73UDK 903'12\'15(497.11)''633\634''>314.17 Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV (2007) Social aspects of the transition to farming in the Balkans Du[an Mihailovic ´ Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade, Serbia dmihailo@f.bg.ac.yu Introduction In explanations of the Neolithization of the Balkans most attention has been paid so far to the chrono-logy of the emergence of the Neolithic and the di-rections of distribution of Neolithic cultures fromthe territory of Anatolia and the Near East. For a ra-ther long time attempts to suggest a greater role forthe local communities have not been accepted, beingaccused of advocating anachronous (also nationalis-tic) viewpoints connected with the idea of the auto-chthonous evolution of cultures in this area ( Am- merman 2003.13–15 ). Yet, it seems that there are at least two reasons for examining the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Balkans within wider geo-graphical and chronological frameworks. On the onehand, there is a real possibility that local componentsparticipated at least partially in establishing Neoli-thic cultures, and that the introduction of agriculturewas marked by intensive interaction between theMesolithic and Neolithic communities. On the other hand, it is becoming obvious that the distribution ofthe Neolithic in the Balkans is a spatially, chronolo-gically and culturally defined phenomenon, which isreflected in the fact that the Neolithic spread overthe entire area of western Anatolia and southeastEurope in a very short time, from 6500 to 6200 cal-BC. Therefore, two conclusions could be drawn: first,that studying the Neolithization of the Balkans inclu-des examining the role of local populations; and se-cond that the emergence of the Neolithic in the Bal-kans could not be perceived partially, without in-sight into events on a wider regional level. The so-lution to this problem certainly does not lie in theautomatic acceptance of the colonization theory,which includes in recent times the study of almostall newly acquired data. If the Mesolithic communi-ties played any part at all in this process, Neolithiza-ABSTRACT – The Neolithization of the Balkans could be considered as a very complex social pheno- menon. In this work we study the causes for the cultural and social integration of hunter-gatherercommunities in the Late Glacial and Early Holocene, social networks and contacts in the Iron GatesMesolithic, and also factors having an impact on the spread of the Neolithic in the Balkans. It has beenperceived that the evolution of culture in the Balkans was simultaneously influenced by internal andexternal factors, and this contributed to the very rapid acceptance of Neolithic values and the Neo-lithic way of life in the period from 6500 to 6200 calBC. IZVLE∞EK – Neolitizacijo Balkana lahko ocenimo kot zelo kompleksen socialni fenomen. V tem delu prou≠ujemo razloge za kulturne in socialne integracije skupnosti lovcev in nabiralcev v ≠asu pozne-ga glaciala in zgodnjega holocena na obmo≠ju Ωeleznih vrat na Donavi. Analiziramo mezolitske so-cialne mre∫e in kontakte in tudi faktorje, ki so vplivali na raz∏iritev neolitika na Balkanu. Opazilismo, da so na evolucijo kulture na Balkanu so≠asno vplivali notranji in zunanji faktorji, kar je pri-spevalo k hitremu sprejemanju neolitskih vrednot in neolitskega na≠ina ∫ivljenja v ≠asu od 6500 do6200 calBC. KEY WORDS – Neolithisation; Balkans; Mesolithic; hunter-gatherers; acculturation Du[an Mihailovic ´ 74tion should be considered as a complex social phe- nomenon, which resulted in the complete transfor-mation of the culture, economy and society of the lo-cal population ( Budja 2005.66 ). Cultural regionalization and social homogeni- zation in the Final Palaeolithic If we want to answer the question whether the Neo- lithization of the Balkans should be understood as asocial and cultural transformation of the Mesolithiccommunities or as a ‘Neolithic invasion’ of uninha-bited areas, we should first examine the situationpreceding the emergence of the Neolithic. When,particularly, the Final Palaeolithic is concerned thefollowing questions could be asked: a – whetherthere is a parallel between cultural and economicchanges in the final Palaeolithic in southwest Asiaand southeast Europe; and b – which factors influen-ced the occurrence of semi-sedentary communitiesin the Iron Gates Mesolithic? Regarding the final Palaeolithic in southeast Europe, so far, precisely the phenomena registered at sites inGreece have been connected with the emergence ofagriculture. The greatest attention has been devotedto the discovery of wild cereals in the Late Pleisto-cene and Early Holocene deposits inFranchthi Cave. Nevertheless, nei-ther these observations nor the as-sumptions that in the south Balkansconditions were favourable for thelocal development of wild cerealshave been confirmed ( Perlès 1999 ). Only in recent times was this as-sumption actualized, after the disco-very of wild wheat and barley in theMesolithic layers of Theopetra ( Ky- parissi-Apostolika 2003; Vlachos2003). The initial phase of the dome- stication process was at one timealso related to the evidence for thebroad spectrum economy, but morerecent investigations by Miracle(1995) reveal that this type of eco- nomy (from the traditional point ofview) was not practiced in the FinalPalaeolithic on the eastern Adriaticcoast. What is then that something which distinctively marks the economic andsocial changes in the final Palaeoli-thic in the Balkans, indirectly indica-ting the foundations on which the complex hunter- gatherer communities emerged in the Iron Gates aswell as other manifestations characteristic of theBalkan Mesolithic? By the end of the Late Glacial inthe southwestern Balkans an increased intensity ofsettlements in caves and rock-shelters, as well as thedistinctive colonization of mountainous zones couldbe noticed ( Mihailovi≤ 1999a ). It could not be ruled out that this situation is a consequence of better pre-servation, visibility or investigations of the sites fromthis period. Nevertheless, the evidence for the settle-ment of mountainous regions is more than convin-cing. Therefore, the possibility must be consideredthat more intensive settlement in this area was in-fluenced by various factors: palaeogeographic chan-ges (resulting from the rise in sea level), the seaso-nal distribution of resources, and increase in totalpopulation, but also technological progress, whichmade possible the exploitation of new ecologicalniches. A certain role in these processes could alsohave been played by the fact that the organizedsystem of settling where every habitation had a di-stinct role was introduced in this very period ( Mi- hailovi≤ in press a ). That habitations had identical or similar functions over rather long periods of time is confirmed by the Fig. 1. Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites in the Balkans, mentioned in the text: 1 – Pupi≠ina Pe≤ina, πebrn, 2 – Zalog nearVerd, 3 – Kopa≠ina Pe≤ina, 4 – Vela πpilja, 5 – Badanj, 6 – CrvenaStijena, 7 – Vru≤a Pe≤ina, 8 – Odmut, 9 – Medena Stijena, 10 – Tre-ba≠ki Kr∏, 11 – Padina, Lepenski Vir, Vlasac, 12 – Cuina Turculuiand other sites in Lower Gorges, 13 – Sidari, 14 – Boila, 15 – Theo-petra, 16 – Cyclope Cave, 17 – Klisoura, 18 – Franchthi, 19 – Deki-litazh. Social aspects of the transition to farming in the Balkans 75quantity and structure of the remains encountered at these sites. There are different opinions about theduration and character of settlement within certainhabitations. It is essential, however, that the struc-ture of the fauna and chipped stone artefacts is ge-nerally uniform during all phases of settlement, andat Medena Stijena the overlapping of zones of acti-vity was even registered ( Mihailovi≤ 2004a ). Of co- urse, it could be objected that the geomorphologiccharacteristics of the terrain and the position andappearance of the caves and rock-shelters had a de-cisive impact on the function of the settlement andthat a greater quantity of finds could be explainedas a result of the better preservation of layers fromthis period. Naturally, we are not claiming that thesefactors had no impact, nor that an apparently so or-ganized model of settlement appeared for the firsttime only in the Late Upper Palaeolithic. The settle-ments from this period are, however, definitely dis-tinguished by the fact that this evidence in the LateUpper Palaeolithic appears for the first time at sitesin mountainous regions, and also that at those sitesa somewhat different repertoire of faunal remains incomparison with settlements from earlier periodswas encountered. Most of the remains at the sites from Early Upper Pa- laeolithic generally originate from large or mediumfauna from open (rarely also forest) biomes. In theLate Glacial their quantity decreases at the expenseof the remains of medium and even small fauna, incertain regions ( Stiner and Munro 2002 ). Hunting for certain species, e.g.the ibex that was an excep- tion in earlier times, now became regular even at asite in the Balkan interior (Cuina Turcului I–II, Bo- lomey 1970; 1973; Mihailovi≤ in press b ). The ele- ments of specialization are still not very prominent(except at sites dating from the very end of the Ple-istocene) and at most sites the remains of 2–3 ani-mal species predominate. The alternative resourceswere not present in considerable quantity, except atFrancthi, where fishing and mollusc and wild cerealgathering were confirmed ( Perlès 1999 ). The question could be raised as to what influenced the occurrence of such a settlement system: whetherit was economizing on resources in the relativelybarren Late Glacial environment (for which thereare certain indications), population increase ( Stiner and Munro 2002 ), or merely the pronounced seaso- nality of the resources. We think that latter possibi-lity is the most probable reason. Nevertheless, incontrast to the Epipalaeolithic of the Near East, veryfew base camps in the open dating from the FinalPalaeolithic have been discovered in the Balkans and the northern Mediterranean, so it is very diffi-cult to draw reliable conclusion about the settlementsystem in this period. The results of recent investiga-tions in south Epirus indicate that settlements couldhave been logistically organized ( Sinclair 1999 ). The fact that frequent settlement in the same habi- tations, which had identical or similar functions, waspracticed during rather long periods of time certainlyindicates the important role of tradition, which in adiachronic context confirms that hunter-gatherercommunities had already established a certain levelof social integration at the end of Pleistocene ( Mi- hailovi≤ 1999a; in press a ). A high degree of inte- gration is suggested also by more and more promi-nent cultural regionalization, which was going to in-tensify in the ensuing periods. The point is, in fact,that the industries characterized by the distinct fla-king technology and distinctive style in the produc-tion of certain tool categories appeared within limi-ted regional level by the end of the Pleistocene. Ithas already been established that at a wider regio-nal level there are differences between the Epigra-vettian industries of the northern Mediterranean,(including Öküzini in the Antalya region) and theEpipalaeolithic industries of Upper Mesopotamiaand the south Levant ( Koz łowski 2005.531 ). On the other hand, more recent investigations clearly indi-cate the cultural differentiation of Epigravettian in-dustries in the hinterland and in the coastal regionsof the central and southwest Balkans ( Mihailovi≤ 1998). The level of Azilianization in the industries along the coast is more prominent ( Monet-White and Koz łowski 1983 ), the bipolar technology is bet- ter represented, bladelet technology is not so welldeveloped, and the standardization of microliths isless prominent than in the industries in the hinter-land ( Mihailovi≤ 1998; 1999b ). Despite stylistic and typological conservatism (con- spicuous only in some elements), it is confirmed thatan identical rhythm of technological changes syn-chronized with the general tendencies of develop-ment in the final Palaeolithic in the wider area ofthe Mediterranean in both regions. All this bears wit-ness to the fact that the social closure of the hunter-gatherer communities in this period was accompa-nied by a cultural openness to influences from neigh-bouring regions. Whether this kind of openness wasalso reflected in the economic sphere, taking into ac-count the expansion of gathering activities (molluscs,vegetable food), it is not possible to determine so far,first of all because this phenomenon could have been Du[an Mihailovic ´ 76influenced by climatic as well as ecological factors. The phenomenon of ‘Mesolithization’ that was docu-mented in the economy of Franchthi ( Perlès 1999. 314) is confirmed in the Adriatic-Ionian region only in technology as the occurrence of Sauvetterian ele-ments in the industries of chipped stone artefacts(for example, at Medena Stijena V, Boila IV, Mihai- lovi≤ 1996.44; Kotjaboupoulou et al. 1999.206 ). Here, the question could be asked, what is at the root of cultural and social changes in the Final Palaeoli-thic, and how much are these changes relevant foran understanding of later events. In this connectionit should be emphasized that Late Upper Palaeoli-thic of the Balkans and neighbouring areas is charac-terized by: a – the operationalization of actions andactivities within clearly defined standards and ope-rative sequences; b – diversification in the procure-ment of mineral and food resources (directed to-wards providing the alternative sources); and c – anintensification in the exploitation of resources on thespatial level (regarding the orientation to certainkinds of resources within a given territory) and alsoon the level of their maximum exploitation ( Miracle 1995.490; Mihailovi≤ in press b ). The multifarious specializations aimed at mastering the various skillsand knowledge is documented in technology, but italso could be, by all appearances, observed in otherfields of human activity: first of all, in the economyand the settlement system. There is a great possibi-lity that this phenomenon contributed considerablyto the establishment of an entirely new economic model based on an intensification of the procure-ment of r-selected resources. It is well known that an intensification of the procu- rement of r-selected resources is one of the main fac-tors of sedentarization and transition to the Neoli-thic in general. Taking into account the expansionand duration of this phenomenon, we are certainthat the crucial question to be asked is not how do-mestication took place, but how the intensificationtook place. The importance of this question is stillmore prominent if we accept the possibility that thegathering of wild cereals had been practiced in theNear East over a rather long period, and that it wasthe basis of sedentarization, disregarding whether itplayed a key or marginal role in the economies ofEpipalaeolithic communities. The fact that intensifi-cation in the procurement of vegetable foods suit-able for domestication and storage took place in theNear East determined the role of this area in the en-suing millennia. From this perspective it is probablynot so crucial when and how domestication tookplace, as it could have happened at any moment be-cause of any of the reasons. The first results of thedomestication of plants and animals did not changeabruptly and essentially the economic and social or-ganization of the human communities in that area.It is known, however, that advanced agriculture andstockbreeding did not appear in the Near East beforethe advanced phase of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Tab. 1. Cultural and social openness and closure in the Late Upper Palaeolithic of the Balkans – based on Eriksen’s model ( Eriksen 2005 ).Late Upper Palaeolithic-early phase ●high degree of mobility inside large territory ●cultural unity over the large territory ●social differentiation ●long-range exchange networks (raw material, marine shells etc.) ( Soffer 1985< Kozl ⁄owski 1999 ) Late Upper Palaeolithic– final phase ●high degree of mobility over the limited territory ●cultural regionalization ●social homogenization ●middle-range exchange networks Early Mesolithic ●restricted mobility and territoriality ●cultural disintegration and isolation ●social integration ●short-range exchange networks very low low high and very highDegree of social opennessDegree of cultural openness very low low high and very high Social aspects of the transition to farming in the Balkans 77Cultural and social integration in the Early Mesolithic At the beginning of Holocene, profound changes oc- curred in the way of life and in the material cultureof the hunter-gatherer communities, but they happe-ned gradually. There are, unfortunately, scarce dataabout sites from this period. They were investigatedin considerable numbers only in Greece ( Galanidou and Perlès 2003 ), Montenegro ( Mihailovi≤ 1998; 1999b ), Serbia (sites at the Iron Gates, Radovanovi≤ 1996) and more recently in Croatia ( Miracle et al. 2000; Miracle 2001 ), while only one site has been discovered in Slovenia ( Gaspari 2006 ) and Bulgaria, respectively ( Gatsov 1982 ). Differences in material culture between the final Palaeolithic and Early Me-solithic horizons on many sites could not be clearlyperceived. Such is the case, for instance, with Crve-na Stijena and Treba≠ki Kr∏ in Montenegro ( Mihai- lovi≤ 1999b; ∑uri≠i≤ 1996 ), Badanj (upper layers) in Herzegovina ( Miracle 1995; Whallon 1999 ), Cui- na Turcului I–II in the Iron Gates ( Pa˘unescu 1978 ) and Dikili Tash in the western Black Sea region ( Gat- sov 1982 ). Only in a somewhat later period does the character of finds change substantially and settle-ments in the open appear for the first time in theIron Gates and in Slovenia. The settlements in the open were probably widely distributed, but the systematic site surveying of thelittoral regions have not been conducted in the Bal-kans even in regions where these sites could beeasily identified ( e.g.in caves and open localities in the high mountainous region). The Mesolithic siteshave not been registered in the lowlands, or on ri-ver banks (except in the Iron Gates) where theycould be expected. The lowest river terraces are flo-oded nowadays under alluvial deposits, uncultivated,or covered by vegetation, so the layers with Mesoli-thic finds are inaccessible. In such a situation the ab-sence of evidence certainly does not mean evidenceof absence. The character of settlement of the earliest Mesolithic habitations in the open has not been sufficiently stu-died. In the earliest phase of settlement (at the endof the 9 thmillennium calBC) the Padina site in the Iron Gates was by all appearances a base campwhere the habitation remains, working floors andeven burials in addition to a huge quantity of arte-facts and animal bones were documented ( Jovano- vi≤ 1974; Radovanovi≤ 1981; Bori≤ and Miracle2004). The remains of very early settlements have been documented also at Lepenski Vir and Vlasac,Ostrovul Banului (I–II) and Terasa Veterani ( Rado- vanovi≤ 1996; 2006; Boronean t1999; Bori≤ 2002; Bonsall et al. 2004 ) On the whole, the evidence from the settlement in the open, together with thedata acquired by investigation of the caves indicatesthe prolonged stay of people in the habitations andsettlements, reduced mobility and prominent territo-riality. However, the proof of sedentarization has in-creased in quantity in the course of time. In the se-cond half of the 8 thand in the first half of the 7 th millennium in the Iron Gates there appeared line-arly organized settlements where the remains ofhabitations, many artefacts and burials have beenfound. Nevertheless, the stratigraphic confusions ari-sing because these are investigations of an earlierdate make impossible a precise understanding of theseasonality and duration of settlement at these sites. Regarding the economy, the system of resource pro- curement in the Balkan Peninsula at the beginningof the Holocene is highly eclectic. Most of the sitesshowed the hunting of medium forest fauna (deer,wild boar, roe deer, beaver, hare), to be confirmedto a greater or lesser extent. Mollusc gathering wasconfirmed at sites in the coastal region and in theimmediate hinterland, while fishing was documen-ted in the Iron Gates ( Radovanovi≤ 1996 ) and in Greece ( Pickard and Bonsall 2004 ). Only in the south of the Balkans was a somewhat greater rolefor vegetable resources in the diet registered. It isconfirmed by grains of wild cereals from Theopetra(Kyparissi-Apostolika 2003; Vlachos 2003 ) and the macro-botanic remains from Franchti ( Perlès 1999 ). However, in the Balkans as in some other regions itis also impossible to confirm with certainty the pro-portional presence of alternative and r-selected re-sources in the diet ( Bonsall et al. 1997; 2004; Cook et al. 2002 ). Sedentarization in the Iron Gates Meso- lithic was almost certainly connected with fishing, asis suggested by the remains of fish bones and theresults of isotopic analyses ( Bonsall et al. 1997; Ra- dovanovi≤ 2006 ). It is still an open question whether fishing was the main economic activity or as Rado-vanovi≤ suggested ( 1996.37 ) it just “ played the role of vital resource ” for the survival of the community, and as such was the main integrative factor amongthe Mesolithic groups in the Iron Gates. Social, cultural and economic changes in the early Holocene are very clearly indicated also by changesin the Mesolithic industries of chipped stone arte-facts. The fact is that a decline on all three techno-logical levels: a – in the selection of raw materials,b – in the chipping technology, and c – in the reper- Du[an Mihailovic ´ 78toire and style of tool production could be encoun- tered in the Balkans at the beginning of Holocene(Mihailovi≤ 2001 ). At sites in all three well investi- gated regions, in Montenegro, Greece and in the IronGates, low-quality raw materials of local origin pre-vail, and the Iron Gates Mesolithic industries in theLower Gorge acquired an almost entirely quartz cha-racter ( Radovanovi≤ 1996; Boronean t1999). The blade technology was in decline, while among thetools denticulated and retouched flakes and othertools for temporary use predominate. This expedienttechnology is not such a rare phenomenon in theEuropean Mesolithic and it is usually connected witha decline in mobility. The reasons for its occurrenceshould be looked for as much in functions (that is,in the new activities, which required different tools)as in the disintegration of the cultural system fromthe preceding period. Despite the fact that technological decline occurred in most early Holocene industries in the Balkans andeven at the site at Zalog near Verd in Slovenia, wherefinds greatly resembling those from the Iron Gateshave been made ( Kavur 2006 ), there are many ele- ments indicating the diachronic changes and cultu-ral (and perhaps also ecological) differentiation ofthe chipped stone industries in this period. At pre-sent they are identifiable only in general outlines. In the early phase in the Balkans, which is very dif- ficult to distinguish chronologically and culturallyfrom the Final Palaeolithic, there were industrieswith an Epigravettian component still prominent,but the repertoire of the Epigravettian types of toolis restricted to backed bladelets and scarce micro-liths. It seems that the Romanellian elements (in par-ticular, circular microlithic endscrapers) appeared inlarger quantity at sites in coastal regions such as inMontenegro (Crvena Stijena) and also on the BlackSea coast ( Mihailovi≤ 1999b; Gatsov 1982 ). This phase, besides the mentioned sites, is also represen-ted by the finds from Cuina Turcului II ( Pa˘unescu 1978). In the next phase from which most of the sites could date (and which probably date from theend of 9 thand from the 8 thmillennium calBC) the expedient technology was at its peak (sites in theIron Gates, Padina in particular; Franchthi – lithicphase VII, Theopetra) ( Mihailovi≤ 2001 ). In the last phase, at the end of 8 thand the beginning of the 7 th millennium calBC bladelet technology reappeared(Vlasac, Franchthi, Koz łowski and Koz łowski 1982; Perlès 1990 ) and in some regions ( e.g.at Crvena Sti- jena in Montenegro) tools appeared which could bedescribed as prototypes or imitations of the imple-ments produced by using bladelet technology, which would be the main characteristic of the local Castel-novian in the Late Mesolithic ( Koz łowski et al. 1994; Mihailovi≤ 1999a; 1999b ). At this moment there are no elements which indicate a strict chronological di-stinction between these phases (for instance, thequartz industries in the Iron Gates survived until themiddle of the 7 thmillennium calBC). These are, the- refore, general tendencies, which, however, shouldnot be ignored. It is difficult to establish at this moment to what ex- tent the changes in the chipping technology and inthe style of tool production ensued because of fore-ign influences and to what extent they are the re-flection of the economic and technological needs ofthe local communities. That the needs of the popu-lation could have had the decisive role is indicated,for instance, by the fact that at least in two regions(in Montenegro and the Iron Gates) the decrease inquantity of microliths and backed tools could be re-lated to the occurrence of bone projectiles. When the cultural influences and contacts with neighbouring areas are concerned, it should be em-phasized first of all that the Iron Gates Early Holo-cene industries were related at one time to influen-ces from the Black Sea region (Cuina Turcului-Belo-lesye-Shan Koba complex, Radovanovi≤ 1981; Koz- łowski 1989 ). In recent times, however, it has been held that the decrease in quantity of high qualityraw materials confirms that the Balkans was isola-ted in this period ( Koz łowski 2005.536 ). Although technological decline basically confirms the succes-sful technological adaptation to the newly createdcircumstances in the natural environment, it seemsthat there are grounds for the claim that just in thisperiod contacts with the neighbouring communitiesdeteriorated. This is not surprising as the process ofsocial integration (which had started in the Final Pa-laeolithic) reached its peak during the Mesolithic.Within that context it could be concluded that justthe social closing, in the last resort, actually resultedin distinct cultural isolation. All this, however, is valid only until the beginning and the middle of the 7 thmillennium calBC, when the new phase in the evolution of the Mesolithic inthe Balkans had started. In that period cultural, con-ditions stabilized and communities with recognizablecultural identities were established. Semi-permanentsettlements with dwelling structures did occur; thereis evidence for intensive hunting and fishing, andeven for dog domestication (in the Iron Gates – Bö- Social aspects of the transition to farming in the Balkans 79könyi 1978 ). Many proofs of horizontal and verti- cal social stratification, the establishing of regionalgroups and the first conflicts were encountered atthe sites in the Iron Gates ( Boronean t1973; Rok- sandi≤ et al. 2006 ). There is a great possibility that a complex system of beliefs, evident in the funeraryritual among other things, was already establishedin that period ( Radovanovi≤ 1996; 1997 ). All this could be characterized as a consequence of the inter-nal dynamics of evolution of the Iron Gates popula-tion, but for the fact that the first elements, whichindicate connections with Anatolia and the Near East,occurred in the Balkans at just about that time (endof 8 thand beginning of 7 thmillennium calBC). To what extent they could have contributed to the cul-tural changes documented in the final Mesolithic inthe Balkans we discuss below. Cultural opening and social tensions in the Late Mesolithic Although Late Mesolithic sites have been encounte- red only in Slovenia, Montenegro, Serbia and Greece,there is a great possibility as we said before that thelevel of investigation does not accurately reflect thepopulation density in the Balkans in this period. Theregistered sites include cave sites in the coastal re-gion and in its immediate hinterland, but also settle-ments in the open that are confirmed, in addition tothe Iron Gates, also in Greece ( Merkyte 2003 ). The stratigraphic continuity of the Early and Late Meso-lithic has been reliably confirmed in Serbia, Monte-negro and Greece (Franchthi), but it should be em-phasized that the borderline between Early and LateMesolithic in the Iron Gates could not be establishedin a conventional manner. This borderline is markedin addition to the presence of the characteristic mi-croliths and bladelet tools by the general changes inculture that happened around 6300 calBC (and per-haps slightly earlier) in the Mesolithic of this area.Distinguishing the Late Mesolithic is additionallycomplicated by the fact that the first Neolithic ele-ments did occur in the Iron Gates at approximatelythe same time ( Radovanovi≤ 2006 ). The changes in the settlement system in the Late Me- solithic are insignificant. The cave habitations stillbear witness to the intensive settlement of mountai-nous zones and littoral regions, while evidence ofsettlement in river valleys is still lacking. The sitesin Greece confirm in the best way the settlement ofcoastal regions. Regarding cave habitations, the im-pression remains that most of the investigated set-tlements were actually ephemeral camps which donot offer sufficient insight in the settlement system of this period. The faunal remains also indicate close a relationship between settlements and the distribution of resour-ces. The remains of deer, wild boar and roe deer stillprevail at sites in the mountainous zone, and thechanges are visible in the expansion of the range ofresources and the increased intensity of fishing andthe gathering of molluscs. Of particular importanceis the fact that fishing for big fish (bluefin tuna inFranchthi, Cyclope Cave and Vela πpilja, and belugain the Iron Gates) was practiced in the previous andthis period not because of the actual share they hadin the diet, but because this type of fishing must haveassumed a high degree of labour organization, whichincluded the wider community ( Radovanovi≤ 1996. 55–56; Pickard and Bonsall 2004 ). This combined strategy in obtaining resources has been confirmed in all areas. The most exhaustiveevidence in Montenegro comes from Crvena Stijenaand Odmut. In layer IV at Crvena Stijena three hori-zons with many hearths, snail shells and animalbones, bone projectiles and antler tools were found(Benac 1975; Mihailovi≤ 1998 ). It is surprising to a certain extent that the remains of ibex are prevalentat Odmut ( Bökönyi 1973 ), but it merely bears wit- ness to the fact that hunting for caprines in the highmountainous zone was practiced in this area, as wellas in the Mesolithic of northeastern Italy. Remains offish and birds ( ibid.), as well as a rather large num- ber of harpoons of a distinct type were found at thesame site ( Srejovi≤ 1974a ). In the Iron Gates, at Pa- dina and Lepenski Vir, except hunting for forestgame, fishing was also practiced and bird huntingwas also registered ( Radovanovi≤ 1996 ). Bone pro- jectiles and antler tools were also encountered in thisregion and at some sites in rather large quantities. Inaddition to fishing, hunting and gathering, Greeceturned up very little evidence of vegetable resources(Perlès 1999.316; Trantalidou 2001.417–418 ), while in Croatia and Slovenia in the earlier period the ga-thering of molluscs already had a very important,even social function – as indicated by the remains ofa ‘feast’ in Pupi≠ina Pe≤ina ( Miracle 2001 ). Nevertheless, the most conspicuous changes in the Late Mesolithic are in technology. At sites in the coa-stal region and also in the Aegean not only micro-liths, but also bladelet technology based on the fla-king of cores of high quality raw materials appearedtogether with artefacts characteristic of the previousperiod ( Perlès 1990; 1999; Mihailovi≤ 1998; 1999b ). Du[an Mihailovic ´ 80A similar process took place in the Iron Gates ( Ra- dovanovi≤ 1996 ). Although the flint from the Pre- Balkan platform, wide blades and trapezes, occuralready at Vlasac ( Koz łowski and Koz łowski 1982 ), it is obvious that the emergence of ground stonetools and pottery at Padina B and Lepenski Vir couldbe related to the emergence of the Neolithic in neigh-bouring areas ( Jovanovi≤ 1987; Gara∏anin and Ra- dovanovi≤ 2001; Antonovi≤ 2006 ). But there are many reasons the cultural position of these sites could not be precisely defined. First, it isobvious that the Late Mesolithic developed in conti-nuity with the previous period. The elements of con-tinuity and distinction of the Iron Gates Mesolithicare visible in the settlement system and in the orga-nization of settlements and habitations, in the man-ner of obtaining the resources, and in mortuary prac-tices, art and the belief system. Regardless of thehigh proportion of terrestrial resources (which is re-lated to the introduction of stock-breeding and agri-culture – Bonsall et al. 1997; Radovanovi≤ 2006 ) more recent analyses of fauna have revealed thatthere is no evidence that domesticated animals wereused for food before the beginning of the 6 thmillen- nium, i.e.when completely established Neolithic cul- tures appeared in this area ( Radovanovi≤ 2006 ). How, then, could the cultural and social changes in the Late Mesolithic in the Balkans be explained? Theestablishment of Late Mesolithic cultures probablytook place during the 7 thmillennium calBC. In this period Lepenski Vir culture reached its climax, Cas-telnovian spread along the Adriatic coast, and thebladelet industries of the Upper and Late/Final Me-solithic appeared (even earlier) in Greece. Regar-ding the local Castelnovian, which is characterizedby the absence of the technique of microburins, it isevident that it developed and spread gradually. Itcould be best perceived in Montenegro. The initialphase was registered at Crvena Stijena IVb2, whereonly stylistic and typological changes were encoun-tered; the second phase (Crvena Stijena IVb1) is cha-racterized by microbladelet technology and a broadrepertoire of microlithic tools on the bladelets (trun-cations, notched and denticulated tools, trapezes);while the third phase (Crvena Stijena IVa) is charac-terized by a restriction of the repertoire of tools onbladelets and the appearance of wide blades ( Mihai- lovi≤ 1998; 1999b ). The quantity of the Castelnovian elements and microbladelet technology at the LateMesolithic sites in this area decreases from the coa-stal area (Crvena Stijena, Vru≤a Pe≤ina, Mihailovi≤ 1999b; ∑uri≠i≤ 1997 ) towards the hinterland (Od-mut, Medena Stijena, Koz łowski et al. 1994; Mihai- lovi≤ 1996 ). The social complexity of hunter-gatherer communi- ties has been studied in the Late Mesolithic mostlyin the Iron Gates. In the Lepenski Vir culture it wasconfirmed in the first place by architectural remains,stone sculpture and the funerary ritual ( Srejovi≤ 1969; Srejovi≤ and Babovi≤ 1983; Chapman 1993;Radovanovi≤ and Voytek 1997; Bori≤ 1999 ). How- ever, we would like here to draw attention to pheno-mena which could be followed in the wider geogra-phic area. Namely, it is obvious that in the Late Me-solithic there was a cultural and social opening, i.e. the connecting of hunter-gatherer communities at awider regional level. Rather surprisingly, it happe-ned in a period when there is evidence for the estab-lishment of cultural identity and at approximatelythe same time that in some regions ( e.g.in the Iron Gates) the degree of social integration reached itspeak. The cultural opening is indicated by intercultu-ral trends in flaking technology, the repertoire andstyle of tool production and by the fact that the dis-tinct Late Mesolithic cultures appeared in this veryperiod. Social openness is also indicated by evidencethat the exchange of raw materials, artefacts andgoods was more frequent in the Later Mesolithic thanbefore. On the other hand, the internal integrationof the Iron Gates communities is best reflected inthe phenomena documented at Lepenski Vir itself. The integration of the Iron Gates Mesolithic commu- nities could have been influenced by various inter-nal and external factors. It is apparent, among otherthings, in the distinct hierarchization, which is evi-dent in different domains: in the parallel use of twotechnological concepts (blade/bladelet and expedienttechnology), in the synchronized practice of a highlyspecialized and broad spectrum economy, in the re-gional settlement system and in the organization ofsettlements, as well as in the funerary ritual. Basi-cally, it is characterized by a tendency to distinguishspecialized activities, prestigious objects and goodsand structures of special importance and purpose, aswell as groups and individuals having special status.This phenomenon had already been evident in theNear East since the Pre-Pottery Neolithic and in theBalkans since the establishment of complex hunter-gatherer communities in the Iron Gates. All this sug-gests a certain level of social complexity and altera-tion of values, either cardinal ones (aesthetic, sacred,ethical, economic, spiritual, social), but also thosewhich individuals and groups have chosen betweenthe traditional and the modern, humanism and ma- Social aspects of the transition to farming in the Balkans 81terialism, loyalty and pragmatism ( Zetterberg 1997 ). Many of the changes which took place in this periodcould be explained as a result of the internal trans-formation of Mesolithic society. Nevertheless, simplythe fact that the opposing tendencies occurred in thisperiod, the tendency to create social identity and thetendency to open up to the outside world, indicatethe existence of social conflict in the closing phasesof the Mesolithic. The external factor which had thedecisive impact on the intensification of this conflictmust have been connected to the process of Neoli-thization. Cultural and social interactions in the Mesoli- thic-Neolithic transition The more recent dates obtained for Neolithic sites reveal unambiguously that the ceramic Neolithic inwestern Turkey and southeast Europe spread veryrapidly, between 6500 and 6200 calBC. Within thisshort interval the tendency of the Neolithic to pro- gress from the southeast towards the northwest thatwas often recognized as evidence of continuous co-lonization is hardly discernible, and it could actuallybe followed only if the entire process is consideredover a very large area and chronological framework,and if the emergence of the Pre-Ceramic Neolithic inGreece is also ascribed to it. It is obvious, however,that other factors influenced the expansion of thePre-Ceramic Neolithic. The chronology of the emergence of the ceramic Neo- lithic is well known. The Neolithic settlements inwestern Turkey are dated to the period from 6500 to6300 calBC ( Özdogan 1999; Reingruber and This- sen 2005 ) and similar and even earlier dates have been obtained for the sites in Greece ( Reingruber and Thissen 2005 ). The Neolithic occurred in Bulga- ria around 6300 calBC ( Todorova and Vaisov 1993 ) and slightly later dates were recently obtained for Tab. 2. Cultural and social openness and closure in the Iron Gates Mesolithic – based on Eriksen’s model ( Eriksen 2005 ).Early Mesolithic ●restricted mobility and territoriality ●cultural disintegration and isolation ●social integration ●short-range exchange networks very low low high and very highDegree of social opennessDegree of cultural openness very low low highLate Mesolithic – late phase (after 6300 calBC) ●substitution phase (Lepenski Vir, Pa-dina)> Neolithic elements in techno-logy + Mesolithic economy, beliefsand funeral practice ●availability phase (Vlasac)> flint fromPre-Balkan plateau< blade technology ( Kozl⁄owski and Kozl ⁄owski 1982 ), Spondylus beads ( Boric´ 2006 ) ●cultural and social openness is enfor- ced by the influence of external factors Late Mesolithic – early phase(7000–6300 calBC) ●settlement of littoral and mountainregions ●cultural stabilization and differentia-tion ●technological, economical and socialhierarchization ●possible connections with distantregions> Cyclope beads at Vlasac (Boric´ 2006 )< Near Eastern elements in the Iron Gates Mesolithicvery high Early Neolithic ●sedentism, farming economy ●cultural and social integration and differen-tiation ●population mobility inside large territory Du[an Mihailovic ´ 82the sites in the central Balkans ( Whittle et al. 2002 ). It is, therefore, absolutely clear that the more recentdates do not speak in favour of assumptions aboutthe continuous emergence of the Neolithic and thatthey could not be explained either as a consequenceof long-lasting processes (such as increase in popula-tion or the search for fertile soil) or general theoriesof acculturation. Such a tempo of expansion was probably the conse- quence of some distinct event, and there are diffe-rent opinions concerning this issue, but we shall dis-cuss here only the assumptions about the spread ofthe Neolithic in the southeast Europe. There are, asit were, just two possibilities, which could explainthe speed of its expansion: either there ensued amass population movement through scarcely inhabi-ted areas, or the Mesolithic communities in the Bal-kans were already prepared to a great extent to ac-cept the Neolithic way of life and Neolithic values. Taking into account the evident discontinuity in the material culture, economy, settlements, burial practi-ces, art and system of beliefs and almost completeabsence of chronological overlapping of the Mesoli-thic and Neolithic, it seems at first glance that theformer possibility is more plausible. After all, all es-sentially diffusionistic theories of earlier or later dateare based on the assumption of discontinuity. Herewe would like to draw attention to just a few facts,some of which we have already mentioned. ❶Despite the small number of investigated sites and on the basis of the distribution of sites in Mon-tenegro and in the Iron Gates it could be assumedthat the Mesolithic in the Balkans was widely distri-buted in the littoral and mountainous areas. ❷The elements of continuity are barely visible in the proto-Star≠evo and Star≠evo culture (microlithicand quartz components in the chipped stone indus-try), but they are, on the other hand, very conspi-cuous in the Neolithic of the south Adriatic and itsimmediate hinterland. For example, the changes inthe settlement system, economy and material culturein the Early Neolithic in Montenegro are almost in-significant in comparison with the Mesolithic ( Mi- hailovi≤ 1998; 1999b ). ❸The illusion of discontinuity in the central and eastern Balkans could be the consequence of the factthat conclusions were drawn in the past on the basisof comparison between the Neolithic agriculturalsettlements in the open and Mesolithic settlementsin caves and rock-shelters. On all sites where there is a stratification of the Mesolithic and Neolithic ho-rizons (and where the character of settling was simi-lar) in the Iron Gates, as well as in Montenegro, theelements of continuity are much more conspicuous. Nevertheless, even if we start from the assumption that the Mesolithic population was widely distribu-ted, there is still the question of acculturation. Wewill examine this question from the aspect of socialconnections between the Balkans, Anatolia and theNear East, and from the aspect of cultural and socialinteractions of the Mesolithic and Neolithic commu-nities at the very moment of transition from the Me-solithic to the Neolithic. The Near Eastern elements were first studied within the context of the phenomena registered in the IronGates Mesolithic. The parallels with Natufian andPre-Ceramic Neolithic in the Near East were establi-shed already at that time, first of all in the field ofmortuary practice ( Srejovi≤ 1974b; Gara∏anin 1997 ). But because of the chronological interval and geo-graphical distance, the similarities were explainedfrom the beginning as a result of convergent tenden-cies in cultural evolution. In recent times, the evi-dence has increased in quantity and new theorieshave appeared that opened up the field to differentinterpretations. On a general level, the parallels between the Iron Gates Mesolithic and the Epipalaeolithic and the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Anatolia and the Near East couldbe encountered in the funerary ritual, i.e.the burial of skulls and burial under house floors, in settlementorganization (the existence of a central structure), inrectilinear architecture based on the precise measu-ring of ground plans, in the making of mortar floorsand the use of pyrotechnology, and even in art, ifwe take into account the position, technique andstyle of manufacture of the sculptures at LepenskiVir, as well as the syncretism in depicting humanand animal figures (see parallels with Nevali Coriand other sites – Hauptmann 1999 ). The question could be raised as to whether all this is an accident,even more so as similar phenomena have not beenrecorded (at least not in that form and scope) in Me-solithic cultures in other parts of Europe. When the chronology of these phenomena is concer- ned, it should be said that partial interment and theemergence of rectilinear architecture had alreadyappeared in the early phases at Vlasac, while mostof the other manifestations appeared in later period Social aspects of the transition to farming in the Balkans 83(at Lepenski Vir itself). Within that context it could not be ruled out that at the end of 8 thand the be- ginning of the 7 thmillennium there could have been a limited intrusion of populations or influences fromthe Near East, most probably from the Lower Danubebasin and the Black Sea region. Despite the fact thatthere is no reliable proof of this (the partial inter-ment of skulls is registered in the Mesolithic in Ukra-ine – Radovanovi≤ 1996.306 ), it should be taken into account that the importance of the Danube di-rection was confirmed also in earlier periods: in theemergence of the Upper Palaeolithic, in establishingthe cultural complex Cuina Turcului-Belolesye-ShanKoba ( Koz łowski 1989; Radovanovi≤ 1996 ) and even in the Neolithic, considering that the earliestNeolithic settlements in Bulgaria were confirmedonly in the Danube basin ( Todorova and Vaisov 1993). On the other hand, the occurrence of ele- ments of Pre-Pottery Neolithic at Lepenski Vir, if weput aside the possibility of the convergent tenden-cies, does not bear witness to anything else but thecontinuity of cultural evolution in the Upper Gorgein the Iron Gates from the establishment of the Me-solithic settlement at Vlasac to the advanced phaseof Lepenski Vir culture. It is not very probable thatMesolithic communities from Lepenski Vir took overthese elements from the Neolithic surroundings, asthey are mostly absent there and they never occurtogether like a package deal. The delay and incompatibility of the phenomena en- countered in the Mesolithic in the Balkans (first ofall in the Iron Gates), in comparison with similarmanifestations in Anatolia and in the Near East, arelogical if we take into account the distance betweenthese two regions. Also, some other facts must betaken into consideration: a – still insufficiently inves-tigated Mesolithic and Neolithic sites in the areas be-tween these two regions, b – local environmentalconditions, and c – some social factors. In the lastcase it concerns the fact that investigations of theearly phase of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in Cyprus(Simmons 1998; Cauvin 2000; Guialine et al. 2000 ) convincingly confirm that colonizing communitiesmade every effort to develop an authentic cultureand to adapt to the new environment, abandoningnot only traditional resources, but also the ‘advan-ced’ technologies (laminar technology, specific pro-jectiles and stockbreeding). Except for practical rea-sons, the fact that the connection between the Cy-prus communities and their home territory becameless and less strong as time passed certainly contri-buted to this situation.In all this, it should be borne in mind that the cul- ture of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic should not be per-ceived within a concept of cultural groups (whichmakes the comprehension of cultural phenomenarather more difficult than easy – even when the Neo-lithic is concerned), but as a cultural koine , which is evident in the fact that communities which inha-bited large geographical areas shared the same cul-ture and values, and where communication evi-dently existed, meaning the exchange of ideas, ob-jects and goods. At its climax, the Near Eastern koine spread over very large areas. In this period areasvery far from the home territories were settled inthe process of so-called leap frog colonization ( Cau- vin 2000 ), but whether this also happened when the Iron Gates is concerned could not be establishedwith certainty. It is almost certain, however, that thepresence of Near Eastern manifestations in the Bal-kans (and consequently in the Iron Gates Mesoli-thic) could be best explained by Srejovi≤’s assump-tion that the Balkans and the entire Black Sea andCaspian region belonged to ‘the extended branch ofthe fertile crescent’ ( Srejovi≤ 1974b; 2001 ), perhaps not so much in ecological and economic, but in thespiritual sphere. The possibility that the emergence of the Neolithic in the Balkans was largely preceded by influencesfrom Anatolia and the Near East change to a certainextent the perspective of understanding the Neolithi-zation process in this area. If this proves to be cor-rect, it would mean that the Mesolithic communitieswere acquainted with the Neolithic innovations, thatsome of them even tried to apply them, but that theycould not or did not feel the need to adopt them,either because of the restrictions of the environment,or because of social factors. It is obvious, however,that it was not enough to know about the innova-tions, nor even to have the ‘know-how’, but their ac-ceptance had to suppose the complete reorientationof the social and economic system. The Mesolithiccommunities were not guided so much by pragmaticneeds, as it seems they tried to maintain the socialnetworks and system of values within the restrictedregional level. The conditions for economic transfor-mation were fulfilled only then when changes in so-cial values took place, so it is small wonder that theemergence of the first Neolithic elements was relatedto the exchange of raw materials, the imitation oftools and use of the objects which had not just eco-nomic, but also status value, indicating openness anda tendency to modernity. Du[an Mihailovic ´ 84Concluding remarks: the transition to farming On the basis of everything said above we are more inclined to consider the process of Neolithizationfrom the aspect of acculturation than from the aspectof colonization, regardless of the fact that authorsof the model support the opinion that an availabilitymodel ( Zvelebil 1986 ) could not be applied to the Balkans. One of the problems related to this modellies in the fact that the phase of availability is inade-quately documented and that it is still assumed thatthe presence of Neolithic elements (pottery, bonesof domestic animals) at Mesolithic sites could be theconsequence of stratigraphic disturbances. That is,for instance, the case with a small amount of bonesand pottery found in layer IV at Crvena Stijena ( Ma- lez 1975; Mihailovi≤ 1998 ) and the pottery finds on the sites in the Iron Gates ( Gara∏anin and Radova- novi≤ 2001 ). But, it must be emphasized that the substitution phase (which is paradoxical to a certainextent, considering the duration) was reliably docu-mented in the Balkans. It concerns the fact that tothe availability phase in the Iron Gates could be as-cribed only the finds from Vlasac: flint from the Pre-Balkan platform, laminar technology ( Koz łowski and Koz łowski 1982 ) and recently found beads of Spondylus shells ( Bori≤ 2006 ). On the other hand, a large quantity of pottery and typical Neolithic chip-ped stone tools has been documented in the Meso-lithic context (trapezoidal dwellings) at Padina B(Jovanovi≤ 1987; Mihailovi≤ 2004b ). We agree with authors who recognize the Neolithic elements on the Mesolithic sites in the Iron Gates asan influence from the Neolithic surroundings ( Ra- dovanovi≤ 2006 ). Also we are not inclined to date Padina and Lepenski Vir in the Neolithic ( Jovanovi≤ 1987; Bori≤ 2002 ). It means that the Neolithic ho- rizons at the sites in the Iron Gates, despite the stra-tigraphic doubts, are clearly distinguished from theMesolithic horizons on the basis of the cultural con-tents. There have been encountered not only thebones of domestic animals, but also many other ele-ments characteristic of the Neolithic in the centralBalkans. The Iron Gates sites, after being included inthe Neolithic settlement network, lost their impor-tance, and Lepenski Vir lost entirely its sacred charac-ter. But even then, in the Neolithic, the Mesolithicelements were present, but in the very small mea- sure ( Mihailovi≤ 2004b ). However, not only social values and striving for inte- gration in social networks impeded the transition ofthe Mesolithic communities to the farming economy.There were some practical reasons. The Mesolithicgroups were not able to employ this activity, first ofall because of the environment and seasonal settle-ments directed towards the exploitation of water re-sources. There are only a few settlements on thebanks that provided conditions for both activities(like Star≠evo and Vin≠a in the later period). There-fore, it should not be ruled out that at some momentsatellite agricultural settlements were establishedand that they took the main role in the course oftime, and all that could have resulted in the margi-nalization of the settlements where fishing was themain activity. The fact that some of the earliest Neo-lithic settlements in Bulgaria were encountered on ri-ver banks could speak in favour of this assumption. We wish to mention still another phenomenon worth examining. The rapid expansion of the Neolithic, aswell as the genetic and anthropological evidence forthe appearance of the foreign population and its mi-xing with local people ( Roksandi≤ 2000; Zoffmann 2000; Richards 2003; Jackes et al. 2000 ) could per- haps be best explained by the fact that precisely theintegration of local communities (now in the Neoli-thic koine ) could have considerably facilitated the flow of people, objects and goods and thus resultedin the rapid unification of culture in the entire terri-tory of the central Balkans. The pockets of Mesoli-thic population, like those in the Iron Gates couldhave survived for a couple of hundred years, duringmost of the period of Early and Middle Neolithic(Radovanovi≤ 2006 ). Finally, we would like to say, risking a generalization that a similar rhythm of cul-tural and social transformation marked the next pe-riod. The way these transformations happened andthe questions arising from their study lead to theconclusion that the reasons which encouraged themwere similar. The more recent investigations of thesephenomena clearly indicate that in these transfor-mations (and probably in the transition from theMesolithic to the Neolithic) the colonizing compo-nent played only a secondary role. Social aspects of the transition to farming in the Balkans 85AMMERMAN A. J. 2003. Looking Back. In A. J. Ammerman and P. Biagi (eds.), The Widening Harvest. The Neoli- thic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking For-ward. Archaeological Institute of America, Boston: 3–23. ANTONOVI≥ D. 2006. Stone tools from Lepenski Vir . In- stitute of Archaeology. Cahiers des Portes de Fer, Mono-graphies 5. Belgrade. BENAC A. 1975. Mla∂i praistorijski periodi u Crvenoj stije- ni. In ∑. Basler (ed.), Crvena Stijena – zbornik radova . Zajednica kulturnih ustanova, Nik∏i≤: 121–146. BÖKÖNYI S. 1973. Letter to Dragoslav Srejovi≤. Faculty of Philosophy Belgrade – Center for Archaeological Research(archive). 1978. The Vertebrate fauna of Vlasac. In D. Srejovi≤ and Z. Letica (eds.), Vlasac – mezolitsko naselje u ∑erdapu . Tom II. Srpska akademija nauka i umetno- sti, Beograd: 33–65. BOLOMEY A. 1970. Anexa nr. III — Cîteva observa tii asu- pra faunei de mamifere din straturile romanello-azilienede la Cuina Turcului. Studii si Cerceta ˘ri de Istorie Veche 21(1): 37–39 . 1973. An outline of the Late Epipalaeolithic economy at the ‘Iron Gates’: the evidence on bones. Dacia n.s. XVII: 41–52 . BONSALL C., LENNON R., MCSWEENEY K., STEWART C., HARKNESS D., BORONEANT V., PAYTON R., BARTOSIE-WICZ L. and CHAPMAN J. C. 1997. Mesolithic and EarlyNeolithic in the Iron gates: a palaeodietary perspective.Journal of European Archaeology 5(1): 50–92 . BONSALL C., COOK G. T., HEDGES R. E. M., HIGHAM T. F. G., PICKARD C. and RADOVANOVI≥ I. 2004. Radiocarbonand stable isotope evidence of dietary change from theMesolithic to the Middle Ages in the Iron Gates: new re-sults from Lepenski Vir. Radiocarbon 46 Nr. 1: 293–300 . BORI≥ D. 1999. Places that created time in the Danube Gorges and beyond, c. 9000–5500 BC. In M. Budja (ed.),6 thNeolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica XXVI: 41–70 . 2002. The Lepenski Vir conundrum: reinterpretation of the Mesolithic and Neolithic sequences in the Da-nube Gorges. Antiquity 76: 1026–1039 . 2006. New discoveries at the Mesolithic-Early Neoli- thic site of Vlasac: Preliminary notes. Mesolithic Miscel- lany18–1: 7–14 .BORI≥ D. and MIRACLE P. 2004. Mesolithic and Neolithic (dis)continuities in the Danube Gorges: new AMS datesfrom Padina and Hajducka Vodenica (Serbia). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23(4): 341–371 . BORONEAN TV. 1973. Recherches archéologiques sur la culture Schela Cladovei de la zone des ‘Portes de Fer’. Da- cia n.s. XVII: 5–39 . 1999. The Mesolithic habitation complexes in the Bal- kans and Danube Basin. Living Past. 1. URL: http://www.cimec.ro/livingpast/mesolithic.htm BUDJA M. 2005. The process of Neolithisation in South- eastern Europe: from ceramic female figurines and cerealgrains to entoptic and human nuclear DNA polymorphicmarkers. In M. Budja (ed.), 12 thNeolithic Studies. Docu- menta Praehistorica XXXII: 53–72 . CAUVIN J. 2000. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture . Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. CHAPMAN J. 1993. Social Power in the Iron Gates Mesoli- thic. In J. Chapman and P. Dokukhanov (eds.), Cultural Transformations and Interactions in Eastern Europe . Worldwide Archaeology Series. Vol. 6: 71–121. COOK G. T., BONSALL C., HEDGES R. E. M., MCSWEENEY K., BORONENAT V., BARTOSIEWICZ L. and PETTITT P. B.2002. Problems of dating human bones from the Iron Ga-tes. Antiquity 76: 77–85 . ∑URI∞I≥ LJ. 1996. The chipped stone industry from the rock-shelter of Treba≠ki Kr∏. In D. Srejovi≤ (ed.), Prehisto- ric Settlements in Caves and Rock-shelters of Serbia andMontenegro – Fascicule I . Centre for Archeological Re- search. Belgrade: 75–102. 1997. Vru≤a pe≤ina – vi∏eslojno nalazi∏e. Starinar N. S. XLVIII: 195–199 . ERIKSEN T. H. 2005. Some analytical dimensions of cultu- ral complexity (Version 0.9). URL: http://www.culcom.uio.no/publikasjoner/THE-complexity.html GALANIDOU N. and PERLÈS C. (eds.) 2003. The Greek Me- solithic. Problems and Perspectives . British School at Athens Studies 10. The British School at Athens. London. GARAπANIN M. 1997. Lepenski Vir posle trideset godina. In M. Lazi≤ (ed.), Arheologija isto≠ne Srbije . Centar za ar- heolo∏ka istra∫ivanja, Beograd: 11–20. GARAπANIN M. and RADOVANOVI≥ I. 2001. A pot in house 54 at Lepenski Vir I. Antiquity 75: 118–125 .REFERENCES Du[an Mihailovic ´ 86GASPARI A. (ed.) 2006. Zalog pri Verdu –Tabor kameno- dobnih lovcev na zahodnem robu Ljubljanskega barja . Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 11. In∏titut za ar-heologijo ZRC SAZU. Ljubljana. GATSOV I. 1982. The archaeological cultures of the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene in the western Black Searegion, and their significance for the formation of the Neo-lithic flint assemblages. In J. K. Koz łowski (ed.), Origin of the Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cul-tures in Balkans . Pa ństwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Warszawa–Kraków: 111–130. GUILAINE J., BRIOIS F., VIGNE J-D. and CARRERE I. 2000. Découverte d’un Néolithique préceramique ancien chyp-riote (fin 9e, debut 8e millénaires cal BC), apparenté auPPNB ancien/moyen du Levant nord. Earth and Plane- tary Sciences 330: 75–82 . HAUPTMANN H. 1999. The Urfa Region. In M. Özdo gan (ed.), Neolithic in Turkey – the cradle of civilization . An- cient Anatolian Civilizations Series: 3. Arkeoloji ve SanatYaynlary. Istanbul: 65–86. JACKES M., ROKSANDI≥ M. and MEIKLEJOHN C. 2000. De- mography of the ∑erdap Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition.In C. Bonsall, V. Boronean tand I. Radovanovi≤ (eds.), The Iron Gates in Prehistory . in press. Oxford: Archaeo- press. JOVANOVI≥ B. 1974. Praistorija Gornjeg ∑erdapa. Stari- nar. N.S. 22: 1–22 . 1987. Die Architektur und Keramik der Siedlung Padi- na B am Eisernen Tor, Jugoslawien. Germania 65(1): 1–16. KAVUR B. 2006. Kamnita orodja. In A. Gaspari (ed.), 2006. Zalog pri Verdu –Tabor kamenodobnih lovcev na za-hodnem robu Ljubljanskega barja . Opera Instituti Archa- eologici Sloveniae 11. In∏titut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU.Ljubljana: 45–120. KOTJABOPOULOU E., PANAGOPOULOU E. and ADAM E. 1999. The Boïla Rockshelter: further evidence of humanactivity in the Voidomatis Gorge. In G. N. Bailey, E. Adam,C. Perlès, E. Panagopoulou and K. Zachos (eds.), The Pa- laeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas:Proceedings of the First International Conference onthe Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and AdjacentAreas . British School at Athens, London: 197–210. KOZ ŁOWSKI J. K. 1999. Gravettian/Epigravettian sequen- ces in the Balkans: environment, technologies, huntingstrategies and raw material procurement. In G. N. Bailey,E. Adam, C. Perlès, E. Panagopoulou and K. Zachos (eds.),The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and AdjacentAreas: Proceedings of the First International Conferenceon the Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas . British School at Athens, London: 319–329. 2005. Paléolithique supérieur et Mésolithique en Médi- terranée: cadre culturel. L’anthropologie 109 (2005): 520–540 . KOZ ŁOWSKI J. K. & KOZ ŁOWSKI S. K. 1982: Lithic indus- tries from the multi-layer site Vlasac in Yugoslavia. In J.K. Koz łowski (ed.) Origin of the Chipped Stone Indu- stries of the Early Farming Cultures in Balkans . Pa ńst- wowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa–Kraków: 11–109. KOZ ŁOWSKI J. K., KOZ ŁOWSKI S. K. and RADOVANOVI≥ I. 1994. Meso- and Neolithic Sequence from the Odmut Cave (Montenegro) , Wydawnictwa Uniwesytetu Warszaw- skiego. Warszawa. KOZ ŁOWSKI S. K. 1989. A survey of Early Holocene Cul- tures of the Western Part of the Russian Plain. In C. Bon-sall (ed.). The Mesolithic in Europe . John Donald Publi- shers LTD. Edinburgh: 424–441. KYPARISSI-APOSTOLIKA N. 2003. The Mesolithic in Theo- petra Cave: new data on a debated period of Greek prehi-story. In N. Galanidou and C. Perlès (eds.), The Greek Me- solithic. Problems and Perspectives . British School at Athens Studies 10. The British School at Athens. London: 189–198. MALEZ M. 1975. Kvartarna fauna Crvene stijene. In ∑. Bas- ler (ed.), Crvena Stijena – zbornik radova . Zajednica kul- turnih ustanova, Nik∏i≤: 147–169. MERKYTE I. 2003. The Mesolithic Syndrome in South- eastern Europe. Acta Archaeologica 74: 307–317 . MIHAILOVI≥ D. 1996. Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic chipped stone industries from the rock-shelter of MedenaStijena. In D. Srejovi≤ (ed.), Prehistoric Settlements in Caves and Rock-shelters of Serbia and Montenegro –Fascicule I . Centre for Archeological Research. Belgrade: 9–60. 1998. Gornji paleolit i mezolit Crne Gore . Unpubli- shed Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Belgrade.Belgrade. 1999a. Intensification of settlement in the Late Glacial of south-western Balkans. In M. Kobusiewicz and J.Kozłowski (eds.), Post-pleniglacial Re-colonisation of the Great European Lowland. Folia Quaternaria . 70. Polska Akademia Umiej ętnośśi – Komisja Paleogeogra- fii Czwartorz ędu, Krakow: 385–392. 1999b. The Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic stone in- dustries of Montenegro. In G. N. Bailey, E. Adam, C Per- Social aspects of the transition to farming in the Balkans 87lès, E. Panagopoulou and K. Zachos (eds.), The Palaeo- lithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas:Proceedings of the First International Conferenceon the Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adja-cent Areas . British School at Athens, London: 343– 356. 2001. Technological Decline of the Early Holocene Chipped Stone Industries in South-East Europe. In R.Kertesz and J. Makkay (eds.), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic, Proceedings of the International Ar-chaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Mu-seum of Solnok, September 22–27, 1996 . Archaeolin- gua. Budapest: 339–347. 2004a. The spatial analysis of Upper Palaeolithic site Medena Stijena; Acts of the XIV thCongress, Univer- sity of Liege, Belgium, 2–8 September 2001, Section6: Le Paleolithique Superieur . British Archaeological Reports 1240. Oxford: 197–202. 2004b. Chipped Stone Industry from horizons A and B at the site Padina in the Iron Gates. Acts of the XIV th UISPP Congress – The Mesolithic Landscape-Use Du- ring the Final-Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in NW-Eu-rope: The Formation of Extensive Sites and Site-Com-plexes. Late Foragers and Early Farmers of the Le-penski Vir-Schela Cladovei Culture in the Iron GatesGorges. Le Mésolithique . British Archaeological Reports 1302. Oxford: 61–68. in press-a. Social and Cultural Integration in the Late Upper Palaeolithic of the Western Balkans. Acts of the XV thUISPP Congress – 4 th– 9thSeptembre 2007. Lisbon . in press-b. Lithic Technology and Settlement Systems of the Final Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic in the IronGates. In C. Bonsall, V. Boroneant and I. Radovanovi≤(eds.), The Iron Gates in Prehistory . Oxford: Archaeo- press. MIRACLE P. 1995. Broad-spectrum adaptations re-exa- mined: Hunter-gatherer responses to Late Glacial envi-ronmental changes in the eastern Adriatic . Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor– Michigan. 2001. Feast or famine? Epipalaeolithic subsistence in the northern Adriatic basin. In M. Budja (ed.), 8 thNeo- lithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica XXVIII:177– 196 . MIRACLE P., GALANIDOU N. and FORENBAHER S. 2000. Pioneers in the hills: early Mesolithic foragers at πebrnAbri (Istria, Croatia). European Journal of Archaeology 3(3): 293–329 .MONTET-WHITE A. and KOZ ŁOWSKI J. K. 1983. Les indu- stries à pointes à dos dans les Balkans. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 38: 371–399 . ÖZDO GAN M. 1999. Nortwestern Turkey: Neolithic Cul- tures in Between the Balkans and Anatolia. In M. Özdo-gan (ed.), Neolithic in Turkey – the cradle of civiliza- tion. Ancient Anatolian Civilizations Series: 3. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynlary. Istanbul: 203–224. PA˘UNESCU A. 1978. Cercetarile arheologice de la Cuina Turcului-Dubova (Jud. Mehedin ti). Tibiscus Istorie , Vo- lum Închinat Celei de-a 60 Aniversari a Unirii: 11–56. PERLÈS C. 1990. Les Industries Lithiques Taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce) . Tome II: Les Industries du Mésolithique et du Néolithique Initial. Indiana UniversityPress. Bloomington-Indianopolis. 1999. Long-term perspectives on the occupation of the Franchthi cave: continuity amd discontinuity. In G. N.Bailey, E. Adam, C Perlès, E. Panagopoulou and K. Za-chos (eds.), The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas: Proceedings of the First Interna-tional Conference on the Palaeolithic Archaeology ofGreece and Adjacent Areas . British School at Athens, London: 311–318. PICKARD C. and BONSALL C. 2004. Deap-sea Fishing in the European Mesolithic: Fact or Fantasy? European Jour- nal of Archaeology 7(3): 273–290 . RADOVANOVI≥ I. 1981. Ranoholocenska kremena indu- strija sa lokaliteta Padina u Djerdapu . Arheolo∏ki insti- tut. Beograd. 1996. The Iron Gates Mesolithic . International Mono- graphs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series 11. Ann Ar-bor-Michigan. 1997. The Culture of Lepenski Vir: A Contribution to the Interpretation of its Ideological Aspects. In M. La-zi≤ (ed.), Antidoron Dragoslavo Srejovici completis LXV annis ad amicis, collegis, discipulis oblatum . Center for Archaeological Research. Belgrade: 87–93. 2006. Further notes on Mesolithic-Neolithic contacts in the Iron Gates Region and the Central Balkans. In M.Budja (ed.), 13 thNeolithic Studies. Documenta Prae- historica XXXIII: 107–124 . RADOVANOVI≥ I. and VOYTEK B. 1997. Hunters, fishers and farmers: sedentism, subsistence and social complex-ity in the Iron Gates Mesolithic. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29: 19–31 . REINGRUBER A. and THISSEN L. 2005. CANeW 14C data- bases and 14C charts. Aegean Catchment (E. Greece, S. Du[an Mihailovic ´ 88Balkans, W. Turkey, 10000–5500 cal BC – June 2005). http://www.canew.org/aegeancatch14cbox.html RICHARDS M. 2003. The Neolithic Invasion of Europe. An- nual Review of Anthropology 32: 135–162 . ROKSANDI≥ M. 2000. Between Foragers and Farmers in the Iron Gates Gorge: Physical Anthropology Perspective:Djerdap Population in Transition from Mesolithic to Neo-lithic. In M. Budja (ed.), 7 thNeolithic Studies. Documen- ta Praehistorica XXVII: 1–100 . ROKSANDI≥ M., ∑URI≥ M., RAKO∞EVI≥ Z. and SEGUIN K. 2006. Interpersonal Violence at Lepenski Vir Mesolithic/Neolithic Complex of the Iron Gates Gorge (Serbia-Roma-nia). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 129 (3): 339–348 . SIMMONS A. H. 1998. Of tiny Hippos, Large Cows and Early Colonists in Cyprus. Journal of Mediterranean Ar- chaeology 11.2 (1998): 232–241 . SINCLAIR A. 1999. Technological decision making: the case of Megalakkos. In G. N. Bailey, E. Adam, C Perlès, E.Panagopoulou and K. Zachos (eds.), The Palaeolithic Ar- chaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas: Proceedings ofthe First International Conference on the PalaeolithicArchaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas . British School at Athens, London: 188–196. SOFFER O. 1985. Patterns of Intensification as Seen from the Upper Palaeolithic of the Central Russian Plain. In T.D. Price and J. A. Brown (eds.), Prehistoric Hunter-Gathe- rers – the Emergence of Cultural Complexity . Academic Press, INC. London: 235–270. SREJOVI≥ D. 1969. Lepenski Vir, Nova praistorijska kul- tura u Podunavlju . Srpska knji∫evna zadruga. Beograd. 1974a. The Odmut Cave – a new facet of the Mesolithic Culture of the Balkan Peninsula. Archaeologica Iugo- slavica 15: 3–6 . 1974b. Mezolitske osnove neolitskih kultura u ju∫nom Podunavlju. Po≠eci ranih zemljoradni≠kih kultura u Vojvodini i srpskom Podunavlju . Materijali X. Srpsko arheolo∏ko dru∏tvo, Gradski muzej Subotica: 21–30. 2001. The Central Danubian Region: The “Fertile Cre- scent of Europe”. In R. Kertesz and J. Makkay (eds.),From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic, Proceedings ofthe International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Solnok, September 22–27,1996. Archaeolingua. Budapest: 389–393. SREJOVI≥ D. and BABOVI≥ L. 1983. Umetnost Lepenskog Vira. Jugoslavija. Beograd. STINER M. C. and MUNRO N. D. 2002. Approaches to Pre- historic Diet Breadth, Demography, and Prey RankingSystems in Time and Space. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9( 2): 181–214 . TODOROVA H. and VAISOV I. 1993. Novo-kamennata epoha v Bulgarii . Nauka i Izkustvo. Sofia. TRANTALIDOU C. 2001. Activités d’aquisition et de pro- duction durant le Néolithic en Grèce. In R. Kertesz and J.Makkay (eds.), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic, Pro- ceedings of the International Archaeological Conferenceheld in the Damjanich Museum of Solnok, September22–27, 1996 . Archaeolingua. Budapest: 41–446. VLACHOS 2003. Who did it? Perspectives on the beginning of the Neolithic in Greece. In M. Budja (ed.), 10 thNeoli- thic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica XXX: 131–137 . WHALLON R. 1999. The lithic tool assemblages at Badanj within their regional context. In G. N. Bailey, E. Adam, C.Perlès, E. Panagopoulou and K. Zachos (eds.), The Palaeo- lithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas: Proce-edings of the First International Conference on the Pa-laeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas . British School at Athens, London: 330–342. WHITTLE A., BARTOSIEWICZ L., BORI≥ D., PETTITT P. and RICHARDS M. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon-dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus 25: 63–117 . ZETTERBERG H. L. 1997. The Study of Values. In R. Swed- berg and E. Uddhammar (eds.), Sociological Endeavor. Selected Writings . City University Press, Stockholm: 191– 219. ZOFFMANN Z. K. 2000. Anthropological sketch of the pre- historic population of the Carpathian Basin. Acta Biologi- ca Szegediensis 44(1–4): 75–79 . ZVELEBIL M. 1986. Mesolithic prelude and Neolithic revo- lution. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in Transition : Cam- bridge University Press. Cambridge: 5–15.