prevails over emmer wheat in "the frequency of pure hoards", retaining its principal role throughout the Neolithic and even later periods {Zohary &IIop/2000 38-3$)* It has been demonstrated in Southeast Europe that the evident impact of the first formers on vege-
tation was neither on a landscape scale nor in the form of a time-transgressive wave of forest clearance (Willis & Benett 1994J26-330; Willis 1995. 9-24). But small-scale forest clearance, burning, and coppicing, however, predate the earliest Neolithic sites in the regions {Antlric, in this volume). It is my belief that the application of the concept of a "continuum of people and plant interaction" such as that mentioned above in the context of pre-Neolithic adaptations for the development or adoption of incipient agriculture should definitely be taken into consideration in the Balkans.
An analysis of strontium isotope deposited in human skeletal material confirmed recently the human migration in the context of the genesis of the LBK cultural complex and the dispersion of agriculture in Central and West Europe. The strontium isotope in human teeth and bones provides separate geoche-mical markers of the place of birth and the place of death. This means that a difference in the isotope ratio provided by the two samples of the same individual indicates a change in residence during the lifetime {Price at al 1994.315-330)* Sampling the middle and the late LBK cemeteries in the Upper Rhine Valley, Price and his group found proof of "substantial migration" {Price etal 2001.601). The results in the middle Neolithic cemetery in Flom-bron indicate a high proportion of migrants (64%) of both sexes had moved there from some distance away. However, a substantially different pattern ap-
Flg, 2. "Centres of the Balkan Monochrome Neolithic* (after Vajsov 1998. Map \).
32
The transition to farming in Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery
peared in a late Neolithic cemetery in Schwetzingen. A smaller proportion (33%) of the sampled population were migrants, the majority of them younger women. It was hypothesised in this case that migration may have primarily been a result of residential changes upon marriage, and that these females may have come from neighbouring farming areas or across the agricultural frontier zone from hunter-gatherer communities {Price etaL 2001.589-601). Migration and frontier mobility are linked, however, to the pattern of temporal and spatial distribution of the earliest LBK settlements, and it was suggested that the sequence from 5700 BC to 5500 BC of the earliest radiocarbon dates within the normative determination of the earliest LBK cultural phase, demonstrates a rapid expansion of farming communities over hundreds of kilometres from the central Danube and Carpathian basin to the Rhine in the west. Price et al hypothesised on the base of the high proportion of migrants and the appearance of the spondylus shell (artefacts), originating in the Aegean, in Flombron graves, that the "local individuals in the cemetery" represent the descendants of the original farming population of the earliest LBK who initially migrated from the southeast and colonised the central part of Europe. Even more, they believe that the correlation of the strontium isotope results and the orientation of sampled burials in Flombron indicate the westward trend of population movements {Price at al 2001.600-601). However, in my opinion, there are uncertainties regarding the understanding and interpretation of strontium evidence. First of all, the local geology is an essential ingredient in understanding variation in strontium isotopes, which means that the identification of human mobility between the two supposed, economic or social entities is being speculated on the base of geo-chemical variation in the selec-ted (micro) regions. And, it also means that the short-distance va-
riation in the regional geomorphology, embedded in strontium isotope signal could be interpreted as the long-distance cross regional migration. However, Price at al. "suspect" that the geochemicaly distinct uplands on either side of Rhine were occupied by Mesolithic foragers and that the river valley was colonized and settled by the lowland farming communities. Individuals from these groups who may have migrated to lowland farming settlement should be identifiable by local strontium isotope signal (0. c. 597-598). Finally, some evidence for pre-Neolithic cultivation and for small-scale animal husbandry and horticulture in the region became available recently {Erny-Rodmann et al. 199727-56; Price et al 2001 cfr Schweizer 2000).
Si O-l	Kerben groBe Einstiche |	Stempei	Finger-eindrticke	_____ linien	Muschel-abdriicke	Zickzackj	Tremolo	Einstiche I	Muschel-linien       1	A1
_ wn 3 a. 1		SI	K12\ *   &'   «   *							
		r i i * i Yr'f'iV K7	K17 ' "»       t\\ /V      /   v     1 Kill $p  _» 00    ** K19							
10-	IHII I K20 KS Hliil K9	AAA X30 w	*      e      9							A2
										
				K2i						
20-	K IS	K1 K2		17	Mfffl Mi «7	WW		ii		B1
30-	1  1 1  1 1 M K8				MS \\\\\\\ \ 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 t Ml 1 1 1 1 1 »tint t #	27 HwwWwXto				
				.......						
				LS				€3		
40-		6 666 K16 0   0   0 K10		\\       \       \	turn M13 M9 mm M3	mi 22 fi		€6 E2	_-3-___ll U1 112 h L13	B_ C
50-							T1 A/ T2			
				\      \      N						
				\      \						
60-		K29				J                      Z6	A		K" i      u 1                  L2	J
Fig. 3' Early Neolithic ornamental sequence in Eastern Adriatic Rafter Miiller 1991Abb. 8).
33
Mihael Budja
Although aware of our own incomplete understanding of methodological approaches involved, as well as of the broader interpretative implications of human lineage patterns, I would point suggest the results of the mtDNA analysis has revised the interpretation of the transition to farming and the neolithi-sation of Europe. It is broadly accepted that the overall genetic impact now being placed on Palaeolithic and Mesolithic events and neolithisation processes played a minor role in shaping the current European gene pool {Renfrew 2000; Sykes, Renfrew 2000; Sykes 2000; Richards et aL 2000; Richards & Ala-cauky2000). It is our belief, however, that the dispersal of farming was embedded in the existing, pre-Neolithic social contexts, economic parameters, patterns of mobility, and the palaeoenvironmental conditions of each geographical entity in Southeast Europe. With the growing body of data from different (micro)regions, it has become apparent that the introduction of farming to Europe was not the mono-thetic consequence of the "wave of advance" and de-mic expansion as a mean of "an actual colonisation by real people (always without faces, gender, age, etc.)" as was, for example, ironically indicated Ruth Tringham recently (2000J/), but the clusters of "several related but different processes, spanning several millennia, and following distinctive regional and local trajectories" (Ealstead 1996J06). It is worth noting that in order to examine the interactions of communities with different modes of subsistence (foraging and farming respectively), non-metric anatomical variants of the skull and post-cranial bones were examined on sites with the largest number of individuals buried, and where the coexistence of Mesolithic and Neolithic modes of subsistence in the region was demonstrated as having been over one thousand years (Vqytek & Tringham 1990,492-499; Radovanowc1 996.39-43; Radovanovič & Vqytek 1997.21). In view of a proposed porous frontier between Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures in the region (sensu Dennett 1985 and Zvelebil1996), osteological material does not exhibit significant differences between Lepenski Vir Mesolithic and Balkan-Anatolian complex of Early Neolithic (Starčevo Culture). Furthermore, the data presented by Rok$mdič(2000J-100) argue strongly against the wave of advance model that
Impresso B2 Impresso Bl
Impresso A2 Impresso Al
of local foragers by incoming farmers, even if the substitution is understood as partial and continuous,
POTTERY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEODTHI-SATION OF EUROPE: THE BALKANS AND THE ADRIATIC
There is no doubt, however, that the pottery in most interpretative contexts was primarily used as a chronological and 'ethnic* marker in determining the genesis of Early Neolithic cultures at the regional level. In the ex oriente Iilx model its symbolic status and social role in farming societies in the Balkans and the Aegean have been limited to the identification of "indisputable typological similarities" with the cultural traditions of Asia Minor. Many authors have traced similarities between the Balkans and Anatolia, and the dependence of the former on the latter has never been questioned. The Aegean and the Balkans were hypothesised as recipients "of repeated waves of migrations from Anatolia and Syro-Cilicia in particular. as well as of cultural influence that came independently, or actual migrations" (Weinberg 1963. 308). On the other hand, the pottery was recognized as the "backbone of archaeology" and "the most obvious diagnostic element" in the context of a cultural continuum from east to west Although at first it was "secondary rather than an indispensable element of the Neolithic", or of the food-producing economy, it nonetheless becomes predominant amongst all the finds from the moment that its use becomes widespread in an Early Neolithic stage" (Iheocharis 1975UP). It is not surprising that the virtually paradigmatic status of spatially restricted distributions of selected pottery types and ornaments has been used to mark the boundaries of the primary and secondary centres of neolithisation, as well as the sequential colonization of Southeast Europe.
1   1
f

3 •8-
O    •
I            I
^         A
l          I
A       A
t
O I
A
t
O
T
•
i
•
w  I
proposes the supplanting     Fig4, EartyNeolMk science in Eastern Aa^iiUk(MterMMerl994M!b.74).
34
The transition to farming in Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery
Contemplating the dawn of the Aegean and the Balkan Neolithic, Milojčič and Theo-charts hypothesised an Early Neolithic relative chronological and cultural sequence of a "pre-ceramic", "monochrome" (Achilleion or EN I), "red-on white" painted pottery (Pro-tosesklo or EN II) and "ira-presso" pottery (Presesklo/ Magulitca EN III) (Milojčič 1959.1-5$ 1973*248-251; TTieocharis 1967; Breunig 1987.93-101; Mutter 1991333-340;
Fig. 5* Lepmski Vir I: Phase 2. A pots in houses 4, 28,36 and 54, marked with shaded house plans Rafter Radovanovič 1996: Garašanin & Radovanovič 2001.118-125J.
1994205,
215-221; Parzinger 1993)* Having correlated the Thessaiian, (Jatal Hoyuk and Hafilar sequences, they objectified a paradigmatic mirror chronological scheme equating the Aegean Early Neolithic towards "the short Neolithic" and Middle and Late Neolithic towards "the long Chalcolithic" periods in Asia Minor {Schachermeyr 1976174-176). However, although stressing the contemporaneity, similarity and primitiveness of the earliest Thessalian and (Jatal Hoyiik (East, levels XII-IX) monochrome pottery, Theocharis made the point that"... we do not believe that this primitive pottery was introduced from Asia Minor." {Jheocharis 1967 173).
It was hypothesising that the confinement of the region to be settled by Anatolian migrants first, the primary centre of neolithisation in Europe, correspond with the spatial distribution of settlements comprehending "pre-ceramic" and "monochrome" pottery layers in Thessaly. The common marker of the demic expansion, "a breakthrough of the elements of the Balkan-Anatolian complex of the Early Neolithic" towards the Danube and of the creation of secondary centres of neolithisation was determined by the distribution of pottery with white painted decoration. Moreover, in combination with im-presso and barbotine pottery it is being used as the determinative element in correlating the Presesklo/ Magulitca and initial phases of Karanovo and Starče-vo-Koros-^ris complexes. This made it possible to equate the initial phase of the Early Neolithic in the northern Balkans and Carpathian with its end in Thessaly and the formation of an agricultural frontier zone in the Danubian zone. In diffusionistic perspective the "indisputable typological similarities" of painted pottery distributed between Anatolia, Balkans and Carpathian is recognized as the constitutive "Anatolian" element of the Balkan-Anatolian complex, as well as an "ethnic" marker in the gene-
sis of a koine among the first farmers in the Balkans and Anatolia {Alilojčič 1952.313-318; 1956208-210; 19591-56; 1960J20-335; Natidris1970192-213;Benac, Garašanin, Srejovie'197927; Garašanin 197984-106; Garašanin, Radovanovič2001, 118-125; Nikolov 1987.8-19; 1990.63-69.AbbJ; 199882-83; luning (1988)1991.27-93 Todorova 198914-15; 199827-54; Todorova and Vqfsov 1993; Demotde andPerles 1995355-416; Parzinger 1993254-255; Gattis 199458; vanAndeland Runnels 1995.481-500: THngham 2000.23-29; Per-les 2001) (Fig. 1).
However, emphasis has been laid recently on the fact that the growing evidence of the pottery deposited in the so-called aceramic layers in Argissa, Sesklo, Soufli Magula, Gentiki and Achilleion in Thessaly, Franchthi and Dendra in the Argolid, and at Knossos in Crete strongly suggest that the Pre-pot-tery Neolithic in Greece did not exist {Bloedow 1991 1-43; Gallis 1994.58; 1996J2; Perles 1990 130-137; 2001.64-97).
Milojčič s successive phasing of Early Neolithic in Thessaly and the sequential diffusion of monochrome, painted and impresso pottery concerns, for the time being, has no chronological value although they maintain "a critical place because of its importance for dating" {Gal/is 199458; 1996120). It is not only that impresso pottery (Presesklo or Vorses-klo phase) occurred side by side with the red-on-white painted pottery in the Protosesklo phase {This-sen 2000a. 164), as recent research in Thessaly has shown, but the impresso decoration that "...was made with the finger nail (nail impressions) or by pinching clay between the finger and thumb, and by deeper nail impressions (barbotine), known from the early levels of the EN." (Gal/is 1996120). It follows, then, that a "monochrome" phase of underrated pottery m sensu stricto in Thessaly did not exist
35
Mihael Budja
and in consequence all the cross-cultural correlations based on the supposition of its appearance and distribution in Southeast Europe must be reconsidered.
However, the interpretation of the processes of neo-lithisation in the Eastern Balkans is still closely connected with the distributions of "monochrome" and/ or white painted pottery. Two alternative approaches have been proposed recently. The first is based on the premise that the sequence of Early Neolithic phases in the central and eastern Balkans (Karanovo I-III) corresponds with the succession of the colours that have been used in colouring the (tulip beaker) pottery: white, wine red, brow7n and polychrome. While white is the one and only colour that mailed the first phase, wine red and brown appeared in the second, and polychrome at the end of the third phase (Nikolov 1990,63). The similarity to the Thessalian sequence proposed by Milojčič and Scha-chermeyr is, of course, not coincidental, although Nikolov hypothesised direct communication between Karanovo and Basilar and that groups of Neolithic people migrated from the south (mainly from Anatolia) along the Struma and Mesta river valleys, settled in Upper Thrace in the Early Neolithic and gradually colonised northern Bulgaria later {Nikolov 1988.29-30; 1990.63-0; Štefanova 199615-19). The initial Early Neolithic phase Elešnica, identified in the Mesta valley was recently correlated with Hacilar IX-VI and Ilipinar X levels {Nikolov 1997.140).
Todorova and Vaysov posited the second (1993; 1998). They believe the initial neolithisation is reflected in the distribution of "monochrome" pottery in the Balkans that is identified as the "Balkan Monochrome Neolithic" and its appearance in Europe has to be embedded in the context of a Balkan-Anatolian cultural koine and closely connected with the "great migration" in mid seventh millemiium BC that began from south Central Anatolia, entering Europe via Thessaly and on an estuary of the Marica river. It is interesting to note that the colonisation of the southern and northern Balkans supposed to have happened almost simultaneously in the period between 6400 and 6100 cal BC (Fig. 2). Todorova objectifyies the Bal-
kan Monochrome Neolithic as a package of monochrome (undecorated) and impresso pottery, the stone tool assemblage consists of "microliths and typical trapezes", "poorly developed agriculture" indicated by the occurrence of lentils and einkorn and the domesticated sheep and goats that have been found in Poljanica, Orlovec, Koprivec and Obhodov {Todorova 198911-12; 199827-36). Several phases of its development were assumed to be similar to the development in Asia Minor. The latest is supposed to correlate with the appearance of white painted pottery in the Karanovo complex {Todorova 199835-36; Vajsov 1998108). According to the ^C series from Poljanica the site is dated to 6180-6120 cal BC at la (Nikolova 1998 128).
It is worth remembering that the correlations with the Impresso (cardium) complex in the Adriatic were hypothesised in two interpretative contexts. While the first, embedded in the concept of "east-west" distribution in Eurasia, Anatolia and Greece remains out of the main route, the "Syrian impresso technique" is supposed to have spread "from Asia
Fig. 6. Monochrome and impresso pottery in lepenski Vir (af-ter Srejovič 197LTafet 8j.
36
The transžtžon to farming in Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery
Minor to the Dinaric-Adriatic region first" from where it dispersed to the Balkans, the Danube region and at times to northern Greece {Schacher-meyr 197646). There are two alternative chronological interpretations of cross-cultural connections available. Milojač himself favoured the idea of asynchronous development in the Balkans region and therefore correlates the beginning of the Neolithic in the Adriatic with its end in Thessaly. Thus the genesis of the Adriatic Impres-so (cardium) complex wras parallel to the late Presesklo and Sesklo periods (Alilojčič 1973h. 6; Mutier 1991339; 1994,220-221). Batovic, however, hypothesised that the appearance of pottery in Dalmatia (impresso-cardium) and Thessaly (monochrome) was coeval, although it appeared in different regional cultural contexts {Batovič 1966, 122, 234-23%
3 CM
\
16
However, Batovič s basic idea has been recently actualised in the second interpretative context favouring the concept of "monochrome* pottery distribution first Its relative synchronous appearance, objectified in "horizon lb" {Parzinger 1993253-234), was postulated on the cross-regional axis from (Jatal Hoyuk in Central Anatolia across Thessaly (!) to Škarin Samograd in the Eastern Adriatic {jHuller 1988.233; 1991338; Patzinger 199353 254; Chapman 1994133-156). Having analysed the stratigra-phic sequences and corresponding pottery assemblages in the region, they found monochrome pottery in a cave site at Škarin Samograd deposited in the lowest layer superimposed with a later one that contains impresso-cardium pottery. Muller and Parzinger applied the typological sequence to the whole region, maintaining the concept of initial Neolithic that has to be correlated with the appearance of monochrome pottery. Not for long; a year later, Muller, when contemplating the Adriatic neolithisation process and the genesis of Impresso culture pointed out that in the micro region two incompatible sequences are available and that in fact, impresso-cardium pot-
7
5 CM
Fig 7. Vtushe (after Prendi 1990JPig.2).
tery is older than the monochrome, hi Škarin Samograd the monochrome pottery was indeed deposited in an older layer (5730-5530(5630) cal BC at la) than the impresso-cardium (5620-5490(5540) cal BC at la) but on the flat, stratified site at Pokrov-nik, located in close proximity, the later was recorded in all the lowest Early Neolithic phases I—III and, according to available 14C dates (5970-5760 (5840) cal BC at la) it is older (MMer 1994112-123 125, 182-185, 347).
Finally, Muller in modelling the Early Neolithic typological sequence in the Adriatic, contrary to Parzinger {1993), objectified the sequential phases in such a way that impressed ornaments (shaped by fingertip, fingernail and awls) determine the initial phases of Impresso A. SheU {Cardumm sp) impressions appeared later, determining phases Impresso A2, Bl-2 and C {Mtiller 1991J22-328; 1994149-156) (Figs. 3 and 4). Tims the neolithisation of the Eastern Ad-
37
Mihael Budja
riatic was consequently linked to:
m the secondary centre of neolithisation hypothesised for eastern Sicily and Southern Italy, $ the spread of the impressed pottery, domesticates and activates across the Adriatic Sea, and along the eastern coast towards the northern Adriatic, m the gradual colonisation of the Eastern Adriatic coast and its hinterland, supposedly based on an evaluation of the difference in the i4c the dates of the earliest Neolithic deposits in the region that matches the two isochronal lines of
Fig. 8. Monochrome Vajsov 1998.Map 1;
Neolithic expansion at a 500 year interval, as defined in tills part of Europe by Ammerman and CavaUi-Sforza,
> postulates that the distribution of impresso-car-dium pottery in Adriatic reflects the area of farming colonisation and, its most northern extension represents the boundary to a refuge of hunters which supposedly lay beyond {Mullet 1991* 311-358; 1994; Cfiapman and Midler 1990.127-134; Forenbaher 1999521-530; for comments seeBudja 1993188-189; 199d72~~Z9).
POTTERY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TRANSITION TO FARMING IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE: READING THE PALIMPSEST
It is time, we believe, to point out some facts concerning pottery appearance, its distribution and its technological as well symbolic meanings in the palimpsest of the transition to farming in Southeast Europe.
The pottery7 in so-called late Mesolithic contexts, although being broadly accepted, still maintains marginal interpretative value thus on the regional as well on the continental level. The demarcation between the "monochrome" and "impresso" pottery distributions that objectifies two, by definition distinct, "cultural and ethnic" complexes in the Balkans and the Adriatic is apparent. The boundary has been set in the region, indeed, but its later appearance correlates with the Early Neolithic painted pottery distributions.
impresso pottery dispersal Rafter Mullet 1988.Abb. 1; Todorova 1998.27-36>
Furthermore, Tliessalian pottery is considered either a local invention {Thissen 2000aJ05; 2000h.l4S-149), or a result of the indirect diffusion of constitutive Neolithic items such as painting, mud-brick houses and agriculture from Anatolia {Schubert 1999. 201), However, it is the fact as stated by Thissen, that according to "... our calibrations the first pottery Neolithic sites in Thessaly date to approximately 6200 cal BC". These sites wrere settled two centimes earlier than the first occupation at Ilipinar and Fikirtepe in western Anatolia and the Marmara region and of Hoca (Je§me in the Marica River delta in southeast Thrace. Moreover, interpreting the results of the analysis of pottery assemblages from western Anatolia and the southern Balkans, he pointed out that the similarities in pottery are too general to "attest for an Anatolian origin of the Thessalian ceramics" and that Thessalian pottery production was developed on the spot and "not as part of the baggage of the immigrants" {Tfiissen 2000a, 133 194-195; 2000b. 148-149). An "early monochrome" horizon embedded in the context of "the earliest known settlement of agriculturalist and pastoralisf was recently identified at Asphaka in Epirus, and dated to 7380 ± 240 BP {Douzougli 199&4& 117).
The situation in the Peloponnese is different as it was contemplated recently. There "we have at least two different pottery traditions: a Thessalian one and a Southern Greek one, neither related in time nor in origin." Tliese different traditions reflect supposedly different patterns of neolithisation of both regions {Thissen 2000aJ93; 2000b. 144-146).
38
The transition to farming in Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery
We have already pointed out that the most northerly and the most westerly distribution points of monochrome-impresso pottery in southeast Europe have been fixed in hunter-gatherer contexts {Budja 1996.73-74; 1999.134-13$* The first is embedded in the Lepenski Vir culture in the Danube Gorges region. Unfortunately, most of the pottery assemblages are still scantily published and being discussed from the very beginning as matters of taphonomic filter and stratigraphic problems of vertical displacement and post-depositional disturbance. The presence of in situ pottery wras recently directly confirmed inside Lepenski Vir: 4, 28, 36, 54 and Padina: 2? 3, 5,6,7,12,17 trapezoidal houses {Boric1999 49-53; Garašanin & Radovanovič 200 1.11 8-125) (Figs. 5 and 6). They have been recognized as Lepenski Vir Ib~e or 1/2-3 (e. g. IGM W-Y) Mesolithic phases (Srejovič 19&.39; 1973252-253;Radovanovič 1996.287-290)*
Monochrome-impresso pottery appeared in the package together with geometric microliths and a new Montbani blades technique and, it was stratigraphi-caly separated from the white painted pottery that
was recognised as the marker of the       Atmosphcncdatatroaj Siuivorcta5 (1998) CKf al\ * * Bionk Rainscv f2000)
Neolithic Starčevo and Gura Baciului cultures (i.e. the Balkan-Anatolian complex of the Early Neolithic) {Radovanovič 1996.287; Garašanin & Radovanovič 2001121).
It was confirmed recently that the pottery appeared hi the context of "an intermediate phase" from a xMe-solithie-type dietary regime, based largely on aquatic resources and then to one based largely on terrestrial resources that "probably included a major agricultural component" {Bon-sail eta/. 2000119-132). While the transitional phase was dated in the period 6156-5720 cal BC (at 2a), the dating of house 36 (6390-6020 cal BC at 2a) and 54 (6170-6130 cal BC at 2a) in Lepenski Vir seem to predate the process. However, Bon-sall et al. {2000129) have pointed out, the charcoal samples were from long-lived tree species (oak and elm) and, such samples can yield l4C ages that are several hundred years older than the archaeological events they purport to date (the "old wood" effect).
Lepenski Vir pottery appearance chronologically corresponds well with pottery in Achilleion (6240-6160 cal BC at 2a), Nea Nikomedeia (6140-6080 cal BC at 2a) and Poljanica (6220- 6040 cal BC at 2a) as discussed above {Bonsalletal 2000.128; Iftes-sien 2000hJ47~148, Fig. 6, 8; Nikolova 1998128).
The most westerly distribution point of monochrome-impresso pottery is fixed for now in Edera (Ste-našca) Cave in Trieste Karst. The context where the pottery was deposited is described as a wrell-defined fireplace in layer 3a. The monochrome (unornamen-ted) pottery was associated with a flint assemblage, "composed of 538 artefacts (shatter included), 61 microburins, 1 core fragment, 1 denticulated blade-let 1 short endscraper, 2 truncations and 2 trapezes" {Biagi, Starnini, Vqytek 199548). Faunal remains, besides a great amount of marine shellfish remains, were ascribed to 14 individual mammals; half of them belong to a group of domestics: capri-nes (40.7%), cattle (4.4%) and domestic pig-wild boar (5.9%) {Boschin andRieM2000.74, 83). The assemblage is determined as a Mesolithic, Late Ca~ stelnovian hunter-gatherer complex and dated to
vui> t I «i 12 piob usp(vhronj

Order Ionian
Sidari
Sum Adriatic oldest
-  ()rder Adriali c oldest Vela Spilja Gudnja Edera
Sum Adriatic oldest
Sum Balkans Order Balkans Asphaka
RJJombine Seskh PPN&EN RjCombinc Hoca Cesme R_i "omhine Poljanica 1 RjCombine Ahileon lalh R Combine Nea Nikomedea RjContbine Lepenski vir
Sum Balkans
i       J.       i.„J_i„„„A„„L       i        I       _-..
9000BC        8000BC        7000BC        6000BC        5000BC Calendar date
Fig* % OxCal radiocarbon sequence of "incipient Neolithic" on Balkans, Ionian and Eastern Adriatic.
39
Mžhael Btidja
6700 ± 130 BP (charcoal sample) {Biagi arid Spata-ro 2001.3%
There are two more sites we can take into consideration: Sidari on Corfu, and Vlushe in Albania. In the later (Vidhez and Armenine locations) the monochrome pottery has been connected to Mesolithic traditions in the production of geometric microliths {Prendi1990.401 Korkuti 1995.29-32) (Fig. 7). At Sidari on Corfu, on the Ionian coast a first Neolithic phase (level C -base) with evidence of impresso pottery, atypical microliths, as wrell as sheep and goat and an Early Neolithic stratum (level C - top) contain impresso-cardium pottery were separated by a sterile layer. The lower context is dated to 7670 ± 120 BP and the upper to 7340 ± 180 BP {Sordinas 1967.64; 1969407; Breunig 198791; Perles 2001. 4%
We mentioned above Mutter's evolutionistic interpretation of Early Neolithic sequence on the eastern Adriatic coast based on the corresponding analyses of pottery assemblages and available stratigraphic (vertical and horizontal) sequences of cave and flat sites in the regions, He objectified the sequence in a way that impressed, nipped and stamped ornaments, shaped by fingertip, fingernail and awis, determine the initial phases Impresso Al. Shelkardium impressed ornaments constitute the successive phases A2, Bl-2 and C (Fig. 3 and 4). Interestingly, in Hercegovina, one of the Dinaric regions, the initial ornamental principle evidently maintains a longueduree, as cardium impressed ornaments have never appeared although regularly dispersed some 30 km distance into the Adriatic hinterland. The Al-2 phases are chronologically embedded in the period 6050-5850 cal BC at la {Midler 1991311-338; 1994145' 162, 182-185).
The earliest impresso pottery assemblages appeared in cave sites at Gudnja on Pelješac peninsula and Vela špilja on Korčula island. Having discussed the relevance of the dates in the context of the gradual colonisation of the Eastern Adriatic coast, we mentioned the unreliable stratigraphic correlations between the charcoal
samples and artefact depositions {Bud/a 1996.72-73)> However, the excavator of the Vela špilja deposit confirms recently the hypothesised correlation of i4c dates (7300 ± 120 BP) and pottery assemblage, ornamented "exclusively by fingertip and awls impressions" {Čečuk, Radič200188,102,108). The available dates of Impresso Al potteiy assemblage in Gudnja cave are 7170 ± 70 BP and 6935 ± 50 BP (Muller 1994J48).
IN PLACE OF CONCLUDING REMARKS
It is shown in Figures 8 and 9 that monochrome-im-presso pottery appeared in a wide area, but in a narrow time span in the Balkans, Ionian and Adriatic. In many cases it was closely connected with hunter-gatherers' stone tool sets, There is no direct evidence of potteiy production available, but we have to take into account the presence of some unbaked clay masses, as well as some associated monochrome, primitive and slightly baked pottery- that has been documented in late Mesolithic context in Theopetra Cave {Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000.136). We pointed out the well-grounded hypothesis "...that "Thessalian ceramic procedures were developed on the spot and not as part of the baggage of immigrants." {Tfiissen 2000bk 148; hut see also IMssen 1999.29-40 and 2000a). The pattern of monochrome-impresso potteiy distribution, indeed, contradicts the concepts of secondary centres of neolithisation and of the fertile core area in Thessaly, where an integrated Neolithic
Fig. 10. Impresstihmrdium and "redpainted"pottery distributions fafter MMtr 1994.AM>. 81, and 92; Marjanovi 2000.77, 8L 7>
40
The transition to farming in Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery
package is supposed to have arrived first and exclusively (van Ande/ el al 1995. 131-144; van Andel and Runnels 1995.481-500). We mentioned as well that the Balkans Neolithic wheat harvesting pattern differs from that of the Levant While emmer and barley wheat prevailed there, einkorn was more frequent in the Balkans. Therefore the presence of wild einkorn wheat (Triticum hoeoHcum) in a Mesolithic context in The-opetra Cave does not seem random because it is near its present-day habitats in Gre-vena region.
It was hypothesised that mo-nochrome-impresso pottery in hunter-gatherer contexts at the ends of its dispersal objectify a centralised, either gradual cultural diffusion towards the marginal ends of the Early Neolithic koine or sequential demic diffusion and colonisation. I believe, on the contrary, that it marks a dispersed and selective course toward a fanning adaptation in the Balkans, Ionian and Adriatic. While being aware of taphonomic filters operating in the contexts of unsystematic research procedures, inconsistent interpretative postulates and weak 14C databases, it seems indeed the process in the Adriatic differs from that in Ionia and the Balkans. In the Corfu, Epirus, Thessaly, Thrace and Danube regions the process of transition to farming was, according to available data, simultaneous and correlative. In the Adriatic the process seems to be unequal (Fig. 9). The distinction between the two areas became obvious when impresso cardium and painted pottery were adopted. The spatial dispersals of two ornamental techniques do not overlap (Fig. 10). Therefore, we may hypothesise the internal "border" formed not between hunter-gatherers and farmers, but incipient farmers in the eastern Adriatic and those in Ionia and Balkans, It seemed to be hmnediately after the period of incipient regional farming adaptations.
Parallel with painted pottery, a discrete set of items: anthropomorphic figurines, stamp seals, tokens and stylised amulets (the so-called labrets/lobates and earplugs) haw been attested in the Balkans Early
Neolithic. It was embedded in a trans Aegean net-
Fig. 11. The distributions of Early Neolithic "stamp seals" (%) and tokens (A) (after Budja 199&219-235>
work, initially based on Melian obsidian transmits, exchange networks and long-distance connections and, Near Eastern origins, most of which have been broadly accepted (Nandris1970.192-21 J; Makkay 1974131-154; 1984; Renfrew 1987341-374; Midler 1991337-338; 1994218-219; 2000.151-159; Perles 1992115-164; 200154-58, 78-79 287-288, 296-297; Onassoglou 1996163-164; Vajsov 1998108; Budja 1998.219-235)* Some of them have been interpreted recently as tokens - counters used for calculating quantities of goods in systems of exchange (Budja 1998.219-235) and messengers between villages, particularly in times of crisis, or even as markers of inter-village marital connections (Tatolay 199345-46).
However, almost none of the items have crossed the border on the eastern Adriatic coast. There was a stogie exception, a token found in the context of the Inipresso-cardium culture in Vrbica site (Budja 1998. 220-222) (Fig. 11). We can speculate therefore that region after adopting incipient fanning did not enter a network of reliable integrative mechanisms maintained through regional exchanges. We may also presuppose society was self-contained and static externally and, as Perles argues, in such a society there are social barriers to engaging and maintaining the circulation of goods and/or people over long distances (Perles 1992121).
It is not our intention to discuss the conceptualisation of "availability" and "substitution" phases of ag-
41
Mihael Budja
ricultural transition as well the principles of forager-farmer interactions and mobility within frontier zones {see Zvelebil in this volume) but, to point out that as such, external frontiers do not, we believe, correlate either with "wave of advance" or gradual "demic expansion". The internal boundaries that appeared after the initial adoption of domesticates or substitution wild resources with domesticates we believe related to intensity of processes of social and ideological restructuring of forager and the hunter-
gatherer communities. They reflect an isolationism that may be seen as a strong dominance of social and ideological continuity. The incoming near eastern lineages and the difference of the values for the Balkans (-20%) and Mediterranean coastal area, including the Adriatic (-10%) which we discussed above can not be linked to incipient fanning, but to a network of the circulation of goods and people over long distances that was consequentially set up later,
REFERENCES
ALLABY R. 2000. Wheat Domestication. In G. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds.), Archaeogenetics: DNA atid the Population Prehistory of Europe: 321-324.
AMMERMAN A. J. and CAmLI-SFORZA L. L 1984 The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe Princeton University Press. Princeton.
BATOVIČ Š. 1966. Stariji neolil u Dalmacifi. Dis-sertationes II. Zadar,
BENAC A, GARAŠANIN M., SREJOVIČ D. 1979. Uvod. Praislotifajugoslovanskih zentalfa II. Neolttsko doba: 11 -31. Sarajevo,
BERNABEU AUBAN J. 1997. Indigenism and Migra-tionism.The Neolithisation of the Iberian Peninsula. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika two/itika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXIV: 1-18.
BIAGI P., STARNIN1 R, VOYTEK B. 1993. The late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Settlement of Northern Italy: Recent Consideration. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolila in eneolita v Sloveniji XXI: 45-58.
BIAGI P. and SPATARO M. 2001. Plotting the evidence: some aspects of the radiocarbon chronology of the Mesoliihic-Neolitfaic transition in the Mediterranean basin. Alii delta Societdper la Preisloria della Regione Friuli Venezia-Giulia XII: 15-54.
BLOEDOW F, E. 1991. The "Aceramic" Neolithic Phase in Greece Reconsidered. Mediterranean Archaeology 4:1-45
BONSALL C. et al. 2000. Stable Isotopes, Radiocarbon and the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in the Iron Gates. In M. Budja (ed.), Documents Praehis-ioticaXXm 119-132
BORIC D. 1999. Places that created time in the Danube Gorges and beyond, a 9000-5500 BC. In M. Budja (ed.), Bocumenta Praehislorica XXVI: 41-70.
BOSCHIN F. and RIEDEL A. 2000. The Late Mesolithic and Neolithic of the Edera Cave (Aurisiana, Trieste Karst): a preliminary report. Atti della Societa per la Preistoria della Regione Friuli Venezia-Giulia. Qua-demo 8: 73-90.
BREUNIG B. 1987. C14 - chronologic des vorderasi-atischen, sudost-und mitteleuropaischen Neolithi-kums. Fundamenta. Monographien zur Urgestichte A13.
BROWN A. T. 1999. How ancient DNA may help in understanding the origin and spread of agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. SriesB, Volume 354. Number 1379:89-98
BUDJA M. 1993. The Neolithisation of Europe. Slovenian aspect Poročilo o raziskovanjupaleolita, neolila in eneolita v Sloveniji XXI: 163-193-
1996. Neolithisation in the Caput Adriae region: between Herodotus and Cavalli-Sforza. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXIII: 61-76.
42
The transition to farming in Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery
1998. Clay tokens - accounting before writing in Eurasia. In M. Budja (ed.), DocumentaPraehMo-rica 25:127-13&
1999« The transition to farming in Mediterranean Europe - an indigenous respond. In M. Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica XXIV: 119-142.
CAVAIU-SF0R2A L L and CAVALLI-SFORZA F. 1995. The Great Human Diasporas. Jhe History of Diversity ami Evolution. Addisson - Wesley Publishing Company. Reading.
CAVALLI-SFORZA L L 1996. The spread of agriculture and nomadic pastoralism: insights from genetics, linguistics and archaeology. In D. R. Harrris (ed.), The Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: 51-69.
CAVALLI-SFORZA L L, MENOZZI P., PIAZZA A. 1993. Demic Expansion and Human Evolution. Science 259:639-646
CAVAI1I-SF0RZA L L and MINCH E. 1997. Palaeolithic and Neolithic Lineages in the European Mitochondrial Gene Pool. Americani Journal of * Human Genetics 61:247-251
CHAPMAN J. C. 1989. Demographic Trends in Neo-thermal South-East Europe. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolitliic in Europe. Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium: 500-515,
1994. The Origins of Farming in South East Europe. Prehistoire Europe 6:133-155»
CHAPMAN J. & MULLER J. 1990. Early farmers in Dal-matia. Antiquity 64/242:127-134.
CLARK J. G. D. 1965. Radiocarbon dating and the expansion of farming from the Near East over Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 21: 58-73
CAIMN J. 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture Cambridge University Press. Cambridge,
ČEČUK B., RADIČ D. 2001. Vela špilja - preliminarni rezultati dosadašnjih istraživanja. Arheološka istraživanja na području otoka Korčule i Lastova. Hrvatsko arheološko društvo. Znastveni skup. Vela LukaiKorčula, 18.-20. travnfa 1991: 75-118.
DEMOULE J. P. and PERLES C.1993. The Greek Neolithic: A New Review, foama/'of "Workf Prehistory
7/4:355-416
DOUZOUGLI A. 1996a. Epirus - The Ionian Islands. In G. A. Papathanassopoulos (ed.)? Neolithic Culture in Greece: 46-48, 117-119.
ERNY-RODMAN C, GROSS-KLEE E., HASS J. N. JACO-MET S. & ZOLLER E 1997. Fruher "human impact" und Ackerbau im Ubergangsbereich Spatmesolithi-kum-Friihneolitliikum im Schweizerischen Mittel-land. fahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesetlschqft fur Ur-und Eruhgetvchichte 80:27-56.
FORENBAHER S. 1999. The earliest Islanders of the Eastern Adriatic. Collegium Anthropologicum 23: 521-530
GALLIS J. K. 1994. Results of recent Excavations and topographical work in Neolithic Thessaly. la 7hes~ salie. Volume A: 57-60.
1996. The Neolithic World. In G. A. Papathanassopoulos (ed.), Neolithic culture in Greece: 23-37.
GARAŠANIN M. 1979. Centralnobalkanska zona. Pra-istorifajugoslovenskihzemaljalL Neolitsko doba; 79-212. Sarajevo.
GARAŠANIN M. & RADOVANOVIČ I. 2001. A pot in house 54 at Lepenski Vir I. Antiquity 75/287:118-125
HALSTEAD P. 1996. The development of agriculture and pastoralism in Greece: when, how, who and what. In D. R. Harrris (ed.), The Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: 296-309.
HARRIS D. R. 1989. An evolutionary continuum of people-plant interaction. In D. R. Harris, G. C Hil Iman (eds.), Foraging and Parming. One World Archaeology 13:11-26,
1996a. Introduction: themes and concepts in the study of early agriculture. In D. R. Harrris (ed.), Ifte Spread of Agriculture am* Pastoralism in Eurasia: 1-9,
1996b. The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia: an overview. In D. R. Harris (ed.), Ttie Spread ofAgrietdture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: 552-574.
43
Mihael Budja
HAWKES K. and 0'CONNEL J. 1992. On Optimal Foraging Models and Subsistence Transitions. Current Anthropology 33/1 63-65*
HEUN' M., SCHAFER-PREGL RM KLAWAN D., CASTAG-NA R., ACCERBIM., BORGHIB. and SALAMINI1997. Site of Einkorn Wheat Domestication Identified by DNA Fingerpinting. Science 278:1312-1311
HEUN M., BORGHI B. and SALAMINI F. 1998, Einkorn wheat domestication site mapped by DNA fingerprinting. In M. Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehis-torica XXV: 65-69.
JACKES M., LUBELL D. and MEIKLEJOHN C. 1997. Healthy but Mortal: Human Biology and the First Farmers of Western Europe. Antiquity 71/273:639-658,
KORKUTl M. 1995. Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in Albanien. V Heidelberger Akademie der Wissen-schaften. Monographien B. IV. Mainz am Rhein.
KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA N. 2000. The Mesolithic/ Neolithic Transition in Greece as Evidenced by The Data at Theopetra Cave in Thessaly. In M. Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica 2000:133-140,
LAMBECK K, 1996. Sea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece Since Upper Palaeolithic Time. Antiquity 70/269:588-611
LAYTON R., FOLEY R. and WILLIAMS E. 1991. The Transition between Hunting and Gathering and the Specialized Husbandly of Resources. Current Anthropology32/3:255-274,
LUNING J. (1988)1991. Friihe Bauern in Mitteleuro-pa im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr./ahrbuch des Romisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 35/1: 27-95
MAKKAY J. 1974. "Das fruhe Neolithikum auf der Otzaki Magula" und die Koros-Starčevo Kultur. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungati-caeXXW:131-154,
1984. Early Stamp Seals in South-East Europe, Budapest.
MARJANOVIČ B. 2000. Priloži za prapotyest u za-ledu Jadranske obale. Monografije. Svezak 2. Filozofski fakultet Zadar.
MEIKLEJOHN C, WYMAN J. J., JACOBS K. and JACKES M. K. 1997. Issues in the Archaeological Demography of the Agricultural Transition in Western and Northern Europe: A View from the Mesolithic In R. R. Paine (ed.), Integrating Archaeological Demography: Multidisciplinaty Approaches to Prehistoric Population: 311-326. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No, 24, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
MENOZZI P., PL\ZZA A., CAVALLI-SFORZz\ L L 1978. Synthetic maps of human gene frequencies in Europeans. Science 201: 786-792,
MILOJČIČ V. 1952. Die fruhesten Ackerbauer in Mit-teleuropa. Germania 30. 3/4:313-318,
1956. Die erste praekeramische baeuerliche Sied-lung der Jungstenzeit in Europa. Germania 34.
3/4:208-210,
1959- Ergebnise der Deustschen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien (1953-1958) Jahrbuch'des Romisch-Germanische Zentralmuseums Mainz 6:1-56.
I960. Praekeramisches Neolithikum auf der Bal-kanhalbinsel. Germania 38, 3/4:320-335.
1973a. Zur Frage eines prakeramischen neolithi-kums in Mitteleuropa. Actes du VHP congres in-terttalional des sciences prelmtotiques etproto-hisatoriques Tome 2:248-251
1973b. Die C14 Methode im Lichte der Kompara-tiv-stratigraphischen Befunde. Actes du VHP congres international des sciencesprehistotiques et protohisatoriques Pome 2:6-11,
MULLER J. 1988. Škarin Samograd - eine fruhneoli-thische Station mit monochromer Ware und Im-presso-Keramik an der Ostadria. Archdologisches Korrespondenzblall 18:219-235
1991. Die ostadriatische Impresso-Kultur: Zeitliche GUederung und kulturelle Einbindung. Germania 69/2:311-358,
1994. Das ostadriatische Fruhneolithikum. Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adria-raumes. Prdhistorische Archdologie in Sudosteu-ropa9:63-69,
2000. "Earplugs", ceramics and sheep: examples of communicatiopn and boundaries in the Ad-
44
The transition to farming in Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery
riatic Early Neolithic. Atti detla Societa per la Preistoria della Regione Friuli Venezia-Giulia. Quaderno 8:151-159.
NANDRIS J. 1970. The development and relationships of the earlier Greek Neolithic. Man N S 5: 192-213.
NIKOLOV V. 1987. Beitrage zu den Beziehungen ?M-schen Vorder Asien imd Sudosteuropa aufgrund der fruhneolitischen bemal ten Keramik aus dem Zen-tralbalkan. Acta Prahistorica et Archaeologica 19: 8-19
1990. Das Flusstal der Struma an der fruhneolithi-schechen Strasse von Anatolien nach Mitteleuro-pa. In Die ersten Bauem, Band 2. Zurich.
1997. Periodiserung un Chronologie der siidwest-lichen Variante der Kultur Karanovo I. In Uzdar-je Dragoslavu Srejovicu Beograd: 139-145*
1998. The Circumpontic cultural zone during the 6th millenium BC. In M. Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica XXV: 81-90.
NIKOLOVA L 1998. Neolithic sequence: the upper Stryama valley in western Thrace, (with appendix: radiocarbon dating of the Balkan Neolithic). In M. Budja (ed.), Document® Praehistorica XXV, 99-132.
ONASSOGLOU A, 1996. Seals. In G. A. Papthanasso-poulos (ed.), Neolithic culture in Greece: 163-164.
OKAY A. L, DEMIRBAG E., KURT H., OKAY N. and KU-SCU L 1999« An active, deep marine strike-slip basin along the North Anatolian fault in Turkey. Tectonics 18/1:1 16-134.
PARZINGER EL 1993. Studien zur Chronologie und Kuturgeschichtederfungstein-f Kupfer- undFruh-bronzezeit zvischen Karpalen undMittlerern Taurus. Romisch-Germanische Forschungen 52. Frankfurt a. M.
PERLES G. I99O. Les industries lithiques taiilees de Franchthi (Argolide, Grece). Vol II. Les industries du Mesolilhique et Du Neolilhique. In T. W. Jacob-sen (ed.) Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, fasc J.
1992. System of Exchange and Organisation of Production in Neolithic Greece.foumal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5/2: 115-164.
2001. Pie early Neolithic in Greece. The first farming communities in Europe Cambridge World Archaeology. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
PINHASI R., FOLEY R. A., LAHR ML M. 2000. Spatial and Temporal Patterns in the Mesolithic Neolithic Archaeological Record of Europe. In C. Renfrew and K, Boyle (ed$.),Archaeogenetics:DNA and the Population prehistory of Europe: 45-56.
PRENDI F. 1990. Le Neolithique ancien en Albanie. Germania 68/2:400-425.
PRICE T. D., JOHNSON C. ML, EZZO E. A., ERICSON E. & BURTON J. H. 1994. Residential mobility in the Prehistoric Southwest United States: A preliminary study using strontium isotope analysis, fournal of Archaeological Science 21 315-330*
PRICE T. D.? BENTLEY A. R., LUNING J., GRONEN-BORN D. & WAHL J. 2001. Prehistoric human migration in the linearbandkeramik of Central Europe. Antiquity 75/289:593-605
RADOVANOVIČ L 1996. The Iron Gales Mesolithic Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 11.
RADOVANOVIČ L & VOYTEK B. 1997. Hunters, fishers or farmers: sedentism, subsistence and social complexity in the Djerdap Mesolithic. AnatectaPraehistorica leidensia 29:19-32.
RENFREW C. 1987. Old Europe or Ancient East? The Clay Cylinders of Sitagroi. In Proto-Indo-European, the Archaeology of a Linguistic Problem. Studies of Maria Gimbutas: 341-374.
2000. Towards a Population Prehistory7 of Europe, In C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds.), Archaeo-genetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe: 3-12.
RICHARDS M. et al. 1996. Paleolithic and Neolithic Linages in the European Mitochondrial Gene Pool. American fournalof* Human GenMics59:185-198.
RICHARDS M. et al. 2000. Tracing European Founder lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA Pool American fournal of Human Genetics 67:1251-1276
RICHARDS ML, MACAULAY V. 2000. Genetic Data and the Colonization of Europe: Genealogies and Foun-
45
Mihael Budja
ders. In C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds.), Archaeoge-nettcs: DNA and the Population prehistory of Europe: 139- 15L
ROKSANDIČ M. 2000. Between Foragers and Farmers in the Iron Gates Gorge: Physical Anthropology Perspective Djerdap Population in Transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic. In M. Budja (ed.), ^ocumen-ta Praehistorca XXVII: 1-100.
RYAN W. B. F. et al. 1997. An abrupt drowning of the Black Sea shelf. Marine Geology 138:119-126.
SCHACHERMEYER F. 1976. Die Aguische Fruhzeit I Die Vormykenischen Periode. Des griechichenfesi-landes und der Kykladen. Osterreichiche Akademia der Wissenschaftea Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 303. Band. Wien.
SOKAL R. R., ODEN L N, WILSON C. 1991. Genetic evidence for the spread of agriculture in Europe by demic diffusion. Nature 351:1 43-1 45>
SORDINAS A. 1967. Radiocarbon dates from Corfu, Greece. Antiquity 41:64.
1969. Investigations of the prehistory of Corfu during 1964-1966. Balkan Studies 10/2:393-424
SREJOYIC D, 1969. iMpenski Vir. Novapraistorifska kultura u Poduvalju. Beograd.
1971. Die Lepenski Vir - Kultur und der Beginn der Jungsteinzeit an der mittleren Donau. In H. Schwabedissen (ed.), Die Anfange des Neolithf Awns mm Orient bis NordEuropa. Teilll Ostlf ches Mitleleuropa. Fundamenta. ReiheA. Band 3: 1-39
1973. Die Anfange des Neolithikums im Bereiche des mittleren Donauraumes. Actesdu VHP con-gres international ties sciencesprehistoriqms et protohisatoriques. Tome 2:252-263*
ŠTEFANOVA T. 1996. A comparative Analysis of Pottery from the "Monochrome Early Neolithic Horizon" and "Karanovo I Horizon" and the Problems of the Neolithization of Bulgaria. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXIII: 15-19
SYKES B. 2000. Human Diversity in Europe and Beyond: From Blood Groups to Genes. In C. Renfrew
and K. Boyle (eds.), Archaeogmetics: DNA and the Populationprehistor}! of Europe: 13-22»
SYKES B. & RENFREW C. 2000. Concepts in Molecular Genetics. In C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds.), Ar-chaeogenetics: DNA and the Population prehistoty of Europe: 13-22.
TALALAY E. T. 1993. Deities, Doll% and Devices. In T. W. Jacobsen (ed.), Excavation alFranchlhi Cave, Greece. Ease 9
THEOCHARIS R. D. 1973. Neolithic Greece National Bank of Greece. Athens.
1967.1 Algi tis Thessalikis Proislorias. Volos.
THISSEN L. 1999. Trajectories Towards the Neolithi-sation of NW Turkey. In M. Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica XXVI29-39
2000a. Early Village Communities in Anatolia and die Balkans: Studies in Chronology ami Culture Contact Unpublished PhD. dissertation. Leiden.
2000b. Thessaly, Franchthi and Western Turkey: Clues to the Neolithisation of Greece? In M. Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica XXVII: 141-154
T0D0R0VA H. 1989. Das Fruhneolithikum Nordbul-gariens im kontakte des ostbalkanischen Neolithikums. Tell Karanovo uml das Balkan-Neolithikum: 9-26
1998. der balkano-anatolische Kulturbereich vom Neolithikum bis zr Fruhbronzezeit. In M. Stefano-vich, H. Todorova, H. Hauptmann (ds.); In 27ie Steps of fames Harvey Gaul Vol. 1:27-54.
TODOROVA H., VAJSOV I. 1993. Novikamennala epoha v Bulgaria (kraja na sedmo-shesto hiljado-letiepr. n, e.J. Sofia.
TRINHGAM R. 1968. A preluninary study of the early Neolithic and latest Mesolithic blade industries in southeast and central Europe. In J. M. Coles, D. D. A. Simpson (eds.), Studies in Ancient Europe.
2000. Southeastern Europe in the transition to agriculture in Europe: bridge, buffer, or mosaic. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe's First Farmers: 19-56
46
The transition to farming in Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery
VAJSOV V. 1998. The Typology of the Anthropomorphic Figurines From Norteastern Bulgaria. In M. Stefanovich, H. Todorova, R Hauptmann (eds.), In The Steps of James Harvey Gaul Vol 1:107-141
van ANDEL T. ft, GALUS C. and TOUFEXIS G. 1995. Early NeoUthic Farming in a Thessalian River Landscape, Greece. In J. Lewin, M. G. Macklin and J. C. Woodward (eds.), Mediterranean Quaternary RiverEnvironments: 131-143.
van ANDEL ft T., RUNNELS N. C. 1995. The earliest farmers in Europe. Antiquity 0/264:481-500.
VOYTEK B. A. and TRINGHAM R, 1990. Rethinking the Mesolithic: the Case of South-East Europe. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolilhic in Europe, Papers Presented at the Thimi International! Symposium Edinburgh 1983:492-499
WEINBERG S. 1965. The relative chronology of the Aegean in the stone and early bronze ages. In R. Ehiich (ed.), Chronologies in 014 Workl archaeolo-gy: 20-320
WILLIS K. J. and BENNETT K. D. 1994. The Neolithic transition - fact or fiction? Palaeoecological evidence from the Balkans. WieHolocene 4:326-330.
WILLIS K. 1995. The Pollen-Sedimentological Evidence for the Beginning of Agriculture in South-
eastern Europe and Anatolia. Poročilo o raziskovanjupaleolita, molita in eneolita v Sloveniji XXII:
9-24
ZAMANIS A., SAMARAS S., STAVROPOULOS N. and DILLE J. 1988. Report of an Expedition to Rescue Germplasm of Wild Species of Wheat and Relatives in Greece. Greek Gene Bank Scientific Bulletin. North Greece Agricultural Research Centre.
ZILHAO J. 1993. The Spread of Agro-Pastoral Economies across Mediterranean Europe: A View from the Far West. Journalroj"Mediterranean Archaeology6/1:3-63
1997. Maritime pioneer colonisation in the early Neolithic of the west Mediterranean. Testing the model against the evidence. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji; XXXIV: 19-42
ZOHARY D. and HOPF M. 2000. Domestication of Plants in the Old World. Third Edition. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
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: 37-79.
47