Oddelek za Arheologijo
Documenta Praehistorica
XXV
Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV

Neolitske študijE/Neolithic StudieS
PfrfOOVt
Uredil/Edited by Mihael Budja
UDK 05:903(4+5)"631/636" 06l.3:903(4+5)"631/636"(082) ISBN 86-7207-060-7 ISSN 1318-6708
Ljubljana 1998
DOCUMENTA PRAEH1STORICA XXV (POROČILO O RAZISKOVANJU PALEOLITIKA, NEOLITIKA IN ENEOLITIKA V SLOVENIJI XXV)
NEOLITHIC STUDIES/ NEOLITSKE ŠTUDIJE
Edited by/Uredil Mihael BUDJA miha.budja@uni-lj.si
© 1998 ODDELEK ZA ARHEOLOGIJO, Filozofska fakulteta - Univerza v Ljubljani SI - 1000 Ljubljana, PB. 580 tel.: 386 61 123 30 82
English advisor
Jezikovni pregled angleškega besedila Philip James BURT
Published by/ZaIožila FILOZOFSKA FAKULTETA ODDELEK ZA ARHEOLOGIJO
Technical editor and DTP Tehnično urejanje in DTP CAMBIO d.o.o., LJUBLJANA
Printed by/Tisk Tiskarna NOVO MESTO
Number printed/Naklada 700 izvodov
Natisnjeno s podporo Ministrstva za znanost in tehnologijo ter Ministrstva za kulturo Republike Slovenije.
Na podlagi mnenja Ministrstva za kulturo z dne 22. 12. 1998 številka 415-104/98 sodi XXV. zvezek revije Poročilo o raziskovanjupaleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji med proizvode iz 13. točke tarifne številke 3. Tarife davka od prometa proizvodov in storitev, po kateri se plačuje davek od prometa proizvodov po stopnji 5%.
Vsebina - Contents
Mihael Budja IV Uvodnik/lntroduction
Yamei Hou
1 New observations on Paleolithic in China reflected by three sites
Xingcan Chen 17 Searching for the Early Neolithic in China
Zliao Chaohong
27 New achievements in the study on the transitional period from the Palaeolithic to the Neolithic in China
Claude Bjork
37 A comparative outline of the Early Neolithic cultures in China and in the Near East
Jak Yakar
53 The socio-economic structure of Prehistoric communities in the Southern Levant, ca. 13 000-8000 BP
Man/red Heun, Basilio Borghi and Francesco Salamini 65 Einkorn vvheat domestication site mapped by ONA fingerprinting
lan Hodder
71 Qatalhoyiik, Turkey: a summary of some recent results
Vassil Nikolov
81 The Circumpontic cultural zone during the 6,h millennium BC
Tatiana Štefanova
91 On the problem of the Anatolian-Balkan relations during the Early Neolithic in Thrace
Lolita Nikolova
99 Neolithic sequence: the upper Stryama valley in western Thrace, (with appendix: radiocarbon dating of the Balkan Neolithic)
Alasdair Whittle
133 Fish, faces and fingers: presences and symbolic identities in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Carpathian basin
Ndndor Kalicz, Zsuzsanna M. Virag, Katalin T. Biro 151 The northern periphery of the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture in south-vvestern Hungary: a čase study of an excavation at Lake Balaton
Detlef Gronenborn
189 Altestbandkeramische Kultur, La Hoguette, Limburg, and ... What else? -
Contemplating the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in southern Central Europe
Rick J. Schulting
203 Slighting the sea: stable isotope evidence for the transition to farming in northvvestern Europe
Mihael Budja
219 Clay tokens - accounting before vvriting in Eurasia
Uvodnik
Introduction
Ob izidu petindvajsetega zvezka naše revije, ki je hkrati tudi peti zbornik Neolitskih študij, predstavljenih na petem Neolitskem seminarju v Ljubljani, je prijetno razmišljati o vseh prejšnjih. Lahko je spregovoriti o razvoju revije, težje ga je ocenjevati, še posebno od blizu. Kljub temu sodimo, da so bili pri razvoju revije ključni trije mejniki. Prvega, ki presega vse ostale, je z ustanovitvijo revije zagotovo postavil profesor Josip Korošec. Drugega povezujemo s sistemom stabilnega finaciranja. Tega je vzpostavila profesorica Tatjana Bregant, ki je urednikovanje nadaljevala po Koroščevi smrti. Zadnjega predstavlja koncept, s katerim smo revijo povezali z Neolitskimi seminarji in ji določili program, v katerem se predstavljajo in soočajo raziskovalni pristopi ter relevantne in aktualne pojasnitve, ki nastajajo na univerzah in raziskovalnih inštitutih po svetu.
Revija je prvič izšla leta 1964. Izdala jo je Univerza v Ljubljani, založila pa Univerzitetna založba. Njen prvi urednik je bil profesor Josip Korošec. Revija je nastala zatem, ko je profesor Korošec v neprijaznih okoliščinah najprej zapustil Sekcijo, danes jo poznamo kot Inštitut za arheologijo in nato še uredništvo Arheološkega vestnika, četudi je oba na koncu štiridesetih in v začetku petdesetih let formalno in vsebinsko oblikoval prav on (Pleterski A. Inštitut za arheologijo polstoletnik. Ljubljana 1997:24-34, 48-49). Izid nove revije je bil povezan s predstavitvijo rezultatov prvega petletnega raziskovalnega programa Oddelka za arheologijo na Filozofski fakulteti v Ljubljani. Program je bil usmerjen v raziskovanje neolitskih in eneolitskih najdišč na Ljubljanskem barju, zato ni naključje, da je revija nosila ime Poročilo o raziskovanju neoli-ta in eneolita. Tretjemu zvezku je nova urednica, profesorica Tatjana Bregant dodala še podnaslov Kultura Ljubljanskega barja. Revijo od takrat dalje izdaja Oddelek za arheologijo. S širitvijo raziskav in novimi izkopavanji so se pojavile vsebine, ki so narekovale "obravnavo celotne kulturne dediščine predkovinskega obdobja", zato je uredništvo četrtemu zvezku ponovno spremenilo podnaslov, petemu pa tudi naslov. Revija je tako postala Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji (1976), s podnaslovom Predkovinske kulture Slovenije.
Poleg razprav o paleolitskih, neolitskih in eneolitskih kulturah so bile v reviji objavljene številne študije paleooko-lja in predstavljene analize paleolitskih in neolitskih gospodarstev. Pri tem velja posebej poudariti, da so bila Poročila na področju nekdanje Jugoslavije edina arheološka revija, ki je sistematično objavljala podatke o paleookolju in predstavljala l4C datacijske nize.
V zadnjih letih je revija prestopila slovenski nacionalni okvir. Ocenili smo namreč, da je v arheologiji mezolitika in neolitika nujno vzpostaviti uravnotežen program izme-
On the publication of the twenty-fifth volume of our jour-nal, which is at the same time also the fifth Neolithic Stu-dies anthology, comprising papers presented at the fifth Neolithic Seminar in Ljubljana, it is pleasant to contem-plate earlier volumes. It is easy to talk about the devel-opment of the journal, but much harder to evaluate it very closely. Nevertheless, we believe that three turning points were of key importance. The first and most im-portant was that Professor Josip Korošec established the journal. The second is linked to a system of stable finan-cing established by Professor Tatjana Bregant, who be-came the editor of the journal after Professor Korošec died. The last is embodied in the concept which linked the journal with Neolithic seminars and determined the JournaFs programme and content, in which different re-search approaches as well as relevant and topical expla-nations from various universities and research institutes around the world are included.
The first issue was published in 1964 by the University of Ljubljana, under the editorship of Professor Josip Korošec, after he resigned as head of the Section, now known as the Institute of Archaeology, and also as the editor of Arheološki vestnik in unpleasant circumstances (Pleterski A. Fiftieth Anniversary of the Institute of Archaeo-logy. Ljubljana 1997:24-34, 48-49). The new journal was connected with the presentation of the results of the first five-year research programme of the Department of Ar-chaeology on the Ljubljana Marshes, and it is no coinci-dence that the journal was named A Report on the Research ofthe Neolithic and Eneolithic. A new editor of the journal, Professor Tatjana Bregant, added to the third volume the subtitle Culture of the Ljubljana Marshes. The new researches appeared, which demanded "the treating of the entire cultural heritage of Stone and Copper Age". This is why the editorial board again changed the subtitle of the fourth and fifth volumes. Thus the journal first became A Report on Research into the Palaeolithic, Neolithic and Eneolithic in Slovenia (1976), with the subtitle Stone and Copper Age Cultures in Slovenia. Parallel to discussions on Palaeolithic, Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures, a number of studies on palaeoenvironment and pa-laeoeconomy were published. What needs to be emphasi-sed here is that the Reports was the only archaeological journal, which systematically published data on the palaeoenvironment and presented 1 'C data series.
In the last few years both the form and content of the journal has expanded beyond the Slovene national frame-work. We felt that studies on the archaeology of the Me-solithic and the Neolithic needed to develop a more balan-ced exchange of research data concerning the transition to farming in Eurasia. In the last five years the Department of Archaeology at the University of Ljubljana has organised
njave podatkov, povezanih s procesi prehoda na kmetovanje v Evraziji. Na Oddelku za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani smo zato v zadnjih petih letih pripravili na to temo pet mednarodnih Neolitskih seminarjev. Vse razprave smo v obliki zbornikov Neolitskih študij izdali v okviru revije v slovenskem in angleškem jeziku. Petega zaradi omejenih finančnih sredstev tiskamo le v angleškem. In ne nazadnje, slovenskemu naslovu revije smo pritaknili še Documenta Praehistorica.
Na vsebinskem področju sicer še ohranjamo stik s kulturnimi, periodnimi in tipološkimi paradigmami, vendar je težišče že na strani konceptov in modelov, ki jih poznamo kot "meja kmetovanja", "demska difuzija", "val napredovanja", "proces neolitizacije", "model dosegljivosti", "sekundarni centri neolitizacije", "dvojni model neolitizacije", "pionirska morska kolonizacija Evrope" itd. Opozorili smo na tafonomske filtre, ki delujejo pri odkrivanju in interpretiranju mezolitsko-neolitskih palimpsestov. Poleg analiz prehoda na kmetovanje v Evraziji in z njim povezanim spreminjanjem logistik in poselitvenih vzorcev ter oceni njegovega vpliva na okolje, je bila posebna pozornost namenjena analizam razvoja in uporabe kamnitih orodij in lončarskih tehnik.
V XXV. zvezku - 5. Zborniku neolitskih študij, objavljamo kitajske poglede na proces neolitizacije na eni ter analizo socialno-ekonomske strukturiranosti predneolitskih in zgodnjeneolitskih skupnosti na Bližnjem Vzhodu na drugi strani. Ocenjujemo fenomen kompleksnega simbolizma v (Jatalhoyuku ter predstavljamo kontinuiteto staro-selskega, mezolitskega, simbolizma v Karpatski kotlini. Predstavljamo genezo "obpontske kulturne zone", kulturno in kronološko strukturiranosti traškega neolitika ter ti-pološko identiteto severnega obrobja kulture Starčevo v Transdanubiji. Sledimo kontemplativnemu pristopu k analizi mezolitsko-neolitskega prehoda v srednji Evropi. Poseben poudarek namenjamo analizam genetskih razmerij med kultiviranimi žiti, rastočimi zunaj naravnih habitatov in njihovimi divjimi predniki, ki so temeljnega pomena pri pojasnjevanju procesa njihovega kultiviranja. To velja tudi za analize stabilnega ogljika ("C) in dušika (15N), ohranjenega v kostnem kolagenu, ki služijo ocenam spreminjanja prehrambenih vzorcev, povezanih s prehodom na kmetovanje na atlantski obali severozahodne Evrope.
five international Neolithic Seminars. Ali the papers pre-sented were published as part of the journal in the form of five Neolithic Studies anthologies. They were published in both Slovene and English. Now, due to limited financial means, they can only be published in English. The latest novelty is the name, since we have added Documenta Praehistorica to the Slovene title of the journal.
As far as content is concerned, we have maintained the link with cultural, periodic and typological paradigms, although the focus has been shifted to concepts and mo-dels such as "agricultural frontier", "demic diffusion", the "wave of advance" model, the "process of Neolithisation", "the availability" model, "secondary centres of Neolithisation", "double model of Neolithisation", "maritime pioneer colonisation of Europe" etc. The taphonomic filters, which operate in a studies of Mesolithic-Neolithic palimpsests, were also discussed. Besides the analyses of the transition to farming in Eurasia and changes in logistics and settle-ment patterns, as well as the earliest discernible environ-mental impact arising from the transition to agriculture, special attention was paid to the use wear traces on stone tools and Neolithic pottery techniques.
In volume XXV - the 5"' Neolithic Studies anthology, we publish Chinese views on Neolithisation on the one hand, and an analysis of the social and economic structure of the Pre-Neolithic and Early Neolithic communities in the Near East on the other. The phenomenon of complex symbo-lism in Catalhovuk is evaluated and the continuity of Me-solithic symbolism in the Carpathian Basin is presented. The genesis of the "Circumpontic cultural zone", cultural and chronological structure of the Neolithic in Thrace and the typological identity of northern rim of the Starčevo culture in Transdanubia were presented. We also follow a contemplative approach to the analysis of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Central Europe. Special attention was paid to analyses of genetic relationships between cul-tivated types occurring outside their natural habitat and their wild relatives, which clarifies important aspects of plant domestication. The same holds for the analysis of stable carbon ("C) and nitrogen (15N), preserved in bone collagen, which served to the estimates of changes in nu-tritional patterns linked with the transition to farming at the Atlantic coast in north-western Europe.
Ljubljana, december 1998

UDK 903(510)"632"
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleoiitika, neoiitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
New observations on Paleolithic in China reflected by three sites
Yamei Hou
Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology, Academia Sinica, Beijing,
ymhou @ mail.sparkice.com.cn
ABSTRACT - Thispaperprovides some new research results by three representatives Paleolithic sites in the North, South and Southivest China, which are very potential in ansivering some important questions relevant to the human culture in EastAsia. Neti' theories of human evolution are expected to be reconsidered here.
POVZETEK - V članku objavljamo rezultate novih raziskav treh reprezentativnih paleolitskih najdišč iz severne, južne in jugozahodne Kitajske. Z njihovo pomočjo bomo verjetno lahko odgovorili na nekatera pomembna vprašanja o kulturnem razvoju človeka v vzhodni Aziji. Predvidevamo tudi, da bodo sprožila razmislek o novih teorijah evolucije človeka.
1.INTR0DUCTI0N
In finding clues of human dispersal on this globe, China occupies a good geographic position and provides excellent archaeological evidence recently dis-covered to make questions clearer. They might lead to another myth of human cultural evolution. After the first recorded Palaeolithic tools were discovered in 1920, in loess deposits in Qingyang County, Gansu Province, in north-western China, Palaeolithic ar-chaeology in China developed well in the 1920s', thanks to some western archaeologists. The most significant discovery was 'Peking Man' {Hotno erec-tus pekinensis) (Jia & Huang 1990), which estab-lished China's important status in human evolution. After the foundation of the new China in 1949, more and more cultural remains and human fossils that involve each of the main stages of hominid evolution have been uncovered in the vast territory of the country, not only in the north and west, but also in the north-east, south and south-west, even includ-ing many parts of the Qinghai-Tibetan plateau. The last two decades have been a new, significant period, in which new discoveries and research work have advanced dramatically. The three sites intro-duced here are representative and outstanding in their archaeological contents (Fig. 1). They would play great roles in providing some new explanations
of their own developmental stages and shaking our minds very much. Some relevant discussions will be displayed in the following introductions to each site. The other reason that I chose these three sites for presentation here is that they are actually synony-mous with of close concerning work that I have been doing since 1991-
2. TOPOGRAPHY AND QUATERNARY SEDIMENTS OF CHINA
The topography of China is divided into three steps, from west to east, according to the characteristics of their different elevations. The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau is the first step, with an average elevation of 4000-4500 m above sea level. The second step is eastward to the chain of the Daxinganling Hills, Tai-hangshan Mountains, Wushan Mountains and Xue-fengshan Mountains, with an average elevation of 1000-2000 m. It contains some plateaux (such as the Inner Mongolia Plateau, the Loess Plateau) and basins. The third step is the most easterly, with an average elevation below 500 m, and this lowest step contains the main eastern plains of the country. This higher western and lower eastern topographic
\ •• ■ I
structure raakes the two great rivers, the Yellow River, and the Yangtze, flow downwards from west to east.
The Qinling Range of eastern China (ca. 34°N lati-tute) is a physiographic boundary between north and south China and Quaternary deposits differ in these two regions. In the north, the principal sedi-ments are composed of well-developed, fluvio-lacu-strine basin formations and widely distributed thick loess deposits. The latter is deposited 300 m at its thickest. It refers complete geological records since ca. 2.5 Ma, and is one of the three environmental measurements of the global chronology sequences beyond deep sea and ice core records. Chronologi-cally, loess deposits is defined three formations of Wucheng, Lishi and Malan loess deposits corres-ponding to the Lower, Middle and Upper Pleistoce-ne respectively. Each of these is characterised by a definite fauna group. In the south, there are earlier Pleistocene fluvial and fluvio-lacustrine formations, cave deposits and widely distributed lateritic sedi-ments.
Fig. 1. location of three sites mentioned in the text. 1. Niheivan Basin 2. Pamcian Dadong J. Bose Basin.
3. THREE RECENT REPRESENTATIVE SITES
3.1. The early Palaeolithic sites of Nihewan Basin in North China
History and Geological Background
The Nihewan Basin is 150 km north of Beijing, in the Sanggan River valley of Northern Shanxi province and Northwest Hebei Province. It occupies 9000 km2 and is 800 m above sea level. The basin deposit is more than 1000 m thick, and consists of fluvial-lacustrine sediments overlapped by sequences of clay, sandy clay, fine-sand, sand and gravel in varying thickness and appearance, such as grey, yel-low-green, yellow-brown, reddish brown, etc. In the eastern end of the basin, Pleistocene outcrops of 100 m have been exposed by fluvial erosion. It was famous for its Plio-Pleistocene mammalian fossils and geological deposits in the 1920s and 1930s (Bar-bour 1924; 1925; Barbour et al, 1926; Teilhardde Chardin & Piveteau 1930) and was further regard-ed as the standard Lower Pleistocene fossil sequence
in North China. Its Palaeolithic archaeological evidence was defined after new China, even though the discovery of a faceted stone by Licent and Teilhard de Chardin was recognised as human modification by Abbe Breuil, but was dismissed as a natural spec-imen (Movius 1948). In the past three decades, the area containing a large number of archaeological sites spanning the Lower through Middle to Upper Pleistocene and Holocene in the Nihewan Basin, especially some older early Palaeolithic sites (lMa-2Ma) (Yon et al, 1978; Tang etal, 1995) has become recognised as one of the key regions for under-standing early hominid evolution in Asia. Research shows that the Pleistocene Nihewan Basin experi-enced an evolution of "lake formed-lake recede-gorges and valleys cut through-erosion, fluvial, aeo-lian sedimentation" and its geological development is strikingly similar to the famous Olduvai Gorge of Tanzania (Wei 1997) (Fig. 2). Evidence that is more recent is gradually strengthening the realisation that the Nihewan Basin could be the "Olduvai Gorge" of China or East Asia. Among those early Palaeolithic sites in the basin, Donggutuo is the most attractive.
Donggutuo site was found in 1981 (Wei 1985) in the Nihewan Formation which was attributed to the Lower Pleistocene within the Nihewan Beds. It is one of the most extensively excavated and prolific sites yet studied in the Nihewan Formation. The site lies about 120 m above the Sanggan River, and more
than 45 m below the surface of a platform that was intermittentlv capped by the Malan loess overlying the Nihewan Beds in the region. Five trenches were worked as a trial excavation in the year. TI is the largest of them, and follow-up excavations contin-ued there in 1991,1992 and 1997. A total of more than 10000 stone artefacts have been recovered, as well as large numbers of mammalian bone fragments and teeth (Jia & Wei 1987; Wei 1985; 1988). The 1991 and 1992 excavations were part of a joint Sino-American project and were concentrated on TI (Pl. 1). The cultural sequence of the site was divided into five layers, A to E, according to the different geological characteristics of the deposits in situ. Palaeomag-netic analysis has shown a long sequence of reversed and normal strata. A normal strata above the site has been linked to the Jaramillo Subchron, which would fit the Donggutuo site into the Matuyama Chron, just prior to the Jaramillo ca. 1 Ma (Cheng et al. 1978; Li & Wang 1982). This polarity results and tirne was corroborated by American scientists in 1990 (Schick et al. 1991) and fitted well with the stratigraphic in-terpretation of previous research (Yuan 1995). So, the Donggutuo site is indicated at an age of approx-imately 1 Ma.
Industry
The stone assemblage of the Donggutuoi site appears obvious small-tool character that belongs to one of
Pl. 1. Dongguo site in the 1992 excavation.
1 The excavations at Donggutuo site in 1991 and 1992 were financed by the Luce Foundation and carried out in collaboration with Prof. J. D. Clark of the University of California at Berkeley, and Profs. N. Toth and K. D. Schick of Indiana University by IVPP. The 1997 excavation was supported by Chinese Academy of Sciences SEPP.
2'to
CD S . §<g ■ ® 1 (Q 1 = 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1	
lacusirme \ expansion J (lacustrine l reduction lacustrine \ expansion j (lacustrine Vireduction lacustrine\ expansion J [ lacustrine ueduction lacustrine\ expansion/)	8» 3» / m ™ "O g / o ^ o 3 W § W / =ii2. co ^ cr> / 313"0 / \ o" =3 O =>/ f-, — 33 /SsrVJogJS/ fSS / o »S! aS ti g i'3 II
13
SL a> o <d o o
o
ID
C/> i-h T fi) pita'
03
~o
3" «<
H
3"
o"
7T
-13 oj "D (/) 01
3 o
—- ju 3
O "O
o
o
ta <
UOUBUJJOJ UBMamiM			uoueiujoj no>)npoB!x		Xujiayao Formation		Shiyu Formation		Hutouliang Formation	
Lower Member	Middie Member	Upper Member	Lower Member	Upper Member	Lower Member	Upper Member	[Lower Member|	|Upper Member|	Lovver MemberI	c -o "C CD S CD 3 cr <0
T —t. ro o
~1
t» O
sn}oaja oluoh
io
o> o
o
suaides oluoh suaides ouioh A/JB3	3IB 7
=TX c c
|I ^ £0
O ° 0) (D
P
ni c 3
■O
ajnj|no uB/v\ai|i|\|
—jJ^A
sjrmno 0BABi(nx
O 2 =
o o
|3 =
If ®
in o
TI
£U (D O
a>
CO O
>< m	o i x
m' =r	O c £ f a o
CD —
<a 5 c I 1
<P 0)' S
sil
3 —■ IQ
S. o
o
-TT"
o s
£ 3L
CD — CD 0>
cScg
I I
■Pi X
G0G0 01 =r
£ ==" o »
zco
=S CD
II
CD 01
O 3
C/5 i.
X
=3 <
0) o
N
CD
S ffl 3
X a> o o. c
7T
O C
X £
£0 O
CD
C
I
C
o c_
S'
=j co
o tt> >
o
3"
0) n>
f! 3 <
3
2L
S"
3
-n
o)
C 3
0)
VIAIVAfllVIAl
O

-saHNnaa
IO	ro jo	io io		O	_L
b>	ro m ^	^ m"-^	CD	1-	
	C<°	Ol c -1	01	a	00
	Z	z		c	
	O	o		|	
	z	z			
-1 C- o
o > io
30 >
o
'-J 00
Fig. 2. The framivork of archaeological geology of the Niheumi Basin (Wei 1997).
the two development lines of stone industry in North China. Here it is characterised by rather small flakes and flake tools, marginal scars has often happened on flakes. The cores flaking were thought simple and casual (Schick & Toth et al. 1991), and the mod-ification does not seem very standardised. Denticula-tes are a kind of characterised tool typology here. Scrapers are not in good formation. There are also some end-scrapers. Points (Fig. 3) and burins are quite well developed, some are trimmed carefully and look very niče. They both are the dominant typology of the site. Some new materials from the 1997 excavation show again of most impression mentioned above. However, new phenomenon may convert our constructed concepts. For example, to-gether with casually flaked cores there are several prepared cores named as "Donggutuo-shaped cores" (Fig. 4) that were identified for the first tirne (Hou et al., in press). They ali have a very similar shape, having a rough line of wedge-like cores of the Upper Palaeolithic period, although they do not have the same regular shape as the latter ones. These cores have clear, prepared platforms for further flaking by shifting to another angle to work. They sometimes have two pointed ridges on the lateral and the bot-tom. Donggutuo man shows their definite idea for
shaping such kind of shaped cores: they wanted to produce flakes by more regular and effective meth-ods and they were trying to achieve this aim. Evidence of such shaped cores including crested flake has been recently observed from stone assemblage of 1981 excavation. Moreover, these discovered cores can be recognised in the different position of "chaine operatoir" and vary in their materials and sizes. This new evidence of shaped cores can break through conventional views on Dongguttuo materials that there are "extremely" casual cores (Schick & Toth et al, 1991; Schick & Toth 1993). Careful re-search into these special cores may provide clues to the origin of the microlithic and its developments in the basin. North China is regarded as an original site of microlithic culture in North Eastern Asia and North America. Nevertheless, such earlier clue is first to be kno\vn in this area. A brief reported paper on new materials from the 1997 excavation of Donggutuo will be published soon by the present author (Hou et al. in press).
Stone artefacts are very well preserved. Raw material for making stone artefacts at the Donggutuo site are supposed to come from local outcrops of bedrock stratigraphically below the sediments, and some-
Fig. 3. Some points of Donggutuo site from 1981 excavation (Wei 1985).
Fig. 4. Diagram of "Donggutuo-shaped core" (No. 97 DGT 576) from 1997 excavation of Donggutuo.
times at elevations above the archaeological hori-zons. They are mostly fine-grained siliceous materi-als, fine-grained quartzite and a few volcanic rocks, limestone or some other materials. Some fine-grained, raw materials are apt to microscopic observa-tion for use wear polishes. Except for the coarsest chert, there are rare crystals and opals for making tools. Most of the fossil bones excavated from the site are highly fragmented and only a few are iden-tifiable as shaft fragments, ribs, cranial fragments or vertebrae, teeth and so on. Bone materials are in var-ious conditions to identify as much weathering, dis-integration, evident cracking, trampling damage or excellent preservation. A small proportion of bones showed probable evidence of carnivore modification, gnaw marks, punctures. Cut marks and teeth marks are few and in very small proportion. The reason for this requires further research.
3.2. The Bose Basin sites in South China
Stratigraphy and Chronology
Bose Basin2 is one of the Cenozioc basins in South-east Asia; it slopes from the Yunan-Guizhou plateau in the Northwest and faces the Indo-Chinese penin-sula in the south. It covers an area of roughly 800 square kilometres, and lies at an elevation of 80-100 m above sea level. Beneath the basal part of the basin lie 3000 m of Tertiary lacustrine deposits capped
by lateritized fans which consist of about 15 to 20 m of basal gravel overlain by about 10 to 15 m of mot-tled brick-red clays and sandy clays (Pl. 2). The You-jiang River, which is a tributary of the Pearl River system, flows through the whole basin from Yunnan and joins the Zuojiang River to the Youjiang River. Influenced by a humid, subtropical, monsoon cli-mate, the basin has long, hot summers, and obvi-ously differs in the dry and wet seasons. There are some lower hills of Triassic sandstone in the south-west, and Paleozoic limestone karst landscapes and valleys in the south-east. It was filled in a Tertiary lacustrine sandstone, sandy-siltstone, and siltstone 3000 m thick yielding coal and oil. Through long erosion it received a laterite group consisting of thick gravel in the lower, and fine grainy sand, sandy clay, and clay in the upper until the Quaternary. Since about the later Middle Pleistocene this deposit has been eroded by the Youjiang River and shaped the highest lateritized terrace, which is widely distrib-uted in the margin or in the centre of the basin. Meamvhile, the Youjiang River has constantly creat-ed its own, younger terraces at two or three levels. The four excavations since 1988 have shown that the Bose Palaeolithic is from the upper part of the lateritized terrace.
The laterite is a kind of red clay appearing reticular and mottled character, which is present in the south of East Asia (south to the Yangtze) and some valleys
2 Recent geological work in the Bose Basin was supported by Chinese Acaderay of Sciences SEPP and Smithsonian Institution, co-organised by Dr. Richard Potts, and is part of a collaborative project betvveen two institutions.
of Southeast Asia. It is the most significant sedimen-tary process in the Late Cenozoic of South China. This Cenozoic deposit was formed some nuclear by a long period strong chemical weathered and accu-mulating oxides inside by decomposing clay miner-als and de-silicifying procedure. Geologists called it vividly "vermiculate laterite" or "reticular mottled red clay". It was yet hard to give a definite age for this deposit because of the absence of its fauna evidence. These formations are the most strongly lea-ched of the red beds and clays in the south (Pl. 3). This characteristic condition is therefore a sure cri-terion for distinguishing the Bose sediments from many younger formations. By observation on lithol-ogy, palaeoecology and geohydrography it was ever compared with the Nihewan Beds in North China (Teilhard de Chardin et al. 1935), i.e. earlier than Zhoukoudian. However, the absence of fossil evidence from this kind of highly acidic sediment makes any kind of bio-stratigraphic correlation very difficult. The chronometric dating of this area has therefore been very controversial. In recent decades, paleomagnetic and isotopic dates show that their judgement was basically right (Huang 1991). A pri-mary result by fission track method on tektite from the Bose Palaeolithic layer puts the age at 0.73 Ma BP (Guo etal, 1996; 1997). Some other methods are continuing to do.
Cultural Remains
The Palaeolithic tools of the Bose Basin were first discovered in 1973 (Li and You 1975)- Localities
yielding 600 pieces of collected stone artefacts in-creased to numbers of hundreds by constant work done by IVPP and Guangxi region museums. But only few of them were from definite deposits, ali others were collected from the surface, and it is difficult to determine their strata and tirne. Original re-ports classified them, as Upper Palaeolithic because of their geomorphic characteristics and because of no associated ground stone artefacts, pottery. Some other researchers later accepted this view.
Since in the spring of 1986 Huang Weiwen has taken charge of a long-term investigation in the Bose Basin, the primary aim of which is to look for the strata and chronology of those collected stone artefacts. They had ever induced that artefacts were probably from a terrace, which is equal to a period of Peking Man s period - Middle Pleistocene (Huang et al. 1988). In the last season of 1988 a definite strata of yielding stone artefacts was found from excavation. This new discovery corrected some old opinions and put "Bose artefacts" back to "at least the early tirne of Peking Man's period; moreover, it could be earlier than later". In other words, it could be in the early Middle Pleistocene or late Lower Pleistocene. The same evidence was proved again in the excava-tion of 1989 (Huang etal. 1990). In the excavations at two localities conducted by the author in the spring of 1993, from the same strata of involving stone artefacts we found tektites that we had no-ticed before in the surface. The tektite is good material for isotope dating. So, we used it for determin-ing the date of the site after establishing which stra-
ta the artefacts are from. In the 1995 spring field sea-son a lot of work on geology and the environment including palaeomagnetism, collecting deposit sam-ples for pollen or chemical analysis, plotting profiles and statistics on pebbles was done and a better basis constructed for the next stage of systematic, multi-disciplinary work (Hou and Huang 1998a; Hou in press).
Stone Industry
The lithic raw materials consist of quartzite, quartz, sandstone, conglomerate and siliceous rocks. The tools are made mainly on cobbles, with some made on heavy flakes. Most exceed 10 cm in length. Picks, choppers, handaxes, heavy scrapers, and hammer stones are ali major categories, with picks being the most common. More than 100 handaxes have been found that being the largest number from any single Palaeolithic site in China. The edges of most tools are constituted by deeply depressed scars appearing zigzag and kept thicker dimension, which shows hard hammer stone was perhaps the most popular technique used. However, fewer specimens with shallow scars, relative thinned shape can make us easily think that if they had materials that are more appropriate and improved technique could have been adapted to make tools that are more elegant.
The Bose industry is a kind of "pebble tool indus-try". It seems that the phenomenon of melting prim-itive and progressive characters can not be expla-ined as mingled products of different periods. For new discoveries so far from the basin, constantly strengthen the judgement that there was only one cultural period here. Bose stone artefacts consist of picks, choppers, and handaxes, besides fewer, inde-terminate cleavers. Picks are in the larger scale and respectively not more than 10% in either handaxes or choppers. Whether in picks or choppers, unifacial pieces account for the overwhelming majority of the assemblage compared to bifacial made tools. The handaxe is not the popular type, but occupies a better position in absolute numbers. Moreover, some of them have possible western Acheulean affinities {Huang & Hou 1997a) (Pl. 4a-b).
Conclusion
In China's domestic Palaeolithic industries the most similar to the Bose industry is the pebble tool indus-try discovered in the last two decades in the middle-lower Yangtze River district, including Hunan, Hu-bei, Jianxi, Anhui provinces and southern Shaanxi province. They are of similar materials, made with similar flaking techniques and are of similar assemblage compositions, with picks in the majority. The
Pl. 4a-b. Botli sides ofhandaxe e.vcavated in Bose Basin (photographed by Huang Weiiven).
single diference is that spheroid, which is not found in Bose is a higher portion typology and cleaver is obvious in these areas. There are more choppers, but a lower proportion of handaxes than in Bose.
It is interesting that the laterite beds and similar kinds of stone industry are widely distributed in the valleys of many main rivers in Southeast and South Asia. Comparisons can be made between the Yangtze River and Pearl River in South China, the Chao Phraya River in Northern Thailand, and the upper Irrawaddy in Burma. Among them, the Anyathian culture of Burma (Movius 1943) appeared some par-ticular character in technique and typology that is closely to its raw material (the fossilised wood) and should not emphasise its speciality too much. The primitive heavy-duty tool industry in this large area mentioned above is not much different in technique and typology frorn the "pebble tool industry" in East Africa in substance (Huang 1993). It could be thought of as archaeological evidence that the spread and migration of Hotno erectus to the Old World hap-pened in the later Lower Pleistocene and the begin-ning of the Middle Pleistocene.
3.3. The Panxian Dadong cave site in southwest China
Geographic Situation, History and Chronology
Panxian Dadong3 is located in the western part of the Guizhou Plateau, which is part of the prevailing karst topography of the south-western region of East Asia. The cave was first brought to the attention of geologists and paleontologists in the 1970s because of its mammalian fossils frorn deposits. Dadong's po-
tential as a Palaeolithic site was established in 1990. Thus far, excavations have been organised in 1992, 1993 (Si et al. 1993; Huang et al. 1995), 1996 and 1998.
Dadong is the middle-level cave in a series of three interconnecting caverns stacked within a 230-m-high hill. The hill itself is situated in a small valley whose floor is at an elevation of 1,630 m above sea level. The cave entrance is 55 m wide and 50 m high, faces east, and lies at an elevation of 31.4 111 above the valley floor (Pl. 5). Dadong is really a massive cav-ern, as its Chinese name implies. The main hali mea-sures 220 111 from its back wall to the opening, and covers an area of roughly 9000 m2.
Inside the cave (Pl. 6), there are two large stalag-mites and one immense stalacto-stalagmite with a diameter of approximately 200 111. Samples taken from the stalacto-stalagmite for radiometric dating (uranium-series) provide a minimum age of 300 000 BP for this portion of the cultural sequence, and the latest deposit sequence in the cave extends to the Holocene period (Shen et al. 1997). In 1998, ESR dating was adopted here to establish a precise chro-nology of the Dadong stratigraphy, which is a top priority for the project, as this will facilitate the inter-pretation of the site within the broader context of East Asian prehistoric cave sites. Numbers of samples are being analysed by Dr. W. Jack Rink at the Geo-logy Department of McMaster University in Canada.
The sediments inside the cave consist of brownish-yellow clays, sandy travertines, breccias, and a large limestone block dislodged from the cave roof. The presence of well-bedded, sandy travertines that de-
3 Panxian Dadong project has been supported by both Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and China National Relics Bureau.
Pl. 5. Outside vieiv ofentrance ofPaiucian Dadong cave site (Hou, in press).
Pl. 6. Inside vieiv of Panxian Dadong cave site (Hou, in press).
velop during moist, mild climatic regimes suggests a sequence of environmental changes during the occu-pation and formation of the site. While the full depth of the deposits within the central portions of the cave has yet to be determined, the thickness of sed-iments near the cave entrance is estimated to be 19-5 m. The section of the deeper excavation in 1998 shows a clear event of cave breakdown in Guizhou Plateau that could be closely correlated to the uplift of Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau in the middle Late Pleis-tocene (Huang 1998).
Archaeological Evidence
There is plentiful evidence of the use of fire (char-coal, burnt bone, and ash) and four fragmentary hominid teeth. The fauna recovered from Dadong is representative of the Pleistocene Ailuropoda-Stego-don fauna suite of south-eastern Asia. The condition of these materials provides evidence for both hominid and carnivore activities in Dadong. There is also evidence of carnivore gnawing on some of the specimens. Most of the individual Elephas sp. teeth in the assemblage are from immature individuals, while the Rhinoceros sinensis teeth are from old individuals. The hypothesis that the taphonomic dis-tinctions between these two large mammal species indicates a hunting strategy for the Dadong inhabi-tants will be tested, as larger samples become avail-able.
Two human teeth (one upper right incisor and one lower left canine) were discovered from the excava-tion in 1992 and 1993, appearing to have the mor-phological features of Homo erectus. But the main characteristics of the two teeth are closer to those of early Homo sapiens (Lin et al, 1997). Another two hominid teeth were found from archaeological lay-ers in the spring of 1998.
In four field seasons, almost 3000 stone artefacts were collected from Dadong The raw materials are chert and basalt from local hillside out-crops and ancient river gravels, and blocks of limestone from inside the cave The tool assemblage includes side scrapers, end scrapers, notches, borers, denticulate tools, choppers, hammer stones, anvils, a few burins, and a small handaxe, including a few possible bone scrapers from the latest excavations. A number of small, exhausted chert cores show secondary use as scrapers. The borers and notches vary greatly in size. The technology is primarily hard-hammer direct percussion. A noteworthy feature of the assemblage is the prepared core technique, which is discernible
on several specimens This is the most extensive reported evidence for the prepared core technique in the Palaeolithic of southern China. Some flakes and cores remind us of the Levallois technique (Fig. 5, 6) (.Huang & Hou 1997b) The large number of limestone artefacts, which are big cores and flakes, were unexpectedly uncovered from lower archaeological sediments.
Several excavations confirm the rich potential of the Dadong site for Palaeolithic achaeological investi-gation. The abundance of artefacts, fauna remains bearing evidence of hominid manipulation, char-coal, burnt bone, and ash found in situ attest to an extensive record of hominid habitation at Dadong. The concurrence of these elements in the Dadong deposits will enable us to investigate a broad array of hypotheses concerning site formation, resource exploitation, and behavioural complexity. In adcli-tion, the large dimensions of the cave permit horizontal excavation strategies for studying within site spatial patterns.
The prepared core technique of high proportion in the Dadong stone assemblage is an important feature of lithic technology for regional comparative studies within China (Olsen and Miller-Antonio 1992). While not well documented in Asia, when the prepared core technique has been described in China it has generally been from sites in North China. The Dadong assemblage therefore represents a rich resource for understanding variability in the operational sequence of the Chinese Palaeolithic. Dadong will also provide an interesting contrast for contemporaneous localities such as Zhoukoudian and Bose, a series of open-air sites in neighbouring Guangxi Province.
4. DISCUSSION
I would like to point out some common significance in the presented three sites. Each of them was new discovered in the last ten to three decades and occu-pies an important part of China in different geogra-phical and morphological environments. They are ali connected with longer and complete sediments in each district.
Each stone industry has some interesting characteristics that embody the direction of its cultural devel-opment and retain some traces of former practices. They have good condition to connect the past and future in their own side or wider parts. Their cultu-
res might have been influenced by some other, more or less distant cultures, but we do not have enough evidence to rule out the possibility of local origin. They ali own the large special and temporal margin to play important role in understanding neighbour-ing cultures. The driving forces stimulating these cultures are the backgrounds of palaeo-ecological ele-ments in the Quaternary period in each region.
The Donggutuo site is only one of the excellent Early Palaeolithic sites in the Nihewan Basin: there are some other comparable sites to consider along the same geological sequence. Researching these early Palaeolithic cultures and their paleo-ecological backgrounds must be helpful in touching the pulse of the early people who lived in the basin for such a long period. Although having "Donggutuo-shaped cores", the general appearance of the industry is stili in pri-mitive stage. But they are not the lowest. The simi-larity between Donggutuo stone artefacts and that early culture in East Africa will reveal some reason that we are trying to know. The problems hide many important function of the nature happened in the far past time. And questions are stili going on. Tool tech-nology at the site is quite advanced and difficult to classify as a primary product of early people. Jia Lan-po says that these technologies must have had a period of development before these known dates. In ac-cordance with this view, he supposes that there exist much earlier hominid traces than 1 Ma in China. Re-garding human origins, he supports the possibility of 4 Ma as the earliest beginnings for hominids.
The Bose site is the key to understanding contem-poraneous cultures in south-eastern Asia, perhaps
even South Asia in some degree. The "Movius line" has played a "great" role to know the East and West divided by so called extremely different culture area. The Bose industry is a lesson to those who stili keep "mode I" and "mode II" in mind. We have to change our mind in time according to discovered facts and reconsider some old problems. The Bose stone artefacts indicate that Hotno erectus in Bose knew much better technology than mode I (Gibbons 1998). We may redefine a new standard for them, but we have known it is not model I 's voice again for this large area of Asia. Tool-making traditions are not as simple as we once thought.
Panxian Dadong is located in a critical plateau, po-tentially the site of the origin of humans. Close to it, there is the locality of Homo erectus Yumouensis, whose age is 1.7 Ma. Not only is this region the area in \vhich the most prolific hominoid fossils were found, but also these fossils are at the closest posi-tion (ca. 5 Ma) to either pre-human or true human compared to those found in East Africa (13 Ma) or in Europe (10 Ma). The plentiful hominoid fossils found in Zhupeng-Xiaohedi of the Yuanmou Basin include one skull, seventeen maxillae, mandibles, and thousands of teeth. There are opposing opin-ions on the determination of "who they are" and "how old they are". Some accept them as human, others interpreting them as "ape", and these materi-als lay in the key period for the exploration of human origins (Hou & Huang 1998). In any čase, Pan-xian Dadong is at a later plače in the line. But it could help us to find a clue to the mystery in advance. Not to mention the south-western part of China is weak on niče discovery of Palaeolithic cul-
Fig. 5. Flakes ivith Leval-lois characterfront Pan-xian Dadong (Huang & Hou 1997).
Fig. 6. Cores uit/t Leval lois characterfrom Pa-xian Dadong (Huang & Hou 1997).
ture from complete deposit. Dadong has perfect con-ditions for developing and becoming a standard sec-tion in the region. Levallois is another interesting problem in this area. In North China, there is more evidence to consider this sensitive problem. But in the south, from a Palaeolithic site, it is the first to appear some probable clues. We hope that there will be more convincing evidence in future excavations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I was so glad to meet Prof. Mihael Budja and Prof. Iztok Saksida in the summer of 1997 in the Nihewan Basin, which resulted in Chinese archaeologists com-ing to Slovenia for the first time to participate in this very interesting and successful Seminar organised by the Archaeology Department of Ljubljana Univer-sity. I appreciate ali the help provided by the depar-tment and the enthusiasm of the Slovenian people. I thank Prof. M. Budja and his students for how they took care of us. I hope that the Archaeology Department can become an important point for connect-ing the Western and Eastern worlds of archaeology. My thanks go to Prof. Saksida, who initiated the first Slovenian visit our excavation sites in China. I was
very sorry to hear about his accident. We shall al-ways remember his contribution to this precious beginning betvveen our two countries and put for-ward our mutual enterprise well in the future.
REFERENCES
BARBOUR G. B. 1924. Preliminary observation in Kalgan area. Buli. Geol. Soc. China 3- 167-168.
1925. The deposits of the San Kan Ho valley. Buli. Geol. Soc. China 4: 54.
BARBOUR G. B., LICENT E. & TEILHARD DE CHAR-DIN P. 1926. Geological study of the deposits of the San Kan Ho Basin. Buli. Geol, Soc. China 5: 263-278.
CHENG G. L., LIN J. S., et al. 1978. A preliminary pa-laeomagnetic survey of the Nihewan Beds. Sci. Geol, Sin. 3:34-43.
GIBBONS A. 1998. In China, a handier Homo erec-tus. Science, 279:1636.
GUO S. L., HAO X. H., CHEN, B. L. and HUANG W. W.
1996.	Dating of Bose tektite and its significance in space science, paleoanthropology, stratigraphv and paleomagnetism, China. Acta Anthropologica Sini-ca 15 (4): 347-350.
GUO S. L., HUANG W.-W., HAO X.-H. & CHEN B.-L.
1997.	Fission track dating of ancient man site in Baise, China, and its significance in space research, Paleomagnetism and Stratigraphy. Radiation Mea-surements. Vol. 28, 1-6:565-570.
HOU Y. M. in press. An archaeological review of early man's traces in China. Archaologisches Korrespon-denzblatt.
HOU Y. M. & HUANG W. W. 1998a. Paleolithic In-dustry in Bose Basin. In Chen Jie et al. (eds.), Col-lected Works for "the 30th Anniversary of Yuanmou Man Discovery and the International Conference on Paleoanthropological Studies". Yunnan Science & Technology Press: 127-130, 244-247.
1998b. East Asia and the first migration tide of early man. Acta Anthropologica Srnica Vol 17 (4): 293-309.
HOU Y. M., WEI Q. FENG X. W., LIN S. L. in press 1997. Excavation at Donggutuo in the Nihewan Basin, North China. Quaternary Research (2).
HUANG W. W. 1987. Bifaces in China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 6 (1): 61-68.
1991- Evidence for early man's activities from the lateritic beds of south China. Quaternary Sciences. 4:373~379.
1993- On the typology of heavy-duty tools of the Lower Paleolithic from East and Southeast Asia. Acta Anthropl. Sini, 12 (4): 297-304.
1998. An event of caven breakdown in Guizhou Plateau during the Late Pleistocene. Quaternary Sciences. 3- 282.
HUANG W. W., HOU Y. M. 1997a. Archaeological Evidence for the First Human Colonization of East Asia. In Belhvood P. and Tillotson D. (eds.) Bulletin ofthe Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 16, Indo-Paci-fic Prehistory, The Qiang Mai Paper s 3- 3-12.
1997b. Stone Industry from Panxian Dadong, a cave-site of Southwestern China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica. 16(3): 171-192.
HUANG W. W., LENG J., YUAN X. F. and XIE G. M. 1990. Advancced opinions on the stratigraphy and chronology of Baise (Bose) stone industry. Acta Anthropologica Sinica. 9 (2): 105-112.
HUANG W. W., LIU Y., LI C. R. et al. 1988. Tentative opions on the Age of Baise Stone Industry. In Col-lections in Commemoration of the 30th Annever-sary of the Discovery of Maba Human Cranium: 95-101.
HUANG W. W, SI X. Q., HOU Y. M., MILLER-ANTONIO S. & SCHEPARTZ L. A. 1995. Excavation at Panxian Dadong, Guizhou Province, Southwestern China. Current Anthropology 36: 844-846.
JIA L. P. & HUANG W. W. 1990. The story of Peking Man.
JIA L. P. & WEI Q. 1987. Stone artifacts from Lower Pleistoncene at Donggutuo site near Nihewan (Niho-wan), Hebei province, China. L Anthropologie 91: 727-732.
LI H. M. & WANG J. D. 1982. Magnetostratigraphic study of several typical geological sections in North China. In Quaternary Geology and Environment of China: 33~38.
LI Y. X. and YOU Y. Z. 1975. Discovery of Paleolithic Artifacts in Bose, Guangxi. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 13: 225-228.
LIU W. & SI X. Q. 1997. The Human teeth Discove-red in Dadong, Panxian County, Guizhou Province. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 16 (3): 193-200.
MOVIUS H. L. 1943- The Stone Age of Burma. Tran-sactions of the American Philosophical Society. NS 32:341-394.
1948. The lower paleolithic cultures of southern and eastern Asia. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. NS 38 (4): 329-420.
OLSEN J. & MILLER-ANTONIO S. 1992. The paleolithic in southerm China. Asian Perspectives 31:129-160.
SCHICK D. K. & TOTH N. 1993. Making silentstone speak.
SCHICK D. K, TOTH N., WEI Q, CLARK J. D. & ETLER D. 1991. Archaeological perspectives in the Nihewan Basin, China. Journal of Human Evolution. (21): 13-26.
SHEN G. J., LIU J. & JIN L. H. 1997. Preliminary results on U-series Dationg of Panxian dadong in Guizhou Province, S-W China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 16 (3): 221-230.
SI X. Q., LIU J., ZHANG H. G. & YUAN C. W. 1993-Preliminary report on the excavation of Panxian Dadong, a Palaeolithic cave-site in Guizhou Province. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 12 (2): 113-121.
TANG Y. J., LI Y. & CHEN W. Y. 1995. Mammalian fossils and the age of Xiaochangliang palaeolithic site of Yangyuan, Hebei. Vertebrata PalAsiatica 33 (1): 74-83.
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN P. & PIVENEAU J. 1930. Les Mammiferes Fossils de Nihowan (Chine). Annales de Paleontologie. 19: 1-154.
TEILHARD DE CHARDIN P., YOUNG C. C, PEI W. C. & CHANG H. C. L935. On the Cenozoic Formations of Kwangsi and Kwangtung. Buli. Geol. Soc. China, 14: 179-205.
WEIQ. 1978. New discovery from Nihewan Beds and its significance in stratigraphy. In The Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Palaeoanthropology, the Treatises on Palaeoanthropology: 136-150.
1985. Palaeoliths from the Lower Pleistocene of the Nihewan Beds in the Donggutuo site. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 4 (4): 289-300.
1988. Le Cadre Stratigraphicjue, Geochronologi-que et Biostratigraphique des sites les plus an-ciens connus en Chine. L' Anthropologie92 (3): 931-938.
1997. The framework of archaeological geology of the Nihewan Basin. In Tong Yongsheng et al. (eds.), Evidence for Evolution in Honor of Prof Chungchien Young on the Hundredth Anniver-sary of His Birth: 23-38■
YOU Y. Z., Tang, Y. J. and Li Y. X. 1978. Paleolithic discoveries in the Nihewan formation. Quaternary Research 1 (5): 1-13-
YUAN B. Y. 1995. Correlation of the typical Quater-nary Section in North China. In Terra Nostra. Schrif ten der Alfred-Wegener-Stiftung. International Union for Quaternary Research XIV International Congress (Abstract), 2/95: 308.

UDK 903(510)"633/6343"
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
Searching for the Early Neolithic in China
Xingcan Chen
Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing
ABSTRACT - The purpose of this paper is to present and interpret the archaeological dala on the earliest ceramic assemblages in China that may not be otherivise available to archaeologists ivorking outside China, 1 ivill focus on nine sites, tvhich I believe correspond to the earliest Neolithic cultures ivith archaic potterv in China,
POVZETEK - Namen članka je predstaviti in interpretirati arheološke podatke o najstarejših keramičnih najdbah na Kitajskem, ki morda niso dostopne arheologom izven Kitajske. Osredotočili se bomo na devet najdišč, ki po našem mnenju odgovarjajo najstarejšim neolitskim kulturam.
INTRODUCTION
Pottery making is considered one of the most impor-tant inventions in human history. In China, pottery is thought either to signify the appearance of the Neolithic period or to represent one of the funda-mental features of the period ( Yu 1987; An 1997). Therefore, exploring the origins of pottery is a key to understanding Early Neolithic cultures.
In northern China, the lack of Early Neolithic re-mains was mentioned by Swedish geologist J. G. An-dersson as early as the 1920s, when he excavated the first Neolithic culture, the Yangshao culture, in the Yellow River valley (Andersson 1925). In the 1930s, a famous Chinese archaeologist, Xu Bing-chang, thought he had found the Early Neolithic culture in Shaanxi province when his team excavated the Doujitai site in the middle Yellow River valley. But this discovery attracted no attention because of the Japanese invasion. Archaeological discoveries made in later years showed that his findings at the Doujitai site were the remains of the Longshan culture, a late Neolithic culture even later than the Yang-shao culture (Chen Hngcan 1997a.304-305).
Some remains dated to the pre-Yangshao period were first discovered in Shaanxi province in the late 1950s.The Early Neolithic culture was then con-firmed after the excavations of the Peiligang culture in Henan, the Cishan culture in Hebei and Laoguan-
tai or Dadhvan I culture in Shaanxi and eastern Gan-su provinces in the late 1970s (Jan 1979; An 1979; Chen Xingcan 1997b). But, these cultures, dated to about 7000-8000 BP, show the existence of an well-organised sedentary life, millet cultivation, and an advanced ceramic industry. They are too late to be considered Early Neolithic cultures, due to their ma-turity in agriculture and pottery-making technology and the tirne gap between the end of the Pleistoce-ne (c. 12 000 BP in Northern China) and these Neolithic cultures. Therefore, those cultures are recon-sidered as either the early period of the middle Neolithic or the late period of the Early Neolithic, and only cultures before this period can be identified as from the true Early Neolithic. A stone tool manufac-turing site at Emaokou in Shanxi province and the tomb of "Donghulin Man" were discovered in the 1960s and were thought to be Early Neolithic remains.
Finally, the excavation at the Nanzhuangtou site, in Hebei province (Baoding diqu tvenguansuo 1992) attracted the attention of archaeologists in the late 1980s, because this site yielded the earliest pottery and stone mortars and pestles, dated to about 10 000 BP.
The Yangzi River valley witnessed the finding of an Early Neolithic culture when an excavation was con-
ducted in the eaiTy 1960s at the Xianrendong site in Jiangxi province. But contradictory radiocarbon dates led to questions on the reliability of the data (An 1989). The Hemudu culture, excavated in 1973 in the lower Yangzi River valley dated to 7000 BP, promoted a revolution in the understanding of the prehistory of this region, which was previously thought to be very backward and uncivilised until the introduction of a more advanced culture from the Yellow River valley in dynastic times.
After a number of Neolithic cultures dated between 7000 to 8000 BP were discovered in the lower and middle Yangzi River valley, the problem of the Early Neolithic has been raised again (He 1996; Chen Xingcan 1997b). In 1977, two pottery sherds, asso-ciated with fossils of Crocuta ultima Matsumoto (an animal which existed in the late Pleistocene, but became extinct in the Holocene), were found at the Henxiandong cave site in Lishui county, Jingsu province. These pottery sherds, therefore, were consid-ered as among the earliest Neolithic ceramic remains in China (Li Yanxian et al. 1980). The 1990s has brought a series of excavations related to Early Neolithic culture in the middle Yangzi River valley, and the material remains found at Xianrendong, Diao-tonghua in Jiangxi province and Yuchanyan in Hu-nan province have revived discussions on Early Neolithic cultures (Yuan 1996; Liu 1996).
A number of sites containing archaic ceramics were discovered as early as the 1950's, and more sites continue to be discovered today in the Lingnan region, an area south of the Yangzi River valley (Jiao 1990\ Zhao 1997). By the beginning of the 1990s, about 120 early Holocene sites had been discovered in this region (Jiao 1992), although the date and na-ture of many of these sites are stili controversial (An 1989; Fu 1998). In recent years, the Institute of Ar-
chaeology at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and local archaeologists from the Zhuang Auto-momous Region in Guangxi, have jointly excavated two shell-mound sites at Dingshishan and Baozitou, both near Nanning city, the capital of Guangxi. The excavations have yielded many new clues for the study of Early Neolithic culture in this region and in South China (Fu et al, 1998).
As early as in 1947, the material deposits found at Zalainuoer in Inner Mongolia, led Professor Pei Wenzhong to believe that these were remains of the Mesolithic era (Pei 1947). At the beginning of the 1970s, coarse ceramics associated with microlith cores, and the bones of humans and Mommuthus primigenius Blumenbac were found in the bottom of layer 4 at this site. This material was considered to be from one of the earliest Neolithic cultures in north-east China and North East Asia (Shi 1978). Since there is a large number of Neolithic sites dated between 7000 and 8000 BP, I believe that there may have been a long developmental process in Early Neolithic prior to this period in north-east China.
NORTHERN CHINA
Nanzhuangtou (Fig. la-b; 2a-b)
This site, about 10 km to the east of the Taihang Mountain and 21.4 m above sea level, is located on the western margin of the Huabei Plain. It consists of several stratigraphical components (Baoding diqu ivenguansuo et al. 1992; Li Jun 1998). The lowest occupation has seven radiocarbon dates in a range between 9700 and 10 510 BP. This component con-tains stone artefacts including mortars, pestles, and a hammer, but without microliths or small chipped stone tools, which often occur at late Palaeolithic
Fig. la-b. Left: Potsherds from the Nanzhangtou site (From the 1980's e.vcavation at Nanzhuangtou site, Northern China. The ceramic is brittle and coarse, and represents the beginning of pottery-making in North China.) (After Baodingdiqu Wenguanhui etc. 1992.). Right: Stone pestle from the Nanzhuangtou site.
Fig. 2a-b. Left: Stone mortarfront the Nanzhuangtou site. (No traces offarrning exist, but the appearance ofbothpestle and mortar may indicate that food collecting is extremely important and initial agriculture isjust under u ay.) (After Baodingdiqu Wenguanhui etc. 1992.) Right: Bone atvlfrom the Nanzhuangtou site. (Front the 1980's excavation. Bone and antler implements are very important in the Nanzhuangtou culture; this isfurther demonstrated by the 1990's e.vcavation.) (After Baodingdiqu Wenguanhui etc. 1992.)
and Early Neolithic sites in both southern and north-ern China. Bone and antler tools, such as awls and arrowheads, were found. In addition, pottery sherds were discovered in the lowest level of deposits. An examination of the pottery by the excavators and myself suggests that the pottery-making technology was rather primitive.
The ceramic paste is coarse. tempered with quartz, biotite, sand, and shell. The texture is brittle and lo-ose. The thickness is uneven, about 0.8-1.0 cm. The surface decoration is predominantly cord-marked, but also includes applique bands and picks, prick designs, and perforations. The pottery types are sim-ple, flat-bottomed jars, usually with smudge traces on the outer surface. The manufacturing techniques are stili unknown because of the small size of the sherds. Excavators {fin et al. 1992) have identified no evidence for the slab-method. However, some kind of moulding or a paddle-and-anvil technique may have been used. No re-firing test has been carried out to determine the firing temperature. However, the presence of carbonised plant fibres on the inner surface, a greyish-brown colour of the past, and the im-pure surface, suggest a very low firing temperature.
YANGZI RIVER REGION Shenxiandong
The cave site is located on the north-western slope of the Huifengshan hill and at an elevation of more than 80 m above sea level. The cave deposits can be divided into upper and lower components separated by a 10 cm limestone board. The cultural remains and animal fossils were found in the upper compo-
nent. Two pottery sherds and the bones of Crocnta ultima Matsumoto and Meles leucurus Hodgson were found at the second level of this component (Lishiti Sheminadong Tearn 1980] Li Yanxian et al 1980). The radiocarbon date of the layer points to 11 200 years ago and the appearance of Crocuta ultima Matsumoto of the late Pleistocene support the date, although more dating work is needed.
The two potsherds are very small, the largest being only 2.7 cm long, 1.8 cm wide, and 0.5 cm thick, so manufacturing techniques cannot yet be determined. The outer surface of the sherds is brown, while the inner surface is orange. The thickness is uneven, and some micro air holes can be seen in both the inner and outer surfaces. The ceramic paste is tempered with fine sand and plant fibre, which was carbonised. However, since only a small portion of the site was excavated, and no cultural material other than potsherds was found, the authenticity of this site and the potsherds has been challenged by some archae-ologists (An 1989; Deng 1986; Zuochuan 1984).
Xianrendong (Fig. 3, 4) and Diaotonghuan
The Xianrendong site is located on the slope of a small hill in the north-east of Jiangxi province. With a river and flat land in front of the cave, the habitat is suitable for human habitation. Four excavations have been carried out since 1962, and the latest ones, in 1993 and 1995, conducted by a Sino-Ameri-can team has yielded exciting results that have yet to be published (fiangxisheng ivenguanhui 1963; fiangxisheng boivuguan 1976; Lin 1996).
The reporters of the first excavation realised that the site consisted of two cultural-chronological com-
ponents. The lower occupation was the Early Neoli-thic, and the upper one was the late Eneolithic. The researchers on the second excavation of 1964, how-ever, believed that the both occupations belonged to the Early Neolithic. Although archaeologists had dif-ferent opinions on the chronology of the deposits, they ali agreed that the two occupations had chipped and polished stone tools and potsherds. The only difference is that the lower one had less polished stone tools with less variation in ceramics, while polished stone tools and various ceramics dominated the upper one. The last two excavations revealed four horizons; the third and fourth were thought to be the lower occupation, and the second was the upper occupation. The cultural remains of the two occupations are different because the lower one has only chipped stone tools, whereas the upper one has not only chipped and polished stone tools, but also potsherds. The lower occupation is considered to be of late Palaeolithic culture, while the upper is Early Neolithic. Since a report on the latest excavations has not yet been published, it is impossible to com-pare deposits yielded from different excavations. However, it seems that the upper occupation of the last two excavations can be further divided into different periods, which correlate to the lower occupations of the first two excavations. The radiocarbon dates of the upper occupation of 1993 and 1995 ex-cavations are from 9000 to 14000 BP, and thus have been regarded as the earliest Neolithic remains in China.
Diaotonghuan ročk shelter site is about 800 m away from the Xianrendong site. It consists of the same cultural-chronological components as those of the
Xianrendong site. It is thus considered the campsite of the residents living in Xianrendong.
The lower occupation of the 1960s excavations shares many characteristics with the upper occupation of the 1990s excavations. For example, polished stone tools appeared, and a large number of bone and shell tools were found. The pottery paste is pri-marily coarse, tempered with sand (mainly quartz), as large as 1.0 cm long and 0.5 cm wide. The walls of the sherds are uneven and thick. The texture is brittle and loose. The pottery shapes are simple, mainly round-bottomed jars, based on the recon-struction of large pieces of potsherd. It is difficult to distinguish body parts from rims. The colour is het-erogeneous reddish and brown, resulting from in-adequate control of the firing temperature. The pot-tery surface is unslipped and rough. In some cases, both the inner and outer surfaces are decorated with cord marks or basket-like impressions. I have thus hypothesised that some kind of moulding or a paddle-and- anvil technique was employed. A round-ed stone, bamboo, basket, gourd, or melon may have been used as a mould, to which pieces of clay were then applied (Chen Xingcan 1998; Wang 1995). Some kinds of perforations were applied near rims; a similar feature has been identified in early ceram-ic assemblages in the Russian Far East and other parts of China (Zhushchikhovskaya 1997; Chen Xingcan 1998). I hypothesise that the perforation is evidence of a molding technique rather than a kind of deco-ration.
Pollen analysis and phytolith studies show that the incipient cultivation of wild rice should have been
Fig. 3. Xianrendong. Early Neolithic stone tools and artefacts. (After Jiangxi-sheng Wenuu Guangli Weiyuanhui 1963; Jiong-xisheng Boivuguan 1976.) M 1:2.
Fig. 4. Xianrendong. Early Neolithic bone tools. (After Jiangxisheng Wentm Guan-gli Weiyuanhui 1963; Jian-gxisheng Boumguan 1976.) M 1:2.
practised during the upper occupation period. But more work on absolute dating is needed.
Yuchanyan
This cave site is located at Baishizhai village in Dao-xian county, Hunan Province. It consists of cultural deposits of about 120 to 180 cm in depth, with a large number of artefacts such as tools made of stone, bone, antler, and shell. Ali stone tools are chipped, including cores, flakes, choppers, scrapers, knifes and hoe-like tools. The stone tools are very coarse, and few microliths were found (Vuan 1996).
The ceramic assemblages from this component are predominantly small fragments of body sherds. The ceramic paste is coarse, tempered with sand and plant fibre. The colour is brown, indicating that the firing temperature was low. The walls of the ceram-ics are as thick as 2 cm. However, the texture is very brittle because of the low firing temperature and non-plastic temper. In some potsherds, two or more layers can be observed on the cross section, and bas-ket-like marks can be seen on both the inner and outer surfaces. These may be related to manufactur-ing techniques such as molding. An experimental study in making ceramic vessels on a hard mold has shown that small pieces or disks of clay can be ap-plied to the mold in order to form a vessel (Zhushchi-khovskaya 1997; Yu 1987).
No radiocarbon dates of this component have been published, but a similar site nearby has been dated to 12 060 ± 120 BP Thus it is believed that the Yu-
chanyan component is about 10 000 BP ( Yuan 1996). One of the most important findings at this site is the discovery of rice husks and rice phytoliths. Studies indicate that rice began to be cultivated there. The-refore, the rice remains discovered at Yuchanyan represent the earliest evidence of rice cultivation in China and in the world. However, more dating work must be done before we make any further infer-ences.
LINGNAN REGION
Dingshishan (Fig. 5a-b)
This site is a shell mound site, located on the first terrace of the Bachijiang river in the east of Nanning city, Zhuang autonomous region, Guangxi province. It consists of several cultural-chronological compo-nents (Fu 1998; Fu et al. 1997). The lowest occupation is under a layer containing shells and is about 20 to 30 cm thick. This component contains stone artefacts of a small flake tool tradition, which is char-acterised by micro cores and flakes only about 1-1.5 cm long, directly purchased from silicic volcanic cob-bles. Only a few pieces of ceramic vessels were discovered, and there is no distinction between body and rim parts. The shape is simple, with a round bot-tom. The walls of the pottery are thick and the tex-ture is brittle. The outer surface is decorated with cord marks, and in some cases, the rims were decorated with applique bands. The ceramic paste is tempered with sand. The size of the sand is uneven, and the distribution of grains in the paste is irregular.
Fig. 5. a: Potsherds of Dingshishan site (front view). b: Potsherds of Dingshishan site (back vieiv). From the firstperiod of Dingshishan site. south China, about 10 000 BP. Extremely coarse sand catt be seen from both exterior and interior faces. (After Fu 1998.)
This component is considered one of the earliest Neolithic remains in the Lingnan region (Fu 1998). No radiocarbon dates for the component are avail-able, but the upper level of occupation is dated to 10 365 ± 113 BP Taking into account the error in radiocarbon dating caused by limestone environment there, it is believed that the upper level of occupation is about 7000-8000 BP. Typological studies of ceramics support this hypothesis. Therefore, the component in concern should be dated about 10 000 BP (Fu 1998). However, more work on the dating of the component stili needs to be done before we make any further inferences.
Liyuzhui
The site is located in the southern suburb of Liuzhou city, in the Zhuang autonomous region, Guangxi Pro-
vince. It consists of two cultural-chronological com-ponents (Liuzhoushi boivuguan et al. 1983)- The lower component consists of shell deposits as thick as 100 to 170 cm, containing both chipped and pol-ished stone tools and ceramic fragments. The chipped stone artefacts are come from two traditions: chopper-chopping tools and small, chert tlake tools. Axes and discs with a hole in the centre dominate the polished stone tools. But the chipped stone tools make up the majority of the stone artefacts. Only eight pieces of potsherd have been discovered. Among them, seven are tempered with sand and one is of fine clay. Thickness varies from 0.2 to 0.8 cm. The surface is red or black, decorated with coarse cord marks. The shapes of the vessels, although they cannot yet be reconstructed accurately, are probably as simple as those from the other sites: jars with round bottoms and no clear distinction between the body and rim parts.
Two radiocarbon dates are available for this component: the shell sample is 23330 ± 250 BP (BK 82091), but the human bone sample at the upper level of the occupation is 11 785 ± 150 BP (PV-0402). These dates contradict two other dates of 12 880 ± 220 BP (BK 82090) and 7860 ± 100 BP (PV-0378) obtained from the upper level of components. In spite of errors in dating, it seems that the upper and lower occupations may have been accumulated over a long period, and the lower one may have conta-ined the Early Neolithic remains. Comparative studies on ceramics and lithics also indicate the existence of the Early Neolithic culture.
Zhuwuyan
This cave site is located on the eastern slope of a small hill, with a main chamber facing to the east and two side chambers extending to the west and south (Guangdongsheng Boivuguan 1961). The in-vestigation and test excavation yielded many mate-rials, such as shells, burnt bones, ash, choppers, and, most important, a piece of potsherd. The potsherd is sandy ware, with coarse cord marks.
Several similar cave sites have also been discovered nearby. Some of them contained ceramic remains, which are usually considered as the same assemblage as the example from the Zhuwuyan site. A re-col-lecting sample from the Zhuwuyan site has a radiocarbon date of 17 140 ± 260 BP (BK) (Chen Tiemei 1988). This date is far from reliable. However, the artefacts support the hypothesis that the component is of Early Neolithic cultural remains.
NORTH EASTERN CHINA Zhalainuoer
This site is located at an open coalmine near Mang-zhouli city, Inner Mongolia. Human and animal bones and cultural remains have been found sever-al times since the 1930s. In 1974, geologists made an observation on a section at the northern part of the minefield, and divided a Quaternary occupation of 12.9 m into six layers. Three human skulls and a number of artefacts were discovered frorn the fourth layer (Shi 1978). The material component contains stone artefacts characterised as frorn the microlithic tradition, including arrowheads, end scrapers with convex edges, microcores, and microbaldes. In addi-tion, notched bone knives, bone awls and a piece of polished bone scapular blade, fragments of ceramic vessels, including undecorated and cord-marked ones were found in the same context. Ali pottery sherds are tempered with sand, and unslipped and rough.
There was no carbon 14 dates for the component prior to the 1980s investigation. A date of 11460 ± 230 BP (PV-15) obtained from the upper part of the fifth layer indicates that the component was about 10 000 BP, which belongs to the early Holocene (Shi 1978). But some archaeologists doubt the reliability of the date, since the sample was not from the fourth layer (An 1983). In 1980, another investigation was carried out and the results supported the first investigation. That is, the component belongs to the early Holocene (Li Xingguo et al. 1991). How-ever, two radiocarbon dates of 11660 ± 130 BP (PV-171, wood sample) and 7070 ± 200 BP (PV-106, shell sample) from the upper parts of the fifth and the fourth layers make the situation more compli-cated. Geologists believe that there is a bed between the fifth and sixth layers, which respectively corre-sponds to the Pleistocene/Holocene transition. So, it is believed that it is proper to date the component to about 10000 BP, even though the fourth layer was considered as a lacustrine sedimentation rather than a residential area of human occupation (You 1984). Since formal reports have not been published yet, any inference is debatable. However, the microlithic tradition may support the above conclusion. Also, the early ceramics assemblage between 8000 and 13 000 BP from the Russian Far East and Japan hint the possible existence of the Early Neolithic cul-ture with incipient pottery making.
I believe that the eight sites discussed above are the earliest Neolithic cultural remains with incipient ce-
ramic assemblages. The Peiligang culture in the middie Yellow River valley, the Houli culture of the lower Yellow River valley and the Pengtoushan culture in the middie Yangzi River valley ali revealed ceramic remains dated to as early as 8500 BP (Henan-sheng ivenurn yanjiusuo 1998; Shandong sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 1998; He 1996). If we plače ali the cultural remains prior to 8000 BP in Early Neolithic culture, these sites should be includ-ed in this discussion. But ali of them developed ad-vanced sedentary villages and practised agriculture, therefore they are excluded here.
DISCUSSION
The earliest Neolithic sites in China, six of them are cave or shelter, and three are identified as open-air sites share many common features. For example, they are characterised by the same subsistence strat-egy of hunting, fishing and gathering, rather than far-ming, although in some cases incipient rice cultivation may have been employed (Yuchayan). The occur-rence of polished stone mortars and pestles (Nan-zhuangtou) may indicate the processing of grains, but no cultivated millets or other crops were found in the deposits. These tools, therefore, may have been used to process wild plants rather than domesticated ones. Stone mortars were also discovered at the terminal Palaeolithic site, Xiachuan, which is located not far away from Nanzhuangtou. They are considered as tools for processing wild plants. At a few sites, knives made of shells were used as cutting tools. These shell knives, along with a large quantity of mollusc and fish remains, show that fishing may have played an important role in the daily life of these prehistoric people. Only two kinds of animal found at the Nanzhuangtou site, pig and dog, may have been domesticated but identification is stili problematic (,Baoding diqu ivenguansuo 1992).
Various stone tool traditions developed in different regions, but the stone artefacts are characterised by a combination of Palaeolithic and Neolithic techno-logies. In the cave sites in southern China, chipped tools dominated the lithic assemblages. In some cases, a chopper-chopping tool tradition occurred (Zhuwuyan, Liyuzhui); while in other cases a small flake tradition (Yuchanyan and Xianrendong) dominated the tool kit. In one čase at the Dingshishan site, a microlithic-like tradition existed. Fauna analy-sis shows that there were no extinct species of the Pleistocene in those assemblages, except for the Shenxiandong assemblage with the finding of Cro-cuta ultima Matsumoto.
Early ceramic assemblages from the different re-gions in China are characterised by certain techno-logical and morphological features. Almost alkeram-ic pastes are very coarse, and tempered with non-plastic material (mainly quartz, and in some cases plant fibre). The size and distribution of the sand grains in the paste are irregular; indicating that nat-ural clay may have been used, without artificially processing the temper (Zhushchiknovskaya 1997). However, a stack of artificially tempered clay with very coarse quartz grains was discovered at the Bao-zitou site near Dingshishan, dating to a period later than the lowest occupation of the Dingshishan site (.Fu 1998). This may suggest that even incipient ceramic pastes were artificially processed rather than directly obtained from natural sources.
Ali ceramic vessels were hand-made, but not ali assemblages provide evidence of manufacturing tech-niques. In most cases, a molding technique, perhaps in conjunction with the use of a paddle and anvil, may have been employed. This hypothesis is sup-ported by the fact that cord or basket-like marks are found on both inner and outer surfaces, and that two or more layers of clay can be observed on the cross sections of some vessel walls. Small pieces or discs of clay may have been pasted on a stone, bas-ket, or even a guard to form a vessel in the initial manufacture. The coiling method, mainly used in the middle and late Neolithic periods in China, has not been found in these early assemblages. This is different from that of the early assemblages of the Far East region in Russia, where a coiling technique was employed in the early pottery-making period. The use of molds in the manufacturing process was pop-ular in several areas of Eurasia (Borrinsky 1978), especially in East Asia (Zhushchikhovskaya 1997; Wa?ig 1995; Yu 1987; Chen Xingcan 1998).
Most ceramic vessels are decorated with cord marks; only a few are plain. Applique bands and /or perfo-rations are often employed on the rim. These features are similar to those of early ceramics from other regions of eastern Asia and other areas in the world ('Vandiver 1991; Zhushchikhovskaya 1997). The appearance of perforations may indicate the appli-cation of a molding method. The absence of surface treatments, such as rubbing, smoothing, and slip-ping, is typical of these early assemblages.
The ceramic shapes are simple. In most cases, there is no distinction between body and rim parts. The bases of almost ali vessels found in southern China, whenever identifiable, are rounded (Xianrendong,
Dingshishan). But, a flat base seems to dominate pot-tery design in north China (Nanzhuangtou). These features later became distinctive traditions charac-terising southern and northern Neolithic ceramic assemblages in China. For example, most vessels from the Xinglouwa culture in Inner Mongolia \vhich have been dated to 7000 to 8000 BP are flat-bottomed, while the Pentoushan culture of the middle Yangzi River valley has yielded more round-bottomed vessels. The different traditions may occur as early as the onset of the pottery-making period. The differ-ences may reflect that different molds were used for ceramic production then. The prehistoric people of the South may have used round-bottomed objects such as basket or guard as molds, while people in the North may have used flat-bottomed objects such as wooden containers as molds.
In the Earlv Neolithic cultures, a reddish-brown or greyish-black coarse ware with sandy or plant fibre temper made up the major portion of pottery assemblages. The walls of the sherds are uneven and thick. The ceramic samples are very brittle and loose. In most cases, the sherds are very small, so it is diffi-cult to study and to reconstruct manufacturing tech-niques. The firing temperature must have been very low because of the brittle texture and heterogeneous colour. However, re-firing tests have not been car-ried out in most cases, and no kilns have been found at those early sites. It is reasonable to infer that the incipient pottery may have been burned in open-fir-ing sites rather than in kilns.
These eight sites consist of ceramic assemblages that represent a similar level of pottery manufacture, and are dated to a fairly large temporal interval between 14000 and 9000 BP. This large interval may be affected by the small number of radiocarbon dates available for these assemblages, and by the lack of more efficient absolute dating methods. How-ever, any progress in Early Neolithic studies should be based on fieldwork rather than on carbon 14 dating itself. The contradictory absolute dates may have been caused by fieldwork rather laboratory errors.
Since the pottery dated to about 10000 BP was found in the 1950s in the Japanese archipelago, East Asia has been considered as one of the locations to search for the origins of ceramics by a increasing number of archaeologists in the world (Deng 1985). As early as 8000 BP, various ceramic traditions had been established in China, indicating that there must have been a long process of development in each of those traditions prior to this period. Archaeological
discoveries support this hypothesis. The new evidence not only places the origins of pottery to a period 1000 years earlier than we thought before, but also changes our understanding of the Early Neolithic cultures.
There are two cjuestions arising from these new data. First, did the invention of ceramics appear with subsistence based on agriculture? It seems that the early pottery vessels were made by people who depended on food foraging rather than on food pro-duction. Although rice cultivation may have started in some areas (Diaotonghua and Xianrendong), hunt-ing, fishing, and gathering stili dominated the econ-omy. In most areas of Lingnan and north-east China, agriculture did not begin until the late Neolithic or even the Bronze Age. In contrast, the peoples in West Asia and Southeast Europe had lived in sedentary villages and practised agriculture for 1000 years or more before making pottery (Singh 1974). The sec-ond question is, did China experience Pre-Pottery Neolithic cultures? The concept of a pre-pottery Neo-
lithic that refers to the appearance of agriculture sig-nifies the beginning of the Neolithic Age. But agriculture did not occur in most of the early Holocene sites, regardless of the presence of ceramics. It seems that the idea of a Pre-Pottery Neolithic, which is widely used in the Western literature, may not be apt for Early Neolithic cultures in China.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank ali of the Chinese colleagues who gave me permission to observe and study Early Neolithic cultural artefacts from archaeological exca-vations in China. I am grateful to Mr. Fuxianguo, Zhao Yonghong and Ming Wei for processing slides, and to Liu Jianguo for his help in map making. Dr. Li Liu has helped extensively in improving the lan-guage and style of this article. I express my gratitude to Dr. Mihael Budja for giving me the opportunity to come to Ljubljana and present this paper at the Fifth Neolithic Seminar on the Neolithization of Europe and Asia: Regional Approaches.
REFERENCES
ANDERSSON G. J. 1925. Preliminary report on archaeological research in Kansu. MGSCA 5:1-51.
AN ZHIMIN 1979- Peiligang, cishan he yangshao. Kaogu 4:335-346.
1983. Zhongguo wanqi jiushicji de tan-14 duan-dai he wenti. Renlebcue xuebao 2 (4): 342-350.
1989. Huanan zaoqi xinshiqi de tan-14 duandai wenti. Disiji yanjiu 2: 50-57.
1997. Xingshiqi shidai de taoqi. In Zhongguo taoci shi, 1-2. Zhongguo guisuanyan xuehui.
BAODINGDIQU WENGUANHUI et al. 1992. Hebei xu-shui nanzhuangtou yizhi shijue jianbao. Kaogu 11: 961-970.
BORRINSKY A. A. 1978. The Pottery-Making ofEast-ern Europe. (in Russian).
CHEN TIEMEI 1988. Woguo jiushiqi shidai kaogu niandaixue de jinzhan he pingshu. Kaogu xuebao 3: 362-364.
CHEN XINGCAN 1997a. Zhongguo shiqian Kaogu-xue shiyanjiu (1895-1949).
1997b. Zhongguo shiqian kaoguxue fazhan de ruogan wenti. Shixue lilun yanjiu 4: 54-60.
1998. Zhipen, huopen he taoqi de qiyuan. Wen-wu tiandi. in press.
DENG CONG 1985. Dongya taoqi qiyuan niandai guankui. Xianggang zhongiven daxue zhongguo wenhua yanjiusuo xuebao 16: 227-240.
1986. Riben jiuzhou tuqi qiyuan de kaocha-zhong-han kaoguxue de jianwen. Kaoguxue Journal 270: 36-43 (in Japanese).
FU XIANGUO et al. 1997. Dingshishan beiqiu yizhi fajue huo zhongyao shouhuo. Zhongguo wenwu bao. December 14.
1998. Guangxi diqu zaoqi taoqi ji zhitao jishu de fazhan. Paper presented at the international sym-posium on Looking at the Japanese People and their culture from Asia a nd the Pacific.
GUANGDONGSHENG BOWUGUAN 1961. Guangdong-sheng wengyuanxian qingtang xingshiqi shidai yizhi. Kaogu 11:585-594.
HE JIEJUN 1996. Hunan zaoqi xinshiqi shidai wen-hua yicun. Hunan xianqin kaogmcueyanjiu: 62-66.
HENANSHENG wenwu yanjiusuo 1998. Jiashu xin-shiqi wenhua yizhi. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe. (in press.)
JIAO TIANLONG 1990. Lingnan jiushiqi wanqi wen-hua yanjiu zhong de ruogan jige went\.firmgxi wen-ivu 1: 43-47.
JIANGXISHENG BOWUGUAN 1976. Jiangxi wannian xianrendong dongxue yizhi di erci fajue baogao. Wenwu 12: 23-30.
JIANGXISHENG WENGUAGNHUI 1963. Jiangxi wan-nian xianrendong dongxue yizhi shijue. Kaogu xue-bao 1: 1-17.
JIN JIAGUANG et al. 1992. Qianyi xushui nanzhu-angtou xinshiqi shidai zaoqi yizhi. Kaogu 11:1018-1022.
LI JUN 1998. Xushui nanzhuangtou yizhi youyou zhongyao kaogu faxian. Zhongguo wenwu bao. February 11.
LIU SHIZHONG 1996. Jiangxia xianrendong he diao-tonghuan fajue huo zhongyao jinzhan. Zhongguo enwu bao. January 28.
LISHUI SHENXIANDONG FAJUE XIAOZU 1978. Lishui shenxiandong faxian jujin 11200 ± 1000 nian de taopian-jianlun qi wei yuanshi leixing zhi taopian. Nanjing guowuyuan 1980 nian kexue baogao hui.
LI XINGGUO et al. 1987. Tan 14 ceding niandai fang-fa zai gujizhuidongwu yu gurenleixue zhong de ying-yong. In Jiu Shihua (ed.), Zhongguo 14C niandaixue yanjiu: 315-316.
LI YANXIAN et al. 1980. Jiangsu lishui shenxiandong faxian de dongwu huashi. Gujishui dongwuyugu-renlei 18 (1): 59-63.
PEI WENZHONG 1947. Zhongguo xishiqi wenhuya lueshuo. Yanjing xuebao 33: 40-51.
SHANDONGSHENG wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 1998. Shandong faxian baqiannian qian de juzhi juluo.
Zhongguo wenwu bao. Januarv 21.
SHI YANSHI 1978. Zalainuoer fujin muzhi biaoben de tan-14 niandai ceding jiqi dizhi yiyi. Gujizhui dongivu yu gurenlei 16 (2): 151-162.
SINGH P. 1974. Neolithic Cultures ofWestern Asia.
VANDIVER P. B. 1991- The most ancient tradition of Japanese ceramics. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on fine ceramics Arita 92: 75-92.
WANG XIAOQING 1995. The occurrence of pottery in China and the development of technology. In Toadzia kekutonodoku no kigaen (The origin of Ceramics in Eastern Asia): 72-92.
YAN WENMING 1979- Huanghe liuyu xinshiqi shidai zaoqi wenhua de xin faxian. Kaogu 1: 56-63-
YOU YUZHU 1984. Lun huabei jiushiqi wanqi yizhi de fenbu, maicang yiji dizhi shidai wenti. Renleixue xuebao 3 (lf 68-75.
YU WEICHAO 1987. Zhongguo zaoqi de "mozhifa" zhitao shu. Wenwu yu kaogu lunji: 228-238.
YUAN JIARONG 1996. Yuchanyuan shuidao qiyuan zhongyao xingwuzheng. Zhongguo ivemvu bao. March 3-
ZHAO CHAOHONG 1997. Zhongguo xishiqi shidai zaoqi wenhua de faxian. Yanjiu ji xiangguan wenti de tantao. Kaogivcue yanjiu (3): 19-36.
ZUOCHUAN ZHENGMIN 1984. Taoqi shiyong de kai-shi: zhongguo ge diqu de zui gulao de taoqi. Kaogu-xue fournal 239: 13-19 (in fapanese).
ZHUSHUCHIKHOVSKAYA I. 1997. On early pottery-making in the Russian Far East. Asian perspectives 36 (2): 159-174.
UDK 903(510)"633/6343"
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
New achievements in the study on the transitional period from the Palaeolithic to the Neolithic in China
Zhao Chaohong
Department of Archaeology, Peking University, Beijing
ABSTRACT - The archaeological data on transitional period from Palaeolithic to Neolithic in South and North and South China are presented. In South China in the transitional period from 21000 BP to 12000 BP, the primitive pottery, polished blades, microliths andplant opalphytoliths similar to cultivated rice appeared in the context of chipped pebble flake tools, polished bone and antler tools, and foraging and hunting subsistence economy. In North China the transitional period is embedded in tirne span from 16000 BP to 11000 BP. In stone tool assemblages, the flake tools and microliths prevali, The pottery appeared in the Hutouliang cultural context 10000 BP. There are the evidences of foraging and hunting subsistence economy only.
POVZETEK - V članku predstavljamo arheološke podatke o prehodnem obdobju med paleolitikom in neolitikom v severni in južni Kitajski, V severni Kitajski se v prehodnem obdobju med 21000 BP in 12 000 BP pojavljajo primitivna keramika, glajene kline, mikroliti in rastlinske mlečnosteklene okamnine, podobne gojenemu rižu, v kontekstu z odbitkovnimi orodji, glajenimi kostmi in orodji iz rogovja ter lovsko-nabiralniškim gospodarstvom. V severni Kitajski prehodno obdobje obsega čas med 16000 BP in 11000 BP. Med kamnitimi orodji prevladujejo odbitko vna orodja in mikroliti. Keramika se pojavi 10 000 BP v kulturi Hutouliang. Glede gospodarstva imamo dokaze le za lov in na-biralništvo.
INTRODUCTION
The transitional period from Palaeolithic to Neolithic, identified as Mesolithic by some scholars and, because of some important changes in the history of human development stili attracts pretty much atten-tion in prehistoric archaeology and quaternary envi-ronmental science. Thanks to the continuous pro-gress in natural sciences, technology and in other interdisciplinary studies, Ghinese archaeologists pro-vide remarkable research results in recent years. Several research projects and field activities in Wan-nian, Xianrendong (Jiangxi Province), Qinshui, Xia-chuan/Jixian, Shizitan (Shanxi Province), Liuzhou, Bailiandong (Guangxi Province) and Yangchundu-shizi (Guangdong Province), Diaotonghuan, Daoxian, Yuchanyan (Hunan Province), Yangyuan, Hutouliang (Hebei Province) have been carried out to establish Mesolithic stratigraphic and chronological sequence; to identify palaeoclimatic changes and to provide pa-laeoenvironmental reconstruction; to analyse pro-cess of animal domestication and agriculture origin; to identify the appearance of pottery production and polish stone-tool technology.
Bailiandong (Fig. 1-3)
Bailiandong is a cave site. The tuff seems to divide the cave accumulation into east and west part. The Museum of Liuzhou and the Natural Museum of Beijing and some other research groups excavated the cave deposit in the period from 1973 to 1993. The assemblages of charcoal, burnt bones, calcium slice, spiral shells, and fossil bones and, pollen samples have been collected in correlation with their stratigraphic positions from different cultural and natural layers (Yi Guangyuan et al. 1994; "Excavation report... "1987). The chrono-stratigraphic sequence and the sequence of superimposed layers, artefact and bone assemblages from both parts of cave deposits are presented on Tables 1 and 2.
Yuchanyan
Yuchanyan is a cave dwelling site located in Dao-xian, Hunan Province. The entrance into the cave looks like a 12-15 meters wide, 6-8 meters long, and approximately 5 meters high hali. The catch-ment area is flat and reach with fresh water sources.
The Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology of Hunan Province excavated this site in 1993 and 1995. Artefact assemblage mainly consists of chipped stone tools, bone, antler and, shell tools and a large amount of animal bones was deposited in 1.2-1.8
meters thick deposit. There were also a few pot-sherds with pointed and round bottoms found. The pottery is thick, heavy, and mingled with coarse sands and organic material (Fig.4). Coiling was used as manufacturing technique, namely coils of clay
Fig. 2. Bailiandong, layer 3, ivestem part. Stone tools. M 1:3 - 2:3; 1:2.
Fig. 3■ Bailiandong. La-yer 3, eastern part. Stone tools and imple-tnetits.
were built up to establish the vessel. There are tra-ces of prints on the pottery identified. Some bone tools are polished, and shell tools are perforated. Bone assemblage consists of remains of deer's, birds, mammals, fish, tortoises, and molluscs such as snails and shells. Deer's and birds bones prevail. Flotation and dry sieving produced dozens of seeds and ker-nels. We can conclude that the subsistence strategies were based on hunting and gathering. But, the analy-ses of rice species confirmed that some groups are wild and the other cultivated showing ali character-istics of a wild indica and japonica species. It is be-lieved that the later group belongs to an ancient
Fig. 4. Yuchanyan. Pottery fragment.
type of rice, which has been cultivated approximate-]y 10 000 BC, just before splitting in two species (Yuan fiarong 1996; Yan Wenming 1997).
Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan (Fig. 5)
The Xianrendong site and the Diaotonghuan site are two cave dwelling sites at a distance of 800 meters in Wannian, Jiangxi Province. A SinoAmerican archa-eological team excavated there in two seasons -1993 and 1995. In second season they found 625 pieces of stone tools, 318 pieces of bone tools, 26 pieces of perforated shell tools, 516 pieces of pot-sherds, dozens of fragments of human bones and ten of thousands fragments of animal bones. The artefact assemblages, documented in cultural layers provide important sources for the study of cultural chronology, the settlement pattern changeability, the emergence of pottery production and rice culti-vation in the transitional period from the Late Paleo-lithic to the Early Neolithic in southern China. Small flake tools of flint and quartz, such as scrapers, side-scrapers, gravers, end-scrapers, points, and a few pebble-choppers represent the Late Paleolithic stone tool assemblage. The number of small stone tools significantly decreased in the beginning of Early Neolithic. In the stratum that has been correlated to the transition from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic,
perforated shell tools, bone, and antler shovels, pol-ished stone tools and primitive potsherds were found. The date of the earliest potsherds from the Xianrendong site is earlier than 14000 BP. The pots with round bottoms are mingled with quartz sands, and most of them were made by means of attaching clay-piece sticks, while some others were made by accumulating layers of clay strips. The main decora-tion is an impressed pattern. A large number of plant opal phytoliths of wild rice were unearthed in stra-ta from F to H in the Diaotonghuan site, while some plant opal phytoliths of semi-cultivated rice were found in strata from E to C. The excavators consid-er that the strata from F to P belong to the Late Paleolithic, while the strata from E to C belong to the Early Neolithic. Animal bones comprised several species, including deer, pigs, tortoises, birds and so on, among which deer are the major type, account-ing for about 80%, and pigs and birds are the sec-ond. The Diaotonghuan site was recognised as a tem-porary camp and slaughterhouse for the inhabitants living in Xianrendong at the tirne (Zhang CM, Liu Shizhong 1996).
Miaoyan
The an Miaoyan site is a cave site in Guilin, Guangxi Province. Trial excavation yielded a cultural se-quence stretching from the Late Palaeolithic to the
Neolithic. Cultural deposits are divided into six strata: the earliest potsherds were found in the middle of the fifth stratum. They are coarse and tempered with sand, surface colour varies in toneš of brown-ish-grey to reddish-brown. Pots were probably fired at a low temperature. Potsherds are dated to 14000 cal BP, which is one of the earliest dated pottery assemblage found in China so far (Yuan Sixnn 1997).
Stratum & Sample*		14C age
	(Lab No.)	(yr Bp)
2	BA92030-1	12730 ± 370
3M	BA92033-1	12630 ± 450
4M	BA92034-1	13710 ± 270
5L	BA92036-1	18140 ± 320
6L	BA92037-1	20920 ± 430
14C Ages of the Miaoyan Site.
As it was mentioned above, the study of archaeological cave deposits dated to the period from 21 000 to 12 000 BP provides some insights into the proces-ses of transition from Palaeolithic to Neolithic in South China. Transition period is marked by the appearance of pottery, polished blades, perforated heavy stone tools, microliths, and arrowheads. The pots are coarse and simple shaped with round or pointed round bases. Fabric was tempered with sand
0
4
8 _1_
12 cm
Fig. 5. Xianrendong. Neolithic pottery.
and fired at low temperatures. Although economy was based on hunting and gathering, presence of plant opal phytoliths similar to those of cultivated rice indicates the initiate stage of agriculture.
Shizitan (Fig. 6)
The study of transition from Palaeolithic to Neolithic in northern China is stili at the beginning. The research projects are currently running on Shizitan site in Jixian, Shanxi Province and on Hutouliang site in Yangyuan, Hebei Province.
The Shizitan site is situated near the Qingshui River, a tributary of the Yellow River. The size of the area
Fig. 6. Shizitan, central part. Microlithic stone tools.
excavated in 1980 campaign was more than 100 m-and yielded 10 m thick stratigraphical sequence stretching from the Late Palaeolithic to the Early Neolithic. Many important cultural remains and some animal bones were unearthed during this excava-tion. In 1994, the Department of Archaeology at Peking University and other institutes re-examined the original stratigraphic section and collected carbon and soil samples from each stratum. Samples are stili being processed.
About one half of ali stone tools from the cultural strata dated to 16 000-11000 BP are flaked stone tools (including scrapers, points, arrowheads, etc.), made of flint and quartz, the other half are typical
microlithic tools, represented by a large number of micro-blades and variety of micro-cores (funnel-sha-ped cores, boat boff-shaped cores, wedge-shaped co-res, etc.). Among microlithic tools micro-blades pre-dominate by 70%. Generally, pressure flaking produ-ces them.
Some features were also excavated, including irreg-ularly shaped pits, filled with ashes and burned ani-mal bones. Identified species include antelopes, pigs, oxen, mice, and so on. Antelope bones predominate and a large part of them had been burned. According to the data, economy was based mainly on gathering and hunting {"Cultural Bureau..." 1998; Yuan Si-xun, Zhao Chaohong 1998).
Yujiagou
From 1995 to 1997, the archaeological team of the Hebei Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and the Department of Archaeology at Peking University excavated the Yujiagou site and some other loca-
tions of the Hutouliang group, in Yangyuan, Hebei. Cultural deposits from the Late Palaeolithic to the Early and Middle Neolithic were found, yielding a large number of stone artefacts, animal bones and primitive potsherds. Stone artefacts include micro-cores where wedge-shaped cores predominate, and a certain amount of composite tools such as arrow-heads, spearheads and wedge-shaped tools (Fig. 7). Composite tools hold an important position in the Ji-qitan and Hutouliang culture {Lin Lihong 1998): wedge-shaped tools were found in the Xiachuan site at Qinshui, Shanxi province {"Ji Qi Tan microlithic..." 1993), while in the Hutouliang group there were even more numerous. Some of them had been po-lished at the ventral side and use-wear polish is vi-sible. Wedge-shaped tools from Hutouliang sites are dated earlier than their counterparts of the Xiachuan culture. From the upper stratum of the Xiachuan site come six dates, stretching from 23900 ± 1000 BP (zk-417) to 16400 ± 900 BP (zk-385). Latest phase of the Hutouliang group microlithic culture may be dated to about 10000 BP according to the earliest
Fig. 7. Jiqitan. Wedge-shaped stone tools.
potsherds from Location 65039 (Yujiagou) of the Hutouliang group. Potsherds were found at the bot-tom of sandy loess and the upper part of the lower strata of fine soils, geologically dated to about 10 000 BP (Wang Jian et al. 1978).
The excavation and multi-disciplinary research are stili in progress at present. Important factors to be considered are the climatic changes that took plače during the last glacial stage of the Pleistocene. In this period, the ancient cultures of China had obvi-ously different cultural characteristics due to the en-vironmental differences and different cultural tradi-tions. According to the available data, China can be divided into two areas: South and North, each with its own characteristics. On the whole, South China artefacts and remains are mainly found in caves and rock-shelters, with some locations on river terraces. Single-side retouched stone tools, some tools made of quartzes and flints, and perforated heavy stone tools are characteristic of that area. Mesolithic people also developed relatively advanced bone and horn polishing techniques and shell-drilling techni-ques. A few partly- polished stone tools and coarse sand-mixed pottery were also found in South China. On the other hand, North China sites from this period were mainly found along alluvial plains and some of them in caves. Microliths and composite tools are characteristic of the region, some partly-po-lished stone tools and sand-tempered pottery were also found.
Despite these differences, there are some synchro-nous developments in the economy and technology of both regions.
1.	A few partly-polished stone tools were found in both areas. The blade-polished tools in South China are dated almost as early as 20 000 BP while in North China are younger, dated to 10000 BP.
2.	Primitive pottery appears. In South China, it pro-bably appeared around 12 000 to 15 000 BP, while in North China it is dated to 10 000 BP. Pottery of both regions is similar, both being coarse, with about 1 cm thick walls, sand-tempered and fired at low temperatures. Shapes are simple with few varieties.
3.	The subsistence was based on gathering, hunting and fishing. In some regions with favourable cli-mate, natural resources and social conditions early agriculture and process of domestication might have begun.
4. There are open-air and cave sites. Features of the open air-sites include hearths, pits (natural reces-ses were often used), stone tool workshops, char-coal grains and animal bones, but so far no circu-lar ditches or walls have been discovered.
At present, some achievements have been made in the multi-disciplinary research on the transitional period from the Paiaeolithic to the Neolithic in China, but these studies are stili elementary. In terms of research into the transition period, methods, means and theories need to be improved and streng-thened. For example, the application of phytolith analysis method, pollen analysis and other dating methods need to be supplemented and perfected, and accuracy needs to be improved. Some new sci-entific methods need to be developed. In academic circles, the understanding of the interaction between humans and their surroundings in different natural environments needs to be deepened, in order that people can get closer to the objective reality of the social development of human societies.
Layer	Cultural relics	Ages			
		Lab number	sample material	14C age	uranium-series age
the first layer calcium board	Ostracons with thick cord mark, fragmentary spiral shells	BK82092	calcium board	7080 ± 125 connected by tree-ring dating method bc5952-5630	
the second layer calcium board the total thickness of these two layers is about 5-25cm	spiral shells, animal bones	BK94044	calcium board, (upper) calcium board, (lower)	7140 + 60 9520 + 90	
the third layer Isabel clayey soil, cinereous (grayish white) and tawny (yellow-brown) in part the average thickness: 38cm	1 polished stoneware, 1	ground perforated gravel, 2	perforated stone ornaments, chipped stone stools, a few flint flakes; animal fossil, burnt bones carbon granules, lots of spiral shells	KBY82239 BA93016	osteolith (fossil bones) carbon slack	11160 ± 580 (AMS-14C)	8000 ± 800
the forth layer tawny clayey soil, thickness: about 36cm	1 stone adze with polished blade (its lower part was ground into circular blade), chipped stone stools, a few flint flakes, ground bone artefacts and horn artefacts, animal fossils, a few spiral shells, carbon granules,	BA93017	carbon Slack	13550 + 590 (AMS-14C)	
the fifth layer calcium board thickness: l-4cm	spiral shells seen occasionally	PV-445	calcium board	13905 + 250 (AMS-14C)	
the sixth layer and ročk brown clayey soil, containing sand, thickness: 43cm	incompletely perforated gravel, chipped stone stools, plenty of spiral shells at the top of the accumulation, carbon granules,	BA92003	spiral shell	14650± 230 (AMS-14C)	
the seventh layer calcium board thickness: 44cm		BK94041	calcium board	19465 + 200	
the eighth layer ferruginous clayey soil, containing lots of breccia, exposed thickness: lm, bottom unseen	black flint flakes, animal fossils	BA92013	burnt bones (AMS-14C)	20240 ±660	
Table 1. Dating results of the layer's accumulation, and cultural relics (eastern part).
Layer		Cultural relics	Ages			
original layer	New layer		Lab number	sample material	"C age (BP)	uranium-series age (BP)
accumulation of spiral shells above the main accumulation	1	gravel tools and flint fragments, spiral shells and primitive perforated gravels	BA94027	carbon slack (top)	10310 ±290 (AMS-14C)	
calcium board	2		BK93033	calcium board (top)	12 780 + 180	
the first layer Isabel clayey soil, thickness: 20-34 cm	3	animal fossils, burnt bones, spiral shells	BA92017	spiral Shell	18450 ±410 (AMS-14C)	
the second layer calcium board thickness: 5-30 cm		ground gravel cutting-tool fossil bones, a few spiral shells	BK82097	calcium board	19910 ± 180	
the third layer tawny clayey soil, thickness:: 18-36 cm	4	Chipped stone stools, among which black flints increase in amount and a considerable part bears the feature of microlith; metal arrowhead, animal bones, more spiral shells, carbon granules.	BK92039	tufa	21 575 ± 150	
the forth layer thickness: 4cm		carbon slacks	BK82098		26680 ±625	
the fifth layer tawny clayey soil, brown in part thickness: 30-34 cm	5	chipped stone stools, among which flinted stoneware covered a considerable part, gravel tools and some stone artefacts bearing the feature of the Palaeolithic period, animal fossils, very few spiral shells, fire piles, carbon slacks.				
the sixth layer stalac-tite thickness: 10 cm		fossil bones	BKY82l4l	fossil bones		28000 ± 2000
the seventh layer black tawny clayey soil, containing breccia, thickness: 18 cm,		chipped stone stools, 2 fossils of human teeth, animal bones including rhinoceros, stegodons and giant pandas, no spiral shells				
the eight layer calcium board thickness: 10 cm						
the ninth layer tawny clayey soil, thickness:: 12 cm						
the tenth layer containing clay at the top of the calcium, unseen bottom		animal fossil fragments occasionally seen	BK82101		37 000 ± 2000	
Table 2. Dating results of the layer's accumulation, and cultural relics (uestern part).
REEERENCES
LIU LIHONG 1998. Introduction of Archaeological Excavation And Research on Ni He Wan Basin in the Paleolithic Period. New Development. Youth Archa-eologist, No. 10: 16-19.
1993- Ji Qi Tan microlithic relic in later Paleolithic period. Hebei Cultural Relic Institute, JI
Spring and Autumn of Cultural Relic, No. 2: 1-22.
WANG JIAN et al. 1978. Xia Chuan culture-investiga-tive report on Shanxi Xia Chuan relic. Archaeological Journal, No. 3: 259-288.
YAN WENMING 1997. New Research Development On Origin Of Rice Crop In China. Archaeology, No. 9: 72-76.
YI GUANGYUAN et al. 1994. Study and new development on discoveries of Bai Lian Dong Relic. Pro-ceedings of International Symposium on Relation-ship of the Ancient and Prehistoric Cultural Origins in China and Japan.
1987. Excavation report on Guangxi Liuzhou Bai Lian Dong cave relic at Stone Age. Scientific
Museum of Liuzhou Bai Lian Dong Cave. South National Archaeology, Vol, 1.
YUAN JIARONG 1996. Yu Chan Yan relic at Hunan Daoxian. Historic Monthly (Tai Bei), June.
YUAN SIXUN 1997. Applications of AMS Radiocarbon Dating in Chinese Archaeology Studies. In Dug-gan J. L. and Morgan I. L. (eds.), Application ofAc-celerators in Research and Industry: 392.
1998. Cultural Bureau Of Shanxi Linfen administrative office, Shanxi Jixian Shi Zi Tan relic Me-solithic period. Archaeological Journal, No. 3: 305-323.
YUAN SIXUN, ZHAO CHAOHONG 1998. Dating and Cultural Research On Shi Zi Tan relic. Archaeology, No. 6.
ZHANG CHI, LIU SHIZHONG 1996. Jiangxi Wannian Xian Ren Dong and Diao Dong Huan relics. Historic Monthly (Tai Bei), June.
UDK 903(510:3-11)"6343'
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleoiitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
A comparative outline of the Early Neolithic cultures in China and in the Near East
Claude Bjork
Department of Classical Archaeology and Ancient History, Stockholm University
ABSTRACT - The transition betiveen a hunting-gathering and food-producing economv occurred at both ends ofthe Asia continent at roughly the same tirne. A survey of the archaeological evidence published on this cultural period in these regions produces some very interesting results. It clearly shoivs that, if the basic principles for sedentism and the domestication of localplants and animals ivere similar in the Near East and in China, the respective adaptive strategies chosen by the localpop-ulations to solve technological and metaphysicalproblems ivhich must have been similar, mere com-pletely different. It must then be accepted that the cultural changes that happened at the beginning of the Neolithic period were not the result of direct contacts or exchanges of influences betiveen the Near East and China, and that the transition occurred independently in these regions.
POVZETEK - Do prehoda iz lovsko-nabiralnega v pridelovalno gospodarstvo je v vzhodni in zahodni Aziji prišlo skoraj sočasno. Pregled objavljenih arheoloških podatkov o tej kulturni fazi ponuja v omenjenih regijah nekaj zanimivih rezultatov. Ti jasno kažejo, da so bile adaptivne strategije, ki so jih uporabljale lokane skupnosti pri reševanju tehnoloških in metafizičnih problemov, kljub podobnim osnovnim načelom sedentizma in domestikacije lokalnih rastlin in živali na Bližnjem vzhodu in na Kitajskem, različne. Velja ocena, da se je prehod na kmetovanje na teh področjih odvijal neodvisno in da kulturne spremembe, ki so se dogodile na začetku neolitika, niso bile posledica neposrednih kontaktov, izmenjav in vplivov med Bližnjim vzhodom in Kitajsko.
I. INTRODUCTION
At a certain point in their development, people de-cided to stop wandering around and to settle down instead. The real reasons for this have yet to be es-tablished with certainty, beyond probable climatic, ecological or demographic problems. It is even pos-sible that Jacques Cauvin's suggestion that the deci-sion was primarily a step towards human sociologi-cal and intellectual maturity (ime mutation men-tale) is indeed correct (Cauvin 1994.97). We do not know, but what is certain is that similar events occurred in both Eastern and Western Asia at roughly the same time.
Based on archaeological reports, this study is a syn-optic outline of what is presently known about the events resulting from the switch from the hunting-gathering way of life to sedentism and a systematic food-producing economy i.e., the Early Neolithic cultural period. Generalization means oversimplifica-
tion, which may be dangerous, but it is necessary if one wishes to draw conclusions about general trends. Consequently, in order to have an overall view of how each region solved problems which must have been similar, I decided to deal with the Chinese archaeological evidence in the same way Western researchers usually treat the Near Eastern material. China will therefore be considered as a sin-gle cultural block, and will not be divided into the four traditional geo-cultural zones of the North, the North-East, the Central Plain and the South, as is the čase elsewhere in more detailed investigations of some Early Chinese Neolithic cultures (Zhao Chaohong and Chen Xingcan, this volume).
What, then, really happened during the earliest Neolithic period in China and in the Near East? In both regions, the cultural period appears to be the result of indigenous developments of the local, Palaeoli-
thic foundation. How, then, did both groups solve problems which must have been similar?
Method
The methodology is straightforward. After a brief summary of the Early Neolithic in the Near East, the equivalent period in China is rapidly surveyed. Then a series of specific features is surveyed and the East Asian evidence is compared with analogous data from Western Asia.
Definitions
To begin with, we must be aware that the definition used for the cultural period is slightly different at each end of Asia.
In the Near East, the Neolithic is essentially characte-rised by sedentism and an economy based on agricul-
ture and animal husbandry. Pottery is not involved during the two earlier phases, which are knovvn as Pre-Pottery Neolitihic A (PPNA), starting around 9000 BC, and the later, Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB). There was even a Pre-Pottery Neolithic C (PPNC) which appeared on a limited basis in the Syrian Desert and in the Southern Levant (Cauvin 1994.20-21; Avner et al. 1994; Yakar, this volume).
In China, any settlement dated to the early Holocene with pottery and some form of sedentism is attribu-ted to the Neolithic period, even if agriculture and/ or animal husbandry was not yet fully developed.
Radiocarbon Dates
In this study, ali the radiocarbon dates were cali-brated according to the latest publications (Kuijt & Bar-Yosef 1994; Zhongguo Kaoguxue Zhongtau Shisi Niandai Shujinji 1991).
BC	BP	Central Anatolia	Coastal Phoenicia Cyprus	S. Levant Negev Sinai	Jordan Damascene	Middle Euphrates	Eastern Taurus	Syrian Desert	Eastern Djezireh (Sinjar)	Zagros
6000-6500	7200 7600-	Hacilar	Amuq A-B Ras Shamra V Byblos Neo. xxxxxxxxxxx Khirokitia L-PPNB	YARMUKIAN Ain Ghazal				El Kowm 2 PNA PPNC	Hassuna	PN
				PPNC Ain Ghazal F-PPNB	Ramad 111	Abu Uurevra 2 C	XXXXXXXXXX	F-PPNB El Kowm 2	Umni Dabaghyah xxxxxxxxx L-PPNB (Sinjar)	Jarmo
		T			xxxxxxxxxxxx		Gritille Cafer Hiiyiik			XXXXXXX Aceramic Jarmo Ali Kosh Ganj Dareh
6900 7000-	8000-8100	(Jatal Htivuk xxxxxxxxxx		L-PPNB \XXXXXXXXXX Ain Ghazal	L-PPNB Abu Kosh	L-PPNB Abu Hureyra 2B		L-PPNB XXXXXXXXX Bouqras		
			Ras Shamra V		Ramad I-Il Beisamoun	Teli Assouad			Magzalia	
						XXXXXXXXXXXX				
7600 8000-	8600-	Asikli			M-PPNB Jericho PPNB Munhata	M-PPNB Mureybit IVB Abu Hureyra 2A Halula	PPNB			
							Cafer Hiiyiik Cay()iiu		NEMRIKIAN Nemrik	
					SULTANIAN	E-PPNB Mureybit IVA				
8800 9000-	9600-	>			Jericho PPNA Netiv Hagdud	Mureybit IIIB	Cay()iui			
										
			KHIAMIAN (Lebanon)	KHIAMIAN Abu Madi I	Jericho Protoneo.	(XX) Mureybit IIIA				
Tab. 1. The Beginning of Agriculture in Western Asia: a chronology. Simplified after Jacques Cauvin, Nai-ssance des divinites. Naissatice de VagricuUure. (Empreintes), Pariš 1994.20-21. Calibrated according to Kuijt & Bar-Yosef1994.227-245 and Evin 1995.15. (E - Early; M - Middle; L - Late; F - Final; Neo - Neolithic; Up. - Upper; = - Beginning of Agriculture; xxx - Beginning ofPottery).
II. THE EMERGENCE OF THE NEOLITHIC IN THE NEAR EAST
In the Near East, the Neolithic evolved directly from the preceding Epipaleolithic (Yakar; this volume), which began about 14000 years ago. The beginning of the agricultural economy was not synchronic in ali the different regions of this part of Western Asia (Tab. 1).
Apparently, it began in the Middle Euphrates region (Mureybit) and the Jordan/Damascene area (Jericho, Netiv Hagdud). It then radiated southwards, to the Negev/Sinai (Ain Ghazal), eastwards to the Djezireh (Mazalia), to the Zagros Qarmo), and to the Syrian Desert (Bouqras), and northwards, to Phoenicia (Ras Shamra) and the island of Cyprus (Khirokitia). Do-mestication occurred in the eastern Taurus area (Ca-yonii) shortly after the two earliest core areas al-ready mentioned, and seems then to have expanded mostly towards Central Anatolia (Catal Hiiyuk).
In the Near East, the duration of the Neolithic is di-vided into three periods: the Early Neolithic (EN), the Middle Neolithic (MN), and the Late Neolithic (LN). This general classification is made for definite
Map 1. Early Neolithic settlements in the Near East.
cultures, independently of modern political divisions (Map 1).
III. THE EARLY NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN CHINA: THE BACKGROUND
Until the beginning of the 1920's, there was no archaeological evidence of any Neolithic cultures in China, and this part of prehistory was presumed not to have occurred. Settlements and artifacts, attrib-uted to the Neolithic period, and at the tirne dated to c. 2500 BC, were, however, excavated in 1921 in the village of Yangshao, in Shaanxi province, by Johan Gunnar Andersson, a Swedish geologist and archaeologist employed by the Chinese government to survey the mineral resources of the country. They were soon followed by investigations in the pro-vinces of Gansu and Henan, which revealed more Neolithic material (Chen 1997, and this volume). This was the real beginning of prehistoric archaeol-ogy in the country. Classified at first as belonging to the EN period, the Yangshao culture is now recog-nised as pertaining to the MN, although, because of the high quality of the pottery, some Chinese schol-ars would attribute it to the early LN.
The terminology (EN, MN, LN) is also used in China. Regarding the exact geographical identification of these widespread cultures, the problem is the same for Chinese archaeology as it is for its Near Eastern counterpart. Since archaeological cultural sectors are often located in more than one Chinese province, the name of an eponymous site is used to characterise a culture, even if the latter is then found far from the first excavated settlement (Map 2). However, some confusion may occur if two or perhaps three different sites with the same culture have been unearthed in different provinces, as in the the cases of the Da-diwan (Gansu), Laoguantai and Baijia (both in Shaan-xi) cultures, which are now recognised as being simi-lar. Any of these three names can be then found in the relevant literature, but the problem will even-tually be solved.
IV. THE EARLY NEOLITHIC PERIOD IN CHINA: THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
It is stili unclear when the Neolithic period proper, as we know it in the Near East, began in China. A large number of Early Neolithic cultures, ali with pot-
tery, have recently been discovered in various parts of the country, and many were even excavated and the findings published in many of the local archaeological journals. Few of these cultures displayed strong specific regional characteristics. However the majority showed enough relationships with the cultures of neighbouring regions to suggest inter-site contacts on a limited local basis (Tab. 2).
To date, the earliest Neolithic cultures in China with early 14C dates have been recovered at Peiligang in Henan (c. 6500-5000 BC), Cishan in southern Hebei (c. 6500-5000 BC), Dadiwan (c. 6000-5000 BC) in Gansu, Laoguantai (or Baijia) in Shaanxi (c. 6000-5000 BC), Houli in Shandong, Pengtoushan (c. 7000-5500 BC) and Zaoshi in Hunan (c. 5500-5000 BC). The cultures of Xinglongwa and Chahai (c. 6200-4500 BC) were unearthed in Liaoning. In the South-Eastern part of the lower Changjiang, Early Neolithic cultures were discovered at Zengpiyan in Guilin (c. 6600-5400 BC) and Fuguodun in Fujian (c. 5600-4700 BC).
In the South, a Sino-American team recently excava-ted two caves at Wangdong (c. 9000-6000 BC) and Xianrendong (c. 8500-7000 BC) in the Dayuan Basin,
Map 2. Early Neolithic sites in China.
Tab. 2. The most important Chinese cultures from the Neolithic to the beginning of the Bronze Age. (after Wenwu 1994.3, 83; Kaogu 1995.1, 38-38; adapted after Wang Tao, Antiquity 71 (1997J.34). When-everpossible, the calibration follotvs the listspublished in Zhongguo KaoguxueZhongtan Shisi Niandai Shujinji 1965-1991 (Radiocarbon dates in Chinese Archaeologp 1965-1991). Beijing 1991. New exca-vations and new analyses, hoivever, may slightl'y alter these r,C dates and even the final name of the earliest cultures.
cal. BC
Northern Steppes
Upper Huanghe
Middle Huanghe .
Middle Changjiang
Lower Huanghe
Lower Changjiang
S-E China
S-W China
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000 -
Shang
Shang
Shang
Shang
Siba
Erlitou
Erlitou
Yueshi
Shang
Fengbitou (Taiwan)
Qijia
Longshan
Longshan
Longshan
post-Hongshan
Majiayao
Miaodigou II
Liangzhu
Dapenkeng (Taiwan)
Baiyangcun
Shixia
Karuo
Hongshan
(Fuhe) Hongshan
Xinle
Chahai
6000 -
Xinglongwa
7000
8000
9000 -
11000-
Miaodigou I
(Banpo)
Qujialing
YANGSHA0
Dadi wan/ Lao-guantai
Pei-li-
gang
Cishan
Dawenkou
Songze
Majiabang
Daxi
Hemudu
Beixin
Xijiaoshan
Zaoshi
Fuguodon
Houli
Peng-toushan
Zengpiyan
Wang-dong
Xianren-dong
Wan-nian County, Jiangxi Province. They yielded one Epipalaeolithic and five Neolithic phases, the upper-most being identified as Lungshanoid (LN). Pottery appeared in the first Neolithic phase, stili together with wild fauna and flora. Dog, however, was dome-sticated, and there may be some evidence of domesti-cated rice dated to c. 11700 BP (Zhao etal, 1995.52).
There are potential indications of an incipient ceramic phase in the Middle Huanghe region at one single
and very early site, Nanzhuangtou, in Hebei (c. 8600-7700 BC), where 15 coarsely made sherds were discovered in a possible transitional Epipalaeo-lithic/Neolithic context, together with limited dome-sticated fauna and the remains of various types of wild flora (fia & Xu 1992).
Early Neolithic cultures have not yet been excavat-ed, either in the Upper Changjiang, or in the south-western part of China (Map 2).
1. ANIMAL DOMESTICATION
In contrast to what happened in the Near East, the domestication of animals, i.e. the genetic transfor-mation of a limited range of wild species, appears to have preceded plant domestication in China (Miller 1992.50-54). The latter requires sedentism, while the former does not.
With the exception of the dog and the pig, the ear-liest Chinese domesticates were somewhat different from those in the Near East. It is also worth noting that these early Chinese animals (dog, chicken and pig) can either follow a tribe stili partly on the move, or be easily transported from one location to anoth-er. As plant domestication occurred after animal hus-bandry at the local early Neolithic sites, the choice of animal may imply a longer tradition of wander-ing-gathering in China than in the Near East, where there is solid evidence of settlements during the Epi-palaeolithic and Natufian period which were built to last much longer than the simple seasonal periods (Henry 1983; 1989; Yakar, this volume).
Dog
As in the Near East, the domesticated dog {Canis fa-miliaris) is present from the earliest times in the Neolithic settlements in China at Nanzhuangtou (Baoding et al 1992.965) and at Wangdong, Xienrendong (Re-dding 1995.53). Although no systematic analyses of butchering marks have been conducted on the Chinese osteological evidence, dogs may have been bred for hunting, as sacrificial animals, or as food. The latter assumption is quite plausible, especially if we con-sider that dog is stili eaten in modern China.
The dog appears to have been the earliest domesticated animal in the Near East (Bokonyi 1994.392). The evidence from Natufian tombs (Epipalaeolithic period) at Mahalla, where men were buried under floors with canids (Henri 1989.215), suggests, how-ever, that dogs may have been raised for hunting, or even as pets, although the possibility that they could have occasionally been eaten cannot be ruled out. Their use as sacrificial animals has also been advan-ced (B6konyi 1994.391). Domesticated dogs have been found at the lovvest PPNA level at (/aydnu, in the Eastern Taurus (Braidivood & Braidivood 1986.8).
Chicken
As a domesticate, the chicken (Gallus gallus domes-ticus) is possibly present in a ninth millennium BC
context, both in the North, at Nanzhuangtou (Jia & Xu 1992.964) and in the South, in the Wangdong and Xienrendong caves (Reeding 1995.56, 58). How-ever, the most reliable evidence so far is for the early sixth millennium BC, at Cishan (Choiv 1981.340).
The domesticated chicken was present in southern Europe possibly as early as about 5000 BC (in Rurna-nia), but much later (c. 3900-3800 BC) in the Near East, at Tepe Yahya, Iran (West & Zhou 1988.520-521). The genetic change in fowl seems to have occurred locally, although the possibility of diffusion to the West, probably via Eurasia rather than India, has recently been suggested (West & Zhou 1988.528).
Pig
As one of the local basic food animals, the pig (Sus scrofa) was domesticated very early in China. It can be bred easily, even within a woody environment. The samples from the South, in the Wangdong and Xianrendong caves, show that a genetic change had already taken plače in the ninth millennium BC {Reeding 1995-56). Domesticated pigs are reported front the Cishan, Peiligang and Hemudu cultures (Smith 1995.139).
In the Near East, the earliest evidence for domesticated pig comes from Jarmo (Zagros), around the mid-dle of the seventh millennium BC (Stampfli 1983. 454).
Cattle
Bos exiguus Matsumoto, an Asiatic species of cattle, has been reported from the EN site of Cishan, and dated to the late early sixth millennium BC (Choiv 1984. 364). However, it is not considered to have been completely domesticated. As a full domesticate, it be-came more and more common from the Yangshao cultural period (MN; c. fifth millennium BC) onwards.
In the Near East, the local wild cattle, Bos primige-nius, was possibly domesticated at Bouqras (Syria) and at (Jatal Hiiyuk (Anatolia) around the late eighth millenium BC (Perkins 1969)-
Sheep
In China, sheep (Ovies) are first found for certain in the mid-fifth millennium, in a MN context (Hemudu culture). The Chinese domestication data is stili not definitive as to the existence of a local wild progen-itor in the region, and the archaeological reports are
often unclear on this point; the species is even sus-pected to have been imported from Western Asia {Chang 1986.65-94). As no detailed osteological analysis of the material was apparently conducted at the tirne of the excavation, it is doubtful whether the bones identified in a Majiayao context in Gansu (third millennium BC) really belong to the Ovies species (Andersson 1943-43).
In the Near East, domesticated sheep (Ovis aries) are already present in the archaeological record at Ali Kosh, in the Zagros mountains, in a ninth millennium BC context (ltole & Flannery 1967).
Goat
In China, domesticated goats (Capra hircus) do not appear early in the archaeological record. The earliest archaeological evidence was excavated at the Miaodigou II site, from the second half of the third millennium BC (Choiv 1984.365). For the same rea-sons mentioned above for sheep, it is doubtful whether the bones identified in Gansu, in a Majiayao context (third millennium BC), really belong to the Capra species {Andersson 1943-43).
The wild goat of Iran (Capra aegagrus) has now been accepted as the wild progenitor of the Near-eastern domesticated goat {Capra hircus). To date, the earliest domesticated animals have been exca-vated at Ganj Dareh and Jarmo (c. eighth millennium BC), both in the Zagros {Smith 1995.58-61).
2. PLANT DOMESTICATION
The categories of the earliest plants domesticated in China are completely different from those in the Near East. This, however, only indicates that the ge-netic transformation of the native wild progenitors was adapted to local ecological environments. Con-trary to what happened in the Near East, plant do-mestication occurred after animal domestication in China.
Millet
Broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum) and foxtail millet (Setaria italica) were the first cereals domesticated in China. They were present as main crops in the earliest Neolithic setttlements (possibly including Nanzhuangtou, during the ninth millennium BC, although there are stili some doubts about the valid-ity of the evidence), and were apparently cultivated
parallel to each other. Green brittlegrass {Setaria vi-ridis), which is presumed to be the wild ancestor of foxtail millet, originates, among several other areas, in the Huanghe valley.
Broomcorn millet {Panicum miliaceum) is not identified with certainty in Western Asia (Iran) until the fifth millenium BC {Zohary & Hopf1988.78), while the archaeobotanical evidence indicates that it was fully domesticated in the sixth millennium BC in Au-stria (Kreuz 1991.67, 70, 81, 82, 164, 207), and also possibly at the same tirne in the Caucasus {Lisitsina 1984.288). The earliest known occurence of Central European foxtail millet {Setaria italica) was dated to the second millenium BC, while at this tirne it was stili unknown in the Near East {Zohary & Hopf 1988.81). Although Setaria viridis occurs in eastern Turkey, it does not seem to have been cultivated as a domesticate until the Iron Age (c. seventh centurv BC) in the region, at Tille Hoyiik (Nesbitt & Sum-mers 1988.86, 92).
Rice
Domesticated rice (Oryza sativa) was fully cultivated in the early phase of the Hernudu culture (fifth millennium BC), in the Lower Changjiang region. Domestication seems to have occured locally in the region as early as the eighth millennium BC, as wild rice grows normally in the Middie and Lower Changjiang zones {Chang 1983- 70-77; An 1989a.647; Zhao et al. 1995-52). Consequently, it was not an import from third millennium India, as previously believed {Chang 1983- 70). Samples of what may be cultivated rice were also excavated in the late 1980's at the Early Neolithic site of Pengtoushan (Middie Changjiang) and were dated to the late eighth/early seventh millennium BC {Hodges & Chen 1994), but the degree of domestication is apparently stili under dis-cussion (Glover andHigham 1996.430). A little fur-ther south, however, two caves in the Dayuan Basin of Wan-nian County, Jiangxi Province, were recently excavated by a Sino-American team, and yielded pos-sible evidence of domesticated rice dated to around the twelfth millennium BP {Zhao et al 1995-52).
In the Near East/Europe, rice is a fairly recent import from southern Asia, i.e., the Indian sub-continent. To date, the archaeological and archaeo-botanical evidence indicates that it was present in the second millennium BC at ali the Harappan sites (modern Pakistan), from where it possibly spread into the Near East and eventually into Europe (Zohari & Hopf 1988.215).
Wheat
Wheat (Triticum monococum) was one of the ear-liest domesticated cereals in the Near East, apparent-ly in the Karacadag mountain (Heun et al. 1997; Heun, this volume). It was excavated around the early ninth millennium BC at Mureybit (Middle Eu-phrates), Jericho (Levant) and Cavonu (eastern Tau-rus).
Wheat does not appear in the Chinese archaeological assemblage until the first millennium BC, and is strongly suspected to have been imported from else-where, probably Western Asia, as no wild progenitor is yet known to be indigenous to the Far Eastern re-gion (Chang 1977.1-21, 25-52; Chang 1983.65-94; An 1989a.643-649; Craivford 1992.8).
3. POTTERY
It is most interesting to note that, contrary to what happened in the Near East, China does not seem to have gone through a Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) phase.
It must be noted, however, that there is a slight di-lemma with the Near- eastern term "Pre-Pottery Neolithic" (PPN). The term PPNA was originally devised by Kathleen Kenyon for the first levels with a Neolithic economy, but without pottery which she exca-vated at Jericho (Kenvon 1957). Extended to the fol-lowing phase (PPNB), one must be aware that, since then, pottery which cannot always be classified as primitive was unearthed in the Middle Euphrates (at Teli Assouad), and in the Syrian Desert (at Bouqras) from an already late PPNB economy (c. mid-to-late eighth millennium BC), and everywhere during the Final PPNB/PPNC (c. seventh millennium BC).
If we exclude the very few small (4-7 cm high) con-tainers of lightly fired clay from Mureybit IIIA (c. 9500 BC), which appear to have come from an iso-lated and short-lived experiment in the Middle Euphrates (Cauvin 1994.64), the earliest vessels of properly baked clay excavated so far were in the same region, at Teli Assouad, and are 14C dated to about 7500 BC (iCauvin 1994.200). They were man-ufactured nearly one and a half millennia after the beginning of an economy which was largely based on agriculture.
In Neolithic Greece, the function of the earliest pot-tery was not primarily related to processing the re-sults of the new economy, i.e. domesticated food-
stuffs, over a fire (Bjork 1995; Perles & Vitelli 1994; Vitelli, 1989; Yiouni, 1996). The long period of one-and-a half to two millennia of plant domestication and animal husbandry, in the absence of clay pots, speaks against a direct relationship between the new economy and the invention of containers made of baked clay devised for cooking, although no techno-logical and functional analyses of the earliest Near-eastern pottery have yet been published.
The earliest pottery from the Near East was coil-made, tempered with sand or grass, low-fired, and most of the time well burnished. The shapes were simple, often globular, and with or without ring-bases. Large vessels were often made out of clay slabs (Vandiver 1987).
There are no vessels made of lime plaster or gypsum CVaisselle Blanche) in China. The pyrotechnology involved in the manufacture of the necessary "raw" material, and the technique for making these containers are recognised to have been crucial for the transition between pots made of plaster and those made of ceramic in the Near East (Kingery et al. 1988.240). It is doubtful whether plaster technology was known in Neolithic China, as the "plaster floors" found in the Early Neolithic houses at Peiligang and Cishan were actually made of mud-plaster which was first simply air-dried, then fire-hardened (Shih 1992a.l27).
According to the archaeological evidence, pottery and animal domestication were contemporary in China. Pottery even appears to have preceded plant domestication in the earliest Neolithic settlements (at Nanzhuangtou and in Southern China). Due to the quality of this early ware, it seems doubtful whether the earliest Chinese vessels were really de-signed for processing plant species over a fire. It must be noted that, up to now, no advanced tech-nological analyses have been conducted on Chinese pottery vessels to discover their exact functions.
The čase of pottery preceding plant domestication is not, however, specific to China. Although synchron-ic neither to the Chinese data, nor even to each other, the archaeological evidence from Japan (Ika-iva-Smith 1970; Imamura 1996.442) and South-America (Legros 1990) testifies to the production of pottery prior to a Neolithic economy.
The earliest pottery from Nanzhuangtou was crude, and the size of the 15 small sherds recovered during the trial excavation did not yield any definitive
information on the size or shape of the vessels, even if the pots are presumed to have been jugs or bowls (Baoding et al. 1992.963). The material, porous, per-meable, very sandy, fired very low (below 573° C) and not burnished (Li et al. 1995.3; 1996.69) does not seem to suggest any real use in cooking, since it is accepted that porous and permeable vessels were unsuitable for boiling liquid over a fire (Rice 1981.
231).
The pottery from Peiligang and Cishan was also coil-made, but was better fired, that is betvveen 820° C and 1020° C (Z/ et al, 1995.3; 1996.89) and possi-bly in kilns, since one was excavated at Peiligang (Li et al. 1995.4; 1996.90). Some of these vessels were burnished or decorated with knobs or impressions (comb-ware). Most of the containers were bowls or bottles, with or without ring-bases, and the great variety in shape and quality of the ware suggest var-ious functions.
In the Near East, in contrast with China, feet under a vessel were extremely rare and the very few exam-ples (MN) are small and usually made of stone. To date, the earliest Chinese tripod bowls (ding) made of clay have been excavated at Laoguantai Peiligang and Cishan (EN). Such a shape seems to be a impor-tant marker, with strong symbolism attached to it throughout the following millennia in China. Although flat and round bases have been recognised as necessary for cooking-pots in other cultures (Rice 1987.237), nothing prevents these early ding from having been used as such, as this was clearly their function in later cultural periods in the country.
4. STONE IMPLEMENTS
The sophisticated manufacture of certain stone tools found in China is extremely rare in the Near East. Although the prevailing technology used to produce flint blades may be somewhat related in both areas, the shapes of sickles and querns is not, even though it would be expected that these essential instru-ments for processing cereals, whenever employed, would be formed in more or less the same way.
Near-Eastern querns were usually flattish, thick stone slabs, with the pestle very often being a suitable, roundish or oval stone. The quality of the stone was, however, carefully chosen, and was often non-indige-nous to the region. This can be taken as proof not only of contacts with other areas, but of an apparent knowledge of mineralogy.
The early Chinese equivalents were completely different. At Cishan and Peiligang, the querns were about 40 cm long, flat, oval (a little like miniature "skateboards") and resting on four small feet cut out of the stone. The pestles were long and shaped like thin rolling-pins (Cishan, Peiligang), while the sickles (bone at Cishan, stone at Peiligang) were cres-cent-shaped, flat, up to 17 cm long and 5cm wide, with an almost regular dentation on one side (Ilena n Working Team 1984.31).
Originating from eastern Turkey (Lake Van, Bingol) or from Cappadocia, obsidian has been excavated throughout the whole of the Near East from c. 14 000 BC onwards (Cauvin 1994.127, fig. 32). Technologi-cal analyses have pinpointed the exact origin of the tools excavated in most of the principal Near-eastern settlements in the eighth millennium BC, essentially indicating a diffusion towards the South, the South-west and the West. Irrespective of whether this was a čase of some down-the-line exchange or of direct procurement, the diffusion of such raw material indi-cates the beginnings of a permanent inter-regional network of "trading routes" which could even have been used for other goods, as is suggested by the type of stone selected for querns (Yakar, this volume).
In China, obsidian tools were discovered in Neolithic and Bronze Age (Xingcheng culture) contexts (c. 3000 to 1300 BC) only at Jingu and Daliudaogou in eastern Jilin (Liu 1995.91; Lin 1995.219) and at Yinggeling in eastern Heilongjiang (Tan et al. 1995-126). The raw material has been identified as com-ing from the Changbai mountains on the border with modern North Korea (Nelson 1995.89). Its absence elsewhere in China, even in other settlements in Heilongjiang and Jilin, indicates that inter-site contacts in the North, and wider, North-South, inter-regional contacts did not develop during these periods. This is also confirmed by the interaction spheres based on the relationship between sites in the same region (Chang 1986.235; Yan 1987.47).
5. SETTLEMENT PATTERNS: ARCHITECTURE
Whether in the Near East or in China, the earliest human dwellings were caves. As soon as people set-tled down in groups on plains, shelters were circu-lar and semi-subterranean, forming a new settlement pattern: a village. Buildings situated directly on the ground, with straight walls inside and outside, as well as more or less rectangular houses, were de-vised much later.
In the Near East, this evolution is best studied at Mu-reybit, a settlement on the Middle Euphrates (modem northern Syria), although the evidence is similar in practically ali the regions (at Beidah and Teli Ra-mad, for instance). Excavated by the French in the late 'sixties and late 'seventies, it shows that in Pha-se I (belonging to the Natufian (Epipalaeolithic) cul-ture) shelters were circular or oval, semi-subterra-nean and with flat roofs. During Phase II, a transi-tional period between the Epipaleolitihic and the PPNA, they were stili circular, but were built direct-ly above the ground, the few inner walls being curved. During Phase III (PPNA culture), the houses were stili circular and built above ground, but the inner walls were now straight. It is from the end of Phase III B and during the following Phase IV (PPNB period) that the first rectangular houses, with sev-eral rooms, were excavated (Cauvin 1994.60-64). They were built mostly in pise, with stone founda-tions. However, from the Middle Neolithic period, Near-eastern people had already begun to use stone walls and mud-bricks.
In China, the house-building technique and material does not appear very different from the Near Eastern dwellings, although the evolution of architectural forms was not as systematic. The earliest houses, ex-cavated at Peiligang and Cishan, were either semi-subterranean or built directly on the ground. They were constructed in pise on stone foundations, and sometimes with mud-plaster floors. Most of them were circular, with a diameter between 2 and 5 m., although a few were almost rectangular and appar-ently larger than the circular structures. This con-struction technique was used well beyond the Neolithic period. Mud bricks were not used until the Late Neolithic Longshan period (Chang 1986.263), and stone walls (including fortification walls) were a rar-ity in China untill well into the Iron Age (fourth-third century BC).
6. FIGURINES
Figurines appear early in the Near East. The first isolated examples were zoomorphic (small grass-eating animals, birds and dogs, i.e., the first domes-ticated animals); they were found in the southern Levant, and dated to the Natufian period. Associated with fertility because most represent large fema-les, Near-Eastern anthropomorphic figurines had already appeared in large quantities in the PPNA period (c. 10th millenium BC) in the Levant (Cauvin 1994).
Few figurines are present in the Chinese Neolithic data, whereas they exist from the earliest period in the Near East. The earliest figurines in China were ali zoomorphic and connected to domesticated animals. Anthropomorphic representations do not appear in China until the MN period, although they were not exactly figurines as such; they were either painted on the inside or the outside of pots, or mod-elled as heads only and used as lids (Yangshao, c. middle of fifth to the end of the fourth millenium BC). The first real anthropomorphic figurines do not appear in China until the end of the Middle Neolithic period, and only then in the northern part of the country (Hongshan culture, middle of the fourth to the middle of the third millennium BC).
As they are the first female representations discov-ered in a Chinese archaeological assemblage, they have been associated with fertility cults, on the sole ground that such an interpretation is traditionallv accepted for similar figurines in the prehistoric Near East and Europe.
7. BURIALS
In China, from the Early Neolithic period onwards (at Peiligang, Cishan, c. eighth-seventh millennium BC), burials seem to have been systematically performed in large cemeteries outside of settlements, with one individual per tomb and with grave-goods. Flexed positions appear to have preceded supine, and intra-mural burials are extremely rare, seemingly reser-ved for babies who were inhumed in pots placed closed to the entrance of the house (at Banpo, MN, for example).
Variation in burial systems over tirne, but within the same region is often accepted as proof of local for-eign immigration, and/or of evidence of different re-ligious beliefs. If this is always the čase, the appar-ent systematic uniformity of Chinese burials, both in tirne and space, would suggest that similar meta-physical concerns were generally accepted through-out a vast area with differing ecological environ-ments. Consequently, a certain elementary "religious unity" may already have been present in China at the beginning of sedentism, which was at that tirne a very new way of life. It is then possible to suppose that this form of burial may originate from the pre-vious cultural phase.
The Near Eastern schemes for burying the dead vary according to plače and tirne. Primary and sec-
ondary single burials, without specific orientation, but with grave-goods (personal jewellery only, never with stone vessels or tools), existed during the Epipalaeolithic/Natufian period (Mellart 1975. 38). Whenever recovered, the evidence indicates that Neolithic burials were mostly without grave-goods, in flexed or semi-flexed position, most of the tirne without the skull, which was plastered and used for cultic purposes (Jericho, Ain Ghazal). They were more often under the floor of the house, as secondary burials (Jericho, Mureybit, Beidah, Catal Hiiyiik) rather than outside in adjacent courtyards (Abu Hureyra). Grave goods appeared later and in limited quantities, mainly in regions more to the West than the Levantine core areas (at Catal Hiiyuk, in Anatolia). Cemeteries outside villages are often found in regions far from the coast (Jarmo, Halaf), although this does not seem to be an absolute rule, since intro-mural burials were carried out at the same tirne at Halaf and Samarra. Regular grave goods do not seem to appear until the early sixth millennium BC at Halaf and Samarra (Ubaid cultural period).
8. INTER SITE CONTACTS
Inter-site contacts appear very early in the Near East (during the Epipalaeolithic period) with the emer-gence of obsidian blades in many settlements from the fifteenth millennium BC onwards. Technological analyses have narrowed their origin to only three sources - Bingol, Lake Van and the Cappadoce, ali of which are located in Anatolia (Cauvin 1994.127). The diffusion/exchange of domesticated plants and anijnals from at least two core areas towards the rest of the Near East confirms the continuity of these early "trade routes".
Any possible contacts with exogenous cultures from the Chinese side, cannot be considered earlier than the appearence of new elements in the archaeological material. The present archaeological evidence indicates that inter-site contacts began at a very limited regional level during the Early Neolithic (EN) period in China. The extremely limited diffusion of obsidian, occurring only in eastern Jilin and Hei-longjiang, illustrates this clearly (Nelson 1995.89).
Fig. 1. General distribution of the Early Neolithic cultures in China (after Yan Wenming 1987.47).
The spheres of interaction established a little more than a decade ago (Chang 1986.235; Yan 1987.47) stress the indigenous, cultural impact of China's basic geophysical zones (Fig. 1). These spheres slowly star-ted to establish wider contacts with each other only from the Middle Neolithic period (MN), slowly break-ing down the barriers between these cultural zones.
V. SUMMARY
The basic material problems for a transition between a hunting-gathering and sedentary way of life appear to have been similar in the Near and the Far East. However, beyond the ecological constraints which dictated the selection of plants and animals to do-mesticate, the adaptative solutions to this new econ-omy are different. A synopsis of the two sets of data
clearly shows the similarities and differences which occurred at both ends of Asia (Tab. 3).
Similarities
The species of both domesticated plants and animals follow a similar pattern both in western and eastern Asia, although differences in the choice of domesti-cates were obviously dictated by ecological parame-ters. The early Chinese husbandry points however to species closer to a non-sedentary way of life than in the Near East. The fact that animal domestica-tion preceded that of plants also fits this trend.
Considering a more general level of Neolithisation, the evolution of settlement patterns (from cave to village) and house-building systems seems to be re-lated in both regions, even if the eastern Asian evo-
	China	Near East
Animal domestication:	before plant domestication	after plant domestication
Dog	c. 12& mili. BC	c. I4th mili. BC
Chicken	c. 6th mili. BC	c. 2nd mili. BC (Iran)
Pig	c. 9th mili. BC	c. 7th mili. BC
Cattle	c. 6th mili. BC	c. 8th mili. BC
Sheep	c. 5th mili. BC	c. 9th mili. BC
Goat	c. mid-3rd mili. BC	c. 8th mili. BC
Plant domestication:	after animal domestication	before animal domestication
Millet	c. 8th mili. BC	c. 5th mili. BC (Iran)
Rice	c. 9th mili. BC	c. 2nc' mili. BC (Pakistan)
Wheat	c. 1« mili. BC	c. 9th mili. BC
Pottery	before plant domestication	after plant domestication
	(no plaster vessels)	(plaster vessels before pottery)
Implements (stone/bone)	sophisticated (sickle/quern)	un-sophisticated (sickle/quern)
	obsidian only in northern sites	obsidian everywhere from 14000
	from c. 5-3000 BC	BC onwards
Settlement pattern	cave to village	cave to village
Architecture	round to square (unsystematic)	round to square (systematic)
	semi-subterranean (round)	semi-subterranean (round)
	with above ground (round)	to above ground (round)
	with above ground (rectangular)	to above ground (rectangular)
	stone walls rare until end of BA	stone wall common from MN
Figurines:	few	many
zoomorphic	yes	yes
anthropomorphic	no (untill MN)	yes (from beginning)
Burial	flexed to supine	flexed or supine (unsystematic)
	cemeteries (one/several per grave)	intramural (several) to
	very few intramural (children)	few cemeteries (unsystematic)
	primary, rare and late secondary	secondary to primary
Grave goods	always (from 8th mili. BC)	none untill 6th mili. BC
Inter-site contacts	EN onwards:	Epipalaeolithic onwards:
	limited to low regional level	multi-regional level
Tab. 3■ Synopsis of Early Neolithic data for China and the Near East.
lution from circular to rectangular dwellings does not exactly follow the somewhat more rigorously sys-tematic, western Asian evolutionary model.
Differences
The differences are, however, to be found in two very important areas which reflect people's creativ-ity as well as their anxiety about the unknown: in technology and metaphysics.
On the technological level, the manufacture of tools (of stone and even bone) is related not only to the economy, but also to the creative ability of the local population. The shape and manufacture of Chinese querns and pestles are very different from those in the Near East, in spite of the fact that this type of im-plement is directly connected to the processing of cereals. Any direct exchange of ideas related to the preparation of a similar category of staple food between the two ends of Asia does not seem to have taken plače during the Early Neolithic period.
Pottery preceded the new agricultural economy everywhere in China. There is no transitional period in the country, either in time (no Pre-Pottery Neolithic period), or in technology (no manufacture of plaster vessels). Nevertheless, the differenciation of pottery technology, typology and, consequently of function, appear earlier in China than in the Near East.
On the metaphysical level, the very early emergence of well organised cemeteries with grave-goods (Peili-gang and Cishan) in Neolithic China seems to indica-te a concern with the problems of the after-life which was different from that in the Near East, with sec-ondary internment Qericho, Mureybit, (iatal Hiiyuk) and plastered skull cult (Jericho, Ain Ghazal). It even seems that a very early social differentiation, which does not seen to have existed in the Near East at an identical cultural level, could have occurred in China.
The occurrence of figurines, generally associated with cultic purposes at each end of Asia, is also very different. In the Near East, they appear early, and being mostly female, seem to relate exclusively to fertility cults, while in China, being mostly zoomor-phic, they seem to be more associated with the quest for food. Such an interpretation would not, howev-er, exclude religious purposes, possible related to an early form of shamanism, for the Chinese figurines (Chang 1992.217).
VI. CONCLUSION
If the basic principles for sedentism and the domestication of local plants and animals were similar in western and eastern Asia, the specific solutions cho-sen by the Neolithic populations in China to solve similar problems to those which arose more or less at the same time in the Near East, point to a most inter-esting result. This is clearly demonstrated by the idio-syncrasy shown by the choice of technology and ty-pology of the implements (tools/pottery) required by the new economy, and also by the metaphysical aspects (burials/figurines). Such reactions point to fundamentally different responses to identical problems.
These respective adaptive strategies show not only the originality of each human group, but even that direct cultural contacts or some mutual exchange of influences could not have taken plače between both ends of Asia during the Early Neolithic period. We can then conclude that the transition between a hun-ting-gathering and a food producing economy occurred independently in China and in the Near East.
REFERENCES
AMMERMAN A. J. and CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L. 1984. The Neolithic Transition and The Genetics of the Population in Europe.
AN ZHIMIN 1988. Archaeological Research on Neolithic China. Current Anthropology 29: 753-759-
1989a. Prehistoric Agriculture in China. In D. R. Harris & G. C. Hillman (eds.), Foraging and Far-ming. The Evolution of Plant Exploitation (One uiorld Archaeology 13): 644-49.
1989b. Chinese Archaeology: Past and Present. Archaeological Revieiv from Cambridge 8:12-18.
1994. The Technique of Radiocarbon Dating and the Archaeology of Prehistory. Wenwu 3. 83-87.
ANDERSSON J. G. 1943. Researches into the Prehi-story of the Chinese. Bulletin 15, Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, Stockholm.
AVNER U., CARMII. and SEGAL D. 1994. Neolithic to Bronze Age Settlement of the Negev and Sinai in Light of Radiocarbon Dating: a View from the Southern Negev. In 0. Bar-Yosef, R. S. Kra (eds.), Late Quater-nary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, Radiocarbon 1994: 265-300.
BAODING et al. 1992. Baoding Prefectural Admini-stration of the Preservation of Ancient Monuments, Xushui County Administration of the Reservation of the Preservation of Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Department of Beijing University and History Department of Hebei University, Trial Digging at the Nanzhangtou Site in Xushui County, Hebei Province. Kaogu 1992,1: 961-986.
BJORK C. 1995. Early Pottery in Greece. A Technolo-gical and Functional Analysis of the Evidence from Neolithic Achilleion, Thessaly. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 115-
B0K0NYI S. 1994. Domestication of Animals from the Beginning of Food Production up to about 5000 years ago. An Overview. In S. J. de Laert, A. H. Dani, J. L. Lorenzo & R. B. Nunoo (eds.), History ofHuma-nity, vol. I: Prehistory and the Beginning of Civili-sations: 389-397.
BRAIDWOOD L. S. and BRAIDWOOD R. J. 1986. Pre-lude to the Apprearance of Village-Farming Commu-
nities in Southwestern Asia. I11 J. Vorys Canby, E. Po-rada, B. Sismondo Ridgway, T. Stech (eds.), Ancient Anatolia. Aspects of Change and Cultural Develop-ment, Essays in Honor ofMatcheldf. Mellink: 3~11.
BROODBANK C. and STRASSER T. F. 1991- Migrant Farmers and the Neolithic Colonization of Crete. Antiquity 65: 233-254.
CAUVIN J. 1994. Naissance des divinites. Naissan-ce de l'agriculture.
CHANG K. C. 1976. The Beginning of Agriculture in the Far East. Antiquity 64: 175-185-
1977. Food in Chinese Culture.
1986. The Archaeology of Ancient China (4th ed.).
1989. Ancient China and its Anthropological Sig-nificance. In C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (ed.), Archaeological Thoughts in America: 155-165.
1992. The Circumpacific Substratum of Ancient Chinese Civilization. In C. M. Aitkens, S.-N. Rhee (eds.), Pacific Northeast Asia in Prehistory: 217-221.
CHANG TE-TZU1983. The Origins and Early Cultures of the Cereals grain and Food legumes. In D. N. Keightley (ed.), The Origins of Chinese Civilization: 65-94.
CHEN CHUN 1989- Chinese Archaeology and the West. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 8:27-35-
CHEN XINGCAN 1997. Zhongguo shiqian kaoguxue shiyanjin 1895-1949 (The History of Preh istoric Archaeology in China 1895-1949).
CHEN TIEMEI and R. E. M. HEDGES 1994. Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Radiocarbon Dating of Pottery from the Pengtoushan and Hujiawuchang sites. Wen-wu 3: 88-94.
CHEN TIEMEI and YUAN SIXUN 1988. Uranium-Se-ries Dating of Bones and Teeth from Chinese Palaeolithic Sites. Archaeometry 30:59-76.
CHOW BEN-SHUN 1981. The Anhnal Remains disco-vered at Cishan Village, Wu'an, Hebei Province. Kaogu Xuebao 3:339-347.
1984. Animal Domestication in Neolithic China. In J. Clutton.Brock & G. Gridson (eds.), Ani-mals and Archaeologv, BAR Int. Series 202: 263-269.
CRAWFORD G. W. 1992. Prehistoric Plant Domestication in Asia. In C. W. Cowan & P. J. Watson (eds.), The Origins of Agriculture. An International Per-spective: 7-38.
EVIN J. 1995. Possibilite et necessite de la calibration des datations C-14 de 1'archeologie du Proche-Orient. Paleorient 21:1: 5-16.
FERRIE H. 1995. A Conversation with K.-C. Chang. Current Anthropologv 36: 307-325.
GLOVER I. C. and HIGHAM C. F. W. 1996. New Evidence for Early Rice Cultivation in South, Southeast and East Asia. In D. R. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralisni in Eurasia: 413-441.
HEDGES R. E. M., CHEN TIEMEI and HOUSLEY R. A. 1992. Results and methods in the radiocarbon dating of Pottery. Radiocarbon 34:3: 906-915.
HIGHAM C. 1996. The Bronze Age of Southeast Asia. (Cambridge World archaeology).
HENRY D. 0. 1983. Adaptive Evolution within the Epipaleolithic of the Near East. In F. Wendorf & A. E. Close (eds.), Advances in World Archaeologv, vol. 2: 99-160.
1989- From Foraging to Agriculture. The Levant at the End of the Ice Age. University of Pennsyl-vania.
HOLE F.and FLANNERY K. V. 1967. The Prehistory of South-Western Iran: a Preliminary Report. Proce-dings of the Prehistoric Society 33: 147-206.
HUANG WANP0, CIOCHON R., GU YUMIN, LARICK R., FANG QIREN, SCHWARCZ H., Y0NGE C., DE VOS J. and RINK W.1995. Early Hotno and Associated Artefacts from Asia. Nature 378: 275-278.
HUNAN Working Team No 1 of IA, CASS, 1984. Exca-vation of the Neolithic Site at Peiligang. Kaogu Xue-bao 1: 23-52.
IKAWA-SMITH F. 1970. On ceramic technology in East Asia. Current Anthropology 17: 513-515-
IMAMURA K. 1996. Jomon and Yayoi: the Transition to Agriculture in Japanese Prehistory. In D. R. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: 442-464.
JIA JIAGUANG and XU HAOSHENG 1992. On the Early Neolithic Remains at Nanzhuangtou, Xushui County. Kaogu 11: 1018-1022.
KENY0N K. M. 1957. Digging up Jericho.
KINGERY W. D., VANDIVER P. B. and PRICKETT M. 1988. The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology, Part II: Production and Use of Lime and Gypsum Plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near East .Journal ofField Archaeology 15: 219-244.
KUIJTI. and BAR-Y0SEF 0. 1994. Radiocarbon Chro-nology for the Levantine Neolithic: Observation and Data. In 0. Bar-Yosef, R. S. Kra (eds.), Late Quater-nary Chronologv and Paleo-climates of the Eastern Mediterranean, Radiocarbon 1994: 227-245-
KREUZ A. M. 1990. Die ersten Bauern Mitteleuropas. Eine archaobotanische Untersuchung zu Umwelt und Landwirtschaft der Altersten Bandkeramik. Ana-lecta Praehistorica Leidensia 23-
LEGROS T. 1990. Les Premieres Ceramiques Ameri-caines. Les Dossiers dArcheologie 145: 60-63-
LI J., ZHANG Z., DENG Z. and LIANG B. 1995. Study on Neolithic Early Pottery of China - concurrent dis-cussion on its origin. In Guo Jingkun (ed.), Science and Technologv of Ancient Ceramics 3- Proce-edings of the Intern. Symposium (ISAC' 95): 1-7.
1996. A Study on Neolithic Early Pottery: also on the origin of Chinese Pottery. Kaogu: 5, 83-91-
LISITSINA G. N. 1984. The Caucasus - Center of Ancient Farming in Eurasia. In W. van Zeist & W. A. Casparie (eds.), Plants and Ancient Man: 285-292.
LIU JING-WEN 1995. Bronze Culture in Jilin Province. In S. M. Nelson (ed.), The Archaeologv of Northeast China: 206-224.
LIU ZHEN-HUA 1995. Recent Neolithic Discoveries in Jilin Province. In S. M. Nelson (ed.), The Archaeologv of Northeast China: 89-117-
MILLER N. F. 1992. The Origins of Plant Cultivation in the Near East. In C. W. Cowan, P. J. Watson (eds.),
The Origins of Agriculture. An International Per-spective: 39-58.
NELSON S. M. (ed.) 1995. The Archaeology of Northeast China.
NESBITT M. and SUMMERS G. D. 1988, Some Recent Discoveries of Millet (Panicum Miliaceum L. and Setaria Italica (L.) Beauv.) at Excavations in Turkey and Iran. Anatolian Studies 38: 85-97.
PERKINS D. 1969. Fauna of Catal Huyiik: Evidence for Early Cattle Domestication in Anatolia. Science 164: 177-179.
PERLES C. 1997. L'Egee neolithicjue: un monde en mouvement. Dossiers dArcheologie 222: 10-13•
PERLES C. and VITELLI K. D. 1994. Technologie et fonction des premieres ceramiques en Grece. In Ter-re Cuite et Societe. La ceramique, document tech-nique, economique, culturel: 225-242. XIVe Ren-contres Internationales d'Archaeologie et dHistoire d'Antibes, Juan-les-Pins.
REDDING R. W. 1995. Preliminary Report on Faunal Remains Recovered from the 1993 Excavations. In R. S. MacNeish & J. G. Libby (eds.), Origin of Rice Agriculture. The Preliminary Report of the Sino-American fiangxi (PRC) Project: 53-58. Publica-tions in Anthropology No. 13.
REN SHINAN 1995. The Main Achievements in Chinese Neolithic Cultures before the 5th Millennium BC. Kaogu 1: 37-49.
RICE P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook.
SHIH XING-BANG 1992. The Discovery of the Pre-Yangshao Culture and its Significance. In C. M. Ait-kens & S. N. Rhee (eds.), Pacific Northeast Asia in Prehistory: 125-132.
SMITH B. D. 1995. The Emergence of Agriculture.
Scientific American Library Series 54.
STAMPFLI H. R. 1983. The Fauna of Jarmo with notes on Animal Bones from Matarrah, the Amuq and Karim Shahir. In L. S. Braidwood et al. (eds.), Prehi-storic Archaeology along the Zagros Flanks: 431-483.
TAN YING-JIE, SUN XIU-REN, ZHAO HONG-GUANG and GAN ZHI-GENG, The Neolithic in Heilongjiang
Province. In S. M. Nelson (ed.), The Archaeology of Northeast China: 118-144.
VANDIVER P. B. 1987. Sequential Slab Construction: a Conservative Southwest Asiatic Ceramic Tradition. Paleorient 13: 9-35-
VITELLI K. D. 1989. Were pots first made for foods? Doubts from Franchthi. World Archaeologv 21:17-29.
WANG TAO 1997. Establishing the Chinese Archaeological School: Su Binqi and Contemporary Chinese Archaeology. Antiquity 71: 31-39.
WEST B. & BEN-XIONG ZHOU 1988, Did Chicken go North? New Evidence for Domestication. fournal of Archaeological Science 15: 515-533■
YAN WENMING 1987. The Unity and Variety of the Chinese Prehistoric Cultures. Wenwu 3: 38-50.
1992. Origins of Agriculture and Animal Husban-dry in China. In C. M. Aitkens, S. N. Rhee (eds.), Pacific Northeast Asia in Prehistorj: 113-123■
YIOUNI P. 1996. The Early Neolithic Pottery: Fun-ctional Analysis. In R. J. Rodden, K. A. Wardle (eds.), Nea Nikomedeia I: The Excavation ofan Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961-1964, (BSA suppl. vol. 25): 181-193■
ZHANG ZHAOQING 1987. On the Determination and Chronology of the Peiligang-Cishan Culture. Huaxia Kaogu 1: 138-149.
ZHAO SHIGANG 1985. Some Question about the Peiligang Culture. Shijian Yanjiu 2: 27-40.
ZHAO ZHIJUN, PEARSALL D. M. and JIANG QINHUA 1995. Analysis of Phytoliths from Xian Ren Dong and Wang Dong. In R. S. MacNeish, J. G. Libby (eds.), Origin of Rice Agriculture. The Preliminary Report of the Sino-American fiangxi (PRC) Project: 47-52. Publications in Anthropology No. 13-
ZHONGGUO KAOGUXUE ZHONGTAU SHISINIAN-DAI SHUfINJI - 1965-1991 (Radiocarbon Dates in Chinese Arcliaeology - 1965-1991)- The Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Science -CASS (in Chinese, with explanation in English).
ZOHARI D. and HOPF M. 1988. Domestication of Plants in the Old World,
UDK 903(3-11)"633/6342"
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
The socio-economic structure of Prehistoric communities in the Southern Levant, ca. 13000-8000 BP
Jak Yakar
Institute of Archaeology, Tel-Aviv University, yakar@post.tau.ac.il
ABSTRACT - The bearers of the Natufian Culture ivhich probably descended from the Geometric Kebaran developed a complex hunting and foraging mode ivhich allowed them to exploit relatively small seasonal habitats ivithout having to move very long distances. It took well over tivo thousand yearsfor this culture complex to develop further into the so-called PPNA ivhere a more settled way oflife ivith some emphasis on cultivation appeared in parts of the Levant.
POVZETEK - Nosilci kulture Natufian, ki verjetno izvira iz kulture geometrični Kebaran, so razvili kompleksen lovsko-nabiralniški način gospodarstva, zaradi česar so lahko izrabljali razmeroma majhna sezonska okolja, ne da bi morali prepotovati velike razdalje. V več kot dveh tisočletjih seje ta kulturni kompleks razvil v tako imenovani PPNA. Takrat se je v nekaterih delih Levanta pojavila stalnejša naselitev, določen pomen pa je dobilo tudi obdelovanje polj.
The Levant, which extends from the southern flanks of the eastern Taurus in the north, down to the Sinai peninsula in the south, defines a territory ca. 1300 km long and 350 km wide. The Northern Levant includes the region encompassing the north-eastern Mediterranean littoral and the valleys of the Oron-tes, Middie Euphrates and Balikh in Syria. The region defined as the Southern Levant encompasses the ter-ritory crossed by the valleys of the Litani and Jordan, including the Mediterranean littoral extending from Lebanon to northern Sinai. Moreover, the Ne-gev, the Sinai peninsula and Jordan are considered parts of this vast region.
The material culture remains of Epipaleolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic communities of the Southern Levant are rather well documented, thanks to the large number of excavations1.
The early phase of the Epipaleolithic in the Levant is, in a way, a continuation of the regional Upper Paleolithic lithic traditions. However, as far as subsis-tence base, site size and settlement pattern are con-cerned, these give the impression of being slightly
more developed and complex than those maintained by the Upper Paleolithic groups. In the later phase of the Epipaleolithic in the Levant, hunter-gatherer communities, having adopted a more selective hunting strategy, started to consume more wild cereals in their diet. These economic adaptations would have no doubt required changes in settlement pattern, subsistence-related activities and, eventually, in the social structures of Late Epipaleolithic groups.
Although the various lithic assemblages produced by different Epipaleolithic groups in the Levant share a number of traits, they can nevertheless be differen-tiated by regional characteristics developed during the so-called industrial sub-phases. Among these assemblages, those produced by groups in northern and central Palestine, Lebanon and Syria show a wider distribution than those produced by groups centred in the Negev or Sinai (e.g. the Mushabian, the Negev Kebaran and the Harifian).
Generally speaking, the lithic assemblages of the Epipaleolithic groups in the Southern Levant reflect a subsistence economy in an environment rich in
1 It is important to emphasise that in the Levant, the term Epipaleolithic is used to include aH the microlithic industries that post-date the Levantine Aurignacian C and predate the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (Bar-Yosef 1975-363).
I
^ .2

I
9.°
• <3
/•12 »13 J
21. • »22
24
NEGEV •
I	-MUREYBET
2—ABU	HUREYRA
3—EL,	KOtyM
4—GERAQE
5—SAAIDE
6—NACHARINI
7—JAYROUD
8—AIN	VAi__AHA
9—BEISAMUN
10—HAYONIW
II	— NAHAL OREN
12—EL	WAD
13—KEBARAH
14—HATULA
15—NETIV	HAGDUD
16—WADI	HAMEH
17—AIN	GHAZZAL
18—JERICHO
19—EL	KHIAM
20—SHUNERA 21 —AZARIO
22-ROAH	ZIN
23-ROSH	HORESHA
24-BEIDHA
25-BASTA
26-WAQI	JUDAYIO
The Distribution of Major Late Epipaleolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic Sites in the Levant.
fauna and flora. Palaeo-ecological records further confirm the existence of such a rich environment. Palaeo-ecological records of the Levant generally indicate that in the Late Pleistocene humidity rose considerably and, as a consequence of this, the Me-diterranean woodlands expanded northwards, east-wards and southward, creating new habitats in upland areas with enriched flora (Baruch and Bot-tema 1991; Botterm and Woldring 1984; Leroi-Gourhan et Francine Dar mori; 1991; Rognon 1987; vari Zeistetal, 1975). This in turn allowed the hun-ter-gatherer bands to expand their subsistence ex-ploitation areas well beyond the limits of their for-mer habitats. Indeed, most of the Epipaleolithic sites in the Southern Levant are located in the Mediterra-
nean woodland zone. A smaller number of sites, however, are located at the present steppe zone, which may have been slightly more humid and rich-er in vegetation at the tirne.
In terms of plant and animal domestication, as well as the emergence of communities living in perma-nent villages, the cjuestion often asked is whether or not the Neolithization process in the Southern Levant occurred slightly earlier than in the Northern Levant. Concerning the Southern Levant, archaeo-logical records clearly demonstrate the close link between the Early and Late Epipaleolithic complex-es in terms of basic economic exploitation modes and lithic industries. The best example of this is the Early Epipaleolithic Kebaran complex, which later developed into the Geometric Kebaran sometime before ca. 13000 BP
The Geometric Kebaran culture is the most wide-spread of the Levanfs Late Epipaleolithic complexes. The artifactual variability of this complex reflects the adaptive responses of the Geometric Kebaran groups to different environments, which included not only the Mediterranean woodlands, but the arid zones of the interior as well2.
By exploiting several, closely packed, but vertically differentiated resource zones, these communities were able to subsist within small territories. Conse-quently, this mode of economic exploitation reduced the extent of their cultural dispersion and prompted the emergence of relatively small enclaves.
Sometime after 13000 BP the Geometric Kebaran groups started to undergo an evolution in their socio-economic organisation. No doubt this was the result of the climatic changes mentioned above which ex-panded the Mediterranean woodlands and as a result created additional sources of food. This in turn en-couraged sedentism. Like its contemporary, the Mu-shabian complex, in north-eastern Sinai, southern Ne-gev and southern and eastern Jordan, the Geometric Kebaran Complex is dominated by chipped stone artefacts3.
2	Group I, which is characterised by geometric microliths and backed bladelets, with the latter predominating, has a relatively wide distribution in the Southern Levant (Kaufman 1987; Muheisen 1988). Characteristic of Group II is a tool-kit dominated by backed bladelets and geometric microliths. Scrapers, burins, notches and denticulates appear in lower frequencies in the individual lithic assemblages as seen in the Central Negev sites. In the Group III microlithic assemblages triangles usually dominate, as long observed at Ein-Gev, Kfar Darom and Nahal Oren. The existence of marine shells in the inland sites suggests that contact was main-tained betvveen the coastal region and the hinterland groups. In Group IV the microlithic assemblages of Eastern Jordan and Judean Hill sites are dominated by lunates.
3	The tool-kit of the Mushabian complex is dominated by arched-backed bladelets, scalene bladelets, lunates, triangles and micro-burins (Marks and Simmons 1977).
In addition, the Geometric Kebaran assemblages sometimes include bone or stone tools and orna-raental marine shells. The locations and composition of Geometric Kebaran sites indicate an annual cycle of transhumance into the uplands during the spring and summer months where water sources were more abundant. This was followed by a migration to lowland settings in the autumn and winter. The period spent in the uplands would have coincided with the period of new plant growth. During the spring-summer segment of the annual cycle the Geometric Kebaran communities would have dispersed into smaller and therefore more mobile groups. At the end of the summer, returning to their long-term base-camps, these groups would have re-created the larger social units they maintained in the autumn and winter. Such base-camps are identified mainly by the presence of plant processing tools like those found at the sites of Hefsibah, Neve David, and Ein Gev IV. Assemblages rich in plant processing tools indicate the presence of a subsistence economy with an emphasis on storable foods and therefore a more sedentary phase in the annual foraging cycle. This lowland transhumant segment of the Geometric Kebaran groups later developed into the more settled Natufians.
Unlike the Mushabian Complex, the origins of the Geometric Kebaran are, generally speaking, well understood. The latter grew out of the Kebaran and ultimately evolved into the Natufian within an interval of some 2000 to 2500 years. Although the Geometric Kebaran, with its temporally and spatially dif-ferentiated four industries, continued the basic eco-nomic, demographic and social patterns of the Kebaran, it differed from the preceding complex in its geographic distribution and material culture. The Geometric Kebaran was initially limited to the core Mediterranean zone, but with the improvement of climatic conditions some 14000 years ago it expand-ed into the interiors of Southern Levant, which con-stitutes the present steppe-desert zone.
In the Late Pleistocene of the Levant, two types of hunting-gathering strategies, based on simple and complex foraging seem to have existed. Simple foraging, which is defined as a risk minimizer, required a high group mobility which allows timely access to food resources. Complex foraging, on the other hand,
could be regarded as a resource maximizer (Gould 1982). Its adoption would have allowed more per-manency in settlement, since the hunter-gatherer groups using this strategy stored food plants and obtained certain food and other products through reciprocal exchange from other foraging groups.
The transition from simple to complex foraging within the Levant may be related to an increase in temperature that in turn caused an expansion of the Mediterranean woodlands into the uplands some 13 000 years ago (Henry 1989.30). This is a logical assumption, since the depressed Last Glacial tem-peratures would have confined cereals and other food resources associated with the Mediterranean woodlands to low elevations and warmer latitudes in the Levant (Wright 1977). For instance, wild bar-ley, which is the most widespread of the Near Eastern cereal grasses, grows better on well-drained, deep loam, calcareous soils with a high nitrogen con-tent (Renfreiv 1973-80-81). Thriving under conditions of moderate rainfall, it does not tolerate ex-treme cold, and is confined to elevations below 1500 m, where the ripening season is relatively long and cool. As for wild emmer wheat, less arid-tolerant than barley, it thrives in areas receiving between 500-750 mm of rainfall annually (Redman 1978.123). It also grows in abundance on well-drained clay loam, calcareous soils and thus has a preference for basaltic and limestone regions. In the Levant, wild emmer has the more restricted primary habitat of the cereal grasses, for dense stands are restricted to the slopes and uplands of the Galilee and Golan Plateau overlooking the upper Jordan valley. Although the best areas for emmer are elevations below 900 m, with relatively high winter temperatures, elevations as high as 1600 m on the east face of Mt. Hermon support a slender, late-maturing variety (Zohary 1969.49).
Complex foraging, involving the intensive collection of wild cereals and nuts, is particularly associated with the bearers of the Natufian culture4.
The generally accepted view concerning the Natufian culture complex is that it emerged within the core Mediterranean zone between 12 800 to 12 500 years ago. Geographically, Natufian sites are found in the hill zone of Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan. The
4 The Natufian culture, which is the richest and best-known of the Epipaleolithic complexes of the Levant, was discovered by Dorothy Garrod 70 years ago during the excavation of the cave of Shukbah situated in Wadi Natuf. By the mid-thirties, additional cave-sites such as El Wad (Garrod and Bate 1937) and Kebara (Turville-Petre 1932) on the Mediterranean coast in the vicinity of Mt Carmel, and several sites in the Judean Hills south of Jerusalem (Neuville 1934; 1951) had been excavated.
contemporary sites in Syria, such as Mureybet (Cau-vin 1977; 1978; 1979) and Abu Hureyra {Moore et al 1975) fall outside the main cluster of the Natufian sites, although they share certain similarities in as-semblages.
The Natufian chipped stone industry provides a great deal of information concerning the economic basis of this culture. The Natufian lithic assemblages are characterised by a microlithic technology that pro-duced broad bladelets from multi-platform cores. In an average tool-kit, backed bladelets, burins, scrapers, and nothces-denticulates are evenly represent-ed. Geometric microliths, with lunates accounting for between 60 to 98 percent of this category, dom-inate the microlithic assemblage. Sickle blades, gen-erally accounting for less than 5% of a tool kit, are consistently present in Natufian assemblages, which also contain a diverse range of groundstone tools. Such tools further reflect the increased dependence of these communities on wild cereals and nuts. These include heavy stone bowls and pestles, bedrock mor-tars, and various other groundstone implements used for grinding and pounding.
In a sense, the Natufian horizon represents not only the earliest sedentary hunter-gatherer societies, but perhaps also the incipient phase of agriculture in the Southern Levant, at a tirne when a milder climate with a marked increase in annual precipitation repla-ced the conditions of the Late Glacial Maximum in the region. In the Natufian pattern of settlement, the hunter and gatherer communities showed a preference for higher elevation campsites mainly situated to the south and south-east of the lowlands. At a local scale, Natufian base camps, or hamlets shared several environmental and topographic features. They were located near the boundary separating level gras-sland settings (e.g. coastal plain, broad interior valley) from the wooded slopes of the Mediterranean hill zone. The strategic location of Natufian settlements allowed their inhabitants easy access to open habi-tats favoured by gazelle, and a forest habitat containing deer, cereals and nuts. Such settings also furni-shed a predictable water supply, along with sources of flint in the wadi gravels and limestone deposits.
This culture complex rapidly amalgamated several regionally distinctive Geometric Kebaran groups into a tightly bound culture. In the next 1500 years, population increases resulted in the colonisation of areas on the very margin of the Mediterranean zone.
This acted to bring an expanding Natufian population into contact with simple foraging, late Musha-bian groups in the Southern Levant and, very prob-ably, similar groups elsewhere along the fringes of the Mediterranean woodlands.
In the Natufian culture the most important concep-tual change concerns the relation between sedentism and foraging, as clearly demonstrated at Ain Mallaha, where the economy was based on the intensive col-lection of cereals and on hunting, but without the domestication of plants and animals.
Not ali Natufian sites can be classified as base-camps consisting of habitation units, built-in installations for heating and food processing, and graves. In other words, Natufian sites with architectural remains and installations do not always reveal burials. A number of Natufian sites were probably only short-lived tran-sit-camps. These usually reveal only lithic assemblages and animal bones. In fact, the larger base-camp sites are few and mainly located in the Mediterranean vegetation belt (Vatla 1975; 1981; Bar-Yosef 1981; 1982).
The architectural characteristics of Natufian villages are best known from Ein Mallaha (Perrot 1966; Vatla 1981), Hayonim Cave (Bar-Yosef and Goren 1973) and Rosh Zin (Henry 1976). Additional exam-ples have been found at El Wad, Hayonim Terrace (Henrv and Leroi-Gourhan 1976) and Wadi Ham-meh 27 (Ediuards 1991). In the Southern Levant, semi-subterranean circular and curvilinear struc-tures, built with unmodified stones have been found, arranged either in a linear pattern or clustered.
Generally speaking, Natufian communities were larger and more permanent than their simple foraging predecessors or other contemporary groups. More than 200 skeletons recovered from El Wad, Kebara, Nahal Oren, Hayonim Cave, Ein Mallaha, Shukbah, and Erq el Ahmar (Henry 1989.206), provide the data-base on which some of the conclusions on Natufian society are based. The mortuary patterns indi-cate that Natufian society was stratified. During the Early Natufian, the dead were buried together in small groups 5. The Early Natufian burials at El Wad reveal two distinct patterns of internment. In the cave area, a group burial contained skeletons of adults, children and infants in an extended position, accompanied by grave furniture, limestone blocks and hearths; but none were adorned with dentalium.
5 In the Late Natufian, the deads were buried individually in cemeteries.
On the terrace of the cave, five separate groups of burials contained skeletons of adults and children in a flexed position with one member of each group always wearing dentalium; but hearths and lirae-stone were absent from these burials. The indi-viduals wearing dentalium shells included men, women and children. The Early Natufian burials at Erq el Ahmar (Neuville 1951; Vallois 1936), Ein Mal-laha (Perrot 1966) and Hayonim Cave (Bar-Yosef and Goren 1973) also show a similar mortuary prac-tice, especially concerning highly decorated burials. It has been suggested (Wright 1978) that this may have involved a socially distinct subgroup of a Natufian community, perhaps to denote the transfer of high social status through inheritance. In the Late Natufian period, mortuary practices had changed to predominantly single interments. This shift, record-ed at El Wad, is also seen at Shukbah (45 individual burials) and Nahal Oren (50 individual burials).
Long-range contacts within the Levant are evident during the Natufian period. Basalt objects are com-mon in Natufian sites, far from the source of this material in eastern Galilee, dentalium shells were traded from the Mediterranean Sea inland and from the Red Sea northward.
Through their ability to store food surpluses in their permanent settlements Natufian groups took on the general appearance of early farming communities some two to three millennia before the first evidence of agriculture. However, since complex foraging resulted in intensive hunting and gathering, it would have eventually exhausted the food resources in a number of habitats6.
The collapse of the Natufian complex and the disso-lution of Natufian society in general can be attrib-uted to population growth in the face of declining resources. In fact, at the peak of their expansion, Na-tufians began to experience a general deterioration in their habitat, especially along the southern and eastern margins. In conjunction with continued population growth, the dramatic reduction of the Mediterranean zone with its cereal and nut resources destabilised the Natufian adaptive system. As a con-sequence of this, Natufian settlements in the mar-
ginal areas were abandoned, their communities re-turning to a more mobile, simple foraging subsis-tence strategy. Only those living next to permanent water sources were able to continue a sedentary mode of existence by incorporating agriculture as an important part of their subsistence economy.
Complex foraging could not have lasted for a very long time mainly for climatic reasons. The renewed aridity in the region would have required a return to a less intensive mode of hunting and gathering. With the progressive deterioration of climate, Natufian communities on the margin of the Mediterranean woodlands were unable to sustain permanent settlements. Relying more and more on storable food, Natufian foragers lowered their resource ceil-ings in favour of the intensive exploitation of a more restricted range of food resources.
Although they maintained a less intensive foraging pattern and stili depended heavily on the resources of what remained of the woodland habitat at the highest elevations, they were obliged to disperse their population into small, mobile groups during part of the year. Archaeologicallv, this transition is reflected by the Harifian industry, which is found in the arid zone of the Southern Levant. It shares strong techno-typological similarities with the Natufian to the extent that it is often included in the same cultural complex7.
However, being geographically isolated, they were unable to maintain ties with contemporary Natufian communities to the north. Unlike the Natufian sites, Harifian sites are distributed in both lowland and upland settings in northern Sinai (Bar-Yosef and Philips 1977), the Negev (Marks 1973; 1975; Marks and Scott 1976; Goring-Morris 1987), and the southern Judean Hills (Bar-Yosef et al., 1974). Although the type-site of Abu Salem, located on the Harif pla-teau of the Highland Negev and the nearby site E8, represent seasonal hamlets, the remainder of Harifian occurrences consist of small, ephemeral camps. The Harifian population would have been organised in small groups at lower elevations, and larger groups at the higher elevations, where they spent a longer time.
6	It has been suggested that the fact that Natufian culture lasted as long as it did, was mainly because the flora and fauna in the Southern Levant were not entirely depleted. This was perhaps due to the economic inefficiency of the exploitation methods of food resources (Henry 19895).
7	With a return to mobile foraging, the Harifians, enierging as a relatively short-lived complex (ca. 200 years) some 10400 years ago, appear to have retained many aspects of the earlier Natufian tradition. Even the architecture of the Harifian complex shares similarities with the Natufian.
THE PRE POTTERY NEOLITHIC HORIZON IN THE LEVANT
At the end of the Natufian horizon a new period known as the Pre Pottery Neolithic A (ca. 10 500-9300 BP), marks the emergence of small village communities of hunter-farmers in the Levant. These PPNA villages are found in a relatively narrow terri-tory extending from the Damascus basin in the north to the Jordan valley and Transjordan in the south. Although agricultural activity may have intensified at a number of fertile habitats at this tirne, general-ly speaking, subsistence economies, especially in the arid parts of the Southern Levant, including the mountains of Lebanon, stili relied largely on hunting and gathering. Fruits and wild seeds were intensive-ly collected, and emmer wheat may have been cultivated on the plains. In the PPNA the lithic industry shows differences from the previous Natufian assemblages. The microliths decrease in quantity and burins become rather common. Sickle blades and bifacial tools appear in larger quantities, except in desert sites, where they are absent.
The PPNA in the Levant contains two distinct indus-tries: the Khiamian and the Sultanian. The Khiamian industry, with its strong techno-typological ties to the Natufian, may be slightly earlier than Sultanian, although there is a good deal of overlapping between the two. The Natufian tradition survives in the lithic artefacts of the Khiamian industry, espe-cially in its microlithic technology. This industry, with its characteristic points, is well represented in the lithic assemblages at Nahal Oren, Salibiya, Hatu-la and Mureybet Ib. The characteristic Khiamian lithic assemblages also include large tools such as picks and adzes, as well as ground stone artifacts such as mortars, bowls and querns. The Khiamian settle-ments, which measure between 1000 to 3000 m2 in area, are usually found near water sources and in relativen low altitude areas. In most sites, architectur-al remains are rather poorly preserved, except for obvious cup marks. Faunal remains suggest a partic-ular preference for gazelle. Generally speaking, the Khiamian groups continued the Natufian hunting tradition.
In contrast to the Khiamian lithic tradition, the Sultanian lithic industry lacks a strong microlithic char-acter, having been based more upon blade produc-tion and bifacial tools. Large, heavy tools such as picks, adzes, tranchet axes form a substantial part of
the Sultanian tool kits, along with sickles and burins, etc.. The presence of E1 Khiam points in low per-centages at most Sultanian sites producing Helwan points (e.g. Mureybet) suggests ties between the bearers of these two lithic traditions.
In general, the lithic industry gives the impression of increasing specialisation. For the first tirne dis-tant raw material in the form of obsidian coming from Anatolia indicates the extension of the recip-rocal exchange mechanism to include distant lands. In the Sultanian assemblage, polished axes of lime-stone and basalt make their first appearance. Other ground stone items such as mortars and querns con-tinue the earlier Natufian tradition.
Small semi-subterranean structures, round to oval in plan, characterise the domestic architecture at the Sultanian sites, as seen at Jericho PPNA, Nahal Oren Stratum II, Gilgal I, Netiv Hagdud in the Southern Levant and Mureybet II in the Northern Levant. These single room dwellings with plastered floors were usually furnished with hearths. The examples from Mureybet and Jericho suggest that such houses were sometimes internally divided.
Except for Nahal Oren, which was a small village or base-camp ca. 2000 m2 in area, consisting of 15 semi-subterranean houses built in rows on a terraced slope, most Sultanian settlements are 1 -3 hectares in size and therefore much larger than Khiamian sites. The Sultanian settlements too, like the Khiamian villages, were established at elevations not exceeding 300 m above sea level. Having said this, it is important to emphasise that both the Sultanian and Khiamian sites are located outside the natural habitats of wild cereals. In other words, wild cereals harvested during the summer in higher areas were carried and stored in the main village. It is cjuite probable that some Sultanian communities attempt-ed to plant the wild cereal seeds near their settlements. This could perhaps explain the presence of cultivated cereals at some of the PPNA sites in the Levant. At Jericho, for instance, the remains of domesticated emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) and hulled two-row barley (Hordeum distichon) were found in the Sultanian levels (ca. 10000 BP).
Further north also at Mureybet II, the source of the wild cereals such as einkorn and barley consumed by the PPNA inhabitants was in the uplands some 100-150 km north-west of the site«.
8 At Mureybet there is an uninterrupted sequence extending from Final Natufian (IA), through Khiamian( IB-II) and Sultanian (III).
See van Loon 1968-, Cauvin 1977; 1978.
In Level IIIA the village of Mureybet expanded con-siderably, becoming a settlement of up to 3 hectares in area. In Level IIIB the construction of silos sug-gests that the cereals, although mostly wild, became rather important in the diet of the population.
It is the PPNA village at Teli Aswad, situated between lakes of Hijjane and Ateibe in the Damascus basin which produced the earliest domesticated emmer wheat in Syria. Although the current levels of pre-cipitation in this region, which is less than 200 mm a year, is not sufficient for the dry farming of wheat, in the Early Holocene, conditions may have been more humid. In the earliest occupation (Phase IA: 9800-9600 BP), the village consisted of semi-sub-terranean round houses, ca. 3 m in diameter. The El Khiam type arrowheads may indicate that a people of Khiamian tradition introduced the stage of incip-ient cultivation, perhaps from further south (de Con-tenson 1972; 1976; 1983). This village revealed in addition to domesticated emmer, wild barley, which grew some 50 km away from the settlement, peas (pisarn sativum) and lentils (lens culinaris).
Although most evidence for domesticated cereals comes from the Northern Levant, the emmer sample from PPNA Jericho, presumed to be the earliest so far recovered, has long been used as evidence that the cultivation of wild cereals started in the Southern Levant earlier than in the north. While this hypothesis accords well with the assessment that arid conditions in the Levant started earlier in the south than in the north, and therefore, the inhabi-tants of the south, experiencing difficulties in main-taining their former exploitation levels, cultivated cereals, it raises some questions. Indeed, if arid conditions prevented the regeneration of wild strains of cereals in their natural habitats, then the same insuf-ficient levels of precipitation would have made the cultivation of wild wheat locally quite difficult.
In the following, PPNB period (ca. 9300-7800/7500 BP) climatic conditions continued to be favourable for agriculture. Although most sites remained relativen small, some developed into large settlements of over 10-12 hectares in area. Among the large sites are Abu-Hureira in Syria, Cavonii in south-east-ern Turkey, Ain Ghazal, Beisamun and Basta in Jordan. The village economy at this tirne was based on the cultivation of domesticated species of cereals and legumes, and the collection of wild seeds and fruits. The hunting of gazelle, roe deer, fallow deer, wild boar and hare was supplemented by raising goats and sheep. In this period, bifacial tools such as
axe/adzes and celts saw some changes through tirne. Rounded retouches and polished working edges are among the characteristic features at this tirne. In the PPNB, burials are found under floors and open spaces. The skulls of adults were removed and some-times plastered. In a few sites, skulls were stored in special places and buildings.
The collapse of the PPNB in the Southern Levant manifested either as a major break in cultural conti-nuity or abrupt changes in the settlement pattern, may have been due to the deterioration of environ-mental conditions. At the site of Ain Ghazal, near Amman, this phase is known as PPNC. A community involved in goat husbandry and agriculture estab-lished this village in ca. 9250 BP, during the PPNB period. The villagers seem to have supplemented their subsistence requirements by hunting and foraging (Rollefson 1989).
Some ten generations after its foundation Ain Ghazal more than doubled its 2 hectares of habitation area. By 8250 BP, or thirty generations later, to-wards the end of the PPNB, the village had become approximately 10 hectares in area. This constant expansion of the community no doubt adversely af-fected the natural vegetation cover surrounding the settlement. At that tirne an average house at Ain Ghazal with plastered floors and walls was 50 m2. The construction of such a house required, among other materials, a large quantity of burnt lime. Since the plastered floors were ca. 6.6 cm thick, and walls and ceilings were plastered with ca. 3 mm of lime, each house would have required 3-3 tons of plaster. This quantity of plaster could have only been ob-tained by burning at least six average-size oak trees. Considering that additional 4 oak trees would have been used for the construction of each house (Edlin 1976), the damage to the tree cover near the village becomes obvious. Although the scarcity of wood at this tirne may have been a local phenomenon, it could have been one of the reasons for the change to a local architecture now characterised by houses with small, cell-like rooms.
In the following 500 years during the PPNC, the village grew further, reaching more than 12 hectares in area. After 7750 BP the village was finally aban-doned. It was resettled several centuries later by no-madic pastoralists of the Yarmoukian phase of the Pottery Neolithic period.
The faunal and botanical data from 'Ain Ghazal is particularly illuminating concerning the subsistence
economy of the PPNB and PPNC inhabitants. Dome-stic goat, gazelle, wild cattle, pig, hare, fox, turtle were consumed in that order of preference.
As for food plants, which provided up to 50% of the daily food consumption, these consisted of field peas, lentils, emmer, einkorn, bread wheat, domes-tic, two-row hulled barley, chickpeas, pistachio, figs and vetch. Therefore, assuming that an 'Ain Ghazal adult required 2500 calories per day, half of this being obtained from food plants, at least 125 kg of grain and legumes per person had to be produced by this community annually (.Rollefson and Kohler-Rollefson 1989.75).
Considering that half an acre of land could have produced 125 kg of food plants, then the community of Ain Ghazal would have cultivated/harvested a con-siderable amount of land.
Once agriculture was given prominence in local eco-nomies, it would not have been very long before soils, at least within the 3-4 km radius of farming villages, became exhausted, especially if on sloping terrain which is prone to erosion. In such terrain, after 500 years of constant cultivation, the fertility of the soil declines considerably (Hale et al. 1969. 346-347, 350). Moreover, the close browsing habits of goats grazed on arable lands would have removed the protective vegetation cover before the onset of the rains.
In the PPNC the inhabitants of 'Ain Ghazal depend-ed more on domesticated species, which included sheep, cattle and pig. However, becoming more se-dentary than before did not prevent this PPNC com-munity from organising long-term hunting expedi-tions to obtain fresh meat, skins, and furs. The rari-ty of grinding stones during the PPNC suggests less emphasis was placed on agriculture at that tirne.
DISCUSSION
The assumption that the bearers of the Natufian culture comprised the first sedentary hunter-gatherer society in the Levant is solely based on cultural at-tributes, such as the existence of large base camps with stone architecture and food processing instal-lations, and the communal burial grounds located near some of them. Moreover, the diverse methods of adorning and burying the dead could indicate that the Natufians were a ranked society. The Natufian communities, by pursuing a year-round exploita-
tion of the local fauna and avifauna, placed more emphasis on selective hunting to ensure the long-term viability of their subsistence strategy. In fact, the highly selective culling of male wild gazelle was a step short of the actual domestication of animals such as wild sheep and goat (Cope 1991; Tchernov 1991). The domestication of the dog (Daviš and Valla 1978) is also a strong indication that the Natufians brought about an economic change during the last phase of the Levantine Epipaleolithic period. The intensive exploitation of plants is reflected in an abundance of harvesting and food-processing tools and storage facilities (Wright 1991; Bar-Yosef and Belfer-Cohen 1989; Garrod 1957; Vatla 1981). The increasing reliance on wild food plants at this tirne is further corroborated by dental studies of human skeletal remains (Smith 1991). According to macro-botanical studies carried out on plant remains, it seems that the Natufian hunter-gatherers consumed mainly the seeds, nuts, and fruits of Mediterranean trees (Lev-Yadun and Weinstein-Evron 1994.391; Hillman et al., 1989; Garrard et al, 1988; Edivards 1989). However, despite the intensification in the exploitation of food plants, the domestication of cereals did not begin before the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period. The question is, however, when and where were wild cereals first domesticated? This question is particularly important, given that the wild relative of domesticated einkorn wheat (Triticum m. monococcum) is the wild einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum subsp. boeticum), whose primary habitats are said to occur in the northern and eastern parts of the Fertile Crescent (Heun et al., 1997). The fact that domesticated einkorn found at Abu Hureyra is dated earlier than the southeast Anatolian samples found at Pre-Pottery Neolithic set-tlements closer to the primary habitat of wild emmer in Karacadag could perhaps indicate that, in the Late Pleistocene, stands of Triticum m. boeoticum may have temporarily existed further south in northern Syria (Hillman 1996). Although, the Karacadag mountains are now considered the likely location of einkorn domestication, it is pointed out that the "localisation of the precise domestication site of one primary crop does not necessarily imply that the human population living there at the end of the Paleolithic played a role in establishing agriculture in the Near East. Nevertheless, it has been hypothe-sised that one single human group may have domesticated ali primary crops in the region" (Heun et al, 1997.1313). In view of this new DNA fingerprinting study concerning the site location of einkorn wheat domestication in the Near East, the assumption that the domestication of food plants started in the
Southern Levant should be reconsidered by weigh-ing the possibility that some of the cultivated ein-korn wheat consumed by the PPNA population of Southern Levant (e.g. Jericho) was obtained from more distant sources in the north. This in turn could suggest that the PPNA communities in the Levant in general and in the Southern Levant in particular were socio-economically more developed than pre-viously envisaged. In other words, through tlieir re-
ciprocal exchange mechanism these communities were able to obtain not only prestige goods and raw materials such as obsidian for certain artifacts but also certain food staples which later on they cultivated themselves. What is almost certain, however, is that the seeds for such a complex society with a well-organised, subsistence economy were sown in the Natufian period.
REFERENCES
BAR-YOSEF O. 1975. The Epi-Paleolithic in Palestine and Sinai. In Wendorf F. and Marks A. E. (eds.), Pro-blems in Prehistory: North Africa and the Levant: 363-378.
1981.	The Epi-Paleolithic Complexes in the Southern Levant. In Cauvin J. and Sanlaville P. (eds.), Prehistoire du Levant: 551-570.
1982.	The Natufian of the Southern Levant. In Young T. C. et al (eds.), The Hilly Flanks and Beyond: 11-42.
BAR-YOSEF 0. and GOREN N. 1973- Natufian Re-mains in Hayonim Cave. Paleorient 1: 49-68.
BAR-YOSEF 0. et al. 1974. Kebaran and Natufian Sites in Wadi Fazael, Jordan Valley, Israel. Paleorient 2: 415-428.
BAR-YOSEF 0. and PHILLIPS J. L. 1977. Prehistoric Investigations in Gebel Maghara, Northern Sinai. Qedem 7.
BAR-YOSEF 0. and BELFER-COHEN A. 1989. The Origins of Sedentism and Farming Communities in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory, vol.4: 447-498.
BAR-Y0SEF 0. and VALLA F. R. eds, 1991. The Natufian Culture in the Levant. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.
BARUCH U. and BOTTEMA S. 1991. Palynological Evidence for Climatic Change in the Levant. Ca. 17000-9000 BP. In Bar-Yosef and Valla (eds.) The
Natufian Culture in the Levant. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory,- 11-20.
BOTTEMA S. and WOLDRING H. 1984. Late Quater-nary Vegetation and Climate of Soutlrvvestern Tur-key. Part II. Palaeohistoria 26:123-149.
CAUVIN J. 1977. Les Nouvelles Fouillles de Murey-bet (1971-1974) et Leur Signification pour les Ori-gin de la Sedentarisation au proche-Orient. Annual of the American School of Oriental Research 44: 19-48.
1978. Les Premiers Villages de Syrie-Palestine du IXeme au VII eme Millenaire Avant J. C.
1979- Les Fouilles de Mureybet (1971-1974) et Leur Signification Pour les Origines de la Sedentarisation au Proche Orient. Annual of the American School for Oriental Research 44: 19-48.
CAUVIN J. and SANLAVILLE P. (eds.) 1981. Prehistoire du Levant.
DE CONTENSON H. 1972. Teli Aswad: Fouilles de 1971. Annales Archaeologique Arabes Syriennes 22: 75-84.
1976. Precisions sur la Stratigaphie de Teli Aswad (Syrie). Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 73: 198-199.
1983- Early Agriculture in Western Asia. In Young T. C. et al. (eds.), The Hilly Flanks and beyond: 57-74.
COPE C. 1991- Gazelle Hunting Strategies in the Southern Levant. In Bar-Yosef and Valla (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory: 341-358.
DAVIŠ S. and VALLA F. R. 1978. Evidence for the Do-mestication of the Dog 12 000 Years Age in the Natufian of Israel. Nature 216: 608-610.
EDLIN H. 1976. Trees and Man.
EDWARDS P. C. 1989. Problems of Recognizing Earliest Sedentism: The Natufian Example. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeologv 2: 5-48.
1991. Wadi Hammeh 27: An Early Natufian Site at Pella, Jordan. In Bar-Yosef and Valla (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory: 123-148.
GARRAD A. N. et al. 1988. Environment and Subsistence during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holoce-ne in the Azraq Basin. Paleorient. Vol. 14: 40-49.
GARROD D. A. E. 1957. The Natufian Culture: The Life and Economy of a Mesolithic People in the Near East. Proceedings of the British Academy, vol, 43: 211-221.
GARROD D. A. E. and BATE D. M. A. 1937. The Stone Age ofMount Carmel. Vol. 1.
GORING-MORRIS N. 1987. At the Edge: Terminal Pleistocene Hunter-Gatherers in the Negev and Si-nai. BAR International.
GOULD R. 1982. To Have and Have Not: The Ecology of Sharing Among Hunter-Gatherers. In Williams N. M. and Hienn E. S. (eds.), Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers. West-view: 69-92.
HENRY D. 0. 1976. Rosh Zin:A Natufian Settlement near Ein Ardat. In Marks A. E. (ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel. Vol. h 311-348.
1989- From Foraging to Agriculture: The Levant at the End of the Ice Age.
HENRY D. O. and SERVELLO F. 1974. Compendium of C-14 determinations derived from Near Eastern Prehistoric Sites. Paleorient. Vol. 2(1): 19-44.
HENRY D.O. and LEROI-GOURHAN A. 1976. The Ex-cavation of Hayonim Terrace: An Interim Report. fournal of Field Archaeology 3: 391-406.
HERSKOVITZ I. (ed.), 1989. People and Culture in Change. Oxford: BAR International Series 508.
HEUN M. et al. 1997. Site of Einkorn Wheat Dome-stication Identified by DNA Fingerprinting. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Vol. 218: 1312-1314.
HILLMAN G. C. 1996. Late Pleistocene changes in wild plant-foods available to humter-gatherers of the northern Fertile Crescent: possible preludes to cereal cultivation. In Harris D. R. (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralis in Eurasia: 159-203.
HILLMAN G. C. et als. 1989- Plant-Food Economy during the Epipaleolithic Period at Tel Abu Hureyra, Syria: Dietary Diversity, Seasonality and Modes of Exploitation. In Harris D. R. and Hillman G. C. (eds.), Foraging and Farming: The Evolution ofPlantEx-ploitation: 240-268.
HOLE F. et al. 1969. Prehistoij and Human Ecologv of the Deli Luran Plain: 21-36.
KAUFMAN D. 1987. Excavations at the Geometric Kebaran Site of Neve David, Israel. Quarter 31/38: 189-199.
LEROI-GOURHAN A. and DARMON F. 1991. Analyses Polliniques de Stations Natoufiennes au Proche-Ori-ent. In Bar-Yosef and Valla (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory: 21-26.
LEV-YADUN S. and WEINSTEIN-EVRON M. 1994. Late Epipalaeolithic Wood Remains from el-Wad Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel. New Phytol. Vol. 121: 391-396.
VAN LOON M. 1968. The Oriental Institute Excava-tions at Mureybet, Syria; Preliminary Report on the 1965 Campaign. Near Eastern Studies 21:265-282.
MARKS A. E. 1973. The Harif Point, a New Tool Type from the Terminal Epi-Palreolithic of the Central Negev, Israel. Paleorient 1: 99-102.
1975. An Outline of Prehistoric Occurences and Chronology in the Central Negev, Israel. In Wen-
dorf F. and Marks A. E., Problems in Prehistorj: North Africa and the Levant: 351-362.
MARKS A. E. and SC0TT T. R. 1976. Abu Salem: Type Site of the Harifian Industry of the Southern Levant. Journal of Field Archaeology 3: 43-60.
MARKS A. E. and SIMMONS A. H. 1977. The Negev Kebaran of the Har Harif. In Marks A. E. (ed.), Pre-history and Paleoenvironment in the Central Negev, Israel. Vol, 2: 233-210.
MOORE A. M. et al. 1975. The Excavation of Abu Hu-reyra in Syria: A Preliminary Report. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Societj 41: 50-77.
MUHEISEN M. 1988. The Epipalaeolithic Phases of Kharaneh IV. In Garrard A. N., Gebel H. G. (eds.), The Prehistorj of Jordan. Oxford: BAR IS396:353-367.
NEUVILLE R. 1934. Le Prehistoriqure de Palestine. Revne Biblique 43: 237.
1951 .Le Paleolithique et le Mesolithhjue di Deseti de Judee.
PERROT J. 1968. La Prehistoire Palestinienne. Dic-tionnaire de la Bible-Supplement 8: 286-446.
ROGNON P. 1987. Relations Entre Phases Climati-ques et C de 16.000 a 10.000 Chronologique au Mo-yent Orient de 16.000 a 10.000 BP. In Aurenche O. et al. (eds.), Chronologies in tlie Near East, Relati-ve and Absolute Chronologv 16,000-4,000 BP. Ox-ford: BAR International Series 379: 189-206.
REDMAN C. L. 1978. The Rise of Civilization.
RENFREW J. M. 1973- Palaeoethnobotany.
ROLLEFSON G. O. 1989- The Late Aceramic Neolithic of the Levant: A Synthesis. Paleorient 15:168-173-
ROLLEFSON G. 0. and KOHLER-ROLLEFSON I. 1989-The Collapse of Early Neolithic Settlements in the
Southern Levant. In Hershkovitz (ed.) People and Culture in Change. Oxford: BAR International Series 508: 73-90.
SOLECKI R. L. and SOLECKI R. S. 1983. Late Pleisto-cene-Early Holocene Cultural Traditions in the Za-gros and the Levant. In Braidwood L. S. et al. (eds.), Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks. OIP 105: 123-137.
TCHERNOV E. 1991. Biological Evidence for Human Sedentism in Southvvest Asia during the Natufian. In Bar-Yosef O. and Valla F. R. (eds.), The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Ann Arbor: International Mo-nographs in Prehistory: 315-340.
TURVILLE-PETRE F. 1932. Excavations in the Mugha-ret el Kebarah. Journal of the Royal Anthropologi-cal Institute 62: 270-276.
VALLA F. R. 1975. Le Natufien, ime Culture Prehi-storique en Palestine.
1981. Les Etablissements Natoufiens dans le Nord d lsrael. In Cauvin and Sanlaville (eds.), Prehistoire du Levant: 409-420.
VALLOIS H. 1937. Les Ossements Natoufiens d'Erq el Ahmar (Palestine). L'Anthropolgie 46: 529-539.
WRIGHT G. A. 1978. Social Differentiation in the Early Natufian. In Redman C. L. et al. (eds.), Social Anthropologj: 201-224.
WRIGHT H. E. 1977. Environmental Change and the Origins of Agriculture In the Old and new Worlds. In Reed C. A. (ed.), Origins of Agriculture: 281-318.
WRIGHT K. 1991. The Origin and Development of Ground Stone Assemblages in Late Prehistoric South-west Asia. Paleorient 17: 19-45.
VAN ZEIST W. et al. 1975. Late Quaternary Vegeta-tion and Climate of Southvvestern Turkey. Palaeohi-storia 17:53-143.

UDK 575:633.1 (392/393)"6342"_
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
Einkorn vvheat domestication site mapped by DNA fingerprinting*
Manfred Heun1, Basilio Borghi2 and Francesco Salamini3
1. Institutt Bioteknologifag, Norges Landbrukshogskole, As, Norway, manfred.heun@ikb.nlh.no 2. Istituto Sperimentale Cerealicoltura, Sant' Angelo Lodigiano, ltaly 3. Max-Planck-lnstitut Zuchtungsforschung, Koln, Germany
ABSTRACT - Wild relatives of the founder' crops of the European agriculture, chickpea, lentil, pea, barley, Emmer and Einkorn ivheats, bitter vetch (Zohary and Hopf1993) continue to grow in the Fer-tile Crescent. The study of the genetic relationships beliveen cultivated types occuring outside their nat-ural habitat and their ivild relatives clarifies important aspects of plant domestication, For example, by comparing - based on DNA fingerprinting - cultivated lines ivith ivild relatives collected in defined areas, ive have been able to pinpoint precisely the plače of origin of Einkorn ivheat ivithin the Fertile Crescent (Heun etal. 1997), apuzzle ivhich archaeology alone has been unable to solve. Similar stud-ies of other Fertile Crescent crops might ansiver ivhether the Neolithic revolution in this part of the ivorld had a common origin, or ivhether the above mentioned other crops ivere domesticated inde-pendently. DNA analyses can contribute to archaeology; more interaction is needed.
POVZETEK - Divji sorodniki prvotnih pridelkov evropskega poljedelstva (čičerka, leča, grah, ječmen, žiti Emmer in Einkorn, grenka grašica (Zohary in Hopf 1993) še danes uspevajo v Rodovitnem polmesecu. Raziskave genskih povezav med gojenimi tipi, ki se pojavljajo izven njihovega naravnega okolja. in njihovimi divjimi sorodniki pojasnjujejo pomembne vidike udomačitve rastlin. Na primer, na osnovi primerjave prstnih odtisov DNK gojenih vrst in divjih sorodnikov, ki smo jih nabrali na znanih območjih, smo lahko natančno določili izvor žita Einkorn znotraj Rodovitnega polmeseca (Heun et al. 1997), in tako rešili uganko, kije sama arheologija ni mogla razrešiti, Podobne raziskave drugih pridelkov z Rodovitnega polmeseca bodo morda odgovorile na vprašanje, ali ima neolitska revolucija v tem delu sveta skupni izvor ali pa so bili zgoraj omenjeni pridelki udomačeni neodvisno drug od drugega. DNK analize lahko prispevajo k arheologiji; potrebno je večje sodelovanje.
INTRODUCTION
DNA techniques provide powerful tools for studying evolution and domestication. However, use of DNA techniques is limited when only small amounts of high quality DNA can be extracted, as is the čase with ancient samples. Although this limitation can be overcome to some extent (Broivn et al. 1994), an alternative approach to addressing questions about the domestication of plants is to use modern seed samples. Einkorn wheat is a forgotten crop, to which no modern breeding has been applied, and has been cultivated for several thousand years outside its nat-ural habitat.
Wild Einkorns stili occur in nature (Zohary and Hopf 1993), and large samples of these wild lines are stored in gene banks around the world. Therefore,
* see acknowledgements
a representative collection of cultivated Einkorns, geographically well isolated from their wild relatives, can be used to identify the closest wild relative in a defined geographic area. As a result, the possi-ble Einkorn wheat domestication site was pinpointed within the Fertile Crescent (Heun et al. 1997).
THE PLANT MATERIAL
Einkorn wheats are diploid, self-pollinating plants (2n = 2x = 14), belonging to the family Poaceae and carrying the A genome. Triticum monococcum ssp. monococcum (T. monococcum) and Triticum monococcum ssp. boeoticum {T. boeoticum) are the respective Latin names of the domesticated and the
-limits of Fertile Crescent O T.m. boeoticum
* sampling of Karacadag lines A. T.m. monococcum v (vvith number of samples) + archeological site	□ T.m. aegilopoides J
A - L: areas of wild T.m. boeoticum sampling in the Fertile Crescent
Fig. 1. Sampling sites of 538 Einkorn tiheats. Insert: the Karacadag region. For the area of the Fertile Crescent, tvhere Einkorn occurs in primary habitats, nine groups ivere formed (see Heun et al. 1997for details). Reprinted ivithpermissionfrom Science, 14 November 1997, Volume 278,p. 1313, Fig. 1. ©1998 American Association for the Advancement of Science.
wild Einkorn wheat. Triticum monococcum ssp. aegilopoides (T. aegilopoides) is another Einkorn wheat which is fully fertile with the two other Ein-korns. T. aegilopoides occurs in the wild mainly in the Balkans, and is of interest because it shows domestication traits similar to those of T. monococcum. Ten gene banks world-wide (see Heun et al. 1997 for details) provided Einkorn wheat samples. In total we obtained 1362 lines, then verified their taxonomic assignment and evaluated their agronom-ic performance. The collection sites for about 900 of the samples were provided by some gene banks. For the Fertile Crescent samples, as well as for most of the samples from Turkey, only lines for which the collection site was known within + 5 km were con-sidered. Outside the primary habitat of wild Einkorn, most lines are frequently known only by their coun-try of origin. Moreover, since agriculture led to the spread of cultivated types, consideration of their sites of collection could be misleading. The geogra-
phic distribution of the T. boeoticum and T. aegilopoides lines present in our collection is in agree-ment with the distribution of wild Einkorn as pub-lished in Harlan and Zohary (1966). In their Fig. 3, the primary habitats of T. boeoticum are shown to include the Taurus-Zagros region from South-eastern Turkey through North-eastern Iraq into Western Iran (i.e., the Eastern half of the Fertile Crescent). T. aegilopoides grows wild mainly in the Balkans and We-stern Anatolia, where it occupies marginal habitats. In Central Anatolia and Transcaucasia the two wild Einkorns occur in marginal habitats together with cultivated Einkorns (Zohary and Harlan 1966). West of the Balkans, only cultivated Einkorns occur.
FORMING GROUPS
The T. boeoticum samples collected in the Fertile Crescent were divided into nine geographic groups
(A, B, C, D, E, G, H, I and L). Ali T. aegilopoides sam-ples were included in the 'Aegi' group and the cultivated Einkorn in the 'Mono' group. To test for the monophyletic origin of the cultivated types, this last group was also separated into four subgroups based on their geographic origins (Central Europe, the Bal-kans, Mediterranean countries and Turkey). Figure 1 (from Heun et al. 1997) shows the sampling sites of the 338 Einkorns used for DNA fingerprinting. To re-duce our collection to 338, samples were randomly chosen within the above mentioned 11 groups.
DNA FINGERPRINTING DATA
Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers were generated (Vos et al. 1995) for ali 338 lines. A total of 288 stable and reliably readable AFLPs were scored for presence vs. absence. Dif-ferent genetic distance estimates were used to con-struct several phylogenetic trees based on neighbor-joining and restricted maximum likelihood estima-tion methods. Almost identical topologies were de-tected by ali methods employed. Finally, a consensus tree based on ten different tree-building procedures was obtained (see Heun et al 1997 for details).
WILD ANCESTORS OF CULTIVATED EINKORN
Figure 2A shows that the nine geographic groups of T. boeoticum collected in the Fertile Crescent can be distinguished genetically. Group D, originating from the Karacadag Mountains in Southeast Turkey, is the most distant group. By adding the cultivated Einkorns (Mono) and the wild Einkorns from the Bal-kans (Aegi) to these nine groups, we obtained the results in Figure 2B. Cultivated Einkorn appears clo-sely related to T. aegilopoides. Group D links 'Mono' and Aegi' with the remaining eight groups. This result is a major achievement, since for the first tirne cultivated Einkorns can be traced back to a group of wild Einkorns showing ali the characteristics of a wild species, whereas the lines that grow wild in the Balkans show clear signs of domestication. It is con-cluded that bolh T. monococcum and T. aegilopoides are derived from group D wheats. Figure 2C clearly demonstrates the monophyletic origin of the cultivated Einkorn and strongly suggests that T. aegilopoides is a derivative of the cultivated forms. Group D is again positioned between T. monococcum and ali other T. boeoticum forms. The second major result that emerges from our studies is that ali
group D lines were collected from a relatively small area on the slopes of the Karacadag Mountains. A gradient ranging from high to very high relation-ships within the 19 representatives of group D is evident (Fig. 2F).
CONNECTING DNA STUDIES WITH ARCHAEOLOGY
The localisation of the origin of cultivated Einkorn to the Karacadag Mountains stimulates questions concerning the human community which achieved this domestication: are there neighboring human settlements with signs of early Einkorn cultivation? It is known that Cafer Hoyiik, Nevali Cori and Cayonii are ali located in the vicinity of these mountains. These are among the oldest settlements at which pa-laeontologists have found wild and domesticated Einkorn seeds in different horizons. In Table 2 of Nesbitt and Samuel (1996) ali archaeological data relevant to the origin of agriculture are summarised. From these it becomes evident that the cultivation of Einkorn began between 7800 and 7500 BC in the settlements cited. At the excavated sites in the Jordan Valley mentioned by Jones et al. (1998), no deci-sive (concerning general identification problems see Hillman et al. 1993) earlier remains of cultivated Einkorn have been found (Heun et al 1998, Nesbitt 1998; Nesbitt and Samuel 1998), emphasising the importance of the Northern Fertile Crescent in Einkorn domestication. In the čase of other excavated sites, such as Abu Hureyra and Mureybit in Northern Syria, wild seeds of T. boeoticum seem to have not been collected locally (Zeist and Casparie 1968; Zeist and Bakker-Heeres 1984).
SUMMARY
Wild ancestors of cultivated Einkorn have been local-ized in the Karacadag Mountains of Turkey. The archaeological evidence from neighboring excavations implies that Einkorn domestication was initiated there about 9500 years ago. The genetic data also indicate that the domestication event was mono-phyletic (see also Zoliary in press) and that the cultivated lines differentiated to a limited extent (quick-ly achieved by domestication, Hillman and Davies 1990) during the spread of agriculture to Western Europe. T. aegilopoides is probably a feral form of the cultivated types which reached the Balkans as a result of the spread of agriculture.
Fig. 2 A, B and C: Unrooted trees with the nine T. boeoticum groups alone, ivith the same nine groupsplus T. monococcum (Mono) and T. aegilopoides (Aegi) and the tree resulting from splitting up the Mono group intofour distinct subgroups. D: Consensus tree summarising the results ivith the nine T. boeoticum groups and the groups Mono and Aegi. E: Unrooted tree u ith ali fingerprinted lines. red: cultivated Ein-korns, green: T. aegilopoides, orange: T. boeoticum from the Karacadag, blue: remaining T. boeoticum. F: Unrooted tree for the 19 Karacadag lines aligned to one consensus genotype of the remaining T. boeoticum and one consensus genotype of the cultivated Einkorn. For details on the tree building proce-dures see Heun et al. (1997). Reprinted ivithpermission from Science, 14 November 1997, Volume 278, p. 1314, Fig. 2. © 1998 American Association for the Advancement of Science.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This review is based on Heun et al. (1997 in SCIENCE) and is a shortened version of a review by Heun et al. (in press, ENCYCL O P EDI A GENETICS).
The persons acknowledged there provided seeds, data on collection sites and help. Please refer to the original SCIENCE article containing the originals of the figures. Thanks for corrections on the English are due to John Einset, NLH, Norway.
REFERENCES
BROWN T. A, ALLABY R. G, BROWN K. A, 0'D0N0G-HUE K. and SALLARES R. 1994. DNA in wheat seeds from European archaeological sites. Experientia 50: 571-575.
HARLAN J. R. and ZOHARY D. 1966. Distribution of wild wheats and barley. Science 153: 1074-1080.
HEUN M, SCHAFER-PREGL R, KLAWAN D, CASTAG-NA R, ACCERBI M, BORGHI B. and SALAMINI F. 1997. Site of einkorn wheat domestication identified by DNA fingerprinting. Science 278: 1312-1314.
HEUN M, BORGHI B. and SALAMINI F. 1998. Wheat domestication; response. Science 279:303-304.
HILLMAN G. C. and DAVIES M. S. 1990. Measured domestication rates in wild wheats and barley under primitive cultivation, and their archaeological impli-cations. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 4: 157-222.
HILLMAN G, WALES S, MCLAREN F, EVANS J. and BUTLER A. 1993. Identifying problematic remains of ancient plant foods: a comparison of the role of che-mical, histological and morphological criteria. World
Archaeologv 25: 94-121.
JONES M. K, ALLABY R. G. and BROWN T. A. 1998. Wheat domestication. Science 279: 302-303.
NESBITT M. 1998. Where was einkorn wheat domes-ticated? Trends Plant Sci. 3: 82-83.
NESBITT M. and SAMUEL D. 1996. From staple to extinction? The archaeology and history of hulled wheats. In Padulosi S, Hammer K. and Heller J. (eds). Hulled Wheats: 41-100.
1998. Wheat domestication: archaeological evidence. Science 279:1433-
VOS P, HOGERS R, BLEEKER M, REIJANS M., VAN DE LEE T, HORNES M, FRIJTERS A, POT J, PELE-MAN J, KUIPER M. and ZABEAU M. 1995. AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res. 23: 4407-4414.
ZEIST W. VAN and CASPARIE W. A. 1968. Wild einkorn wheat amd barley from Teli Mureybit in north-ern Syria. Acta Botanica Nederlandica 17: 44-53■
ZEIST W. VAN and BAKKER-HEERES J. A. H. 1984. Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant 3. Late-Pa-laeolithic Mureybit. Palaeohistoria 26: 171-199.
ZOHARY D. in press. Monophyletic vs. polyphyletic origin of the crops on which agriculture was found-ed in the Near East. Genetic Resources & Crop Evo-lution.
ZOHARY D. and HOPF M. 1993. Domestication of plants in the Old World (2nd edition). Oxford.

UDK 903.27:75(391/393)"633/634" 903.3:7.045(391/393)"633/634"
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
£atalhoyuk, Turkey: a summary of some recent results
lan Hodder
Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge ih13@cus.cam.ac.uk
ABSTRACT - Recent (since 1993) work at Catalh6yuk has atloived re-evaluation of the reasons for the complex symbolism at the site. It is suggested that the art at the site had a domestic context. Closer understanding ofthe role of symbolism can be gained from the detailed excavation and analysis of Building 1 in the North area ofthe East mound. Here geometric wall painting occurs in the cleaner part of the building, associated with burial, especiallv the burial ofyoung people. Different types of art at Qatalhovuk probablv had different functions, but some ivallpainting seems have had afunc-tion linked to death, contacting or protecting from the dead.
POVZETEK - Novejša izkopavanja v Catalhdviiku (od leta 1993) so omogočila, da na novo ocenimo razloge za kompleksni simbolizem na tem najdišču. Menimo, daje imela umetnost tega najdišča družinski kontekst. Vlogo simbolizma lahko bolje razumemo na osnovi natančnih izkopavanj in analiz stavbe 1 v severnem delu vzhodne gomile. Tu najdemo v čistejšem delu stavbe geometrične stenske slikarije, ki so po vezane s pokopi, predvsem s pokopi mladih ljudi Različne vrste umetnosti v Catal-hoyuku so verjetno služile različnim namenom, toda nekatere stenske slikarije so bile očitno povezane s smrtjo, ali so varo vale pred njo ali pa nevezo vale stik z njo.
The 9000 year old site of Catalhoviik in central Tur-key was first excavated by James Mellaart (1967) between 1961 and 1965. It quickly became of inter-national importance for a number of reasons. For example, there is its early date. There are l4C results from the site and dendrochronological studies suggesting a range of dates from the mid seventh to the mid sixth millennia bc (uncalibrated), although 5 metres of occupation which occur below Mellaarfs lowest level (XII) indicate an earlier foundation for the site. Initially these early dates indicated the importance of areas outside the Fertile Crescent for the early development of agriculture. Discoveries since the 1960s have, however, demonstrated that many earlier sites exist in Turkey with large settlements or agriculture. But Catalliovuk retains an importance in terms of its symbolic complexity. While similar sym-bolic themes such as the buli, the vulture, the remo-val of heads, and female figurines, have now been found widely from the Near East into southeast Eu-rope, Catalh6yiik stands out in terms of the com-plexity and density of its use of these themes.
There are certainly other reasons for pointing to the complexity of Catalliov uk. For example, the artifacts demonstrate widespread exchange (e. g. obsidian, Me-
diterranean shells) and technical proficiency or even specialisation (as seen in polished obsidian mirrors and finely flaked flint daggers). However, recent evidence suggests that there are other reasons for argu-ing for a limited degree of complexity. We remain unsure of the degree of dependence on domesticat-ed plants and animals, but certainly an important component of the subsistence was wild resources such as tubers and equids. The continued dependence of early, large settled sites on wild resources is seen at a number of other sites in Turkey (e. g. Asi-kli Hoyiik and Cavonu). At (/atalhovuk. intensive use of wild resources may have been facilitated by loca-tion in a wetland environment along the Carsamba River. In addition there is no evidence of central administration, ceremonial centres or public build-ings, although in a site 13.5 hectares in size (Catal-hoyiik East), such evidence may prove difficult to find (Fig. 1). Overall, Catalh6yiik stands out not so much in terms of its size or political, economic or social complexity, but in terms of its symbolism.
New work began at the site in 1993, under the aus-pices of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. The first three years of fieldwork concentrated on studies of the surface of the West (Chalcolithic)
Fig. 1. The excavation areas on the East mound at (atalh6yuk.
and East (Neolithic) mounds (published in Hodder 1996). Since 1995 excavation has been undertaken in the areas identified in Figure 1. One of the aims of this work is better to understand the art and sym-bolism at Catalhovuk East.
BUILDING 1
I wish to provide an example of the social character of art at (Jatalhoyiik East by discussing the first build-ing that we have excavated in detail - Building 1 in the North area of the site.
Scraping of the surface of the mounds at Catalhovuk had earlier proved successful in establishing the overall arrangement of architecture on the Neolithic East mound. Despite some later (Hellenistic and Byzantine) occupation, in many areas on the top of the mound removal of the plough-soil immediately exposed plans of Neolithic buildings. These results and the supporting geophysical prospection are de-scribed by R. Matthews (1996) and Shell (1996). It became clear that the upper levels of occupation on the East mound consisted largely of densely packed small buildings and extensive midden areas. The small rectangular buildings recalled closely those ex-cavated by Mellaart (1967) in the southwestern part of the mound. Indeed, the scraping technique sug-gested that these buildings, even well away from the area excavated by Mellaart, included elaborate exam-ples with complex internal fittings. This suggested that the so-called 'shrines' occurred in different parts of the site at a high density. Rather than envisaging a priestly elite in one quarter of the site, it became necessary to think of domestic cults widely spread.
Further study of the material excavated in the 1960s, including the artefacts housed in museums in Tur-key, suggested a more complex picture (Hodder 1996). A continuum of variation could be identified between more and less architecturally complex buildings. The more complex buildings with more plat-forms, bins, pillars, sculpture and painting also tend-ed to have more bifacially flaked obsidian points and more obsidian cores. They also tended to be more innovative in the use of ceramic forms, and to have more figurines. It was also clear that the more elaborate buildings in one phase would often con-tinue to be more elaborate when rebuilt in ensuing phases. There are many difficulties with the defini-tion of such variation bet\veen more and less elaborate buildings because of the limitations of the sur-viving records. In any čase, what variation occurs is
within a narrow band, and micromorphological work (W. Matthews etal. 1996) indicated that even the more elaborate buildings (termed 'shrines' by Mellaart) had traces of a wide range of domestic ac-tivities on their floors.
In approaching Building 1, therefore, we were of the opinion that the art at Catalhovuk had a domestic context but that certain buildings played a slightly more central role in the generation and transmis-sion of cultural elaboration. Unfortunately, the pre-servation of Building 1 proved to be relatively poor since the walls and upper fills had been subject to millennia of erosion on the top of the North mound, and since the plasters on the surviving walls and floors (the latter only 50 cm from the surface of the mound) had been affected by roots, animal burrows and freeze-thaw action. Nevertheless, the building yielded a large amount of information, resulting from detailed data collection. Ali soil from the site was dry-sieved, and 30 litres from each deposit were wet-sieved in a flotation system. The heavy residues from this were collected in a 0.5 mm mesh, were dried and then sieved through 4 mm, 2 mm and 1 mm meshes before hand sorting. The resultant heavy residue plots from the floors in Building 1 will be discussed below. (The results from the organ-ic and inorganic chemistry analyses of the floor sam-ples are not available at the tirne of writing.) This work on micro-artefact distributions on the floors at (/atailioviik is needed because the floors were care-hilly swept clean in antiquity. Macro-artefacts (above 4 mm) occur rarely on or beneath floors, and when they do they appear to be special foundation or abandonment deposits or material which has fallen from roofs or walls.
Up to 40 layers of replastering were found on the walls and floors of Building 1. We believe, on the basis of correlations with dendrochronological se-quences, that these replasterings occurred annually (Kuniholm and Neivton 1996). The use of the building has been divided into the 8 phases summarised in Figure 2a-c. The following is a brief summary of the story of these phases. During the construction of the building (phase one), clean foundation deposits were placed between the walls and burials were placed within these deposits. In particular, a row of three neonate burials was placed just in front of what was to be the entrance from the western room (Space 70) into the main eastern room (Space 71). In the first occupation phase (phase two) a fire in-stallation was constructed within the south wall of Space 71. Adjacent to this were the traces of a lad-
der which allowed access to the building, presum-ably through the same roof hole through which the smoke from the fire escaped. The western room (Space 70) contained a fire installation in the south-west corner. In the centre of the west side of Space 71 a relief sculpture was placed on the wall, although since this was later removed (see phase eight) we do not know what this consisted of. Certainly there was a frame of vertical plaster edges within which the relief sculpture was placed. Although traces of red paint were found elsewhere on the walls of Spaces 70 and 71, the only concentration of painting and the only evidence of designs and motifs occurred around and on the northwestern platform (Platform 13) in Space 71. Here some of the early layers of plaster were painted in geometric designs in various hues of red and in black.
In order to understand the social role of painting in Building 1 we need to try and determine what activ-ities were taking plače in the building, particularly around the northwest platform. The micro-artefact distributions suggest a wide range of activities, as do the micromorphological studies by W. Matthews (et al, 1996). It is clear that micro-traces survive of ob-sidian knapping, fish processing, wood-working, bone implement manufacture, hearth sweeping, plant storage, within the buildings at Catalhovuk. There are indications of animal dung, even on the cleaner floors, although this may derive from dung used as fuel (ibid..). However, in Building 1 most of these activities occurred in the southern part of Space 71 and in the western room (Space 70), as is indicated by the micro-artefact plots. The floors in the north and east parts of Space 71 had thicker and cleaner plaster and fewer artefact residues. It is pos-sible that this differentiation into 'clean' and 'dirty' floors resulted from the placing of carefully woven reed mats on the floors of parts of the building (the imprint of such mats having been recorded by Mel-laart 1967).
The painting in Building 1 thus occurred in a domes-tic context. And in particular it occurred in the 'cleaner' parts of the building away from the main food preparation and storage areas. In order to understand these areas better, and in order to understand what particularly was happening on the northwest platform, we need to continue on to the second occupation phase (phase three). In this phase, the fire installation in the south wall of Space 71 was bloc-ked up. A small basin (F27), perhaps used for grind-ing (grinding stones with traces of red ochre were found within it) was placed in the southern part of
Space 71. A wooden bin, perhaps for storage was built within Space 70. In this phase, the same divi-sion in the use of space between the southvvest and the northeast parts of the building occurred, as seen in the micro-artefact distributions and micromorphological studies.
In phase four, the third phase of occupation, a sub-stantial fire installation was built in the southwest corner of Space 70. A grinding installation was also constructed in this room. A storage bin used mainly for lentils was placed on the south wall of Space 71. The entrance between Spaces 70 and 71 was remod-elled and a cattle horn set within the western wall of Space 71.
What activities were occurring in the 'cleaner' parts of Building 1 (that is in the north and west parts of Space 71) during these first three occupation phas-es? One important activity seems to have been bur-ial. At least 64 individuals have been found in a series of graves beneath the northwestern platform, beneath the floor immediately to the east of the northwestern platform, and beneath the main eastern platform. Study of the human remains (Molle-son and Andreivs 1997) has indicated that most of the burials were placed in small graves while stili fleshed, the bodies tightly flexed and often wrapped in cloth or braids. As later bodies were added into graves, earlier bones were disturbed, moved aside or removed. This repeated cutting and recutting of graves has made phasing of the grave sequence dif-ficult, as will be discussed below. But bodies seem to have been added to the building throughout the pha-ses of occupation.
The spatial patterning of the ages of the individuals buried in different parts of the building is informa-tive. The northwest platform has not only the high-est concentration of burials. It also has the highest proportion of young individuals. So the painting in Building 1 is associated with burial, especially of young people. If this spatial link can be established, what of the temporal link between the painting and the burials?
The fourth phase of occupation (phase six) occurs after a serious fire, perhaps deliberately controlled, had destroyed the southern half of the building. As a result, the building was remodelled (phase five). A wall was constructed to separate the rubble in the southern half of the building from the re-occupied northern half. The eastern platform was rebuilt as a separate small room (Space 110) and a small, per-
haps storage room, was built in the northeast of the building (Space 111). A fire installation was placed near the northvvest platform.
The micro-artefact distributions suggest that even in this remodelled space the west was kept for food processing and other 'dirty' activities, while the eastern spaces were kept 'clean'. Burial continued espe-cially under the floor of the eastern room (Space 110), and declined beneath the northwestern platform (Platform 13). Perhaps this was because this latter platform had come to be used for domestic activities. Indeed, the last floor surface on this platform was associated with a concentration of fish bones. It is thus of interest that the latest layers of plaster around this platform do not seem to have been painted.
There is thus both a spatial and a temporal link betvveen the painting around the northwestern platform in Building 1 and burial, especially of young people. What can we say about the traces of relief sculpture on the west wall of Space 71, including the cattle horn set into the wall here? In the first three phases of occupation the sculpture is not associated with a particular activity area. Instead it seems to be centrally located, looking out into Space 71 as a whole. Behind it is the food storage and preparation taking plače in the smaller western room. Unlike the painting which has a short, annual cycle of use, the relief sculpture has a life cycle linked to the building itself. Fixed to the wall it is less easy to change and transform. As Mellaart often remarked (1967), the relief sculptures are integral to the architecture of the Catalhovuk buildings, being attached to upright beams and pillars.
The sculpture in Building 1 is centrally placed in the building and it has a life cycle which spans the building as a whole. That 40 year cycle in Building 1 seems to follow the life of an extended fantily. There are too many individuals buried in Building 1 to have been produced by deaths within a small nuclear family in this time period. We assume that a larger, extended group had rights of burial in this building. However, the early burials are predominantly of young individuals and the later of older individuals. It would appear, therefore, that the building was con-structed by a young family which suffered a high death rate among its young children. Most of these young deaths were accommodated beneath the northwestern platform. But as the family matured, some individuals lived on within the building, they had fewer children, and the building was abandoned
after the burial of the last old family head beneath the floor in Space 110.
The relief sculpture thus seems to be related to this longer family/house cycle. A specific relationship between this sculpture on the west wall of Space 71 and the house cycle is indicated by the final phases of use of Building 1. We do not know what happened to the sculpture in the fourth occupation phase. This is because, after the abandonment and infilling (phase seven) of the fourth occupation in the building (phase six), a pit was dug down against the west wall of Space 71 and the sculpture removed (phase eight) leaving only traces and fragments. Small de-posits of bone points and obsidian blades were left as offerings against the wall. The pottery from the robbing pit suggests that the removal of the sculpture occurred in the Neolithic, not long after the abandonment of the building.
This social concern with the sculpture on the west wall of Building 1 is reflected in numerous similar acts at (>atalhoyuk. In Building 2 in the Mellaart area of the site (Hodder 1997), the west wall had been violently destroyed, and in the debris around the wall a very large wild bull's horn was found. Mellaart (1967) had noted a repeated pattern of de-struction of the west walls of buildings. These actions can be seen as destructive, or as attempts made to recover sculptures of great social significance. What-ever the specific interpretation, it does seem that the end of the use of a building was often linked in some way to the relief sculptures within it. As already noted, the sculptures are often found integrated into the architecture of the buildings. And the buildings themselves are built and rebuilt as part of family cycles.
CONCLUSION
Clearly we do not yet have a full answer to ques-tions regarding the meanings of the unique flower-ing of art at (Jatalhovuk. So far we have made only short steps. But the approach being followed is to contextualise the art and by doing so we have seen that the art had a social character.
The life of the houses in which the art occurred may relate to the life cycles of extended familes. Some of the art, especially the relief sculpture on the western walls, seems to be related to these longer cycles. It seems to have been used and destroyed as the house was used and abandoned, and as family heads grew
from young to old. The destruction or recovery of relief sculpture from central points in abandoned buildings perhaps suggest a concern with the pass-ing on of authority, rights of access, or ancestral ties.
Other aspects of the art, in this čase the geometric wall painting, seem to be linked to shorter cycles of activity. The painting in Building 1 is placed on plaster which is annually renewed. Any particular painting is quickly covered over. Mellaart (1967) records examples of repeated repainting of similar motifs. But the best examples of this are on relief sculptures such as leopards and bulls' heads. Our own obser-vations are that most walls have some painting but that this is infrequently applied, to different degrees in different parts of a building. The motifs painted are much more varied than the relief sculptures. It is thus of interest that in Building 1, the painting around the northwestern platform seems to be relat-ed to specific events rather than to the life cycle of the building as a whole. The painting here seems to be related to concentrations of burials, especially the burials of young people. Perhaps this spatial and temporal link implies some generic association between painting and young people, say between painting and the initiation of young people. On the other hand, the painting may be related specifically to the death of young people.
Because of the link to young people under the north-western platform, it seems unlikely that the painting (perhaps in contrast to the relief sculpture) is asso-ciated with ancestors. Rather, the painting may have something to do with protecting the inhabitants of the building from negative spirits surrounding young death, or the painting itself may have helped direct-ly to calm or control those spirits (as happens in many small-scale, shamanic societies - Humphrey and Onon 1996).
Jean Clottes (pers. comm.) has pointed to the way in which animals in some southwestern French Palaeolithic art seem to be 'coming through' the walls in the deep parts of caves. David Lewis-Williams, in his work with the Catalhoviik project, has suggested that the bulls' heads and some other relief sculpture at the site may be seen as 'coming through' the membrane of the walls in the interior parts of buildings. Certainly, there is much evidence of vulture beaks, jaws of fox and weasel and the tusks of wild boar protruding through the walls into the interior spaces at Catalhoviik (Mellaart 1967). It is possible that much of the art and symbolism at Catalhoviik has little to do with representation and symbolism
at ali. It may be more like a tool, used to control or communicate with animals, spirits and ancestors. The common use of the hand motif at Catalhdvaik may suggest the idea of touching or reaching through the walls. The location of the images deep in buildings does not suggest a concern with communication or display to other people. Rather its suggests a concern to control or communicate with another world.
We must await further excavation at Catalhoviik in order to see whether the patterns so far identified in Building 1 are repeated elsewhere. We stili have little idea of the degree of conformity to social norms at the site. Hopefully further analyses in Building 1 and further excavation of other buildings will allow a hdler contextualisation of the imagery. In this way can the different types of 'art' be related to the dif-fering social rhythms of life at Catalhoviik, and perhaps to conceptualisations of the world very different from our own..
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work at the site is undertaken with a permit from the Turkish Ministry of Culture, and is funded by the British Academy, British Institute of Archaeo-logy at Ankara, Newton Trust and McDonald Institute. The main sponsors are Visa, Boeing and Koc-Bank, the long term sponsor is Merko, and the co-sponsors are British Airways, Shell and GlaxoWell-come. The official tour operator is Meptur. I would personally like to thank and acknowledge ali the project members whose collaborative efforts make articles like this possible. In particular I wish to thank Roger Matthews and Gavin Lucas for their painstaking work on Building 1.
REFERENCES
HODDER 1.1996. On the surface: Qatalhdyiik 1993-95. Cambridge and London: McDonald Archaeological Institute and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
1997. Catalhoyuk 1997: Archive Report. Cambridge: Qatalhoyuk Research Project.
HUMPHREY C. & ONON U. 1996. Shamans and El-ders. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
KUNIHOLM P. & NEWTON M. 1996. Interim dendro-chronological progress report 1995/6. In I. Hodder (ed.), On the surface: Catalh6yuk 1993-95:345-8. Cambridge and London: McDonald Archaeological Institute and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
MATTHEWS R. 1996. Surface scraping and planning. In I. Hodder (ed.), On the surface: Ca ta Ih oni k 1993-95: 79-100. Cambridge and London: McDonald Ar-
chaeological Institute and British Institute of Archa-eology at Ankara.
MATTHEWS W., FRENCH C., LAWRENCE T. & CUTLER D. 1996. Multiple surfaces: the micromorphology. In I Hodder (ed.), On the surface: Catalhoriik 1993-95: 301-42. Cambridge and London: McDonald Archaeological Institute and British Institute of Archa-eology at Ankara.
MOLLESON T. & ANDREWS P. 1997. The human remains. In I. Hodder (ed.), Qdtalhdyiik 1997: Archive Report: 96-111. Cambridge: (Jatalhoyiik Research Project.
SHELL C. 1996. Magnetometric survey at Catalhoviik East. In I. Hodder, (ed.), On the surface: Catalhoriik 1993-95:101-114. Cambridge and London: McDonald Archaeological Institute and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
wall 1
BUILDING 1 PHASE 1 - CONSTRUCTION
wall 5
BURIAL 210
O
burial 211
wall s
N f
f wall 2
wall 3
space 70
burial 209
space 71
wall 7
burial 205 |q burial 206
wall 10
burial 208
\vall 6
BUILDING 1 PHASE 2 - OCCUPATION I
N f
Fig. 2a. Building 1 at (,alalh6yuk, The eight phases of use are summarised.
BUILDING 1 PHASE 3 - OCCUPATION II
N f
BUILDING 1 PHASE 4 - OCCUPATION III
n f
Fig. 2b. Building 1 at Qatalhoyuk. The eight phases of tise are summarised.
BUILDING I
N t
BUILDING 1 PHASE 7/8 - DEMOLITION AND ABANDONMENT/ POST-ABANDONMENT
N f
Fig. 2c. Building 1 at Catath6yiik. The eight phases of use are summarised.
UDK 903(392/393)"634"_
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
The Circumpontic cultural zone during the 6th millennium BC
Vassil Nikolov
Bulgarian Academy of Science, Prehistory Department, Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia, vnikolov@sf.icn.bg
ABSTRACT - The Circumpontic cultural zone developed during the tirne of the Balkan Neolithic and covered the territories around the southern and ivestern coast of the Black Sea. The new data pre-sented describes it as a zone ofactive two-way contacts betiveen north-ivestern Anatolia and the eastern Balkans during the 6"' millennium BC. The paper emphasises the role of Thrace as a generator offormative and ornamental ideas for the pottery production of the gradually enlarging Circumpontic zone.
POVZETEK - Obpontska kulturna cona seje razvila v času balkanskega neolitika in je obsegala območje južnih in zahodnih obal Črnega morja. Novi podatki jo kažejo kot cono aktivnih dvosmernih stikov med severozahodno Anatolijo in vzhodnim Balkanom v času 6. tisočletja BC. V članku poudarjamo pomen Trakije, kije bila "generator" oblikovnih in ornamentalnih idej pri izdelovanju keramike v postopno naraščajoči obpontski coni.
The system of chronological relations lies at the basis of every cultural and historical study. New archaeological excavations, as well as the study of old collections, create a steady accumulation of facts that, from a certain point on, lead to a more or less significant change in ideas about the pattern of past material culture in a given region or area. A change in ideas about the chronology of settlements, layers or finds usually leads to a need to up-date or funda-mentally change existing cultural and historical interpretations. Therefore, the recurrent "improve-ment" of the chronological pattern is of heuristic importance.
The most complete (according to our potential) study of the pottery related or possibly related (under the pattern valid until recently) to the Karanovo III culture, brought about the development of a new peri-odisation and chronology of post-Early Neolithic cultural phenomena in Thrace, and to an approximate definition of the territorial range of the culture known already, as well as of the newly defined cultural periods (Hukoaob 1998).
The Early Neolithic pottery assemblage of Karanovo I covered the whole territory of Thrace, from Vetren and Kovačevo to the west, to Glufiševo and Asagi
pinar to the east, from Banja and Kazanlak to the north to Muldava and Hoca (Jesme to the south and south-east, i.e., covering almost the whole Maritsa basin and the region at the Mesta's upper course. The chronologically following pottery assemblage in the western and southern parts of this region was Karanovo III-IV, belonging to the middle stage of the Late Neolithic. It also covered the north-eastern parts of Thrace, but it had been preceded by three other, consecutive pottery assemblages in the region: the Early Neolithic Karanovo II, the Middle Neolithic Protokaranovo III and Karanovo III, related to the beginning of the Late Neolithic. These three periods chronologically matched, therefore, later and the lat-est phases of the Karanovo I period in the rest of the region. The last stage of the Late Neolithic in the western parts of Thrace was represented by a variant of the pottery assemblage Karanovo III-IV, which continued to develop, while at the same time the pot-tery assemblage Karanovo IV existed in the eastern parts of Thrace, to the east from the Kazanlak-Has-kovo line, including Asagi pinar.
The introduction of a new Thracian chronological system in the chronology scheme of North-western Anatolia and South-eastern Europe is causing and will continue to cause revisions of ideas about the
chronology of the material culture of the area dur-ing the second half of the 6th millennium BC. This paper is only an attempt at an introduction to the chronological system of the Thracian Neolithic and the related pottery assemblages and the great prob-lems of the relations between Anatolia and the Balkans during the tirne of the Balkan Neolithic.
This problem has various dimensions for each pre-historic period. The most debatable aspect of the chronological period under study is the concept of the origin and distribution of the black (grey-black), very well smoothed, burnished and sometimes polished pottery. Research on this subject followed at least some main directions related to the origin of the cultural communities with dark pottery in South-eastern Europe that replaced (with a few excep-tions) the early cultures with coloured (predomi-nantly red) painted pottery in the middie and the third quarter of the 6th millennium.
The first assumptions about the significance of the black, burnished pottery as a reliable mark for migra-tions within the Balkan territory (from Greece to the Danube region) were those of H. Frankfort and W. Heurtley, but the globalisation of the problem of the origin of this pottery in the Balkans as a result of migrations from the Near East was stated by V. G. Childe (1936-1937) and supported later by V. Miloj-čič (1949). Three decades later, M. Garašanin presen-ted his concept of the Balkan-Anatolian complex of the Late Neolithic, a concept which, though modified, is maintained up to now (TapamaHm 1966; 1973; Garašanin 1979). The concept included as a specific element a slow, continuous migration from Anatolia to the Middie Danube area. Close to this comprehen-sive idea were the views of other archaeologists studying particular details of the problem (Thmob 1974; Lichardus, Lichardus-Itten 1989-1990). The idea that the origin of the Vinča culture was the result of migrations from the east (via Thrace) is shared by D. Srejovič (1963), B. Jovanovič (Jomm-bulj 1962-1963), V. Dumitrescu (1980), G. Lazarovi-ci (1973), T. Efe (1990), etc. The origin of the black, burnished pottery that appeared in Middie and Northern Greece during the transition from the Middie to the Late Neolithic was related traditionally to migrations from the east (Holmberg 1964; Gallis 1987). The appearance of the Late Neolithic, dark, burnished pottery (and the origin of the Dudesti culture) to the north of the Danube was ascribed also to migrations via the valleys of the Vardar and Morava, or to a movement of groups of population over the large area from the Black Sea to the Central Balkans
(Comsa 1987). The origin of the black, burnished pottery of the Paradimi group was sought also in Anatolia (Bakalakis; Sakellariou 1981). Some pre-hi-storians also accepted that the Karanovo III culture was not of local origin in Thrace (Radunceva 1978).
The concept of the autochthonous origin of the black, burnished pottery in the Balkans and the cultures reproducing it has had far fewer supporters. G. I. Georgiev always insisted on the local origin of the Karanovo III culture in Thrace (Georgiev 1971; Teop-rnes 1974). H. Todorova suggested that at the end of the Early Neolithic (i.e. at the tirne of the Karanovo II culture) there was a break in the contacts between Thrace and Anatolia, and the culture of the former area continued to develop without eastern influence (TojopoBa, Bsmcob 1993)• J- Chapman stated his belief in an autochthonous development that led to the emergence of the Vinča culture and its black, burnished pottery (Chapman 1981). Similar conclusions were presented by V. Lekovič (1990). Other experts also shared "autochthonous" views regarding the origin of this culture (and its pottery) (e. g. Boroneant 1990; Seferiades 1990).
The concept proposed in recent years by M. Ozdogan for the existence of a prehistoric Anatolian-Bal-kan cultural zone also had its supporters. This was his personal opinion on the problem: "... from the beginning of the Neolithic period in the Balkans, up to the beginning of the Bronze age, we tend to con-sider most of the Balkan peninsula, Western and Central Anatolia as a single cultural formative zone, distinct from the areas of the Levanto-Mesopotamian tradition. In considering vast geographical areas, ex-tending from Central Anatolia to the Danube, we imply neither that identical cultural assemblages existed throughout this region or that a cultural homogeneity was due to the impetus of diffusion. The model we are suggesting manifests a large cultural formation zone, developing together with the same trend, but also displaying a considerable diver-sity in the composition of cultural and artificial assemblages." (Ozdogan 1993-177). The evidence presented by M. Ozdogan was completed and par-tially developed by L. Thissen (1993) in his analysis of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic pottery from North-western and Central Anatolia, and by S. Steadman (1995) on the basis of publications on the prehistoric development of the same region.
It is not possible to mention ali the components of the above-mentioned aspect of the problem of cultural and demographic relations between Anatolia
and the Balkans during the second lialf of the 6th millennium, but what has already been stated reflects the three main trends in the scientific efforts at using black, burnished pottery as an argument or reason for solving the problem. The possibility, how-ever, of expressing different and even self-contra-dictory theses concerning one and the same subject indicates insufficiently strict methodology or a crisis in the research approach. This concerns mainly pure "migrationists" and "autochthonists", which is why the idea of the existence of an Anatolian-Balkan cultural zone, although it could not be a cure-all in it-self, is certainly an example of a fruitful, non-tradi-tional idea.
The problem of the reasons, the nature, and the mechanism of the serious changes that caused the emergence of cultures with black, burnished pottery in South-eastern Europe could be the subject of a comprehensive studv. I would like just to present briefly some of my observations concerning the problem that resulted both from my recently com-pleted study of post-Early Neolithic pottery and my long research work on Early Neolithic development in the area.
There is no doubt that the origin of the Early Neolithic cultures with painted pottery in the central parts of the Balkan Peninsula was related to South and especially South-western Anatolia. Important indica-tions for this include not only the indisputable typo-logical similarities between the material cultures, but also the geographic link between the two regions that, together with the Aegean Islands, form a clear-ly detectable are from the Taurus Mountains to the Carpathian basin. Two other regions, Northern, and especially North-western Anatolia, and the eastern parts of the Balkan peninsula (up to Moldavia), re-mained between this "exterior" are and the Black Sea; the Early Neolithic in the "interior" are was char-aeterised by dark, unpainted (with certain excep-tions) pottery. Theoretically, there could be three possible Balkan contact areas of the two zones (from south to north): Western Thrace/Eastern Macedonia, Thrace, and the Lower Danube basin. In fact, only Thrace developed in this way.
The European part of the so called "exterior" are or the South Anatolian-Central Balkan zone developed a little bit later than the Anatolian part, but within a comparatively short period. The interactions within the range of the "exterior" are are demonstrable for the whole period of its existence, i.e., for the period of the produetion of the early painted pottery, which
lasted for at least a millennium in almost the whole area of the zone. After that tirne, a material culture with black, burnished pottery (Vinča and Vinča groups) originated and dominated for a rather long period in the most northerly parts of the zone; in the other parts of the zone (to the south and south-east), painted pottery continued its development (though with some innovations).
The formation processes of the "interior" are (Northern Anatolian/Eastern Balkan or the Circumpontic zone) started a little bit later, and their development was considerably slower. The formation area of the Circumpontic zone was probably some-where around the Sea of Marmara and in Northern Anatolia to the east.
According to the present stage of research, I can relate the sites Fikirtepe I, Pendik I, Ilipinar X, (Janak-kale (the early materials), Demircihuyuk (at least the so-called Fikirtepe ware), Orman Fidanhgi I—III, etc. to the earliest period (Karanovo I) of that zone (see Fig. 1 for ali sites mentioned in this paper). Some contemporaneous sites will probably be discovered in the future further to the east. During the Karanovo I period, a culture with painted pottery (Karanovo I) spread gradually from western to eastern Thrace, up to the lower Tundza and Maritza rivers (Nikolov 1989). Meanwhile, though on a small scale, the reproduetion of dark grey and grey-black, very well smoothed to burnished pottery also started to ap-pear in the settlements of the eastern reaches of this cultural phenomenon (Nikolov 1997).
During the following period already (Karanovo II) the zone of the "interior" are covered Eastern Thrace (a region where the process had probably started a little bit earlier, e. g. Yanmburgaz 5-4), the north-eastern parts of Thrace (Karanovo II) and reached the Fore-Balkan fields of North-eastern Bulgaria (Ov-čarovo-platoto and Ovčarovo-gorata). Painted pottery vanished completely in the north-eastern parts of Thrace (i.e. the Karanovo I period ended) and the Karanovo II cultural phenomenon, with dark pot-tery, developed; the painted pottery tradition (Karanovo I) continued in the remaining parts of the same area {Nikolov 1993-185-186; Nikolov 1993a.l68-169).
There is no data indicating a territorial expansion of the Circumpontic zone during the following two peri-ods (Karanovo II—III and Karanovo III), especially as far as its European part is concerned. The relation of the Anatolian material culture to these periods is at
present unreliable. The Karanovo II—III and Karano-vo III cultural phenomena, with dark (black) pot-tery, developed consecutively in the north-eastern parts of Thrace, and in the rest of Thrace the culture with painted pottery (Karanovo I) was reproduced (Nikolov 1993(1.186).
The Karanovo III-IV period was a time of territorial expansion of the zone. It is difficult to estimate the dimensions of the expansion to the east because of
unreliable data on previous periods; however, at the end of the period, the culture with black burnished pottery was already present in the central, inner and Black Sea part of Anatolia, as seen, for example at the beginning of Alaga Hiiyuk IVa, the beginning of Biiyiik Giiliicek, and Ikiztepe II, at least layer 6. The European part of the zone expanded in the west and spread over the whole of Thrace, to Yasatepe and Kapitan Dimitrievo, for example (the Karanovo III-IV period), and also to the north, reaching the Da-
Fig. 1. Neolithic sites in the Circumpontic zone and neighbour regions: 1. Ikiztepe; 2. Buyuk Giiliicek; 3■ Alaga Hiiyuk; 4. Yazir Huyiik; 5. Orman Fidanligi; 6. Demircihuyiik; 7. Ihpinar; 8. Pendik; 9■ Fikirtepe; 10. Kumtepe; 11. Gulptnar; 12. Agio Gata; 13- Emporio; 14. Tigani; 15. Yarimburgaz; 16. Toptepe; 17. Asagij) mar; 18. Paradimi; 19. Drama; 20. Karanovo; 21. Yasatepe; 22. Kapitan Dimitrievo; 23. Kačica; 24. Samovodene; 25. Hotnica; 26. Koprivec; 21. Ovčarovo; 28. Ussoe; 29. Goljamo Deleevo; 30. MatdkPre-slavec; 31- Dude$ti; 32. Circea; 33- Gradešnica; 34. Stipska; 35. Predionica; 36. Anzabegovo; 37. Vršnik; 38. Kretnenik-Sapareva banja; 39. Balgarčevo; 40. Sitagroi; 41. Dikili tash; 42. Arapi (made by S. Goshev).
nube via the Yantra and Russenski Lom valleys (e. g. Koprivec Al).
The last of the studied periods, Karanovo IV, marked a time of great territorial expansion of the Circumpontic zone in South-eastern Europe. The black, bur-nished pottery displaced the painted type from almost the whole of the Central Balkan region (to the north from Thessaly, with a few exceptions), covered the whole of the Lower Danube region, Mol-davia and Western Thrace/Eastern Macedonia. Its production in Northern Anatolia is also well docu-mented, and to the south the zone covered almost the whole of the eastern Anatolian coast as well as Crete. Thrace was entirely within the range of the zone, as it had been during the previous period (the Karanovo IV cultural phenomena to the east and the final stage of the Karanovo III-IV to the west).
At the end of the Balkan Neolithic, the territory of the "exterior" are no longer existed as a contact cultural zone. As well as in the Konya plain (Southern Anatolia), painted pottery continued its development in Southern and Central Greece, Thessaly, and the Lower Struma valley; in the European parts of the zone it is always found together with black-bur-nished ware.
Interregional interaetion within the Circumpontic zone was only supposed, albeit very cautiously, in the third trend of ideas deseribed above about the nature of Balkan-Anatolian contacts, but their direc-tions and nature remain completely unexplored. The possibility of investigating this essential aspect of the character of the Circumpontic zone could be found in certain common, formative elements of the pottery assemblages in the area; two are especially significant and could be detected almost during its whole chronological range. These are vessels with one vertical pronged handle, and dishes with a thick-ened, inner part of the rim. Their significance had been noted many times in the literature (cf. Efe 1990.110). These or other vessels sometimes have cylindrical feet. The two main, significant formative elements appeared in the north-eastern parts of Thrace, which is why their distribution within the zone is an indisputable indication for direetions of cultural interaetion.
Vessels with vertical pronged handles (probably mugs only), dishes with thickened inner part of the rim and vessels on cylindrical feet appeared for the first time during the Karanovo II—III period in north-eastern parts of Thrace. At this time they developed
only there, as a local phenomenon in the formation region. During the Karanovo III period these formative elements became indicative of the character of its pottery assemblage. They were stili a local phenomenon of parts of north eastern Thrace, but their earliest sporadic distribution could be detected to the north, in the Yantra Valley (Samovodene).
The significant elements pointed out covered the whole of Thrace during the Karanovo III-IV period. Moreover, they reached the Struma Valley to the south-west (Kremenik - building levels IV) and pro-bably the Vardar Valley (Vršnik IV); they spread to the Fore-Balkan fields in the north (Samovodene -building levels VI-V, Goljamo Delčevo I) and via the Yantra and Russenski Lom valleys reached the Danube (Koprivec Al); except for Eastern Thrace (Yarim-burgaz 0), at the end of the period they penetrated the Anatolian part of the Marmara region to the south-east (the beginning of Ilipinar VI, the begin-ning of Fikirtepe II, the beginning of Pendik II, De-mircihuyuk) and even further inland in Northern Anatolia (layers 6-5 of Ikiztepe II, the beginning of Buyuk Guliicek, the beginning of Ala?a Hiiyiik IVa).
During the Karanovo IV period (in the eastern parts of Thrace) the significant elements deseribed re-mained typical of its pottery assemblage. They continued to be produced in the western parts of Thrace also (the final stage of the Karanovo III-IV period). They were typical of the pottery of Western (Paradi-mi I-III) and Eastern (Yanmburgaz 3-2) Thrace, though in smaller cjuantities. They could be found as single pieces in ali areas around Thrace (as a whole): in the Anatolian part of the Marmara region (the end of Ilipinar VI, the end of Fikirtepe II, the end of Pendik II, Demircihuyiik) and in Northern Anatolia (Yazir Huyiik, Ikiztepe II, layer 4-2, the end of Bti-yiik Gtilucek, the end of Ala^a Hiiyiik IVa) to the south-east; almost along the whole eastern coast of Anatolia and on the islands (Kumtepe IA, Koskunte-pe, Giilpinar, Agio Gala-the Upper Cave, Emporio X-IX, Tigani Ib—II, Kalimnos) to the south; in Thessaly and Macedonia (Arapi layer in Arapi, Vassilika I, Di-mitra I, Sitagroi I—II, Dikili Tash I, Anza IV, Balgarce-vo II-IIIA, Kremenik, building levels III-I) to the south-west; in the northern central Balkan zone (Sup-ska 9-8, Predionica, Circea-Viadukt, Gradešnica-Lu-kanovo darvo) to the north-west; in Northeastern Bulgaria (Samovodene - building levels IV-I, Ussoe I—II, Malak Preslavec) to the north.
The conclusions following the observations present-ed on the time and the range of distribution of the
vessels with vertical pronged handles, dishes with a thickened, inner part of the rim, and vessels on cylin-drical feet which appeared first in Thrace are unam-biguous. It is obvious that after the aesthetic-techno-logical idea of an eastern origin for the production of dark, unpainted pottery had established itself in the eastern parts of Thrace, the same area turned gradually into a generator of formative and proba-bly ornamental ideas for pottery production that influenced for a long period the pottery "fashion" of the enlarging Circumpontic zone. An independent pottery design was developed in the north-eastern parts of Thrace during the tirne of the Karanovo II-III and III periods, and during the Karanovo III-IV and IV periods, Thrace participated actively in the exchange of ideas concerning material culture with neighbouring regions and in a way influenced the formative abundance of the pottery assemblages developing there. The conclusion for the deep pen-etration of significant Thracian pottery elements into Northern Anatolia not as imports, but as influenced by Thracian local pottery production is espe-cially important in view of the concepts presented above about Anatolian-Balkan relations in the middle and the second half of the 6th millennium BC. It is obvious that the idea of a one-way Anatolian influ-ence should be revised, at least for the period in question. The most probable model should include multi-directional contacts within the Circumpontic zone, and Thrace was the motive power for these contacts, at least as far as the European part is con-cerned.
The same concerns the Karanovo IV period, too. I will add some more details about the interrelations within the Circumpontic zone. During the period under discussion, the Karanovo IV cultural pheno-menon developed in the eastern parts of Thrace and in some parts of Eastern Thrace, based on the pre-vious development common to the whole Thrace (the Karanovo III-IV periods); in the western parts of Thrace there continued the reproduction of the earlier Karanovo III-IV type culture, although with some innovations to be discussed later. The reason for the changes in the pottery assemblage that dif-ferentiated Karanovo IV complex to the east of the Kazanlak-Haskovo line should probably be sought in an intensified two-way cultural exchange at this tirne from north to south and from south to north (between the Carpathian Mountains and the Aegean Sea). This exchange definitely included the Anatolian part of the zone, but the limited research there does not permit essential conclusions about the trans-fer of ideas along the east-west axis (between the
Marmara area and the central northern parts of Anatolia).
Bearers of the Linear Band pottery and, precisely, of so-called Notenkopf pottery appeared in the north-eastern parts of Muntenia during the Karanovo IV period (Drasovean 1996.184-186). The Bojan-Bo-lintineanu cultural phenomenon resulted probably from contact with the local bearers of the earlier phases of the Dudesti culture. Certain elements typ-ical of this pottery assemblage (for example, negative field framed by pricked dots in channelled com-position) penetrated the south and could be seen on pottery in the eastern parts of Thrace (for exantple, at Teli Karanovo). The distribution of some very spe-cific ornamental elements of Notenkopf pottery as far as the central parts of Anatolia is of special sig-nificance for the study of cultural contacts within the zone. These are the "note" elements in the pottery decoration from Karanovo, Kalojanovec (the north-eastern parts of Thrace), Yarimburgaz (Eastern Thrace), Alaca Hiiyiik, Biiyiik Giiliicek (Central Anatolia). The direction of penetration is indisputable in this čase and coincides with the direction and the depth of penetration of the other, aforementioned formative elements, typical of Thrace (pronged handles, thickened rims and feet). Other ornamental elements, typical of the Linear Band pottery culture were discovered again in Eastern Thrace (Asagi pi-nar, Yartmburgaz and Toptepe) and probably at Ilt-ptnar also (to the south of the Sea of Marmara). By this I mean specific motifs consisting of connected spirals and meanders or wave motifs made by shal-low incisions on the bodies of dark, thin-walled clay vessels.
E. Comsa suggested that the ornamentation, charac-teristic of the earlier phases of the Dudesti culture -specific zig-zag bands hatched or filled with pricked dots - originated from similar decoration at Demirci-hiiyiik (Comsa 1987.79-80). This hypothesis is quite convincing, since such ornamentation was found at Teli Karanovo, though as an exception. The diffusion in this čase was oriented undoubtedly from the south-east to the north-west.
A typical feature of some low, vertical, pronged handles (a "thumb-like", eccentric prong) appeared in Eastern Thrace (Asagi pinar). This peculiarity was also observed in the Yantra valley (Kacica, Hotnica). Here we must also mention some clay "altars" on three or four feet, having similar prongs at their cor-ners. They appeared during the later phases of the Dudesti culture in Muntenia, in North-eastern Bulga-
ria (Hotnica, Kacica, Malak Preslavec), along the Lo-wer Tundza valley (Drama) and Eastern Thrace (Asa-gi pinar). It is difficult to find supporting evidence of where these specific elements emerged in the region and the direction of their later distribution. The presented group of typical elements is, houever. a very good addition to the abundant evidence for inten-sive cultural contacts within the Circumpontic zone and in this very čase, its European part.
Predominantly in the Anatolian part of the zone, probably the region where the idea emerged, there are clay vessels with decoration, dry incised or in-cised after firing (Alaca Hiiyiik, Biiyiik Guliicek, Ikiz-tepe II, Demircihtiyuk, Fikirtepe, Pendik). The same decoration technique is also registered in the neigh-bour south-eastern region of the European part of the zone (Paradimi, Asagi pinar, Drama). Obviously, this ornamental-technological element travelled from the east to the west and north-west.
It is probable that there are more examples of cultural influences with moving in opposing directions within the Circumpontic zone during the Karanovo IV period. Undoubtedly, the progress of the study would provide an increase in, and higher precision of, such evidence. I think it is a very important fact that such contacts existed during the period, and that the movement of culture-formation ideas went in the two directions. What is more, Thrace as a whole was not only a transmitter, but also a generator of innovations for the material culture of the zone.
The pottery assemblage of the final stage of the Karanovo III-IV cultural phenomenon that developed in the western parts of Thrace contemporary with the Karanovo IV period indicates intensive contacts with the Central Balkan region. However, the strati-fied materials available are insufficient to provide a more precise analysis of these contacts to the north-west and south, or of relations with the related Karanovo IV cultural phenomenon to the east.
The observations presented above argue against both the pure migration and the pure autochtho-nous theories on the origin of the black, burnished pottery in South-eastern Europe in the middle and during the second half of the 6th millennium BC. The theory on the Balkan-Anatolian cultural zone is a good basis for speculation, but it is more than obvi-ous that during the earlier stages of the Neolithic period two cultural (contact) zones existed, covering large territories of the two regions; the Circumpon-
tic zone enlarged considerably in its European part as late as the last stage of the Balkan Neolithic, and this was the period of the Anatolian-Balkan cultural zone. Nevertheless, the classical range of the Circumpontic zone remained (as already described) autono-mous to a great extent from the processes occurring in the western parts, and this perceptible cultural and territorial differentiation remained at least for the whole of the 5th millennium BC.
The aesthetics and technology of dark pottery pro-duction have their roots in Northern Anatolia. How-ever, the implementation of this idea - the reproduc-tion and development of dark and black-burnished pottery - was a very long process, that covered con-stantly expanding territory of South-Eastern Europe, and manifested itself as different cultural phenome-na, ali having two-way cultural contacts among them-selves as well as with Northern Anatolia.
REFERENCES
BAKALAKIS G., SAKELLARIOU A. 1981. Paradimi (Monographien der Heidelberger Akademie der Wis-senschaften 2).
BORONEANT V. 1990. Le site de Schela Cladovei: problemes poses par la transition de la culture Cris-Starčevo a la culture Vinča. In Srejovič D., Tasič N. (eds.) Vinča and its ivorld: 143-147.
CHAPMAN J. 1981. The Vinča culture of South-East Europe. Studies in chronology, economy and society. BAR International series 117.
CHILDE V. G. 1936-1937. Neolithic black ware in Greece and on the Danube. The annual of the British school at Athens 37: 26-35-
COMSA E. 1987. Betrachtungen iiber die Entwick-lung der neolithischen Kulturen auf rumanischem Gebiet. Slovenska archeologia 35, 1: 65-103-
DRASOVEAN F. 1996. Cultura Vinča tarzie (faza C) in Banat.
DUMITRESCU V. 1980. The Neolithic settlement at Rast. BAR International series 72.
EFE T. 1990. An inland Anatolian site with pre-Vinča elements: Orman Fidanhgi, Eskisehir. Germa-nia 68/1: 67-113-
GALLIS K. 1987. Die stratigraphische Einordnung der Larisa-Kultur: eine Richtigstellung. Praehistori-sche Zeitschrift 2: 147-163-
rAPAllIAHMH M. 1966. xp0h0a0rhfl h rehe3hc ha heoahta b ijehtpaahata h k>r0h3t0hhata nact ha BaA-KaHCKHH noAyocTpoB. ApxeoAorm 1:16-30.
1973- npaHCTopHja Ha TAy CP Cp6Hje. I.
GARAŠANIN M. 1979- Centralnobalkanska zona. In Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja II. Neolitsko doba: 79-212.
rEOPFMEB T. M. 1974. ctpaturpac^mi h nepH04H3a-
ijHfl Ha HeoAHTa h xaAKOAHTa b 4HeuiHHTe 6i>ArapcKH
3eMH. ApxeoAorm 4:1-18.
GEORGIEV G. I. 1971. Die Entwicklung der alteren prahistorischen Kulturen in Siidbulgarien. In I 'eth-
nogenese des peuples balkaniques (Studia balcani-ca 5): 21-35.
HOLMBERG E. 1964. The appearance of Neolithic black burnished ware in mainland Greece. American jo urna/ of archaeology 68:343-348.
JOBAHOBMH B. 1962-1963. riocraHaK KepaMHHKnx
TnnoBa 6aAKaHCKo-no4VHaBCKor HeoAHTa H eHeoAHTa.
Crapamp 13-14:9-21.
LAZAROVICI G. 1973. Uber das Neolithikum im Banat. In Actes du VII le Congres International des sci-encesprehistoriques etprotohistoriques 2:461-466.
LEKOVIČ, V. 1990. The Vinčanization of Starčevo culture. In Srejovič D., Tasič N. (eds.), Vinča and its ivorld: 67-74.
LICHARDUS, J., LICHARDUS-ITTEN, M. 1989-1990. Der Komplex mit schwarz-, braun- und graupolierter Keramik und der Beginn des Mittelneolithikums in Siidosteuropa. - Crapiimp 40-41: 43-49.
MILOJČIČ V. 1949. Chronologie der jungeren Stein-zeit Mittel- und Sudost-Europas.
HMKOAOB B. 1998. UpovmtaimR bt,pxy hsoamthuts KepaMHKa b TpaKiin. KepaMrnimre komiiagkch Kapa-hobo II-III, III n III- IV b KOHTSKCTa Ha CeBepo3ana4-Ha AmTOAHH h IOroH3TcmHa EBpona.
NIKOLOV V. 1989- Zu einigen Aspekten der Kultur Karanovo I. In Teli Karanovo und das Balkan-Neo-lithikum: 27-41.
1993. Die neolithische Kulturen Karanovo I, II und III im Kontext ihrer Beziehungen zu Anato-lien. Anatolica 19: 167-171.
1993a. Spatneolithische Siedlungen in Thrakien: das Problem Karanovo IV. Saarbriicker Studien und Materialien zur Altertumskunde 2: 157-190.
1997. Die neolithische Keramik. In Hiller S., Nikolov V. (eds.), Karanovo. Die Ausgrabungen im Sudsektor 1984-1992: 105-146.
OZDOGAN M. 1993. Vinča and Anatolia: a new look at a very old problem (or redefining Vinča culture
from the perspective of Near Eastern tradition). Anatolica 19: 173-193■
RADUNCEVA A 1978. On some problems of the Late Neolithic culture in Bulgaria. In Studia in honorem Veselim Beševliev: 273-277.
SEFERIADES M. 1990. Vinča et 1'archeologie grecque. In Srejovič D., Tasič N. (eds.), Vinča and its tvor Id: 175-181.
SREJOVIČ D. 1963. Versuch einer historischen Wer-tung der Vinča-Gruppe. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 4: 5-17.
STEADMAN S. 1995. Prehistoric interregional inter-action in Anatolia and the Balkans: an overview. Bul-letin of the American schools of oriental research 299-300:13-32.
THISSEN, L. 1993. New insights in Balkan-Anatolian connections in the Late Chalcolithic: old evidence from the Turkish Black Sea littoral. Anatolian Studies 43: 207-237.
1993a. Pottery tradition and innovation at Ilipi-nar. Anatolica 19: 295-305.
THMOB B. C. 1974. IIpo6AeMa xp0H0A0rroi HeoAHTa h eheoahta K)r0-B0CT0HH0fl EBponbi. ConeTCKan ap-xeoAorm 4: 23-48.
TO/JOPOBA X., BAKCOB M. 1993- HoBOKaMeHHaTa
enoxa b BiArapHfl (KpaaT Ha ce^MO - iuecTO xhaa40-AeTne npe^H HOBaTa epa).

UDK 903(392:234.42-11)"6343"
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
On the problem of the Anatolian-Balkan relations during the Early Neolithic in Thrace
Tatiana Štefanova
Bulgarian Academy of Science, Prehistory Department, Archaeological Institute with Museum, Sofia
ABSTRACT - Tlie paper concentrates mainly on the typological analysis and distribution ofEarlv Neolithic paintedpotterj assemblages in Thrace and Eastern Rhodope Mountains. It is hypothesised that the Hoca Cesme cultural influence correlates with the processes ofthe setting up and development of Balkan early farming communities in Eastern Rhodope Mountains.
POVZETEK - V članku se osredotočamo predvsem na tipološko analizo in razprostranjenost zgodnje-neolitske slikane keramike v Trakiji in vzhodnih Rodopih. Domnevamo, da je nastanek in razvoj zgodnjih balkanskih kmetovalskih skupnosti v vzhodnih Rodopih povezan z vplivom kulture Hoca Cesme.
This paper is not aimed at presenting a new concept of the Neolithization of the Balkans. It is rather an attempt to add new data to the complicated and stili unclear processes of the setting up and development of Balkan early farming communities through the interpretation of a "special čase". The archaeological excavations at the Neolithic site Hoca Qesme in Eastern Thrace, Turkey and the new evidence has provided the opportunity for a re-interpretation of some old finds from the Neolithic site at Krumov-grad in the Eastern Rhodope Mountains, Bulgaria.
KRUMOVGRAD
The Neolithic site was situated on a low terrace on the left bank of the Krumovitza river, a tributary of the Arda river which now lies under the central part of the modern town of Krumovgrad in the Eastern Rhodope Mountains, Bulgaria. The site was located in 1974 because of some urban construction activi-ty. The materials available were unearthed in a central excavation made for block foundations, cover-ing 560 m2, and two additional small trenches. As almost ali of the deposits were scraped out by ma-chines in the central excavation, trench 1, covering 12 sq. 111, yielded the basic information on stratigra-phy and the site sequence. A mixed layer, containing
pottery from the Middle, Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic periods and the Early Bronze age, cov-ered six Early Neolithic construction levels dated to the Karanovo I period; the average thickness of each level being 0.30-0.40 m. They yielded parts of hous-es with wattle and daub construction and plastered floors; hearths and domed ovens (one of them 1.40 m in diameter) made of stamped clay were found in the houses (fomes 1994). The pottery is typical of the Karanovo I period: coarse, semi-coarse and fine ware (Fig. 1). The surface of the coarse and semi-coarse ware is uncoated, smoothed or rusticated; sometimes decorated with plastic or incised orna-ments. The pottery assemblage includes plates, bowls and necked jars with vertical string-hole lugs. The fine pottery is red slipped, brown or grey-black. Ali six construction levels yielded white painted pot-tery. The red or reddish-brown fine ware is white painted: open plates, bowls, tulip-shaped vessels, necked jars on pedestal bases and lids (Fig 1. 7-9). The channelled decoration and plastic knobs are reg-istered on bowls and necked jars on pedestal bases. No 14C dates are available for the site. Certain sha-pes, considered typical of the Karanovo II period, are present in the Krumovgrad pottery assemblage; thus the Early Neolithic layer of Krumovgrad could be referred to the second half of the Early Neolithic period in Bulgaria.
V
H
V
v *

I	/
* \
I I I I +-H
0	5 cm
Fig. 1. Krumovgrad. Pottery types from the Early Neolithic levels.
Map of southeastern Balkan shomng the lo-cation of Krutnovgrad and Hoca Cestne.
HOCA gESME
The Neolithic site is located on a terrace by the estu-ary of the Maritza river, some 5 km inland from the Aegean. The site was excavated from 1990 to 1993 by an Istanbul University team, headed by M. Ozdo-gan. The cultural sequence was divided into four main phases, Phase IV being the earliest (Ozdogan 1993-1997).
Phase IV.
The earliest settlement is small, and heavily fortified by a massive stone wall (Ozdogan 1997.24, Fig. 7). The houses are circular and sit directly on the rocky surface, actually carved into it. The pottery assem-blage is characterised by the total absence of coarse ware. The pottery is fine, thin-walled, with a lustrous red or black surface. Deep bowls, usually with "S" profiles, tubular or crescentic lugs, are common elements in this assemblage. The decoration consists mainly of vertical or curvilinear bands in relief; occa-sionally there are some fine grooved or incised pot-tery (Ozdogan 1997.24-25).
Phase III
It consists of two architectural layers; the buildings are again circular in plan. The massive, enclosing stone wall from the previous phase was stili in use. The pottery assemblage is similar to that of Phase IV, although the wares are slightly coarser and thick-er. A new type of ware, with a thick smeared red
coating on a black surface, is represented by a very few sherds. This distinctive ware increases in quan-tity in Phase II. As for the vessel types, the difference from Phase IV is minimal. Stamped and incised decoration is now slightly more common than in the previous phase. There are some painted pottery (in-cluding white painted ones) from the end of the phase (iOzdogan 1993 Fig. 4; 1997.25-26).
Phase II
The phase consists of three distinct horizons. There is a marked change in the plane and the construc-tion techniques of the buildings; they are rectangu-lar, with plastered walls, similar to the typical Karanovo I period houses. Domed ovens on raised plat-forms, bins, and working platforms represent the new elements of this phase. In spite of changes in the architecture, the massive enclosure wall was stili maintained and used, indicating continuity in the settlement organisation. The red and black wares of the previous phase continue, though in lessening amounts, and the quality of the burnishing is lost and the walls are thicker. There is an increasing amount of reddish-brown and matt-black pottery, the latter occasionally having a smeared red coating. Though minimal, there are some coarse, dully burnished pottery. There are a number of new vessel types in the pottery assemblage. Besides the decoration, typical of the previous phase, there are fine fluting and intentional mottling. Though very few, there are painted sherds: white on red or black, red on cream or black, and black on red (Ozdogan 1993,
Fig. 4). The so-called "pintaderas", bone spatulas and clay figurines are among the common elements of the phase (Ozdogan 1997.26).
Phase I
The last layers of Phase I and Phase II are badly damaged by later intrusions and erosion. Phase 1 consists of three distinct horizons (Ozdogan 1993■ 183-184). Most of the wares of the previous phase have disappeared. Most common for the phase are knobbed handles, footed vessels, plates and bowls with thickened rims, sometimes with channelled de-coration, and triangular vessels with incised and/or encrusted decoration (Ozdogan 1993, Fig. 1, 2, 3). There are some painted sherds, white on red and red on cream, the latter being from the earliest horizon of Phase I (Ozdogan 1993, Fig. 4).
Calibrated l4C dates were published for the site (Ozdogan 1997.27). As the uncalibrated date were also available, Yavor Boyadziev from the Archaeological Institute in Sofia studied the information and proposed his own view (personal communication)1.
M. Ozdogan	Y. Boyadziev
Phase IV 6400-6100 BC	Phase IV 6200-6000 BC
Phase III 6000-5900 BC	Phase III 6000-5800 BC
Phase II 5800-5700 BC	Phase II 5800-5600 BC
On the basis of the Hoca (Jesme evidence, M. Ozdogan suggested the following interpretation of the site: a population from the Aegean part of Anatolia, being in close relations with the Central Anatolian plateau, moved northward and, reaching the estuary of the Maritza river, settled down. Hoca (Jesme "... clearly demonstrates the gradual change and adaptation that an Anatolian type of colony settlement went through in a local environment. It is possible to fol-low not only the roots, but also the stages that led to the emergence of the Karanovo I culture from Phases IV and III of Hoca Cesme" (Ozdogan 1997.27).
The newly published Hoca Cesme evidence is of cru-cial importance for a better understanding of Neoli-thization processes in the Balkans. It provides a new basis for the reconsideration of several sherds from Krumovgrad. Four sherds which differ essen-tially from the rest of the pottery are available in the boxes containing the materials from the Krumovgrad site.
•	A sherd from a jar with a bead rim; brown slipped and burnished surface; the wall is 3-4 mm thick; even brown scatter. The decoration consists of incisions and dots. There are traces of white mat-ter in the dots (Fig. 2. 1). The sherd was found at 2.70 m (construction level IV). Sherds of vessels similar in shape or decoration were found at the end of Hoca £esme Phase III and in Phase II.
•	A sherd from a vessel with a vertical string-hole lug; there are traces of a red wash on the dark brown, very well smoothed surface; the wall is 5-6 mm thick. The decoration consists of two incised lines (Fig. 2. 2). The sherd was found in the scraped soil, therefore lacking a fixed stratigraph-ic position. The peculiar feature is the convex inte-rior part of the lug, an element unconunon for the Krumovgrad pottery assemblage, but existing at the end of Hoca (Jesme Phase III and the beginning of Phase II.
•	A sherd from a necked jar; black burnished surface; the wall is 5-7 mm thick. The decoration consists of a "necklace" of dots and vertical bands of thin incised zigzag lines (Fig. 2. 3). The incisions were made on a semi-dry surface. The sherd was found at 2.70 m (construction level IV). Similar motifs were registered at the end of Hoca Cesme Phase III and in the beginning of Phase II, and similar motifs and incision technique in Ya-rimburgaz phase 4.
•	A sherd from a plate with a slightly thickened rim; gray-black burnished surface. The wall is 6-7 mm thick. There are grooves on the rim and stamped decoration just beneath (Fig. 2. 4). The sherd was found at 1.90 m (construction level II). Sherds of vessels with similar decoration were registered at the end of Hoca (Jesme Phase III and in Phase II. Thickened rims exist in Hoca (Jesme Phase P.
1	I would like to thank Dr. Bojadjiev for the information he shared with me.
2	1 am deeply indebted to Prof. M. Ozdogan for the opportunity he provided to me to work with the pottery from Hoca Qesme, and for the help and the stimulating discussions as well.

The few sherds presented are atypical of the Early Neolithic Krumovgrad pottery assemblage and of the Early Neolithic Karanovo I type of pottery as well. They differ in paste, surface colour, treatment, and decoration, which is why they could be regarded as imports. The only probable exception is the lug sherd; it could be a piece of local production under strong foreign influence.
The fact that sherds similar to the Hoca (Jesme type of pottery were found in Krumovgrad provides grounds for a synchronisation of Krumovgrad con-struction levels IV-II with the end of Hoca Cesme Phase III and Phase II. The white, red or black paint-ed pottery in the layers of the end of Hoca (Jesme Phase III and Phase II support such an assumption. Some of the white on red sherds are identical to the white painted pottery of the Karanovo 1 type of pot-tery. In my opinion, they could be direct imports.
As was already mentioned, the lack of radiocarbon dates from Krumovgrad, makes the fixing of the absolute chronology of the site impossible. During the last decade, archaeological excavations of Early Neolithic deposits in Bulgaria have yielded a consid-erable number of radiocarbon samples. There are over 60 l4C dates calibrated by a computer pro-gramme in the Institute for Prehistory in Frankfurt am Mainz. According to the results obtained, the development of the Karanovo I period was most prob-ably between 5950 and 5600 BC {Nikolov 1989.30).
The studies of Early Neolithic pottery show that the Karanovo I period in Thrace consisted of at least two consecutive stages. The earlier stage is attested in the Mesta valley and the western parts of Thrace -Eleshnitza (construction levels I and II) and Slatina (the lowest levels of the sequence, the "Big House") -and the painted decoration is made with white paint only. The later stage is attested in a larger number of sites in the eastern parts of Thrace and in the lower parts of the Rhodope Mountains - in Karanovo, Simeonovgrad, Krumovgrad, Kardzali, etc, This stage is marked by the appearance of a small number of imported or local vessels with darkly painted or polychrome decoration, indicating that the stage was contemporary with the Starčevo type cultures in the Central Balkan area. At the time this stage developed in the Eastern Rhodope Mountains in sites such as Krumovgrad and Kardzali, the consequence of Karanovo II, II-III and III settlements existed in the eastern parts of Thrace (in Karanovo for example) (Nikolov 1997; 1998a). The distribution of settlements belonging to different stages in certain areas
supports the idea that the routes of the initial distribution of early farming groups followed the Mesta and Struma valleys in a northerly direction. Thrace was later "colonized" and the process took plače from west to east, reaching as far as the lower cours-es of the Maritza and Tundza rivers (Nikolov 1998a).
The presence of vessel types typical of the Karanovo II and II—III periods in the pottery assemblages of Krumovgrad supports the later chronological posi-tion of the site in the Thracian Early Neolithic se-quence. If we accept the dates for Hoca (Jesme pro-posed by Yavor Boyadziev, we see that Hoca Cesme Phase IV and the first half of Phase III should be con-temporary with the stage with white painted decoration in the Central Balkans and the first stage of the Karanovo I period in Eleshnitza and Slatina.
The painted pottery (white on dark brown, white on red, red on black, black on red) at the end of Hoca (Jesme Phase III and those (white on red, white on brown, black on red) in Phase II, refer the relevant phases to the second stage of the Karanovo I period.
Burnished ware decorated with bands of incised zig-zag lines (similar to Fig. 2. 3) was registered in Ya-rimburgaz phase 4, as well, and the pottery assemblage of the phase is correlated with the pottery assemblages at the end of Karanovo I and Karanovo II periods (Nikolov 1998.218).
To return to the "Hoca (Jesme čase", I would like to propose another point of view: an Anatolian popu-lation reached the Maritza estuary, settled down, and established the Hoca (Jesme site. The people protected the village from the potentially hostile or merely unknown environment by a massive stone wall. The enclosing wall suggests that the newcom-ers found the area populated already, othenvise they would not have put so much effort into its erec-tion and maintenance. The settlement developed as a closed community during Phase IV and the greater part of Phase III, and "domesticated" the newly acquired area by maintaining traditions: - living in the same type of houses as in the old homeland, ma-king the same pottery, etc. Contact with the Karanovo I people must have been established earlier, but evidence appears at the end of Phase III - several painted sherds in Hoca Cesme and a few sherds of "foreign" pottery in Krumovgrad. Obviously it was a time of intensifying contact between the two cultural communities. A new house type (much more suit-ed to the local climate and environment) appears in Hoca Cesme Phase II, a significant change, indicating
closer relations with the local people. At the very end of Phase II and in Phase I the similarities to the cultures of the Balkan Middle and Late Neolithic grew in number and the initial cultural identifica-tion of the Anatolian colony changed considerably changed.
Most probably, the roots of Karanovo I culture lie in that type of colony; the migrations of population and the transformation of cultural experience gave birth to a new phenomenon in the Balkans, but there is stili not enough evidence that it happened via the Maritza valley. It does not seeni likely that Hoca (Jesme was a kind of "generator". It was rather a
small colony, established on an area where the exis-tence of the Karanovo I culture was an established fact (though it probably did not cover the lowest Maritza valley entirely). After some tirne, the two cultural phenomena established relations. These are detectable in the two directions from imports or local production under foreign influence. Hoca (Jesme developed independently for some tirne, as is evi-dent from the continuity of house and the pottery types, where Anatolian traditions dominated local trends. According to the available data, the cultural influence of Hoca Cesme was restricted to the relativen small region of Eastern Thrace and the Eastern Rhodope Mountains.
REFERENCES
ICbHHEB K., MOXA4>KMEB M. 1994. HeoAHTHo ceAHiije b KpvMOHrpa/i. In MapHya-m3tok. Apxe0A0-rmecm npoy*tBaHM, II: 13~38.
NIKOLOV V. 1989. Zu einigen Aspecten der Kultur Karanovo I. In Tel Karanovo and das Balkan-Neo-lithikum: 27-41.
1997.	Die neolithische Keramik. In Hiller S. and Nikolov V. (eds.). Karanovo. Die Ausgrabungen im Siidsektor 1984-1992: 105-146.
1998.	ripovhbahha bt>pxy HeoAHTHaTa KepaMmca. KepaMHHHHTe KOMnAeKCH KapaH0B0 II—III, III h III-IV b kohtekcta ha cebepo3ana4ha ahatoahh h I0r0H3T0MHa EBpona.
1998a. The Circumpontic Cultural Zone during the Early Neolithic. Archaeologia Bulgarica 2 (in print).
OZDOGAN M. 1991- An interim report on excava-tions at Yarimburgaz and Toptepe in Eastern Thrace. Anatolica 17:59-121.
1993. Vinča And Anatolia: A new look at a very old problem (or redefining Vinča Culture from the perspective of Near Eastern tradition). Anatolica. Special issue on Anatolia and the Balkans 19: 173-193-
1997. The beginning of the Neolithic economies in Southern Europe: an Anatolian perspective. Journal of European Archaeologv 5/2: 1-33.

UDK 903(234.42-11)"634"
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
Neolithic sequence: the upper Stryama valley in western Thrace (with an appendix: radiocarbon dating of the Balkan Neolithic)
Lolita Nikolova
Prehistory Foundation, Karlovo, Bulgaria lnikolova@hotmail.com
ABSTRACT - The study represents the Neolithic sequence in a newly investigated micro-region in the Balkans - the Karlovo Louland in the upper Stryama valley (north-ivestern Thrace). Recent evidence confirms that during the Early Neolithic III (the period of Karanovo II) in uiestern Thrace the devel-opment of the Karanovo I culture continued. The village of Kliment-Banyata, with some similarity in the pottery to that of Karanovo II, probably represents the end of that stage in the Strjama valley. In addition the chronological definition and the sequences of tke different Neolithic periods and key sites, based on available 14C dates calibrated ivith Oxcal program, version 3-0 are presented.
POVZETEK - V članku predstavljamo neolitsko zaporedje novo raziskane balkanske mikroregije - nižanja Karlovo, ki leži v zgornji dolini reke Strjame (severozahodna Trakija). Novi podatki potrjujejo, da se je v času zgodnjega neolitika III (obdobje Karano vo II) v zahodni Trakiji nadaljeval razvoj kulture Karanovo I. Vas Kliment-Banyata, ki kaže nekatere podobnosti s keramiko Karanovo II, verjetno predstavlja konec te faze v dolini Strjame. V dodatku članka so kronološka definicija in zaporedja različnih neolitskih obdobij ter ključnih najdišč. Podatki temeljijo na dostopnih datumih >4C, ki so kalibrirani s programom Oxcal, verzija J. 0.
INTRODUCTION
The Stryama River is a tributary of the upper Maritsa River, located in north-western Thrace (the central Balkans). Its lower basin overlaps with the Maritsa basin, but the upper course is localised in the low-lands of Hissar and Karlovo and in the Sredna Gora Mountains (Map 1).
The upper Stryama valley divides into three areas:
-	The Hissar lowland, at the foot of the southern slopes of the central Sredna Gora Mountains;
-	the Karlovo lowland, between the northern slopes of the Stara Planina Mountain and southern slopes of the central Stara Planina Mountain;
-	the uppermost course of the river lies in the west-ern Sredna Gora Mountains, where there is a third micro-region.
Through the Stryama River, the Karlovo and Hissar Lowlands are open to the south-east into the Maritsa valley micro-regions. There are no high hills between the Hissar Lowland and the upper Maritsa valley, so
the southern slopes of the central Sredna Gora Mountains can be seen from the Yunatsite Teli when the weather is fine. The western parts of the Sredna Gora Mountains separate the upper Stryama basin from the Zlatitsa-Pirdop and Sofia Lowlands. To the east, through the Kaloffer Hollow, the Karlovo Low-land is connected with the upper Tundja Valley. Recently, winters have been mild there, and the summers are warm, but not very hot. Deluvial soils predominate. The region is suitable both for arable agriculture and stock breeding. The Sredna Gora Mountains and Stara Planina Mountain forests, rich both in wood and game, presented an additional favourable factor for settling this region in prehis-tory.
The Karlovo and Hissar lowlands, as well as the upper Maritsa basin (to the west of the Plovdiv region) are historical and geographical micro-regions whose cultural interactions were quite intensive in prehistory. The latter resulted in a unification of the
material culture. In short, one and the same cultures developed there during the different prehistoric periods. Western Thrace is connected through the Maritsa and Tundja Rivers with different micro-re-gions of eastern Thrace and opens into the Turkish Thracian Plain. The easily accessible passes of the western Sredna Gora Mountains and the western and the central Rhodopes Mountains were not a seri-ous barrier to contacts and interaction between the Thracian population with South-western Bulgaria, in the past as in the present. The Rhodopes passes con-nect western Thrace with the northern Aegean area as well. Therefore, the Karlovo Lowland, being locat-ed in the southern central region of Bulgaria, appea-red as an important contact zone during the different prehistoric periods.
By the 90's, this micro-region was one of the least investigated prehistoric areas in Thrace. The only Neolithic materials originated from limited drillings of the Ploskata Mogila teli near the village of Banya (excavations of P. Detev and N. Madjev), where Karanovo I and Karanovo III layers (Early and Late Neolithic) were documented. A popular article record-
Map 1. Maps of the Balkans ivith location of the upper Stryama vatle)' and the Neolithic settlements documented there: 1 Hissar, 2 Cherniche-vo 3 Banya, 4 Karlovo,
5	Dubene - Leshtaka,
6	Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila, 7 Dubene-Po-povka II, 8 Ktimenl-Banyata.
ed a destroyed settlement, discovered at the foot of the Stara Planina Mountain, in the suburbs of the town of Karlovo, but there is no surviving material from this site (Krajchev 1970). In 1992 a field sur-vey and limited drillings on sites along the upper Stryama valley registered several prehistoric settlements, two of which belong to the Karanovo I culture from the Early Neolithic: the Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila teli and Kliment-Banyata open settlement CNikolova and Madjev 1993; Nikolova 1994). A few Late Neolithic sherds were discovered in the area of the Leshtaka Mogila teli near the village of Dubene in 1996, to the north of the Dubene-Sarovka teli from the Late Copper and Early Bronze Ages.
In the Hissar Lowland, P. Detev performed test dig-gings of a teli near the village of Chernichevo. There is no publication of excavated material. According to the ceramics from the depot of the Hissar Archaeological Museum, levels from the Early Neolithic (Karanovo I Culture), the Late Neolithic (Karanovo III Culture), the Copper Age (Karanovo VI Culture) and the Early Bronze Age (Yunatsite Culture) were documented there. Few finds have been published from
Period	Western Thrace	Eastern Thrace	Other cultures in the Balkans	Absolute Chronology BC
Late Bronze Age	Karlovo finds	Asenovec	Encrusted pottery Brenica Sabatinovka	Ca. 1500-1200/1150
Middle Bronze Age	No evidence	? Gulubovo ? latest	Verbiciora Tei Vatin	2000 - ca. 1500 BC
Early Bronze III	Dubene IIC Yunatsite 8-1	Ezero 3-1 Nova Zagora 5-1	Hatvan Kirklareli Vinkovci/Maroš Bubanj III/early Vatin	2500/2450-2000
Early Bronze II Early Bronze I Final Copper Late Copper	Yunatsite 14-9 Dubene IIB Yunatsite 17-15 Dubene IIA ? Karlovo axe of Jaszladani type Karanovo VI	Ezero 10-4 Dolyama Detelina Ezero 13-11 ? Dolnoslav Karanovo VI Karanovo VI	Kostolac/Vučedol Cotofeni II-III/Glina Ezerovo/Sozopol Cotofeni I/Orlea Cernavoda III Baden Vajska - Hunyadihalom Cernavoda I/Yagodina Bodrogkeresztur Tiszapolgar Gumelnita - Varna	Ca. 3000-2500/2450 Ca. 3300/3200-3000 BC Ca. 4000-3600/3500 Ca. 4500-4000 BC
Early Copper	Maritsa	Maritsa	Vinča - Pločnik, Boyan complex, later Hamangia	Ca. 5000/4900-4500 BC
Late Neolithic II	Kaloyanovets	Kaloyanovets Karanovo III/IV (after V. Nikolov)	Hotnitsa, earlier Boyan complex, earlier Hamangia	Ca. 5250-5000/4900 BC
Late Neolithic I	Karanovo III ?	Karanovo III Karanovo II/III	Vinča - Tordoš, Starčevo - Cris IV	Ca. 5500/5450-5250 BC
Early Neolithic III	Karanovo I	Karanovo II	Gradeshnita-Circa Starčevo = Cris III	Ca. 5750-5500/5450 BC
Early Neolithic II	Karanovo I	Karanovo I	Gradeshnitsa-Circa II Starčevo - Cris I Devetaki	Ca. 6000/5900-5750/5700
Early Neolithic IB Early Neolithic IA	?	?	Gura Baciului Ib-Donja Branjevina II Krajnitsi, Koprivets I, Gura Baciului Ia-Donja Branjevina III	Ca. 6200-6000 BC
Tab. 1. Culture sequence and absolute chronology of Neolithic, Copper and Early Bronze Ages in the upper Stryama valley and northeastern Thrace.
a settlement discovered in the area of the present-day town of Hissar belonging to the Karanovo III Culture (Detev 1962).
The present study initiates the systematic analysis of the Neolithic sequence in the upper Stryama valley in the context of the Balkan prehistoric development, based on new evidence from my excavation in 1992. Some finds were kindly given to me to publish by Mr. N. Madzhev, from his excavations in 1980's, and to whom I am extremely grateful. There is no evidence on the Early Neolithic I in Bulgarian Thrace (see the Appendix), so the earliest records originated from the Early Neolithic II—III, Karanovo I culture.
THE EARLY NEOLITHIC II-III: KARANOVO I CULTURE
The prehistoric settlements of the Karlovo Lowland (Map 1) are situated at an altitude of approximately 300-450 m. The Early Neolithic settlements are locat-ed not far from the upper Stryama riversides, or at the feet of the mountains (the Stara Planina Moun-tain and Sredna Gora Mountains). Two of the Early Neolithic settlements possess thick cultural layers: the Ploskata Mogila, near the village of Banya, and the Pishtikova Mogila, near the village of Dubene. A test dig at Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila, revealed a pre-served cultural layer of around 2 metres in height belonging only to the Early Neolithic, while the Banya-Ploskata Mogila disclosed layers from the Early Neolithic (Karanovo I Culture), Late Neolithic (Karanovo III Culture) and Early Bronze Age (Yuna-tsite Culture). The third settlement, Kliment-Banyata is located on a slope at the very foot of the north-ern slopes of the central Sredna Gora Mountains. It is situated at the immediate vicinity of an intercept-ed warm mineral spring, which probably also exist-ed in Antiquity and preconditioned the rise of a settlement surrounded from the south by bare ravines. Warm mineral springs are also to be found near the Banya teli and Hissar site. The 1992 preliminary trenches demonstrated a destroyed cultural layer there reaching 1 metre in depth (excluding pits).
Three categories of pottery can be distinguished: coarse, ordinary and fine. It is made of clay, with fine or bigger sand admixtures. Small stone fractions appear in the biscuit of the coarse ware. A light red or wine red slip characterise the ordinary and fine pottery. Ali pottery is hand-made, with brown, brown-red and greyish-black surface after firing. As an ex-ception, a beige surface is found on some bowls.
Jar vessels with corded vertical handles are widely distributed and typify the Karanovo I culture (Fig. 1). A vase-like spheroid vessel without handles, hav-ing a small cylindrical neck and equally cut rim, was also found on the teli of Pishtikova Mogila (Fig. 2). A small bowl with equally cut rim (Fig. 3. 1,2) and a cone-shaped plate on which lines and signs were secondarily cut over the outer wall (Fig. 4) are also characteristic of this culture.
Fig. 1. Dubene-Pishtikova teli. Karanovo / Culture. Broken jar-like vessel ivitli an S-shaped profile and four vertical, bud-like handles. Clay ivith sand ad-mixtures. Well slipped surface, ivith a fine finish. Broivn. Diameter of the mouth -11 cm. Height -21.5 cm. Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila. Fallow land.
l	4-	s	f	f
---—				
Fig. 2. Dubene-Pishtikova teli. Karanovo I Culture. Fragmented vase-like vessel uith a short cylindrical neck, rotmded body and a ringfoot. Clay u ith sand admixtures. Well smoothed and finished surface. Broivn. Height - 19 cm. N. Subev's collection. Accor-ding to the oivner ofthe collection, the vessel origi-nated from Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila.
Fig. 3■ Kliment-Banyata settlement. Karanovo I Cul ture. A fragment of a spheroid botvl; preserved profile. Clay, abundant in sand admixtures. Height -6.6 cm, Kliment - Banyata. A destroyed cultural layer from.
Fig. 4. Dubene-Pishtikova teli. Karanovo I Culture. A fragment of a cone plate ivith a rounded mouth rim. Clay, abundant in large and fine sand. Traces ofbroivn-red slip on the surface. Parallel lines and small crosses are incised on the tvall face. 16 parallel lines, on one side of which three small crosses and one "M" turned to the left are incised. On the other side, three vertical parallel lines are preserved. Wall thickness: 0.7 cm. Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila. Surface find.
Pottery painted in white was typical of the Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila and Ploskata Mogila tells near the village of Banya (Fig. 5. 1,2). Earthenware painted in dark-brown was found as an exception at Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila (Nikolova and Madjev 1993■ Fig. 6) (Fig. 5. 3). The investigated area, however, was quite restricted. An exceptional find of two frag-ments of a lid with a greyish-black surface and a deeply incised spiral decoration with white encrus-tation was discovered at Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila (Fig. 5. 4a-b).
The white painted pottery was manufactured of well-refined clay, which sometimes contained fine sand or small stones. Cone-shaped broad plates and spheroid bowls, some of which have a foot, are most pop-ular. Sometimes, the feet are detached. There are sherds of tulip-shaped vessels, but for the time being the evidence is scanty about this popular shape in Early Neolithic Thrace.
The prevailing number of painted earthenware has a wine-red slip, but pottery painted in white on an ochre ground was also found. Rare examples are known both from Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila (Nikolova and Madjev 1993■ Fig. 6) and from Banya-Plos-kata Mogila (unpubl.).
The painted pottery is characterised by a lozenge decoration pattern under the mouth. Geometric pat-
Fig. 5. Dubene-Pishtikova teli. Karanovo I Culture. 1. A fragment of a vase-like spherical ves-sel ivith a cylindrical neck and evenly cut, rounded rim. Clay uith sand and plant admix-tures. Fine, dense cover of red-broum slip. Painted pattern in uhite. On the outer side of the neck: large lozenge pattern under the mouth; on the body: curved line decoration. Wall thick-ness: 0.5 cm. Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila. 1.90-2.10 m depth from the surface. 2. A mouth fragment of a plate ivith a rounded rim. Clay uith small sand and plant admixtures. Broum-red slip. Painted pattern in ivhite. On the inner side: a strip of uide lozenge pattern under the mouth. On the outer side: groups of parallel lines cross-ing at an angle. Wall thickness: 0.5-0.6 cm. Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila. 1.25-1.30 m depth from the surface. 3■ A
fragment of ajar-like vessel ivith spheroid body. Clay ivith sand and plant admixtures. On the outer tvall: a painted pattern in dark broivn. Clearly defined profile change, under ivhich a painted band of con-centric lines and upriglit trianglesfolloiv. Wall thickness: 0.6-0.9 cm. Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila. Surface find. 4a-b. Tivo fragments of a Ud uiith an incised spiral pattern encrusted ivith ivhite. Finely refined clay. Black polished surface. Wall thickness: 0.5 cm. Width of the encrustation channel: 0.3-0.5 cm. Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila.
teras are typical of the body (Fig. 5. 1-3)- Some of the feet bear concentric white painted strips.
The pottery fragments discovered in Kliment-Banya-ta were without preserved surface slip. The acid soil destroyed the ceramic surface, creating an impres-sion that painted pottery is absent. But from the mor-phological point of view, however, the earthenware does not differ significantly from that found in Du-bene-Pishtikova Mogila. Some jar-like vessels with rope handles have more elongated bodies. Impresso ceramics are typical. Therefore, the settlement prob-ably followed chronologically the Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila. One herring-bone channelled fragment was discovered at Kliment-Banyata (Fig. 6) which has no parallels at Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila. It is probable
that Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila and Kliment-Banyata represent the long duration of the Karanovo I culture in the Karlovo Lowland.
The cult objects so far discovered consist of fragments of small tables-altars. One of the pieces from the Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila bears a stamped pattern (Fig. 7. 1), and another has an attached zoomor-phic foot (Fig. 7. 2). The small table from the Kli-ment-Banyata was completely restored (Fig. 8). The female idol from the Banyata-Ploskata Mogila is typ-ical of the Karanovo I culture (Fig. 9).
Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila and Kliment-Banyata are the most northwestern Karanovo I settlements in Thrace (about Karanovo I see Georgiev 1974 and
Fig. 6. Kliment-Banyata settlement. Karanovo / Culture. A tvallfragment of a channelled herringbone vessel. The finish is missing. Clay, abundant in fine and coarse sand. Broun surface. Destroyed cultural layer.
Parzinger 1993-110, and the a bibliography quoted there). They effectuated one of the communication lines between the upper Thracian Plain and the Zla-titsa-Pirdop and Sofia Lovvlands. The pottery finds the closest numerous parallels at Chernichevo in the Hissar Lowland (unpublished), as well as in the upper Maritsa basin (Kapitan Dimitrievo: Detev 1950. Fig. 5). The upper Stryama valley is directly connected \vith the upper Tundzha region through the eastern Sredna Gora Mountain passes, where the closest parallels are to be found on the Kazanluk teli (unpublished). Stryama River also connects north-western Thrace with the Maritsa valley, where the ceramic parallels reach as far as the region of Edirne (materials from the Archaeological Museum, Edirne).
Although the ceramics from ali the investigated Karanovo I settlements have not been completely published, it could so far be assumed that this culture comprised the whole upper Thracian Plain, the northern Rhodopi Mountains slopes included. Ac-cording to recent evidence, during its early stages
Fig. 7. Dubene-Pishtikova teli. Karanovo I Culture. 1. A fragment of a cult table. Part ofthe tvall is preserved uith a stamp decoration. Clay tvith fine sand and stone ad-mixtures. Dark broun surface uith a finish. Wall thickness: 0.4-1.1 cm. Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila. 2. A fragment of a zoomorphic leg uith a round-like basin. Clay tvith fine sand admixtures. Redslip. Wall thickness: 0.3-0.5 cm. Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila.
the Karanovo I Culture occupied not only Bulgarian Thrace, but also south western Bulgaria: Kovachevo, Eleshnitsa (the Middle Strouma basin), Slatina, lower horizons (Sofia Plain), etc. (cp. Pavuk 1993)• Earth-enware painted in white from the upper Stryama valley finds parallels in settlements like Kovachevo (Permčeva 1990. Fig. 7. 2; Fig. 9. 4). But at the same tinte, there are some very close parallels to the site of Nevestino I in the middle Strouma basin (Čoha-džiev and Genadieva 1998.85; Fig. 1. 7, 16) with earlier dot painted pottery at Donja Branjevina (Brukner 1997. Fig. 3■ 2; Karmanski 1968. Fig. 1. 6-7). The later stages of the culture, however, de-monstrate a strong influence of the Starčevo culture in the north western areas (Slatina, Gulubnik), which was reflected in the pottery style of the "mixed" Kre-mikovtsi group, including the Zlatitsa-Pirdop Plain (Chavdar) (Garašanin 1966.19) or recently named Starčevo. The pottery painted in brown and red from Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila and Chernichevo could be considered as influenced by the production of the Zlatitsa-Pirdop region. The cult tables have numerous parallels in the synchronous settlements in Southwestern Bulgaria: Priboj (Chokhadžiev 1986. Fig. 10), as well as in the Late Neolithic settlements (Vandova 1997 uith ref). Triangular tables were also typical of Gradeshnitsa A-C (Northwestern Bulgaria) \vhere, however, a meander pattern pre-vails (Nikolov 1975. Fig. 14) which is not found in Thrace.
The northern boundary of the Karanovo I culture was the Stara Planina Mountain. Pottery painted in white is known from Vrtiste, Byala and the Deveta-ki cave (.Nikolov 1992.12 uith ref), but recently it was discovered in the Danube areas of north west-ern Bulgaria: Maluk Preslavets (Panayotov et al. 1992. Fig. 4) and Koprivets (unpublished), as well. According to V. Popov and I. Vajsov (1992.10), the
Fig. 8. Kliment-Banyata settlement. Karanovo I Culture. A fragmented cult table. Clay uith fine sand and Ume admixtures. Light broivn surface.
The basin is relatively deep, triangular in plan. The legs have triangular cross sections. Pierced metop-like pattern on the ivalls and on the lower part of the legs. Wall length: 15 cm. Basin depth -1.6 cm. Height - 9-8. Wall thickness - 0.5 cm. WaU height - 3 cm. Legs foundation thickness - 3-8 x 1.9 cm. Kliment-Banyata. A destroyed cultural layer.
white painted pottery from last site parallels the Proto-Starčevo horizon. These data, however, are in-sufficient for a search of the Karanovo 1 cultural gen-esis in northern Bulgaria, bearing in mind the new data from Strouma valley (Nevestino), as well as of the monochromic stage in European Turkey (see below). At the same tirne, the material from the De-vetaki cave poses the problem of the possibility of
direct contacts between the Karlovo Lowland popu-lation and that of the Osum basin in northern Bulgaria as early as the Early Neolithic. At present, the Kurnare-Troyan pass is a major communication route between southern and northern Bulgaria. The earliest archaeological data from the high parts of the Troyan pass in the Stara Planina Mountain originate from the First Millennium BC. High prehistoric set-
Fig. 9. Banyata-Ploskata Mogila. Karanovo I Culture. A female idol, Clay uith coarse and fine sand and gold mica admixtures. Well finished surface. Dark brou<n surface. A short cylindrical part of a hollotv body is preserved. Broken parts at the loiver and rear sides. Two opposed flattened extensions and tivo horizontal openings render the hands. High head, flattened at the back. Roundedface tvith a cone pro-jection rendering the nose, on both sides of tvhich Um oblique cuts represent the eyes. Slight elongation of the face depicts the coijfure, tvith a concave upper edge and conical ends, one of tvhich is broken. Under the nose, deep, M-shaped cuts render the mouth. Belu een the tu o longitudinal cuts there are tivo addi-tional oblu/ue cuts. Preserved height: 9-3 cm; neck thickness: 4.15 cm; maximum body ividth: 6.5 cm; tvall thickness: 1 cm; opening diameter: 3-2 .v 2 cm.
tlements are generally missing in the Stara Planina Mountain. It is possible, however, that in the Early Neolithic there were communication routes through the more difficult passes, together with the Iskur Gorge and the lower eastern Balkan passes.
Evidence about the so-called monochromic stage of the Early Neolithic which precedes chronologically the horizon of the pottery painted in white is so far absent from Thrace. Data for this horizon came from south western Bulgaria: Krajnitsi, Polyanitsa, Platoto and Koprivets, and other sites in north eastern Bulgaria {Vajsov 1998; Pavuk 1993■ map 2; see also the Appendix below). There are two possible expla-nations for this situation in Thrace: firstly, it can be accepted that the evidence about the earliest Neolithic in Thrace has not yet been discovered.
Secondly, we can suppose that the monochromic stage does not exist because of different reasons: a small number of the initial population which migrat-ed into the Balkans with a tradition of the monochromic pottery and/or of native Mesolithic population adopted the baked pottery production; a lack of favourable conditions for settling down, etc.
The existence of a pre-Karanovo I stage was a prin-cipal point in the P. Detev periodisation, in which the potterv painted in white was assigned to the "Middle Neolithic" (Detev 1963). A number of Karanovo I characteristic morphological elements are ge-netically related to the monochromic stage, corded handles, spherical bowls and conical plates included (Fig. f) (Tscochadjiev and Bakamska 1990. Fig. 11. 1-4, Fig. 10. 1-2, 8).
At the present state of our knowledge about the Karanovo I culture, several theoretical possibilities re-main about the genesis of this culture in Thrace. An autochthonous development from the monochromic pottery along with synchronous cultural contacts is the first assumption. A second possibility is to as-sume an autochthonous development from the monochromic pottery along with synchronous cultural contacts and the appearance in the Balkans of mi-grating groups from western Anatolia. A third hypo-thesis is based on the presumption of a mass migra-tion of Anatolian people into the Balkans and the occupation of areas that remained free after the initial monochromic stage migration (see Lazarovici and Kalmar 1995.402-403; Garašanin 1998).
In north-western Thrace we can identify a regional unit of Karanovo I culture, with the population who
settled the area, for whom it is difficult to establish origins: whether from the Maritsa basin, the Kazan-luk plain, or from the Zlatitsa-Pirdop lowlands. Mul-ti-layered settlements existed along the Stryama River, while the settlements at the feet of mountains (the Stara Planina Mountain and the Sredna Gora Mountains) comprised only thin layers. The population had obviously chosen the left bank of the river, where the soils were more fertile (Dubene-Pishtiko-va Mogila) and the topography is more favourable for agriculture. The proximity of the Sredna Gora Mountains meant that hunting was also among the major economic activities. The land between the left bank of the Stryama and the southern slopes of the Stara Planina mountain is favourable both for agriculture and cattle breeding, although a great part of the present-day, flat arable area was probably forest-ed. In the latter čase there is no evidence of clear-ance of the surrounding area through burning. OnIy P. Detev mentions that at the base of the Plovdiv teli a thick ash layer was found which may be evidence of such activity. A thick layer of ash with fragment-ed pottery was found on the northern periphery of the Dubene-Pishtikova mogila, but the presence of archaeological artefacts indicates that it was the vil-lage dumping site.
The remains of Kliment-Banyata represent another type of settlement: an occupation at the immediate foot of the mountain, near a warm mineral spring. Stock breeding was probably the main economic activity of its population, as the settlement was small and did not last long, despite the massive house structures evidenced by large fragments of plaster. The upper Stryama valley is also characterised by the absence of flint resources. These were extracted in the Rhodopi Mountains region and shipped along the river. It is not clear whether the flint was an ob-ject of exchange, or whether there were groups spe-cialised in mining it. An obsidian plate originates from Kliment-Banyata (Nikolova and Madjev 1993, Fig. 4), which is evidence of direct or indirect ex-change, probably with the southern areas. As an ex-ception, obsidian blades were found among the Early Neolithic flint materials from Thrace, \vhich testify to long-distance contacts, if we do not accept that migra-ting groups brought them. Clay beds were also of prime importance for the first farmers settling in the upper Stryama valley. Present-day clay resources can be found in the vicinity of Dubene-Pishtikova mogila. It is worth noting that vessels of well-refined clay are numerous among the Dubene-Pishtikova mogila pottery. The large sand admixtures are local features of the Kliment-Banyata ceramics (Fig. 3; 6).
The late Karanovo I stage in western Thrace was synchronous with Karanovo II culture in north-east-ern Thrace. The latter, from which no white painted pottery has been found, forms a local group. Chan-nelled pottery is emblematic of this culture, while according to recent evidence, it appears among Karanovo I materials from western Thrace only as an exception. The channelled pottery from Kliment-Banyata have parallels as far west as in Sapareva Banya-Kremenik, where four Early Neolithic hori-zons have been documented (Georgiev et al, 1986. Fig. 11). Kliment-Banyata is probably synchronous with the late phase of Early Neolithic occupation of that site and marks the end of the Karanovo I culture in Thrace.
The second Karanovo I stage of western Thrace was contemperaneous with the Kremikovtsi Group and later Starčevo and the earlier polychrome stage in north-western Bulgaria (Gradeshnitsa), but concrete contact data have not yet been recorded from the upper Stryama valley. Vessels with polychrome dec-oration have been discovered in several Karanovo I settlements in Thrace: Rakitovo, Kazanluk, Stara Za-gora/Azmashka Mogila and Karanovo (after V. Nikolov, unpubl.). These are individual vessels whose penetration to the east was facilitated by the com-munication route from Zlatitsa to Pirdop (Chavdar) -from the upper Stryama valley (the Dubene-Pishtiko-va mogila and Banyata-Ploskata mogila) - to the upper Tundzha region (Kazanluk). Another comrnu-nication route was the Topolnitsa River connecting the Zlatitsa-Pirdop valley with the upper Maritsa val-ley. The idol from Banya-Ploskata Mogila is very sim-
ilar to the one found in the Gradeshnitsa "B" level CNikolov 1975. Fig. 13c) and has no close parallels in eastern Thrace.
According to the present data, it can be assumed that a variant of Karanovo I culture developed in western Thrace which could be named Kapitan Dimitrievo - Dubene - Pishtikova Mogila (for the regio-nalism during the Early Neolithic see Pavuk 1993)■
Late Neolithic I: Karanovo III Culture
The Karanovo III culture followed the Karanovo I culture in Thrace, which developed during the first stage of the Late Neolithic. The Karanovo I layers are overlaid by the Karanovo III layers on the tells Banya-Ploskata Mogila and Chernichevo. Unfortuna-tely, the data are limited and it is not clear whether the stage of pottery style transformation is testified in the Karlovo Lowland, which was defined as Karanovo II—III Middle Neolithic culture in north-eastern Thrace by V. Nikolov (1998 ivith ref). He relied on the interpretation of the excavation data from Karanovo and on the G. II. Georgiev information on the so-called Karanovo II—III stage, documented on the Kazanluk Teli. V. Nikolov finds the old definition of "Karanovo II—III" as invalid for Kazanluk, because as the author notes there is no Karanovo II stage. It should be remembered that no precise excavations of the Neolithic layers have been performed on larg-er areas in north-western Thrace. A thick Karanovo III layer was investigated near Chernichevo, which probably overlaid the Karanovo I layer of ceramics painted in white together with pottery painted in
Fig. 10. BanyalaPlos-kata Mogila, Karanovo III Culture. A jug. A evenly cut rim and oriftce, long neck and earthentvare body. Two small holes on the flat bottom. Greyish-black, pol-ished surface. Broken vertical han-dle attached to the upper part of the neck and to the earthen-ware body. Shallotv, ivave-like, horizontal and oblique channels over the tvhole outer ivall surface. Height -16 cm.
Fig. 11. Banyata-Ploskata Mogila. Karanovo III Culture. A bo ivl. Clay ivith a great amount of fine sand admixtures and small stones. Grey-brown smoothed surface. Cylindrical. Oblique shortrelief band, 9.7 cm long. The vessel actually is the lo tver part of a jug uhic h ivas later used as a bowl after it had been broken and the upper rim had been rounded. Height - 10 cm. Wall thickness - 0.7 cm.
dark colours, but stratigraphic data are lacking and its informative value is significantly reduced. At Banya-Ploskata Mogila, the Karanovo III layer was discovered at the periphery of later excavations, while P. Detev documented an Early Neolithic layer. These investigations were again limited and not precisely published. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that future investigations could differentiate or discover the Karanovo III formation stage in north-western Thrace, bearing in mind the observations in eastern Thrace, which confirmed its local character in the context of the active cultural interactions. The publication of the materials from Karanovo and Ka-zanluk would provide an opportunity for a better cultural definition of this stage as well.
Jugs having vertical handles and bud-like projections on them are diagnostic of Karanovo III culture. To this kind of vessel probably belongs a jug with a greyish-black, polished and channelled surface, which probably had the same kind of handle, which was found in a Karanovo III cultural layer at Banya - Ploskata Mogila (Banya II; Fig. 10), togeth-er with a jar secondarily used as a bowl (Fig. 11). Madjev registered two building horizons at the peri-phery of that teli. Also discovered with the ceramics was a loom weight (Fig. 12), a bone spoon (Fig. 13), a fish-hook (Nikolova, Madjev 1993■ Abb. 4), a fragment of a cult table (Fig. 14), the lower part of a clay idol (Fig. 15), stone tools, numerous flint artefacts (Tsonev 1995), animal bones, etc.
A handle of a Late Neolithic jug with bud-like pro-jection is a surface was found north of the Dubene-Sarovka, in the locality of Leshtaka (unpubl.). It is possible that the small teli located there to belongs to a Karanovo III Culture village which was a satel-lite of the large Banya-Ploskata mogila site some 3-5 km. distant.
The closest Banya II synchronous settlements inves-tigated are to be found on the teli near Chernichevo (Chernichevo II) (unpublished) and at a settlement near Hissar (Detev 1962) in the Hissar valley. The bowl discovered at the last settlement is similar to that from Banya-Ploskata mogila. The materials from Banya find numerous parallels in Plovdiv-Yasa tepe (Detev 1960), including a jug (Detev 1959. Fig. 12a, Fig. 21), loom vveight (Detev 1959. Fig. 56.4), spoon (Detev 1960. Fig. 9), cult table (Detev 1959. Fig. 45; Detev 1960. Fig. 26) and an idol whose high cylin-drical head is missing (Detev 1960. Fig. 34). Detev published a marble fish-hook from Plovdiv-Yasa tepe, which was, however, discovered together with materials of Maritsa culture (the Early Copper Age, see Detev 1960. Fig. 18). The short relief band of the se-condarily used vessel finds parallels in eastern Thrace (Karanovo III, see Nikolov 1992. Fig. 1. 8). Small cult tables with chess-board encrustation are charac-teristic of the Karanovo III culture in the region of As-senovgrad (Ruen I), in the Upper Maritsa valley (Kapitan Dimitrievo), the Middle Tundja basin (Vesseli-
Fig. 12. Banyata-Ploskata Mogila. Karanovo III Culture. A loom tveight. Clay, sand admbctures. Broun, smoothed surface. Disc-like shape. A small, round opening. Diameter- 7.2 cm; thickness-2 cm; opening diameter - 0.5 cm.
Fig. 13- Banyata-Ploskata Mogila. Karanovo III Culture. A bone spoon. Rectan-gular, iiith a long handle. Height - 8.9 cm.
novo), etc. (Kaludova 1966. Fig. 6a, g). Banya II could possibly be synchronised with Drama-Gerena II.
The Late Neolithic finds of the Karanovo III culture from the upper Stryama valley relate north-western Thrace to the Zlatitsa-Pirdop Lowland where they find close analogies in the Chelopech II materials, vessels with vertical handles and bud-like projec-tions on them (Petkov 1948. Fig. 11) and small cult tables (Petkov 1948. Fig. 16). According to N. Petkov, the Chelopech II cultural layer was 2.60 m thick and overlapped a dark, painted pottery layer (Chelopech I). The small cult tables with encrusted chess-board patterns are characteristic of the Late Neolithic in south-western Bulgaria: Sapareva Banya-Kre-menik (Georgiev et al. 1986. Fig. 28.1-2). In the Early Neolithic layer of the same site a horn spoon was discovered (Georgiev et al. 1986. Fig. 6). A bone spoon from Gradeshnitsa also belongs to the Early Neolithic (Nikolov B. 1975- Fig. 3)- The lower part of the flat idol finds parallels in Kurilo (Vajsov 1984. Fig. 4.6), probably belonging to the Late Neolithic as well. The head of that idol was probably similar to the heads discovered at Hissar (Delev 1962. Fig. 3)-The settlement pattern in the upper Stryama valley included tells, but in contrast to eastern Thrace and upper Maritsa River, a peculiarity in the settlement structure exists there: there are no high, layered tells, and they do not exceed 2-3 m height, inde-pendently of the cultural succession on the micro-regional level. Interregional migration could not be better explained, unless a systematic investigation of the prehistoric sites of the micro-region is accom-
Fig. 14. Banyata-Ploskata Mogila. Karanovo III Cul ture. A fragment of a cult table. Well refined clay. Grey-black surface. One table side is preserved, on ivhich a chess-board pattern is encrusted u>ith ivhite paste, and bud-like projections are attached to its ends. Preserved length: 13-9 cm. Wall thickness: 1.3 cm. Wall height - 4.3 cm. Basin depth - 2.6 cm.
plished. According to the present data, some Neolithic tells (Banya, Chernichevo) were re-occupied in the Early Bronze Age.
The Late Neolithic II: Karanovo IV Culture
During the second half of the Late Neolithic the Karanovo IV (Kaloyanovets) culture developed in Bul-garian Thrace and in European Turkey (Kirklareli). A change in the settlement pattern characterises this phase: the pattern of the teli decreased (Karanovo
IV,	Kazanluk, etc.) and open settlements characterise that culture - Kaloyanovets, Nova Zagora - Khobeza-voda, etc. The Karanovo IV culture has been best studied in the region of Nova Zagora (Kancev and Kančeva 1988 ivith ref), although its expansion was significantly greater, reaching Turkish Thrace -Kirklareli (excavations under the direction of H. Par-zinger and M. Ozdogan).
The absence of convincing evidence of the Karanovo IV Culture in western Thrace has recently pro-voked the launching of the hypothesis that Karanovo III culture continued its development in western Thrace during the period of the Kaloyanovets culture in eastern Thrace {Nikolov 1998). According to
V.	Nikolov, the encrusted ceramics from Kalugerovo (unpublished) in the upper Maritsa valley do not con-tradict this assumption.
But in 1992 a vessel with the encrusted ornamenta-tion typical of Karanovo IV Culture was found for the first tirne in north-western Thrace (Fig. 16), which demonstrates that Kalugerovo was not an ex-ception in western Thrace. It is a conical bowl found on the surface to the south of Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila, in the immediate vicinity of the left bank of the Stryama (Dubene-Popovka II). The bowl has a massive, broken foot. It is of clay, with fine and coarser sand admixtures. Its surface is smoothed, but not polished. The inner side of the plate is decorat-ed with successive bands of horizontal incised lines and parallel zigzag lines. The rim bears oblique cuts. Bands of parallel, incised lines and an S-attached pattern decorate its outer side. The ornamentation was encrusted.
Fig. 15- Banyata-Ploskata Mogila. Karanovo III Culture. Tite loiver part of a clay idol. Clay ivith sandy ad-mixtures. Black smoothed surface. The legs are preserved, ivhich represent an undifferentiated volume, marked by a vertically incised line ivhich reaches the point of an inverted triangle at the upper end. The seat is moulded rendered.
This vessel is evidence of the fate of most of the thin-layered settlements in the region, which were completely destroyed by farming.
The close parallels in the ceramics from eastern Thrace also support this conclusion. A plate with an S-shaped pattern from Nova Zagora-Hlebozavoda has been discovered (Kančeva 1992. pl. VI). Three building horizons of the Kaloyanovets culture were filed at this site, as well as another bowl with a zig-zag, incised pattern (Kancev; Kančeva 1988. pl. II: 7). The different decorative patterns on the inner and outer surfaces of the vessels could be followed in the published cone-shaped bowls from Nova Za-gora-Hlebozavoda as well, although they have no feet (Kancev, Kančeva 1988. plates /-//; Kančeva
Fig. 16. Dubene-Popovka II. Kaloyanovets Culture.
1992. pl. 6). According to the published stratigraph-ic data, the bowl from Dubene-Popovka originated from a settlement that was synchronous with building horizons 1-2 at Nova Zagora-Hlebozavoda.
The cone-shaped, solid foot, the zigzag and S-shaped patterns relate the vessel from Dubene-Popovka II to the bowls from Brenitsa (Northwestern Bulgaria), which, however, have smoother profiles (Nikolov 1986. Fig. 5, 6). According B. Nikolov, the lower two horizons at Brenitsa belonged to the end of the Late Neolithic.
In light of the evidence from Dubene-Popovka II (and Kalugerovo), the Karanovo IV Culture encom-passes the whole of Thrace (Turkish Thrace includ-
ed). North-western Thrace was not isolated from common trends in the development of pottery styles (Nikolov 1998). It could be theoretically assumed that the Dubene-Popovka II find did not originate from the Karanovo IV Culture settlement in this locality, because the context is missing. But in my opinion, the presence of a Late Neolithic II settlement is more probable, given that the villagers have reported numerous pottery finds in the locality.
At the same time, the find, originating probably from a thin level, open settlement, also confirms my thesis that changes in the settlement pattern charac-terise the later Late Neolithic in Thrace, because there are no cultural levels of the Karanovo IV culture at the Banyata and Chernichevo tells. The situa-tion is similar to that at the Kapitan Dimitrievo, Plov-div - Yasa tepe, Kazanluk and other tells in Thrace.
The vessel from Dubene-Popovka II is so far the lat-est Neolithic find from north-western Thrace. No settlement of the Early Copper Age Maritsa culture has been discovered there, but a female anthropomor-phic figurine from Dubene (an accidental find) sug-gests that the Karlovo Lowland was also occupied during this period (Nikolova and Madjev 1993■ Fig. 8). A settlement of the late stage of Karanovo VI was discovered at the base of the teli near Dubene-Sarov-ka, located to the south-east of the village of Dubene (Nikolova 1994). A period followed which has not been documented: the final stage of the Copper Age when the Chernavoda I culture developed along the eastern lower Danube; while the end of the Kri-vodol-Salcuta-Bubanj and Salcuta-Telish cultures were characteristic of the western lower Danube. A big multi-layer settlement of Early Bronze Yunatsite culture has been investigated on the upper levels of Du-bene-Sarovka. This is the latest prehistoric site so far registered in the upper Stryama valley.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In the context of the čase study of this contribution, the recent evidence of the Balkan Early Neolithic raises several points for discussion and/or conclu-sions:
O The archaeological data on prehistoric sites in the Karlovo Lowland provide an opportunity to create a cultural-chronological system of the micro-region (Tab. 1). The last includes the following cultures: Karanovo 1 (Early Neolithic), Karanovo I/III, Karanovo II/III Karanovo III and Karanovo III/IV after V. Niko-
lov (Late Neolithic I), Karanovo IV (Late Neolithic II), Maritsa (Early Copper Age), Karanovo VI (Late Copper Age), Yunatsite (Early Bronze Age). For the time being, the Late Bronze Age is documented only by an accidental find of an axe mould (unpublished).
The data are so far insufficient for the periodisation of the Neolithic cultures of the micro-region. Apart from the Early Bronze Yunatsite Culture, the rest have scarcely been excavated. The new data on the Neolithic, the Karanovo I, Karanovo III and Karanovo IV cultures, however few, allow a more precise de-finition of the cultural attributes of the micro-region, to make a preliminary sketch of its settlement struc-ture and to reconsider some previous scholarly views.
© At the various sites one, two or more prehistoric periods were represented (Tab. 2).
Sites	Periods of occupations
Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila	EN II-III
Banya - Ploskata Mogila	EN II-III, LN I, EB II
Chernichevo	EN II-III, LN I, LC, EB III
Kliment - Banyata	EN III
Dubene- Leshtaka	LN I
Dubene-Popovka II	LN II
Tab. 2. The prehistoric periods of occupations on the documented prehistoric sites in the Karlovo Lotvland.
© The prehistoric settlement structure in the Karlovo lowland was established during Early Neolithic II. In the earlier stage it included multi-level settlements at distances of 10-15 km apart along the Stryama Ri-ver: Chernichevo, Banya-Ploskata mogila and Dube-ne-Pishtikova mogila. The increase in population pro-bably resulted in an extension of the settlement structure and settlement at the foot of the Sredna Gora, near the village of Kliment-Banyata. But no conditi-ons for successful agriculture existed there. Probably this is a main reason for the short-term occupation of the village. In terms of archaeological typology, there are two types of settlements: tells (multi-level settlements) and open villages (short-term occupations). There are no investigated houses of the Karanovo I culture in the Karlovo lowland. According to the plasters recovered, wattle-and-daub buildings typify the Early Neolithic architecture there, as in other re-gions of the Balkans.
0 Typological variety characterised the hand-made pottery of households in the Karlovo lowland dur-
Models	Description
1	Adoption of the ceramic style of the white painted pottery by undiscovered culture of the monochrome stage (Early Neolithic I)
2	Migration / demic diffusion from the Strouma valley
3	Migration / demic diffusion from European Turkey
4	Migrations / demic diffusions from the Strouma val lev and European Turkey
5	Migration from Anatolia through the Strouma valley and/or European Turkey
Tab. 3- Models of a genesis of the Karano vo I Culture in Bulgarian Thrace.
ing the Early Neolithic, but pithoi, jars, pots, bowls and conical plates predominated. The evolution from the white towards white and red/brown painted ware can be assumed based mainly on the data from Dubene - Pishtikova Mogila. In the Karanovo III culture, plain pottery predominated, but channel and plastic ornamented vessels specify this ceramic style. Encrusted pottery, represented in the Karlovo valley by the conical bowl with a foot, is emblemat-ic of the Late Neolithic II. Kaloyanovets culture.
© The arable/stock breeding economy characterises the Neolithic Stryama valley. Stone tool assemblages were comprised of mainly flat axes. Bone imple-ments were also widely used in household activities. Special evidence of fishing was found at Banya-Plos-kata teli, where a fish hook was discovered in a Karanovo III level.
© Idols and small tables were used in fertility cult rituals, and of special interest is a female idol of the goddess of fertility, which has no parallel in the Karanovo I culture, although there is a close one from north-western Bulgaria. This record documents ac-tive cultural interaction through the Sredna Gora Mountains and the Iskur River or through the Stara Planina Mountains, probably connected with com-mon rituals of the fertility.
0 The upper Stryama valley belongs to the third Euro-Asian geographical region distinguished by M. Zvelebil (the so-called southern Balkans and the Pontic Steppe) with an environment, which would suggest "a reliance on cereals, roots, and tubers" during the Mesolithic. He considers this area "as an extension of grassland habitats of the Near East (Ira-no-Turenian steppe), which share in common the abundance of wild seed grasses, including wild bar-ley and eincorn" {Zvelebil 1994.64). G. Georgiev also stressed the presence of wild forerunners of some cultivated plans in the Bulgarian region. Never-theless, there are no secure arguments for the autochthonous genesis of the Neolithic in Bulgarian Thrace, including the Karlovo lowland.
Several migration hypotheses can be defined (Tab. 3), but ali they are based mainly on a lack of archaeological evidence of the earliest Neolithic in Bulgarian Thrace.
In the first model, the stage of the painted pottery in the second level of the graduate Neolithization of the Balkans and the bearers of the Karanovo I culture appear to be the inheritors of the first agricul-tural comnuinities in the Balkans. The second to fourth models require a demographic crisis in the neighbour regions, the outcome of which was the colonisation of Bulgarian Thrace. In this čase the presence of strong micro-regional and long-distance contacts are one of the main factors of Neolithisa-tion in terms of demic interactions. The fifth model assumes a new population in the southern Balkans which immigrated from Anatolia and was integrated with the local agricultural and stock breeding struc-tures. In ali cases, Neolithisation can be defined as a long-term process of gradual culture integration.
The absence of Mesolithic evidence from the southern Balkans contrasts with the increased data on the Vlasac-Lepenski Vir culture in the western lower Da-nube basin, but recently in the south-eastern parts, important so-called Epi-Paleolithic sites have been documented (Gatsov and Ozdogan 1994). The Vlasac-Lepenski Vir culture is an advanced Mesolithic model, including temporary housing, a complex flint industry, possible storage facilities and a developed ideological system, the centre of which was an ances-tor cult. It cannot be ruled out that the Mesolithic population participated in the Neolithisation of the Balkans (Seferiades 1993)• The anthropologica! charac-teristics of the Maluk Preslavets settlement cemetery in the eastern lower Danube basin are an example of a proto-European anthropological type (Panayo-tov et al, 1992.52-53), which is comparable to the Vlasac-Lepenski Vir Culture. A similar conclusion ari-ses from the Devetaki Cave anthropological material, while Mediterranian characteristics are reported from Late Neolithic Plovdiv-Yasa Tepe (Boev 1959). At the same tirne, M. Hopf (1988), following the model of
J. Renfrew, assumes an influence from the south among the earliest (EN I) agriculturalists in North-eastern Bulgaria. Therefore, culture integration also characterises the Neolithisation of the Balkans in the light of the evidence from north-eastern Bulgaria.
© The process of Neolithisation originates from the Karanovo I settlement pattern, which characterises that process as a stabilisation and structuring of so-cial relationships towards interrelated complex communities, in which households were the main social basis (see Hodder's (1990) concept of Domus).
The pottery, stone and bone industries of the Karanovo I culture also represent the Neolithisation of the Balkans as a standardisation of the cultural com-ponents connected probably not only with domestic activities, but to some extent with the specialisation of production.
The idols of the monochromic stage and from Karanovo I culture also define the Neolithisation of the Balkans as a process of reutilising social life, devel-oping an innovative fertility cult. The existence of settlement burials suggests that in that process an ancestor cult was of great importance. But the ab-sence of separate burial backgrounds characterises the Balkan Early Neolithic. This fact can be explained by the absence of a cult of the dead or of burial tra-ditions. But in my opinion, it is more probable that a tradition of isolated burials existed. In this čase the cult of the dead was not communal, but connected with the different households. At the same tinte, the Maluk Preslavets settlement cemetery as an excep-tion in the Balkans is connected not only anthropo-logically and also ritually with the Mesolithic Vlasac-Lepenski Vir culture, where burials in settlements were popular, but its mode of inhumation-crouched position - is a element of Neolithisation.
© A cultural change can be recognised in the devel-opment of the Karlovo Lowland at the beginning of the Late Neolithic. Banya teli, and Chernichevo teli in the Hissar valley, represents continuity in settlement life, while in the Dubene region a new settlement probably was based at Leshtaka, approximate-ly 5 km from the Early Neolithic Pishtikova Mogila. It can be assumed that a change in ceramics was the result of eastern influence in a period when the Balkan style of painted pottery began to be replaced by encrusted ornamentation. The last, as an exception, appeared during the early Neolithic, but began to predominate in the period of the Kaloyanovets culture. The absence of settlement(s) of this culture in
the Karlovo lowland can be explained by a crisis in the arable/stock breeding economy, and a change towards a semi-nomadic economy in the later late Neolithic in western Bulgarian Thrace. Some changes in the landscape cannot be completely excluded (for the western Balkans see Budja 1995). Despite the possibility that one or more settlements existed from the Early Copper Age in the upper Stryama val-ley, a new flourishing of the prehistoric culture can be argued for the Late Copper Age, as well as during the Early Bronze Age.
© The Neolithisation of the Balkans was also a stage in the initial development of the earliest proto-Indo-Europeans as a stage towards the development of the initial technological terntinology of the agriculture. In this čase of special importance there is evidence of culture integration in the Balkans in terms of the sintilarity betvveen the Karanovo I and Starčevo cultures, as well as the examples when one culture with painted pottery adopted other style (later Gulubnik and Sofia-Slatina). This example defines the culture system as dynamic. In the course of inter-actions, terntinology was probably unified and re-unifited, like the technologicallv unified system: stone and bone implements. For this problem it is important to define continuity in my čase study in western Thrace: after the Neolithic, the Maritsa culture is well-docuntented in the Plovdiv region, as well as the Late Copper Karanovo VI culture, in ali micro-regions. The latest Karanovo VI site in the light of recent evidence dates to the earlier Final Copper Age. At the same tirne, the Central Rhodopi Mountains cave were oc-cupied by the successors of the Karanovo VI culture during the Final Copper I—II, the pottery of which parallels that of the Cernavoda I culture. Because the cultural continuity between the Cernavoda I and Cernavoda III cultures is \vell argued, of special importance is evidence of parallels in the material culture (mainly diachronic) between the Early Bronze I Ezero and Yunatsite cultures, on the one hand, and the Cernavoda III, on the other hand.
At the same time, there is no evidence for steppe migration in western Thrace at ali, which is a very strong counter-argument against any theory connected with Indo-Europeanisation through steppe migration.
From this point - the Early Bronze Age - a long, well-documented continuity characterises the southern Balkans, including western Thrace, with its critical point, the Middle Bronze Age. But knowledge on the earlier Balkan prehistory suggests that in Bulgarian

Thrace there were cyclic economic changes, fol-lowed by the decreasing or temporary disappear-ance of settlement structures. This feature of the southern Balkan prehistoric development fits well with the social model of periodic crises in agricul-tural structures, and social and economic change towards nomadic structures. This fact explains the evidence for some similarity in the ornamentation of Late Bronze Age pottery to that of the Early Bronze Age, following at the same tirne the style of the former period. This pottery appears in the Rho-dopi Mountains in a period when part of the popu-lation was already settled on the plain. But the Early Bronze Age was the last period of long-term settle-ments (tells); the Middle Bronze Age can be defined as a period of gradual development of nomadic structures in the southern Balkans, like those structures which are known for the earliest Indo-Europeans, the Thracians.
In this evolution and integrated model of Indo-Euro-peanisation as a gradual process of change, an in-crease and decrease in arable/stock breeding and nomadic structures, the advances over the migration theory is that there is no homeland identified by material culture, because in my opinion, one and the same culture cannot be equated to one and the same language, just as different cultures are not the same if they have different languages. A language can be unified through active contacts between distant cultures, and at the same tirne peculiarities can increase in micro-regional interactions. In this čase a question appears: to what extent does an archaeological culture equate with a tribe? From an ethnic point of view, the ethnographic peculiarities appear as re-gional characteristics. At this point, the material culture of the distinct archaeological structures has the same feature - the archaeological culture is a region-al definition of a peculiar material culture. This the-oretical similarity makes possible the different archaeological cultures to be defined as different tribes (or clans). Therefore, the Early Neolithic is also a process of initial ethnic structuring and development of the Balkan population and the earliest stage of the proto-Indo-European tribes.
SUMMARY
The study represents the Neolithic sequence in a newly investigated micro-region in the Balkans - the Karlovo Lowland in the upper Stryama valley (north-western Thrace). The excavations of the author in 1992 uncovered Early Neolithic sites (Dubene-Pishti-
kova Mogila teli and the Kliment-Banyata open settlement), as well as a find from the Late Neolithic II period (Dubene - Popovka II). Based on ceramic parallels, they are attributed to the Karanovo I culture and to the Karanovo IV culture. Recent evidence confirms that during the Early Neolithic III (the period of Karanovo II) in western Thrace the development of the Karanovo I culture continued. The village of Kliment-Banyata, with some similarity in the pottery to that of Karanovo II, probably represents the end of that stage in the Stryama valley. At the same tirne, it is clear that the advanced culture developed there was in active contact with neighbour-ing regions, lying on one of the communicated lines connecting Thrace and the Strouma valley and, con-ceivably, northern Bulgaria. The unpublished exca-vations of P. Detev at the Chernichevo teli argue that the Early Neolithic II—III period was represent-ed in the Hissar valley (to the south of the Karlovo Lowland), as well.
As far as the Late Neolithic I period is concerned, materials from the Karanovo III culture originate from excavations by P. Detev at Banya-Ploskata Mogila teli, Chernichevo (II) teli and the Hissar open settlement, as well as from the excavations of N. Madzhev at Banya-Ploskata Mogila. Some finds from the most recent investigations are included in this study to represent the Late Neolithic in the Karlovo Lowland, which parallel that from Hissar. The latest Neolithic sequence is represented by an accidental find from Dubene-Popovka II: a plate with Karanovo IV culture encrusted ornamentation. According to the author, the find confirms that the latter culture was distributed in north-western Thrace, and also economic changes are assumed for LN II in Thrace.
The absence of 14C dates from the upper Stryama valley has required an indirect dating, so the Neolithic chronology and calibrated individual |4C dates, as well as R-combine and Sum-probability for levels and phases from the Neolithic Balkans are given as an appendix. The chronological definition of the different Neolithic periods and of some key sites are based on available 14C dates calibrated with Oxcal program, version 3.0. It is concluded that the Neolithic cultures developed from the later 7th Millennium BC until the end of the 6th Millennium/be-ginning of the 5th Millennium BC (c. 6200-5000/ 4900 BC). EN I is dated to c. 6200 BC- 6000 BC/5900 BC (monochromic and earliest painted phases), which is not documented in Bulgarian Thrace. The EN II span was between 6000 BC/5900 BC and c. 5750 BC (Karanovo I, earlier Starčevo and synchro-
nous cultures). The beginning of EN III (c. 5750) is well dated by the end of the Karanovo I and the beginning of the Karanovo II in eastern Thrace, con-tinuing until 5000-5450 BC (the beginning of the Karanovo III culture). The span of the Karanovo III culture defines LN I (5500/5450 BC - 5250/5000/ 4900 BC) and that of Karanovo IV culture - LN II (c. 5250 BC-5000 BC/4900 BC). This periodisation is based on the culture sequence in Thrace.
APPENDIX
Neolithic Radiocarbon Dating in the Balkans
The absence of Neolithic radiocarbon dates from the upper Stryama valley requires indirect absolute dating. Recentlv armed with calibrated curves, the rela-tive chronology based on cross-cultural contact data (Lazarovici 1979. figs. 17-18; Ozdogan 1993; Laza-rovici and Kalmar 1995; Ozdogan 1997; Brukner 1997; Garašanin 1998; Nikolov 1998;) is easily com-parable with the absolute chronology (Breuning 1987; Vajsov 1998. Tab. 1; Gorsdorf and Bojadžiev 1996. Fig. 1; Glaser 1996; Schier 1996, and above (Tab. 1). Therefore, at the end of this approach to-wards the Neolithic in the Central Balkans I will briefly construct a model of the Neolithic Balkan radiocarbon dating, for the purposes of the indirect absolute dating of the Neolithic cultures of the upper Stryama valley. The fundamental monograph of Breuning (1987) and the recent comprehensive sum-maries of Bulgarian (Gorsdorf and Bojadžiev 1996) and that of Rumanian dates (Mantu 1995) include the basic individual 14C dates, and termolumines-cence dates (Bogdanovič 1996). The Oxcal program (3.0 version by B. C. Ramsay) provides for different interpretations of the available radiocarbon (and termoluminescence) dates.
In this study, of primary importance is the possibility of a Sum probability definition of different l4C date series. In the cases of more than one date from one and the same horizon the Oxcal program requires R-combine dating, which is used here to date severa! key sites (Tab. 4). The Sum probabilities of dates from key phases (Tab. 5) give an approximate span of du-ration. There is are special technique for reduction of the values from wood charcoal, but bearing in mind that the l4C dates give the end of the phase, for the purposes of this study this calculation was elimina-ted below. I should stress that most of the Neolithic samples are from wood, in contrast to the later prehistoric Balkans, but the method of using blocks of
dates for conclusions give dates close to the histori-cal chronology. It should be especiallv stressed that none of my conclusions is based on uncalibrated date comparisons because of the nature of the 14C dates the validity of which depends on the calibrated values. Recently, only in exceptional research are uncalibrated dates stili used, but this archaism of Balkan historiography is almost past.
In light of recent evidence, two periods can be dis-tinguished in the Balkan Neolithic: Early and Late. Until the 80's, the thesis of the Middle Neolithic was popular, to which period recently V. Nikolov attrib-utes so-called Karanovo II/III culture. In my periodisation system this phase, well-argued for by Nikolov, is attributed to the earliest stage of the Late Neolithic, based on the jugs with vertical handles and plastic application in the upper part as one of the remarkable innovations in the Balkans, characteris-ing ali later Neolithic periods in the southern Balkans. I. Vajsov (1998) stili uses Middle Neolithic terminologa attributing the Karanovo III Culture even to the Early Neolithic; the former term is also popular for the stage of classical Starčevo in Yugoslavian historiography. V. Nikolov gave cogent arguments for the evolution from the Karanovo III towards the Karanovo IV cultures, which is my reason for attributing the Karanovo III culture to the earlier Late Neolithic (Nikolova and Madjev 1993)-
The Early Neolithic is divided into three stages. The earlier phase of the first stage (EN IA) is charac-terised by the emergence of monochrome pottery (Donja Branjevina III-Gura Bacuilui Ia, Krajnitsi I, Koprivets I, etc.). It is partially investigated, e. g. there are areas in the Balkans, such as Thrace, in which this stage is missing, but there are no serious reasons to ignore the phase of monochrome pottery in the development of the Neolithic in the Balkans. To this phase belongs the Hoca Cesme IV type from the south-eastern Balkans (Ozdogan 1993■ 185-86). But according to M. Ozdogan (1993-185), at the same type of villages in north-western Turkey a few painted sherds were discovered. The radiocarbon dates plače the EN IA at the latest in the 7th Millennium BC (Chart 1, Tab. 1). The radiocarbon chronology of the Vlasac (Lepenski Vir) culture - from the point of view of recent interpretations - belongs to the pre-ceding Mesolithic period and there is no overlap between the Earliest Neolithic and the Mesolithic of the Central Balkans (Tasič 1992). This dating is im-portant for excluding 6400 BC as possibly the earliest chronological border of the monochromic horizon in the Balkans if it was not a graduate stage from
Site /Horizon	R_combine BP	68.2% confidence BC	95.4% confidence BC	Relative ChronoIIogy
Hoca ^e§me I	7468±27	6360-6220	6380-6210	EN IA
Polyanitsa-Platoto	7271±34	6160-6010	6170-6000	EN IA
Gulubnik 8	6787±33	5665-5600	5690-5590	EN III
Gulubnik 7	6965+53	5860-5720	5950-5690	EN II
Slatina 4	6875±17	5714-5687	5730-5670	EN II
Eleshnitsa 2	6879±21	5720-5688	5745-5670	EN II
Chavdar 5	6922+42	5790-5695	5860-5670	ENIII
Dobrinishtel	6626±38	5580-5450	5580-5440	EN III
Tab. 4. R-combine dating of key levels of the Neolithic Balkans.
Sum	68.2% confidence	95.4% confidence	Period
Hoca Ge§me IV-II	6500-5600	6600-5200	EN I - EN II
Hoca Qe§me III	5950-5660	6350-5500	EN IB
Hoca Cesme II	5820-5330	6150-5200	EN II
Stara Zagora -Okruzhna Bolnitsa IV-V	5800-5520	6050-5400	EN II-EN III
Stara Zagora - Azmak I	5770-5320	6300- 5000	EN II, EN III
Stara Zagora - Azmak 12-3	5720-5440	5950-5200	EN II
Stara Zagora - Azmak 14-6	5490-5140BC	5600-4950BC	EN III
Stara Zagora -Okruzhna Bolnitsa IV	5780-5520	5940-5440	EN III
Karanovo III	5440-5290	5530-5220	LNI
Sitargoi I—II	5450-4600	5700-4400	LNI-II
Tab. 5. Sum probability distribution for site sites and phases from the Neolithic Balkans.
the south towards the north with possible example in southeastern Thrace before 6200 BC (Hoca Cesme IV) (Vajsov 1998).
There are l4C series for the EN IA from Polyanitsa -Platoto I and Hoca (Jesme IV (Charts 1, 2). According to the excavator (Ozdogan 1993; 1997), the third layer seems to precede Karanovo I culture. Despite that most of the dates from the third phase are dated after the beginning of the sixth Millennium BC (Chart 2), the computing programme of the possibil-ity of calculates of any given year that preceded Hoca Cesme III, gives a dating before the end of the sixth Millennium BC (Chart 3).
To the later phase of EN I belongs the earliest white painted pottery horizon of Donja Branjevina II type (Proto-Starčevo II). According to V. Nikolov (1998), pottery with parallels in this horizon was document-ed at a multilevel site in north-eastern Bulgaria, where it followed a monochromic level. Therefore, in light of that evidence EN IB also includes that micro-region. The fact that at Krajnitsi the white level succeeded the monochromic level also suggests a diachronic relation between the earliest white
painted pottery and that of the earliest Karanovo I complex. There are some parallels in Donja Branjevina II and Nevestino I (see above), probably docu-ment this Pre-Karanovo I phase in the central Strou-ma valley. It is difficult to conclude if this phase belongs to EN I (B-C?) or to EN IIA.
There are limited UC dates from the key sites in the northern Balkans from EN IB with published corre-lation between the radiocarbon samples and the ceramic evidence. Tasič (1993; Table A) published dates and some stratigraphic correlation from Donja Branjevina and Magareči mlin. Assuming for the tirne being that EN IB is dated ca. 6100-6000/5900 BC.
The second stage of the EN is characterised by the wide distribution of white painted pottery in the Karanovo I complex, the earlier Gradeshnitsa-Cir^a and earlier Starčevo-Cris cultures, as well as in the Maluk Preslavets type from the eastern lower Danu-be basin with the numerous regional peculiarities (for the middle and upper Strouma see Pavuk 1993, Brukner 1997). The 14C dates from earlier Karanovo I and Starčevo cultural contexts date the stage to earlier Sixth Millennium. The earlier Charvar, Slati-
na and Gulubnik belong to this stage too. For the čase study of the upper Stryama valley, the beginning of the Karanovo II culture in turn gives the bor-der between the EN IIA and EN IIB or between the earlier and later Karanovo I culture in western Thrace. There is a possibility of dating the latest white painted horizon in the upper Stryama valley, as well, and for the results to be compared. The radiocarbon dating of the Karanovo II culture based on the dates from the eponymous site correspond well to the EN III in the Balkans, giving dates between 5750 BC and 5520 BC, with 68.2% confi-dence (Chart 5). The fact that the charcoal samples date that group is not a big problem because those samples date the end of occupation of the levels and we are interested in the beginning of the Karanovo II group. Those dates coincide with the dating of the end of the Slatina 4 (Chart 6) to c. 5750 BC based on the earlier values of 68.2% confidence in the con-text of cross-cultural comparisons.
Therefore, the lowest chronological border of the EN II is c. 6000/5900 BC, and the upper chronological border is c. 5750 BC. This is the period to which can be attributed the earliest levels from the Dubene-Pishtikova Mogila, and probably from Banya-Ploska-ta Mogila and Chernichevo. It is possible the earliest Gradeshnitsa-Circa culture followed the beginning of the Karanovo I culture because of the indirect evidence for the white painted horizon from Devetaki cave (Nikolov 1992).
For the tirne being, the relative chronology is well defined for the Dobrinishte 1 (middle Stryama basin), at the end of the EN II (Chart 7). The calibra-ted values of R-combine 6626+38 BP date the end of the village between 5580 BC and 5450 BC (68.2% confidence) which in short corresponds to later Starčevo and the end of the Karanovo II complex in the eastern Balkans, including the Karanovo II and Ov-charovo groups.
There are 212 14C dates reliable for Sum probability dating of the Early Neolithic Balkans, from pre- and Karanovo I culture and Starčevo complexes to Karanovo II culture. They infer that the span between 6010 BC and 5520 BC (with 68.2% confidence) gives the probable dating of the that period (Chart 4), which fact in my opinion corresponds well to the re-gional chronology of the different culture formations.
In the earlier Late Neolithic (LN I) two tendencies characterise Balkan Neolithic development: on the one hand, the innovatory, bi-conical ceramic style
was distributed in the Karanovo III (including Karanovo II/ III and III/IV after V. Nikolov) and the earliest Vinča, as well as that of the Hamangia cultures (for the chronological sequence of the latter see Vaj-sov 1998. Fig. 1). On the other hand, the decreased evolution of the EN ceramic style of painted pottery was stili distributed in the north-western Balkans. This stage is dated by the Karanovo III Culture l4C dates to the third quarter of sixth Millennium BC (Chart 8); 5440BC-5290 BC is the radiocarbon dating based on the sum probability of 12 dates from Karanovo teli, which coincides with the sum proba-bility based on the dates from the tells of Karanovo III, Kazanluk 6 and 3 and Ezero 24 (Chart 9) to 5440 BC-5280 BC. To this stage belong the LN levels from Banya-Ploskata Mogila and Chernichevo tells.
The late Neolithic II horizon includes Karanovo IV culture in Thrace, an earlier Vinča culture, the earliest Boian, Hotnitsa, Gradeshnitsa and Hamangia cultures in the Balkans between the Drina and the Black Sea, as well as between the Carpathians and the Aegean. The absolute dating of Karanovo IV culture, based on a comparison with the EN II dating of sites from neighbouring regions (Chart 10), is to the fourth quarter of the sixth Millennium BC. This is the stage to which belongs the Dubene-Popovka II encrusted plate.
In light of the recent evidence, the end of the Neolithic in the Balkans occurred between c. 5000 and 4900 BC. The Sum probability of the 283 dates of the Balkan Neolithic confirms mainly the dating of the earlier stages (Chart 11), which can be explained by the fact that more dates belong to the earlier Neolithic.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Dr. M. Budja who invited me in 1995 to participate in the Neolithic Seminar at the Univer-sity of Ljubljana. I extend my thanks to Prof. R. Tring-ham, who was my host at Berkeley during my research there in 1997-1998.1 am also grateful to the Conference of the German Academy of Sciences, which supported my research and teaching at the University of Heidelberg in Winter 1998 - Spring 1999, and to my host professor there, Prof. J. Maran, who gave me the best conditions of work there and consulted with me on many primary research points. B. C. Ramsay was my initial indirect consultant at the beginning of my research on the radiocarbon chronology, whom I thank for his kind replies to my cjuestions.
REFERENCES
BOEV P. 1959- Neoliticni antropologichni materiali ot Yasa Tepe (Plovdiv). Godishnik na Narodniya Arkheologicheski Muzej Plovdiv 3: 89-91.
BOGDANOVIČ M. 1996. Prilog proucavanju apsolut-ne kronologije protostarčevacke i starčevačke kulture. Starinar 47: 187-92.
BRUKNER B. 1997. Proto-Starčevo White Painted and Early Painted Pottery of Southeastern Europe. Similarities and Differences. Anatolica 23: 243-68.
BUDJA M. 1995. Lanscape Changes in the Neolithic and and Eneolithic in Slovenia. Čase Study: Ljubljansko Barje I. Poročilo o raziskovanjupaleolitika, ne-olitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 22: 175-81.
COKHADZHIEV M. 1986. Prouchvane na rannoneo-litnoto selishte kraj Proboj -Pernishki okrug. Arkheo-logiya 27: 3, 41-48.
ČOHADZIEV S. and GENADIEVA V. 1998. Contribu-tion to the Study of the Early neolithic Age in the Struma River Basin. In Stefanovich M. et al. (eds.), In the Steps of James Harvev Gaul: 63-89.
DETE V P. 1950. Selishtnata mogila Banyata pri Kapi-tandimitrievo. Godishnik na Narodniya Arkheologicheski Muzej Plovdiv 2: 1-23.
1960. Razkopki na selishtnata mogila Yasatepe v Plovdiv prez 1959 g- Godishnik na Narodniya Arkheologicheski Muzej Plovdiv 4: 5-74.
1962. Praistorichesko selishte v s. Hissar, Plov-divsko. Arkheologiya 4: 2, 53-55-
1963- Stratigraphiya na selishtnite mogili v Yuzh-na Bulgariya. Godishnik na Narodniya Arkheologicheski Muzej Plo vdiv 5: 5-25.
DRASOVEN F. (ed.) 1996. The Vinča Culture, Its Role and Cultural Connections. Museum Baticum Teme-siense.
GARAŠANIN M. 1966. Khronologiya i genezis na neo-lita v yugoistochnata chast na Balkanskiya poluos-trov. Arkheologiva 8: 1, 16-29-
1998. Kulturstromungen im Neolithimum des sud-lichen Balkanraums. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 73: 25-51.
GATSOVI. AND OZDOGAN M. 1994. Some Epi-Paleo-lithic Sites from NW Turkey. Agačli, Domali and Gti-miisdere. Anatolica 20: 97-120.
GEORGIEV G. 1974. Stratigraphiya i periodizatsiya na neolita i khalkolita v dneshnite bulgarski zemi. Arkheologiya 16: 4, 1-19.
GEORGIEV G., NIKOLOV V., NIKOLOVA V. AND ČOHADZIEV S. 1986. Die neolithische Siedlung Kremenik bei Separeva Banja, Bezirk Kjusdendil. Studia Praehistorica 8: 108-51-
GLASER R. 1996. Zur absoluten Datierung der Vinča-Kultur anhand von l4C-Daten. In Drasoven F. (ed.), The Vinča Culture: 175-212.
GORSDORF J. AND BOJADŽIEVJ. 1996. Zur absoluten Chronologie der bulgarischen Urgeschichte Eu-rasia Antiqua 2: 105-73-
HODDERJ. 1990. The Domestication of Europe.
HOPF M. 1988. Fruhneolithische Kulturplanzen aus Poljanica-Plateau bei Turgovishte (Bulgarien). Studia Praehistorica 9: 34-36.
KALUDOVA Y. 1966. Selishtnata mogila pri s. Ruen, Plovdivsko. Arkheologiya 8: 1, 52-59-
KANCHEV M. AND KANCHEVA T. 1988. Pozdneneo-liticheskpoe poselenie "Khlebozavoda" u goroda Nova Zagora. Studia Praehistorica 9: 68-83-
KANCHEVA T. 1988. Spatneolithische Kunstwerke im Museum von Nova Zagora Studia Praehistorica 13: 74-86.
KARMANSKI S. 1968. Slikana keramika sa lokalite-ta Donja Branjevina kod Deronja.
KRAJCHEV I. 1970. Predi 7000 godini. Novootkrito praistorichesko selishte v Karlovo. Karlovska Tribuna 148, fune 12: 4.
LAZAROVICI G. 1979. Neoliticul Banatului. Muzeul National de Istorie a Transilvaniei.
LAZAROVICI G. AND KALMAR Z. 1995. Gura Bacu-lui. Muzeul National de Istorie a Transilvaniei.
NIKOLOV B. 1975. Selishte ot stariya neolit pri s. Gradeshnotsa, Vrachanski okrug. Arkheologoya 27: 4, 3-17.
1986. Selishte ot kusniya neolit pri s. Brenitsa, Vrachanski okrug. Arkheologiya 38: 4, 5-17.
1992. Periodizatsiya na neolitnite kulturi v Severna Bulgariya. Izvestiya na Muzeite v Severoza-padna Bulgariya 18: 11-23, figs. 1-17.
NIKOLOV V. 1992. Mittelneolithische Keramik aus Karanovo: typologische Charakteristik. Balcanica 23: 123-31.
1994. Risuvanata ornamentatsiya vurkhu ranno-neolitni keramichni sudove ot Chavdar. Godi-shnik na Department Arklieologiya NBU 1: 185-208.
1998. Prouchvaniya vurkhu neolitnata keramika v Trakiya. Keramichnite kompleksi Karanovo //-///, III and III-IV v konteksta na Severo-zapadna Anatoliya i Yugoiztochna Evropa,
NIKOLOVA L. 1994 Novootkriti praistoricheski seli-shta v gornoto techenie na r. Stryama (Severozapad-na Trakiya). Anali 2-3: 5-11.
NIKOLOVA L. AND MADJEV N. 1994. Prahistorische Funde aus Bulgarien (das Strjama - Tal). MKM.
OZDOGAN M. 1993 Vinča and Anatolia: A New Look at a Very Old Problem. Anatolica 19: 173-93-
1997 The Beginning of the Neolithic Economy in Southeastern Europe: An Anatolian Perspective. Journal of European Archaeology 5: 2, 1-33■
OZDOGAN M. and DEDE Y. 1998. An Anthropomor-phic Vessel from Toptepe - Eastern Thrace. In Stefa-novich M. et al. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul: 143-52.
PANAYOTOV I, GATSOV I. AND POPOVA Ts. 1992. "Pompena stantsiya" bliz s. Maluk Preslavets - ranno-neoliticheskoe peselenie s intramuralnymi porgebe-niyami. Studia Praehistorica 11-12: 51-61.
PARZINGER H. 1993. Studien zur Chronologie und Kulturgeschichte der Jungstein-, Kupfer- und Fridi-bronzezeit zivischen Karpaten und Mittleren Tau-rus. Vols. 1-2. Romisch-germanischen Forshungen 52.
PERNICHEVA L. 1990. Le site de Kovachevo. Neoli-thique ancien, dans de department de Blagoevgrad. Studia Praehistorica 10: 142-96.
PETKOV N. 1948. Ginova Mogila do s. Chelopech, Pirdopsko. Razkopki i prouchvaniya 1: 75-81.
PYKE G. and YIOUNI P. 1996. Nea Nikomedea. Vol, 1. The British School at Athens. Suppl. Vol. 25.
POPOV V. AND VAJSOV I. 1992. Spasitelni razkopki na praistoricheskoto selishte kraj s. Koprivets, obshti-na Balya. Arkheologicheski otkritiya i razkopki prez 1991:9-11.
SCHNIER W. 1996. The Relative and Absolute Chro-nology of Vinča: New Evidence from the Tvpe Site. In Drasoven F. (ed.), The Vinča Culture: 141-62.
SEFERIADES M. 1993. The European Neolithization Process. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neoli-tika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 21: 137-62.
STEFANOVICH M, TODOROVA H. AND HAUPTMANN H. (eds.) 1998. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul, Vol. 1 James Harvey Gaul in Memoriuam.
TASIČ N. N. 1988 Comparative C-14 dates for the Neolithic Settlements in Serbia. In Srejovič D. (ed.), The Neolithic in Serbia. Archaeological Research 1948-1988: 45-47.
1992. A Review of the C14 Series of Dates from Derdap. Balcanica 23: 89-98.
1993 Nekoliko novih radio-karbon datuma sa lo-kaliteta Derone i Magarechi Mlin. Glasnik SAD 9: 99-102.
TSONEV Ts. 1995. Collection of Flint Artefacts from the Upper Valley of the Stryama River, Karlovo Region. In Nikolova L. (ed.), Early Bronze Age Settlement Patterns in the Balkans (ca. 3500-2000 BC, Calibrated Dates). Part 1. Agatho and Foundation Prehistory. Sofia. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects vol, 1:57-63-
VAJSOV 1.1984. Anthropomorphnyya plastika iz pra-istoricheskogo poseleniya Kurilo-Kremenitsa, Sofij-skogo okruga. Studia Praehistorica 7: 33-63-
1998. Studies in Memoriam of James Harvey Gaul on the Typology of Anthropomorphic Figurines from Northeastern Bulgaria. In Stefanovich M. et
al. (eds.), In the Steps of fames Harvey Gaul: 107-41.
VANDOVA V. 1997. Typology of the Neolithic Small Altars from Southern Bulgaria. Archaeology in Bul-garia 1: 1, 23-29.
ZVELEBIL M. 1994. Plant Use in the Mesolithic and its Role in the Transition to Farming. Proceedings of Prehistoric Society 60: 35-74.
CHARTS
M, Stuiver. A. Long and R. S. Kra eds 1993 Radiocarbon 35(1); OxCal v3.0d cub r:4 sd:12 probfchronl
Sum Early Neolithic IA	
	68.2% confidence
	6500BC (13.9%) 6350BC
	6200BC (54.3%) 5850BC
	95.4% confidence
J	6550BC (95.4%) 5800BC Lii
i i.........i..... f- i i i i .i	
7000BC	6500BC	6000BC	5500BC
Calendar date
Chart 1. Sum-probability for >4C dating of EN IA in the Eastern Balkans (Hoca (e$me IV and Polyanitsa-Platoto) n = 7.
M. Stuiver, A. Long and R. S. Kra eds. 1993 Radiocarbon 35(1); OxCal v3.0d cub r:4 sd:12 prob[chron]
Calibrated date
Chart 2. 14C dated sequence of the Hoca Cesme IV, III and IIphases.
M. Stuiver. A. Long and R. S. Kra eds. 1993 Radiocarbon 35(1); OxCal v3.0d cub r:4 sd:12 prob[chron]
M. Stuiver, A. Long and R. S. Kra eds. 1993 Radiocarbon 35(1); OxCal v3.0d cub r:4 sd:12 prob[chron)
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
Before Hoca Cesme III
68.2% confidence
... (68.2%) 6091 BC 95.4% confidence ... (95.4%) 6396BC
7000BC	6500BC	6000BC
Calendar date
5500BC
Chart 3■ The computing of the possibility of the calculates the probability of any given year preceding Hoca (testne III.
0.8 06 0 4 0.2 0.0
Sum Early Neolithic
68.2% confidence 6010BC (68.2%) 5520BC 95.4% confidence 6500BC (95.4%) 5200BC
7500BC 7000BC 6500BC 6000BC 5500BC 5000BC 4500BC Calendar date
Chart 4. Sum probability for dating of the EN in the Balkans based on 212 dates.
M. Stuiver, A. Long and R. S. Kra eds. 1993 Radiocarbon 35(1); OxCal v3.0d cub r.4 sd:12 prob[chronJ
M. Stuiver, A. Long and R. S. Kra eds. 1993 Radiocarbon 35(1); OxCal v3.0d cub r:4 sd:12 prob(chron)
	
5	
.o	0.8
o	
o.	0.6
>	
00	0.4
O)	
ct	0.2
	0.0
6000BC
5500BC Calendar date
5000BC
Sum Karanovo II	
	68.2% confidence
	5750BC (64.1%) 5570BC
	5550BC ( 4.1%) 5520BC
	95.4% confidence
i	5850BC (95.4%) 5250BC L.
	
Chart 5. Sum probability of radiocarbon dating of the Karanovo II culture.
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
Sum Slatina 4
68.2% confidence
5770BC (68.2%) 5600BC 95 4% confidence 5940BC ( 2.8%) 5910BC 5880BC (92 6%) 5580BC
6200BC 6000BC 5800BC 5600BC 5400BC 5200BC Calendar date
Chart 6. Sum probability of dating of the end of the Burnt House from Slatina 4 (end of EN II A).
M. Stuiver, A. Long and R. S. Kra eds. 1993 Radiocarbon 35(1); OxCal v3.0d cub r:4 sd:12 prob[chron)
6900BP
J 6800BP 3
| 6700BP 6600BP | 6500BP ^ 6400BP 6300BP
R Comblne Dobrlnishtel
6626±38BP
68.2% confidence 5580BC (24.9%) 5540BC 5530BC (38.9%) 5480BC 5460BC (4.5%) 5450BC 95.4% confidence 5580BC (95.4%) 5440BC X2-Test: df=1 T=0.3(5% 3.8)
I_I I_I u
5800CalBC 5700CaiBC 5600CalBC 5500CalBC 5400CalBC 5300CalBC 5200CalBC
Calibrated date
Chart 7. R-combine probability of dating of the Dobrinitshte (the end of EN HB in the Balkans).
M Slu iver, A. Long and R. S. Kra eds. 1993 Radiocarbon 35(1): OxCal v3 0d cub r:4 sd:12 probichron]
Sum LN 1 Karanovo III	
	68.2% confidence
	5440BC (67.0%) 5310BC
	5300BC (1.2%) 5290BC
	95.4% confidence
	5530BC (95.4%) 5220BC i
J L i ■ i	A. m ! i I. i 1 , 1
M Sluiver. A. Long and R. S Kra eds. 1993 Radiocarbon 35(1|; OxCai v3.0d cub r:4 sd:12 prob[chron]
5800BC 5600BC 5400BC 5200BC 5000BC 4800BC Calendar date
Chart 8. Karanovo III levels absolute dating based on the sum probability of 12 dates.
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
Sum LN 1 Kar III culture	
	68.2% confidence
	5440BC (68.2%) 5280BC
	95.4% confidence
	5530BC (90.6%) 5200BC
	5180BC ( 2.7%) 5130BC
J	5120BC (2.1%) 5070BC L
..... ...... i	
6000BC
5500BC	5000BC
Calendar date
4500BC
Chart 9. Karanovo III culture absolute dating based on the dates from Karanovo, Ka-zanluk and Ezero tells.
	
B	
ro -O	0.8
o	
CL 0)	0.6
>	
ro	0.4
0)	
cr	0.2
	0.0
. Stuiver, A. Long and R. S. Kra eds. 1993 Radiocarbon 35(1); OxCal v3.0d cub r:4 sd:12 prob[chron]
Sum LN IIB The S Balkans
68.2% confidence 5270BC (62.7%) 4930BC 4840BC ( 5.5%) 4780BC 95.4% confidence 5350BC (95.4%) 4500BC
5500BC	5000BC	4500BC
Calendar date
4000BC
Chart 10. Late Neolithic II in the Bulgaria and the northern Aegean dated by the ,4C dates from Kachica 3, Topolnitsa and Sitga-roi II.
M Stuiver, A. Long and R. S. Kra eds 1993 Radiocarbon 35(1}; OxCal v3.0d cub r:4 sd:12 prob[ctiron]
0.8 0.6 0 4 0.2 0.0
Sum Balkan Neolithic
68.2% confidence 6050BC (68.2%) 5300BC 95.4% confidence 6500BC (95.4%) 4700BC
7500BC7000BC6500BC6000BC5500BC5000BC4500BC4000BC Calendar date
Chart 11. Sum probability of the Neolithic absolute dating the Balkans based on 283 >4C dates.
Table A. Individual calibrated dates from Neolithic sites in the Balkans (later Seventh- earlier Fifth Mil-lennia BC), R-combine for individual levels and Sum-probability for phases. References for the dates: Breuning 1987; Tasič 1988; Mantu 1995 and Gorsdorf and Bojadžiev 1996 (uith ref); Tasic 1993; Ozdogan 1993.186; Pyke G. and Yiouni P. 1996.195; Schier 1996; Gldser 1996; Ozdogan 1997.28; Ozdogan and Dede 1998.150. Calibrated by Oxcal 3.0.
EN - Early Neolithic LN - Late Neolithic EC - Early Copper
Comment: The kind of the most of the samples and their stratigraphic conte.vt are given in the original publications.
Site	Labaratorv and Sample No.	BP	68.2% confidence BC	95-4% confidence BC	Complex (Culture, Group, Type) Period
Anzabegovo	LJ-2519	7560±70	6460-6250	6470-6190	Anzabegovo-Vršnik
Anzabegovo Ia	LJ-2181	7340±250	6450-5850	6700-5600	
	LJ-3032	7210±50	6120-5970	6170-5950	
	LJ-2330/2331	7180±60	6110-5950	6170-5870	
	LJ-3187	7150±70	6050-5880	6170-5820	
	LJ-3183	7150+50	6030-5890	6120-5860	
	LJ-3185	6830±70	5720-5600	5810-5520	
	LJ-2347	6700+150	5690-5440	5950-5250	
Sum-probability Anzabegovo Ia			6150-5550 6050 (56.2%) 5940	6400-5400	EN I
Anzabegovo Ib	LJ-2341	7230+170	6220-5860	6400-5700	Anzabegovo-Vršnik
	LJ-2342	7120+200	6170-5730	6400-5550	
	LJ-2332	7110+120	6050-5800	6170-5710	
	LJ-2339	7110±70	6010-5850	6120-5770	
Sum-probability Anzabegovo Ib			6120-5790 6060 (63.8%) 5790	6400-5650	
Sum-probability Anzabegovo Ia-b			6200-5600 6200 (62.0%) 5800	6400-5400	EN I-beginning EN II?
Anzabegovo Ib/II	LJ-2337	7080±60	5980-5850	6020-5760	Anzabegovo-Vršnik
Anzabegovo II	LJ-2157	7030±330	6200-5550	6500-5200	
	LJ-2405	6940±80	5930-5690	5960-5630	
	LJ-2333	6840+120	5810-5580	5950-5480	
	LJ-2409	6850+50	5720-5630	5770-5590	
	LJ-2338	6800±140	5790-5520	5950-5400	
	LJ-2156	6630+300	5850-5200	6200-4800	
Sum-probability Anzabegovo II			5940-5530 5870 (65.4%) 5570	6300-5000	EN II
Anzabegovo II/III	LJ-2343	7000±280	6150-5550	6400-5300	Anzabegovo-Vršnik
	LJ-2351	7050±80	5970-5800	6020-5700	
Anzabegovo III	LJ-2344	7000±270	6150-5550	6400-5300	Anzabegovo-Vršnik
	LJ-2345	6540±120	5580-5330	5630-5250	
	LJ-2185	6510+110	5560-5320	5600-5250	
Sum-probabillty Anzabegovo III			5630-5260	6200-5200	ENIII-LN 1
Anzabegovo IV	LJ-2329	6230+60	5250-5070	5280-4990	Anzabegovo-Vršnik
					IV
	LJ-2411	6070±190	5220-4780	5450-4500	
Sum-probability Anzabegovo IV			5270-4980	5350-4600	LN
Sum Anzabegovo			6150-5550	6500-4900	EN-LN
Banja	Bln-873	7048+100	5970-5770	6050-5680	Proto-Starčevo EN I
Beran Krš 7	Z-491	6030±l60	5210-4720	5300-4500	Vinča / LN-EC
Beran Krš 13	Z-492	5870±150	4910-4540	5200-4350	
Site	Labaratorv and Sample No.	BP	68.2% confidence BC	95.4% confidence BC	Complex (Culture, Group, Type) Period
Bulgarchevo 4	Bln-2614	6100+50	5070-4930	5210-4850	Topolnitsa
Chavdar 6	Bln-1583	7208±52	6120-5970	6170-5950	Karanovo I
	Bln-1580	7202+55	6120-5970	6170-5890	
	Bln-2108	7195±65	6120-5960	6170-5880	
	Bln-1663	7070±50	5970-5850	5990-5780	
	Bln-1582	7020+45	5950-5800	5960-5750	
	Bln-1581	7000+60	5940-5760	5960-5710	
	Bln-1579	7003±45	5940-5770	5960- 5730	
	Bln-1578	6994+55	5940-5760	5960-5710	
	Bln-2662	6820+50	5695-5615	5740-5580	
R-combine Chavdar 6		7049±17	5950-5855	5960-5840	EN 11
Chavdar 5	Bln-4261	7120±80	6040- 5850	6130-5760	Karanovo I / EN II
	Bln-4106	6840+50	5710-5625	5760- 5590	
R-combine Chavdar 5			5790-5695	5860- 5670	EN II
Chavdar 4	Bln-ll60A	7040+100	5970-5770	6050-5670	Karanovo 1
	Bln-1251	6997±100	5950-5730	6000-5630	
	Bln-ll62A	6985+100	5950-5720	5990-5630	
	Bln-1241A	6930+100	5940-5670	5960-5600	
	Bln-1241	6852±100	5780-5590	5950-5520	
	Bln-1160	6680+100	5620-5440	5720-5380	
R_Combine Chavdar 4		6917+41	5780-5695	5850-5670	EN II
Chavdar 3	Bln-998	7045+120	5980-5750	6120-5630	Kremikovtsi
	Bln-908	6990+150	5970-5690	6150-5500	
	Bln-911	6870+120	5820-5590	5960-5520	
	Bln-909	6815+100	5750-5580	5940-5480	
	Bln-1030	6760±100	5710-5520	5790B-5440	
	Bln-910	6665±100	5600-5440	5710-5340	
R_Combine Chavdar 3		6833±45	5705-5625	5740-5590	EN III
Chavdar 2	Bln-906	6720±100	5680-5490	5750-5430	Kremikovtsi / EN III
Circea-Viaduct III	Bln-1981	6540+60	5570-5380	5580-5330	Later Gradeshnitsa -
					Circea
	Bln-1982	6430+60	5440-5310	5440-5260	
	Bln-1983	6395+60	5430-5270	5440-5240	
Sum-probability Circea-Viaduct III			5550-4700 5550(65.2%) 5250	5600-4550	LN I
Circea-Viaduct	Bln-1978	6585165	5570-5440	5600-5340	Dudesti - Vinča B
	Bln-2292	6325+60	5330-5140	5430-5070	
	Bln-2008	6250140	5260-5080	5270-5070	
	Bln-1980	6IOO16O	5200-4930	5220-4840	
Sum-probability Circea-Viaduct			5600-4950 5350(49.7%) 4950	5600 (95.4%) 4900	LN II
Čuka	Z-495	7010H90	6010-5660	6250-5500	Starčevo
Dikili Tash I	Gif-1740	6450+160	5570-5240	5650-5000	
	Gif-1737	6400+160	5480- 5080	5600-4950	
	Gif-1735	6170+160	5270- 4920	5450-4700	
Sum Dikili Tash 1			5480-5060	5600- 4800	LN I
Dikili Tash II	Gif-1736	5990H60	5200-4700	5300-4500	Sitagroi - Dikili Tash
	Gif-1424	5750H50	4780-4450	4950-4250	
	Gif-1425	5750H40	4770-4460	4950-4300	
Dikili Tash II			4910-4450	5250-4300	LN II
Divostin	Bln-899	72001100	6170-5890	6220-5810	Proto-Starčevo
	Bln-826	71201100	6050-5830	6170-5730	
Site	Labaratory and Sample No.	BP	68.2% confidence BC	95.4% confidence BC	Complex (Culture, Group, Type) Period
	Bln-823	7080±180	6110-5720	6350-5550	
	Bln-866/899	7050±100	5970-5770	6050-5680	
	Bln-824	6970±100	5940-5710	5980-5620	
	Bln-896	6950±100	5940-5690	5970-5610	
	BM-573	6935+98	5940-5680	5960-5600	
	Bln-827	6910±100	5850-5630	5960-5590	
Sum-probability Divostin			5960-5690	6200-5500	EN I
Dobrinishte 1	Bln-3785	6650±60	5590-5480	5610-5430	Kremenik
	Bln-3786	6610+50	5570-5440	5580-5430	
R-combine Dobrinishte 1		6626±38	5580-5450 5530BC (38.9%) 5480BC	5580- 5440	EN III
Donja Branevinja	Gm-15974	7155+50	6040- 5890	6120-5860	
			6040 (64.6%)	6060 (77.4%)	
			5950	5930	
	GrN-15976	7140±90	6110-5850	6170-5770	
			6050 (46.5%)		
			5930		
	GrN-15975	6955+50	5850-5720	5950-5690	
Sum Donja Branevinja			6050- 5740	6120- 5700	Proto-Starčevo and earlv Starčevo EN I—II
Eleshnitsa 2	Bln-3238	7010+60	5950-5770	5960-5720	Karanovo I
	Bln-3241	6960+60	5930-5710	5950-5680	
	Bln-3242	6940±50	5830-5700	5940-5670	
	Bln-3239	6920+60	5820-5680	5940-5630	
	Bln-3240	6850±50	5720-5630	5770-5590	
	Bln-3237	6790±50	5675-5595	5720-5530	
	Bln-3245	6730+90	5690-5520	5730-5440	
	Bln-3244	6720±70	5670-5520	5690-5440	
R-combine Eleshnitsa 2		6879+21	5720- 5688	5745-5670	EN 11
Ezero 24	Bln-1833	6415+70	5430-5280	5450-5230	Karanovo III
	Bln-530	6270+80	5280-5070	5430-4990	
R-combine Ezero 24		6353+53	5380-5240 5340(64.8%) 5240	5430-5210	LN I
Gornja Tuzla	GrN-2059	6640+75	5580-5440	5640-5430	Later Starčevo/EN III
Grivac	Bln-869	7250+100	6170-5980	6360-5860	Proto-Starčevo/EN I
Gulubnik 1	Bln-3579H	7220+80	6160-5960 6070 (47.2%) 5960	6190-5870 6190 (91.4%) 5930	Gulubnik
	Bln-3580	7120+70	6020-5850 6020 (41.7%) 5930	6120-5770 6060 (92.8%) 5770	
	Bln-3579	7030+70	5960- 5790	5980-5710	
	Bln-3582	6950+70	5930-5700	5960-5660	
R-combine Gulubnik 1		7073+36	5965-5865	5980-5820	EN II
Gulubnik 7	Bln-4096	7140+80	6050-5860	6170-5780	Later Starčevo
	Bln-4095	7020+150	5980-5700	6200-5550	
	Bln-4094	6760+80	5690-5520	5750-5440	
R-combine Gulubnik 7		6965+53	5860- 5720	5950-5690 5890 (84.7%) 5690	EN II
Gulubnik 8	Bln-4091	6760+60	5675-5580	5720-5520	Later Starčevo
	Bln-4092	6710+60	5640-5520	5680-5440	
	Bln-3576	6670+70	5600-5480	5640-5430	
Site	Labaratory and Sample No.	BP	68.2% confidence BC	95.4% confidence BC	Coniplex (Culture, Group, Type) Period
R-combine Gulubnik 8		6718±36	5605-5525 5605 (45.8%) 5570	5670-5520	EN III
Hoca (teme IV	Bln-4609	7637±43	6470-6410	6550-6370	Hoca Ces me
	GrN-19779	7360±35	6220-6060	6240-6040	
	GrN-19355	7200±180	6190-5820	6400-5650	
R-combine Hoca Ce§me IV		7468±27	6360-6220	6380-6210	EN IA
Hoca (Jedrne III	GrN-19357	7135+270	6250-5650	6500-5450	Hoca Qe§me
	GrN-19311	6960+65	5930-5710	5960-5670	
	GrN-19780	6920±90	5930-5670	5950-5600	
	GrN-19781	6900+110	5850-5620	5960-5580	
Sum Hoca Ces me III			5950-5660	6350-5500	EN IB-II
Hoca ^e§me II	GrN-19782	6890+60	5780-5630	5860-5600	
	GrN-19310 (or GrN-19356)	6890±280	6000-5450	6400-5200	
	GrN-19356 (or GrN-19310)	6520+110	5570-5330	5600-5250	
Sum Hoca (Je§me II			5820-5330	6150-5200	EN II
Sum Hoca (Je§me			6500-5600	6600-5200	EN I-II
Karanovo I	Bln-4179	7130+70	6040-5860	6120-5780	Karanovo 1
	Bln-4336	7110+50	5990-5870	6050-5830	
	Bln-4177	7110+50	5990-5870	6050-5830	
	Bln-4339	7090+90	6000-5810	6120-5720	
	Bln-4338	6955+45	5840- 5720	5940-5690	
	Bln-3942	6820±50	5695-5615	5740- 5580	
	Bln-4337	6810+65	5695-5595	5770-5520	
	Bln-4335	6710±55	5630-5520	5680-5450	
Sum-probability Karanovo I			6000-5530 6000BC (39.5%) 5840BC	6050-5500	EN II
Karanovo II	Bln-3716	6910±60	5810-5670	5940-5620	Karanovo II
	Bln-3716H	6850±60	5730-5620	5810-5590	
	Bin-152	6807±100	5740-5530	5860-5480	
	Bln-3944	6785+60	5680-5590	5730-5520	
	Bln-3586	6780±60	5680-5590	5730-5520	
	Bln-3943	6760+50	5665-5585	5700-5520	
	Bln-3941	6750+50	5670-5530	5700-5520	
	Bln-201	6540+100	5570-5330	5600-5270	
	Bln-234	6490+150	5570-5270	5700-5050	
Sum probability Karanovo II			5750- 5520	5850- 5250	EN III
Kazanluk 6	Bln-730	6335+160	5440-5070	5600-4900	Karanovo III/LN I
Kazanluk 3	Bln-729	6330±100	5430-5080	5450-5040	Karanovo III/LN I
Kremenik 2	Bln-2554	6620±100	5590-5440	5670-5330	Kremenik
	Bln-2552	6460±60	5440-5330	5480-5260	
Kremenik 3	Bln-2555	6840+60	5720-5615	5790-5580	Kremenik
	Bln-2553	6660+60	5600-5480	5620-5440	
	Bln-2105	6530±50	5530-5340	5570-5330	
	Bln-2556	6480±60	5450-5330	5530-5270	
	Bln-2106	6475±40	5440-5335	5450-5310	
Kremenik 4	Bln-2550	6550+60	5570-5380	5580-5330	Kremenik
	Bln-2551	6450±100	5450-5280	5580-5210	
	Bln-2549	6350±60	5380-5220	5440-5140	
Sum-probability Kremenik 2-4			5570-5310 5530 (64..5%) 5310	5720-5240	EN II
Site	Labaratory and Sample No.	BP	68.2% confidence BC	95.4% confidence BC	Complex (Culture, Group, Type) Period
Magareci Mlin	Grn-15973	7130+60	6020-5870 6020 (48.3%) 5930	6120-5820 6060 (92.8%) 5820	
	GrN-15972	7015+90	5960-5760	6000-5670	
	GrN-15971	6910±45	5780-5685	5860-5630	
Sum Magareci Mlin			6000-5690 6000 (17.3%) 5930	6050-5670	Proto-Starčevo and early Starčevo EN I-II
Nea Nekomedea	P-1202	7557+91	6460-6230	6550-6170	Nea Nekomedea
	OxA-l6o6	7400±100	6370-6060	6410-6010	
	OxA-4282	7400±90	6370-6060	6400-6010	
	OxA-l605	7400+90	6370-6060	6400-6010	
	OxA-3876	7370±90	6360-6050	6380-6000	
	0xA-3874	7370±80	6350-6050	6370-6010	
	OxA-l604	7340+90	6230-6030	6370-5990	
	OxA-3873	7300+80	6180-6020	6360-5960	
	OxA-3875	7280±90	6180-6010	6360-5950	
	P-1203A	7281+74	6170-6020	6230-5960	
	OxA-4283	7260+90	6170-5990	6240-5880	
	OxA-4281	7100±90	6010-5820	6120-5720	
	OxA-l603	7050±80	5970-5800	6020-5700	
	OxA-4280	6920+120	5940-5630	5980-5570	
Sum Nea Nekomedea			6360-5990	6450-5700	EN I-II
Ogradena-Icoana	Bln-1056	7445±80	6370-6180	6420-6050	Starčevo-Cris / EN I
Ovcharovo-Gorata 1	Bln-1544	6688±60	5610-5480	5670-5440	Karanovo II -Ovcharovo aspect A
	Bln-1620	6463±50	5435-5335	5450-5280	
R-combine Ovcharovo-Gorata 1		6558+38	5525-5435 5505 (61.0%) 5435	5570-5380 5530 (82.3%) 5420	
Ovcharovo-Gorata 3	Bln-2032	6555+70	5450-5330	5530-5270	Ovcharovo
Sum-probability Ovcharovo-Gorata 1/3			5590-5330	5630-5290	EN III
Ovcharovo-Platoto 1	Bln-1356	6480±60	5450-5330	5530-5270	Ovcharovo EN III
Padina BI		7100+80	6010-5840	6120-5740	Proto-Starčevo EN I
Polyanitsa-Platoto I	Bln-1571	7535+80	6430-6230	6470-6180	Koprivets I
	Bln-1613	7380±60	6110-5950	6170-5870	
	Bln-l6l3A	7275±60	6170-6010	6190-5980	
	Bln-1512	7140+80	6050-5860	6170-5780	
R-combine PoIyanitsa-Platoto		7334+34	6180-6060 6180-6120	6220-6040	EN IA
Porodin	KN-I.596	7240+55	6130-5990	6180-5970	Starčevo
	H-1486/987	7120+140	6120-5780	6250-5650	
R-combine Porodin		7224±51	6120- 5980	6170-5960	EN II
Priština-Predionica	Bln-435	6280±80	5290-5070	5430-4990	Vinča A
Selevac	Z-233	6366+100	5430-5220	5450-5060	Vinča B/C
	Z-233B	6152+90	5220-4960	5270-4840	B/C
	Z-233A	6ll3±80	5210-4930	5230-4830	B/C
	LJ-2523	6100+100	5210-4860	5250-4790	
	LJ-2521	6080±70	5070-4850	5220-4810	B/C
Sum-probability Selevac			5220-4900	5450- 4800	LN II
Servia	BM-1103	6880+49	5760-5665	5820-5610	
	BM-1104	6747+51	5670-5530	5700-5520	
	BM-1106	6690+83	5630=5480	5690-5430	
	BM-1107	6606+55	5570=5440	5590-5430	
Sum Servia			5670- 5450	5770-5430	EN-LN
Site	Labaratory and Sample No.	BP	68.2% confidence BC	95.4% confidence BC	Complex (Culture, Group, Type) Period
Sitagroi I	Bln-779	6625+170	5670-5330	5850-5200	
	Bln-778	6425+100	5440-5270	5570-5140	
	BM-648	6265+75	5280-5070	5340-4990	
Sum-probability Sitagroi I			5490-5080 5490 (57.3%) 5200	5750-5000	Sitagroi LN I
Sitagroi II	Bln-884	6240+100	5280-5050	5430-4930	Sitagroi 11
	Bln-777	5920±120	4950-4610	5100-4450	
	Bln-649	5904+66	4900-4710	4940-4600	
	Bln-776	5720+100	4700-4460	4780-4350	
Sum-probability Sitagroi II			5250-4500 4950 (62.1%) 4500	5300(95.4%) 4350	LN II
Slatina 4	Bln-3504	6970+60	5930-5730	5960-5690	Karanovo I
	BIn-3441	6960±60	5930-5710	5950-5680	
	Bln-3438	6960+60	5930-5710	5950-5680	
	Bln-3439	6940±60	5840-5700	5950-5660	
	Bln-3434	6890+60	5780-5630	5860-5600	
	Bln-3435	6860+50	5730-5635	5790-5590	
	Bln-3440	6840±60	5720-5615	5790-5580	
	Bln-3443	6840+60	5720-5615	5790-5580	
	Bln-3436	6840±60	5720-5615	5790-5580	
	Bln-3555	6830±60	5710-5610	5780-5580	
	Bln-3437	6810±50	5685-5605	5730-5580	
	Bln-3442	6780±60	5680-5590	5730-5520	
R-combine Slatina 4		6875+17	5714- 5687	5730-5670	EN II
Stara Zagora-Azmak 1-1	Bln-293 Bln-291	7303±150 7158+150	6350-5970 6170-5830	6450-5800 6400-5650	Karanovo I
	Bln-292	6878+100	5810-5610	5950-5570	
	Bln-294	6768+100	5710-5520	5800-5440	
R-combine Stara Zagora-Azmak 1-1		6956+59	5850-5710	5950-5680	EN II
Stara Zagora-Azmak 1-2	Bln-296	6779±100	5720-5520	5820-5440	Karanovo I
	Bln-295	6720±100	5680-5490	5750-5430	
R-combine Stara Zagora-Azmak 1-2		6750+71	5680- 5520	5720- 5480	ENIII
Stara Zagora-Azmak 1-3	Bln-203	6870+100	5800-5600	5950-5520	Karanovo I
	Bln-299	6812+100	5750-5580	5860-5480	
	Bln-267	6758+100	5710-5520	5790-5440	
	Bln-297	6675±100	5610-5440	5720-5380	
	Bln-224	6650±150	5670-5380	5800-5250	
	Bln-298	6540+100	5570-5330	5600-5270	
R-combine Stara Zagora-Azmak 1-3		6727+43	5625-5525	5680- 5520	ENIII
Stara Zagora-Azmak 1-4	Bln-301	6483±100	5480-5280	5580-5240	Karanovo I
	Bln-300	6426±150	5530-5220	5600-5000	
Stara Zagora-Azmak 1-5	Bln-430	6279±120	5330-5060	5440-4940	Karanovo I
Sum probability Stara Zagora-Azmak 1-4-5			5490-5140	5600- 4950	EN III
Stara Zagora-Azmak II	Bln-140A	6476±100	5480-5280 5450 (66.5%) 5280	5580-5230 5530 (90.6%) 5230	LN I
Stara Zagora-Okruzhna Bolnitsa V	Bln-1586	6814+65	5700-5600	5770-5520	Karanovo I
Site	Labaratory and Sample No.	BP	68.2% confidence BC	95.4% confidence BC	Coinplex (Culture, Group, Type) Period
	Bln-1587	7139±65	6040-5880	6120-5810	
Sum-probability Stara Zagora-Okruzhna Bolnitsa V			6020- 5590	6150- 5500	EN II
Stara Zagora-Okruzhna Bolnitsa IV	Bln-1590	6939±60	5840-5700	5950-5660	Karanovo II
	Bln-1589	6918+45	5790-5690	5930-5660	
	BIn-1250	6820+100	5750-5580	5940-5480	
	Bln-1164A	6744±100	5700-5520	5770-5430	
	Bln-1164	6723±100	5680-5500	5760-5430	
	Bln-1163	6688+150	5690-5440	5850-5250	
Stara Zagora-Okruzhna Bolnitsa IVI	Bln-1588	6750+60	5670-5530	5710-5500	
Sum-probability Stara Zagora-Okruzhna Bolnitsa IV			5780- 5520	5940- 5440	EN III
Starčevo	GrN-9036	6920±45	5790-5695	5940-5660	Later Starčevo
	GrN-7155	6835+70	5720-5600	5820-5570	
	GrN-9035	6835±45	5705-5625	5740-5590	
	GrN-8231	6700±70	5630-5480	5680-5440	
	GrN-9037	6700+55	5625-5520	5670-5440	
	GrN-9034	6640±45	5580-5450	5590-5440	
	GrN-6629	6615+65	5580-5440	5600-5430	
	GrN-6626	6610+65	5570-5440	5600-5380	
	GrN-7154	66l0±100	5590-5430	5670-5320	
	GrN-6627	6545+105	5580-5330	5600-5270	
Sum-probability Starčevo			5630-5440	5810-5330	EN III
TTrpe§ti	Bln-801	6245±100	5280-5050	5430-4930	Linear Band Pottery
	Bln-800	6170+100	5220-4970	5290-4840	
Sum-probability Tirpe§ti			5270-5000 5270 (64.5%) 5040	5400-4850	LN II
Topolnitsa 2c	Bln-3349	6240±90	5270-5060	5340-4940	Topolnitsa
	Bln-3382	6l00±60	5200-4930	5220-4840	
Topolnitsa 2b	Bln-3381	6270+60	5270-5080	5330-5060	
	Bln-3348	6000±80	4970-4780	5080-4710	
Topolnitsa Sum-probability			5270-4940	5350-4750	LN II
Toptepe 5	GrN-16476	6290+25	5260-5227	5280-5140	Toptepe
	GrN-18741	6200+50	5220 (68.2%) 5060	5260 (95.4%) 4990	
	GrN 18740	6160+70	5220-4990	5260-4930	
	HD 13589-13321	6155+40	5210-4990	5220-4950	
	HD 13590-13235	6095±40	5050-4945	5210-4900	
Toptepe 4	HD 13591- 13339	6410+180	5530-5090	5650-4900	
Toptepe 3	GrN-18743	6220±70	5240-5060	5280-4960	
	GrN-18742	6060+110	5200-4830 5080(63.8%) 4830	5250-4700	
Sum Toptepe			5270 (68.2%) 4990	5450BC (95.4%) 4800BC	LN II
Tresti ana	GrN-1 7003	6665±45	5595-5500	5600-5440	Starčevo-Cri§
Valea Rau	KN-1 102	6480±75	5450-5310	5570-5270	LN I Starčevo-Cris
Site	Labaratorv and Sample No.	BP	68.2% confidence BC	95.4% confidence BC	Complex (Culture, Group, Tvpe) Period
Veluška Tumba	Tx-1785	6950+120	5950-5680	6000-5590	Starčevo
	Tx-1786	6890+140	5930-5600	5990-5480	
	Tx-1809	6900±90	5830-5630	5950-5590	
Suni-probability Veluška Tumba			5930-5630	5980-5570	EN 11
Vršnik-Tarinci	Bln-339	6950+100	5940-5690	5970-5610	Starčevo
	Bln-339a	6855+80	5760-5600	5860-5570	
	H-559/485	6865+150	5930-5580	6000-5400	
Sum-probability Vršnik-Tarinci			5840-5610	5980-5520	EN II
Vinča-Belo Brdo	GrN-1535	6l70±85	5220-4990	5270-4900	
	GrN-1546	6190+60	5220-5060	5260-4960	Vinča
	Hd-14184	6249+31	5260-5090	5270-5070	Vinča A
	Hd-14235	6264+22	5260-5140	5270-5090	
	Hd-l4l10	6149+63	5210-4960	5230-4920	Vinča B
	Hd-16661	6353±66	5420-5230	5440-5140	
	Hd-17665	6273±49	5270-5090	5290-5060	
	Hd-16636	6180±40	5220-5060	5230- 4990	
	Hd-17674	6198+51	5220-5060	5260- 4990	
	Hd-16864	6145±34	5210- 4990	5220-4950	
	Hd-16733	6293+79	5320-5080	5430-5050	
Sum Vinča			5260-5060	5340-4940	LN II

UDK 903.2:7.045(234.421 )"633/634"__
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
Fish, faces and fingers: presences and symbolic identities in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Carpathian basin
Alasdair VVhittle
School of History and Archaeology, Cardiff University, whittle@cardiff.ac.uk
ABSTRACT - There are many neglected difficulties ivitli a colonisation model for south-east Europe at the start of the Neolithic, though some kind of sloiv and fragmented process may hold good for the southern Balkans. Thispaper concentrates on the northern Balkans, and especially the Carpathian basin east of the Danube, ivhere the character of the early Neolithic lifestyle raises the possibility of indigenous acculturation. Varied Mesolithic presences, mobilities and regional systems in south-east Europe are discussed, and compared tvith Carpathian basin early Neolithic distributions and life-styles. In seeking possible indigenous continuities, particular attention is given to symbolism and identity, via material culture, includingpotterj andfigurines, and burials. A comparison is made betuieen the symbolic system of the Starčevo-Koros culture and contemporaneous developments in the Danube Gorges. The tivo ideologies may have overlapped in many ways, and the many-sidedper-sonal identities of the Starčevo-Koros population may themselves have had a long local history. New concepts focus on ancestral beginnings and marked tirne, the human form and a more conscious difference betuieen people and animals, and participation by the living in broadpatterns of social interaction; the potential complexity of their derivation must now be recognised.
POVZETEK - Težave z modelom kolonizacije jugovzhodne Evrope na začetku neolitika ostajajo, čeprav velja ocena, da lahko dogajanje na južnem Balkanu morda vendarle označimo kot del nekakšnega počasnega procesa. V razpravi se ukvarjamo s severnim Balkanom in s Karpatsko kotlino vzhodno od Donave, kjer je zgodnje neolitski način življenja mogoče navezati na staroselsko akultu-racijo. A nalizirali smo različne mezolitske zapise, mobilnost ter regionalne sisteme v jugovzhodni Evropi in jih primerjali z zgodnjeneolitsko distribucijo in načinom življenja v Karpatski kotlini. Pri iskanju domnevne staroselske kontinuitete je bila s pomočjo lončenine, figurin in pokopov, posebna pozornost namenjena identiteti in simbolizmu. Primerjali smo simbolna sistema kulture Starčevo-Koros in sočasnega razvoja v Džerdapu, Ideologiji sta se najbrž v mnogočem prekrivali, saj identiteta Starčevo-Koros populacije gotovo temelji na dolgi lokalni zgodovini. Potrebujemo nov konceptualni pogled na začetke naših prednikov in časa, ki so ga zaznamovali, na človekove navade in na zavestno ločevanje med ljudmi in živalmi, na participiranje živih v obširnih vzorcih socialne interakcije in na potencialno kompleksnost njihovega izvora.
COLONISATION MODELS
How did the Neolithic begin in south-east Europe, and what did this Neolithic consist of ? Answers to the two questions have been closely intertwined in the long dominant model of colonisation. The Neolithic has often been seen as the arrival of a new population, from Anatolia and points east, with a new subsistence economy based on domestication of plants and animals and a concomitant sedentary life-style. Since Neolithic expansion from the Levant can be traced westwards (e. g. Cauvin 1994), and since the Mesolithic or Epipalaeolithic presence in south-east Europe has long seemed both patchy and thin (e. g. Tringham 1971), debate within the colonisa-
tion model has concentrated not on challenging ba-sic assumptions or considering possible alternatives, but rather on investigating details of dates and rou-tes (e. g. Kaiser and Voytek 1983; Perles 1990; Hansen 1991). There has been some recognition of the possibility of filtered or fragmented colonisation by sea, for example in the 'boat people' model of Chapman and Miiller (1990), but this has hardly been connected with a wider review of the supposed colonisation phenomenon as a whole.
That colonisation did take plače, and by sea, under conditions presumably more difficult than on land,
is amply documented by what happened on Cyprus and Crete (Cherry 1990; Broodbank and Strasser 1991), and indeed on other islands in the central and west Mediterranean (Patton 1996). On the other hand, probably both Cyprus and Crete may have been empty of resident population at the start of the Neolithic, and their intake was not therefore neces-sarily typical of wider processes. While the strengths of the colonisation model have often been empha-sised, its weaknesses are less often debated. I have set out these arguments elsewhere (Whittle 1996, chapter 3; cf. Zvelebil 1995; Zvelebil and Lillie forthcoming; Chapman 1994a), and need only briefly allude to them here to set the scene for spe-cific discussion of the northern Balkans and the Car-pathian basin in particular.
The distribution and density of the early Neolithic in western Anatolia remain to be established (e. g. Cau-vin 1994; Ozdogan 1989; Ozdogan 1995; Ozdogan 1997). At the present tirne, it is far from clear that western Anatolia was sufficiently well populated to have generated significant budding-off on the scale required for full-scale colonisation, though of course that does not exclude more episodic or opportunis-tic fission. Expansion into western Anatolia might itself only date to the sixth millennium BC (Yakar 1996.6); recent finds in the Marmara area (Ozdogan 1997) have not so far been matched further south. Pottery was a recent innovation in Anatolia itself, and the possibility of an aceramic phase remains in Greece; one of the supposed principal material sig-natures of a new, intrusive population may in fact have been characteristic of neither alleged source population nor alleged first incomers. By contrast, the presence of obsidian in early Neolithic Thessaly (.Perles 1992) relates to the continued exploitation of a source known to indigenous population since the Palaeolithic and in regular use in the Mesolithic (.Perles 1990). Above ali, the establishment of what we regard as the typical elements of the early Neolithic may have been a long and slow process (Whittle 1996, ch. 3). The important investigations at Platia Magoula Zarkou in northern Thessaly, for example, show that a teli began in an unstable and periodi-cally inundated creek/floodplain environment (van Andel et al. 1995), making permanent settlement impossible. The character of early levels at Argissa, Sesklo and elsewhere in Thessaly (Milojčič 1960; Gimbutas et al. 1989; Wijnen 1982) shows that early occupations were not continuous (though that does not exclude the possibility at some of them of year-on-year residence) and did not include sub-stantial built above-ground structures. Tells are any-
way something that came into being through the later and continued histories of chosen places (cf. Chapman 1997a), and 'open' sites have begun to be recognised in north-east and northern Greece, in Ma-cedonia and Thrace (Andreou et al, 1996). For ali the past excavations of tells in central-southern Bulgaria (e. g. Todorova 1995), we lack detailed infor-mation on early levels, and a regional contrast is also apparent in the different character of early Neolithic settlement in north-east and north-west Bulgaria (Todorova 1995). And so on.
It is possible therefore to envisage that the begin-nings of the Neolithic in the southern Balkans were at the least both slower and more regionally varied than commonly supposed in vulgar versions of the colonisation model. This raises also the possibility of transformation involving more centrally the indigenous population. To resolve this question will re-quire much more research, including - apart from excavation and locally-oriented studies (Miracle 1997) - more radiocarbon dating, survey (including in western Anatolia) and if possible DNA analysis of ancient human bone, animal bone and plant material (cf. Heun et al. 1997). My first aim has been to show that even in the southern Balkans the model of fullscale colonisation rests on less secure grounds than commonly supposed. This does not exclude the possibility of episodic or filtered movement of new population.
In the northern Balkans the čase for fullscale colonisation is weaker stili. It has long been noted that the early Neolithic Starčevo-Koros lifestyle looks different from that of the supposedly typical areas of teli settlement to the south (e. g. Tringham 1971; Trog-mayer 1968.18-19; cf. Banner 1937). There are scat-tered sites and occasional clusters; occupation levels are thin, generally without significant stratigraphic build-up, which strongly implies residential mobility, on a spatial and temporal scale stili to be established (cf. Whittle 1997); material culture is in some ways (especially as seen in pottery) simpler; and a wide range of resources was exploited, including wild game, fish, birds and shellfish alongside domesticat-ed animals and cereals. Within the subsistence econ-omy the balance of resources is unclear. The scale of cereal cultivation may have been quite restricted in the 'island' pattern of Koros waterside occupations (Kosse 1979; Sherratt 1982a; cf. Willis and Bennett 1994), and the dominance of sheep and goats in such a setting (B6k6nyi 1974) has always seemed more than a little odd. If these are reasonable doubts about the plausibility of continued incoming popu-
lation, can we envisage in more detail the processes by which a regional indigenous population could have changed, to become what we increasingly inad-equately call Neolithic? To answer that question, ra-rely formulated in any specific fashion for south-east Europe (but see Chapman 1994a), we must hirther consider aspects of identity and lifestyle. But first, there is the issue of Mesolithic presences and distributions.
INDIGENOUS PRESENCES
It was noted above that the apparent lack of Mesolithic distributions in south-east Europe has often been taken as a further support for the colonisation model. This now requires the closest examination (cf. Zvelebil 1995). First, there is the matter of research history and coverage (Chapman 1989). The Mesolithic or Epipalaeolithic has been a poor relation in the development of most parts of south-east Europe. After ali, no one anticipated the discovery of the spectacular finds in the Danube Gorges before inves-tigations began in 1965 (Srejovič 1972). Finds there remain restricted to the bottom of the Gorges, and despite the existence of a wide range of terrestrial resources in Gorges-bottom sites including pig and deer which could hardly have shared the same nar-row water-edge areas as people, no survey has yet been carried out of the varied hinterland terrain on either side of the Gorges; Baile Herculane on the Ro-manian side, though probably very early in the Holocene sequence (Nicoldescu-Plop§or and Pdunes-cu 1961; Dinan 1996), indicates what might be ex-pected in side valleys and plateaus. Repeated obser-vations in the main part of the Great Hungarian plain have so far failed to locate signs of Mesolithic presence (Makkay 1996.41), but knowledge of local collections combined with careful survey and exca-vation have begun to produce evidence on the northern edge of the Plain for an early Holocene presence, just beyond the Koros culture distribution (Kertesz 1996). Against this, there are some exam-ples of areas where systematic survey has not produced or has not been able to recognise evidence for a Mesolithic or Epipalaeolithic presence, for example along the Peneios in northern Thessaly and in in-land Epiros in north-west Greece (Runnels 1988; G. Bailey 1998).
These cases constitute only partial or anecdotal evidence until much wider and more systematic as well as detailed local surveys have been carried out. But even in the present state of evidence it is possible
to consider the overall nature of Mesolithic distributions, to compare them with the evidence for the also non-continuous distributions of the early Neolithic, and to begin to model variation in Mesolithic regional systems. Recognising that there may not have been a single kind of Mesolithic presence, just as with the early Neolithic, may be an important first step to further progress.
Mesolithic populations can in fact be documented over a wide area of south-east Europe as a whole. The general situation has been well mapped by Zvelebil {1995, fig. 5), though with brief accompanying detail. There are sites and/or concentrations: in the north-eastern Peloponnese at the Franchthi Cave (Hansen 1991; Perles 1990); at the Theopetra cave on the northern edge of the Thessalian plain (Kypa-rissi-Apostolika 1995); in the Dinaric chain from Montenegro to Slovenia (Srejovič 1989; Srejovič 1996; Budja 1993); on the northern side of the Great Hungarian Plain in the Jaszsag region north of Szolnok (Kertesz 1996), and then further north in Slovakia and Moravia (e. g. Kozloivski 1982; Matei-ciucovd forthcoming); in the Danube Gorges (Srejovič 1972; Radovanovič 1996); in the Southern Bug and Dniestr valleys east of the Carpathians (Marke-vitch 1994; Zvelebil 1995; Zvelebil and Dolukha-nov 1991); and in eastern Bulgaria (Gatsov 1989) and easternmost Thrace (Gatsov and Ozdogan 1994).
Absences have therefore probably been much exag-gerated, just as differences to early Neolithic distributions may have been overdrawn. For the early Neolithic, it is normal and understandable practice to present maps with cross-hatched or othenvise gen-eralised distributions (e. g. Tringham 1971, fig. 10; Gimbutas 1991, fig. 2-14). These can conceal the va-riations in early Neolithic settlement type and dura-tion already noted, just as they can also mask areas with stili surprisingly low Neolithic presence, for example the Vardar valley compared with the Stru-ma, and Yugoslav Macedonia and southern Serbia in general (Garašanin 1982; Tasič 1997). Koros distributions in southern Hungary are in places strong-ly clustered, with micro-regional distributions evident in the area of the Double and Triple Koros rivers, for example around Szarvas, Devavanya and Gyomaendrod (MRT1989; cf. Kalicz 1990.83-8); it is also possible that there are less dense distributions, in the area of the Maros-Tisza confluence (Trogmayer 1968; Horvdth 1989), on the Danube itself (Kalicz 1990) and on the north-west fringe of the overall distribution around Szolnok in the Tisza
valley (Raczky 1976). Likewise, there is a wide scat-ter of Starčevo sites in the Vojvodina, but it is not yet clear whether these form the dense riverine clus-ters characteristic of parts of the Koros distribution. Perhaps by way of contrast, the range of Starčevo locations in northern Serbia is rather broad (e. g. Chapman 1990).
Bevond the mere question of presence and absence there is the issue of the nature of regional systems. It seems both short-sighted and unhelpful to sup-pose that ali Mesolithic regional settlement systems were uniform throughout south-east Europe. Varia-tion is already apparent, even in the current state of research, and may be both a diachronic and spadal feature.
Evidence from Franchthi Cave shows two dominant, perhaps related features. The deposits themselves represent a long continuity of occupation from late Pleistocene into the Holocene. The intensity of occupation seems to have varied, though it was regular-ly more intense in the early Holocene than earlier; the period of Mesolithic-Neolithic transition is miss-ing, however, due to erosional hiatus (Perles 1990; Hansen 1991). The presence of graves reinforces the importance given to this chosen plače. Secondly, there was a broad-spectrum subsistence economy, elements of which would have taken people far afield. It is not clear exactly how far to sea in the Aegean the catching of large tunny would have taken people, but it is possible that the distances cov-ered were considerable (vari Andel and Runnels 1987). The regular bringing of obsidian from Melos back to the cave reinforces this possibility. It can be stressed that in the Mesolithic the cave itself was close to rather than on the coast itself (Cnrtis and Runnels 1987), and thus safe (for archaeological purposes) from subsequent sealevel rises. To the west, in Sicily, the Grotta deli' Uzzo provides a rather similar sort of situation, again in a location a lit-tle above the sea (Costantini 1989). Given the range of the Franchthi exploitation system, it would re-cjuire only a couple more such sites to have existed in the Aegean, physically closer to early Holocene water levels, say in Euboia or southern Thessaly and in south-west Turkey (compare the Okuzini cave inland: Otte et al, 1995), for the Mesolithic of the Aegean as a whole immediately to look more busy.
The Danube Gorges are the obvious next example, and in discussing them I follow the chronology of Radovanovič (1996), according to which some sites are pre-Neolithic but others, including most of the
Lepenski Vir sequence, run parallel to Starčevo-Ko-ros elsewhere in the region. In the Gorges people exploited fish from the river. Isotopic evidence from Vlasac and Schela Cladovei indicates that some parts of the population may have been heavily dependent on fish (Bonsall et al. 1997), although the largest anadromous fish, Acipenser huso or beluga, appears not to have been exploited in later periods (Radovanovič 1997). Use of fish may have bound some people closely to the river, in differing parts of the Gorges. But there were also numerous finds of ter-restrial animals, notably red deer, which also had symbolic significance in mortuary rituals. Hunting or othervvise exploiting such animals must have taken people further afield, away from the Gorges. The movement of raw material also shows wider move-ment, to bring flint, obsidian, basalt and igneous ročk from the north and west and pre-Balkan platform' flint and graphite from north Bulgaria (Chapman 1989; Kozloivski 1982). It remains a moot point (and see further below) whether the sites are to be regarded as merely settlements or whether some or several can be characterised as special pla-ces or shrines, especially those in the upper Gorges including Lepenski Vir itself (Radovanovič 1996; Wlrittle 1996; for detailed maps see Radojčič and Vasič 1997); this may have been a feature especial-ly of the period of Neolithic contact. The important implication here is that sites and/or shrines in the upper Gorges may have served a much vvider population, at least partially mobile by land or by river over varving but sometimes considerable distances.
In other cases, Mesolithic systems may have been more limited. Hypothetically, sites up and down the Dinaric chain (Srejovič 1996; Miiller 1994; Budja 1993; Chapman et al. 1997) could have been part of a system of seasonal movement, which involved summer occupations in the high hills and winter stays in the narrow coastal lowlands. Likewise the Southern Bug-Dniestr sites may have been based on a combination of local river fishing and forest-step-pe hunting.
Different kinds of radius and mobility are evident. In at least two cases, though each was different, the combination of local activity with long-range mo-bility may be the key to understanding the distribution of people and sites. Were areas like Thessaly, therefore, which was so important in the Neolithic from the early Neolithic onwards, literally empty in the Mesolithic? Despite the general continuing non-recognition of Mesolithic sites, there is a document-ed presence now in the Theopetra cave (Kjparissi-
Apostolika 1995), and this could indicate - albeit unclearly at this stage - something of the same kind of regional system. There is also the matter of where some early Neolithic sites were placed. Early sites in-clude many examples away from the most fertile lo-cations suitable for easy permanent occupation, including Achilleion dose up to the southern hills fring-ing the Thessalian plain, and Sesklo set in its strik-ing natural amphitheatre of hills (Kostas Kotzakis, pers. comm.; Mills 1997). It is as though there was already knowledge of where to go.
The Neolithic pattern of settlement could therefore have been based on what went before, but equally it does not represent a direct continuation of this. At a regional scale there was infill and perhaps a shift in the range of mobilities (though note the contin-ued importance of Melian obsidian, brought to Thes-saly, and of pre-Balkan platform flint, taken to Starčevo sites). Importantly, however, in the perspective suggested here, such infill and shifts were relative. A 'clean slate' or 'empty niche' model of colonisation of the Balkans can hardly any longer be supported. In the past such expansion, whatever predse form it took, has been seen chiefly as the outcome of the operation of new ways of getting fed. The rest of this paper is concerned with the significance for this question of matters of identity.
EARLY NEOLITHIC LIFESTYLE IN THE NORTHERN BALKANS
If the Neolithic phenomenon in the northern if not also the southern Balkans was not simply a matter of changing resource procurement and diets, what other changes were fundamental?
We have already noted above that there were sub-sistence changes, notably the appearance of domes-ticated animals including sheep and goats and the be-ginnings of cultivation of non-indigenous cereals. These new elements became very widely distributed, including within the Danube Gorges, where isotopic evidence indicates a less aquatic diet in the contact phase (Bonsall et al. 1997). What, however, was their importance? To answer this, much basic research remains to be done, especially now at local scales (cf. Miracle 1997). It has long been clear (cf. Banner's brilliant initial 'ethnology' of the Koros culture: Banner 1937) that a very varied range of resources was exploited in the Koros context. Game, fish, birds and shellfish are documented, and the suc-cession of deposits in pits in Maros-Tisza confluence
sites could show patterns of resource exploitation changing by the season (Tringham 1971.92; Trog-mayer 1968). Fine sieving, cementum increment studies (cf. Lieberman et al. 1990; Burke 1993; Burke and Castanet 1995) and detailed micromor-phology of feature fills are among approaches that need to be applied, to refine our understanding of seasonality and seasonal variation in resource use. From Starčevo itself comes a long list of game, fish and birds which were exploited (Clason 1980), a range which seems to be matched on Koros sites CB6konyi 1974; Bokonyi 1992; Takdcs 1992). Starčevo itself is on the edge of the Danube floodplain (Barker 1975)] the extent and duration of annual flooding there remain to be established. Further north in the Koros river system, the extent and duration of backswamp flooding both seem likely to have been greater (Kosse 1979; Sherratt 1982a,-Sherratt 1982b), though again this remains to be established in much more detail. People of the Koros culture may have lived much of their lives in a fragmented pattern of islands. If so, it seems unlike-ly that either limited cereal cultivation or the hus-bandry of sheep and goats could have constituted the critical key resources which enabled the intake or infill (if such it really was) of this environment from the early Neolithic onwards. It is possible that future research into river history could indicate changes in natural conditions which allowed easier exploitation of this zone than in the very early Ho-locene (there might be an issue of malaria in wet loivlands; Andreiv Sherratt, pers. comm,; and Sherratt 1997.21). When occupation came, levee cultivation of cereals is plausible enough (cf Sherratt 1980; van Ande/ et al. 1995), but the scale and regularity may have varied. Flotation at the short-lived, perhaps seasonal Cri§ occupation site of Foeni-Salas in western Romania produced no cereal remains (Gre-enfield and Drasovean 1994). The keeping of sheep and goats might even appear somewhat perverse in this kind of setting. The motive for possession of these animals could rather have been novelty or their connection with new beliefs and identities.
As already noted, Starčevo-Koros sites characteristi-cally have thin levels, and in the current state of research built structures are relatively rare. That built structures did exist is well enough shown by exam-ples like Divostin and Tiszajeno (McPherron and Srejovič 1988; Selmeczi 1969; Raczkv 1976; cf. Trogmayer 1966), and suggested elsewhere by sur-face finds of burnt daub (e. g. Sherratt 1983), and the only slightly later example of new discoveries of longhouses in the northern Linear Pottery cultu-
re of the Hungarian Plain at Fiizesabony (.Bombo-roczki 1997) shows how dependent such observa-tions can be on the scale of excavation possible; before the motorway rescue excavations, AVK long-houses could only be documented episodically front the Szakalhat phase onwards. There is also an enor-inous amount to be done to understand the possible rhythms of occupation of Koros waterside sites (cf. Sherratt 1982b). But even in the current state of research, it seents likely that there was corning and going in the Koros lifestyle, and given that Starčevo sites include also waterside ones and caves in the hills, it is plausible that the generalisation holds good over a wider area, and not just in the Koros river system itself.
Mobility in the Starčevo-Koros lifestyle could be con-sidered at seasonal, annual and lifetime scales (cf. Whittle 1997; Chapman 1997b; Zvelebil 1993)■ We do not know whether or to what extent there was year-on-year occupation of single locations; seasonal mobility looks a likely and recurrent feature, and the wider scale of lifetime mobility may also be important. Given this possible, if stili largely hypothet-ical diversity, and compared to the varied pre-Neoli-thic situations or systems sketched above, there is plenty of scope for adjustment of existing practices. To have moved from pre-Neolithic systems of mobil-ity to Starčevo-Koros systems of mobility may not have required major adaptation.
If the Neolithic was not a matter only of nutrition, and if its patterns of settlement could have been de-scended from pre-existing regional practice, what can we say about the beliefs and senses of identity which could have served both to change and define a new world?
SYMBOLIC IDENTITIES
This dimension can be approached in two ways: through material culture, especially pottery and fig-urines, and mortuary rites. Each can be taken in turn. This will then lead to comparison with indigenous traditions including that seen in the Danube Gorges sequence.
Material culture: pottery and figurines
Starčevo and Koros sites are rich in pottery, poor in stone. The quantities of lithic waste and tools are li-mited. There are stone axes, but these are recur-rently quite small and never abundant. In the Koros
phase, one has the impression that flint and similar materials were scarce; their availability varied re-gionally (Kertesz 1996). At Endrod 39, one cache of 101 flints had been put in a pot which was deliber-ately placed in a pit cut through a soil over a pre-existing house. The flints, consisting of various pre-paration flakes, including for platform preparation, probably cante from three nodules of flint from the western Banat (so to the south-east), suggesting both long-range procurement and careful hoarding (Kac-zanoicska et al. 1981). Some other lithic remains were recovered from the site. The abundant material on Starčevo-Koros sites is pottery. Numbers of sherds can ran into the thousands from single featu-res; up to 30 000 were recorded from Pit 1 at Roszke-Ludvar (Trogmayer 1968; John Chapman, pers. comrn). Contexts are known in which pottery has been found in houses or structures (e.g. Tiszajeno: Raczky 1976), but it is also clear that much greater quantities are to be found in the spaces in between, including in pits and other features (Trogmayer 1968.12; Makkay 1992). While there is much to do in the future in terms of residue analysis as a guide to function and breakage/erosion analysis as a guide to deposition, three aspects of pottery can be consi-dered here: the significance of style boundaries, dec-orative motifs and deposition as sherds rather than whole pots.
The traditional culture history approach, with its un-derstandable concern for chronology, has given us a familiar vocabulary of separation into cultures or groups within cultural complexes: Starčevo, Koros, Cri§, and so on. This has rarely been challenged, except by Nandris (1970) and more recently by Mak-kay (1996.36-8). That there are stylistic differences between the pottery of, say, the Koros rivers area of the Hungarian Plain and the southern part of the Vojvodina is not really in doubt. Techniques of roughening and decorating the surface of coarse pot-tery varied and the quantities of the rarer fine wares, including those with painted decoration, seem nor-mally to be greater in Starčevo than in Koros con-texts. What this may have meant in terms of human recognition and social interaction is quite another matter. Most maps of the phenomenon present bor-ders and boundaries, within the normal style of the culture history approach, with little or no overlap (e. g. Dimitrijevič 1974, fig. 1; Garašanin 1979, map 2; Tringham 1971, fig. 10; Kalicz 1990, Taf. 1.2). Really only Brukner (1966, fig. 1; cf. Garašanin 1982.111) has mapped a more subtle picture of overlap in the northern Vojvodina, with areas of 'Starčevo-Koros' distribution between 'Koros' and
'Starčevo'. Individual sites within this area like Do-nja Branjevina may show varying styles from stage to stage in their sequence (cf. Ružič and Pavlovič 1988).
This may indicate a picture of continuum rather than sharp boundaries in ceramic style. Pottery may have been a medium through which convergence and cohesion rather than ethnic difference were expressed, as the culture model has so often, if im-plicitly, implied. Pottery then becomes a symbol of participation rather than badge of separation. It is hard to envisage a closed ethnic unit over the total range of the Starčevo-Koros phenomenon, any more than over the total area of the distribution of early Neolithic white-painted wares, but both could indicate areas of shared practice. Pottery was a new material medium in this area, and if the population using it were indigenous, some of the abundance of pottery might be explained by the novelty of a new medium being used to express versions of existing material practice (cf Stevanovič 1997). The general similarities between, say, indigenous lithic projectile distributions (e. g. Kozlowski 1982) and early Neolithic ceramic distributions might be considerable. The next step will be to examine more closely the manufacture and use of such pottery. It appears to have been easily made, including fine wares. There are some very large vessels in Koros contexts, which may have been used for storage (cf. Banner 1937. 37), but it is possible that many pots were made with a very short use-life in mind. That is certainly one way to explain the abundance of pottery, which could represent as disposable a material in its way as flint in other circumstances.
Pottery was a new medium for visual display. Sur-faces of fine wares were smoothed and/or burnished, and some painted, with generally simple motifs. Sur-faces of 'coarse' wares were also treated, either by roughening or applications of clay and frequently by finger-tip and fingernail impressions. In Koros con-texts there are relief representations of both animals and human or human-like figures (e. g. Banner 1937; Kalicz 1970). The human figures are charac-teristically very stylised, with virtually no sign of in-dividualism in terms of face or expression (Pollock 1995), and recurrent gestures such as bent arms, which might represent particular meanings, actions or contexts (Kalicz 1970; Banner 1937.41 suggested stylised representation of dancing). The animals are in part more recognisable, such as the stag from Csepa or the probable goats (with strongly curved horns) from Hodnezovasarhely-Kotacpart (Kalicz
1970, pls. 6-8)-, others, though said to be species-spe-cific, such as the claimed deer on the vessel from H6dnez6vasarhely-Hamszarito are more ambiguous (Kalicz 1970, pl. 9). Human-like figures and animals occur together on the same large Koros vessels, and the combination must surely be significant; it is not yet clear whether they can also occur separately. This kind of representation seems in general much rarer in Starčevo contexts, though there are inter-esting examples from Donja Branjevina (Garašanin 1979, fig. XXXIX). These are made by incision, and represent animals whose identity is quite unclear; some have projections from their heads which could be either antlers or horns.
The tactility and immediacy of 'coarse ware' decora-tion have been neglected. This decoration is very common, but it seems shortsighted to relegate it to unconscious practice simply because it occurs on so-called coarse pottery. Roughening and finger-tipping bring the human hand into direct contact with the clay. This is a kind of signing of the pots, just as in other contexts and times ročk art can be thought of as signing the land (Bradley 1997). It is possible that particular individual potters or decorators can be distinguished by variations on nail size and shape (Eszter Bdnffv,pers. comm.), but the fact that these 'signatures' are superficially so similar may be the real point, expressing both participation and a merg-ing of individualism in collective practice. This would be ali the more significant if the manufacture and use of pots were episodic, based on either seasonal movement or a rhythm of cyclical gatherings and feasts. These humble sherds, on which so much dust accumulates in the museums of the region, may stili loudly be proclaiming a central and important ethic of participation and communality.
Until very recently, the fact that so much of the pot-tery is represented by broken sherds has gone large-ly unremarked (Makkay 1992.149; Chapman 1996; Chapman forthcoming). It is likely that the signifi-cance of pots was carried over into the practices sur-rounding their deposition. Pots may have been de-liberately broken after use in particular events, gatherings or feasts: another way of explaining the great quantities involved. It can be argued that sherds stood metonymically, as part for whole, for past social interaction, and carried something of their past history into the ground in chosen places, as people consciously selected and deposited them. There is enormous scope in future fieldwork for more de-tailed study of variation in such depositional practice (cf. Last 1996).
Figurines may present both overlaps with and con-trasts to what may be represented in pottery. Starče-vo-Koros figurines are overwhelmingly of human form. Two unique four-footed and double-horned pieces from Szolnok-Szanda may be a rare, if rather abstract, representation of buli imagery (Kalicz and Raczky 1981)] some four-footed lamps may also have schematic animal heads (.Kalicz 1970, fig. 13)-Given the more frequent representation of animals on Koros pots and as figurines in subsequent phases of the sequence, for example from the AVK on the Hungarian Plain (e. g. Domboroczki 1997) or from the Vinča culture further south (Gimbutas 1991), this absence may be significant. It may suggest claims for the centrality of the human form and human identity, although in other contexts these were treat-ed in combination with those of animals.
Traditionally, figurines have been seen as some kind of representation of spirits or ancestral figures (e. g. Gimbutas 1991, and a vast literature). It has also been suggested that figurines in some contexts may represent individuals or 'acting human beings' (e. g. Bailey 1994; Biehl 1996). For the purposes of this discussion (and without wishing to reduce a highly complex issue), it is neither possible nor desirable to settle upon a single meaning. The apparent anonymi-ty of Starčevo-Koros figurines may speak against their representing specific individuals as such. They do not seem to occur in Starčevo-Koros burials, whe-re pots are perhaps the most recurrent (but stili in-frequent) grave good (e. g. Galovič 1964; Trogma-yer 1969). A more typical sort of context is represented by one context at Endrod 39, in which parts of four figurines, already broken, were deposited close together at the base of a substantial pit, with animal bones, sherds and bone tools above and near-by (Makkay 1980.210). A possible inference is that figurines were something held in common, akin to the signings on pots suggested above, and circulated widely among the living until (deliberately) broken and deposited. Nor were figurines necessarily the only token of concepts of ancestry, if this was indeed part of their field of reference. So-called sacrificial pits in Koros contexts held carefully deposited lay-ers of material and finds including pottery, animal bones, fish bone and snails (e. g. Makkay 1992).
Superficially, the overwhelming representation in the figurines is of the mature female form, with va-rying emphasis on heads, breasts, genitalia and but-tocks; limbs seem less important (a contrast which can again be heightened by comparison with pottery and with later figurines). Heads and necks are elon-
gated (and see below); there is some treatment of eyes as schematic slits, and the occasional sugges-tion or representation of nose and mouth. There are some suggestions of hair. Generally faces appear to our eyes abstract, expressionless and anonymous. This may be the combination again of individual and collective. Breasts and genitalia are separately mod-elled or indicated on the bodies of most figurines. They are not normally further emphasised, though occasionally there is a kind of startling realism, as in the Szajol figurine (Raczky 1980). Buttocks and thighs are normally disproportionately large.
As well as the superficial emphasis on the female form, and the apparent anonymity of faces, there is another neglected feature of these figurines: their ambiguity in terms of gender or sexual representation. Is it fanciful to suppose that elongated heads and necks are in fact also a representation or a suggesti-on of erect male genitalia? The same suggestion has been made, independently, for Greek material (Kok-kinidou and Nikolaidou 1997). Many of the Starče-vo-Koros figurines in fact offer quite striking images of the head of the erect penis. One of the most sug-gestive examples is from a Starčevo context at Glad-nice (Garašanin 1979, fig. XXIV), well to the south, and others also occur further south, including in Gre-ece (Kokkinidou and Nikolaidou 1997), but these objects are widespread including within the Koros distribution (see for example Gyomaendr6d 119: Mak-kay 1992; and Szajol: Raczky 1980). The whole figurine may also be regarded as in part a representation of erect male genitalia, in which buttocks beco-me transformed into testicles. There is no need to in-sist on either interpretation to the exclusion of the other. What seems most interesting is the potential ambiguity created, in a medium - fired clay - which itself presents the theme of transformation (Talalay 1993). There is thus in these apparently simple figurines a possibly complex set of beliefs. The human form is emphasised separately from animals. Female form is emphasised, with overt attention to reproductive or sexual parts. Heads and necks are important, but faces are more anonymous. At the same time there is some kind of concern for the combination of female and male gender and/or sexuality. It is a striking pre-sentation of a particular kind of self-consciousness, once again a merging of perhaps several different identities. I will consider below possible differences and continuities with the indigenous system of representation of identity as seen in the Danube Gorges; the concern for reproduction and fertility may be old, while the heightened awareness of several di-mensions of a separate human identity may be new.
Mortuary rites
Starčevo-Koros mortuary rites were simple but var-ied. The principal visible element of such rites seems to have been in settlements or occupations. Not ali occupations contain burials or human remains, and it is hard in the present state of evidence to distin-guish whether burials occur only on particular kinds of site. Gyomaendrod 119, for example, apparently a quite small occupation, has a number of burials, while the larger area opened at Divostin had only one shallow burial of an adult woman, uncertainly attributed to the Starčevo phase (McPherron and Srejovič 1988). From the indications of sequence at Gyomaendrod 119 (Makkay 1992), it seems likely that the rate of deposition was slow: perhaps only one burial every few years at the most. There do not appear so far, in the current state of excavation, to have been cemeteries or burial grounds, so much as episodic accumulations or small concentrations in places chosen and re-chosen for occupation. It has been suggested that a sense of pollution in the Ko-ros culture could have caused site abandonments and short-distance relocations (Chapman 1994b), but this may be too extreme an explanation for spe-cific instances like Gyomaendrod 119. The further obvious implication is that much of the population is not represented in the evidence excavated so far, which could reinforce the sense of fluidity and mo-bility that characterises other aspects of the settlement record and the lifestyle as a whole. The dead may have been used to reinforce the attachment of the living to particular places, but that attachment itself was a broad one.
The diversity of rites is striking. These have been de-scribed often enough before (e. g. Garašanin 1982; Borič 1996; Trogmayer 1969; Chapman 1983; Chapman 1994b), but will bear brief rehearsal in order to contribute to the discussion of lifestyle, relations between individual and collective, and comparison with pre-Neolithic rites; analysis of context-related variation has so far not been systematic enough. Women, men and children are represented in the mortuary record; so far, women might be in the ma-jority (Chapman 1983-8; Zoffmann 1986, for Hun-gary; Borič 1996, table 1 for the Srem region in northern Yugoslavia). The dominant mode was in-humation of fleshed corpses, either contracted or sometimes extended with some flexing of the legs. Single burials are recurrent, though double burials also occur, and small collective deposits are found in both Starčevo contexts, as at Vinča (Garašanin 1982; Letica 1968; the context conld be very early Vinča
culture), and Koros contexts, as at Hodnezovasar-hely-Kotacpart-Vata tanya (Trogmayer 1969; Zof fmann 1986). There are also in Koros contexts par-tial inhumed remains, skull deposits and even rare cremation deposits (Chapman 1994b).
Single burials normally occur either in their own grave pits or in larger, presumably abandoned featu-res normally interpreted as pits or pit-dwellings. It is not yet clear whether there is any structured differ-ence between the remains and their treatment in such differing contexts. Burials have been found in-side structures, as at Szajol and Szanda near Szol-nok, and it is possible that these were deliberately fired following deaths of occupants or 'household' members (Raczky 1982-3; Chapman 1994b; cf. Ste-vanovič and Tringham 1997; Stevanovič 1997). A related example could be the collective deposit at Vinča in a supposed former pit-dwelling (Garašanin 1982). The orientation of the body seems to have varied in Starčevo contexts as a whole (Garašanin 1982)-, a recent discussion of the Srem region evidence suggests greater variation for left-side inhu-mations (Borič 1996, fig. 3a). Less variation is clai-med in Koros contexts (Trogmayer 1969.13). There has been no context-related examination of orientation, to consider body position in relation, for exam-ple, to natural features. It has been suggested that details of the position of heads and upper limbs, as at Zlatara A, could be related to personal identity or position (Borič 1996.74).
Many burials were not accompanied by grave goods. There are early reports of Koros burials with red ochre around the skull (Trogmayer 1969), echoing practices in the Danube Gorges (Radovanovič 1996; Bradley 1998), but ochre does not seem to be an element of Starčevo rites. In various cases whole pots and sherds were deposited with the dead. At Golokut in Srem an adult woman was interred be-low the skull of an aurochs (Borič 1996, and pers. comm,), while there were red deer antlers with a woman at Zlatara B (Borič 1996).
It was formerly suggested that complete inhuma-tions in these contexts might represent more social-ly prominent persons than the partial remains incor-porated into refuse deposits (Chapman 1983.10). It has also been suggested that Starčevo communities emphasised 'certain communal rights' through their burials (Borič 1996.75). I would prefer to empha-sise diversity and fluidity. Diversity and mobility do not seem easily compatible with rigidly fixed social positions. Some of the dead may have been buried
or exposed elsewhere before eventual deposition, or even moved around the landscape before final inter-ment. The contrast then would be between those buried after death and those selected for ancestral veneration. The apparent numerical dominance of women is significant. It was formerly linked to the hypothetically central role of women in hoe agriculture (Chapman 1983-10), but this is to assume that hoe agriculture had a central role in Starčevo-Koros subsistence. It may have more to do with other gen-der-based division of labour or gender-based varia-tion in lifetime mobility. It is tempting to see a link with the superficial dominance of the female form in figurines. Identities and social roles were perhaps much more open than we are accustomed to think of or experience. Burials may have reinforced a sense of plače, but there were many places so reinforced. People were perhaps more attached to regions or landscapes than to particular places alone, and the fluidity of social relations may have allowed the individual or groups to move and to merge freely with others. Burials recurrently present the individual, but the individual is also subsumed in the collective. Once again there is ambiguity (I have dis-cussed the co ncept of the indi vidual more widely elseivhere: Whittle forthcoming).
DESCENTS: COLONISATION, ACCULTURATION AND INDIGENOUS CHANGE
So far, I have east doubt on the applicability of the colonisation hypothesis for the northern Balkans, while leaving the matter open for the southern Balkans. I have indicated that at a broad regional scale there were widely distributed Mesolithic populations in south-east Europe as a whole, which had varying patterns of lifestyle, mobility and subsistence. I have suggested that the early Neolithic northern Balkan lifestyle was based on mobility of varying kinds and a very broad subsistence spectrum; some elements represented, such as sheep and goats in wet Koros contexts, may have had more to do with novelty than practical reason. Identities may also have been open, fluid and ambiguous. Material culture pattern-ing, for example as seen in pottery, looks weak, and we need to break away from the traditional assump-tions of differentiation implicit in the culture model approach. Decoration of pots and their frequent deposition as broken sherds may have served to sub-merge the individual in a wider collective. Burials also celebrate the individual, but without clear em-phasis on particular persons or their social position.
The dead populatecl the whole landscape in varying guises, again merging individual and collective. If the colonisation hypothesis is unreliable, how can we plausibly derive this situation from the indige-nous setting? It is my aim here to suggest refine-ments to existing acculturation models (see also Zve-lebil 1998a; Zvelebil 1998b).
A straightfonvard acculturation model would accept the existence of more or less widely distributed Mesolithic populations, and suggest that under the in-fluence of innovations to the south there followed a series of changes in the northern Balkans, including the adoption of cereal cultivation and animal hus-bandry, including the use of sheep and goats, the adoption of pottery and figurines, built struetures and so on. Such changes might be seen as extensive, driven above ali by change from the outside. While not denying the importance of changes in the situation from the outside, what I wish to explore is the possibility of something more complex.
Indigenous traditions: generalities
Taken again at a broad scale, it is possible to use the south-east European Mesolithic evidence to suggest many elements of continuity of lifestyle. Mesolithic people were regularly mobile, though to varying de-grees, and the possibility of restricted mobility, for example in the Danube Gorges or in the Southern Bug and Dniestr valleys cannot be excluded. Particular places were emphasised by repetition of occupa-tion, from obvious examples like Franchthi Cave and locations in the Danube Gorges to spectacular inland Montenegran caves like Crvena Stijena (Srejovič 1989). A broad spectrum subsistence economy was praetised, and there was long-distance movement of raw materials. Burials reinforced the importance of plače, with examples at Franchthi, Theopetra, and in the Danube Gorges (Jacobsen and Cul/en 1981; Ky-parissi-Apostolika 1995; Radovanovič 1996). Indi-viduals in this world too may have moved freely from group to group; the patterning in material culture is also broad and not sharply differentiated.
In this perspeetive, the scale of early Neolithic changes could actually appear relatively restricted, to the extension of zones of settlement, the limited take-up of some cultivation and husbandry, and the exuberant use of fired clay for pottery and figurines. It is not so much the material conditions of existence that may be at stake, important though those obvi-ously are, as shifts in the sense of identity of individual and collective. Can that further be explored?
Indigenous traditions:
the čase of the Danube Gorges
My discussion wdl principally concern the Danube Gorges. The major features of the phenomenon are well known and need no re-description here (Srejovič 1972; Radovanovič 1996). The chronology of de-velopments in the Gorges is central. There is a large body of opinion which attributes the significance of the Gorges phenomenon principally to its pre-dating the Neolithic (e. g. Srejovič 1972; Srejovič 1989; Bo-roneant 1989; and many others). The more likely sequence, however, is that while some sites in the Gorges can indeed be dated to before the Neolithic in the wider region as represented archaeologically by Starčevo-Koros material, the apogee of the Gorges developments was contemporary with early Neolithic culture elsewhere in the wider region (Whittle 1985.115-8; Radovanovič 1996; Whittle 1996.24-9). From this it follows that the belief system or ideol-ogy seen in its most developed form at Lepenski Vir itself could in some sense have been a resistance to or variation on early Neolithic belief and ideology (Whittle 1985.118; Chapman 1993; Radovanovič 1996; Whittle 1996.44-6). It is not therefore a pre-cursor, but, even more interestingly, a foil to early Neolithic ideology. The Lepenski Vir system is not necessarily completely opposed to that of the early Neolithic, but its major features may serve further to highlight what is new about the early Neolithic sense of identity and belief.
Srejovič himself insisted that there were mythic di-mensions to the symbolism of Lepenski Vir I and II:
... the existence of a specific fish-like deity came into being relatively late in the Lepenski Vir culture. It probably descended from the belief that ali men ivere children of the river, or tlie descendants of mermen, or perhaps from a myth in ivhich ivater, stone, the boul-ders,fish, deer and human heads held the most importantplaces (Srejovič 1972.122).
This kind of interpretation was curiously neglected for a long time, including by this writer. Renewed attention was given to the symbolism of Lepenski Vir by Hodder (1990), but that brief analysis concen-trated on simple binary oppositions between hearth and burials, life and death, and so on. Handsman (1991; cf. Chapman 1993) took note of the carved boulders, but principally as representations of lin-eage ancestors, in a discussion of the development of social relations along presumed lineage divisions.
More recently stili, Bradley (1998) has drawn attention to the unifving features of the materials and prac-tices drawn upon in Lepenski Vir, to suggest a world-view more in harmony with its natural surroundings.
It is possible to go stili further, and the most suc-cessful detailed attempt to develop Srejovič's view has been made by Radovanovič (1996; 1997). This account accepts that Vlasac, only a little downstream in the Upper Gorges, is earlier than Lepenski Vir. The burials there may be of two phases. As else-where in the Gorges, ochre was scattered in an earlier phase on the bodies of the dead (on men, wo-men and children). In its later phase, ochre is scattered only on women, in the pelvic area, becoming perhaps a symbol not just of life but also of birth. Ochre was not a feature of Lepenski Vir burials. There is continued interest in fertility, for example in the combination of female mandibles and hearths, and one might add in the form of red deer antlers near the hearths of phase II (Srejovič 1972.123). An earlier burial in phase le had an aurochs skull by the deceased s shoulder, a red deer skull by one hand and antlers nearby (Srejovič 1972.120, pl 61; grave 7, house 21). Birth symbolism shifts into the houses or shrines in the form of sculptures with vul-vae, for example in Lepenski Vir II house XLIV, thus being transformed from something associated with individuals and becoming intenvoven into a com-plex set of other symbols belonging to a collective heritage. The collective heritage acted as a myth, even as a dogma...' (Radovanovič 1997.88). Other features are important. The heads of the dead at Lepenski Vir (children often under the house or shrine floors, with adults in the spaces in between) were oriented downstream. Sculptures from an early part of Lepenski Vir I onwards present fish-like faces, which become both larger and more accentuated in Lepenski Vir II. These can be seen to represent the massive anadromous beluga, Acipenser huso, though that was largely absent from fish remains them-selves in later levels. In a rather different way to Hodder, Radovanovič comes to a duality between life and death, with the river itself of critical and central importance as the conduit for the passage upstream of the ancestors (as beluga) and the depar-ture downstream of the dead, and as a metaphor for death and endings on the one hand and life and re-turn on the other (Radovanovič 1997.89).
One could add two emphases, both to do with the dynamic development of the sequence. The early burials of Lepenski Vir appear to be very varied in nature, and include partial remains, heads only and
jaws only (Srejovič 1972.117-8). The later burials seem therefore to represent a relatively greater for-malisation of mortuary rites, and perhaps therefore a consolidation also of collective identity, especially if, as I have argued elsewhere (Whittle 1996) the houses were in fact shrines and the whole site a special sanctuary serving a wider area and population.
The other point to stress is once again the wider con-text. These spectacular developments at Lepenski Vir took plače on the chronology advocated here at a time of Neolithic contact. They emphasised a special plače and a special area with a long history. By the apogee of Lepenski Vir II, there were major ideas to do with belonging, the merging of the individual into a wider collective, origins, ancestral return and the destination of the dead, which had developed, am-plified or made explicit earlier ideas to do with the centrality of fertility, reproduction and unity with nature.
It would be naive to suppose that the belief-system represented in the Danube Gorges should reveal that of the whole of Mesolithic south-east Europe. But its major elements may help also to define what was different about early Neolithic ideology, and therefore give further insight into what was involved in the conceptual shifts of an indigenous transition. Ideolo-gies need not necessarily have been completely op-posed. This is not the only likely čase of delay and resistance. The Ertebolle čase springs to mind (Whit-tle 1996, clis 6 and 7, and references), and in that čase some of the long process of stasis may have been conditioned by convergence as much as by dif-ference. The early Neolithic belief-system as sketched earlier was in varying ways to do with belonging, origins and ancestral figures, fertility and reproduction. There were therefore perhaps considerable elements in common at one sort of level. Belonging and iden-tity may have been more ambiguous and fluid in the early Neolithic situation, as discussed above. Perhaps it was so also in the Mesolithic, and the apogee of Lepenski Vir could be seen as an attempt to fix be-haviour into a particular mode. The interest in ances-tors in the early Neolithic seems to have been bound up with a greater interest in the human form and human body, as expressed in the form of figurines and in their often ambiguous gender. There was an interest in animals as separate beings, perhaps a con-cern for human relationships with animals created by the new practices associated with domestication.
Both sets of people, if such a crude distinction can be made, thought about where they came from and
to what they belonged. In the Gorges, this was fo-cused on concepts of the natural world and ances-tors who took natural form, on a cycle of life, reproduction and death. In a wider world, and undoubt-edly affected by developments to the south, other people focused on concepts of a human world, the importance of belonging to a broad community, of tracing descent from ancestors in human form, and of a more conscious difference between people and animals. The human dead were hardly neglected, but their treatment suggests that they were not a central focus in the same way as in the Gorges. I have deliberately tried to avoid simplistic opposition between a Mesolithic and an early Neolithic belief system, nor do I suggest that these would have been uniform; the domus concept (Hodder 1990) runs both risks. But it is as though, as well as the over-laps, there were fundamental divergences: on the one hand, an emphasis on cyclicity, the merging of time, and the importance of death, and on the other, an emphasis on ancestral beginnings, marked time, and participation by the living in social life.
I am trying to avoid both simplistic or universalising models and excessive opposition between putative worldviews. The elements sketched here, however, do recall the contrasts made by several authors be-tween one worldview, associated with at least some recent hunter-gatherers or foragers, in which nature is perceived as a partner, if it is actually conceptual-ly distinguished at ali, and another worldview, thought to be more characteristic of cultivators and others, in which 'nature' is both separated and ap-propriated (lngold 1986; Ingold 1992; Ingold 1993; Bird-David 1990; Bradley 1998). The contrast here, if valid, might best be summed up in the differences in the representation of faces: in the Danube Gorges context a composite image which draws on both fish and humans, but in Starčevo-Koros contexts an image based on human features alone.
People in a process of transition could have drawn on both sets of ideas. There is no need to suppose instant or wholesale change. The Starčevo burials from Golokut and Zlatara B, with their animal remains, strongly echo certain of the deposits at Lepenski Vir, and the diversity of Starčevo-Koros mor-tuary rites also recalls Gorges practices before they became more formalised. On the other hand, new ideas filtering from the south may have spread the quicker or more easily because they were not whol-ly dissimilar to existing ones. The potentially com-plex set of interactions is thus poorly conveyed in the term 'acculturation'. Just as Srejovič emphasised
the importance of myth in the Danube Gorges, so I suppose that mind-sets were changed by myths and stories, by new tellings of the beginnings of the world, of the nature of human social life and of human relationships with the natural world (cf. VVhittle 1996; I ivill discuss these ideas further elseivhe-re). I presume that these would have spread more quickly than anything else, and could have encour-aged people to dwell in parts of south-east Europe previously little used or swiftly passed through.
A final example is the neglected upper level III at Lepenski Vir. The plače was stili used, but much changed (Srejovič 1972). Structures were of irregu-lar shape and earth-sunk, and a small number of burials were set in deep graves next to these. Among other new material culture, extraordinarily abundant pottery replaces the old symbolisms. The motif on one large globular pot from level lila is particularly
telling: an outstretched human hand (Srejovič 1972, pl. VIII).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I ant particularly grateful to: The British Acadenty and The Hungarian Academy of Sciences for ntaking possible an exchange visit to Hungary in 1997, and to Dr Eszter Banffy for help with my programme; Dušan Borič, Ivana Radovanovič and others, including the Rotary Club, Belgrade, for rnaking possible a visit to Yugoslavia in 1998; and Mihael Budja and the University of Ljubljana for their invitation and sub-sequent hospitality. I arn very grateful also to Dou-glass Bailey, Richard Bradley, Mihael Budja, John Chapman, Vicky Cummings, Detlef Gronenborn, Andrew Sherratt and Marek Zvelebil for comment-ing on draft versions of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
ANDREOU S, FOTIADIS M. and KOTSAKIS K. 1996. Review of Aegean prehistory V: the Neolithic and Bronze Age of northern Greece. American fournal of Archaeologv 100: 537-91.
BAILEY D. 1994. Reading prehistoric figurines as in-dividuals. World Archaeologv 25: 321-31-
BAILEY G. (ed.) 1998. Klithi: Palaeolithic settlement and Quaternary landscapes in northivest Greece.
BANNER J. 1937. Die Ethnologie der Koros-Kultur.
Dolgozatok 13: 32-49.
BARKER G. 1975. Early Neolithic land use in Yugosla-via. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41: 85-104.
BIEHL P. F. 1996. Symbolic communication systems: symbols on anthropomorphic figurines of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic from south-eastern Europe. fournal of European Archaeologv 4: 153-76.
BIRD-DAVID N. 1990. The giving environment: another perspective on the economic system of hun-ter-gatherers. Current Anthropologv 31: 183-96.
BOKONYI S. 1974. Historv of domestic mammals in central and eastern Europe.
1992. The Early Neolithic vertebrate fauna of Endrod 119- In S. Bokonyi (ed.), Cultural and landscape changes on south-east Hungary, 1: re-ports on the Gyomaendr6d project: 195-299. Budapest: Archaeolingua.
BONSALL C, LENNON R, McSWEENEY K, STEWART C., HARKNESS D, BORONEANT V, BARTOSIEWICZ L., PAYTON R. and CHAPMAN J. 1997. Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in the Iron Gates: a palaeodietary perspective,Journal of European Archaeologv 5:50-92.
BORIČ D. 1996. Social dimensions of mortuary prac-tices in the Neolithic: a čase study. Starinar 47: 67-83.
BORONEANT V. 1989- Thoughts on the chronologi-cal relations between the Epi-Palaeolithic and the Neolithic of the Low Danube. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe: 475-80.
BRADLEY R. 1997. Ročk art and the prehistory of Atlantic Europe: signing the land.
1998. The significance of monuments: on the shap ing of h u ma n experience in Neolith ic a nd Bronze Age Europe.
BROODBANK C. and STRASSER T. F. 1991. Migrant farmers and the colonization of Crete. Antiquity 65: 233-45.
BRUKNER B. 1966. Einige Fragen iiber die Verhalt-nisse der Starčevo und Koros-Gruppe. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 10: 7-10.
BUDJA M. 1993- The Neolitization of Europe: Slove-nian aspect. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 21: 163-93■
BURKE A. 1993. Observation of incremental growth structures in dental cementum using the scanning electron microscope. Archaeozoologia 5: 41-54.
BURKE A. and CASTANET J. 1995. Histological obser-vations of cementum growth in horse teeth and their application to archaeology .Journal of Archaeological Science 22: 479-93■
CAUVIN J. 1994. Naissance des divinites, naissance de T agriculture: la r evolution des symboles au Neolithique.
CHAPMAN J. 1983. Meaning and illusion in the study of burial in Balkan prehistory. In A. Poulter (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria, Volume 1:1-45.
1989.	Demographic trends in neothermal south-east Europe. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe: 500-15.
1990.	The Neolithic in the Morava-Danube con-fluence area: a regional assessment of settlement pattern. In R. Tringham and D. Krstic, Selevac: a Neolithic village in Yugoslavia: 13-43■
1993. Social power in the Iron Gates Mesolithic. In J. C. Chapman and P. Dolukhanov (eds), Cultural transformations and interactions in eastern Europe: 71-121.
1994a. The origins of farming in south east Europe. Prehistoire Europeenne 6:133-56.
1994b. The living, the dead and the ancestors: tirne, life cycles and the mortuary domain in later European prehistory. In J. Davies (ed.), Ritual
and remembrance: responses to death in human societies: 40-85-
1996. Enchainment, commodification and gen-der in the Balkan Copper Ag z. Journal of European Archaeologr 4: 203-42.
1997a. The origins of tells in eastern Hungary. In P. Topping (ed.), Neolithic landscapes: 139-64.
1997b. Places as timemarks - the social construc-tion of prehistoric landscapes in eastern Hun-gary. In G. Nash (ed.), Semiotics oflandscape: archaeology of mind: 31-45- British Archaeological Reports.
forthcoming. The fractality of human relations in the Mesolithic and Neolithic of southeast Europe. In R. Kertesz and J. Makkay (eds), Szolnok Con-ference 1996.
CHAPMAN J. and MULLER J. 1990. Early farmers in the Mediterranean basin: the Dalmatian evidence. Antiquity 64:127-34.
CHAPMAN J., SHIEL R. and BATOVIČ S. 1997. The changing face of Dalmatia.
CHERRY J. F. 1990. The first colonisation of the Mediterranean islands: a review of recent research. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeologv 3:145-221.
CLASON A. 1980. Padina and Starčevo: game, fish and cattle. Palaeoliistoria 22: 141-73-
COSTANTINI L. 1989- Plant exploitation at Grotta deli' Uzzo, Sicily: new evidence for the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic subsistence in southern Europe. In D. R. Harris and G. C. Hillman (eds), For-aging and farming. The evolution of plant ex-ploitation: 197-206.
DIMITRIJEVIC S. 1974. Das Problem der Gliederung der Starčevo-Kultur mit besonderer Rucksicht auf den Beitrag der siidpannonischen Fundstellen zur Losung dieses Problems. Materijah 10: 93-U5-
DINAN E. 1996. A preliminary report on the lithic assemblage from the early Holocene level at the Iron Gates site of Baile Herculane. Mesolithic Misce-llany 17 (2): 15-24.
DOMBOROCZKI L. 1997. Fiizesabony-Gubakut. In P. Raczky, T. Kovacz and A. Anders (eds), Utak a mult-
ha: az M3-as autopalya regeszeti leletmentesei: 19-27.
GALOVIČ R. 1964. Neue Funde der Starčevo-Kultur in Mittelserbien und Makedonien. Bericht der Ro-misch-Germanischen Kommission 43-44 (1962-1963): 1-29.
GARAŠANIN M. 1979- Centralbalkanska zona. In M. Garašanin (ed.), Praistorija jugoslovenskih zema-Ija, II, Neolitisko doba: 79-212.
1982. The Stone Age in the central Balkan area. In J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Ham-mond and E. Sollberger (eds), The Cambridge Ancient History, second edition, Vohune III, Part I, The Prehistory of the Balkans: 75-135.
GATSOV I. 1989. Early Holocene flint assemblages from the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe: 471-4.
GATSOV I. and OZDOGAN M. 1994. Some epi-paleo-lithic sites from NW Turkey. Anatolica 20:97-120.
GIMBUTAS M. 1991. The civilization ofthe god-dess.
GIMBUTAS M, WINN S. and SHIMABUKU D. 1989-Achilleion. A Neolithic settlement in Thessaly, Gre-ece, 6400-5600 BC.
GREENFIELD H. J. and DRA§OVEAN F. 1994. Preli-minary report on the 1992 excavations at Foeni-Sala§: an Early Neolithic Starčevo-Cri§ settlement in the Romanian Banat. Analele Banatului 3: 45-85.
HANDSMAN R. G. 1991. Whose art was found at Le-penski Vir? Gender relations and power in archae-ology. In J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey (eds), Engen-dering archaeology: ivomen and prehistory: 132-59.
HANSENJ. M. 1991. Thepalaeoethnobotany ofFran-chthi Cave. Blooinington and Indianapolis.
HEUN M, SCHAFER-PREGL R, KLAWAN D., CASTAG-NA R., ACCERBI M, BORGHI B. and SALAMINI F. 1997. Site of einkorn wheat domestication identified by DNA fingerprinting. Science 278: 1312-4.
HODDER I. 1990. The domestication of Europe. Oxford.
HORVATH F. 1989- A survey on the development of Neolithic settlement pattern and house types in the Tisza region. In S. Bokonyi (ed.), Neolithic of south-eastern Europe and its Near Eastern connections: 85-101.
INGOLD T. 1986. The appropriation of nature: essays on human ecology and social relations. Man-chester.
1992. Culture and the perception of the environ-ment. In E. Croll and D. Parkin (eds), Bush base: forest farni: 39-56.
1993- The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeologv 25: 152-74.
JACOBSEN T. W. and CULLEN T. 1981. A considera-tion of mortuary practices in Neolithic Greece: buri-als from Franchthi Cave. In S. C. Humphreys and H. King (eds), Mortality and immortality: the anthro-pology and archaeology of death: 79-101.
KACZANOWSKA M., KOZtOWSKI J. K. and MAKKAYJ. 1981. Flint hoard from Endrod, site 39, Hungary (Koros culture). Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 21: 105-117.
KAISER T. and V0YTEK B. 1983. Sedentism and economic change in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeologv 2: 323-53.
KALICZ N. 1970. Claygods: the Neolithic period and Copper Age in Hungary. Budapest.
1990. Friihneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Suduiestungarn. Budapest.
KALICZ N. and RACZKY P. 1981. The precursors to the "horns of consecration" in the southeast European Neolithic. Acta Archaeologica Aacademiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 33: 5-20.
KERTESZ R. 1996. The Mesolithic in the Great Hun-garian Plain. In L. Talas (ed.), At the fringes of three ivorlds: hunter-gatherers andfarmers in the middle Tisza valley: 5-34.
KOKKINIDOU D. and NIKOLAIDOU M. 1997. Body imagery in the Aegean Neolithic: ideological impli-cations of anthropomorphic figurines. In J. Moore and E. Scott (eds), Invisible people andprocesses: uriting gender and childhood into European archaeologv: 88-112.
KOSSE K. 1979- Settlement ecology of the early and Middle Neolithic Koros and Linear Pottery cultures in Hungary. British Archaeological Reports.
KOZtOWSKI J. K. (ed.) 1982. Origin of the ch ipped stone Industries of the early farming cultures in the Balkans.
KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA N. 1995. Prehistoric inhabi-tation in Theopetra cave, Thessaly. In J-C. Decourt, B. Helly and K. Gallis (eds), La Thessalie, Colloque in-ternational d'archeologie: 15 annees de recherches (1975-1990), bilans et perspectives, Lyon, 1990: 103-8.
LAST J. 1996. Neolithic houses - a central European perspective. In T. Darvill and J. Thomas (eds), Neolithic houses in north-ivest Europe and beyond: 27-40.
LETICA Z. 1968. Starčevo and Koros at Vinča. Ar-chaeologia Iugoslavica 9:11-18.
LIEBERMAN D. E., DEACON T. W. and MEADOW R. H. 1990. Computer image enhancement and analysis of cementum increments as applied to teeth of Gazella gazella. Journal of Archaeological Science 17:519-
33-
MAKKAY J. 1980. Endrod, Szujokereszt (Komitat Bekeš, Kreis Szarvas). Siedlung der Koros Kultur, Sar-matenzeitliches, Landnahme- und Friiharpadenzeitli-ches Graberfeld; 1976. Mitteilungen des Archdologi-schen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wis-senscliaften 8/9 (1978/79): 209-13-
1992. Excavations at the Koros culture settlement of Endrod-Oregszolok 119 in 1986-1989- In S. Bokonyi (ed.), Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary, I: reports on the Gyo-maendrod project: 121-93■ Archaeolingua.
1996. Theories about the origin, the distribution and the end of the Koros culture. In L. Ta-
las (ed.), At the fringes of three ivorlds: hunter-gatherers and farmers in the middle Tisza val-ley: 35-53■
MARKEVITCH V. I. 1974. Bugo-Dnestrovskya kultura na territorii Moldavii. Kishinev.
MATEICUICOVA I. forthcoming. Silexindustrie in der altesten LBK Kultur in Mahren und Niederosterreich auf der Basis der Silexindustrie des Lokalmesolithi-
kums. In R. Kertesz and J. Makkay (eds), Szolnok Conference 1996.
McPHERRON A. and SREJOVIČ D. (eds) 1988. Divo-stin and the Neolithic of central Serbia. Pittsburgh.
MILLS S. F 1997. Towards a systematic approach to the study of visual experiences in prehistory: inves-tigations at Neolithic Sesklo. Unpublished MA disser-tation, University of Wales Cardiff.
MILOJČIČ, V. 1960. Hauptergebnisse der deutschen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien 1953-1958. Bonn.
MIRACLE P. 1997. Earlv Holocene foragers in the karst of northern Istria. Poročilo o raziskovanju pa-leolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji, 24: 43-61.
MULLER J. 1994. Das ostadriatische Fruhneolithi-kum: die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes. Berlin.
MRT 1989. Magvarorszdg Regeszeti Topogrdfidja 8. Bekeš Megye Regeszeti Topografiaja. Budapest.
NANDRIS J. 1970. The development and relation-ships of the earlier Greek Neolithic. Man 5:191-213-
NICOLAESCU-PLOP^OR C. S. and PAUNESCU A. 1961. Azilianul de la Baile Herculane in lumina noi-lor cercetari. Studii si Cercetari de Istorie Veche si Arheologie 12: 203-13-
OTTE M, YALCINKAYA I., LEOTARD J-M., KARTAL M., BAR-YOSEF 0., KOZLOWSKI J., BAY0N I. L. and MARSCHACK A. 1995. The Epi-Palaeolithic of Okiizi-ni cave (SW Anatolia) and its mobiliary art. Anti-quity 69: 931-44.
OZDOGAN M. 1989. Neolithic cultures of north-western Turkey. A general appraisal of the evidence and some considerations. In S. Bokonyi (ed.), The Neolithic of southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern connections: 201-15- Varia Archaeologi-ca Hungarica.
1995. Neolithization of Europe: a view front Anatolia. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 22: 25-61.
1997. The beginning of Neolithic economies in southeastern Europe: an Anatolian perspective. Journal of European Archaeology 5 (2): 1-33-
PATTON M. 1996. Islands in tirne: island sociogeo-grdphy and Mediterranean prehistory. London.
PERLES C. 1990. Les industries lithicjues taillees de Franchthi (Argolide, Grece). II. Les industries clu Me-solithique et du Neolithique initial. Bloomington and Indianapolis.
1992. Systems of exchange and organisation of production in Neolithic Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeologv 5: 115-64.
POLLOCK D. 1995. Masks and the semiotics of iden-tity.Journal ofthe Rova/Anthropological Institute 1:581-97.
RACZKY P. 1976. A Koros kultura leletei Tiszajenon. Archaeologiai Ertesito 103: 171-89.
1980. New figural representations of the Koros culture from the middle Tisza region and their historical connexions. Szolnok Megvei Muzeumi Evkonyve 1979-1980: 5-33■
1982-3. Origins of the custom of burying the dead inside houses in south-east Europe. Szolnok Megvei Muzeumi Evkonyve 1: 5-10.
RADOJČIČ N. and VASIC V. 1997. Archaeological journey in the Iron Gates. Belgrade.
RADOVANOVIČ I. 1996. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.
1997. The Lepenski Vir culture: a contribution to interpretation of its ideological aspects. In M. La-zič (ed.), ANTIAC2PON Dragoslavo Srejovič: 87-93•
RUNNELS C. N. 1988. A prehistoric survey of Thes-saly: new light on the Greek Middle Paiaeolithic. Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 277-90.
RUŽIČ M. and PAVLOVIČ N. 1988. Neolithic sites in Serbia explored in the period 1968-1988. In D. Srejovič (ed.), The Neolithic of Serbia: 69-124.
SELMECZI L. 1969. Das Wohnhaus der Koros-Grup-pe von Tiszajeno. Neuere Haustypen des Friihneolithi-kums. /1 Mora Ferenc Muzeum Evkonyve 2: 17-22.
SHERRATT A. 1980. Water, soil and seasonality in early cereal cultivation. World Archaeologv 11:313-30.
1982 a. Mobile resources: settlement and exchan-ge in early agricultural Europe. In C. Renfrew and S. Shennan (eds), Ranking, resource and exchange: 13-26.
1982b. The development of Neolithic and Cop-per Age settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain Part 1: the regional setting. Oxford fournal of Archaeologv T 287-316.
1983. Early agrarian settlement in the Koros region of the Great Hungarian Plain. Acta Archaeo-logica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 35: 155-69.
1997. Changing perspectives in European prehi-story. In A. Sherratt, Economy and society in prehistoric Europe: changing perspectives: 1-34.
SREJOVIČ D. 1972. Lepenski Vir. London.
1989. The Mesolithic of Serbia and Montenegro. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe: 481-91.
(ed.) 1996. Prehistoric settlements in caves and rock-shelters of Serbia and Montenegro. Fasci-cule 1.
STEVANOVIČ M. 1997. The age of clay: the social dynamics of house destruction. Journal of Anthropological Archaeologv 16:334-95.
STEVANOVIČ M. and TRINGHAM R. 1997. The sig-nificance of houses in the archaeological record of southeast Europe. In M. Lazič (ed.), ANTIAC2PON Dragoslavo Srejovič: 193-207-
TAKACS I. 1992. Fish remains from the Early Neolithic site of Endrood 119- In S. Bokonyi (ed.), Cultural and landscape changes on south-east Hungary, 1: reports on the Gyomaendr6dproject, Archaeo-lingua: 301-11.
TALALAY L. 1993. Deities, dolls and devices: Neolithic figurines from Franchthi Cave, Greece. Bloomington and Indianapolis.
TASIČ N. N. 1997. Hronologija starčevačka kulture. Unpublished PhD thesis, Faculty of Philosophy, Uni-versity of Belgrade.
TODOROVA H. 1995. The Neolithic, Eneolithic and Transitional Period in Bulgarian prehistory. In D.
Bailey and I. Panayotov (eds), Prehistoric Bulgaria: 79-98.
TRINGHAM R. 1971. Hunters, fishers and farmers of eastern Europe, 6000-3000 BC. London.
TROGMAYER 0. 1966. A Koros-csoport lakohazardl. Ukori hazmodell-toredek Roszkevol. Archaeologiai Ertesito 93: 235-40.
1968.	Die Hauptfragen des Neolithikums der un-garischen Siidtiefebene. A Mora Ferenc Muzeum Evkonyve 1: 11-19.
1969.	Die Bestattungen der Kdros-Gruppe. A Mora Ferenc Muzeum Evkonyve 2: 5-15.
VAN ANDEL T. H., GALLIS K. and T0UFEXIS G. 1995. Early Neolithic farming in a Thessalian river landsca-pe, Greece. In J. Lewin, M. G. Macklin and J. C. Wood-ward (eds), Mediterranean Quaternary river envi-ronments: 131-43•
VAN ANDEL T. H. and RUNNELS C. 1987. Beyond the Acropolis: a Greek rural past. Stanford.
WHITTLE A. 1985. Neolithic Europe: a survey. Cam-bridge: Cambridge.
1996.	Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of neiv ivorlds. Cambridge.
1997.	Moving on and moving around: Neolithic settlement mobility. In P. Topping (ed.), Neolithic landscapes: 15-22.
forthcoming. Beziehungen zwischen Individuum und Gruppe: Fragen zur Identitat im Neolithikum der ungarischen Tiefebene. Ethnographisch-Ar-chaologische Zeitschrift.
WIJNEN M. 1982. The early Neolithic I settlement at Sesklo: an early farming community in Thessaly, Greece. Leiden.
WILLIS K. J. and BENNETT K. D. 1994. The Neolithic transition - fact or fiction? Palaeoecological evidence from the Balkans. The Holocene 4: 326-30.
YAKAR J. 1996. The Neolithic transformation in the Near East and Anatolia's role in the Neolithization of southeastern Europe. Poročilo o raziskovanju pale-olitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 23:1-13.
ZOFFMANN Z. K. 1986. Neue anthropologische Funde der neolithischen Koros- und Theiss-Kultur aus Ostungarn. A Mora Ferenc Muzeum Evkonyve 1984/1985: 39-64.
ZVELEBIL M. 1993. Hunters or farmers? The Neolithic and Bronze Age societies of north-east Europe. In J. Chapman and P. Dolukhanov (eds), Cultural transformations and interactions in eastern Europe: 146-62.
1995. Neolithization in eastern Europe: a view from the frontier. Poročilo o raziskovanju pa-leolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 22: 107-51.
1998a. What's in a name: the Mesolithic, the Neolithic, and social change at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. In M. Edmonds and C. Richards
(eds), Understanding the Neolithic of north-ivestern Europe: 1-36.
1998b. Agricultural frontiers, Neolithic origins, and the transition to farming in the Baltic basin. In M. Zvelebil, L. Doman/ska and R. Dennell
(eds), Harvesting the sea, farming the forest: 9-27.
ZVELEBIL M. and DOLUKHANOV P. 1991. Transition to farming in eastern and northern Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 5: 233-78.
ZVELEBIL M. and LILLIE M. forthcoming. Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe. In T. D. Priče (ed.), The first farmers of prehistoric Europe.
UDK 903(398-11)"6343"
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
The northern periphery of the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture in south-vvestern Hungary: a čase study of an excavation
at Lake Balaton
Nandor Kalicz1, Zsuzsanna M. Virag2, Katalin T. Biro3
1. Archaeological Institute of the HAS, 2. Budapest Historical Museum, 3. Hungarian National Museum
ABSTRACT - V6rs-Mdriaasszonysziget is one of the northernmost lying sites ofthe Starčevo culture discovered in Hungary recently, ivhich alloived the authors to reconstruct important steps in the neo-lithisation ofthe Carpathian Basin. The Northern distribution limit ofthe Starčevo-Kdrds-Cri§ com-plex forms not only the peripherv ofthe earliest Neolithic communities, but represents also afron-tier zone betiveen the earliest farmers and the local hunter-gatherers at the turn ofthe 7/6 millennium BC. The appearance of neiv features in potterv production that turned to be main character-istics of the Oldest Linearband Pottery culture and the raw materials distribution are discussed in context of farmer-forager interactions on the agricultural frontier zone.
POVZETEK - V6rs-Mdriaasszonysziget je eno najsevernejših najdišč kulture Starčevo, ki so ga nedavno odkrili na Madžarskem. A vtorji članka so lahko na osnovi tega najdišča rekonstruirali pomembne korake neolitizacije Karpatske kotline. Severna meja razširjenosti kompleksa Starčevo-Koros-Cri§ predstavlja obrobje zgodnjeneolitskih skupnosti in hkrati tudi mejni pas med zgodnjimi kmetovalci in lokalnimi lovci-nabiralci na prehodu iz 7. v 6. tisočletje BC. V članku obravnavamo pojav novih značilnosti pri izdelo vanju keram ike, ki so postale gla vna lastnost najstarejše kulture Linearnotraka-ste keramike, ter razširjenost surovin in sicer v luči medsebojnih vplivov med kmetovalci in lovci-nabiralci na kmetovalski meji.
The Starčevo culture constitute the westernmost unit of the large Early Neolithic archaeological com-plex, comprising, towards the east the Koros culture and further east, Cri§, a culture representing the first food-producing communities in the region. It is con-nected with more loose ties to the Bug-Dniestr culture, lying further to the east, the formation of which, however, was also influenced by other fac-tors (MapKeBHH 1974; Larina 1994, Fig. 1). As has been noted several times, the complex of Starčevo-Kords-Cri§ cultures form the northernmost territory, i.e., the periphery of the vast area where the Early Neolithic archaeological heritage is intensively influenced by Balkan-Aegean traditions. The lively discus-
sion of recent years has only concentrated on unfol-ding the nature and extent of this southern, south-eastern influence, as seen from this peripheral "frontier" position1.
The limits of the aforementioned periphery start at the foreland of the Alps and run across the southern parts of Transdanubia in a west-east direction along Lake Balaton, turning north in the Tisza region of the Alfold up to the great bend of the Tisza. From here, the limits terminate, across Transylvania and the Northern part of Rumanian Moldavia to the river Dniestr in the central part of the Moldavian Repub-lic (Fig. 1) (larina 1994, Fig. 1). The archaeological
1 It is most exciting that the last four volumes of "Poročilo" edited by M. Budja (Vols. 21, 1993; 22. 1994 (1995); 23, 1996; 24,
1997) were devoted to the question of European Neolithisation, giving a forum and space to sometimes conflicting views. Further
works on this issue: Barker 1975; van Andel, Runnels 1995; Bogucki, Grygel 1993; Velušček 1995\ Budja 1996b, etc.
heritage is bound by many indisputable threads to southerly regions. The great problems are how to interpret historically the attestable archaeological contacts with the Balkano-Aegean region, and how to explain the northern limit of distribution. The three cultural units (Starčevo, Koros, Cris) of this large northern Early Neolithic complex can be well considered as three independent cultures. Disting-uishing features can be spotted within the great unit in several characteristics of settlement features, and in the quality and quantity of material and spiritual cultural heritage; taken together these features offer adequate grounds for separating the individual cultures (Raczkv 1976; Kalicz 1980; 1983; 1990; 1993)■
Among the three cultural units, the Koros culture occupies the smallest territory. Its density of sites and richness of the material culture, however, is exceptional in this period, and far surpasses that of the other two cultures. The explanation for this un-expected abundance can be found in differences in ecological relations. Only the territory of the Koros culture is fairly homogeneous, fertile flatland, where differences in altitude are negligible and soil quali-ty is also fairly even. At the same time, this central part of the Alfold (Great Hungarian Plain) densely criss-crossed by living waters and periodically inun-dated land, the most extensive area of the Carpathi-an Basin, offered an especially favourable micro-cli-mate for the first farming communities occupying the region. The forest groves and grass-lands, step-pes, and "Pusztas" offered favourable conditions for both domestic anitnals and game, and the abundance of the latter provided conditions for easy hunting. It must be said, however, that hunting was less important in the life of Early Neolithic communities than, for example, in the Late Neolithic (.Bokonyi 1992. 197-201, 233-239)■ At the earliest settlements, the people of the Koros culture basically consumed the meat of domestic anitnals and the ratio of hunted animals, apart from some local exceptions, was negligible in the food supply. The protein sources in-cluded, apart from meat, an almost inexhaustible stock of fish, freshwater mussels, and other resour-ces, obtained from the rivers and the flood plains. The immediate surroundings of the settlements was also suitable for the cultivation of plants, i.e, corn. Favourable natural endowments are indirectly re-flected in the density of settlements and the wealth of archaeological finds, animal bones, fish and shell remains. In our opinion, no other places in Europe offered, in the scale of the whole culture, compara-bly favourable conditions, with the exception of small ecological niches. The factors permitting and
facilitating the existence and flourishing of Koros culture are so different from an average Early Neolithic footing that, in spite of its peripheral position, it can be considered a special, evolved čase among south-east European cultures.
The Starčevo and Cri§ cultures, in a way, surround-ed the Koros habitation area in a large semicircle (Fig. 1). The ecological relations of the Starčevo and Cri§ cultures were essentially different from that of the Koros culture. Smaller and larger flatlands, ba-sins, river and stream valleys, as well as hills and Al-pine-type mountain ranges can be found in the habitation area. With the exception of the wide, swantpy valley of some great rivers (e.g. the confluence of the Danube and the Sava), the living water environ-ment was as important here as on the Alfold. The strategy for acquiring food was more variable cont-pared to Koros subsistence strategies, as a result of the more variable local natural endowments.
The population belonging to these cultures (Starčevo, Cri§) also intruded into the high mountain ranges and adapted successfully to a variable local envi-ronment without essential modification to the material culture so far unearthed. This feature allows us to hypothese, among others, the existence of perma-nent communication networks.
As a special čase we can mention the settlements in the Iron Gate region where the subsistence strategy was based on the Danube and girdled with high mountains (Srejovič 1969; 1972; 1981; Jovanovič 1969; 1972; 1975; Comsa 1974 uith ali earlier ref-erences; Stalio 1986; Vasič 1986; Stankovič 1986). We can also mention Bosnia, the complete territory of which has yielded onIy four sites (Lekovič 1995. 36), two of which, however, Tuzla and Obre seem especially important with teli settlements proving the existence of long-term permanent occupation (Čovič 1960/61; Benac 1973). In the čase of Obre, communication routes running along the valleys of the Neretva and Bosna rivers and passing Obre are especially important (Gimbutas 1974.11-13). The range of the Dinarian Alps running along the west-ern part of Bosnia probably forestalled the population of the Dalmatian coast by Starčevo people. It is well known that the narrow zone of the Adriatic coast was inhabited by different Early Neolithic cultures (Impresso ceramics) (Miiller 1994) that were essentially different from the appearance of the Starčevo and Cri§ cultures, never reaching the coast ali along their vast areas of distribution. The territory of the Starčevo culture is follovving the N-S direc-
100km
Vdr^MdZafsztjIzlgr	Tmmdanubia (Hungary), Croatia and Syrmium. Key:
Fig. 1. Early Neolithic cultures in the Carpathian Basin. Key: 1. Starčevo culture. la. Peripherv ofthe Starčevo culture, 2. Koros culture, 3. (ris culture 4. Mehtelek facies oftlie Koros culture. '
tion axis of the Vardar and Morava rivers from Ma-cedonia to the mouth of the River Sava, and follow-ing the valleys of the Danube-Sava and Drava, the main area of distribution widens in an E-W direc-tion (Arandelovič-Garašanin D. 1954; Garašanin M. 1958; 1979; 1982; Dimitrijevič 1966; 1969a; 1969b; 1974; 1979). In my opinion, the wide strip of land starting from the central Balkans can be stili considered as a possible route for neolithisation for large parts of the Carpathian Basin. The other com-munication route also reaching the Carpathian Basin and running similarly in a S-N direction is the Stru-ma valley with northvvard running course connected to this towards the Danube. The lower reach of the Danube, currently lying between Bulgaria and Ro-mania, transferred the early Neolithic achievements towards the North (Transylvania) and the North-west (Tisza Valley). The two routes of southern origin could possibly meet in the Sava and Drava Val-leys. The Cris culture was formed along the Oltenian rivers and passes in Transylvania (Lazarovici 1969; 1979; 1984) and round the Eastern Carpathes, in Moldavia (Ursulescu 1984). The formation of the Koros culture took plače along the river Tisza (Ku-tzidn 1944; 1947), while the Southern parts of Transdanubia were taken over by the Starčevo culture following the rivers Danube-Sava-Drava, to the East, along the Sihievements towards the North (Transylvania) and the North-west (Tisza Valley). The two routes of southern or Zala flowing into the Balaton and, to the West, the Alpine forelands (Fig. 2) (Kalicz 1978; 1990; 1993; H. Simon 1996).
As pointed out earlier, at the beginning of the Early Neolithic period these three cultures were fairly uniform (which is probably why the complex was sep-arate within Early Neolithic units: Kalicz 1983; 1990; 1993)- The separation of the individual cultures started only later, not at the very beginning. Observing the phenomenon from Yugoslavia, almost the entire territory of which was occupied by the Starčevo culture, D. Srejovič termed this earliest Neolithic unit "ProtoStarčevo" (Srejovič 1971.14-15; 1981.176-180) which is, however, rather unfortu-nate, as the same phase of development can equally be seen in the territory of both the Koros and Cri§ cultures. Thus the same phenomenon could equally be termed "Donja Branjevina", "Gura Baciului", the "Szarvas 23" phase, "ProtoKoros", or "ProtoCri§", as did J. Paul (1995).
Our current level of understanding suggests that by the tirne the Early Neolithic communities reached Transdanubia, the separation of the three regional
versions of the great complex was complete, as only the classical and late phases of the Starčevo culture are known throughout the territory (Kalicz 1978; 1980; 1983; 1990; H. Simon 1996). However, we must be very careful with such exclusive statements. For example, after the discovery of the first Neolithic communities established in Northern parts of Transdanubia, the Central European type Oldest Linear Band Pottery Culture, the evidence for distribution was concentrated for two decades at sites lying fur-ther west of the Danube. The classical phase of LBC was known far to the east of Budapest as well, with a site density great enough to indicate a seemingly reliable border region. Only the investigations of the most recent years have shown the distribution of the oldest phase of this culture to east of the Danube, in the same region where the classical phase of the LBC has long been known (Kalicz, Kalicz-Schreiber 1999). In other words, the Central European LBC took hold of the same territories from the beginning where the classical LBC with its numerous sites had spread. Similarly, we cannot finally exclude the possibility of finding the oldest phase of Starčevo ("ProtoStarčevo") culture within Transdanubia. Allowing for this, we can suppose that the distribution of Early Neolithic cultures in Western Hungary would be similar as in the classical and late phases of the Starčevo culture.
The settlement lying closest to the Danube with the oldest phase of habitation is Donja Branjevina, which is opposite the mouth of the Drava on the Eastern bank of the Danube, already on the Alfold side. This site had a strategic location at the cross-roads of natural communication routes, as well as being an important point of contact between the Starčevo and Koros cultures, taking a different turn of regional development in times to come (Karman-ski 1968; 1975; 1979; Trbuhovič-Karmanski 1993)• Farther away from the Transdanubian region, the Dobanovci site, opposite the mouth of the Sava, is a site of similar strategic importance, but unfortunate-ly it was less intensively investigated (Todorovič 1968; Dimitrijevič 1974.100, Pl. 1, 1-7). The sites at the Iron Gate can be classified here, constituting surprisingly the most dense network of occupation of the early period (as above).
A similar importance can be attributed to sites of the Eastern parts of the Carpathian Basin along the rivers in Oltenia (most important among them, Circea and Gradinile: Niča 1976; 1977; 1981)) and sites of similar age in the valley of rivers running through the Carpathians (e.g., Ocna Sibiului: Paul
1995). In the heart of Transylvania, the site Gura Baciului has attained general fante (Vlassa 1972; La-zarovici-Maxim 1995). In Eastern parts of Hungary, this period seems to be represented by some units of the Szarvas 23 site, finds from which have yet to be published in their entirety (Makkay 1981; 1996). We can neglect here more the southerly, exposed Central Balkan sites, mentioning only that the char-acter of the early Neolithic sites in the Serbian parts of the area agree well with the most ancient finds of the Carpathian Basin. On ali these sites so-called "monochrome pottery" is mentioned as the earliest phase of the first pottery periods, which is rather difficult to interpret due to the scarcity of data.2 According to our current knowledge, the presence of the common tvpe of the earliest Neolithic can be traced from Central Serbia to the West-Eastern mid-line of the Carpathian Basin. There are no significant differences in the finds, just as there are no essen-tial chronological differences.
The study of the Transdanubian settlements of the Starčevo culture has raised several important ques-tions, most of which cannot be answered yet. On the 18000 km2 of territory, currently known as the Transdanubian distribution area, there are stili only 18 known sites. It is highly probable that the number will grow, as has happened lately in Croatia. According to K. Minichreiter, the number of sites known between the Drava and the Sava rivers is about 60, increasing in density towards the east (Minichreiter 1997). According to V. Lekovič, in the much smaller Syrmium region, straddled by the Drava, Sava and Danube, the number of sites is already 56 (Lekovič 1995). The geographical conditions bor-dered by the rivers are basically similar to the natural endowments of southern parts of Transdanubia, therefore we are confident that the number of settlements will also grow considerably in Hungary. The settlements of Croatian and Syrmian territories are especially mentioned because, apart from the geographical conditions, the similarity of finds also connects them closely to Southern Transdanubia. The territories lying to the south and north of the river Drava can be considered as belonging to the same cultural entity, and this entity is also support-ed by environmental conditions.
The neolithisation of Southern Transdanubia proba-bly started during the frequently quoted "monochrome" phase which is, however, not adequately
defined for northern territories. It is beyond doubt that the process of neolithisation proceeded from the south towards the north (Ammerman, Cavalli-Sforza 1971; 1973; Chapman, Miiller 1990; Chap-man 1994). In respect of Transdanubia, the lines of communication which facilitated this were the val-leys of the Danube and the Drava. The earliest set-tlers were attracted farther along the Danube by the waterways of the Sio-Saraz, while along the Drava, parallel stream valleys running north to south are typical of the whole Hungarian reach of the river as far as Lake Balaton and the large northern bend of the River Zala mentioned above (Fig. 1,2).
Several questions arise concerning the first Neolithic settlers. One of most important is the character of ecological conditions at the beginning of the Neolithic in the southern parts of Transdanubia. Palinolo-gical analyses would be a good tool for environmental reconstruction. These are, however, not very abundant, we can stili build our knowledge mainly on the drilling probes of B. Zolyomi (1980).
In trying to collate the data of pollen chronology and calibrated 14C dates, we find that neolithisation of the southern part of the Carpathian Basin, and also in Transdanubian territory, had already begun at the beginning of the Atlantic climate zone. The beginning of the Atlantic period is generally dated to 5500 BC (although some favour 6000 BC: Borsy 1985), while the earliest Neolithic cultures are dated to the first half of the 6th millennium, and some data indicate the middle third of the 6th millennium BC Unfortunately, we have no relevant data from southern Transdanubia as yet. We have a seemingly young radiocarbon date from a Late Starčevo settlement, Becsehely (6425 bp, that is, 5550-5290 BC (Kalicz 1990.92)). Thus we can only consider the data of the nearest and neighbouring settlements which can be tentatively applied to the start of neolithisation in Transdanubia (McPherron et al. 1988.379-381: Divostin: 5945-5685 BC; Grivac: 5985 BC; Banja 5810 BC; Gimbutas 1974.15-21-. Obre IA 6250-5750 BC; Ehrich 1977; Glaser 1991\ Starčevo 5800-5290 BC). The Hungarian Koros dates are, according to Hertelendi et al. (1995; 1998) are 5950-5400 BC for the earliest period, and 5770-5230 BC for the later phase. In the first half of the Atlantic climate phase, that is, during the Early Neolithic period, the pollen of mixed deciduous vegetation (oak, lime, elm and beech) can be found. Conifers and hazelnut
2 Srejovič 1971; 1973; 1981; Jovanovič 1969; 1972 1975; Dimitrijevič 1974; Makkay 1982; Remarks on the "monochrom" pot-tery: Kalicz 1990.89.
were stili present in a significant ratio around Lake Balaton. These features indicate considerable wood-lands which are, however, less dense than later. At the same time, non-arboreal plants are also repre-sented, indicating grasslands probably in valley bot-toms. It should be mentioned as a positive fact that occasionally the pollen of cerealia and weed plants can also be found in small quantities, which is not statistically relevant, but very important for our sub-ject (Z6lyomi 1980; Jdrai-Komlodi 1987; Fiizes 1989.142-145, 203; Willisetal. 1997; 1998; Szath-mary 1983; 1988; 1991). The vegetation of the Al-fold was essentially different, with much looser ar-boreal vegetation and the presence of more non-arboreal plants. Recently, P. Sumegi and R. Kertesz examined the Early Neolithic environment in a fun-damental paper (Sumegi, Kertesz 1998) attesting, partly, to trends similar to that of our era, and ob-serving a mosaic-like character in the Carpathian Basin due to the movement of flora and fauna caused by rhythmic changes in climate since the Late Pleistocene.
Closed forests are stili characteristic of the southern Transdanubian region, and general in almost the entire Holocene period. This feature can explain the less dense habitation compared to the Alfold in the Early Neolithic, and the lower supporting capacity. Auroch, which had been one of the key elements of the economy in steppe-like regions since the beginning of the Neolithic, had a much smaller territory. It is also probable that a considerable degree of de-forestation was needed for the establishment of settlements, and perhaps also for areas selected for cul-tivation. So far, we do not have enough direct evidence of cereal cultivation during the Early Neolithic in Southern Transdanubia, but the little direct and much more abundant indirect evidence certainly prove its existence. Among the rare direct evidence there is an altar fragment found at Kethely, undoubt-edly representing Starčevo culture, in which burnt cereal remains were found in the eye sockets of a sculpted human head (Fiizes 1989.161-162). At the same time, pieces of burnt clay (daub) found at several localities contain abundant corn chaff prints, and the same can be said of pottery. These remains were found in large numbers at Lanycsok (Baranya County) at one of the settlements of Starčevo culture (Kalicz 1990. Pl. 9). On the fragments of vessels and (daub) of the Koros culture, the chaff prints can in most cases be observed with the naked eye; several pieces of corn fragments were obtained from these prints. The chaff fragments were generally used for tempering ali types of Koros and Starčevo
pottery, most of them being from cereals (P. Hart-ydnyi, Novaki 1971/2; Fiizes 1989.155-157). In the (Proto)-Starčevo cultural layers of Divostin and Gri-vac, palinological studies have confirmed the presence of cerealia, and burnt corn grains were also found at the settlement (Gruger-Beug 1988). The so far deficient, but potentially increasing evidence proves the wide distribution of agriculture and cereal cultivation during the Early Neolithic not only on the Balkans, but also in the Carpathian Basin.
The above incidental data indicate that during the Early Neolithic, favourable conditions were formed wihtin the Carpathian Basin, with some regional va-riations similar to the Balkans (p.e. Kordos 1978a; 1978b).
The known settlements of the Starčevo culture are usually distributed at considerable distances from each other. Communication between these settlements is shown by the presence of non-local objects such as stone artefacts made of raw materials com-ing from more distant territories. Radiolarite from the Bakony mountains and other raw materials are found on some sites as we shall see below. The obsidian of the Tokaj-Zemplen mountains are not known yet from the Early Neolithic Starčevo finds of Southern Transdanubia. This must be accidental, as obsidian has been found in the Eastern Slavonia and Sirmium Early Neolithic sites (Vinkovci: Chapman 1981.302-304; Golokut-Vizič: Kaczanoivska-Koz-loivski 1984-85.27-31) and even on the eponym site (Feivkes et al. 1933-47). On the Obre site, mentioned formerly as lying along important communication routes, obsidian has also been found (Benac 1973-365; Sterud & Sterud 1974). The exact prove-nance of the Obre obsidian is not known yet; it could equally be of both Carpathian and Melian origin (Lipari obsidian should be also considered), but undoubtedly it was brought to the site as a result of very distant relations (Willms 1983-342-346). Simi-larly, obsidian is known from the contemporary lay-ers of Tuzla as well as more southerly, exposed sites in the Morava valley (Grivac, Drenovac, Chapman 1981.302-304). From the Early Neolithic of the Tri-este Karst the presence of Carpathian obsidian is, specially mentioned (Biagi etal. 1993-58). Obsidian is also known from the earliest Neolithic sites of Transylvania and Oltenia. Their quantity is not great, but this is not surprising considering their great dis-tance from the source region (Vlassa 1972.178; La-zarovici, Maxim 1995-390; Niča 1977, fig. 6, 7-8). It can also be concluded from their scarcity that they were not items of daily necessity. The site at Lepen-
ski Vir is especially interesting in this respect because, in the Early Neolithic layers, Tokaj obsidian from the north occurs with Aegean Spondylus shell {Srejovič 1969.173; 1972; 1981.173)• Ali these features show that at the beginning of the Neolithic, long-distance connections were already established, probably being based on Mesolithic antecedents.
The identity of the carriers of the neolithisation of Transdanubia, as well as questions of "when" and "how", are the focus of intensive discussion. Un-fortunately, the scarcity of evidence precludes a reas-suring answer. The subjective judgement of students of the period interfere considerably in deciding on migration, diffusion models or the formation of a local autochthonous Neolithic culture. Like archaeol-ogy, physical anthropology stili does not provide enough evidence on this matter. Zs. K. Zoffmann and J, Nemeskeri emphasised the heterogeneity in the anthropological remains within the material of the two cultures (Starčevo and Koros). She attrib-uted this to differences in origin, i.e., the variations in the anthropological evidence were traced back to the mixture of local population and southern immi-grants (K. Zoffmann 1977-78.157-162; 1988.447-454; Nemeskeri 1972.201-202; 1981.268). A similar mixture of anthropological types was observed in the Iron Gates materials excavated later (.Rado-savljevič, Krunič 1986.51-56).
The contributions of palaeozoological and palaeobo-tanical evidence are heavily debated, as some sci-entists postulate the existence of the wild forms of ali domestic animals and cultivated plants in the Balkans, and even the Carpathian Basin during the late Mesolithic (Whittle 1985.11-12, 65; Budja 1993; 1996)5. It is not aimed here that authors should recite the known contradictory theories on migration, diffusion and local development with ali their variants. Lacking decisive new evidence, the former-ly expressed opinion is maintained: i.e., neolithisation in the Carpathian Basin took plače as a result of the interaction of an autochthonous, so far hypo-thetical, local, Mesolithic population and an infiltrat-ing(?), immigrating(?), smaller, southern groups con-ducting already a "Neolithic" way of life. Recently, in a micro-region in the northern parts of the Alfold, the Jaszsag area, several sites of the formerly hypo-thetical Mesolithic population have been found in several chronological phases (Kertesz 1991; 1996, ivith ali earlier references). According to R. Kertesz,
the youngest Mesolithic finds can be dated to the early phase of the Atlantic period. This period is partly contemporary with the existence of the Early Neolithic Koros and Starčevo cultures as well (Kertesz et al. 1994; Kertesz 1996.23). This Northern region of the Alfold was never populated by these two cultures, which means that the earliest food-producing groups in the Carpathian Basin did not occupy this region, i.e., the Early Neolithic Koros culture was not formed here. According to P. Siimegi and R. Kertesz, the Late Mesolithic population was ready to adapt itself to Neolithic achieve-ments (Siimegi, Kertesz 1998) which had taken plače probably by the end of the Koros and Starčevo cultures. It should be stressed that his investigations proved the existence of a Mesolithic population similar to that in neighbouring regions of Hungary. The high level of Mesolithic culture was best presented by the excavations at the Iron Gates. At the same time this population was not accjuiring notions of a productive economy by itself, together with the technical and cultural achievements characteristic of the productive way of life. Certain ethnic impetus from the south trans-ferring Neolithic ideas, characteristic material and spiritual culture, ali domestic animals and cultivated plant species were needed for the neolithisation of the local population.
It should be stressed that we think of no large-scale direct migration from the far south, but of smaller immigrant groups from the northern Balkans where the Proto-Starčevo phase was formed earlier. Although we cannot fully agree with the theory of Am-merman-Cavalli-Sforza on the mechanical explana-tion of northern distribution, it is clear that the known absolute dates of the Early Neolithic tend to be younger proceeding from south to the north. This feature shows the direction of neolithisation clearlv (Ammerman, Cavalli-Sforza 1971; 1973; Chapman-Miiller 1990). The content of the process, however, always simultaneously influenced a larger area. This means that the model of distribution is more staged, than ramp-like. Ali this happened in the southern part of the Carpathian Basin, thus in southern Transdanubia, at the turn of the 7/6th millennium BC, or the beginning of the 6th millennium BC. The process of neolithisation stopped here for a time.
The borders of the northern periphery of the Starčevo culture, observed and drawn during the last two
3 The representation of wild goat in the Carpathian Basin and Bulgaria {Makkay 1996; Budja 1996a) is at least questionable, given that with the investigation of several ten of thousands of animal bones, no wild-goat remains were found.
decades, can be considered more or less stable. The question can be raised, why this frontier zone exist-ed in the same tirne. Ecological condition do not nec-essarily imply a barrier here. Although only a few specialists have ventured to give an explanation, opinions vary considerably. One of the strongest points is that hypothetical northern Mesolithic pop-ulations did not immediately confornt to neolithisation, and blocked the distribution of Starčevo and Koros cultures farther to the North (Kalicz 1965-33-35; 1983-108-109; Kalicz, Mak-kay 1972.78; 1977. 18; Makk.ay 1982.21-22; 1996.40-42). According to another explanation, climatic factors prevented the further northern distribution of the first Neolithic farmers, because the natural endowments as a sys-tem were already not found there (Pavuk 1980.171-173; 1996.30, 33)- The most tenable current view is the acceptance of a "Central-European-Balkan agro-ecological barrier" as proposed by P. Siimegi and R. Kertesz in their excellent paper (Siimegi, Kertesz 1998). Their convincing reasoning is quoted here, almost word for word. The environment formed as a function of different climatic, soil geographical, hydrological factors "...the communities with Medi-terranean cultural and economic traditions, reaching the periphery of Balkan environmental and climatic endowments were, in a way trapped by the more northerly exposed ecological conditions. Their distribution slowed down, then completely stopped along the Central-European-Balkan agro-ecological barrier". According to the authors, the Mesolithic hunters living north of the barrier came close to the vicinity of Early Neolithic groups and were allowed tirne to adapt to Neolithic technical and economic novelties without integrating culturallv and derno-graphically with Neolithic communities of Balkan origin. Our earlier opinion agrees well with the con-clusions of the author, according to which "...the Mesolithic communities living south of the barrier assintilated into the Mediterranean type neolithisation process, culturally and demographically, with the exception of certain places of isolation (e.g, Iron Gates). It seems that the "Central-European-Balkan agro-ecological barrier" played a decisive role in the formation of a different character of local Neolithic to the north of the barrier, adapting to local environmental conditions (Siimegi, Kertesz 1998.156-157). On the basis of our present state of knowl-edge, we can fully agree with the statements of the cited authors. In our former studies, this barrier was understood as the meeting zone of the Balkan-Aegean region and the Central European region. Smaller scale migrations were postulated as reaching the northern periphery of the Balkan-Aegean re-
gion. Further migrations were, however, not postulated, but rather an exchange of ideas, a transfer of Neolithic achievements (Kalicz 1980, 1983, 1993 1995; Makkay 1982.23; 1987; 1996.42-43). The same opinion is maintained today. Our conception can be brought into accordance with "agricultural frontier" model of R. W. Dennel and M. Zvelebil (Dennel 1985; Zvelebil 1986; 1995).
ČASE STUDY - VORS MARIAASSZONY SZIGET
Evidence concerning the settlement area of the Starčevo culture has undergone considerable change since the beginning of the 'seventies. The pioneering study of S. Dintitrijevič proposed, at that tirne, the northern distribution limit of the culture at the line of the Drava river (.Dimitrijem; 1966; 1969a; 1969b; 1974; 1979). Sites of the Starčevo culture were dis-covered by Hungarian research in the southern parts of Transdanubia (Kalicz 1978; 1980; 1983). These sites clearly indicated that the northern distribution of the culture went beyond the River Drava. The investigations of the 'eighties and nineties has proved the existence of the Starčevo culture up to the line of Lake Balaton (Kalicz 1990; 1993; Fii-zes 1989.142-145). Even further north, west of Lake Balaton, in the northern bend of the River Zala, an independent Starčevo site was found (Gel-lenhaza, in the vicinity of Zalaegerszeg: H. Simon 1996). According to our present knowledge, this is the northernmost distribution limit of the Starčevo culture. Probably, this northern distribution limit can be considered stable (Fig. 1.1).
One of the northerly settlements was found in 1990 at Vors, Mariaasszony-sziget, Somogy County, which proved for the first tirne that Starčevo people reached the line of Lake Balaton, proceeding along the north-south oriented tributaries of the Drava river (M. Virag 1996; M. Virag, Kalicz 1999). These communities proceeded further to the north along the River Zala.
The Mariaasszony-sziget (island) is located in wet-lands connected to the SW corner of Lake Balaton. Before the regulation of the ntarshy area, rescue excavations were performed there (Fig. 3). The exca-vations were connected with the investigation of a small medieval church, during which four smaller sondage sections were opened to the south of the church. On the area investigated (some 500 m2), traces of intensive occupation by Early Neolithic, Starčevo people were found. The units and details of

units (Fig. 4. hatched surface)4 were irregular clay-pits and pit complexes more or less linked to each other. Probably belonging to a Neolithic settlement, an inhumation hurial in the contracted position, without grave goods, and two ovens were found5. The extent of the settlement cannot be judged on the basis of the relatively small excavation area, but the range of sections lying 75 m in length from north to south indicate traces of very intensive occupation. Unfortunately, we have no data on the char-acter of the settlement pattern, but we can be almost certain that there was once a small, Early Neolithic village there.
GENERAL CHARACTERISATION OF THE POTTERY
Pottery technique
The pottery of the find assemblage can be uniform-ly characterised by the application of organic matter, probably chaff for tempering, sometimes with vari-able quantities of sand. This is characteristic of both smaller and larger vessels; "fine" and "coarse" pot-tery can only be differentiated on the basis of surface finish and size. The surface of larger vessels is typically made "rough" by the application of special techniques (Schlickwurf, barbotine), but specimens with smoothed surfaces are also common. "Fine" pottery is made up of smaller vessels which typical-ly have a carefully smoothed or polished surface. In ali types we can observe a careful smoothing of the interiors of the vessels, sometimes polishing. Occasio-nally we can observe the application of a thin, clay varnish (slip) on the surface of smaller vessels. The colour of the pottery is generally reddish or yellow-ish, light brown, often with greyish, dark brown patches. A characteristic feature connected to the fir-ing of the vessels is the layered structure observable on the fractures of sherds: the colour of the exteri-or and interior wall surfaces is typically identical, while inside we can observe in most cases a dark, typically grey-brown stripe.
Pottery forms
Fine pottery Pedestal goblets
Rimmed side fragments of small vessels belong to this type. The diameter of the mouth of the vessel is
Fig. 4. Vors-Mdriaasszonysziget, general map of the excavations. Hatched area: units of the Starčevo culture.
4	Units unmarked on Fig. 3- belong to more recent periods (Early Bronze Age, Medieval period).
5	The excavation of the Early Neolithic settlement remains were performed by Cs. Moga-Aradi in 1990 (RF 44(1992) 26-27. We should like to express our thanks for the possibility of publishing the material to her.
typically less than 10 cm., but some specimens have a larger mouth, around 15 cm. The surface is care-fully smoothed, sometimes polished from both inside and out. Three variants could be separated in the Vors material; ali variants probably stood on a low, hollow foot. They are generally ornamented with small knobs along the fraction lines.
Variants:
(1)	Biconical goblets, with a slightly (Fig. 5a. 1) or considerablv (Fig. 5b. 3) inwardly curved upper part.
(2)	The biconical type also occurs with slightly arched rim (Fig. 5a. 2,4).
(3)	Less frequently we find specimens with a glob-ular ventral part and a slightly outwardly curved rim.
Boivls
Typologically, the bowls can be considered as larger variants of the goblets. The diameter of the rim varies between 19-20 cm. The surface of the bowls found in the assemblage is typically carefully fin-ished, smoothed, or polished. The polishing of the interior surface of the vessels is also typical here. Three variants seem to be present in the Vors material, ali of which could be occasionally completed with a low pedestal. The most frequent ornamenta-tion consist of flat knobs placed on the belly of the vessel, sometimes dissected with vertical panels.
Variants:
(1)	Most fragments represent double conical, deep bowls, with a slightly inwardly curved upper part (Fig. 5b. 8,10). Most of the biconical fragments found in the assemblage can be assigned to this type.
(2)	Another characteristic type is a more robust biconical form (Fig. 5a. 6), occurring also with a slightly concave upper part (Fig. 5b. 11).
(3)	A less frequently occurring variant is a deep bowl with an arched bottom with a slightly convex or slight S profile in the upper part.
Pedestals
Low, hollow pedestals belonging to goblets and bowls are quite frequent in the material. Their sur-faces are smoothed and polished. Their form can be conical (Fig. 5b. 9) or slightly swelling (Fig. 5b. 7).
Coarse pottery Pots
A very frequent type. Fragments of large vessels with different degrees of swelling and more coarse surfaces belong to this group. The diameter of the rim is 16-24 cm. The complete surface or the neck part is slubberly smoothed. In the latter čase, the belly part can be covered by barbotine or hand-drawn Schlickvvurf. The rim of the pots is often ornamented with finger impressions; the belly can be ornamented with vertically dissected flat knobs or flat discs ornamented with incisions. The interior part of this type is also carefully finished, often polished. We can separate on the basis of form two variants:
(1)	Most typical is a biconical form with strongly inward bent upper part (Fig. 6a. 3; 6b. 4; 7. 1) or slightly inward bent upper part (Fig. 7. 4), which can also occur with a slight S profile (Fig. 6a. 2; 6b. 4). The rim can also be bent outwards due to finger and nail impressions (Fig. 7. 4).
(2)	A less frequent type of vessel is the spherical pot with a narrow mouth, strong belly and arched side (Fig. 6a. 2,3). Spherical slice pots with a straight rim and slight sinus are less typical.
A few fragments can be attributed to flask-like types of varying degree of belly inflation, with a cylindri-cal neck (Fig. 6b. 5) or slightly convex rim (Fig. 6b. 6).
Ornamentation
Carved, incised ornaments are frequently found in the Vors material, both on fine and coarse pot-tery. The patterns comprise zigzag lines, spirals and concentric circles.
(1)	On fine pottery, mostly incised ornaments are found both on the side (Fig. 8a. 2-5) and the bottom of the vessels. The system of motifs can-not be reconstructed due to the fragmentary character of the material. On lateral fragments, parallel bunches of zigzag lines are often found which could cover larger surfaces as well. The occurrence of meandroid and spiral patterns is less typical (Fig. 8a. 1). On the bottom of the vessels, incised net patterns can also be found.
(2)	On the coarse pottery, deeply carved parallel line patterns can be found with deep and thick lines (Fig. 8a. 6,7,8,10). Parallel deep incisions were often found on horizontal handles (Fig.
8b. 12). Light incision is less frecjuent on coarse pottery, typically also consisting of straight lines (Fig. 8b. 15) and only occasionally forming arched patterns (Fig. 8a. 7). Disc form knobs ap-pearing on the coarse pottery were also orna-mented by indents. In these ornaments, a char-acteristic form is the pattern formed by parallel V forms (Fig. 9a. 3) apart from spiral motifs and concentric circles (Fig. 8a. 1,7; 8b. 14). Motifs formed by finger impressions are less frequent (Fig. 9a. 4,5). Occasionally on the coarse pottery there are rows of impressions (Fig. 8a. 9)- Also rarely there are find nail imprints over the surface in a loose array (Fig. 6a. 3).
Painting occurs only exceptionally and is not typi-cal. We could observe black painting applied before firing. The pattern observed is constituted from nar-row and wider vertical stripes and was found, prob-ably, on a bowl fragment.
Plastic ornaments
(1)	Knobs - the most frequently applied ornaments. Two variants can be separated.
Ia) On fine pottery, the application of flat oval knobs, placed on the belly of the vessels is typical (Fig. 5a. 1,5; 5b. 10) which can be dissected by incisions (Fig. 9a. 8). This form of knob, in more robust form, and rough multiple cuts are also frequently found on the coarse pottery (Fig. 9a. 6,7). Elongated, upwardly extending knob variants are sel-dom found (Fig. 6a. 1).
Ib) On the sides of larger and coarser pots and storage vessels, flat discoid plastic ornaments can be found, quite often in fairly large size (Fig. 8b. 14; 9a. 1,5). Their ornamentation has been presented before.
(2)	Ribs appearing only on the belly part of large, rough surface pots and storage vessels (Fig. 8b. 11,14) and the shoulders of flasks (Fig. 8b. 13). Ribs and lath-like plastic ornaments can be applied with finger and nail impressions. It is also found combined with a discoid knob (Fig. 8b. 14).
(3)	Barbotine - a characteristic ornament of large vessels, applied to the whole surface (Fig. 6a. 1, 2; 9b. 11,14). Among the densely patched, small clay nodules, knobs were also used (Fig. 9b. 11).
Another characteristic ornament over the complete surface of the vessel is channelled barbotine (Schlick-wurf). On the surface of the Vors vessels, the clay slip was pulled in a zigzag (Fig. 9b. 9,10) and wavy lines. The sometimes very thin slip was also pulled by the oblique (Fig. 9b. 13,15,16) or vertical (Fig. 8a. 4) or, rarely, arched (Fig. 8a. 6) motion of the fin-gers.
Evaluation
At the Vors settlement, the pottery types were dominated by sharp or rounded biconical forms, but quite frequently the mild S-profile was also found. Both features are typical of the Spiraloid B phase of the Starčevo culture (Dimitrijevič 1974.104-106). Similar features can be observed on other South-Trans-danubian sites of the Starčevo culture {Kalicz 1990. 73-77; H. Simon 1996.59-92) as well as in Croatia (Minichreiter 1992.72-73, 75). Biconical vessels are also fairly typical of the oldest phase of Transdanubian LBC (Kalicz 1993■ Fig. 17; 19-20; fig. 18. 13, fig. 19. 2; 1995).
One of the most apparent features of the ornamentation of pottery is the application of carved and incised ornaments, which occur both on coarse and fine pottery, and present in almost ali of the exca-vation units.
The construction of the incised line ornaments and the wealth of motifs comprising zigzag line bun-ches, less frequently, meandroid incisions and spi-rals remind us of the characteristic features of the oldest LBC.
The Vors site is the first and so far only locality of the Starčevo culture in Transdanubia where this ornamentation, as a possible antecedent of LBC main features is present (see LBC materials from: Becse-hely, Barcs, Medina, Baja, Szentlorinc, Budapest III, Aranyhegyi ut, etc: Kalicz 1978-79; 1993; 1995; Kalicz, Kalicz-Schreiber 1992), as a very early and abundant feature. Perhaps it is not by chance that this deeply incised linear ornament is missing from the othenvise strongly related material of Gellenha-za, which lies not very far from this site (H. Simon 1996). The differences between the two sites cannot be exactly specified yet, but it seems that the Vors settlement could be a little younger. Opposed to this, the incised net pattern at the bottom of the vessels (M. Virag, Kalicz 1999.5; Fig. 9) can be found in considerable numbers on other sites of the Starčevo culture (Kalicz 1990. Taf 22, 9-10, Taf 23, 6).
The row of impressions under the rim of the vessels is not really typical of the Starčevo culture, and occurs occasionally in the Vors material. This means of ornamentation, mainly characteristic of the coarse pottery, became a frequent feature of the oldest LBC pottery (Kalicz 1993- fig- 18. 14, fig. 19. 8, fig. 22. 13-15, fig. 26. 9 etc.).
Painting is seldom met in the Vors material, with only a few fragments yielding reliable traces (M. Virag, Kalicz 1999, fig. 5). This lack of painted pottery can probably be explained by unfavourable soil con-ditions, similar to those in the neighbouring Gellenhaza material (H. Simon 1996.61).
Among plastical overlays, most frequently we find knobs. Horizontal oval, less frequently round knobs appear in a flat form on the bowls and goblets among the fine pottery. On large vessels, especially pots, the same type of knobs appear dissected by 2-3 cuts. Knobs with cut ornamentation can be found in several find complexes of the Classical and Late phase of the Starčevo culture in Southern Trans-danubia (Kalicz 1990, 22. t. 1, 23. t. 9, 28. t, 10, 29. t. 3, 5, 30. t. 9, 45. t. 9-13; H. Simon 1996, 3 t- 7), and this type of ornament became a characteristic feature of the Transdanubian LBC as well (Kalicz 1978-79, 6. t. 5-7, 7. t. 10-11, 8. t. 1, 3, 9. t. 3, 8, 10, 10. t. 9, 11. t. 12-13, 12. t. 12-13; Kalicz 1993, fig. 32. 1, 4-5, 10; Kalicz 1995, Fig. 11. 3, 4, 10, Fig. 19, 14, Fig. 20, 3, 7, Fig. 21, 1, 4-5, 10).
The large discoidplastical overlays are striking in the Vors material, and were probably used main-ly on storage vessels, which are special features of this site. Their surfaces are typically ornamented with deeply incised lines. Similar to Vors, this type of plastical ornament is also known from the close-lying Gellenhaza material (H. Simon 1996, Fig. 1, 3, Fig- 3, 1, 3, 5, Fig. 7, 5, Fig. 9, 10), the same rich-ness of which was also pointed to by recent Croati-an research (Minichreiter 1992, Pl. 2, 2, Pl. 5, 8-10, Pl. 7, 10-22). The application of discoid overlays ornamented with different patterns seem to be a local feature which was specially frequent in Southern Transdanubia and Croatia. This specific feature of the pottery appeared sporadically at the beginning of the Spiraloid A phase and lasted till the end of Spiraloid B phase, even until the final phase of the culture described by Dimitrijevič (Dimitrijevič 1974, Pl, 22, 7; Kalicz 1990, Pl 38, 2).
Plastical ribs dissected by finger and nail imprints appear only on coarse pottery (pots, storage ves-
sels). Such vessels appear already in the Linear A-and B-phase of the culture (Kalicz 1990, PL. 22, 4-5, PL. 25, 15, Pl 24, 6, 14, Pl. 30, 5; Minichreiter 1992, Pl. 1, 1-3). In Hungary, it was more frequent in the Spiraloid B-phase, observable mainly in Gellenhaza (H. Simon 1996, Fig. 6, 1, Fig. 7, 4, 6-7, Fig. 11, 4). This type of ornamentation was heredi-tary to the Oldest LBC pottery (Kalicz 1993, Fig. 18, 3, 13, Fig. 21, 15; Kalicz 1995, Abb. Fig. 19, 7-8, 13-14, Fig. 20, 10, 13,14, Abb. 21, 9). The same can be said of the grooved ornaments on the rims of larger vessels.
The pottery surfaces covered by barbotine, and Schlichivurf were already known in the Linear B phase of the Starčevo culture, but became really characteristic elements only in the Spiraloid phase. (Dimitrijevič 1974, 102-106; Kalicz 1990.66-68). Channelling of the clay slip in zigzags and wavy patterns is known from Croatia already in the Late Classical Starčevo phase (Minichreiter 1992, Pl. 6, 1-10), but barbotine with patches and irregular channelling is most frequent in the Spiraloid B phase (Dimitrijevič 1974, Pl 7, 12, Pl, 10, 1-7, Pl. 15, 5, Pl.
18,	13; Minichreiter 1992, Pl 5, 1-13, Pl- 11, 4-6, 9, Pl. 12, 1-11, Pl. 13, 1-7). This type of ornament is also characteristic of Syrmium (Petrovič 1984-85, Pl. 1-3; Lekovič 1995, Pl. 1-2, 4, 6). Similarly fin-ished pottery is known from other sites of South-Transdanubia (Kalicz 1990, Pl. 42, 1-10, Pl, 43, 2, 5-11). It is apparent that the quantity of patched barbotine pottery in SW Transdanubia, notably also at Vors and Gellenhaza, is not so essential as in other areas of the Starčevo culture (SE Transdanubia, Sla-vonia, Syrmium: Kalicz 1990,35. t. 6-12, Taf. 36-38, 41-42, 44; Dimitrijevič 1974; Minichreiter 1992; Petrovič 1984-85; Lekovič 1995, see above). Schlick-umrfbarbotin became one of the most important features of the Transdanubian (Central European) LBC, which can be considered as a successor to the Starčevo culture (Kalicz 1978-79, Pl. 8„ 2-12, Pl. 9, 6, Pl. 10, t, 11; Kalicz 1993, Fig. 18, 5, 8-9, 12, Fig.
19,	7-8, 11-12, Fig. 21, 13-14, Fig. 22, 13, 15, Fig. 23, 4, Fig. 33-34; Kalicz 1995, Fig. 22-24).
CONCLUSIONS ON THE CHARACTER OF THE POTTERY FINDS
Finds from Vors-Mariaaszony-sziget represent the latest, Spiraloid B phase of the Starčevo culture, comprising already a number of features becoming typical of the Oldest Linearband Pottery culture. Such features include deeply incised linear patterns
in uncommonly high quantities within the Starčevo context, the dominance of biconical forms, the ap-pearance of knobs dissected by cuts, and the appli-cation of the Schlickwurf technique.
Aniong others, these features help date the Vors settlement finds to the end of the Spiraloid B phase, i.e., the formation period of the Transdanubian Li-nearband Pottery Culture. The geographical position of the site should be emphatically mentioned, lying along the northern marginal zone of the Starčevo culture, where local differences accumulate.
At the same time, the importance of these settlements in a marginal position is stressed, because they appear in a zone playing a decisive role in the formation of the (Transdanubian) LBC complex. In our day, we have growing evidence on this former-ly hypothetical process, which is also reflected in the material of the Vors.
Vors-Mariaasszonysziget: the lithic evidence
Among the objects studied from an Early Neolithic assemblage, lithic finds have a very special importance. That is, due to technical innovations and rev-olutionary changes in economy basically modifying the "cultural" flora and fauna assemblage of the site, lithic artefacts - in the first plače, chipped stone tools - should represent a continuity with genetical-ly related ancestral groups. Chipped stone tools are fairly "conservative" over long periods: in spite of new activities related to the Neolithic (productive) way of life, basic techniques, morphological tool types and - last but not least - the raw material basis can be considered fairly stable.
The Carpathian Basin seems to have, from a purely geographical point of view, a key role in European neolithisation. The Hungarian lithic evidence, how-ever, did not support these views until recently. Epi-paeleolithic/Mesolithic assemblages in the region are few, both in site numbers and artefact numbers, and the authenticity of most sites has been question-able or rejected. To date, the intensive study of the Mesolithic sites in the Jaszsag region has increased the evidence greatly (Kertesz 1996).
Early Neolithic lithic assemblages have also been re-garded as scarce, especially compared to site densi-
ty and intensity of settlement features and pottery. Even the systematic surveys of recent decades (Bdcs-kay 1976, Bdcskay, Simdn 1987) could show only a limited number of very small and poor find com-plexes.
The first sign of another possibility - i.e., a stone-tool rich, Early Neolithic horizon, was raised in con-nection with Mehtelek-Nadas, a settlement of the Ko-ros-Starčevo-Cri§ complex (Kalicz; Makkay 1974; 1976). The publication of the lithic assemblage was completed recently (Chapman 1987; Starnini 1993)-The site was interpreted as an outpost en route to obsidian sources, which is rather surprising at a dis-tance of around 100 km from the source regions. Only the large-scale rescue excavations of the past few years has proved that Mehtelek is not an excep-tion, but more a regular Early Neolithic settlement, with an abundant chipped stone industry, both to the east and west of the Danube (Biro 1996 in press). As regards the specific subject of this paper, formerly, we had no information on Starčevo lithic material in Hungary, and only a very modest amount of doubtful (mixed) material for the earliest Neolithic horizon of most parts of Transdanubia, the old-est LBC complex (Biro 1987). By now, we have to consider large lithic assemblages from the Starčevo and/or Old LBC context from the southern parts of Transdanubia (Gellenhaza, Zalaegerszeg-Gebarti to, Szentgyorgyvolgy-Pityer: Simon 1996; Banffy in press).
One of the sites with a considerable lithic industry discovered lately is Vors-Mariaasszonysziget.
A minor portion of the assemblage was presented in the above-mentioned paper, based on 22 items from the site (Biro 1996 in press Fig. 1.1-7). The total assemblage now comprises 126 items6. The main features of the material will be summarised below.
Character of the assemblage
The Vors-Mariaasszonysziget lithic assemblage is a medium-sized find assemblage among Hungarian prehistoric sites. The intensity of occurrence can also be considered as average (126 items on 500 m2 excavation surface, 0.25 items/m2) Comparable data are available mainly from "stone-rich" settlements (Biro 1994 in press)7. The distribution of the mate-
6	As the lithic industries of the earliest Neolithic settlements have special importance, we are planning to publish the complete inven-tory of stone tools in the site report.
7	The question of "much" or "few" in the čase of lithic assemblages is not easy to decide on (see Biro 1998.18, 29). However, lithic artifact density is a marker, even if it is deficient due to several factors like excavation technicjues and intra-site topography.
rial is uneven within the site: most of the material comes from sections I and IV, especially unit 1/2 unit and unit IV/36. Activity areas seem to be separable within the site, with more or less tool production vs. use8.
The type/raw material distribution of the material is presented in Table 1. Type groups and raw material categories were analysed according to categories specified first for the study of LBC material (Biro 1987) and applied subsequently to Neolithic assemblages, including not only morphological tool types or "retouched tools", but also technological categories, polished tools and other stone utensils (Biro 1998 ivith further references).
Typology
I. Raw material blocks and residues ("rm" on Fig. 10; 11) are not present in the assemblage. This feature indicates several important things. Raw material reached the site already in an elaborate form (pre-cores, but more typically, cores and/or blanks). The inhabitants of the site, indi-cated by other features of the type spectrum, as well, were regular "users" or "consumers", but not stone-working artisans, even less miners. If they had a direct role in any related activities, the products were very carefully selected else-where.
Vors - Mariaasszonysziget Type distribution / pieces
BO-f
type groups
Fig. 10. Vors-Mdriaasszonysziget - Type distribution according to pieces. Key: rm: raw material, core: cores and core residuals, fl: flakes and chips, bi: blades and blade-like blanks, rt: retouched tools, pt:polished tools, others: other stone utensils (grinders, polishers etc.).
II. Cores and core residuals ("core" on Fig. 10; 11.) are found in very small number (11 pieces, 8.7%). This feature again denotes that stone tool production was subordinate to use for the Mariaasszonysziget Early Neolithic people. The cores are of medium and small size, heavily exploited (Biro 1996 in press Fig. 1.4, 6, 7, Fig. 12.2, 8, Fig. 14.1, 6, 9), mainly irregular flake-cores and a few conical, micro-blade cores (Fig. 14.9). The bipolar technique, typical "pf" Meso-lithic/Early Neolithic chipped stone industries is also present (Biro 1996 in press Fig. 1.6, 7).
III Flakes and chips ("fl" on Fig. 10; 11.) are present in fairly large numbers and considerable size. Part of the tools are also made on flakes (10 of 17), which denotes the flake-based character of the lithic industry rather than blades, consis-tently with the core forms.
As the dominant raw material of the site, radiolarite favours more of a microlithic character; large flakes (3 flakes over 5 cm, which is decidedly large) are special features here, for both the period and the material In this feature, Vors differs essentially from Gellenhaza and Z. Gebarti to, and also from Szent-gyorgyvolgy-Pityer (oldest LBC) where the character of the chipped stone industry is definitely microlithic. Vors is larger on average, and resembles in this feature - as well as many elements of the retouched
Vors - Mariaasszonysziget Type distribution / vveight (g)
3000-/1
type groups
Fig. 11. Vors-Mariaasszonysziget - Type distribution according to weight. Key: rm: raw material, core: cores and core residuals, fl: flakes and chips, bi: blades and blade-like blanks, rt: retouched tools, pt: polished tools, others: other stone utensils (grinders, polishers etc.).
8 A more detailed analysis of intra-site distribution and a complete catalogue will be published in the site report by the same authors.

tool forms - more closely the Mencshely-Murvagod-rok (Classical LBC, Biro 1992) and the enigmatic Mencshely-Ragonya-Vorost6 assemblages (?Mesolithic-all phases of LBC, Meszaros 1948).
IV.	Blades and blade-like blanks ("bi" on Fig. 10: 11; Biro 1996 in press Fig. 1.2, 3; Fig. 12.7, 9, 10; Fig. 13.6, 9; Fig. 14.4). The number of blades (knives, blade-like flakes) is comparable to the number of retouched stone tools (blanks 19, blade-based retouched tools 7) and a blade-mak-ing tradition is also attestable in some core forms. Cutting edges were obviously important elements of the inventory, but the character of the whole industry is more flake-based than blade-like.
V.	Retouched tools ("rt" on Fig. 10; 11; Biro 1996 in press. Fig. 1.1; 12.1,3,5,6; 13 1,2,4-5, 7,8; 14. 3, 5, 7) Formerly, ali of our typological knowledge was derived from retouched tool types. Classical typological systems are based on the study of retouched (morphological) tool types, especially in the Palaeolithic period. Ad-ding the technological types as it was presented here completes the image and multiplies evidence. The main basis of comparison within lithic inventories, however, is observations made on the class of retouched tools.
The Vors material is relatively rich in retouched tools (17 pieces, 13-5%). Compared to the size of the assemblage and the simplicity of the LBC retouched tool inventory, the tool kit is fairly varied. Lateral re-touching is found on chips (Fig. 12. 6), blade frag-ments (Fig. 13. 4) and knife-blades (Fig. 14. 3). Trun-
cation is fairly common (Fig. 12. 3; 13- 5; 14.5), but no "classical trapezes" have been found at Vors so far. The other diagnostic "Early/Middle Neolithic form", segment, is represented by two examples, Fig. 13. 1, which is unusually large, reminding one again of the Mencshely-Vordsto finds and the espe-cially interesting, refitted, segment-like tool in Fig. 13. 4,5). Borers and burins are present in a wide variety and relatively large number (Fig. 12.1,5; 14. 7). End-scrapers, very common in later periods, are almost absent (Fig. 13. 8; even this piece can be regarded as a combined tool with a lateral burin). Side-scrapers, on the other hand, are well represented (3 pieces: Biro 1996 in press. Fig. 1.1, Fig. 13.7)9. Later on, side-scrapers very rarely occur in Neolithic materials, so this feature can be added to the "Early Neolithic" characters (also mentioned in Biro 1987).
VI. Polished tools ("pt" on Fig. 10; 11; 14. 8) The Vors material is not especially rich in polished stone artefacts. From the two implements classi-fied here, ID Nr. 21 (a profiled hammer) is of very complex form (Section IV, unit 28) which could belong on mere formal criteria to a younger horizon. A piece which belongs undoubtedly to the Early Neolithic material is a very usual trapezoid chisel or wedge (Fig. 14. 8), also in a photo (Fig. 17). The material of the piece, however, is most interesting: on macroscopic observation, the raw material was identified as of the porcellanite phase of Transdanubian radiolarite present in the chipped stone inventory of this and other Starčevo materials (e.g., Gellenhaza). More recent finds (Lengyel III from the source environs) also yielded
Fig. 17. Section II unit 13. ObjectID 107. Fragment of polished stone tool, Transdanubian radiolarite, porcellanite, 51 x 35 x 14 mm.
9 ID 59, not represented here in drawing.
Fig. 18. Section II unit 18. ObjectID 117. polisher plate ivith "axe print", lightyellow fine sandstone 90 x 61 x 20 mm.
Fig. 19. a, b, c. Section U trnit 13. Object ID 118. irregularpear-shaped stone bali, ivith bored shalloiv hole in it - bola.', "Permian " red sandstone, 72 x 75 x 75 mm.
polished stone tools from this material, so its presence is not unparalleled, but certainly surprising.
VII. Other stone utensils: grinders, polishers, used pebbles etc. ("others" on Fig. 10; 11) are inte-grated elements of the lithic inventory and com-prise pieces which are very important for the technology (ID 117, Fig. 18) and stable contacts (ID 124, Fig. 20) of the site. Also, there is a special tool among these pieces, a spherical pear-shaped object with a bored, shallow hole in it, found also in a clear Early Neolithic context. The form is closest to a bola; however, the clearly in-tentional hole may indicate some other (so far, unknown) function (ID 118, Fig. 19). Grinders and polishers are important elements of the tool kit and show some intra-site regional distribution pattern which will be important in interpre-ting the site features.
Raw materials
The raw material distribution of the Vors site is fair-
ly homogeneous and denotes strong and stable
10 With whom?
northern contacts with the areas of the Balaton Highlands (Permian sandstone) and the Southern Bakony area (Transdanubian radiolarite, primarily Szentgal (red) variant). Ali these mass supply goods fall within the range of normal regional supply; the problem is that we stili have no convincing evidence on the inhabitants(?) explorers(?) of the region. Notable raw materials on the site are Balaton-High-land hornstone and one doubtful piece with poten-tially southern connotations, a grey (Mecsek?) radiolarite (Fig. 12. 9)- Different varieties of sandstone were used on the site, among which the most char-acteristic is the Permian red sandstone, known as an excellent building stone in the eastern parts of the Balaton Highlands (around Balatonalmadi). In our čase, this material seems a very strong contact indicator, as sandstone objects are rather heavy and cannot just "accidentally" occur at such a dis-tance from the source. With the more easily trans-portable, chipped stone tools (cores, precores) a chain-like transport model can also be assumed10, but the heavy sandstone probably needed very direct and deliberate action, eventually pointing in the same direction.
Fig. 20. 4 IV Section 4 techn. layer. Object ID 124, fragment of a large flat grinding stone - quarter, carefully finished, ".Permian " red sandstone, 151 x 122 x 35 mm.
Conclusions on the character of the lithic industry
Vors-Mariaaszonysziget is among the first Early Neolithic settlements where an authentic closed lithic industry has been found and described. Typologi-cally, the material shows very close ties to the LBC materials of the Balaton Highlands. Also, the raw materiali provenance points to the same region (and, beyond to the Southern Bakony) for contacts. "Contact" in this period, however is an empty term without content.
The analysis of Early Neolithic assemblages of similar age (Gellenhaza, Zalaegerszeg, Szentgyorgyvolgy) is in progress, but they ali indicate very intensive use of the above territories.
SUMMARY
The Northern distribution limit of the Starčevo - Koros - Cri§ cultures forms not only the periphery of the earliest Neolithic communities, but at the same time represents a frontier zone between the earliest farmers and local hunter-gatherers at the turn of the 7/6th millennium BC. On the northern side of the frontier zone, in the northern part of the Carpathian Basin, hunter-gatherer communities probably sub-sisted at the same time as the first farmers, although this could only be proved with certainty in a small micro-region within Hungary.
The formation of the agricultural frontier zone was primarily governed by a complex interaction of different factors such as climate, hydrology, vegetation etc., which did not favour, to the north of the frontier zone, the establishment of the early farming
way of life. Consequently, early farming techniques spread in the given period only to the south of this zone crossing the Carpathian Basin obliquely in a SW-NE direction.
At the Vors-Mariaasszonysziget site, one of the north-ernmost settlements of the Starčevo culture was found, the material culture of which is related to, as regards pottery in the first plače, to early farming communities living between the Drava and Sava. There are, however, new features present in the pot-tery that turned out to be the main characteristics of the Oldest Linearband Pottery culture evolving later to the north of the frontier zone.
The raw material of the stone tools found at Mariaa-szonysziget originates almost exclusively from the Balaton Highlands and the Southern Bakony, both lying to the north of the frontier zone where no traces of the Starčevo culture were found. This means that the vital raw materials were obtained from potentially uninhabited areas or, more prob-ably, the sources were supervised by the Mesolithic forager (hunter-gatherer) communities. The system of contacts with this hypothetical base population, the nature of which is so far unknown, supplied the Starčevo population with the preferred raw material, i.e., Szentgal radiolarite, which turned to be the dominant raw material of the subsequent LBC population. These systems of contacts contributed later to the spread of notions on a productive way of life without a mass movement of the population towards the north.







■ -

»V J J




Fig. 12. Vors-Mdriaasszonysziget - Selec-tion from the lithic industry. 1. Buriti on small chip, Transdanubian radiolarite -Szentgdl var. 17 x 19 x 3 mm, 2. Micro-core remnant, Transdanubian radiolarite, reddislt brotvn 17 x 16 x 12 mm, 3-Truncated blade-like flake fragment, Transdanubian radiolarite - Szentgdl var. 22 x 16 x 3 mm, 4. Trapeziform tnicro-chip, Transdanubian radiolarite -Szentgdl var. 9x8x2 mm, 5. Combined burin-borer (zine) on transversal small flake. "bird-like" form. Transdanubian radiolarite - Szentgdl var. 24 »v 34 x 6 mm, 6. Retouched small chip, form rerni-niscent of att angular seraper. Transdanubian radiolarite - Szentgdl var. 18 x 12 x 3 mm, 7. Blade, Transdanubian radiolarite, light porcellanite 24 x 14 x 3 mm, 8. Lotv conical core, mth flake scars. Transdanubian radiolarite, reddish brotvn 20 x 36 x 33 mm, 9. Blade-like flake, Mecsek radiolarite(?), grey 41 x 18 x 11 mm, 10. Micro-knife blade uith tvorit edge. Transdanubian radiolarite - Szentgdl var. 25 x 8 x 3 mm.
Fig. 13. Vors-Mdriaasszonysziget - Se-lection from the lithic industry. 1. Seg-ment-form special tool on flake. Transdanubian radiolarite, porcellanite. 41 x 17 x 11 mm, 2. Retouched chip, Transdanubian radiolarite - Szentgdl var., burnt, 13 x 16 x 3 mm, 3■ Micro-chip, from unusual material, grey andesite, 15 x 10 x 3 mm, 4. Fragment of retouched blade. (fragment of a segment form tool). Transdanubian radiolarite, porcellanite, 15 x 15 x 4.5 mm, 5. Truncated blade fragment, (fragment ofa segmentform tool). Transdanubian radiolarite, porcellanite 21 x 15 x 4 mm, 6. Microblade, Transdanubian radiolarite - Szentgdl var. 22x8x2 mm, 7. Side-seraper on small flake. with steep re-touch. Transdanubian radiolarite -Szentgdl var. 26 x 15 x 9 mm, 8. Atvpical, high end-seraper on blade-like flake. Transdanubian radiolarite -Szentgdl var. 38 x 16x6 mm, 9- Blade, Transdanubian radiolarite - Szentgdl var. 34 x 14 x 3 mm.
Fig. 14. Vors-Mdriaasszonysziget - Selec-tionfrom the lithic industry. 1. Micro-core, heavily used. Transdanubian radiolarite - Harskut var. 28 x 28 x 23 mm, 2. Large flake, ivith core base rim. Transdanubian radiolarite - Szentgal var. 51 .v 50 x 18 mm, 3- Retouched knife blade, hafted ivith fine retouch (of use?). Transdanubian radiolarite, red-dish broivn 48 x 25 x 9 mm, 4. Segment form unretouched knife, ivith fragmen-ted edge. Transdanubian radiolarite -Urkut-Epleny var. 28 x 17 x 8 mm, 5. Truncated microblade, Transdanubian radiolarite, reddish broivn 22 x 11 x 4 mm, 6. Core remnant, cusp. Transdanubian radiolarite, lightporcellanite 48 x 28 x 25 mm, 7. Borer on retouched blade, ivith atypical distal medial borer tip. Transdanubian radiolarite - Szentgal var. 38 x 13 x 4 mm, 8. Trapeziform polished stone chisel, ivith fragmented butt. Transdanubian radiolarite (light porcellanite)(?) 51 x 35 x 14 mm, 9. Micro blade core remnant. Transdanubian radiolarite, light porcellanite 33 x 21 x 13 mm.
		Vors - Mariaasszonysziget raw material distribution / pieces		
				
				
				
				
C/D 30-Q)				
CD 25_				
				
				
				
				
		9 10 11 13 16 45 50 51 63 67 909 915 917 947 999 type groups		
Fig. 15. V6rs-Mdriaasszonysziget - Raiv material type distribution according to pieces. Key: 9: Transdanubian radiolarite, Szentgal var. 10; Transdanubian radiolarite, Urkut-Epleny var. 11; Transdanubian radiolarite, Harskut var. 13; Transdanubian radiolarite, reddish-broivn 15; Transdanubian radiolarite, others 45; Hornstone (Balaton Highlands) 50;fine sandstone 51; rough sandstone 53; quartzite 57; volcanites 909; Transdanubian radiolarite, Szentgal var. (?); 915; Transdanubian radiolarite, other (?) 917; Mecsek radiolarite (?), 947; basali (?) 999 others.
Fig. 16. V6rs-Mdriaasszonysziget - Raiv material type distribution according to iveight. Key: 9; Transdanubian radiolarite, Szentgal var. 10; Transdanubian radiolarite, Urkut-Epleny var. 11; Transdanubian radiolarite, Harskut var. 13; Transdanubian radiolarite, reddish-broivn 15; Transdanubian radiolarite, others 45; Hornstone (Balaton Highlands) 50; fine sandstone 51; rough sandstone 53; quartzite 57; volcanites909; Transdanubian radiolarite, Szentgal var. (?); 915; Transdanubian radiolarite, other (?) 917; Mecsek radiolarite (?), 947; basali (?) 999 others.
type	S	Blw	oa	B2w	PO ca	B3/9	£ tri oa	ca	as ^ ca	* ta	l/N oa	B5/9	* l/S ta	so ca	* so ta	r-ca	B7/9	X ca	6/89	Os ta	(S OS ca		C5/9	SO «	D5/9	£ l/N o	6/z.a	F/C5	
total weight	00 i	m o 00	SO K as	00 r	as IfŠ ed f^	CNJ ITN	00 oo r-	r CN] csi	l/N O	r r ^	,—i	■NO O cNi	r<i l/N PTl O	00 o 00 ed	ON CNI trš	■—i P l/N CN>	00 00	00 o	r SO l/S O	ed r<x so	—H O o	C^ r CN)	p r-H	X o	so CNI	X SO OS o	SO us p	so r-os	
total pieces	CNJ	-	so	C-J	ON i—i	-	eo	CnI T—1	CN|	r-		ed																	
Os OS as																													
r-as					-																								
r- S» TH as																-													
IfS — ^H S OJD																													
C8 O S o					i—i						-				-		cvi				-								
N s - £ C« »Tn rt																													
i * S ~ irs i																													
«H =0 4> j*. w i/s																													
O i/s																													
					<																								
£ £			(ni		r			CN)		-	-				-	i—1									-				
»H			T-«	-	en	T—H	T-H											T-H						-		-			
* -		1—1			r-H																								
* 2												,—i		-															
u as	-		m	-	u-n		C^l	o T—H	CN1	i/s	ON											cvi					-	,—1	
type	1—i oa	* -H ca	n ca	& (M ca	oa	as oa	& ca	ca	as ^ ta	oa	l/N oa	as l/S ta	£ i/s ca	so ta	£ so ca	r-oa	as t ca	X oa	os 00 ca	as ca	£ os ca		os l/s	so v	os l/s o	£ l/s a	os r~ O	l/s U b	

T a.	—	Nt iS		L_		iS PT V ~	: 5	a	c-e.	csi.	£ U	a	0	a <1	tor.	total nieces	r total weieht	0
o*-oc	o-	G-\C G* O	0.27	3.648	21.84	6.822	7.667	78.75	c o Nf	00 o	188.1	ir O	18.58	1880	Nf O o ro		3330	weight
																"O		pieces
																rt	0.09	CN «N CN
																	ON O 00	r ■NjH CN
																-	oo	1—I CN
																-	ON 0^ CNl	l/N CN
																	rvi o\ O	CN O CN
																-	o	r- UN
													T-H		--1	(N)	NT oo m	tri l/N
											-	-		CV) rt	-	ON r—t	r- (NI	ITN
								-		-	rt						UN (NI O (NI	O \r
																	L^ p L/N rt	WN
	-				-		-									ir (NJ	UN 00 l/N	l/N rt
																(NI	O o	tn rt
																co	UN irš cn	rt rt
																(N!	4.22	O rt
rt		-	-	T—l		tV|										r	240.2	CN
F/G3		o			J3	J3w	tri §	e.	SN c-	CSI.	SN '33 u I	eja	ž	Z "S o	u o	total pieces	total weight	
>5 >*» Si ^ »S "5
pn5^ a \ S) o
•S a te
-as
te ^
"S -S
s
^ S1» ^
6« g
5
te
te

l
a ^
§ e
o p
V. -
te i)
s
s I
s*
a -a
... t; .»s a ©> i iv
4 S I -- ^
te" ,3
I i 4Š«.
ifl^
si te
5N oj-
S-S
-T*®
A ?

Si
a a
os ^^ 1 a te ^ ■«« -a
65 g a
" S S
te >as
»S s
S	a s
a	« 5'
S	5-5
S	a^s
j-. »«
a
te
■a a
•s. a sSSf ?-a g
% a
® K
a
■a
S 1=5
a h sT a ~ a 5 -a e
g eq ^ So s .. © a ^ ©
| i ■8'*
1 a|
te
®q "a
S
C
te
^ £
»N J*.
% s s
b a a
sš
ss a
&45
•S.
a
«
a
_ ; Sc g
I-i
i. "a
tu
H«
•S s
a ^ ® ^
S g 1
* §
a5 . ** C «r te a ~ "a K HI 1
© S te >5 ^
te a te 5: -a §
a5 S ® §?>
a 5
S ON
.S
. - ^ te «5
1
2 g
S ® rt te
te IN
S
a ©
•c a ■a
.te
S J
-n "a
a ©
i.
te
t ■š
i.
g
'a © te »a
~ i S*
te-^
i
1 3
.■a	-
I	a
O	o
a	s
s:	a
1 rv
a
S!^
fS
I S se t:
a a -a a a
I
a
I
© ■a
S
I
I ^
CN
©5 ^
i^te -s ©
Si'
^ "Sv —
i ^-S ~ a ©
H
fS

t« t
■a
a
a •—-
«a a a
I
a
I
£ 5 •2
"a ^ ^
s
•5
•a a a
1 a
S I
t ©
S-a
^ S
I
a
i £

® a » .a
c S "S a a .a S a ^
Q I?4 |11 i,' i -S
* rv
te" a
'S ©
I
a a
^ a
s
I i
a
I S
2
a aa
I te © ■a,« O
^ fC-1J
••Sh®,
<s .te'51"5-**' - ^s a ©
S o 5
•pi-a - -a
"a ^ J a
A
i a
S ^^aa^ S
■a
fa 2? a a
M
P
-ss te
"a -a •a s«s »s s
<«s -a a a te a
11 «
a a g ®
^ K ^
S I 1 | §
a
I
S
ll a «5
^ ^ oa
REFERENCES
AMMERMAN A. J., CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L. 1971. Mea-ning the Rate of Spread of Early Farming in Europe. Man 6: 674-688.
1973. A population model for diffusion of early farming in Europe. In Renfrew C. (ed.), The Ex-planation of Culture Change: models in preh is-tory: 343-357.
van ANDEL T. H., RUNNELS C. N. 1995. The earliest farmer in Europe. Antiquity: 491-500.
ARANDELOVIČ-GARAŠANIN D. 1954. Starčevačka kultura, Ljubljana.
BARKER G. 1975. Early Neolithic Land Use in Yugo-slavia. Proc. Prek, Society 41: 85-104.
BACSKAY E. 1976. Early Neolithic Chipped Stone Im-plements in Hungary. Dissertationes Archaeologi-cae.
BACSKAY E., SIMAN K. 1987. Some remarks on chipped stone industries of the earliest Neolithic populations in present Hungary. Archaeologia In-terregionalis Warsaw - Cracoii' University press (1987): 240 107-130.
BANFFY E. in press. Starčevo und/oder LBK? Die ersten Ergebnisse der westungarischen Ausgrabun-gen aus der Entstehnungsphase der Bandkeramik. Halle/Saale, ed. H-J. Beier in press.
BENAC A. 1973. Obre I. A neolithic settlement of the Starčevo-Impresso and Kakanj Cultures at Raskršče. WMBHLM Band III, Heft A: 327-430.
BIAGI P, STARNINI E., VOYTEK B. 1993- The late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Settlement of Northern Italy: recent consiederation. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 21: 45-67.
BIRO K. 1987. Chipped stone industry of the Linear-band Pottery Culture in Hungary. Archaeologia In-terregionalis Warsaiv - Cracou' University press (1987) 240: 131-167.
1992. Mencshely-Murvagodrok koanyaga. Stein-artefakte aus neue Grabungen von Mencshely. Tapolcai Vdrosi Muzeum Kozi. 2. 1991/1992: 51-72.
1994. A Szentgal, Fiizi-kiiti kesoneolit telepiiles koanyaga/Lithic material of the Late Neolithic settlement Szentgal, Fuzi-kut. \eszprem Megyei Muzeumok Kozlemenyei (Veszprem) (1994): 19-20, 89-118.
1996 in press. Lithic materials from the Early Neolithic in Hungary. Lecture presented on the Mesolithic Symp., Szolnok.
1998. Lithic implements and the circulation of raw materials in the Great Hungarian Plain during the Late Neolithic Period. Budapest, Hungarian National Museum: 1-350.
BORSY Z. 1985. Nyiregyhaza termeszeti kepe (hungarian) (The natural wiew of Nyi'regyhaza). Sza-bolcs-Szatmdri Szemle (Nyiregyhdza) 20/4:38-55.
BOGUCKI P. and GRYEGEL R. 1993. The First Far-mers of central Europe. fournal ofField Arch, 20: 399-424.
BOKONYI S. 1992. The Early Neolithic vertebrate fauna of endrod 119- In Bokonyi S., Meid W. (eds.), Cultural and Landscape changes in South-East Hun-gary I. Reports on the Gyomaendrdd Project: 195-299.
BUDJA M. 1993. Neolitizacija Evrope. Slovenska perspektiva. -The Neolithisation of Europe. Slovenian aspect. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 21: 163-193■
1996a. Neolitzacija na področju Caput Adriae: med Herodotom in Cavalli-Sforzo. - Neolithisation in the Caput Adriae region: between Hero-dotus and Cavalli-Sforza. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 23: 69-76.
1996b. Neolitizacija Evrope. Slovenska perspektiva. Prispevek k diskusiji. Neolithisation of Europe. The Slovene Aspect. Contribution of the Discussion. Arh, vestnik 47: 323-329.
CHAPMAN J. 1981. The Vinča culture of South-East Europe. Studies on Chronology, Economy and Society. B.A.R. International 117.
1987- Technological and stylistic analysis of the early Neolithic chipped stone assemblage from
Mehtelek, Hungary. In Biro K. (ed.), Siimeg Pro-ceedings Budapest KMI: 31-52.
1994. The origins of Farming in South east Euro-pe. Prehistoire Europeenne 6:133-156.
CHAPMAN J. C., MULLER J. 1990. Early farmers in the Mediterranian basin: the Dalmatian evidence. Antiquity 64: 127-134.
COM§A E. 1974. Die Entwicklung, Periodisierung und relative Chronologie der jungsteinzeitlichen Kulturen Rumaniens. ZfA 8: 1-44.
ČOVIČ B. 1960-61. Rezultati sondiranja na preisto-rijskom naselju u Gornjoj Tuzli. - Resultate der Son-dierungen auf der prahistorischen Siedlung in Gornja Tuzla. GZMS 15-16: 81-139.
DENNEL R. 1985. The Hunter-Gatherer, Agricultural Frontier in Prehistoric Temperate Europe. In Green R. W., Perlman S. M. (eds.), The Archaeologv of Frontiers and Boundaries: 113-139.
DIMITRIJEVIC S. 1966. Arheološka iskopavanja na području vinkovačkog muzeja. - Ergebnisse archao-logischer Ausgrabungen auf dem Gebiet des Muse-ums von Vinkovci von 1957 bis 1963-
1969a. Starčevačka kultura u slavonsko-srijem-skom prostoru i problem prijeleza ranog u srednji neolit u srpskom i hrvatskom podunavlju (Summary). In Simpozij neolit i e neolit u Slavoniji, Vukovar 4-5 lipnja 1966. Poseban otisak Gradski Muzej u Vukovaru: 7-96.
1969b. Das Neolithikum in Syrmien, Slawonien und Nordwest Kroatien. Archaeologia Iugoslavi-ca 10:39-76.
1974. Problem stupnjevanja starčevačke kulture s posebnim obzirom na doprinos južnopanon-skih nalazišta rešavanju ovih problema. - Das Problem der Gliederung der Starčevo-Kultur mit besonderer Riicksicht auf den Beitrag der siidpa-nnonischen Fundstellen zur Losung dieses Problems. Materijali Beograd 10: 59-120.
1979- Sjeverna zona. In Benac A. (ed.), Praisto-rija jugoslavenskih zemalja. Volume II: Neolit-sko doba: 229-360.
EHRICH R. W. 1977. Starčevo revisited. In Markotič V. (ed.), Ancient Europe and the Mediterranean. Studies in lionour of Hugh Hencken: 59-67.
FEWKWES V. J., GOLDMAN H, EHRICH R. W. 1933. Excavations at Starčevo, Yugoslavia, Season 1931 and 1932. A Preliminary Report. BASPR 9:35-54.
FUZES M. 1989. A foldmtiveles kezdeti szakaszanak (neolitikum es rezkor) novenyleletei Magyarorsza-gon (Archaeobotanikai vazlat). Die Pflanzenfunde in Ungarn der anfanglichen Entwicklungsphase des Ackerbaues (Neolithikum und Kupferzeit) Archaobo-tanische Skizze. Mitteilungen des Tapolcaer Stddti-schen Museums I: 139-238.
GARAŠANIN M. 1958. Neolithikum un Bronzezeit in Serbien und Makedonien. Uberblick iiber den Stand der Forschung 1958. BRGK 39: 1-130.
1979- Centralnobalkanska zona. In Benac A. (ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja. Volume II: Neolitsko doba: 79-212.
1982. The Stone Age in the Central Balkan area. In CAHIII/1. 75-135.
GIMBUTAS M. 1974. Introduction-Obre and its plače in Old Europe - Chronology of Obre I and Obre II -conclusions. Separate print from WMBHLMArchao-logie, Volume IV A: 5-13, 15-35,357-358.
GLASER R. 1991. Bemerkungen zur absoluten Datie-rung des Beginns der westlichen Linienbandkera-mik. Banatica 11: 53-64.
GRUGER E., BEUG H.-J. 1988. Botanical Investigations at Divostin and Grivac. In McPherron A., Srejo-vič D. (eds.), Divostin and the Neolithic of central Serbia: 415-418.
HARTYANYI B, NOVAKI G. Y. Gabonalenyomatok a Koros-csoport edenyein. - Getreideabdriicke auf den Gefafien der Koros-Gruppe. MFME 1971/2:5-8.
HERTELENDI E., KALICZ N., RACZKY P., HORVATH F., SVINGOR E., FUTO I. and BARTOSIEVICZ L. 1995. Re-evaluation of the Neolithic in eastern Hungary based on calibrated radiocarbon dates. In Radiocarbon 37: 239-245.
HERTELENDI E., SVINGOR E., RACZKY P, HORVATH F., FUTO I., BARTOSIEVICZ L., MOLNAR M. 1998. Radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic and tirne span of teli settlements in eastern Hungary based on calibrated radiocarbon Dates. In Kolto L., Bartosievicz L. (eds.), Archaeometrical Research in Hungary II. Budapest-Kaposvdr-Veszprem: 61-69.
JARAI-KOMLODI M. 1987. Postglacial climate and vegetation history in Hungary. In Pecdi M., Kordos L. (eds.), Holocene environment in Hungary.
JOVANOVIC B. 1969- Chronological frames of the Iron Gate Group in the Early Neolithic Period. Arch. Iug. 10: 23-38.
The autochtonous and the migrational compo-nents of the Early Neolithic in the Iron Gates. Balcanica 3- 49-58.
1975. The origin of the Early Neolithic in Djer-dap. Godišnjak Sarajevo, Knjiga XIV, 12:5-14.
KACZANOWSKA M., KOZLOWSKI J. 1984-85. Chip-ped stone Industry from Golokut. RAD Vojvod, Muz. 29: 27-31-
KALICZ N. 1965. Siedlungsgeschichtliche Probleme der Koros- und der TheiE-Kultur. Acta Ant. etArch. 8: 27-40.
1978. Fruh- und mittelneolithische Funde in der Gemarkung des Ortes Lanycs he Iron Gates.JPME 22: 137-158.
1978-79. Funde der altesten Phase der Linien-bandkeramik in Siidtransdanubien. Mitteilungen des Archaologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 8-9: 13-46.
1980. Neue Forschungen iiber die Entstehung des Neolithikums in Ungarn. In Kozlowski J. K. und Machnik J. (eds.), Problemes de la neolithisation dans certaines regions de l'Europe: 97-122.
1983. Die Koros-Starčevo-Kulturen und ihre Be-ziehungen zur Linienbandkeramik. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 52: 91-130.
1990. Friihneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Siid-westungarn. Inventaria Praehistorica Hunga-riae 4.
1993. The Early Phases of the Neolithic in We-stern Hungary (Transdanubia) - Zgodnje neolit-ske faze v Zahodni Madžarski (Transdanubiji). Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 21: 85-135-
1995. Die alteste transdanubische (mitteleuro-paische) Linienbandkeramik. Aspekte zum Ur-sprung, Chronologie und Beziehungen. Acta Ar-
chaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungari-cae, 47: 23-59.
KALICZ N., KALICZ-SCHREIBER R. 1999- Die Verbrei-tungsgrenze der friihneolithischen Kulturen in Transdanubien (Westungarn). In Festschrift fiir B. Bagolini. In Print.
KALICZ-SCHREIBER R. 1992. Die erste friihneolithische Fundstelle in Budapest. Hommagge a Nikola Ta-sič. Balcanica 23: 47-76.
KALICZ N., MAKKAY J. 1972. Siidliche Einflusse im friihen und mittleren Neolithikum Transdanubiens. Alba Regia 12: 93-105-
1974.	A mehteleki agyagistenek. Kiallftasvezeto [Exhibition Guide] Nyiregyhaza.
1976.	Friihneolithische Siedlung in Mehtelek-Na-das. Mitteilungen des Archaologischen Instituts (1976) 6: 13-24.
1977.	Die Linienbandkeramik in der Grofšen Ungarischen Tiefebene. Studia Arch, 7.
KARMANSKI S. 1968. Slikana keramika sa lokalite-ta Donja Branjevina kod Deronje. Odžaci.
1975.	Rani neolitDonja Branjevina. Katalog izložbe.
1979. Donja Branjevina. Odžaci.
KERTESZ R. 1991. Preliminary Report on the Research of Early Holocene Period in the NW part of Great Hungarian Plain. FHNMM 16: 29-44.
1996. The Mesolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain: A survey of the Evidence. In Talas L. (ed.) At the Fringes of three World - Hunter-Gatherers and farmers in the Middle Tisza Valley: 5-34.
KERTESZ R, SUMEGI P., KOZAK M., BRAUN M., FELE-GYHAZI E., HERTELENDI E. Archeological and Paleo-ecological Study of an Early Holocene Settlement in the Jaszsag Area 0aszbereny I) Acta Geogr 32:5-49.
KONDIC V. (ed.) 1986. Djerdapske Sveske III -Cahiers des Portes de fer III.
KORDOS L. 1978a. Changes in the Holocene Climate of Hungary reflected the 'Vole-thermometer' method. Foldrajzi K6zlemenyek: 1-3, 222-229.

1978b. A Sketch of the Vertebrate Biostratigra-phy of the Hungarian Holocene, Foldrajzi Kozle-menyek: 1-3, 144-160.
KUTZIAN1.1944,1947. A Koros kultura (Hungarian 1944), The Koros Culture (english 1947). Diis. Pann Ser II, No. 23.
URINA 0. 1994/1-2. Neoliticul pe teritoriul Repu-blicii Moldova - The Neolithic on the territory of the Republic of Moldova. Thraco-Dacica XV/l-2:19-40.
LAZAROVICI G. 1969. Cultura Starčevo-Cri in Banat -Die Starčevo-Cri-Kultur in Banat. AMN 6: 3-26.
1979- Die Starčevo-Cri§-Kultur. (Allgemeine Fra-gen). Studii si Communicdri de Istorie (Caran-?ebe§): 27-31-
1984. Die Periodisierung der Starčevo-Cri ^-Kultur in Rumanien. Dritter Internationaler Thrako-logisclier Kongresss zu Ehren W. Tomascheks. 2-6. Juni 1980, Wien. Volume I: 94-100.
LAZAROVICI G., MAXIM Z. 1995. Gura Baciului. Cluj-Napoca.
LEKOVIČ V. 1995. Neolithic settlements. In Vaja Z. (ed.), Arheological investigations along the high-way route in Srem: 25-44.
MAKKAY, J. 1981. Painted Pottery of the Koros-Star-čevo Culture from Szarvas, Site No. 23. Acta Arch. Carp. 21: 95-103.
1982. A magyarorszagi neolitikum kutatasanak tij eredtnenyei. Budapest (Hungarian) - The new re-sults of the research on the Hungarian Neolithic.
1987. Kontakte zwischen der Koros-Starčevo-Kul-tur und der Linienbandkeramik. Comm. Arch. Hung: 15-24.
1996. Theories about the Origin, the Distribution an the end of the Koros Culture. In Talas L. (ed.), At the Fringes of three Worlds - Hunter-Gathe-rers and farmers in the Middle Tisza Valley. Szol-nok: 35-49.
MAPKEBMH B. VI. 1974. Bvro-flHecTpoECKaH Kyjbry-pa Ha TeppHTopnH Moamhmm.
McPHERRON A. J, ATKIN M, BUCHA V. 1988. Abso-lute Dating of Divostin, Grivac-Barice and Banja. In
McPherron A, Srejovič D. (eds.). Divostin and the Neolithic of central Serbia: 379-387.
MESZAROS Gy. 1948. A vazsonyi medence mezolit-es neolitkori telepulesei. Veszprem.
MIKIČ Ž. 1995. Antropološki ostaci neolitskih ljudi sa nalazišta Zlatara (7) i Kudoš (20) u Sremu - An-thropological remains of the Neolithic people from the sites Zlatara and Kudoš in Srem. In Vaja Z. (ed.), Pokrajinski zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture, Novi Sad - Archeological investigations along the highway route in Srem: 45-49.
MINICHREITER K. 1992. Starčevačka kultura u sje-vernoj Hrvatskoj - The Starčevo Culture in Northern Croatia.
1992a. Ranoneolitska arhitektura sjeverne Hrvatske. Frtihneolithische Architektur Nordkroatiens. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 20: 17-26.
1997. Otkriče u Lukaču i Požegi kao prilog poznavanju topografije naselja starčevačke kulture u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj. - Entdeckung in Lukač und Požega als ein Beitrag zur kenntnis der To-pographie der siedlungen der Starčevo-Kultur in Nordkroatien. Priloži Inst. za arh, u Zagrebu 11-12: 7-36.
MULLER J. 1994. Das ostadriatische Friihneolithi-kum. Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes. PAS, 9.
NEMESKERI J. 1972. The inhabitants of Lepenski Vir. In Srejovič D. (ed.), Europe's First Monumental Sculptures: 190-204.
1981. Die Bewohner von Lepenski Vir. In Srejovič D. (ed.), Lepenski Vir. Fine vorgeschichtli-chee Geburtsstdtte: 249-272.
NIČA M. 1977. Nouvelles donnees surr le neolithique aancien D'01tenie. Dacia 21: 13-53-
PAUL I. 1995. Aspekte des karpatisch-balkanisch-donaulandischen Neolithikums. Die Pracri§-Kultur. In Paul I. (ed.), Vorgeschichtliche Untersuchungen in Siebenbtirgen. Alba Iulia: 28-68.
PAVUKJ. 1980. Problem der Genese der Kultur mit Linearkerantik itn Lichte ihrer Beziehungen zur Starčevo-Cri ^-Kultur. In Kozlowski J. K. und Machnik J.
(eds.), Problemes de la neolithisation dans cer-taines regions de VEurope: 163-174.
1996. Zur Frage der Verbreitung des Neolithi-kums auf dem Zeltralbalkan und in Mitteleuropa. In Drasovean F. (ed.), The Vinča culture, its role and cultural connections.
PETROVIČ J. 1984-85. Naselje starčevačke kulture na Golokutu kod Viziča - A settlement of the Starčevo culture at Golokut near Vizič. RAD Vojvodjanskih Muzeja 29: 9-25.
RACZKY P. 1976. A Koros kultura leletei Tiszajenon - Funde der Koros-Kultur in Tiszajeno. ArcErt 103: 171-189.
RADOSAVLJEVIČ-KRUNIČ S. 1986. Resultats de l'etu-de anthropologique des scjuelettes provenant du site Ajmana. In Kondič V. (ed.), Cahiers des Portes de Fer III: 51-58.
SIMON K. 1996. Ein neuer Fundort der Starčevo-Kultur bei Gellenhaza (Kom. Zala, Ungarn) und seine siidlichen Beziehungen. In Drasovean F. (ed.), The Vinča culture, its role and cultural connections. In ter n. Symp. on the Vinča culture, its role and cultural connections, Timisoara. Romania, Ockt. 1995: 59-92.
SREJOVIČ D. 1969. Lepenski Vir. Beograd.
1971.	Die Lepenski Vir-Kultur und der Beginn der Jungsteinzeit an der Mittleren Donau. In Schwa-bedissen H. (ed.), Fundamenta, Reihe A, Vol. 3■ 1-38.
1972.	Europe's First Monumental Sculpture. lepenski Vir.
1973.	Die Anfange des Neolithikums im Bereich des mittleren Donauraumes. In Novak G. (ed.), Actes Beograd, Tome II: 252-263■
1981. Lepenski Vir. Eine vorgeschichtliche Ge-burtsstatte europdischer Kultur.
STALIO B. 1986. Le site prehistorique Ajmana a Mala Verbica. In Kondič V. (ed.), Cahiers des portes de fer III: 27-44.
STANKOVIČ S. 1986. Embouchure du ruisseau Karne-nički potok-site du groupe de Starčevo. In Kondič S. (ed.), Cahiers des portes fer III: 467-471.
STARNINI E. 1993- Typological and technological analyses of the Koros culture chipped, polished and ground stone assemblages of Mehtelek-Nadasd (North-Eastern Hungary). Alti. Soc. Preist. Prost. Trieste 1993: 29-96.
STERUD E., STERUD A. 1974. Quantitative analisis of material remains from thee neolithic settlement Obre I and II, Bosnia, Yugoslavia. WMBHLMM Ar-chdologie, Volume IV, A: 166-261.
SUMEGI P., KERTESZ R. 1998. A Karpat-medence os-kornyezeti sajatossagai-egy okologiai csapda az ujko-korban? Jdszkunsdg 44:144-157.
SZATHMARY L. 1983. Wirkung der okologischen Faktoren auf die Siedlungsverhaltnisse der neolithi-schen Bevolkerungen in der ostlichen Region des Karpatenbeckens. DME 1980: 73-86.
SZATHMARY L. 1988. The Boreal (Mesolithic) peo-pling in the Carpathian Basin: the role of the peri-pheries. Fol, Hist.-nat. Mus. Matr., 13: 47-60.
1991. Boreal-Atlantic change in the Carpathian Basin populations. In Farkas Gy. (ed.), Papers of the Scientific Session in Szeged (Hungary) 1990: 293-301.
TODOROVIČ J. 1968. Dobanovci, ciglana, Zemum -naselje Starčevačke kulture. Ar h. Pregled 10:9-11.
TRBUCOVIČ V., KARMANSKI S. 1993- Donja Bra-njevina 1989-1993■ Odžaci.
URSULESCU N. 1984. Hvolutia culturii Starčevo-Cris pe tritotoriul Moldovei. Contribution a la connsian-ce de 1'evolution et de la position chronologique de la civilisation Starčevo-Cris, sur le territoire de la Moldavie. Muzeul judeare: 5-131■
VASIČ R. 1986. Compte-rendu des fouilles du site prehistorique 0 Velsnica 1981-82. In Kondič V. (ed.), Cahiers des Portes de fer III: 264-279.
VELUŠČEK A. 1995. The Transition of the Neolithic as a Process towards Agriculture: Can It Be Recogni-zed in Mesolithic Contexts in the Karst Dinaric Mountain Regions of Slovenia? Ar h. Vestnik, 46: 334-337.
M. VIRAG ZS. 1996. Ujkokor es korai rezkor - (Neu-steinzeit und Friihkupferzeit). In Kolto L. und Van-dor L. (eds.), Evezredek iizenete a Lap vildgdbol
(Regeszeti kutatdsok a Kis-Balaton teruleten 1979-1992) - (Nachrisht der Jalirtausenden ausder Welt des Moores. Archdologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiet des Klein-Balatons: 16-20.
m. VIRAg ZS., KALICZ N. Neuere Siedlungsfunde der fruhneolithischen Starčevo-Kultur aus Siidwestun-garn. Geplante Festschriftfar J. Kozloivski. In Print.
VLASSA N. 1972. Eine friihneolithische Kultur mit bemalter Keramik der Vor-Starčevo-Koros-Zeit in Cluj-Gura Baciului. Prahistorische Zeitschrift 47: 174-197.
WHITTLE A. 1985. Neolithic Europe: A Survey. Cambridge.
WILLIS K. J, SUMEGI P., BRAUN M, TOTH A. The late Quaternary environmental history of Batorliget, N. E. Hungary. PALAEO 118: 25-47.
WILLIS K. J, SUMEGI P, BRAUN M., BENNETT K. D., TOTH A. 1998. Prehistoric land degradation in Hun-gary: who, how and why? Anttquity 72: 101-113.
WILLMS C. 1983. Obsidian im Neolithikum Europas. Germania 61: 327-351.
K. ZOOFFMANN Zs. Embertani ismereteink a Koros-Starčevo-Cris kultura nepessegerol. Anthropologi-sche Kenntnisse iiber Bevoelkerung der Koros-Star-čevo-Cri§-Kultur. Arch, Ert. 103: 190-196.
1978. Anthropological Finds in Lanycsok, Hun-gary, from the Early Neolithic Starčevo culture. JPME22: 1977, 157-162.
1988. Human Skeletal Remains from Divostin. In McPherron A., Srejovič D. (eds.), Divostin and the neolithic of Central Serbia: 447-455.
ZOLYOMI B. 1980. Landwirtschaftliche Kultur und Wandlung der Vegetation im Holozan am Balaton.
Phytocoenologia, 7 (Festband Tuxen): 121-126.
ZVELEBIL M. 1986. Mesolithic prelude and neolithic revolution. In Zvelebil M. (ed.), Hunters in transition. Mesolithic societies of temperate Eurasi and their transition to farming: 5-15.
1994 (1995): Neolithization in Eastern europe: A view from the Frontier. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 22: 107-151.

UDK 903(4-191.2)"6323/634"
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
Altestbandkeramische Kultur, La Hoguette, Limburg, and ... What else? - Contemplating the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition
in southern Central Europe
Detlef Gronenborn
Seminar fur Vor- und Fruhgeschichte, Frankfurt am Main gronenborn@em.uni-frankfurt.de
ABSTRACT - Arguing against a sole migrationist or šole diffusionist model for the Neolithization of southern Central Europe, a combined scenario is presented. The result might have been Early Neolithic societies in ivhich immigrant farmers and local hunter/gatherer/horticulturalists interacted in diverse ways. This interaction led to an assimilation of the local population, hoivever not ahvays in a pleasant way.
POVZETEK - Pri neolitizaciji južnega dela srednje Evrope ne zagovarjamo zgolj migracijskega modela ali zgolj modela difuzije, ampak predstavljamo kombiniran model, Rezultat so bile morda zgod-njeneolitske družbe, v katerih so na različne načine vplivali drug na drugega priseljeni kmetovalci in lokalni lovci/nabiralci/hortikulturalisti. Ti medsebojni stiki so pripeljali do asimilacije lokalnega prebivalstva, ki ni vedno potekala na prijeten način.
INTRODUCTION
The transition to farming has been a major focus of research in Central Europe. Since the times of Gor-don Childe (1929), the introduction of the new econ-omy has been linked to the migration of people from Trans-Danubia up to the Rhine and Elbe Rivers and into Little Poland, and ultimately - in the later stages - to the Pariš basin and Moldavia (e.g. But-tler 1938; Quitta 1964; Bogucki 1988; Luning 1988; Modderman 1988; Thorpe 1996).
However, this picture became somewhat complicat-ed by the notification of typological and technolog-ical links between Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic lithic assemblages (Taute 1973/74; Gronenborn 1990; 1994) and the recent discovery of new pot-tery styles and indications for small-scale farming among hunter-gatherers in southwestern Central Europe (feunesse 1986; Erny-Rodmann 1996). Thus the previously neglected role of the local Mesolithic population in the process of the Neolithization has had to be reviewed. In the course of these reconsid-eration, some researchers have presented models of
a solely autochthonous development of the Neolithic economy in southern Central Europe. Arguments for the various models are evaluated and a combined model of migration and local assimilation is presented.
MESOLITHIC PRELUDE
Sometime between 7200 and 6700 BC Mesolithic assemblages in central Europe and elsewhere on the continent undergo remarkable typological and tech-nological changes. After a transitional phase between 7200 and 6700 BC, during which early trapezes make their appearance (Gronenborn 1997 c), the whole set of Late Mesolithic artefacts appears with the typical regular blades and various trapezoidal mi-croliths. These assemblages are subsumed under the term Late Mesolithic (Taute 1973/74 a; 1973/74 b).
A remarkable phenomenon of the Late Mesolithic is the decrease in the number of sites. This decrease
has been interpreted as a shift in settlement pattern: Jochim (1990) and, following him, Tillmann (1993) have hypothesized that during the Late Mesolithic, groups lived in more stable base camps which would have been located along water courses and are now buried by sedimentation. From these base camps parts of the group would have radiated to small hunting/fishing camps. The concentration into larger base camps would have resulted in larger social entities, which then led to an increase in complexi-ty (Tillmann 1993)• This model, attractive as it is, stili awaits archaeological proof, as in central Europe large Late Mesolithic base camps have escaped archaeological recognition, only small temporarily oc-cupied hunting/fishing camps have been discovered so far.
Among the little archaeological remains we have from the Late Mesolithic there are some indications that times might actually have been quite stressful. Good evidence comes from the Ofnet cave in Bava-ria, where 34 skulls have been found, deposited in two ''nests". Excavated early this century (Schmidt 1913) the material has been examined repeatedly. Already during excavation it became clear that some of the skulls show definite indications of violence inflicted by polished celts (Mollison 1936), a hypoth-esis backecl by a recent reexamination (Orschiedt 1998). The crania with definite indications of trau-ma seem to belong to a group deposited in a single event, the cause of death of the others is not clear. Some skulls show cutting marks on the cervical ver-tebrae, indicating beheading. In total, seven C14 dates have been obtained, both conventional and accelerator dates, ali of which lie between 6400 and 6200 BC (Hedges et al. 1989).
A similar situation has been discovered at Hohlestein ročk shelter, where crania of three individuals, one male adult, one female adult, and one child with indications of hydrocephaly were found grouped together (Orschiedt 1998). Cutting marks on the cervical vertebrae again suggest beheading after death, and break patterns on the crania suggest the inflic-tion of death by a strong blow with a hard and heavy object, possibly a club. 14C dates plače the untimely death of the Hohlestein family between 6760 and 6480 cal BC, thus a few centuries earlier than Ofnet (Haas 1991). Comparable cases, less well known, can be named from other parts of southern Central Europe (Orschiedt 1998).
These skull depositions have been interpreted as ordinary burials and in the čase of Ofnet, as a com-
munal grave (Jochim 1990; Orschiedt 1998). While certain communal activities may be reflected, the indications of violence have been somewhat neglect-ed. However they do strongly testify to remarkable social processes, namely the outbreak of inter-group (Hohlestein) and possibly intra-group (Ofnet) violence, and Keeley (1996.102) goes so far to speak of "trophy skulls" for Ofnet. While this explanation niust await some further support, Ofnet and Hohlestein nevertheless indicate severe social stress during the 7th millennium cal BC in southern central Europe. Despite these violent inter- and intra-group dis-agreements, bands had far-reaching contacts: snails recovered at Ofnet came from the Lower Danube (more than 3000) and also from the French Midi (few) (Rahle 1978). These are precisely the regions where, some centuries later, the earliest elements of a Neolithic economy originated; thus the entry routes were already known a thousand years before the arrival of farming (Gronenborn 1994).
The burials from Ofnet and Hohlestein remain the only more extensive group of burials for the southern Central European Late Mesolithic. While in the coastal regions of southern Scandinavia (e.g. Mad-sen 1986; Andersen 1993), along the Atlantic coast (Schulting 1996), or in the extensive woodlands of North-Eastern Europe (Zvelebil & Dolukhanov 1991) burial grounds do indicate a somewhat stationary life, in inland Central Europe only occasional burials of small children were unearthed in ročk shelters (e.g. Grote 1994.82), certainly indications of a con-tinuously mobile way of life with brief, intermediate stops. Also, as already noted above, the few known open-air sites are small and seem to have been occu-pied only briefly in the course of hunting/fishing excursions (e.g. Kind 1997).
Indeed it becomes increasingly questionable whether large sites as they are known from the Iron Gates region (e.g. Radovanovič 1996) ever existed in southern Central Europe. While a model accounting for more sedentary groups, and maybe increased com-plexity in societal structure seems appealing, there is stili no evidence, even in areas which would be favorable for the location of such base camps like large river flood plains, or lake shores. If Late Mesolithic sites are found, they are always the remains of briefly occupied hunting/fishing camps. Nevertheless an increasing degree of territoriality may be evi-denced in the Ofnet burials, with indications of inter-group stress and also, much later, in the evidence from Schotz 7 (5900-5700 BC) in Switzerland (Wyss 1979), where deer remains show a decrease in size,
possibly indicating intensive hunting, hence pressure on resources. Such a behavior is unusual for hunter/ gatherer populations as over-exploitation is usually avoided. Thus, it is quite likely that Late Mesolithic times in Central Europe were not as pleasant as the evidence from Lepenski Vir might suggest; on the con-trary, it must have been a tirne of social and econo-mic insecurity. Nevertheless, steps towards a more stable settlement pattern seem the logical consequen-ce of the evidence at hand; however, it seemingly did not result in increased complexity, and also a transi-tional stage between hunter-gatherer/farmers can-not be established for wide parts of Central Europe.
However, exceptional palaeo-botanical evidence has recently been published from the western Alps and the Alpine foreland. It does seem that already during Late Mesolithic times people engaged in small-scale farming, the earliest evidence might even date back to the latter part of the 7th millennium cal BC (Erny-Rodmann etal. 1997). Secure evidence dates after 5750 cal BC and should thus be roughly con-temporaneous to the early secure dates for pottery and animal husbandry in southern France.
Pottery, stylistically linked to southern France (Jen-nesse 1987; Liining et al. 1989) made its appear-ance in western Central Europe and western Europe probably around the same time, shortly after 5750 BC. Two different stylistic groups are differentiated, one being the so-called La Hoguette (LH) pottery groups, with its distribution in SW Germany, Switzer-land, Upper Rhone valley and also towards Nor-mandy (Fig. 1) (Van Berg 1990; Liining et al. 1989). The other group is the so-called Limburg (LB) pot-tery group, which is mainly distributed in the NW-European lowlands, with extensions towards the south (Fig. 1).
LH pottery is characterized by applied bands with single or twin rows of pointed incisions; LB pottery is decorated with incised lines, chevron motifs, and bands filled with lines. In a recent article, Jeunesse (1998) has suggested a continuation of these deco-rative styles and an adaptation by the Rubane mo-yen and recent in the west. This is indeed a tempt-ing hypotheses, as the lithic industry of the western LBK also shows remarkable Mesolithic traditions, notably projectile points. Indeed, Lohr (1994) has shown that the lateralization1 of certain types of LBK projectile points can be linked to Mesolithic mi-croliths and long term stylistic provinces can be
established, even beyond the onset of the 7th millennium cal BC. Moreover, if plotted on a map, the distribution of LH pottery shows a remarkable overlap with microliths with left lateralization, and LB pot-tery shows a remarkable overlap with microliths with right lateralization (Fig. 1). These long-term stylistic provinces should reflect Mesolithic territo-ries of intense interaction that persisted well into Early Neolithic times.
So far, unfortunately, except for a few sites, either LH or LB pottery was found only in association with the LBK, or as single stray finds. Therefore, little is known about subsistence during this period gener-ally termed the "Terminal Mesolithic". So far, only the site of Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt has revealed fau-nal and botanical evidence in clearly undisturbed association with LH pottery. Apart from domesticat-ed sheep/goats and cattle, remains from game animals was found and also charred cereals (Brunna-cker et al. 1967; Meurers-Balkepersonal communi-cation). However, a recently obtained l4C-date in-dicates an occupation around 5200/5100 BC, well after the appearance of LBK in the region. It is thus not very clear to what extent the settlers were influ-enced by LBK subsistence, as there is ample evidence of contact between LH and LBK (Gronenbom 1990, in press; Jeunesse 1998). Other evidence for possible subsistence during the Terminal Mesolithic stems from a site in the Doubs valley in Eastern France. The multi-layered ročk shelter of Bavans has produced layers with LH, below those with LBK pot-tery. The LH layer contained some sheep/goat remains, about 3% of the total faunal remains. Similar evidence comes from other sites around the western and northwestern margins of the Alpine region (Chaix 1997). It can be considered as beyond doubt that already before the onset of the Earliest LBK, Terminal Mesolithic groups engaged in animal hus-bandry. These domestic animals must have been in-troduced from abroad, as no wild predecessors of sheep/goat existed in Europe. Albeit this transition-al stage towards the Neolithic traditional patterns stili continued. No firm domestic structures have been found up to this day, thus there is no evidence for extensive base camps. Data comes only from rock-shelters. So the introduction of animal hus-bandry and small scale horticulture into the western Alpine region is best understood as an adaptation of some Neolithic elements by local groups. Nevertheless, earlier hunter-gatherers' subsistence and settlement patterns continued and remained dominant.
1 For a definition and explanation of the term see Rozoy (1968) and Lohr (1994).
To sum up, it is presently possible to outline Late/ Terminal Mesolithic cultural development as follows: a change in settlement patterns occurs in course of the Late ML. However, this change is hard to detect archaeologically and can only be inferred from a bundle of clues. While previously groups led a large-ly mobile way of life with seasonal shifts of camps by the whole group, during the Late Mesolithic, groups remained at a base-camp for prolonged stays with excursions of part of the group to utilized resources (hunting bands). These special activity camps have been discovered archaeologically, while the large base-camps remain have not yet been found. The postulated decreased mobility led to increased terri-toriality, which resulted in increased inter-group and intra-group stress. In some cases an outbreak of vio-lence can be demonstrated archaeologically.
At least in parts of southern central Europe small scale farming was practiced sometime after 5700 BC, this economy originating very likely from northern Italy and/or the French Midi. However, it needs to be stressed that horticulture and animal hus-bandry played a minor role in the economic system and only supplied the earlier hunter-gatherer sub-
sistence strategy which continued to be practiced; no far-reaching consequences for settlement pattern and the social/political structure of groups can be traced archaeologically.
The Early Neolithic of the "Danubian Tradition" - the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK)
Meanwhile, "on the other side of Central Europe", re-markable changes were coming about: influenced by fully developed Neolithic societies in the southern Balkans, local groups began to incorporate animal husbandry, domesticated plants, and pottery into their subsistence and material culture. More or less permanently settled hamlet- or village-like structures sprang up (see VVhittle, this volume). These Early Neolithic representations are subsumed as the so-called Starčevo-Koros-Cris cultures and their antece-dents {Pavlu 1989; Pavuk 1995). The earliest evidence might date back to the end of the seventh millennium BC.
North and northwest of the Starčevo-Koros-Cris distribution a yet archaeologically unknown Late Mesolithic substratum is presumed to have existed. It is
Fig. 1. Distribution of La Hoguette and Lim-burgpottery (after van Berg, 1990), and so-called Danubian points from Late Mesolithic and Earliest LBK sites (after Lohr, 1994).
precisely here where the characteristic ware of the Earliest Linear Pottery Culture (German: Linienband-keramische Kultur, LBK) evolved which is also ternted "LBK of Central European Type" or "Trans-Danubian LBK", to distinguish it from a similar phe-nomenon in the Great Hungarian Plain (Alfold), the so-called AVK (after the Hungarian Alfoldi Vonaldf szes Kerdmia (Kalicz & Makkay 1977.12)).
Stylistic influences between Starčevo-Koros-Cris and Earliest LBK can be made out in pottery forms and decorations (e.g. Kalicz 1993) notably in the earliest sites such as Brunn II, near Vienna (Stadler on-line). These early stylistic traits in LBK pottery are lintited to the northwestern Carpathian basin (Pa-vuk 1996), where this initial phase should date betvveen 5700 and 5600 BC (Fig. 2). With the onset of the fifty-fifth century BC, LBK began to spread northward and westward and reached the site of Schwanfeld in Franconia as well as Eitzum, north of the Harz mountains around 5500 cal BC (Gronen-bom 1994, in press). At the same tirne the early Vinča Culture evolved in the Banat area and its vicin-
a) ~ 6000 BC
ity (Schier 1997), bringing about many economic changes in the northern Balkans (Whittle 1996\ Gro-nenborn in press).
This first expansion of the LBK up to Schwanfeld and Eitzum was followed by a halt, maybe for a gen-eration. In a subsequent, second advance, loess ter-ritories up to the Rhine were settled. Here a cont-plex situation of increased contact and interaction with the Terminal Mesolithic groups, the manufac-turers of LH pottery, developed, lasting between 5400 and 5250 BC, after which the LBK spread further westwards, settling in the Rhineland and Dutch Limburg (Gronenborn 1990 in press).
Earliest LBK settlements varied somewhat in their extent and structure. Many of them seem to have been more or less widely-spaced hamlets or villages, such as Schwanfeld (Gronenborn 1997a), Nieder-Eschbach (Hampel 1995), or Brunn (Stadler online). However, denser house clusters also seem to have existed, as is the čase in Bruchenbrucken (Gronenborn 1997b). Houses differ somewhat from later LBK
b) - 5900-5800 BC
c) ~ 5700-5600 BC
d) after 5500 BC

300 km
Fig. 2. Hypothetical development and expansion of earliest LBK in the Carpathian Basin during the first half of the sixth millennium BC.
constructions, notably through the presence of so-called wall trenches, the real purpose of which remains unclear. The fact that some of the Earliest LBK houses do not show interior roof support posts might indicate two differing building traditions, one influenced by the Carpathian basin, where interior posts are equally absent during the Early Neolithic (Gronenborn in press), the other constituting a central European innovation with heavy roof structures (Lenneis 1997). During the Earliest LBK a mixed farming system, with the cultivation of emmer, cinkom, lentils, and peas, was practiced (Kreuz 1990). Faunal remains show that cattle were domesticated, but some of the sites show a preponderance of sheep/goat, notably those further southeast, similar to the economy of the Starčevo-Koros-cultures in Carpathian Basin (e.g. Bokonyi 1992). However, the northern sites at Eilsleben and Eitzum show a heavy dependence on cattle (Dohle 1994), perhaps as an adaptation to the specific environmental conditions. The earliest LBK faunal assemblages also contain a high percentage of game (Uerpmann and Uerp-mann in press), which has recently been interpret-ed as an indication of an autochthonous develop-ment on a Late Mesolithic basis (Kind 1998). How-ever, we need to bear in mind that Starčevo-Koros sites also often show a high percentage of wild animals (Whittle, this volume), thus the argument might well be turned around and taken as a further indication, together with the preponderance of sheep/ goat at Earliest LBK sites, for a migration of settlers from the Carpathian basin. In this respect it is also noteworthy to remark that the Bruchenbrticken faunal assemblage shows a strong reliance on domesticated pig and game, which I interpret as another indi-cator for intensive contacts between LBK and Terminal ML, the manufacturers of La Hoguette pottery (Gronenborn in press).
Burials dating to the earliest LBK are rare. The data for the only burial ground excavated so far, Vedro-vice in Moravia, has so far only been published in preliminary form (Podborsky 1993). Some burials here, as well as a settlement burial at Schvvanfeld (Gronenborn 1997a.41; Caspar 1997), contained sets of trapezes which were made solely for deposi-tion in the graves and do not show any use wear traces. A shoe-last adze from the Schwanfeld burial equally shows only slight indications of extensive use. These repeated combinations of goods, a shoe-last adze and a set of trapezes have led me to interpret them as standard symbols of members of a
2 See also Biehl (1996) for a similar interpretation.
hunter/warrior association which is stili visible in later LBK times (Gronenborn in press). At Vedrovi-ce, some burials also contain objects, which are inter-preted as indicators of a certain social status, notably spondylus armlets (Nieszery 1995', Miiiler 1997). I have argued that the occurrence of such objects already in Earliest LBK times would indicate a more diverse social differentiation from the beginning of the LBK onwards (Gronenborn in press), such has so far been only hypothesized for later LBK (Jeune-sse 1997; Van de Velde 1990). A remarkable burial in Little Poland might indicate another group of indi-viduals with specific assignments within Earliest LBK society. At Samborzec, an interment of an adult woman with red ocher sprinkled around the cranium and a necklace of animal teeth was discovered with-in the settlement (Kulczycka-Leciewiczowa 1988). This woman might have been occupied with magic and religious practices; perhaps she was a shaman. The red ocher is reminiscent of the little clay figurines typical of early LBK phases, which equally show a red-dyed hairdo (e.g. Hampel 1989). Hence, these figurines might not be stylized "idols", but rather represent actual individuals with obligations in the realm of the supernatural2. Othenvise, very little is known about the Earliest LBK societies.
The main question: "demic diffusion" or autochthonous development?
Probably going back to Gordon Childe (1929), the sudden appearance of the LBK has for a long tirne been interpreted as an immigration of groups from Trans-Danubia. The main arguments for this were the general similarity of pottery over wide distances of Central Europe and its stylistic affiliation to certain ceramic forms and decorative modes of the Starčevo-Koros cultures (e.g. Quitta 1960; Kaufmann 1991). In 1964, Quitta for the first tirne presented an elaborate model of the LBK expansion through migration: a late Mesolithic population in Trans-Danubia comes into contact with the Starčevo culture and hence the Neolithic economy. Farming becomes quickly adopted, as does pottery, but with distinctive central European traits. Starting from Trans-Danubia, small groups migrated into the loess patches north and westward and started clearing the land for farming. The forests on the loess soils were unin-habited, it is believed, as the dense vegetation did not allow for a high annual biomass production, hence hunter-gatherers would not find enough game. This hypothesis of immigration has been held up by
researchers for years (e.g. Modderman 1988; Lii-ning 1988) and found its culmination in the "demic diffusion" model of Ammermann & Cavalli-Sforza (1984). Recently, however, the model of immigrat-ing "Neolithic people" has corne in for severe criti-cism. The starting point of these considerations was the analysis of Late Mesolithic and Neolithic lithic assemblages (Taute 1973/74) and specifically those from the earliest phase of LBK. At the Bruchenbru-cken site, typological and technological indications were found which strongly suggest a Mesolithic con-tribution (Gronenborn 1990; 1994; 1997b ); more-over, at many sites, local Mesolithic influences are visible in the microlith forms (Gronenborn 1994 1997a). These observations and the implied over-lap of the distribution of Mesolithic groups with LBK territory have led Tillmann (1993) to propose a local autochthonous development of LBK which has re-cently been supported by Kind (1998). Certainly, it is tempting to interpret the many "Mesolithic traits" in the earliest LBK lithic assemblages in such a way, but to reduce the view to lithics alone is simply the wrong way. Ali components of LBK material culture need to be considered. Certain traits in pottery clear-ly show links to Starčevo and Koros (Kalicz 1993; Pavuk 1994 1996); even more evident are these links in the realni of the ritual: clay altars or bone spatulae (Kaufmann 1991). Furthermore, ali of the domesticates, except perhaps pigs, stem from regions abroad, and this is true for plants as well as animals (Kreuz 1990; Dohle 1994). Even if there is a higher component of wild animals in the earliest LBK diet -which can be linked to Starčevo-Koros patterns - it does not indicate "complex hunter-gatherers" as suggested by Kind (1998). Stili, domestic animals do constitute a good proportion of the spectrum and the expertise to manage farming successfully should have come with the stock and seeds.
Based on an analysis of Earliest LBK lithic artefacts, I have suggested a combined model, where immi-grating farmers set up pioneer settlements which then attract the local Mesolithic population. My rnain argument was the appearance of Szentgal-type radi-olarites on sites as far afield as Schwanfeld (Fig. 3), which could be interpreted as the archaeologically visible remains of a far-reaching exchange network maintained by groups with close social, possibly kin-ship, ties (Gronenborn 1994; 1997a). The fact that LBK is at least partly a result of immigrating groups from Trans-Danubia becomes very obvious in the west, along the Rhine river. Here the immigrant farmers were in vital contact with the local Mesolithic groups (Gronenborn 1990; 1994; 1997a). It is like-
ly that in eastern parts such contacts resulted in the relatively rapid assimilation of the local population into the newly emerging early Neolithic societies. Also, no Terminal Mesolithic economy with partial yet minimal reliance on domesticates and the man-ufacturing of pottery can so far be established for the east. Furthermore, these regions had long established contacts with the Carpathian basin, as indica-ted by snails from the Middle Danube in some south-ern German ročk shelters (Rahle 1978). Towards the west, however, contacts and local resistance against ali too rapid acculturation seem to have persisted into the Flomborn phase of LBK. It is only then that the characteristic LH sherds disappear from the LBK sites (Liining et al. 1989) and, shortly after, pottery forms appear on LBK sites which show a blend of LBK and LH, or LB decorative styles (Jeunesse & Winter 1998). In the NW and the Pariš basin, contacts probably endured much longer; however, a certain Mesolithic contribution has also been suggested for the emergence of the Middle Neolithic in south-ern Central Europe, where notably the burial rites show influences from practices known from the Mesolithic of the northern European lowlands (Hdusler 1994). The sometimes implied revival of a Mesolithic economy has, however, recently been disproved as, at least in western Central Europe, Middle Neolithic faunal assemblages do not indicate notable amounts of wild animals (Jeunesse & Arbogast 1997). Indeed the question emerges: from where would those influences have come? Where were those late Mesolithic survivors; where did they hide for some three hun-dred years?
In recent years, rnodels of the Neolithization of Central Europe have been enriched by another component. Notably, Kind (1997) has continuously argued that in some parts of southern Germany late Mesolithic groups and their traditional economy continued to exist throughout the Early Neolithic. He baptized the material remains of these survivors the Buchauer Gruppe. According to him (Kind 1997.144), these groups would be different from those engaging in small scale horticulture and would not use LH pot-tery, but instead have a highly mobile settlement pattern. He based his ideas on excavations in the Fe-dersee region of Wurttemberg, where at some sites he obtained Cl4-dates which extend well beyond the 53rd century BC, the proposed date for the advent of Earliest LBK in the region. However, these dates stem from series which also include measure-ments which would date the sites before the advent of the Earliest LBK, and hence cannot be taken as proof of the contemporaneous presence of highly

mobile, Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Earliest and later LBK (Gronenborn 1997a). Indeed, the sit-uation is difficult to assess, as clearly visible contact finds are extremely rare. For southern Germany so far only the harpoon fragment from Grielšen in the Upper Rhine valley (Gersbach 1956) can be named. Furthermore, of course, there are the LH sherds with-in the LBK context (Liining et al. 1989). Possible indicators for an at least partial overlap steni from the Mesolithic sites of Henauhof-Nordwest in the Fe-dersee-region (Jochim 1993-109-110), where a grin-ding stone seems to have been embedded in the Late Mesolithic layers (however, see Tillmann 1997), and Lautereck ročk shelter (Taute 1967), in the Upper Danube valley, with a Terminal Mesolithic occupation which, according to a C14 date would be contemporary with the Earliest/Earlier LBK. LBK pottery stems from the layers above, but there are no definite contact finds. Furthermore, the situation at Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt (Brunnacker et al. 1967) needs to be carefully examined. So to firmly estab-lish Kind's Buchauer Gruppe, it would require, in my opinion, a little more hard archaeological evidence. In this way the situation is somewhat similar to that in NW Europe, e.g. the Hesbaye, where Keeley & Cahen (1989; Keeley 1996) have proposed a model of violent conflict between Late Mesolithic indige-nous populations and LBK "invaders/conquerors"3. But here, too, hard facts that provide evidence for such a conflict cannot be brought forward; the model relies largely on the territorial exclusion of Late Mesolithic and LBK sites.
What happened to the last hunters?
I should stress at this point that I do not deny the existence of an indigenous, assimilated population within LBK (Gronenborn 1997a). However, the point is this: the fact that local groups became assimilated during Flomborn times, as the pottery evidence in Hessia and Baden-Wiirttemberg suggests, reduces their visibility. It is questionable whether the lithic technology of the Late Mesolithic groups would not equally have undergone change, just as did the LBK technology; even more so when we have evidence of contact. It is even more surprising that those sites cited by Kind did not produce any evidence of contact, whereas it is quite frequent on LBK sites. I would therefore suggest that the sites named by Kind (1997) are not Late Mesolithic sites contemporaneous with LBK, but rather actually date before the advent of the Neolithic of the Danubian
tradition. So, where are those people that were indigenous? If I am correct, their material culture should be hard to detect as it became mingled with that of the immigrants. It might be helpful to look at the anthropological record, the evidence from burials. One site in particular has just very recently produ-ced astounding evidence: at Vaihingen, in a fortified settlement, dating from Flomborn to a younger LBK, human bones from disarticulated skeletons in refuse pits differ from those stemming from ordinary burials in the refilled ditch surrounding the settlement in that they are more robust (Krause 1997, online). This circumstance reminds us of other cases where differences in robustness have been noted for LBK burials (for instance, in Rixheim; Gerhardt & Ger-hardt-Pfannenstiel 1984/85). Robustness has a vari-ety of causes, one of them being physical stress. Indeed, such is partly the čase in Rixheim. But in addition, two different physical types were discer-nible there. Would it be possible to ascribe one of them to a local Mesolithic population? In Vaihingen, the robust remains were not properly buried. This allows two possible interpretations: firstly, their burial rites did not include interment. In recent years it has become increasingly clear that burial rites prac-ticed in LBK were twofold: interment, and another type that largely escapes archaeological recognition, such as cremation or above- ground burial. I have suggested (Gronenborn in press) considering a Mesolithic tradition for the latter practice. If this was the čase in Vaihingen, the bone remains of the de-composed burials made their way into the refuse pits through taphonomic processes. The other expla-nation is less pleasant. Disarticulated settlement burials have been considered to be the remains of those who led a marginalized life within societies (Veit 1993)- Indeed, ethnographic evidence abounds for such practices, where prisoners of war were enslaved and occasionally sacrificed (Weule 1916; Feest 1980; Keeley 1996; Donald 1997). That a conflict-laden situation existed at Vaihingen is demonstrated by the fortification ditch around at least part of the village and, for the later LBK, warfare and harshly violent conflicts become increasingly evident (Teschler-Nico-la et al, 1996; Alt et al, 1997; Spatz 1998). Those on the losing side in the conflict around Vaihingen may have led a less fortunate life and, after hard labour, were disposed of and left to decay. But it could well be that their ancestors were local hunter-gatherers.
Certainly these clues are far form being complete, and I am well aware that some colleagues will find
3 For a similar model for Dutch Limburg with less emphasis on violence Wansleben & Verhart (1990).
this approach hair-raising. But stili I consider it a worthwhile path of inquiry since, if migrations occurred for which there are, in my belief, stili very good arguments, differences between the locals and
the immigrants after the contact phase should be archaeologically visible only on a very subtle level.
REFERENCES
ALT K. W., VACH W., WAHL J. 1997. La reconstituti-on "genetique" de la population de la fosse commu-ne rubanee de Talheim (Allemagne). In Chr. Jeunes-se (ed.), Le Neolithique Danubien et ses niarges en-tre Rhin et Seine. XXIIe Colloque Interregional sur le Neolithique, Strasbourg 27-29 octobre 1995. Ca-hieres de 1'Association pour la Promotion de la Re-cherche Archeologique en Alsace. Supplement n°3: 1-8.
AMMERMANN A. J., CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L. 1984. Tlie Neolithic Transition and the Genetics ofPopulati-ons in Europe. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
ANDERSEN S. H. 1993- Mesolithic coastal settlement. In S. Hvass u. B. Storgaard (eds.), Digging into the past. 25 years of archaeologv in Denmark: 65-68.
BIEHL P. F. 1996. Symbolic communication systems: symbols on anthropomorphic figurines of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic from south-eastern Europe. Journal of European Archaeology 4: 153-176.
BOGUCKI P. 1988. Forest Farmers and Stockher-ders. Early Agriculture and its Consequences in North-Central Europe. Cambridge, Cambridge Uni-versity Press.
BOKONYI S. 1992. Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary. I. Reports on the Gyomaen-drod project. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology.
BRUNNACKER M., REIFF W, SOERGEL E, TAUTE W. 1967. Neolithische Fundschicht mit Harpunen-Frag-menten im Travertin von Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt. Fundberichte Schivaben N. F. 18: 43-60.
CASPAR J. P. 1997. Analyse fonctionelle des mircol-ithes de Schwanfeld et de Bruchenbriicken. In D. Gronenborn, Silexartefakte der Altestbandkeramis-chen Kultur. Universitatsforschungen zur Prdhisto-rischen Archdologie 37: 241-243.
CHAIX L. 1997. La transition Meso-Neolithique: quel-ques donnees de 1'archeozoologie dans les Alpes du Nord et le Jura. In Chr. Jeunesse (ed.), Le Neolithi-que Danubien et ses marges entre Rhin et Seine. XXIIe Colloque Interregional sur le Neolithique, Strasbourg 27-29 octobre 1995. Cahiers de TAsso-ciation pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archeo-logique en Alsace. Supplement n °3:191-196.
CHILDE V. G. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
DOHLE H. J. 1994. Die linienbandkeramischen Tier-knochen von Eilsleben, Bordekreis. Ein Beitrag zur neolithischen Haustierhaltung und Jagd in Mitteleu-ropa. Veroffentlichungen des Landesamtes fiir ar-chaologische Denkmalpflege Sachsen-Anhalt 47.
DONALD L. 1997. Aboriginal Slavery on the North-west Coast of North America. Berkeley, University of California Press.
ERNY-RODMANN C., GROSS-KLEE E., HAAS J. N., JACOMET S., ZOLLER H. 1997. Friiher "human im-pact" und Ackerbau im Ubergangsbereich Spatmeso-lithikum-Friihneolithikum im schweizerischen Mitte-land. Jahrbuch der Schtveizerischen Gesellschaft fiir Ur- und Friihgeschichte 80: 27-56.
FEEST C. 1980. The Art ofWar. London, Thames and Hudson.
GERHARDT K, GERHARDT-PFANNENSTIEL D. 1984/ 85. Schadel und Skelette der Linearbandkeramik von Mulhouse-Est (Rixheim) im Elsafi. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 16/17: 55-90.
GRONENBORN D. 1990. Mesolithic-Neolithic interac-tions. The lithic industry of the Earliest Bandkeramik Culture site at Friedberg-Bruchenbrucken (West Ger-nrany). In P. M. Vermeersch u. P. van Peer (Ed.), Con-tributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Pre-
sented at the Fourth International Symposium The Mesolithic in Europe', Leuven 1990. Studia Praehist. Belgica 5, Leuven, Leuven University Press: 173-182.
1994.	Uberlegungen zur Ausbreitung der biiuer-lichen Wirtschaft in Mitteleuropa - Versuch einer kulturhistorischen Interpretation altestbandkera-mischer Silexinventare. Praehistorische Zeit-schrift 69/2: 135-151.
1997a. Silexartefakte der altestbandkeramischen Kultur. Mit einem Beitrag von Jean-Paul Caspar.
Universitatsforschungen zur prahistorischen ) Archdologie 37.
1997b. Die Steinartefakte. In J. Liiing (ed.). Ein Siedlungsplatz der iitesten Bandkeramik in Bru-chenbriiken, Stadt Friedberg/Hessen. Universitatsforschungen zur prahistorischen Archdologie 39: 257-332.
in press. A variation on a basic theme - The transition to farming in southern central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory (submitted).
GROTE K. 1994. Die Abris itn sudliclien Leineberg-land bei Gottingen, Archaologische Befunde zum Leben unter Felsschutzdachern in urgeschichtli-cher Zeit. Teil 1,1/1,2/11. Oldenburg, Isensee.
HAAS S. 1991- Neue Funde menschlicher Skelettreste und ihre Ergebnisse. In J. Hahn and C.-J. Kind (eds.), Urgeschichte in Oberschwaben und der mittleren Schvvabischen Alb. Archaologische Informationen aus Baden-Wurttemberg Heft 17: 37-42.
HAUSLER A. 1994. Umstrukturierung der Bestattung-ssitten im Mittelneolithikum Mitteleuropas. In H .-J. Beier (ed.), Der Rossener Horizont in Mitteleuropa. Beitrdge zur Ur- und Fruhgeschichte Mitteleuropas 6: 51-67.
HAMPEL A. 1989- Bemerkenswerte Fundstiicke aus der linienbandkeramischen Siedlung in Frankfurt a. M.-Niedereschbach. Germania 67/1:149-157.
1995.	Ein altestbandkeramischer Siedlungsplatz. Frankfurt am Main-Niedereschbach. Teil 1: Die Befunde. Beitrdge zum Denkmalschutz in Frankfurt am Main 5-
HEDGES R. E. M., HOUSLEY R. A., LAW I. A.; BRONK C. R. 1989. Radiocarbon dates from the AMS system, datelist 9- Archaeometrj 31: 224-226.
JEUNESSE C. 1997. Pratiques funeraires au Neoli-thique Ancien. Sepultures et necropoles danubien-nes 5500-4900 av. J.-C. Pariš, Editions Errance.
JEUNESSE C., ARBOGAST R. M. 1997. A propos du statut de la chasse au Neolithicjue moyen. La faune sauvage dans les dechets domestiques et dans les mobiliers funeraires. In Chr. Jeunesse (ed.), Le Neolithicjue Danubien et ses marges entre Rhin et Seine. XXIIe Colloque Interr.gional sur le Neolithique, Stras-bourg 27-29 octobre 1995. Cahiers de l'Association pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archeologique en Alsace. Supplement n 3: 81-102.
JEUNESSE C, WINTER S. 1998. A propos de quel-ques decors "non traditionnels" dans le Rubane. Reflexions sur les changements stylistiques dans la ceramique du Neolithique ancien danubien. In X. Gutherz u. R. Joussaume (eds.), Le Neolithique du centre-ouest de la France. Actes du XXIe colloque in-ter-regional sur le Neolithicjue, Poitiers, 14-16 octobre 1994. Association des Publications Chauvinoi-ses, Memoire n ° 14: 345-357.
JOCHIM M. A. 1990. The Late Mesolithic in South-west Germany: culture change or population de-cline? In Vermeersch P. M. and van Peer P. (eds.), Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Studia Praehist. Belgica 5 (1990): 183-191.
1993. Henauhof-Nordwest - Ein mittelsteinzeit-licher Lagerplatz am Federsee. Materialhefte zur Archdologie in Baden-Wurtemberg, Heft 19.
KALICZ N., MAKKAY J. 1977. Die Linienbandkera-mik in der Grossen Ungarischen Tiefebene. Buda-pest, Akademiai Kiado.
KALICZ N. 1993. The Early Phases of the Neolithic in Western Hungary (Trans-Danubia). Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 21: 85-135.
KAUFMANN D. 1991. Siidostliche Einflusse in der Li-nienbandkeramik des Elbe-Saale-Gebietes. Banatica 11: 275-295.
KEELEY L., CAHEN D. 1989- Early Neolithic forts and villages in Northeastern Belgium: a preliminary re-port .Journal of Field Archaeology 16: 157-176.
KEELEY L. H. 1996. War before Civilization. New York/Oxford, Oxforcl University Press.
KIND C. J. 1998. Komplexe Wildbeuter und fruhe Ackerbauern. Bemerkungen zur Ausbreitung der Li-nearbandkeramik im sudlichen Mitteleuropa. Germa-nia 76/1: 1-24.
1997. Die letzten Wildbeuter. Henauhof Nord II und das Endmesolithikum in Baden-Wiirttem-berg. Mit Beitragen von H. Liese-Kleiber, A. Paw-ltk und R. Vogt. Materialhefte zur Urgeschichte in Baden-Wurttemberg 39.
KRAUSE R. 1997. Un village rubane avec fosse d'enceinte et necropole pres de Vaihingen/Enz, Kr. Ludwigsburg. In Chr. Jeunesse (ed.). Le Neolithique Danubien et ses niarges entre Rhin et Seine. XXIIe Colloque Interregional sur le Neolithique, Strasbourg 27-29 octobre 1995. Cahieres de TAssociation pour la Promotion de la Recherche Archeologique en Al-sace. Supplement n°3: 45-56.
online. Bandkeramische Siedlung in Vaihingen/Enz: http://www.bawue.de/~wmwerner/ grabung/vaih.html
KREUZ A. 1990. Die ersten Bauern Mitteleuropas -Eine archaobotanische Untersuchung zu Umwelt und Landwirtschaft der Altesten Bandkeramik. Ana-lecta Praehistorica Leidensia 23-
KULCZYCKA-LECIEWICZOWA A. 1988. Erste Gemein-schaften der Linienbandkeramik-Kultur auf polnis-chem Boden. Zeitschriftfur Arcliaologie 23: 137-182.
LENNEIS E. 1997. Houseforms of the Central European Linear pottery culture and of the Balkan Early Neolithic - a comparison. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 24: 143-150.
LOHR H. 1994. Linksfltigler und Rechtsflugler in Mittel- und Westeuropa. Der Fortbestand der Ver-breitungsgebiete asymmetrischer Pfeilspitzenformen als Kontinuitatsbeleg zwischen Meso- und Neolithi-kum. Trierer Zeitschrift 57: 9-126.
LUNINO J., KLOOS U., ALBERT S. 1989- Westliche Nachbarn der bandkeramischen Kultur: Die Keramik-gruppen La Hoguette und Limburg. Mit Beitragen von J. Eckert und Chr. Strien. Germania 67: 355-393-
LUNINO J. 1988. Friihe Bauern in Mitteleuropa im 6. und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Jahrhuch des Romiscli-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 35: 27-93-
MADSEN T. 1986. Where did ali the hunters go? An assessment of an epoch-making episode in Danish Prehistory. Journal Danish Archaeologv 5: 229-239-
MODDERMAN P. J. R. 1988. The Linear Pottery Culture: diversity in uniformity. Berichten vom het Rijksdienst voor Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38: 63-140.
MOLLISON T. 1936. Zeichen gewaltsamer Verletzun-gen an den Ofnet-Schadeln. Anthrop. Anz. 13: 79-88.
MULLER J. 1997. Neolithische und chalkolithische Spondylus-Artefakte. Anmerkungen zu Verbreitung, Tauschgebiet und sozialer Funktion. In C. Becker, M.-L. Dunkelmann, C. Metzner-Nebelsick, H. Peter-Rocher, M. Roeder and B. Terzan (eds.), CHRONOS. Beitrage zur Prahistorischen Arcliaologie zivis-chen Nord- und Sudosteuropa. Festschrift fiir Bern-hard Hansel: 91-106.
NIESZERY N. 1995. Linearbandkeramische Graber-felder in Bayern. Internationale Arcliaologie 16.
ORSCHIEDT J. 1998. Ergebnisse einer neuen Untersuchung der spatmesolithischen Kopfbestattungen aus Siiddeutschland. In N. J. Conard and C.-J. Kind (eds.), Aktuelle Forschungen zum Mesolithikum Ur-
geschichtliche Materialhefte 12: 147-160.
PAVLU I. 1989. Early neolithic white painted pottery in SE Europe. In P. Raczky (ed.), Neolithic of South-eastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. Varia Archaelogica Hungarica II: 217-222.
PAVUKJ. 1994. Zur relativen Chronologie der alteren Linearkeramik. J osa Andros Muzeum Evkonyi 36: 135-149.
1995.	Die rotbemalte Keramik und der Anfang der Starčevo-Kultur. Acta Musei Napocensis 32: 29-45-
1996.	Friihneolithische Kulturen auf dem Zen-tralbalkan und der Beginn des Neolithikums. In G. Cremonesi, J. Guilaine and J. L'Helgouac'h, The Neolithic in the Near East and Europe. XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Pro-tohistoric Sciences Forlt, Italia, 8-14 September 1996, Bd. 9.' 39-45.
POI)BORSKY V. 1993- Praveki Dejiny Moravy, Brno.
QUITTA H. 1960. Zur Frage der iiltesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Prdhistorische Zeitschrift 38:1-38.
1964. Zur Herkunft des fruhen Neolithikums in Mitteleuropa. In P. Grimm (edj, Varia Archaeolo-gica Wilhelm Unverzagt zum 70. Geburtstag dar-gebracht. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Berlin. Schriften der Sektion filr Vor- und Fruhgeschichte 16:14-24.
RADOVANOVIČ I. 1996. Mesolithic/Neolithic contacts: a čase in the Iron Gates region. Ljubljana. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 23: 39-48.
RAHLE W. 1978. Schmuckschnecken aus mesolithis-chen Kulturschichten Siiddeutschlands und ihre Herkunft (Probstfeld, Falkensteinhohle, Burghohle Diet-furt, Zigeunerfels, GroEe Ofnet). In W. Taute (ed.), Das Mesolithikum in Suddeutschland Teil 2: Natur-wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen. Tubinger Mono-graphien zur Urgeschichte 5/2. Archaeologica Ve-natoria: 163-168.
ROZOY J. G. 1968. L'Etude du materiel brut et des microburins dans l'epipaleolithique (Mesolithique) franco-belge. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Frangaise 65:365-390.
SCHIER W. 1997. Vinča-Studien. Tradition und In-novation im Spatneolithikum des zentralen Balkan-raumes am Beispiel der GefaEkeramik aus Vinča-Be-lo Brdo. Archaologisches Nachrichtenblatt 2: 37-46.
SCHMIDT R. R. 1913. Die altsteinzeitlichen Schddel-grdber der Ofnet und der Bestattungsritus der Di-luvialzeit. Stuttgart.
SCHULTING R. J. 1996. Antlers, bone pins and flint blades: the Mesolithic cemeteries of Teviec and Hoedic, Brittany. Antiquity 70: 335-350.
SPATZ H. 1998. Krise, Gewalt, Tod - zum Ende der ersten Ackerbauernkulturen in Mitteleuropa. In A. HauEler (Hrsg.), Krieg oder Frieden? Herxheim vor 7000 Jahren. Katalog zur Sonderausstellung "Krieg oder Frieden - Herxheim vor 7000fahren": 10-18. Landesamt fur Denkmalpflege (Herxheim 1998).
STADLER P. (online). Friihneolitische Fundstellen von Brunn am Gebirge, Flur Wolfholz, NO. http://www.nhm-wien.ac.at/nhm/prehist/Stadler/ Brunn/Brunn_g.html
TAUTE W. 1967. Das Felsdach Lautereck, eine meso-lithisch - neolithisch - bronzezeitliche Stratigraphie an der oberen Donau. In Neolithic Studies in Atlantic Europe. Proceedings of the Second Atlantic Col-loquium, Groningen, 6-11 April 1964. Palaeohisto-ria 12: 483-504.
1973/74 a. Neolithische Mikrolithen und andere neolithische Silexartefakte aus Suddeutschland und Osterreich. Archdologische Informationen 2/3: 71-124.
1973/74 b. Neue Forschungen zur Chronologie von Spatpalaolithikum und Mesolithikum in Suddeutschland. Archdologische Informationen 2/3: 59-66.
TESCHLER-NICOLA M., GERALD F., KANZ F., LINDEN-BAUER K. and SPANNAGL M. 1996. Anthropolo-gische Spurensicherung. Die traumatischen und post-mortalen Veranderungen an den linienbandkera-mischen Skelettresten von Asparn/Schletz. Archdo-logie Osterreichs 7/1, 1996, 4-12.
TILLMANN A. 1993- Kontinuitat oder Diskontinuitat? Zur Frage einer bandkeramischen Landnahme im siidlichen Mitteleuropa. Archdologische Informationen 16/2: 157-187.
1997. Besprechung: Michael A. Jochim: Henau-hof-Nordwest. Ein mittelsteinzeitlicher Lagerplatz am Federsee. Archdologische Informationen 20/1: 177-180.
THORPE I. J. 1996. The Origins of Agriculture in Europe. London, Routledge.
UERPMANN M. and UERPMANN H. P. (in press). Re-marks on the fauna remains of some early farming communities in Central Europe. In M. Kokabi u. J. Wahl, Beitrage des 7. IKAS-Kongresses. Anthropo-zoologica 20, Pariš (in press).
VAN BERG P. L. 1990. La ceramique Neolithique an-cienne non rubanee dans le nord-ouest de 1'Europe. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique du Luxem-bourg 12: 107-124.
VAN DE VELDE P. 1990. Bandkeramik social inequa-lity - a čase study. Germania 68/1: 19-38.
VEIT U. 1993. Burials within settlements of the Linienbandkeramik and Stichbandkeramik cultures of Central Europe. On the social construction of
death in early-Neolithic society. Journal European Archaeologv 1: 107-140.
WANSLEBEN M. and VERHART L. B. M. 1990. Meuse Valley Project: the transition from the mesolithic to the Neolithic in the Dutch Meuse Valley. P. M. Ver-meersch u. P. van Peer (Ed.), Contributions to the Mesolithic in Europe. Papers presented at the fourth international symposium, "The Mesolithic in Europe", Leuven 1990. Studia Praehist. Belgica 5:389-402.
WEULE K. 1916. Der Krieg in den Tiefen der Men-schheit. Stuttgart, Kosmos.
WHITTLE A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. The Cre-ation of New Workls. Cambridge, Cambridge Uni-versity Press.
WYSS R. 1979. Das mittelsteinzeitliche Hirschjager-lager von Schotz 7 im Wauwilermoos. Archaologi-sche Forschungen. Ziirich, Schvveizerisches Landes-museum.
ZVELEBIL M. and DOLUKHANOV P. 1991- The transition to farming in eastern and northern Europe. fournal of World Prehistoij 5/3: 233-278.
UDK 581.13+591.13:902.65(261:210.5)"633/634'
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
Slighting the sea: stable isotope evidence for the transition to farming in northvvestern Europe
Rick J. Schulting
Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, Reading
ABSTRACT - While it is accepted that the Neolithic was an intrusive phenomenon across much of Central Europe, the transition to food production on the north ivesternfringes of the Continenthas been viewed in terms of complex interactions betiveen incoming and indigenous populations, lead-ing to 'continuity' and 'acculturation' rather than replacement. Much current opinion holds that this was in many areas (inparticular southern Scandinavia and the British Isles) a gradualprocess, and that radical changes did not occur in the subsistence economy, ivhich is seen as retaining a ftshing-hunting-gathering character. Houiever, such a view is not in accordance ivith a considerable body of stable isotope evidence, presented and discussed here. This evidence, it is argued, has very different implications for the nature of the transition,
POVZETEK - Velja mnenje, da je bil neolitik v večjem delu Evrope vsiljen pojav, v skrajni severozahodni Evropi pa je bil prehod v pridelovalno gospodarstvo posledica kompleksnih medsebojnih vplivov med prišleki in domorodnim prebivalstvom. Zaradi tega tu ni prišlo do zamenjave, ampak, do "kontinuitete" in "akulturacije". Danes so številni arheologi mnenja, da je na mnogih območjih (posebno v južni Skandina viji in na Britanskem otočju) proces potekal postopoma, brez nenadnih sprememb v gospodarstvu, kar se kaže v ohranjanju ribiško-lovsko-nabiralniškega značaja gospodarstva. Vendar pa to stališče ni v skladu z obsežnim sklopom podatkov, kijih dajejo stabilni izotopi, o čemer bomo govorili v pričujočem članku. Ti podatki kažejo na čisto drugačno naravo prehoda.
INTRODUCTION
This paper addresses the process of neolithisation in selected areas of northwest Europe (Fig. 1), focusing on the nature of subsistence changes across the transition. In the literature of Western Europe since the 1960s, the two periods have been largely defined in terms of the subsistence economy - hunting of wild game, fishing and collection of wild plants in the Mesolithic, versus husbandry of domestic animals and cultivation of domestic cereals in the Neolithic. This is a very general scheme - it works best in areas such as central Europe, where incoming groups ap-peared with a fully-formed farming 'package', making their archaeological identification relatively straightforward. But the distinction blurs along the peripheries of northwestern Europe, where the process was potentially a long, drawn-out one, possibly including intermediate stages (Zvelebil and Row-ley-Conwy 1986). Problems arise in identifying the
basis of the economy using traditional archaeological methods, particularly given the small and po-tentially unrepresentative faunal assemblages avail-able in the study areas. Plant remains are even less well-represented. The issue is important whether one considers the Mesolithic and Neolithic to be de-finable by their subsistence economy or not, since the degree to which the various recognised elements of the Neolithic were associated with one another remains a valid and open (juestion. Much of the re-cent literature downplays the extent of subsistence change across the transition in northwestern Europe. There is a feeling, particularly in Britain, that changes in the subsistence economy lagged behind, or were of secondary importance, to changes in other aspects of society, particularly in worldview or cosmology (Bradley 1993; Hodder 1990; Whittle 1996). The continued importance of 'wild' resources
has been emphasised, although the evidence for this is really quite limited. I will argue in this paper that there was a significant change in subsistence orien-tation beginning with the Neolithic even in areas outside of the LBK sphere of influence.
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE STABLE ISOTOPE TECHNIQUE
One of the strongest new lines of subsistence evidence comes from bone chemistry. By directly addressing the long-term diet of the individual, dietary reconstruction using bone chemistry analysis bypasses many of the difficulties associated with more traditional archaeological approaches to subsistence. The technique is based on the natural occur-rence of heavier, but stable, isotopes of certain elements, the most important of which are carbon and nitrogen (DeNiro and Epstein 1978; 1981).
There are two situations in which stable carbon isotopes are useful for dietary reconstruction. The first involves the differentiation of systems based on ter-restrial C3 vs. C4 plants. C3 and C4 plants are easily
distinguished by their isotopic signatures, as are any food chains based on them. The classic example of a C4 plant in the New World is maize, while millet serves as an important Old World example. Neither of these plants are relevant within the study area, nor are there any other C4 plants of dietary importance among the indigenous plant species of tem-perate Europe. It is the second application that is important here: that is, that systems based on ter-restrial C3 plants can be easily distinguished from marine systems. The proportion of 13C is higher in the marine carbonate reservoir drawn upon by marine organisms. These initial differences are main-tained along their respective food chains; carbon from plants/phytoplankton eaten by herbivores/zoo-plankton is incorporated into the proteins of those organisms, preserving the isotopic signature of their origins, and so on up the food chain. An enrichment of about 5%o occurs between diet and consumer bone collagen in mammals. Thereafter, trophic level effects are either small (ca. l%o) or non-existent and need not concern us here. The technique is well-established and has proven very useful in quantify-ing the human use of marine foods in various parts of the world (Chisholm et al. 1983; Hobson and Collier 1984; Lee-Thorpe et al, 1989; Lovell et al, 1986; Lubell et al. 1994; Sealy and van der Merice 1983; Tauber 1981, 1986; Walker and DeNiro 1986).
Isotopes of stable nitrogen ('^N) are also enriched in marine systems relative to terrestrial systems, but more importantly, the degree of trophic level frac-tionation is significantly greater (ca. 3%o). Thus nitrogen isotopes can be used to characterise the trophic level of the organism in question. There are two situations in which this is particularly useful. The first involves an estimate of the relative importance of plant and animal protein (blood, meat and niilk products) in the diet. In a diet based primarily on plant foods, humans will look like herbivores, while in a diet with a substantial terrestrial meat component they will appear as carnivores, and their 815N should be about 3%o higher than seen in herbivores. The second use of the technique takes advantage of the fact that marine food chains are on average much longer than terrestrial chains. Thus a seal, for example, can be a fourth- or fifth-order car-nivore - no terrestrial mammals attain such a position. Humans consuming a substantial proportion of fish and/or sea mammals will thus have a far higher stable nitrogen value than is possible to attain in a purely terrestrial system. A reliance on lake fish, would, following the same logic, also result in high-
er stable nitrogen values than expected in a land-based terrestrial system, so that aquatic systems can also be distinguished from land-based terrestrial sys-tems (.Katzenberg 1989). In a situation where both marine and freshwater aquatic foods were available, interpretation of stable nitrogen values alone would be problematic; fortunately, this situation would be resolved, in the absence of C4 plants, by a consider-ation of stable carbon isotope values.
For true quantification to be possible, it is of course necessary to know the 'endpoints' for the systems under discussion in order to estimate the relative contribution of marine and terrestrial protein, and/ or plant and animal protein. For stable carbon, a purely terrestrial C. system has been shown to result in human bone collagen values of -20 to -22%o, while a purely marine system will in most cases give values of about -12 to -13%« (Chisholm et al 1983). Stable nitrogen isotopes undergo a 3 ± l%o enrich-
ment per trophic level. Air, the standard, has a 515N value of 0; most temperate, non-nitrogen fixing plants will have values around +3%o; herbivores (including vegetarian humans) will be about 6%o; first-order carnivores will have values of about 9%o, second-order carnivores 12%0, and so on (Fig. 2). For example, analysis of human and faunal remains from the Iron Gates Mesolithic and Neolithic found an average 815N value for 10 bovids of 5.6 ± 1.0%o (Bonsall et al, 1997), which fits reasonably well with the expected value of 6%o for herbivores. There is a degree of regional variability in nitrogen values, and ideally faunal samples from the same sites as human bone samples will act as controls to identify the isotopic position of herbivores and carnivores.
Another important issue to be considered involves the turnover rates of collagen in human bone. An average of five to ten years is often cited, and this
Fig. 2. Simplified summary of stable carbon and nitrogen values for terrestrial and marine ecosystems (values are for flesh; to convert to bone collagen values, 5%o should be added to &3C values; 8/5Ar values are the same for flesh and bone, but approx. 3%o must be added to diet item in order to arrive at con-sumer values); note the higher trophic levels possible in a marine foodchain.
serves well enough for most purposes (Chisholm 1986). That is, stable isotope results on human bone reflect on roughly the last five to ten years of that individual's diet. Finally, it must be emphasised that both stable carbon and stable nitrogen values of bone collagen reflect primarily the protein compo-nent of the diet. This is a critical fact and has often been overlooked by archaeologists, and until quite recently was not accepted by ali stable isotope spe-cialists either. It has now been demonstrated by feed-ing experiments with mice and rats (Ambrose and Norr 1993; Tieszen and Fagre 1993). The sources of carbohydrates and lipids - the other two major components of the overall diet and those usually providing most of the daily energy requirements -make a minimal contribution to the carbon in bone
collagen. The S13C values of bone apatite (bioap-atite) do reflect overall diet (Kreuger and Sullivan 1984), but this component is stili infrequently mea-sured, and is more difficult to deal with due to prob-lems with diagenesis. The situation with nitrogen is more straightforvvard, since dietary protein is the only possible source for animals.
We can use our knowledge of the isotopic signatures of various foods, and their caloric and protein con-tents, to construct a series of model diets and esti-mate the stable carbon and nitrogen isotope values they would bring about in human bone collagen (Tab. 1 and Fig. 3). A number of points worth not-ing emerge from this exercise. The contribution of high-starch and low-protein characteristic of many
Diet	Description (% refers to calories)	813C%O	515N%O
inland hunter-gatherers			
1	emphasis on game (>70%)	-20.9	8.3
2	game w+ some freshwater fish (20%)	-20.7	9-5
3	emphasis on freshwater fish (50%)	-20.3	11.4
4	emphasis on non-cereal plants (>75%)	-20.9	7.9
coastal fisher-hunter-gatherers		-16.5	
5	balanced terrestrial/marine (50:50)		12.2
6	emphasis on marine fish (>50%)	-13.9	14.0
7	emphasis on marine mammals (>60%)	-13.9	15.8
8	non-cereal plants with marine fish/mammals	-15.2	12.0
farmers			
9	emphasis on domestic animals (>50%)	-20.9	8.9
10	emphasis on cereals (>70%)	-21.0	7.1
Tab. 1. Predicted carbon and nitrogen bone collagen stable isotope values for model human diets.
16.0
14.0 --
12.0 --
10.0 --
8.0 --
6.0 --
4.0
□	Diet 7
□	Diet 6
□ Diet 5,
□ Diet i
O Diet 3
Diet 2 □
□	Diet 9
□	Diet 1 Diet 4 □
□	Diet 10
tncreasing marine
-+-

-24.0
-22.0
-20.0
-18.0 8'3C value
-16.0
-14.0
-12.0
Fig. 3. Plot of stable carbon and nitrogen values for model diets.
tubers and roots has a small impact on the stable isotope values seen in consumer bone collagen, even when they form a significant portion of the overall diet in terms of caloric requirements. For example, a diet in which 80% of the caloric require-ments was met by tubers and roots could contribute only 40% or less of the protein intake. Thus the importance of high-energy, low-protein foods will be underestimated by stable isotope measurements on collagen. Leafy green vegetable foods, providing both low energy and low protein, do not figure in the diet in the sense of either a major caloric or protein contribution, no matter in what quantity they are consumed. At the other extreme, the importance of low-calorie, high-protein foods will be exaggera-ted. The protein content of lean fish, one of the best examples, far more significant than its caloric content.
While this greatly undermines our ability to recon-struct overall diet with stable isotopes in certain sit-uations, it could be argued that starchy foods would be of relatively little importance in prehistoric north-temperate Europe. Certainly the ethnographic data summarised by Lee (1968) support such a position. The potential importance of plant foods is receiving increasing attention for the European Mesolithic (Zvelebil 1994). But the food value of plants such as bracken is questionable, in terms of both caloric and protein yields, and also protein quality and digestibil-ity. Because foods such as hazelnuts and especially cereals are higher in protein, they are affected to a far lesser extent, although they are stili underrepre-sented in collagen isotope values compared to game and fish.
Finally, it should be noted that anadromous fish such as salmon spend most of their lives feeding in the sea, and so have a marine isotopic signature. The effects of this on human isotopic values in situ-ations with high reliance on salmon have been dra-matically demonstrated on the Northvvest Coast and Plateau culture areas of North America, where human bone from archaeological sites hundreds of kilo-metres from the coast show S13C values indicating a considerable input (up to 50% or more) of marine protein (Lovell et al, 1986). The potential importance of salmon in the Mesolithic diet of north-west-ern Europe has often been alluded to, but little direct evidence is available. Human bone from inland con-texts is rare within the present study area, and so it is difficult to address this possibility. However, none of the few available 5| J>C values from appro-priate inland riverine contexts from either Britain or
the western Continent suggest that salmon were an important resource in the either the Mesolithic or the Neolithic (Schulting and Richards in press). Another anadromous fish, the sturgeon, seems to have been significant in the diet of the Mesolithic inhabitants of the Iron Gates, but this area is beyond the scope of the present discussion.
STABLE ISOTOPE DATA FROM SELECTED AREAS OF NORTHWEST EUROPE
Denmark
Southern Scandinavia is of special importance in discussions of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in northrvvestern Europe, because of the quality and quantity of its evidence, the long history of research, and the presence of the Late Atlantic period coast-line that is elsewhere submerged. Stable carbon isotope studies in Denmark were among the first to be undertaken. They demonstrate a very abrupt change in diet at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, from a fairly heavy reliance on marine resources in coastal situations to heavy reliance on terrestrial resources (Tauber 1981; 1986). In fact, with the exception of a few Early Mesolithic individuals, which must be seen as reflecting an inland adaptation, there is a complete lack of overlap in the distribution of values for the two groups (Figure 4). The trend towards increasing 5'^C values through time in the Mesolithic data can be at least partly attributed to sea-level changes and site survival. Mesolithic dogs follow a remarkably similar pattern to that seen in the hu-mans, with the exception of two late animals (ca. 5250 BP) with exclusively 'terrestrial' signatures. Of these two exceptions, the Prestalyngen dog has been used as evidence for a distinct inland adaptation in the Late Mesolithic (Noe-Nygaard 1988). Various ex-planations are possible for the 'terrestrial' dog on the coastal site of 01by Lyng on Zealand (Roivley-Conwy in press; Schulting 1998).
One of the most telling examples of the remarkable suddenness of the transition involves three individuals from two graves at Dragsholm in northvvest Zealand. One of the two Mesolithic adult females con-tained in a single grave was dated to 5160 ± 100 BP (K-2224), and they yielded S^C values of-11.5%o and -12.2%o (Brinch Petersen 1974). This must be regarded as the endpoint for a marine signature. In other words, essentially ali of the protein in the diet of these two individuals over at least the last 10 or so years of their lives came from the sea. The Neoli-
thic individual, an adult male found only a few metres away, has been dated to 4840 ± 100 BP (K-2291), with a S^C value of about -21.5%o. This value presents a typical terrestrial endpoint - there is no evidence for the consumption of marine pro-tein by this individual. What is most remarkable is that the radiocarbon estimates actually overlap at a 95% confidence interval (i.e., two sigmas), and this becomes even more apparent when a correction for the marine reservoir effect is applied (a complex issue that will not be further explored here; see Schulting 1998 for further discussion). There is little question but that the diets of the 'Mesolithic' and 'Neolithic' individuals at Dragsholm were diametri-cally opposed. While these results are quite extreme in terms of the strength of the marine signature of the Mesolithic individuals, the general pattern is one that applies throughout Denmark.
Denmark also saw one of the first applications of sta-ble nitrogen analysis to human remains, which again demonstrates a clear separation of later Mesolithic and Neolithic populations. As would be expected, the stable nitrogen values support the stable carbon results, and are completely non-overlapping for se-ven Late Mesolithic individuals (averaging 13-9%o) and five Neolithic individuals (averaging 8.9%o) (Schoeninger et al, 1983). This is exactly what would be expected given a high reliance on marine fish and mammals in the Mesolithic, versus an emphasis on terrestrial animal protein in the Neolithic. The 515N values for the Neolithic retnain relatively high, and do not suggest a high reliance on plant protein; however, contemporary local fauna - both herbivo-res and carnivores - should be measured before this
conclusion can be regarded as firm, and a closer approximation of the proportions of animal and plant foods given. The Mesolithic average of 13-9%o, while far higher than expected for a non-aquatic, terrestrial foodchain, is relatively low for a marine system, suggesting that shellfish and fish played a greater role than marine mammals in the protein component of the diet of the individuals measured (515N values for 19 recent coastal fisher-hunter-gath-erers from Greenland and Alaska, for example, aver-aged 18.7%o [Schoeninger et al. 1983}).
Scotland
Until recently, little use has been made of the stable isotope technique in Britain. Fragmentarv human remains found in two shell middens on Oronsay, on the Scottish West Coast have recently been reported (Richards and Mellars 1998). The results from one site, Cnoc Coig, indicate that the protein component of the diet was largely marine-derived. Interestingly, the single sample from the second site, Caisteal nan Gillean II, yielded a 513C value of -15.8%o, which is significantly lower (i.e., less marine) than the close-ly grouped values (averaging -12.6%o) for the five Cnoc Coig specimens (possibly representing only two individuals). A change in diet over tirne is one possible explanation for the difference in stable carbon between the two sites; while radiocarbon dates show the sites to date to roughly the same period (ca. 5500 BP), there are no dates directly on the human bones (such are being undertaken). The sites are so close to the appearance of the Neolithic on the West Coast that the Caisteal nan Gillean II individual might conceivably reflect a transitional diet.
-10—
-15 —

U
71 -20-
Dragsholm
^ a-
A AA a4
OO
Greenland Inuit 0
O r
Jgo
O <
°o
% o
-25 —
7000 6000
Mesolithic 5000
Neolithic
_L
_L
Bronze Age
4000 3000 2000
Calibrated 14C dates
1000
Iron Age
J_
Historical
1000
2000
Fig. 4: Stable carbon isotope values as-sociated eith radiocarbon dated human bone from Denmark (after Tauber 1986, Figure i).
Fig. 5. Bone collagen stable carbon and nitrogen isotope values for human andfaunal samples from various sites on the West Coast of Scotland (source of Oronsay values: Ri-chards and Mellars 1998).
U
a
>
2 tO
20.0 j 18.0 --16.0 --14.0 --
12.0	-■
10.0	--
8.0	--
6.0	--
4.0	--
2.0	--
0.0	--
reddeer
-24.0
-22.0
-20.0
+
4-
-18.0 -16.0 513C value
A seal O
O A otter
-14.0
-12.0
-10.0
A fauna
O Carding Mili Bay ® Crarae
Oronsay
But there are other possible explanations (Schulting and Richards in press). The individual ntay have spent part of his/her life in an inland situation, later moving to the coast. The number of samples from these sites is too small and the chronological resolu-tion too poor to discuss the various alternatives further at this point.
Human bone samples from two additional sites on the Scottish West Coast have recently been analysed: the shell midden at Carding Mili Bay near Oban, and the Neolithic chambered tomb of Crarae on Loch Fyne. It was hoped that the human remains found in various contexts at the Carding Mili Bay shell midden would span the transition (available radiocarbon dates range from ca. 5200 to 4800 BP [Con-nock et al, 1992]), allowing an investigation of the relative importance of marine resources in the Mesolithic and Neolithic. However, the stable isotope results show no use of marine protein, strongly sug-gesting that the human remains ali date to 5000 BP or later. The low standard deviations for both the stable carbon and nitrogen measurements empha-sises the remarkable isotopic homogeneity of the diet of this population. If some of the human remains are indeed associated with the dated 'Obanian'/Me-solithic levels, it would indicate a surprising sepa-rate terrestrial adaptation on the Scottish mainland. Alternatively, the remains may be intrusive from a later period, as there is a Bronze Age cist burial near the top of the midden deposits (Connock et al. 1992). A series of accelerator dates will resolve this issue.
The stable carbon results front the earlier Neolithic chambered tomb at Crarae on Loch Fyne again show no contribution of marine protein in the diet of these individuals (possibly only one but more likely at least two individuals are represented by the three measurements), despite the proximity of the tomb to the sea and the large numbers (some 5000) of intentionally deposited oyster and other marine shells found both in the tomb and in the forecourt (Scott 1961). This conclusion is further supported by the 815N values, which indicate predominantly terrestrial meat protein, presumably cattle. It is worth noting that the tomb is situated in a relatively fertile pocket of an othenvise rocky, hillv area. This, rather than the site's proximity to marine subsistence resources, may have been a prime factor in the choice of location for the site. Also, the potential importance of the sea as a communication route should not be overlooked.
Comparing the available values from Scotland, the separation between a 'Mesolithic', marine-based diet and a 'Neolithic', terrestrial-based diet is quite striking (Fig. 5). The tight clustering of ali human samples from Carding Mili Bay and Crarae strongly implies an isotopically homogeneous diet with min-imal input of marine foods. The separation along the 815N axis between the humans and the red deer may be exaggerated (cattle values tend to be higher), but nevertheless it is unlikely that cereals or other plants contributed much to the protein component of the diet. This conclusion is strengthened by the relative absence of habitats suitable for fresh-
water fish on the Scottish West Coast, which could provide an alternative to terrestrial mammals that would be disproportionately reflected in the 515N values. It is likely, then, that the majority of the pro-tein in the diet of these individuals was acquired from domestic animals. By contrast, the Mesolithic values from Cnoc Coig on Oronsay are very similar to the values for otters from Carding Mili Bay and from Oronsay itself, and suggests that the diet of these individuals was similarly dominated by fish.
England and Wales
In England and Wales, a small number of Mesolithic radiocarbon dates with associated 513C values are available from the literature (mainly from the jour-nals Radiocarbon and Archaeometij). Most belong to the earlier part of the Mesolithic; given changes in sea-levels, these must be seen as representing largely inland adaptations. Nevertheless there is some hint of a pattern, with humans from sites near the modern coast showing slightly higher values (i. e.. more marine) than their Neolithic counterparts (Schulting 1998). With one possible exception, no Late Mesolithic burials are known from southern Britain, so that it is not possible to simply measure known burials for their isotopes and compare them to Neolithic individuals. Rather, relevant samples must be actively sought out. Caldey Island was cho-sen as a promising location: the island would have remained relatively close to the Atlantic period
coastline, so that human communities would have been close enough to the coast to expect the use of marine resources. The mixed cave deposits at a number of sites on the small island contained fragments of human bone together with fauna and tools span-ning the Late Pleistocene and most of the Holocene. The site of Ogof-yr-Ychen has already provided the latest Mesolithic date on human bone from any con-text in England/Wales, ca. 7000 BP (7020 ± 100 BP, OxA-2574) (David 1990). Lithic assemblages also indicate a Late Mesolithic presence at a number of the sites (David 1990; Davies 1989; Lacaille and Grim.es 1955; Nedervelde et al. 1973)• Human bone samples were obtained from five locations on the northeast corner of the island: Nanna's Cave, Potter's Cave, Daylight Ročk, Ogof-yr-Ychen, and Ogof-yr-Benlog (see David [1990] and Schulting [1998] for further discussion of the sites).
The isotope results clearly show the presence of individuals with significantly different diets. Values for 813C and 815N are strongly correlated (r2 = 0.81), both demonstrating that some individuals had diets in which a large part of the protein was acquired from marine resources (Fig. 6). In particular, ali five samples from Ogof-yr-Ychen, representing three or possibly four individuals, reflect considerable use of marine protein. This is in marked contrast to the eight human bone samples from Nanna's Cave, none of which indicate any use of marine resources. The same applies to the single sample from Ogof-yr-Ben-log, while both Potter's Cave and Daylight Ročk
16.0
14.0 --
12.0 --
10.0 --
8.0 --
5.0 --
aO°
Oa
O • o •
4.0
-22.0
-20.0
-18.0
-16.0
-14.0
n Nanna's Cave a Daylight Cave • Ogof-yr-Ychen O Potter's Cave ■ Ogof-yr-Benlog
Fig. 6. Bone collagen stable carbon and ni-trogen isotope values for human and faunal samples from various sites on Caldey Island, south Wales.
clearly divide into two groups, one of which exhibits an entirely terrestrial diet, while the other shows the use of approximately one-third or more marine-derived protein. It is hypothesised that these diffe-rences primarily reflect the date of the human remains, and that, consistent with what is known from elsewhere in western Europe (outside of northern and eastern Scandinavia), those individuals exhi-biting high 513C values are of Mesolithic age. No such precise prediction can be made for individuals exhibiting a terrestrial diet - these could either be Palaeolithic/Early Mesolithic (when marine resources may not have been emphasised, and the sea would have been at a considerable distance even if they were), or Neolithic or later, when domesticated resources came to dominate subsistence in both in-land and coastal locations.
Those samples demonstrating 'mixed' terrestrial/ma-rine protein (two from Potter's Cave, one from Day-light Cave and two from Ogof-yr-Ychen) are of par-ticular interest, since there are a number of possible interpretations, involving variation within one population at one tirne, change through tirne in the degree of use of marine resources, and/or patterns of seasonal movement. AMS dates will help choose between these alternatives.
In contrast, a series of stable carbon isotope values on dated earlier Neolithic individuals from coastal and near-coastal sites in southwest England and Wales show little or no indication of the use of ma-rine-derived protein. While the majority of the values are by-products of accelerator dates, those from the chambered tomb of Pare le Breos Cwm on the Gower Peninsula have been analysed specifically for palaeodiet (.Richards in Whittle and Wysocki in press), and are consistent with the other values. A few values of around -19-5%o do suggest some min-imal input of marine protein (on the order of 5-10% of protein intake) in the diet of some individuals at Pare le Breos Cwm and Little Hoyle Cave. Little Hoyle Cave is of special interest, since the site is located on the mainland adjacent to Caldey Island. The human remains here span the earlier Neolithic (4930 to 4660 BP) (Hedges et al. 1993), yet if anything the two earliest individuals show less indication of a marine signature than the two later individuals, although the difference is insignificant. Thus no trend can be detected, either at Little Hoyle or at Pare le Breos Cwm, for any gradual change in subsistence from a more 'Mesolithic' diet (le., one including sea-foods) in the Early Neolithic to a more 'Neolithic' diet in the Middle Neolithic. It may be that such a
transition did take plače in the few centuries prior to ca. 5000 BP, but since human remains are as yet unknown in this area from the critical period between 7000 and 5000 BP, this possibility must remain open for future investigation.
Brittany
Teviec and Hoedic are Late Mesolithic shell middens presently located on small islands off the coast of Brittany, although during the Atlantic period sea-lev-els would have been considerably lower (Schulting 1996). Teviec and Hoedic are known for their relativen elaborate graves, including single, double and multiple interments, some of which, associated with simple stone cists, are clearly successive in the same tomb (Pequart et al. 1937; Pequart and Pequart 1954). Cemeteries present the ideal context for iso-topic studies, presenting relatively large numbers of individuals from a single location; they often show continued use through a considerable period of time as well. To take full advantage of the opportunities offered, however, it is essential to analyse as many individuals as possible. Human bone samples were obtained from a total of 25 individuals (14 from Teviec and 11 from Hoedic) for the purposes of stable isotope analysis and accelerator dating. This represents ali the individuals that stili exist in museum collections, with the exception of two for which per-mission was denied. Accelerator dates were obtained on a sub-set of 14 of these individuals, comprising 8 from Teviec and 6 from Hoedic (Schulting in press).
The stable carbon isotope results from Teviec and Hoedic present a very consistent set of data that make it clear that a significant portion of the protein component of the diet was derived from the sea (Fig. 7). This is particularly the čase at Hoedic, which shows on average a significantly greater reliance on marine-derived protein than seen at Teviec. While the average S^C value of -14.2 + 0.9%o for Hoedic suggests that from approximately 70 to 90% of the protein in the diet of those individuals measured was from seafoods, the average of -15-5 ± 0.9%o from Teviec indicates a more balanced economy in-corporating both marine and terrestrial protein sources in near-equal proportions. The 813C results are supported by trend in the 515N results, which are on average higher for Hoedic than for Teviec.
It is interesting to note that very little in the way of a temporal trend can be detected in the isotopic data (Fig. 8). It might be expected - baring for the moment the appearance of a 'Neolithic' economy - that
the data would show increased use of marine resources through tirne, if for no other reason than the sea would be moving closer over tirne. This is clearly not the čase, and even the those individuals dating very late in the sequence, when elements of a Neolithic economy might indeed be expected to be making an appearance, show the continuation of a pattern apparently established by at least 7000 BP on the south Breton coast.
Problems arise in addressing the nature and speed of the dietary shift across the transition due to the lack of comparative Neolithic values. Bone preser-vation in Brittany is poor outside of shell middens, which do not occur in the Neolithic. And the few dates on human bone that have been reported in the literature often do not include stable carbon mea-surements. There are two exceptions, both of which are flawed. A multi-phase monument at Beg-an-Dor-chenn has provided two human bone dates, one of 5490 ± 90 BP (Gif-A92372) and another of 4140 ± 55 BP (OxA-5363). Unfortunately, the earlier date was not associated with a stable carbon isotope value. The later date provides a terrestrial value of -19.5%o, but this is of little relevance to the transition. A relatively early date of 5270 ± 80 BP (OxA-5974) was obtained on human bone from the pas-sage grave of Ty Floc'h, and yielded a typical terrestrial S^C value of -21.6%o (Hedges et al. 1997). However, this site is located some 25 km inland, and it may be that contemporary sites closer to the coast would show some use of marine resources. Further-
more, both Beg-an-Dorchenn and Ty Floc'h are some distance from the Gulf of Morbihan, where Teviec and Hoedic are located.
Late dates (5680 ± 50 BP (OxA-6662), 5755 ± 55 BP (OxA-6710) and 5080 ± 55 BP (OxA-6705)) from Teviec and Hoedic, even before correction for the marine reservoir effect, and together with the stable isotope data for these individuals, suggest the continuation of a Mesolithic economy into the period traditionally seen as the Middle Neolithic I of Brit-tany. But the exact chronological relationship be-tween the two periods or 'cultures' is stili poorly understood, and a larger series of accelerator dates and isotope analysis on human bone from early Middle Neolithic contexts is needed. The data pre-sented here suggest that the process of neolithisa-tion might be substantially different in Brittany than in southern Scandinavia. The persistence of a large-ly marine-oriented economy as inferred from the marine signatures at Teviec and Hoedic would seem to indicate one of two possibilities: either the econ-omy of the earliest Neolithic in Brittany was not based on domesticates, or two separate economies survived for a period of tirne side-by-side. The latter alternative itself presents two variants: a high degree of economic heterogeneity within a single 'Neolithic' society, or the co-existence of two distinct societies, i.e., 'Mesolithic' and 'Neolithic'. The question of the definition of these terms becomes awkward at this stage, but the underlying issue remains important regardless.
	16				■ "				
	14				O ■ O	e 0°			
<L> C3 > Z	12			■				O	
					■ ■		O		
ČO	10 8			O	■	_		__l-	-1
	0			-1—	1 1				
		-18		-17 -16 -15		14		-13	-12
					813C value				
					0 Hoedic ■ Teviec				
Fig. 7. Bone collagen stable carbon and ni-trogen isotope values for human samples from Teviec and Hoedic, Brittany.
DISCUSSION
It has been argued here that stable isotope analysis presents the best currently available means of broad-ly characterising Mesolithic and Neolithic diet, and the shift from the one to the other, particularly in coastal areas. This being the čase, it is essential to come to terms with the remarkable swiftness and completeness with which the transition to novel re-sources appears to have occurred, particularly in Denmark, where the evidence is most abundant, but also in other areas. There are a number of possible explanations:
1)	the stable isotope technique is providing erro-neous results;
2)	the human bone samples being analysed are not representative of Mesolithic and/or Neolithic soci-ety as a whole;
3)	the fully formed Neolithic subsistence package was introduced by an incoming population;
4)	changing environmental conditions reached a cri-tical point that dramatically favoured the whole-sale and roughly simultaneous adoption of the novel resources by indigenous communities over a wide area;
5)	a fairly radical shift in ideology or worldview occurred that encouraged the rapid adoption of novel resources;
6)	manipulation of the socioeconomic system by sub-groups within Mesolithic communities resulted in novel resources being preferred to traditional resources.
A number of scholars have recently questioned the stable isotope evidence for southern Scandinavia (e.g., Meiklejohn et al. 1998; Midgley 1992; Thorpe 1996). While further research is needed to address some of the concerns raised, others are exaggerated and/or have been largely dealt with elsewhere (Schulting 1998). For example, it is clear that indi-vuals from both coastal and inland locations have been measured from the Neolithic, negating the crit-icism that the coastal Neolithic is not represented, thereby biasing the comparison made by Tauber (1981, 1986). As some have pointed out (e.g, Tilley 1996), it is not possible to differentiate between wild and domestic sources of terrestrial protein. While this is true, it would be remarkable if Neolithic populations suddenly began ignoring the marine resources their immediate predecessors had been relying on for millennia in order to suddenly begin intensively exploiting wild game and plant foods. Moreover, it is questionable whether such a strategy would even be ecologically possible given the postulated population levels at this tirne on the Danish islands in particular.
It is conceivable that the Neolithic individuals sam-pled, while providing accurate measures in them-selves, reflect only one stratum of contemporary society, presumably an elite with preferential or even exclusive access to the novel resources. The majority of the Neolithic samples do originate from monumental mortuary structures - earthen long bar-rows and megalithic tombs. While plausible, this explanation does not seem very likely. There are sim-
-r -12.00
8 c
o o
-14.00
-- -16.00 _!
03 >
u
-- -18.00
«3
-- -20.00
I-1—
7500 7000


+

6500 6000 5500 5000 Radiocarbon years BP
® Hoedic
° Teviec
-22.00
4500 4000
passage graves
Fig. 8. AMS dates from Teviec and Hoedic plot-ted against stable carbon isotope values; the ttvo passage grave points derive from Ty Floc'h and Beg-an-Dor-chenn.
ply too many measurements on Neolithic individuals, ali of which demonstrate little or no use of the marine resources that totally dominated the diet of preceding coastal Late Mesolithic populations. Nor are ali of these individuals from monumental tombs: the Early Neolithic flat grave at Dragsholm shows no marine influence, nor do a series of dated human skeletal remains from bogs on Zealand (Rahbek and Rasmussen 1995), at least some of which were found near enough to the coast to expect the incor-poration of marine resources if these were being utilised to any extent. From Britain, individuals from caves and mortuary monuments near the coast have been measured, and neither context shows much in way of evidence of marine resource-use. Finally, in Denmark, limited stable carbon isotope measurements on domestic dogs appear to approximate the same shift in diet as seen in humans (Noe-Nygaard 1988).
Clearly the remaining possibilities are not mutually exclusive, but they do have differing implications for the nature of the transition and the archaeological evidence that might be expected. None of the possibilities are unproblematic with regards to the archaeological evidence. The idea that an incoming population is responsible for the appearance of the Neolithic in either Britain or southern Scandinavia currently does not hold favour. Nevertheless, adher-ents of this view remain, and it should not be dis-missed out of hand. But a wholesale population re-placement seems exceedingly unlikely. There are numerous continuities in technologies, artefact styles and settlement locations (although the relevance of ali three as biological population markers may be questioned). Furthermore, the apparent density of Late Mesolithic populations in southern Scandinavia make it inherently unlikely that they could have been swamped by incoming farming groups. This is not to say that small-scale population movements did not occur, particularly if one envisions a rapid knock-on effect, with 'acculturated' groups expand-ing (whether physically or in terms of cultural influence) locally at the expense of their immediate fish-er-hunter-gatherer neighbours, who then rapidly become acculturated themselves and expand in a similar fashion. Solberg (1989), for instance, argues that much of the evidence in southern Scandinavia can be best explained by a merging of incoming late LBK-derived farming groups with the indigenous Ertebolle peoples. However, the rapid dietary change cannot then be explained in terms of a new incoming population.
The view that changing environmental conditions could play such a determining role in the transition has also been strongly criticised (e.g., Blankholm 1987; Jennbert 1984), and does appear to fall short of accounting for the extent and timing of the transition. The idea that the changing environment did play some kind of role, however, remains reason-able. But any such model would have to be argued on a broader level than that proposed by Rowley-Conwy (1984), who saw the loss of the critical spring oyster resource as the reason for the transition to food production. The relatively high productivity of Late Atlantic marine ecosystems in the North Sea and southern Baltic region has been repeatedly emphasised (e.g., Paludan-Muller 1978), and it is clear that a marine adaptation formed the focus of Late Mesolithic subsistence in Denmark (Andersen 1995; Fischer 1997). Indeed, it has been suggested that it was the success of this adaptation that allowed Late Mesolithic communities in southern Scandinavia to persist despite the alternative offered by the nearby presence of mixed farming communities (Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy 1986).
But success comes at a priče: populations appear to have been at their densest in Late Atlantic times (compared with earlier periods), with increasing use of previously marginal inland areas (Knutsson 1995; Paludan-Muller 1978). A general decline in marine productivity, then, caused by falling sea-levels, could have had disastrous effects, and may have brought about a sudden shift in the relative ranking of the two alternative economic systems - fishing-hunting-gathering and food producing. Faced with the pro-spect of rapidly diminishing returns, exacerbated by the decline in marine productivity, further intensifi-cation or even maintenance of the existing system may have not have been feasible, particularly when an alternative was available (thus contrasting with the Northwest Coast of North America, where suit-able domestic resources were not available). Domesticated resources had been ignored, other than as exotic curiosities or high-status luxuries, as long as the costs of switching from one system to the other outweighed the immediate perceived benefits. While making many similar points to Rowley-Conwy's model, this scenario attempts to avoid its overriding emphasis on a single resource (cf. Larsson 1991). Rather, it is the two systems as integrated wholes that comprise the alternatives. A critical point - a threshold - may have been reached that made the decision to radically switch over to a reliance on domesticated resources more attractive. Although marine resources continued to play some role in the
Neolithic economy, this role was insignificant in dietary terms compared to the Late Mesolithic. It is possible that, as Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil have proposed, scheduling conflicts betvveen the two sub-sistence systems, at the level of production required, were insurmountable. Thus the shift, when it came, was of necessity rapid and complete. The continua-tion of a specialised marine adaptation alongside the new system was not possible due to competing demands on the highly productive coastal strip by both economic systems. Nor would such a solution be acceptable to groups who were now competing socioeconomically and/or establishing group identi-ty through the use of domesticated resources.
Its proponents frequently support the ideological argument by referring to the gradual nature of sub-sistence change across the transition, and the con-tinued importance of wild resources (e.g., Bradley 1993; Tilley 1996; Whittle 1996). But, as should be clear from the evidence presented here, this may not have been the čase for much of northwestern Europe. A shift in worldview may have been neces-sary to permit the modification of the landscape and/or the social relations of ownership needed for a serious commitment to agriculture or herding, but it is difficult to see why this should have such sud-den, complete and widespread consequences. Nor has the role of the subsistence economy, shown here to be integral to the transition, received sufficient consideration in this model. Similarly, it is difficult to account for the apparent sudden and complete nature of the change in subsistence with a sociopo-litical model emphasising elite competition. One of the basic tenets of this model is that novel resources will be employed only on special occasions. Never-theless the apparent level of sociocultural complexi-ty of Late Mesolithic societies indicates that social dynamics cannot be ignored. Evidence of exchange of what were likely high status objects, such as the Danubian axes, prior to the transition indicates that lines of contact did exist between farmers and fora-gers, and could have formed the channels along which domesticated resources initially flowed {Fischer 1982).
Thus it is at present difficult to choose decisively between these alternatives. The most plausible sce-nario may be that a number of factors acted togeth-er - perhaps different combinations of factors in different regions. Monocausal explanations, while at-tractive in their simplicity and elegance, are unlike-ly to provide adequate accounts of complex events and processes. For example, given the extreme re-
liance on coastal resources seen in Late Mesolithic southern Scandinavia in particular, I suspect that changing ecological conditions did play an impor-tant role in the transition there. I doubt that they played a similarly important role in Britain or Brit-tany, due to the much greater interior land masses of these countries relative to their coastlines. In conclusion, the stable isotope evidence demon-strates that, whatever else was going on, the change in the subsistence economy was an integral part of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, as integral as changes in material culture and mortuary practices, with ali that that implies concerning religion and sociopolitical organisation. The change in subsistence appears to have been rapid and complete. This is especially the čase in southern Scandinavia, but ongoing research is showing that a similar pattern may apply in Britain. The Mesolithic populations of coastal Europe present a unique subsistence econo-my; no subsequent period saw anything approach-ing the same intensive use of marine resources. Much has been made recently of the likelihood of region-al variation in the neolithisation process, but Neolithic communities everywhere appear to have very quickly turned their backs on the sea.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Professor Mihael Budja for the opportunity to participate in what was a most enjoy-able conference. The original isotope data discussed in this paper are the result of a collaborative project with Michael Richards of the Oxford Laboratory for Archaeology.
REFERENCES
AMBROSE S. H. and NORR L. 1993. Experimental Evidence for the Relationship of the Carbon Isotope Ra-tios of WhoIe Diet and Dietary Protein to Those of Bone Collagen and Carbonate. In J. B. Lambert and
G.	Grupe (eds.), Prehistoric Human Bone: Archaeo-logy at the Molecular Level. 1-37. New York.
ANDERSEN S. H. 1995. Coastal Adaptation and Marine Exploitation in Late Mesolithic Denmark -with Special Emphasis on the Limfjord Region. In A. Fischer (ed.), Man and Sea in the Mesolithic: 41-66. Oxford.
BLANKHOLM H. P. 1987. Late Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers and the Transition to Farming in Southern Scandinavia. In P. Rowley-Conwy, M. Zvelebil and
H.	P. Blankholm (eds.), Mesolithic Nortliwest Europe: Recent Trends: 155-162. Sheffield.
BONSALL C., LENNON R. MCSWEENEY K., HARKNESS D., BORONEANT V., BARTOSIEWICZ L., PAYTON R. and CHAPMAN J. 1997. Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in the Iron Gates: A Palaeodietary Perspective. Journal of European Archaeologv 5(1): 50-92.
BRADLEY R. 1993. Altering the Earth: The Origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. Edinburgh.
BRINCH PETERSEN E. 1974. Gravene ved Dragsholm. Fra Jaegere til Bonder for 6000 Ar Siden. National-meseets Arbejdsmark 1974: 112-120.
CHISHOLM B. E. 1986. Reconstruction of Prehistoric Diet in British Columbia using Stable-Carbon Isotope Analysis. Ph.D. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Bur-naby, British Columbia.
CHISHOLM B. E, NELSON D. E. and SCHWARZ H. P. 1983- Marine and Terrestrial Protein in Prehistoric Diets on the British Columbia Coast. Current Anthro-pology 24(3): 396-98.
CONNOCK K. D., FINLAYSON B. and MILLS C. M. 1992. A Shell-Midden with Burials at Carding Mili Bay, near Oban, Scotland. Glasgou' Archaeological Journal 17: 25-38.
DAVID A. 1990. Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Settlement in Wales with Special Reference to Dyfed. Un-published Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Classics and Ar-chaeology, University of Lancaster.
DAVIES M. 1989- Recent Advances in Cave Archaeo-logy in Southwest Wales. In T. D. Ford (ed.), Limestone and Caves ofWales: 79-91. Cambridge.
DeNIRO M. J. and EPSTEIN S. 1978. Influence of Diet on the Distribution of Carbon Isotopes in Animals. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 42: 495-506.
1981. Influence of Diet on the Distribution of Nitrogen Isotopes in Animals. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 45:341-351.
FISCHER A. 1982. Trade in Danubian Shaft-Hole Axes and the Introduction of Neolithic Economy in Denmark. Journal of Danish Archaeologv 1: 7-12.
1997. People and the Sea - Settlement and Fi-shing along the Mesolithic Coast. In L. Pedersen, A. Fischer and B. Aaby (eds.), The Danish Store-bcelt Since the Ice Age: 63-77. A/S Storebaelt Fixed Link, Kalundborg Museum, National Forest and Nature Agency and the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen.
HEDGES R. E. M., HOUSLEY R. A., BRONK RAMSEY C. and VAN KLINKEN G. J. 1993- Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Date-list 16. Archaeometrv 35(1): 147-167.
HEDGES R. E. M., PETTITT P. B., BRONK RAMSEY C. and VAN KLINKEN G. J. 1997. Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 24. Archaeometry 39(2): 247-262.
HOBSON K. A. and COLLIER S. 1984. Marine and Terrestrial Protein in Australian Aboringial Diets. Current Anthropologv 25: 238-240.
HODDER I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Ox-ford.
INGOLD T. 1986. The Appropriation of Nature. Man-chester.
KATZENBERG M. A. 1989- Stable Isotope Analysis of Archaeological Faunal Remains from Southern Ontario. Journal of Archaeological Science 16: 319-329.
KNUTSSON K. 1995. Mesolithic Research in Sweden 1986-1990. Current Sivedish Archaeologv 3: 7-27.
KRUEGER H. W. and SULLIVAN C. H. 1984. Models for Carbon Isotope Fractionation betvveen Diet and Bone. In J. R. Turnlund and P. E. Johnson (eds.), Slabič Isotopes in Nutrition: 205-220. American Chemical Society Symposium Series, Washington, D.C.
LACAILLE A. D., GRIMES W. F. 1955. The Prehistory of Caldey. Archaeologia Cambrensis 104: 85-165.
LARSSON M. 1991. The Introduction and Establish-ment of Agriculture. The Moving Family: Aspects of the Early Neolithic in Southern Scania. In B. Berg-lund (ed.), The Ystad Project: 315-321. Ecological Bulletins 41.
LEE R. B. 1968. What Hunters Do for a Living, or, How to Make Out on Scarce Resources. In R. B. Lee and I. Devore (eds.), Man the Hunter. 30-48. Aldine, Chicago.
LEE-THORPE J, SEALY J. and VAN DER MERWE N. J. 1989. Stable Carbon Isotope Ratio Differences Betvveen Bone Collagen and Bone Apatite, and Their Relationship to Diet .Journal ofArchaeological Science 16:585-599.
LOVELL N. C., CHISHOLM B. S., NELSON D. E. and SCHWARCZ H. P. 1986. Prehistoric Salmon Con-sumption in Interior British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 10:99-106.
LUBELL D., JACKES M., SCHWARCZ H, KNYF M, and MEIKLEJOHN C. 1994. The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in Portugal: Isotopic and Dental Evidence of Diet .Journal of Archaeological Science 21:201-216.
MEIKLEJOHN C., BRINCH PETERSEN E. and ALEXAN-DERSEN V. 1998. The Later Mesolithic Population of Sjaelland, Denmark, and the Neolithic Transition. In M. Zvelebil, R. Dennell, and L. Domanska (eds.), Har-vesting the Sea, Farming the Forest: The Emergence of Neolithic Societies in the Baltic Region: 203-212. Sheffield.
MIDGELY M. S. 1992. TRB Culture: The First Far-mers of the North European Plain, Edinburgh.
NEDERVELDE J. VAN, DAVIES M, and JOHN B. S. 1973. Radiocarbon Dating from Ogof-yr-Ychen, a New Pleistocene Site in West Wales. iMature 245: 453-454.
NOE-NYGAARD N. 1988. 813C Values of Dog Bones Reveal the Nature of Changes in Man's Food Re-
sources at the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition, Denmark. Isotope Geoscience 73: 87-96.
PALUDAN-MULLER C. 1978. High Atlantic Food Gathering in North-Western Zealand: Ecological Conditions and Spatial Representation. Studies in Scan-dinavian Prehistorj and Early History 1:120-157.
PEQUART M. and PEQUART S.-J. 1954. Hoedic, Deia-ieme Station-Necropole du Mesolithique Cotier Ar-moricain. Anvers.
PEQUART M, PEQUART S.-J, BOULE M. and VALLOIS H. 1937. Teviec, Station-Necropole du Mesolithique du Morbihan. Archives de L Institut de Paleontolo-gie Humaine XVIII, Pariš.
RAHBEK U. and RASMUSSEN K. L. 1995. Danish Radiocarbon Datings of Archaeological Samples, Co-penhagen 1995. Arkceologiske Udgravninger i Dan-mark 1995: 298-317.
RICHARDS M. P. and MELLARS P. 1998. Stable Isotopes and the Seasonality of the Oronsay Middens. Antiquity 72: 178-184.
ROWLEY-CONWY P. 1984. The Laziness of the Short-Distance Hunter: The Origins of Agriculture in Western Denmark. Journal of Anthropological Ar-chaeologv 4:300-324.
in press. Meat, Furs and Skins: Mesolithic Animal Bones from Ringkloster, a Seasonal Hunting Camp in Jutland. Journal of Danish Archaeo-logy.
SOLBERG B. 1989. The Neolithic Transition in Southern Scandinavia: Internal Development or Mi-gration? OxfordJournal of Archaeologr 8(3): 261-296.
SCHOENINGER M. J, DeNIRO M. J. and TAUBER H. 1983. Stable Nitrogen Isotope Ratios of Bone Collagen Reflect Marine and Terrestrial Components of Prehistoric Human Diet. Science 220: 1381-1383.
SCHULTING R. J. 1996. Antlers, Bone Pins and Flint Blades: The Mesolithic Cemeteries of Teviec and Hoedic, Brittany. Antiquity 70: 335-350.
1998. Slighting the Sea: The Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in Northwest Europe. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Archaeology, Univer-sity of Reading.
in press. Rapport preliminaire concernant de nouvelles dates AMS obtenues sur les sites de Te-viec et Hoedic, Quiberon (Morbihan). Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Frangaise.
SCHULTING R. J. and RICHARDS M. P. in press. The Use of Stable Isotopes in Studies of Subsistence and Seasonality in the British Mesolithic. In R. Young (ed.), Current Research on the British and Irish Mesolithic. Leicester.
SEALY J. C. and VAN DER MERWE N. J. 1985. Isotope Assessment of Holocene Human Diets in the South-west Cape, South Africa. Nature 315: 138-140.
TAUBER H. 1981. 13C Evidence for Dietary Habits of Prehistoric Man in Denmark. Nature 292:332-333-
1986. Analysis of Stable Isotopes in Prehistoric Populations. Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesel-lschaft fiir Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urge-schichte 7:31-38-
THORPE I. J. 1996. The Origins of Agriculture in Europe. London.
TIESZEN L. L. and FAGRE T. 1993. Effect of Diet Qua-lity and Composition on the Isotopic Composition of Respiratory C02, Bone Collagen, Bioapatite, and Soft
Tissues. In J. B. Lantbert and G. Grupe (eds.), Prehistoric Human Bone: Archaeologv at the Molecular Level: 121-155. New York.
TILLEY C. 1996. An Ethnography of the Neolithic: Early Prehistoric Societies in Southern Scandina-via. Cambridge.
WALKER P. L., DeNIRO M. J. 1986. Stable Nitrogen and Carbon Isotope Ratios in Bone Collagen as Indi-ces of Prehistoric Dietary Dependence on Marine and Terrestrial Resources in Southern California. American Journal of Physical Anthropologv 71: 51-61.
WHITTLE A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: The Cre-ation of New Worlds. Cambridge.
WHITTLE A. and ¥YSOCKI M. in press. Pare le Breos Cwm Transepted Long Cairn, Gower, West Glantor-gan: Date, Contents and Context. Proceedings ofthe Prehistoric Society.
ZVELEBIL M. 1994. Plant Use in the Mesolithic and Its Role in the Transition to Farming. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60: 35-74.
ZVELEBIL M. and ROWLEY-CONWY P. 1986. Fora-gers and Farmers in Atlantic Europe. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in Transition: 67-93- Cambridge.
UDK 330.185:003.314+511.1 (35/395)"634/637'
Documenta Praehistorica XXV (Poročilo o raziskovanju paleoiitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXV)
Clay tokens -accounting before vvriting in Eurasia
Mihael Budja
Department of Archaeology, University of Ljubljana miha.budja@uni-lj.si
ABSTRACT - A number of small ceramic and stone objects of rather uniform shape, which have been interpreted in Near and Middle Eastern archaeological contexts as counters used for calculating quantities of goods in systems ofexchange are discussed in European interpretative contexts of the transition to farming and the secondary products scenario.
POVZETEK - V artefaktnih zbirih, kijih evropska prazgodovinska arheologija označuje kot pečatnike, ušesne čepke, amulete, miniaturne figurice, gumbe itd,, je kar nekaj drobnih keramičnih in kamnitih predmetov zelo enotnih oblik, ki so v bližnjevzhodnih neolitskih kontekstih interpretirani kot plačilni žetoni. Žeton i naj bi najprej pomenili vrsto in količino blaga, nato številke, enice, desetice in šestdesetice. Žetone v obliki stožcev, valjev in miniaturnih posod obravnavamo v evropskih kontekstih prehoda na kmetovanje in uporabe sekundarnih produktov.
INTRODUCTION
In artefact assemblages designated by European archaeologists as seals (Cornaggia Castiglione 1956; Makkay 1984; Ruttkay 1993(1994)), there are a number of small ceramic and stone objects of rather uniform shape which have been interpreted in Near and Middle Eastern archaeological contexts as counters used for calculating quantities of goods in sys-tems of exchange, and mnemonic devices for recor-ding information (,Schmandt-Besserat 1977; 1985; 1992a, b; 1997a). This article presents clay tokens in the context of the transition to farming and secon-dary products scenario.
THE INTERPRETATION OF TOKENS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TRANSITION TO AGRICULTURE IN EUROPE
In European Neolithic studies the interpretation of presumed seals, connected with the old axiom ex oriente lux, was already established at the beginning of this century (Childe 1929.414). Now the pheno-menon of clay seals in European Early Neolithic cultures of Proto-Sesklo, Karanovo I—II and Starčevo-Koros, is linked to the process of Neolithisation in
south-eastern Europe (Makkay 1984.73~84). Expla-nations with a predominantly diffusionist paradigm are based on two hypotheses. The typological hypo-thesis claims that the Early Neolithic clay seals from Macedonian Nea Nikomedeia are comparable to Ana-tolian seals in gatalhoyiik VI-II (Makkay 1974.131-154; 1984.72-84,100-101; Kircho 1989.123; Onas-soglou 1996.163). The second hypothesis, which is based on distribution, says that the appearance of the first seals in Europe can be related to the expan-sion of the oldest pottery to Macedonia, Thessaly and to the Balkans; and that, due to its geographical position, a key role was played by Nea Nikomedeia in Macedonia. Apparently rather obvious is its position between the oldest centres for the making of clay seals in (Jatalhoyuk and Hacilar in Anatolia on one side, and the settlements of the Karanovo and Koros-Starčevo cultures in the Balkans and eastern part of the Carpathian Basin on the other (Makkay 1984.37, 77-86, 101).
What needs to be particularly noted in this interpretative context are two arguments which hold that, due to incomparable form and unclear chronological position, the Thessalian stone seals cannot be placed
Map 1. The distribution of Early Neolithic "stamp seals" (%) (after Mak k a) > 1984) and, tokens (A) documented in Arggissa, Souphli Magula, Achillei-on, Sesklo, Gentiki and Vrbica. The "northern boundatj of the Starčevo-Koros (shaded)-Cris cotn-plex" tvas defined by Kalicz (19M Ta/. 1. 1; 1993■ Fig.2).
into the above-mentioned clay seals group (Makkay 198479-80; Onassoglou 1996.163). Concerning the distribution of the oldest seals, we cannot agree with the evaluation that early farming groups from the Konya basin (Catalhoviik, Can Hasan and Suberde) migrated at the head of a wave-of-advance into the Thessalian plain. Van Andel & Runnels (1995-481-500) stated that settlers gradually occupied only the fertile flood plains of rivers and lakes, similar to the environment in the Konya basin. They propose that the periodically flooded sites in Thessaly were colo-nised first (9000 BP), and after more then a thou-sand years farmers leapt to the next such environment in Macedonia, Thrace (7800 BP), and Panno-nian plain (7500 BP). This explanation was also re-jected by Wilkie and Savina (1997.201-207).
Although a hypothesis on a correlation between the diffusion of agriculture and seal distribution remains, a few obvious facts, which we believe plače the Early Neolithic seals in another interpretative context, stili need to be emphasised. In the context of the European Early Neolithic, it is impossible to plače any of the seals in the oldest phase. Their dating to the Early Neolithic is only approximate; nevertheless, we know that in different geo-cultural areas this period had a different chronological structure (Budja 1992.97-98). It is also important to understand that in Thessaly and Macedonia reliable stratigraphical positions are known only for seals from Nea Niko-medeia, and even these are not dated before the Pro-to-Sesklo phase (Onassoglou 1996.163, 331-334). Something similar holds for the clay seals in the
eastern, central and northern Balkans. The cultural and chronological label Karanovo I-II means that we can speak only of the latter part of the Early and earlier part of the Middle Neolithic (Todorova, Vajsov 1993-75-77, Tab. 10; Todorova 1995.83-85). Even more imprecise is the chronological division of seals in the Koros and Starčevo cultures. The fact that these cultures denote the Middle Neolithic period cannot be overlooked (Garašanin 1979.142,212; Benac, Garašanin, Srejovič 1979. 27; Kalicz 1990. 89-91). Above ali, we cannot overlook the ProtoStarčevo I, II {Srejovič 1971.1-19), Proto-Koros (Kalicz 1990.89-91) and the "Early" and "Monochrome" phases in the context of the "Early Neolithic com-plex" of the Eastern Balkans, defined for quite some time, in which seals are not documented (Todorova, Vajsov 1993-74-75, 94-97; Todorova 1995-83).
In the distribution of the oldest clay seals in the Balkans we cannot distinguish the expected zones of density which could be linked to a "modified ver-sion of the wave-of-advance model of demic diffusion", and an agricultural frontier moving from south to north (Ammerman, Cavalli Sforza 1984; Cavalli Sforza & Cavalli Sforza 1995.134-140,147-157; Cavalli Sforza 1996.52-52, 61-65). Even more, the greatest concentration of Early Neolithic clay seals has been documented in the Tisza region in the Carpathian Basin (Makkay 1984. Map on p. 158), at the northernmost part of the Early Neolithic Koros-Star-čevo-Cris complex (Map 1), designated by Kalicz (1990; 1993; 1998). It is also highly surprising to see that the seals have been documented only in set-
tlement contexts of the Koros culture along the Tisza river since, according to Kalizc's definition, the entire area of the northern border of the Koros-Starčevo-(Jri§ complex is to be understood as a frontier zone, a zone where the processes of interaction between farming and foraging communities consisting of different forms of contact and material and social ex-changes are hypothesised (Zvelebil 1994(1995). 107-152; 1998.9-27).
On the other hand, artefacts, which can be inter-preted as tokens appear in the Early Neolithic in the south, in the Mediterranean region. With only one exception (Talalay 1993-45-46), until recently their identification and interpretation have been connected exclusively with the Near and Middle East (Schmandt-Besserat 1985.149-154; 1992a; 1997a, 151-156). These are plain tokens which are mainly geometric in form: cones, spheres, lenticular discs, cylinders and tetrahedrons (Pl. 1); there are also na-turalistic forms such as vessels and animals. The tokens had two main functions from the beginning, when they served as counters to calculate quantities of goods and, as mnemonic devices used to store data. Counting and data storage with tokens began in the eighth millennium BC in open- air settlements where subsistence was based on the raising of cere-als. Their first purpose was to record quantities of the traditional Near Eastern staples like grain and small stock, and there is some evidence that the counters were usually discarded during summer, after the harvest. In the fourth millennium, BC when assemblages of complex tokens appear, they kept track of manufactured goods in large centres. Tokens, together with other status symbols, are sometintes included in the burials of prestigious in-dividuals, suggesting that they were used by the elite, which controlled real goods and the economy of redistribution.
The appearance of the first token assemblages in 8000-7500 BC is interpreted as the appearance of a system of counting and recording goods in the processes of the transition to farming. In other words, the token system met the accounting needs brought about by agriculture, and data storage can be considered as directly related to the rise of a household economy and a social elite. This idea is based on the fact that the creation of the token system correlates with a new settlement pattern characterised by larg-er communities, and with the advent of a ranked society characterised by a new type of leadership overseeing contmunity resources. In Mureybet there is no evidence for the use of counters in the two ear-
liest Natufian phases of the site, in about 8500-8000 BC, when it was a small contpound of half a hectare. Tokens occur in the third phase, ca. 8000-7500 BC, when the hamlet had grown to become a village co-vering 2 or 3 hectares. It is estimated that the cont-munity of Mureybet III exceeded the number of in-dividuals manageable in an egalitarian system. The synchronic occurrence of tokens and plant domestication in the post-Natufian period demonstrates that the new economy based on agriculture created a need for accounting. In fact, in each of the five sites that yielded the earliest tokens (Mureybet III, Tepe Asiab, Ganj Dareh E, Teli Aswad I and Cheikh Has-san), the invention of clay counters was consistently related to evidence of harvesting. The link between cereal consumption and recording grain quantities explains the fact that spheres, cones and flat disks, probably representing measures of cereals, were among the most common Early Neolithic tokens. Al-though the archaeological evidence is elusive, it is hypothesised that the presence of cylinders and lenticular disks stood for numbers of animals in the token assemblages of Cheikh Hassan, Mureybet and Tepe Asiab. Plain tokens continued to be used in the Near East to the very end of the system in the third millennium. The counter continued to exist, and the

*>o
• t
Pl. 1. Susa. Tokens assemblage: cones, spheres and disks (after Schmandt-Besserat 1992a. Fig. 36. 1. 2. 3; 1997a. Fig.2).
system \vorked according to the most simple and basic principle of a one-to-one correspondence which consisted in matching each unit of a set to be recor-ded with a token. There were seemingly only a few tokens that stood for a collection of items, such as a lentoid disc which probably represented a group of perhaps 10 animals. The token system did not allow the abstract expression of numbers. There was no token for "one," "two" and "three" independently of the commodity counted. It is worth noting that the token clusters were always composed of several types of counter (Schmandt-Besserat 1985.149-150, 152; 1992a.33-48, 166-178; 1997a. 151-156).
It is rather obvious that tokens have been a neglec-ted subject in European Neolithic and Halkolithic studies. In various publications they are described as "stamp seals", "seals", "clay cones", "clay tablets", "miniature clay objects", "miniature clay figurines", "small discs", "buttons", "decorative and other objects" and "ear studs", "nose plugs" or "ear plugs" (Wijnen 1981.46; Makkay 1984; Papathanassopou-los 1996.330-333; Theocharis 1973-299, 301, Fig. 212, 238, 270; Miiller 1994.218; Demoule, Perles 1993-364-368). Due to a taphonomic filter, which marginalised their interpretative significance to the level of decorative objects, these artefacts were not included in analyses of the system of exchange and organisation of production in the Mediterranean Neolithic (Perles 1992.115-164) or in analyses of the processes of Neolithization.
We first turn our attention to the stone and clay "ear plugs" documented in the Thessalian Early Neolithic. It needs to be pointed out, however, that both their use and provenance are hotly debated subjects, yet to be resolved. Something similar holds for their chronological positions. It is stili not clear whether in the settlement palimpsests they first occur in the Pre-ceramic or in the Achilleion phase of the Early Neolithic; while the basic question of whether the Pre-ceramic Neolithic in Greece can actually be defi-ned remains unanswered (Bloedoiv 1991.2-43; Vi-telli 1993-39-40). However, the objects are documented in the initial Neolithic phases in Thessaly in a time span between 6800 BC and 5800 BC (Demoule, Perles 1993-364-368). If these objects are identified as tokens and their distribution is taken into account, we can also speak of the appearance of
Fig. 1. Stone and clay tokens, "recovered from the Early Neolithic I strata at Sesklo" (1-5, after Wij-nen 1981.46,47. Fig 14. 20-24) and Vrbica (6, after Miiller 1994. Taf. 74. 5).
a system of counting and record-keeping in the processes of the transition to farming in Mediterranean Early Neolithic settlement contexts. Nevertheless, the basic supposition that these artefacts, documented in Arggissa, Souphli Magula, Achilleion, Sesklo, Gentici and Vrbica (Demoule, Perles 1993 Fig. 4.15-16; Miiller 1994.218-219) (Fig. 1) are compa-rable to vessel-type tokens (Fig. 2), as defined in a typological series by Shmandt-Besserat (1992a.226-227, 13:3,5,15,16, 26; 1992b.xiii-xiv) must also be true. Due to the greater legitimacy of our typology, let us state that in the Greek Neolithic, vessel-type tokens are not an isolated phenomenon. Disc-type tokens 3:12,15,56, cones 1:3, cylinders 4:20A, ovoids 6:19, and quadrangles 7:6,7, 28-32 (Shmandt-Besserat 1992a.203, 1:3; 212, 4:20A; 217, 6:19; 218, 7: 6,7; 219, 7:28-32) also appear as "decorative and other objects" or "rectangular solids of unknown use" in Neolithic settlement contexts in the Pelopon-nese (Theocharis 1973- Fig. 271; Gimbutas, Winn, Shimabuku, 1989.257; Papathanassopoulos 1996. 332. Cat. No. 275) and the Balkans (Čohadžiev 1997.56, Fig. 60.15. 198. 1,4. 199-3,6).
Vessel-type tokens are interesting because of three interpretative postulates. The first is based on their distribution in the Balkans, which extends as far as Dalmatia in the central Adriatic (Map 1). The west-ernmost example is documented in the context of the Impresso-cardium culture (Impresso A) in Vrbica (Miiller 1994.218-219, Taf. 74.5). Unfortunately, we cannot include stone špike artefacts from Podgorie I at Prespan Lake in Albania (Korkuti 1995- Taf 8.c-d) in this typological context, though Miiller tries through these to establish a link with the Thessalian artefacts (O.c. 218)1. Something similar holds for an
1 The distribution of artefacts in the form of spikes is obviouslv not a local phenomenon, defined in a short period of time. An iden-tical artefact is also documented in the Eneolithic horizon of the Slatino settlement in Bulgaria. That this is not a coincidence is shown by the presence of disc-type tokens 3: 12, 15 and cylinders (twisted) 4:30,32 after Schmandt-Besserat (1992a.208, 213). They were published as "objects of unclear significance" (Čohadžiev 1997.56, Fig. 60.15, 198. 1-2, 4, 6).
artefact, a supposed ear (lip) plug, in the context of Koros culture, referred to by Makkay (1974.150; 1984.81). Nevertheless, a typological link between the Albania and Greece in Early Neolithic remains. A similar clay seal, comparable to Thessalian (Korkuti 1995. Taf. 15. 12, 14-16), was documented in the Early Neolithic settlement deposit in Vashtemi. On the other hand, clay statuettes (O.c. Taf. 8. a-b; 14.2) were documented in both the Podgorie and Vashtemi settlement and, in Franchthi cave deposits. Ma-tching artefacts have been interpreted in Franchthi cave in the Peloponnese as tokens designed either as contractual devices or as identifying tokens be-tween individuals or groups which symbolised the obligations of an agreement, friendship or common bond. It is hypothesised that in the context of inter-settlement contact in the Peloponnese, various types of bonds among communities would have been be-neficial during the Neolithic and that contractual devices or identifying tokens could have been used in a variety of contexts. They may have been used as tokens in a "down the line" mode of exchange or, perhaps, to identify messengers between villages, particularly in times of crisis, or even as markers of inter-village marital connections (Talalay 1993-45-46).
The second is linked to the idea that among the many types and subtypes of tokens only four were recovered in sepultures. Among them, miniature vessels are identified. It was recently stated that the ritual of depositing in burials tokens of special types, material and number, gives a valuable insight into
the important role of counters as status symbols. The fact that tokens occur only in the graves of pre-stigious near-eastern individuals points to their economic significance, which may imply that the tokens were a means of controlling goods in the hands of a powerful elite in redistribution centres (Shmandt-Besserat 1992a, 101-107,167-183).
The third postulate diminishes the significance of the secondary centre of Neolithisation in southern Italy, which supposedly caused demic diffusion and the expansion of agriculture across the Adriatic to the eastern Adriatic coast (Muller 1994.273,274; Chapman, Muller 1990.128,129,132; Chapman 1994. 143, 144). The distribution of tokens links the eastern Adriatic coast with Thessaly and not with Apulia.
THE COMPLEX TOKENS AND SECONDARY PRODUCTS SCENARIO
The second part of this paper presents tokens which are discussed as "small clay cones" in the context of "conical clay stamp seals with circular bases" and "clay cylinders" (Makk.ay 1984). This discussion is linked to a thesis on a supposed discontinuity in the use of seals in the Middle Neolithic and their redistribution in the Late Neolithic. The appearance of the new cone and cylinder types in south-eastern Europe was therefore to prove the second Anatolian in-fluence in the Late Neolithic (Makkay 1984.83-98). This can be easily correlated to Sherratt's thesis on the so-called second diffusion of technological inno-
13:3 jar
13:5 incised star	13:14 bottle
13:15 bottle
13:16 bottle
13:20 plain
13:26 carinated and punctated
i i
©
i i
Fig. 2. Tokens, iype 13: vessels (after Schmandt-Besserat 1992a.226-27. 13:3, 5, H 15, 16, 20, 26).
vations from the Near East and the secondary pro-ducts "revolution" or "scenario" in the fourth millennium BC in Eurasia (Sherratt 1981.261-305; 1997a. 1-15; 1992a.6-34; Chapman 1982(1983). 107-122).
We have already mentioned that plain tokens con-tinued to be used in the Near and Middle East to the middle of third millennium. In the sixth millennium, tokens are recurrently found in public buildings. The clusters of tokens found in situ usually range be-tween a dozen to 75 artefacts, which shows that the counters were never kept in large quantities. It is hypothesised that the counters were mostly discar-ded during the summer, after the harvest, suggest-ing that an elite who controlled a redistributive eco-nomy used them.
In the early fourth millennium BC "complex tokens" appeared in large centres, and the quantum jump in the number of token types and subtypes seems to indicate a concern for more predse data. These tokens, which included ntany new forms and were charac-terised by having incised lines and punctuation, pre-sumably corresponded with the creation of work-shops, and the more diversified urban economy that followed required more accounting techniques. The evolution of the token system seems to reflect an ever increasing need for accuracy. This is exempli-fied, for example, by tokens dealing with livestock: the early plain cylinders and lentoid disks apparen-tly stood for "heads of livestock", whereas the fourth millennium complex tokens indicated the breed "fat-tail sheep", the sex "ewe" and the age, "lamb" (Shmandt-Besserat 1997aJ53).
According to Schmandt-Besserat (1992a.49-128) it was not a coincidence that the complex tokens phe-nontenon occurred during the formation of states. In ali the major ancient Near Eastern cities such as Uruk, Susa, Chogha Mish and Habuba Kabira, the complex counters occur in levels characterised by seals and seal impressions featuring the ruler, and by pottery which probably served as grain rnea-sures. The administrative centres that yield complex tokens were the seats of the same bureaucracy, housed in similar buildings, using the same administrative devices: complex tokens, seals and grain measures and, most importantly, they were headed by the sante powerful ruler. Two methods of storing tokens in archives were devised at the beginning of the fourth Millennium BC. The first consisted of en-closing tokens in clay envelopes (Pl. 2); the second, of tying perforated tokens with string. Both of them insured that groups of tokens representing one ac-
Pl. 2. Susa. Bulla bearing impressed markings cor-responding to the tokens inside (after Schmandt-Besserat 1992a. Fig. 73; 1997a. Fig.3).
count were securely held together and that the tran-saction was identified by seal impressions. Accoun-tants indicated the shape and number of tokens en-closed by imprinting each token on the outside surface of the envelope before enclosing it. The bullae provided the great advantage of securing the tokens tightly and presented a surface where seals could be used for authentication. Their disadvantage was that they completely hid the tokens, so any verification meant breaking the bullae. To overconte this diffi-culty some bullae have signs impressed on the outer surface, recording not only the numbers, but also the shape of tokens inside: circular impressions for discs and spheres, conical impressions for cones The innovation was of great convenience, as it allowed one to "read" at ali times the amount and kind of tokens without breaking the bulla. It seems that only a restricted number of token shapes are represented in the bullae, in particular those which can be para-lleled with numerical signs. It is hypothesised that the appearance of graphic symbols on the surface of the envelope represents the transition between to-
kens and the first system of writing in the context of the evolution from tokens to markings on envelopes and impressed signs on tablets. Although impressed signs on the tablets stili perpetuated the shape of the tokens, they assumed a new function, identified as "Whereas the markings on envelopes repeated only the message encoded in the tokens held in-side, the signs impressed on the tablets were the message" (O. c. 129). The first group of impressed tablets has been dated to 3500 BC. In the course of tirne, solid clay tablets bearing impressed signs re-placed the hollow envelopes holding tokens. Most importantly, the evolution from tokens to markings on envelopes and impressed signs on tablets should be understand as the forerunners of the Sumerian pictographic script (Shmandt-Besserat 1992a, 129-165).
In the context of the secondary products scenario, the fourth millennium BC saw a series of changes which were in large part a consequence of the processes of the transition to agriculture that happened some five millennia earlier. According to Andrew Sherratt, the scenario is based on two premises. First, cereal grains themselves would at first have been "luxury" items of trade, that perceived quite differently from the staple commodity they were to
become. The diffusion of cultivated cereals and animal domesticates would have been "a social pro-cess of economic transaction and negotiation and not just a passive spread". The expansion of cereal cultivation "around the inner rim of the Fertile Crescent" led to a process of diversification and in-teraction, which by 4000 BC had been objectified in new plant and animal products, inventions often ca-pable of being stored or processed in large quanti-ties. Some of these were new tree crops: the olive, fig and almond in the Levant, the pomegranate and vine in south-eastern Anatolia, and wool-bearing sheep, which seem to have had their origin in the Kermanshah region in western Iran. Two new "mi-cro-domesticates" Lactobacillus and Saccharomy-ces made possible the production of cheese, yoghurt, leavened bread and beer. Second, the increasing networking of the Levant and Mesopotamia into a regional interaction zone led to a fundamental trans-formation in the way of life. The concentration of contacts and traffic into a few principal communica-tion channels along the great rivers, the expansion of irrigated farming and the increasing role of added-value production, basically in the form of textiles gave rise to a contrast between a manufacturing core and a hinterland supplying raw materials which altered the economic and political character of the
Map 2. The distribution of Late Neolithic and Early Eneolithic clay tokens, cones (m) and cylinders (a) (after Budja 1992. Karta 2). Overlapping distributions are shaded. Cones: Luka Vrublevetaja, Frumusica-Ce-tdtuia. Hdbatesti, Izvoare, Sultana, Ezerovo-Varna, Usoe, Plovdiv-Jasa tepe, Tordoš, Porodin-Tumba, Grivac, H6dmez6vdsdrhely-Vata andMoverna vas. Cylinders: Moverna vas, Zorenci, Pusti gradeč. Limska gradina, Dietenberg, San Valeriano, Santa Maria, Maliq, Sitagroi, Dikili Tash. Biko vo, Gradec pri Mirni, Vorganska peč, Drulovka, Notranje Gorice, St. Štefan ob Stainz and Arene Candide.
Fig. 3. Token assemblage from Moverna vas.
interaction. Within the core area this process pro-duced an intensification of technological and manu-facturing activities which, in turn, led to the active establishment of colonial stations to exploit the raw material sources. This expansion also involved the appearance of new agrarian centres, which rapidly developed into independent centres of activity with their own peripheries (Sherratt 1997a.6-ll). In the secondary products scenario it was in the fourth millennium that the secondary products and secondary consumption patterns reached Europe in the context of a massive extension of the contact-radius on an inter-regional scale. The identified constituent elements of the diffusion to Europe are ox-traction and the plough, wool, milking, and innovations in cop-per metallurgy (Barber 1991.93-95, 99-100; Sherratt 1997a. 11-15; 1997b.203~210).
Having thought about the system of counting in fourth millennium BC "spheres, cones, discs and cylinders, which are among the simplest shapes, re-presented the most common staples and in particular, grain and small stock" and "that these staples
were represented by the same token shapes from Syria to Iran" (Schmandt-Besserat 1985.152). Since cereals and small stock remained the basis of the eco-nomy of the entire region during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, it is possible that the simplest shapes of tokens retained the same meaning in the token sys-tem of counting over the millennia (O. c. 151-152).
In the European interpretative contexts the identical cones were identified as "small conical objects" and "small clay cones" embedded within the Late Neolithic typological series, consisting of conical clay stamp seals with flat oval and circular ornamented bases and clay cylinders. Regional distribution of typological series served to prove the discontinuity in the use of seals in the central Balkans and eastern part of the Carpathian Basin. New forms of seals apparently proved their re-expansion in the Late Neolithic in the context of a new cultural impulse from Anatolia (Makkay 1984.82, 85-98, 100).
Discontinuity correlates with the geneses of the Vinča and Tisza cultures, while the distribution of new
Fig. 4a. Clay cones. 1-3 Moverna vas, 4 Hodmez6vasarhely-Vata, 5 Porodin-Tum-ba, 6 Plovdiv-Jassa tepe, 7 Izvoare, 8 Eze-rovo-Varna (after Budja 1992. SI. 2).
Fig. 4b. Clay cones. Usoe (after Todorova, Vajsov 1993-Ris. 201).
types of clay seals in the Late Neolithic is connected with Gumelnifa and Cucuteni cultures. Apart from a few exceptions, there are no records of Middle and Late Neolithic seals in the territory of the first two cultures. Considering that an explicit concentration of seals in the Early Neolithic existed in the same area (the Koros-Starčevo cultural complex), the change is obvious. However, only by neglecting the chronological correction already mentioned before relating to the division of the Early and Middle Neolithic (Budja 1992.98) can we take this change into account.
On the other hand, Makkay's map shows a new distribution of presumed seals in areas which have no other record of Early Neolithic seals. In the area of the Karanovo III, Gumelnifa and Cucuteni cultures (Thrace, the Lower Danube, the Eastern Carpathians,
Moldavia and Besarabia) conical clay stamp seals with flat, oval and circular ornamented bases are documented. Presumably these seals are not related to any of the seals from the Early Neolithic in either typological or developmental terms (Makkay o.c. 1984.84-98,158). Makkay connects the distribution with a new, second, cultural and developmental im-pulse from Anatolia, but this tirne through Thrace, not Thessaly, since here a thesis on discontinuity cannot be proved and "Bulgaria was likely to have been the first recipient of such influences, including stamp seals" (o. c. 1984.89).
This series of presumed seals is also distributed through central European cultural complexes in the Late Neolithic and Early Eneolithic (Ruttkay 1993 (1994).221-238). At this point Makkay's judgement that neither the Early nor the Middle Neolithic in central Europe have documented seals could be re-stated. They appear in the Late Neolithic, but only in the areas of painted pottery cultural groups (Lengyel complex). Such the geo-cultural limiting of distribution therefore determined a hypothesis on the trans-fer of seals from Gumelnifa culture through the "eastern group of painted pottery" (Cucuteni-Tripolje) to the "western group of painted pottery" (Lengyel com-plex) (Makkay 1984.85-88).
In the central European series, there are also ornamented clay cylinders (Budja 1992.99-105, Ruttkay 1993(1994J221-238). Although special attention has been paid to them in Neolithic studies on long distance cross-cultural connections for quite some tirne, their significance has always been limited by a hypothesised gradual expansion from Anatolia (Mak-kay 1984.93-101) or through it (Hood 1973-192-195) to the Balkans, and from there to the area of the culture of square-mouthed pottery in Liguria and Piemont in Italy. The regions were interpreted as
Fig. 5. Tokens, type 1: cones (after Schmandt-Besserat 1992a.203.1:l-3).
Fig. 6. Clay cylinders. 1 Moverna vas, 2 Zorenci, 3-4 Pusti gradeč, 5-6 Umska gradina, 7 Dietenberg, 8 Gradec pri Mirni, 9-10 Drulovka (after Budja 1992. S/. J).
the westernmost geo-cultural area reached by clay cylinders "in the context of Balkan ideological cha-racteristics" in the Late Neolithic {Barfield 1972.199; Bagolini, Biagi 1985-54-55; Bagolini, Barfield 1991.290).
In this context we need to face three interpretative snares, two of which are linked to the typology and distribution of clay cylinders within the Early Neolithic Koros culture, the third to their dating. Due to their large dimensions, the perforated artefacts of cylindrical shape have been identified by the pri-mary author as "clay weights which were probably used for the sinking of fishing-nets" (Kutzian 1944.
Pl. 1.10. 45. 9,12-16; 1947. 8; Makkay 1984.93. note 121). Other authors introduce a typological ta-phonomic filter and identify them as "clay cylinder seals" (Hood 1973.194. Pl. 5), but they overlook the fact that cylindrical weights were four to six times larger than clay cylinders and that 239 of them were discovered only in the Obessenyo site (Kutzian 1947.8. note 41). k chronological snare lurks in the estimate that European clay cylinders were 1500 years older than those in the Near East (Ruttkay 1993(1994).230-233, 236). If this were true, there is a certain correspondence between such an inter-pretation and the claim that "European civilisation between 6500 and 3500 BC was not a provincial
Fig. 7. Tokens, type 4: cylinders (after Schmandt-Besserat 1992a.212, 4:8.10-12).
4:7 strokes
CE
4:8 sets of strokes
TT 1 |l I -<»- ' ' t ''
4:9 multiple strokes
1

4:10 short incisions
mKvi
4:11 multiple incisions
4:12 multiple incisions
reflection of Near Eastern civilisation, absorbing its achievements through diffusion and periodic inva-sion, but a distinct culture developing a unique iden-tity" (Gimbutas 1989.13)• The dating is based on cigar-shaped cylinders, which are supposed to be the oldest (ca. 5000 BC), and which apparently appeared both in Aegean Macedonia (Sitagroi) as well as in Ita-lic Liguria (Arene Candide) (Ruttkay 1993(1994). 236). We already mentioned that cigar-shaped cy-linders, type 4:10-12, in the Middle East form a con-stituent part of both the plain and complex token assemblages (8000-2000 BC) (Shmandt-Besserat 1992a. 17-29, 33-59).
What needs to be emphasised at this point is that a group of clay cones was already defined within the European Late Neolithic series of presumed seals, and treated in the context of long-distance cross-cul-
tural contacts {Budja 1992.98-105. SI. 2. Karta 2). The opinion of the catalogue's author can neverthe-less be restated, as it says that "these peculiar, small, conical objects cannot be regarded as stamps and probably served some other function" {Makkay 1984.22, 45, 84-92).
Clay cones have already been treated together with clay cylinders (Fig. 3), since they were discovered in the same stratigraphic context of the settlement de-posit in Moverna vas. We realised that our options for an objective explanation of their distribution were limited, even if the seals and their symbols are understood as a preserved form of continuous recording of behavioural patterns of the Neolithic and Eneolithic communities, defined by Bailey as "linear chrono-types" connected with permanent economic activities and a stable social organisation (Bailey
Fig. 8. "Zigarrenfortni-ge" clay cylinders. 1 St. Štefan ob Stainz, 2-5 Arene Candide, 6. Notranje gorice, 7 Sitagroi, 8-9 Drulovka, (after Ruttkay 1993 (1994). Abb. 4).
1993.204-222). Their distribution was linked to the idea of secondary products and given a special significance in explanations connecting them to the for-mation of a social elite and the establishment of re-distribution centres, the exchange of goods, and trade over long distances or, perhaps, to the expan-sion of technology of extraction and processing of copper ore {Budja 1992.99,101-103 Sl.4).
This time the group of clay cones (Fig. 4a, b) moul-ded so that the diameter of the bottom surface, which is undecorated, is no larger than the height of the cone, are defined as tokens of cone type 1:1 (iso-sceles), which were used as counters to keep records of goods (Shmandt-Besserat 1992a. 17-24, 203; 1992b.ix,xxi) (Fig. 5). The group consists of cones documented in Late Neolithic contexts in Moverna vas, Hodmezovasarhely-Vata, Porodin-Tumba, Grivac, Ezero-Varna, Plovdiv-Jassa Tepe, Usoe, Tordos, Fru-mu§ica-Cetafuia, Habasesti, Izvoare, Sultana, Luka Vrublevetskaja (Budja 1992.99. SI,2; Makkay 1984. Cat. Nr. 66, 68-75, 84, 85, 99, 103, 187, 191, 255; Todorova, Vajsov 1993-212-213 SI. 201). According to the available data, fifteen were found in Usoe, thirteen in Frumu§ica-Ceta{uia, seven in Izvoare (one of them marble), three in Moverna vas, and one in each remaining site.
We include clay cylinders in the interpretative con-text because one of them (Fig. 3- 4; 6. 1) was found in Moverna vas in the same stratigraphic context of the Late Neolithic settlement deposit together with three cones. We believe that this is a token assem-blage, dated to between 4360-4033 BC (OxA-4626) (Budja 1993/94.20. Fig. 5).
In the group of clay cylinders we include decorated and undecorated cylinders (Fig. 6). According to Shmandt-Besserat (1992a.l7-24, 212-213; 1992b. xi, xxv) they are comparable to types 4:8, 4:10 and 4:19 and, according to Ruttkay (1993(1994).230-233, Abb.4:1-9) to "Zigarrenformige Rollstempel". The group consists of ornamented clay cylinders from Moverna vas, Zorenci, Pusti gradeč, Limska gra-dina (Budja 1992.99-102. SI. 3.1-6), Dietenberg, San Valeriano, Santa Maria (O.c. Si. 3-7; Ruttkay 1993(1994)230, 234, Abb. 3:1,2), Maliq (Makkay 1984.32-34. Fig. 26; Korkuti 1995-220, Taf. 94.22-23), Sitagroi (Renfreiv 1987-341-374, Makkay 1984.54, Fig. 25), Dikili Tash, and Bikovo, (Hood 1973.193-194. Fig. 18,20; Makkay 1984.13-14, 19.
Fig. 9- Vorganska peč (after Muller 1994. Taf. 52).
Fig. 25-26). Two, from Gradec near Mirna and Vorganska peč are not decorated (Budja 1992.104. SI, 3.8; Muller 1994.138,313, Taf. 52. 6). According to Rutkkay, artefacts from Drulovka, Notranje Gorice, St. Štefan near Stainz and Arene Candide, belong in the cigar-shaped clay cylinder group (Budja 1992. 104, SI 3- 9-10; Ruttkav 1993(1994).230. Abb. 4: 1-9) (Fig. 8)2.
Chronologically, the clay cylinder assemblage is much less narrowly limited compared to clay cones. The oldest cylinder from Vorganska peč is dated within the Early Neolithic Impresso B level (Miiller 1994.138,313) (Fig. 9). Among the youngest, Early Eneolithic, are two cylinders from Maliq (Korkuti 1995-216) and another from Dietenberg (Ruttkay 1993(1994). 230).
An analysis of the regional distribution of token assemblages has shown an interesting pattern, similar to that of the Early Neolithic, as discussed at the beginning of this paper. The distributions of cones and cylinders in the major part of their distributive range exclude edch other, and overlap only in the areas of the western Dinaric (Bela krajina), Thrace (along the central stream of the Maritza river) and in the Šarsko-Pindos Mountains (Map 2). These are
2 A clay cylinder from Tordos has not been included in the group. Its identity has stili not been confirmed {Makkay 1984.60-61. Fig. 25.6).
the areas with obvious concentrations in the number of tokens, as well as in individual sites within the region (Budja 1992.104). In the eastern Balkans the distribution of cones corresponds with the distribution of zoomorphic figurine assemblages which, compared to anthropomorphic examples, is not very common (Todorova, Vajsov 1993 211. Ris. 198-200) (Fig. 10). Although it is suggested that the Neolithic assemblages of zoomorphic figurines in the Near East could be related to magic as was described in the cuneiform text (Schmandt-Besserat 1997b.48-58), we believe the concentrations of tokens and zoomorphic figurines along the transhumance routes in Pindos Mountains, Thessaly, Thrace and Rhodope Mountains are not coincidental (Beuermann 1967. 120-140.162-173)-
CONCLUSION
Artefacts have been discovered in European Neolithic settlement contexts which, due to a taphonomic filter at different interpretative levels, assumed and retained the significance of marginal objects that in principle could be included neither in an analysis of the "Neolithization of Europe", nor any other cross-cultural relations in Eurasia. If we decide to include
them, they can operate only at the level of deter-mining typological links with Anatolia.
A different story emerges when these objects are in-terpreted as tokens, where certain forms presuma-bly first signified goods (e.g. wheat, sheep, wool bales) and then numbers (one, ten, sixty) (Schmandt-Besserat 1992a). What is important here are the hol-low clay balls in which clay tokens were kept, since certain figures which corresponded to the shapes on tokens kept in them were sometimes imprinted on their surface. The most important and most recent of them is a bulla found in the city of Nuzi (Iraq). The Nuzi bulla was found to contain 48 small objects, described as "pebbles" in the report. Unfortunately, the shapes of the "pebbles" were not described at ali in the archaeological report. Unfortunately, they were later separated from their bulla and now they can no longer be identified. The surface of the bul-lae do not bear impressions that could be correlated to tokens. The bulla had the unique feature of a lengthy cuneiform surface inscription in Akkadian which referred to the " pebbles" as abnu. The trans-lation of the inscription is as follows: 21 etves that have lambed, 6Jemale lambs, 8full-grown rams, 4 tnale lanibs, 6 nanny goats that have kidded, 1 billy goat, 2 female kids. Seal of Zicjarru (the shepherd).
Fig. 10. Zoomorphic figurines in Usoe assemblage (after Todorova, Vajsov 1993• His. 189).
help of tokens in the form of vessels, clay cones and cylinders, this paper attempts to stress that southeastern Europe was also included in this system during the Early Neolithic. We also believe that European Neolithic cultures developed their own types of tokens, and these cannot be compared typologically with those from Anatolia and the Middle East. We could perhaps recognise them by their extremely standardised forms (Fig. 11). We should not be dis-turbed by their being interpreted as zoomorphic clay amulets {Stankovič 1989/90(1991)35-42; Matsa-nova 1996.108,109. Tab. 9). What is important is that they are documented in the Early Neolithic along the Danube, in areas settled by foraging groups before farmers.
Fig. 11. Token (?) assemblage in Knjepište in the Djerdap region (after Stankovič, 1989/90(1991). T.l).
The total number of animals is 48, and there is no doubt that the abnu were counters (tokens) repre-senting the animals of a herd. These texts suggest the existence of a system in Nuzi of keeping herd re-cords by means of small counters. Each animal was represented by a small object or abnu and deposited in a receptacle, such as a pot or bulla, bearing a men-tion such as lambs, ewes, rams, billy goats, nanny goats, etc. New abnu would be deposited when new animals were born or passed into a new category. They would be removed when an animal was trad-ed, or was slaughtered for food or sacrifice. Accor-ding to Schmandt-Beserat, the bulla could be interpreted as a transfer of abnu from one account to another, if the bullae were used in an accounting systent employing tokens to record transactions. The producer consigned goods to a middleman with a bulla containing a number of tokens corresponding to the consignment. In later periods the bulla was duly sealed for authentication. By breaking the bulla and counting the tokens, the recipient of the consignment could check the accuracy of the shipment upon arrival (Schmandt-Besserat 1977.61-66).
The system of counting and record keeping for goods and trading over long distances demanded considerable standardisation of tokens and symbols, as they needed to be understandable to everyone. With the
REFERENCES
AMMERMAN j. A., CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L. 1984. The Neolithic transition and the genetics of populations in Europe. Princeton.
van ANDEL H. T., RUNNELS N. C. 1995. The earliest farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69/264: 481-500.
BAGOLINI B, BIAGI P. 1985. Balkan influences in the Neolithic of Northern Italy. Preistoria Alpina 21: 49-57
BAGOLINI B., BARFIELD L. H. 1991- The European Context of Northern Italy during the Third Millennium. In Die Kupferzeit a/s historische Epoche 1. Saarbrucker Beitrage zur Altertumskunde 55:287-297.
BAILEY D. W. 1993. Chronotypic tension in Bulga-rian prehistory: 6500-3500BC. World Archaeologv 25/2: 204-222.
BARBER W. J. E. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles. The De-velopment of Clotli in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Princeton.
BARFIELD H. L. 1972. The first Neolithic cultures of north eastern Italy. Die Anfange des Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa, Teil 7. Fundamenta A/3: 182-216.
BENAC A., GARAŠANIN M., SREJOVIČ D. 1979- Uvod. Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 2. Neolitsko doba: 11-32. Sarajevo.
BEUERMANN A. 1967. Ferniveideivirtschaft in Siid-osteuropa. Miinchen.
BLOEDOW E. F. 1991. The 'Aceramic' Neolithic Phase in Greece reconsidered. Mediterranean Archaeolo-gy 4: 1-43.
BUDJA M. 1992. Pečatniki v neolitskih naselbinskih depozitih v Sloveniji (Lehmstempel in den Sloweni-schen neolithischen Siedlungskontexten). Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji XX. 95-110.
1993(1994). The Neolithic Studies in Slovenia. Atti Soc. Preist. Protost. Friuli - Venezia - Gulia 8: 7-28.
CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L., CAVALLI-SFORZA F. 1995. The Great Human Diasporas. The History of Diversity and Evolution. Reading.
CAVALLI-SFORZA L. L. 1996. The spread of agriculture and nomadic pastoralism: insights from genetics, linguistics and archaeology. In Harrris D. R. (ed.), The Origin and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia: 51-69.
CHAPMAN C. J. 1982 (1983). The Secondary Products Revolution' and the Limitation of the Neolithic. Institute of Archaeologv Bulletin 19:107-122.
CHAPMAN J. 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.
CHILDE V. G. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Ox-ford.
CORNAGGIA CASTIGLIONE O. 1956. Origini e distri-buzione delle pintaderas preistoriche "euro-asiati-che". Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 11:123-153■
ČOHADŽIEV S. 1997. Slatino -praistoričeski seliš-ča. Veliko Trnovo.
DEMOULE J.-P. AND PERLES C. 1993. The Greek Neolithic: A New Review. Journal of World Prehistory
7/4:355- 416.
GARAŠANIN M. 1979- Centralnobalkanska zona. Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 2. Neolitsko doba: 79-212. Sarajevo.
GIMBUTAS M. 1989- The Goddesses and Gods in 014 Europe. London
GIMBUTAS M. WINN S. and SHIMABUKU D. 1989-Achilleion. A Neolithic settlement in Thessaly, Greece, 6400-5600 BC. Los Angeles.
HOOD S. 1973- An early oriental cylinder seal impres-sion from Romania? World Archaeologv 5/2:187-197.
KALICZ N. 1990. Friihneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Stidwestungarn. Inventaria Praehistorica Hun-garae 4.
1993- The early phases of the Neolithic in Western Hungary (Transdanubia). Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolita, molita in eneolita v Sloveniji XXI: 85-136
1998. Figtirliche Kunst und bemalte Keramik aus dem Neolithikum Westungarns. Archaeolingua. Series minor.
KIRCHO B. L. 1989. Seals and their imprints in the early agricultural assemblages (New materials from suothern Turkmenia). Neolithic of Southeastern Eu-rope and its near Eastern Connections. Varia Archa-eologica Hungarica 2: 123-130.
KORKUTI M. 1995. Neolithikum und Chalkolithikum in Albanien. Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten, Monographien Bel. IV.
KUTZIAN1.1944. The Koros culture. Plates. Disserta-tiones Pannonicae 11/23-
1947. The Koros culture. Text. Dissertationes Pannonicae 11/23.
MAKKAYJ. 1974. "Das friihe Neolithikum auf der Ot-zaki Magula" und die Koros-Starčevo Kultur. Acta Ar-chaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae XXVI: 131-154.
1984. Early Stamp Seals in South-East Europe. Budapest.
MATSANOVA V. 1996. Cult objeets from the Early Neolithic site at the town of Rakitovo. Poročilo o raziskovanjupaleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXII. 105-128
MULLER J. 1994. Das ostadraitisehe Friihneolithi-kum. Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes. Prdhistorische archdologie in Siid-osteuropa. Band 9.
ONASSOGLOU A. 1996. Seals. In Neolithic culture in Greece. G. A. Papathanassopoulos (ed.): 163-164.
PAPATHANASSOPOULOS A. G. 1996 (Ed.). Neolithic culture in Greece. Athens.
PERLES C. 1992. System of Exchange and Organisa-tion of Production in Neolithic Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeologv 5/2: 115 -164.
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.
RUTTKAY E. 1993(1994). Neue Tonstempel der Kan-zianberg - Lasinja-Gruppe. Mitt. Anthr. Ges. Wien 123/124. Festschrift K. Kromer: 221-238.
SCHMANDT-BESSERAT D. 1977. An Archaic recording system and the origin of writing. Syro-Mesopota-mian Studies 1/2: 32-70.
1985- Clay symbols for data storage in the VII millennium b.c. In Liverani M., Palmieri A., Peroni R. (eds.), Studi di Paleontologia in onore di Salvatore M. Puglisi: 149-153-
1992 a. Before uriting. Volume I. From counting to cuneiform. Austin
1992b. Before ivriting. Volume II. A catalog of Near Eastern Tokens, Austin
1997a. Accounting before writing in the ancient Near East. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXIV: 151-156.
1997b. Animal Symbols at Ain Ghazal. Expedi-tion 39/1: 48-58.
SHERRATT A. 1997a. Changing Perspectives on European Prehistory. In Economj and Society in Prehistoric Europe: 1-33- Edinburg.
1997b. The Secondary Exploitation of Animals in the Old World. In Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe: 199-228. Edinburg.
1981. Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the se-condary products revolution. In Hodder I., Isaac G., Hammond N. (eds.), Pattern of the past: 261-305. Cambridge.
SREJOVIČ D. 1971. Die Lepenski Vir - Kultur und der Beginn der Jungsteinzeit an der Mittleren Donau. Die
Anfange des Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeu-ropa Teil 2. A/3: 1-39-
1979- Protoneolit - Kultura Lepenskog vira Pra-istorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 2. Neolitsko doba: 33-78. Sarajevo.
STANKOVIČ S. 1989/90 (1991). Predstava bika u sta-rijem neolitu. Buli representations in the Early Neolithic. Starinar n.s. 40-41: 35-41.
TALALAY E. T. 1993- Deities, Dolls, and Devices. Ex-cavation at Franchthi Cave, Greece (Ed. T. W. Ja-cobsen). Fasc. 9. Indianapolis.
THEOCHARIS R. D. 1973. Neolithic Greece.
TODOROVA H, VAJSOV I. 1993. Novo-kamenata epoha v Blgarija. Sofija.
TODOROVA H. 1995. The Neolithic, Eneolithic and Transitional Period in Bulgarian Prehistory. In Bailey D. W., Panayotov I. (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria. Mo-
nographs in World Archaeologv 22: 79-89.
VITELLI R. K. 1993. Franchthi Neolithic Pottery. Volume 1 .Excavation at Franchthi Cave, Greece (ed. T. W. Jacobsen). Fasc. 8. Indianapolis
WIJNEN N. M. J. H. M. 1981. The Early Neolithic settlement at Sesklo: an Early Farming community in
Thessaly, Greece. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia XIV: 1-145.
WILKIE C. N. & SAVINA E. M. 1997. The earliest farmers in Macedonia. Antiquity 71/271: 201-207.
ZVELEBIl M. 1994 (1995). Neolithization in Eastern Europe: A View from the Frontier. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXII-. 107-152.
1998. Agricultural Frontiers, Neolithic Origins, and the Transition to Framing in the Baltic Basin. In Zvelebil M., Domariska L., Dennell R. (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, farming the Forest. Shef-field Archaeological Monographs 10:9-27.
Izdala in založila Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za arheologijo. Odgovorni urednik Mihael Budja. Uredniški odbor: dr. Franc Osole, dr. Vida Pohar, dr. Tatjana Bregant in dr. Mihael Budja. Naslov uredništva: Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta - Univerza v Ljubljani, SI - 1000 Ljubljana, P. B. 580. Tehnično urejanje in DTP: CAMBIO d.o.o., Ljubljana. Tisk: Tiskarna Novo mesto, Vavpotičeva ul. 19- Naklada: 700 izvodov. Izšlo 1998.