LBK Dialogues: Studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery Culture 9781841716541, 9781407327297

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
Preface
Part 1: Theoretical Constraints on the Understanding of the Early LBK
REMARKS ON THE ORIGIN OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE
IS ‘POT PREHISTORY’ REAL PREHISTORY? THE CASE OF THE EARLY LBK
SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)
Part 2: The Earliest LBK and What Came Before: The Emergence of Traditions
THE NEOLITHISATION OF THE BALKANS: WHERE IN THE PUZZLE?
ADVANCES IN THE RESEARCH OF THE NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN
EARLY LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE IN SLOVAKIA AND THE NEOLITHISATION OF CENTRAL EUROPE
THE ORIGINS OF THE EARLY LINEAR POTTERY CUTURE IN BOHEMIA
MESOLITHIC TRADITIONS AND THE ORIGIN OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)
FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO CENTRAL EUROPE: ORIGINS OF THE LBK
Part 3: Perspectives on the Early LBK: Life and Times
EVERYDAY LIFE AT THE LBK SETTLEMENT: A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
PALAEOECOLOGY OF THE LBK: THE EARLIEST AGRICULTURALISTS AND THE LANDSCAPE OF BOHEMIA
ARCHITECTURE AND SETTLEMENT STRUCTURE OF THE EARLY LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE IN EAST CENTRAL EUROPE
BONE INDUSTRY OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK) AT VEDROVICE, MORAVIA
SYMBOLIC OBJECTS IN THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE
Conclusion
THE MANY ORIGINS OF THE LBK

Citation preview

BAR S1304 2004

LBK Dialogues

LUKES & ZVELEBIL (Eds)

Studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery Culture Edited by

Alena Lukes Marek Zvelebil

LBK DIALOGUES

B A R

BAR International Series 1304 2004

LBK Dialogues Studies in the formation of the Linear Pottery Culture Edited by

Alena Lukes Marek Zvelebil

BAR International Series 1304 2004

ISBN 9781841716541 paperback ISBN 9781407327297 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841716541 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

CONTENTS Preface......................................................................................................................................................................... iii Alena Lukes and Marek Zvelebil Part 1: Theoretical Constraints on the Understanding of the Early LBK Remarks on the Origin of the Linear Pottery Culture ................................................................................................... 3 Evžen Neustupný Is ‘Pot Prehistory’ Real Prehistory? The Case of the Early LBK ................................................................................. 7 Marek Nowak Social Perspectives on the Constitution of the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK)............................................................ 17 Alena Lukes Part 2: The Earliest LBK and What Came Before: The Emergence of Traditions The Neolithisation of the Balkans: Where in the Puzzle? ........................................................................................... 37 Mihael Budja Advances in the Research of the Neolithic Transition in the Carpathian Basin.......................................................... 49 Eszter Bánffy Early Linear Pottery Culture in Slovakia and the Neolithisation of Central Europe................................................... 71 Juraj Pavúk The Origins of the Early Linear Pottery Cuture in Bohemia....................................................................................... 83 Ivan Pavlů Mesolithic Traditions and the Origin of the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK)................................................................ 91 Inna Mateiciucová From the Mediterranean to Central Europe: Origins of the LBK.............................................................................. 109 Radomír Tichý Part 3: Perspectives on the Early LBK: Life and Times Everyday Life at the LBK settlement: A Zooarchaeological Perspective................................................................. 129 Arkadiusz Marciniak Palaeoecology of the LBK: The Earliest Agriculturalists and the Landscape of Bohemia ....................................... 143 Jaromír Beneš Architecture and Settlement Structure of the Early Linear Pottery Culture in East Central Europe......................... 151 Eva Lenneis Bone Industry of the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK) at Vedrovice, Moravia............................................................. 159 Tomáš Berkovec, Gabriela Dreslerová, Miriam Nývltová-Fišáková, Jarmila Švédová Symbolic Objects in the Linear Pottery Culture ....................................................................................................... 177 Agnieszka Czekaj-Zastawny Conclusion: The Many Origins of the LBK Marek Zvelebil .......................................................................................................................................................... 183

i

ii

LBK DIALOGUES

Edited by A. Lukes & M. Zvelebil

Preface This volume is a collection of papers originally presented at the Origins of the LBK symposium held at the 8th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) in Thessaloniki, Greece, between September 25th and 29th, 2002. The aim of the session was to summarize recent developments in research and fieldwork taking place in the eastern part of the LBK area of distribution, and to introduce this very interesting research to the broader archaeological community. As a result, research from Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, Poland, and the Czech Republic is emphasized in this volume. The success of the session was well reflected in the numerous resulting debates about the topics raised in the symposium. This volume therefore aspires not only to keep those debates going, but also to encourage continuing dialogues between researchers studying different geographical regions and who approach the question at hand through a variety of disciplines in order to arrive at a better understanding of the Mesolithic – Neolithic transition in Central Europe. The papers have been organized into three themes. The first is “Theoretical Constraints on the Understanding of the LBK” in which the authors present different approaches to the question of LBK origin, and consider archaeological, anthropological and sociological approaches pertinent to the emergence of the LBK culture. The second theme is “The Earliest LBK and What Came Before: The Emergence of Traditions” in which authors explore problems of relative dating, the cultural contribution made by ancestral cultural groups (earlier Mesolithic and Neolithic), the area of initial distribution of the LBK culture, the defining characteristics of the earliest cultural horizon, and the subsequent dispersal into adjacent regions. The final theme is “Perspectives on the Early LBK: Life and Times” in which authors approach the study of the Early LBK through different disciplines such as zooarchaeology, paleoecology and architecture, and reflect on aspects of LBK life such as community feasting, location of settlement, organization of settlement, bone tools, and symbolic objects. We wish to thank all those that presented at the symposium in Thessaloniki, and to all of the contributors to this volume. We hope that this volume will serve as a new point of departure for continuing research into the Mesolithic – Neolithic transition in Central Europe, and encourage you the reader to challenge your established views and to continually approach the question of neolithisation from a different point of view. Alena Lukes and Marek Zvelebil Sheffield March 2004

iii

iv

Part 1 Theoretical Constraints on the Understanding of the Early LBK

2

REMARKS ON THE ORIGIN OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE Evžen Neustupný Abstract Is the onset of the Neolithic and agro-pastoral farming in Central Europe the result of autochthonous or allochthonous development? This paper seeks to examine trends in archaeological inquiry into this problem, and the chronologically fluctuating preference of one interpretive framework versus the other, depending on the current archaeological interpretive paradigm.

obligation to investigate both of these possibilities, letting the decision rest with the archaeological record, not theory. The theory can lead us in our quest for models, but it should not dictate our choice.

Introduction It is difficult to arrive at the true reasons behind the recent fashion of seeking local Mesolithic ancestry in the European Neolithic and Eneolithic. Motivations for this practice may differ among British archaeologists, their Scandinavian colleagues, and other, mainly Central European, specialists. I wonder whether the reasons derive from the archaeological record, as many would pretend, though it is only the Scandinavian evidence that could possibly suggest anything of the sort (for Britain compare Rowley-Conwy 2004). Be that as it may, not only individuals but entire archaeological communities, long to find local origins of their agricultural beginnings. In contrast to some earlier theorists, such as Kossinna, the creators of this new wave of autochthonism benevolently encourage the same process to take place in other countries as well.

Continuity versus Discontinuity: the Case of Farming Populations From the theoretical point of view, the possible transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic can be either a continuous process, or a discontinuous process. This applies to both the case of local cultural origin, as well as to the case of population movement. In my view, there must be a model theory behind both of these explanations. A superficial reference to a particular ethnographic or historical parallel is not sufficient. For me, at least, it is unacceptable to compare a vague ethnological narration directly with a handful of randomly assembled archaeological finds.

The Paradigmatic Approach

The model theory must then be tested against archeological regularities or structures. Specifically, archaeologically testable consequences must be drawn from the model, and these must be compared to significant regularities in the archaeological record (Binford 1968).

Autochthonist theories were originally based on the evolutionist paradigm developed in the last third of the 19th century. Although evolutionism continued into the 20th century, autochthonist theories were quickly dropped. Instead, the cultural-historical paradigm advanced by Gustav Kossinna, changed the atmosphere entirely, and prompted many in the opposite direction to seek out evidence of migrations. Naturally the adherents of his theories did not assume a complete discontinuity everywhere, but they limited regions of continuity to the Nordic area, a choice obviously made on ideological grounds. Movement of peoples, tribes, merchants and so on, characterized the cultural-historical paradigm in general. It is therefore not surprising that the subsequent processual paradigm, once again preferred the alternative solution, and if not a complete reversion to autochthonism, then at the very least, a de-emphasis of migrations and waves of diffusion.

The model theory of continuity will be considered first. In the case of LBK origin, either continuity with the local Mesolithic culture, or continuity with the farming cultures of the south east, can be proposed. Continuity should then be recognizable in the archeological record by the same or similar forms of artifacts such as houses, graves, pottery, stone tools, and personal ornaments, as well as the same or similar sources of food, exploitation of the landscape, social system, and set of symbols. These are specific, archaeologically testable consequences of the model theory of continuity. I shall now investigate how this model compares with the archaeological record.

It is evident that change in human cultures can only result from two kinds of processes: either local development or population movement. Although there can be a mixture of these. There is no doubt whatsoever that both of these processes took place in prehistory. Therefore, it is our

Without going into details, I would like to propose, as have many archaeologists before me, that the formal continuity between the Linear Pottery culture on the one side, and the farming cultures of south-eastern origin on the other, is nearly complete. Specifically, that it is

3

LBK DIALOGUES

It is incredulous that so many of the archaeologists that have recently become interested in the origins of the Linear Pottery culture, show very little interest in the mentioned continuity. Instead, many have been looking for individual inconclusive similarities with Mesolithic cultures, and keep suggesting that this is the main issue to be investigated.

evident in the practical, social and symbolic aspects of the early Linear Pottery culture. In other words, nearly all practical aspects of Early LBK culture, can be said to be continuous with south-eastern farming cultures, such that there is an almost identical character of agriculture (growing the same plants), stock breeding (keeping the same domestic animals), hunting (i.e. insignificant role of), polished tools, the same general character of the chipped industry (i.e. little formal specialization), ceramic technology and the same general concept of architecture (rectangular, sometimes rather long structures).

Continuity versus Discontinuity: the Case of Mesolithic Populations What about the Mesolithic population that demonstrably inhabited many parts of Europe prior to the advance of Neolithic farmers? For a very long time, there was little reliable evidence for their presence in Central Europe during Neolithic times. Were there any contacts between the Mesolithic and the early Neolithic populations? Clearly, this could only happen on the condition that Mesolithic communities continued to exist during the time of Neolithic farmers.

Furthermore, there are also very similar social aspects of culture between the two groups, such that both encompass small or medium sized communities, no sharp differentiation according to gender, little if any family differentiation inside the community, and no demonstrable ranking of sites. However, many important aspects of social order are still little known and remain to be compared.

Before addressing this important issue, I would like to draw attention to some facts of geography. The area pertinent to the issues raised is more or less sandwiched between two regions: the Balkans, including the northernmost expansion in the Carpathian basin, and the region extending along the southern coast of the Baltic sea and the North sea including the Channel.

Finally, there are also similarities in the symbolic aspects of culture between the two groups, as well as in the expressive aspects of culture (those that maintain the identity of people without directly serving symbolic communication). These categories encompass similarities in basic symbols found on pottery (the spiral, the meander, barbotine and other rough decoration, handles and lugs), the pottery shapes, and ornamentation by grooving.

The Balkan region encompasses cultures that have uncontestable connections with the southeast, and are fully Neolithic. There is no doubt that these cultures are the results of colonization carried by fully developed farmers. The northern area however, was occupied by cultures of local Mesolithic ancestry marked by pottery with pointed bases and non-productive economy. These cultures, having either no or only incipient agriculture, were not Neolithic in the full sense of the word. This includes groups such as Nieman, Narva, Ertebølle and La Hoguette. The last named group is the most important one at the moment, since it is in part demonstrably contemporaneous with an early phase of the Linear Pottery culture (Lüning et al. 1989). All these groups, as well as others not mentioned here, reliably demonstrate that some kind of autochthonous development towards productive economy did take place in some parts of Europe. Nevertheless, it is clear that the local Mesolithic cultures developed in a direction incomparable to the Linear Pottery culture. Furthermore, that these groups ever achieved a productive economy remains to be demonstrated (i.e. that the groups really transformed into anything like the full Neolithic). Therefore the issue of relationships between Neolithic colonists and local Mesolithic populations, is much more complicated than suggested by the simplistic evolutionary assumption of a Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, irrespective of the poor evidence in the archaeological record.

Admittedly, this obvious continuity is not complete. The similarity of houses is only approximate, and the continuity of burial customs is difficult to judge. The exploitation of the landscape in Central Europe differs from the pattern observed in the Balkans. The former tends to have settlement remains spread over large areas (clearly the consequence of slash-and-burn agriculture) while the latter greatly prefers small richly stratified sites. Detailed comparisons are often hampered by the still insufficient knowledge of the period immediately preceding, and contemporaneous with, the earliest Linear pottery in the Carpathian basin and the Balkans. Nevertheless, I would like to stress that the continuity between the early LBK and southeastern farming cultures encompasses all aspects of life, not just selected individual items. As a result, it seems to me that all of these individual points of continuity form an entire system, again strengthening the case for continuity (although I agree that this remains to be demonstrated in more detail). No such continuity can be demonstrated with any of the Mesolithic groups in the area. There are Mesolithic-like microliths in some regions, but not in others.

4

EVŽEN NEUSTUPNÝ: REMARKS ON THE ORIGIN OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE

Conclusion

References

The issue of Mesolithic-Neolithic interrelationships is paradigmatically, and possibly ideologically, conditioned. Historically, it depended on two major steps in our factual knowledge and classification.

Binford, L.H. (1968) Archaeological Perspectives. IN: S. R. Binford and L.H.Binford (eds), New Perspectives in Archaeology. Aldine, Chicago. pp. 5-32. Lüning, J.; Kloos, U. and Albert, S. (1989) Westliche Nachbarn der bandkeramischen Kultur: La Hoguette und Limburg. Germania 67(2): 355-393. Neustupný, E. (1956a) K Relativní Chronologii Volutové Keramiky - A la Chronologie Relative de la Céramique Spiralée. Archeologické Rozhledy 8: 386-407. Neustupný, E. (1956b) The Linear Pottery and Vinča. IN: Chronologie Préhistorique de la Tchécoslovaquie. Praha. pp. 40-43. Neustupný, E. and Neustupný, J. (1961) Czechoslovakia Before the Slavs. Thames and Hudson, London. Neustupný, J. (1976) Archaeological Comments on the Indo-European Problem. Origini 10:7-18. Palliardi, J. (1914) Chronologie der Jüngeren Steinzeit in Mähren. Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 1: 256277. Rowley-Conwy, P. (2004, in press) How the West was Lost. A Reconsideration of Agricultural Origins in Britain, Ireland and Southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45.

The first step came in the middle of the fifties when I recognized the earliest phase of the Linear Pottery culture, and pointed to its obvious relationship with the Neolithic cultures of the Balkans and the Carpathian region. This made it clear that Linear Pottery people had been migrants from the south-east (see for instance Neustupný 1956a, 1956b, Neustupný and Neustupný 1961). This emphasized the connection between the expansion of the first central European farmers, and the dispersal of the Indo-Europeans (Neustupný 1976). The second step followed some forty years later, with the discovery of La Hoguette pottery in Germany, which may eventually provide answers to questions of indigenous development versus migration (Lüning et al. 1989). It is remarkable that the first step came nearly half a century after Jaroslav Palliardi´s chronology of the Linear Pottery culture (Palliardi 1914), and the second step almost a century after the recognition of the culture. These facts demonstrate that the contacts between colonists and the local population were scarce, and did not leave much evidence. We still do not possess sufficient factual knowledge either for an exact comprehension of what happened at the time of the origin of the Linear Pottery, nor for the comprehension of what phenomena such as La Hoguette and Limburg pottery may indicate. However we have to try.

5

6

IS ‘POT PREHISTORY’ REAL PREHISTORY? THE CASE OF THE EARLY LBK Marek Nowak Abstract Reconstructions of the past carried out on the basis of pottery are of limited value. This has significant repercussions on understanding the genesis of the LBK. Using comparative analyses of early LBK pottery and new 14C dates, the data on paper propound the thesis that the early LBK consisted of many regional stylistics. These stylistics, although relatively uniform in regards to technological, morphological and ornamental features, differed in the frequency of many of these features. The appearance of this stylistic conglomerate, on a large territory between the Rhine River and the Bug River, can be explained best by a very rapid migration of rather small groups and the colonization of small territorial enclaves. This process lasted roughly from 5600 to 5400 BC.

affected by factors such as the kind of fuel, the place of firing, local air circulation, weather conditions, or even the time of day (Schneider 1991:80). Additionally, the temperature of the fire in the stake can differ radically, depending on the location within it. The differences can amount to 130°C (Wotzka 1991). Hence in practice, the quality of ceramics was dependent on the aforementioned factors. The conditions of firing could change quickly and radically, from reducing to oxidizing, and it was nearly impossible to fire pots in a fully oxidizing atmosphere (Tite 1999:188). Another problem, is that the application of the same technology to materials characterized by different temperatures of ceramic change, brings different results (Buko 1990:154).

Introduction Professor Stefan Krukowski, the founder of the Polish school of Stone Age archaeology, would say in a clearly ironic way, that starting with the Neolithic Age, we deal with ‘pot prehistory.’ By that he meant the obvious limitations resulting from such a state of affairs: let us imagine that the present-day reality is described exclusively on the basis of kitchen utensils, tableware, Coca-Cola bottles, etc. Of course this may be possible, but the results would be far from the actual reality of the early 21st century. Interpretive Problems of Neolithic Pottery Technology Early Neolithic pottery was the product of domestic activity (Gibson and Woods 1997: 26,54-7; Hołubowicz 1950; 1957; Nielsen 1999:38-40,49). This does not have to entail its low quality; it means rather that a relatively high percentage of goods diverged from what was considered standard (Buko 1990:86; Pavlů 2000:128-30; Salač 1998). In practice, this implies that a feature we consider characteristic and important for a given culture, may have originated haphazardly, casually, or even involuntarily. The above refers chiefly, but not solely, to ceramic technology.

Interpretive Problems of Neolithic Pottery Vessel Shape As to the form of vessels, one should remember that in household industry, the final shape of pots, even if they were to serve the same purpose, could vary even in the same workshop (Hołubowicz 1950:151-2, 200). This could be influenced by the quality of the raw material, the applied method of molding, individual skills, etc. For instance, with the Kenyan Luo people, one can distinguish thirteen general types of vessels as to their form (Herbich and Dietler 1991). However, this is a very theoretical classification. As a matter of fact within each homestead, the vessels that are categorized as belonging to the same type are not identical at all, and they differ in a number of details. De facto we encounter local variants of a more general, abstract type that did not actually exist. Neither were all the thirteen types manufactured in any homestead. Each homestead produced its own unique set (of 7-11 types) which fully satisfied all the needs. This means that various types could fulfill similar functions. Consequently, with the Luo people there is no homogeneous, concise and consistent terminology concerning their ceramics in all forms and functions. Sometimes the name refers to a function, but then also to different types of vessels; sometimes it denotes various forms and various functions; and, lastly, various names are applied in reference to the same form and identical function. What is worse (for archaeologists) is that these micro-styles, do not correlate with traditional sub-tribal territories, nor do they have any cultural or social significance.

Let us consider the case of temper. Even within the same ethnographic community, there are differences in its application, since virtually each potter employs his/her own formula (Schneider 1991:70). Moreover, the amount of temper can vary depending on the plasticity of clay, or even the weather conditions on a particular day (Orton et al. 1993:74). It should be concluded therefore, that the criterion concerning the application of temper is of limited usefulness in archaeological cultural analyses (Gibson and Woods 1997:27; Gruner 1991:94; Schiffer and Skibo 1987:607; Skibo 1992:30; Pavlů 2000:118; Tite 1999:222). The qualities that originate during firing, present a similar case. It is known that in the early Neolithic Age the method of open firing was used (Gibson and Woods 1997:46-59; Köpke and Graf 1988:112; Mershen 1988:93; Orton et al. 1993:127-30). With such a technology, the maximum temperature was strongly

7

LBK DIALOGUES

lived in the same village. There exists however, the possibility that when pot decoration disappeared, communication functions were taken over by other media (Rulf 1998:21).

Interpretive Problems of Neolithic Pottery Decoration The problem of actual cultural significance of decorations identified on the surface of vessels is equally complex. It must be strongly stressed that traditional, culturehistorical interpretations are by no means sufficient (Graves 1998:317-24). I refer here to the commonly accepted belief that similarities or differences in pot decoration, result from informational diffusion which occurred through the process of skill acquisition and interaction between individuals and/or groups. Thus similarities and differences, according to this approach, remain in proportion to distance in time and space. But indeed other factors can be responsible for a given manner of pot decoration (e.g. the shape and size of vessels, the type of settlement and economy, the expression of social groups, or cultural drift).

Interpretive Problems Representation

of

Neolithic

Pottery

Yet another crucial issue which reduces the role of ceramics in prehistoric reconstructions, is the issue of representativeness. A set of ceramics from a particular site is simply not representative of the real set of clay pots from the same place. Among numerous causes, I would primarily mention here the following four: 1) the site may have been unsatisfactorily examined; or excavations may have been carried out only in some sections of the site which may have had special functions (Buko 1990:211; Neustupný 1996:500); 2) vessels which served different purposes may have been used in different periods of time; 3) different vessels may have been fragmented to a different degree (Orton et al. 1993:169); 4) postdepositional processes of transformation and reduction may have taken place (Buko 1992:208-10, 216-7, 235-44; Kobylińska and Kobyliński 1993; Neustupný 1996:496, 504-6; Pavlů 2000:104-5).

Of course one can theoretically identify the circumstances that conditioned a given manner of vessel decoration. For instance, Braun (1991:364-8) systematically divided such circumstances into three categories: 1) mechanical (connected with the physical parameters of vessels, their intended function and the duration of use); 2) cultural (connected with the tradition that was handed down from one generation to another, and with certain beliefs or ideology; 3) socio-symbolical (e.g. that decoration should be applied more lavishly when an uncertainty exists in contacts and social interaction with other groups: visual signs serve as identity markers or indicators). However, the author himself is critical towards any general approach in this matter (Braun 1991:363-4, 367-8), since the majority of decorations found on the surfaces of clay vessels had a complex significance and context, which embraced all of the above mentioned criteria (the sociosymbolical meaning, which is the most difficult to reconstruct, was probably present at all times; Pavlů 1997:99). Therefore, it is hard to imagine that there could have existed universal conventions, throughout all the communities, for applying pot decoration. To illustrate the ambiguity of significance of pot decoration, Braun presents Woodland cultural tradition from the central riverine region of North America, where between 200 and 600 AD vessels bore gradually less and less decoration and eventually became completely plain (Braun 1991:381-6). It is difficult to attribute this to a breakdown of intense social interaction processes at a supra-local level (since traditionally the custom of lavish decoration of clay vessels is treated as a reflection of stress on the identity of a group during intense mutual interaction). The disappearance of pot decoration in the Woodland culture, has instead been correlated with the disappearance of composite households, which were replaced by nuclear households. Therefore this eclipse of ornamentation is connected with the disappearance of the need to display one’s social identity and affiliation, but only within the limits of the household and settlement. Namely, the described phenomenon is a result of diminished social diversification amongst people who

By way of example, let us consider briefly only the situation described in point number (2). It is widely known that everyday use vessels were destroyed much faster than fine vessels and storage vessels. Let us suppose (after Orton et al. 1993:166) that a hypothetical, ‘dead’ set of ceramics consists of nine drinking cups and one storage vessel: the proportion between them is 9:1. If the former lasted on average for six months, and the latter for five years, then the proportion of the actual composition in the ‘live’ inventory was approximately 1:1. The simulated estimates by Neustupný (1996:492-3) are even more telling. If a hypothetical set of twenty bowls and one storage vessel is assumed to have lasted for one year and ten years respectively, then, with an average annual increase of circa 1% and 0.5 % respectively, one should estimate the output at 442.8 bowls and 2.1 storage vessels in twenty years. For a fifty-year period, analogical figures are 1297.4 and 5.7. The differences are enormous, and storage vessels have a share of about 0.5%, which does not reflect their significance in the actual, ‘live’ culture. If a ‘dead’ inventory of this kind was rare, because of post-depositional reduction or a limited scale of excavation, it is probable that storage vessels would not be included in it at all. Besides, the percent composition of the set will be different after twenty years and even more so after fifty years. In practice, all of the above may mean that a feature which is frequently encountered does not have to be the most important or representative one, while an incidental feature may be significant for the character of a given set.

8

MAREK NOWAK: IS ‘POT PREHISTORY’ REAL PREHISTORY? THE CASE OF EARLY LBK

areas have been generally regarded as the cradle of the LBK (e. g. Gronenborn 1999:150; Kalicz 1995:29; Zvelebil 2001:6). They are less frequent in the remaining areas where LBK was widespread in its earlier phase, although they are still distinctly noticeable (e. g. sites of Eisleben and Eitzum - Gronenborn 1999:152-3, Boguszewo - Kirkowski 1993:58, Grabie - Czerniak 1994:40-4, 56).

It seems appropriate to close the foregoing part of this paper with a quotation of Neustupný’s opinion (1998:94): ‘[...] the quantitative approach to prehistoric pottery represented by small and medium samples of sherds (less than several thousand) remains questionable in many practical applications.’ The situation is additionally complicated by the fact that the fill of anthropogenic features usually does not contain artifacts constituting homogeneous, cohesive sets. It is debatable then, to identify chronological phases on the basis of materials that come from such fill. A situation of this kind occurs for example at Bylany, where a considerable number of LBK pits (over 20%) contained artifacts belonging to the Stroked Pottery Culture (Zápotocká 1986a:365-70; 1986b:379-83). This means that since the site was settled in many phases, the LBK features must contain artifacts coming from several LBK phases, and not just one.

On some territories, the early phase of the LBK is further subdivided into two, three or four sub-phases, again on the basis of pottery. In Slovakia four phases (Pavúk 1980), while in Moravia and southern Poland two phases (Čižmář 1998; Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1988:169; 2000:196; Podborský 1993:76-9) were identified (perhaps the number of sub-phases in Slovakia should be reduced to two as well; Pavúk 1994). In Lower Austria basically only one term, Vornotenkopf, is used to denote the whole phase (Lenneis 1995:13-6), although recently, on the basis of seriation analyses of ceramics, the existence of three time horizons was suggested (Lenneis 2001:110-2; Lenneis and Stadler 2002). In the areas situated more to the west, the early phase is usually divided into two (Meier-Arendt 1966), three (Dorn-Ihmig 1974; Kloos 1997; Modderman 1970; Pavlů and Zápotocká 1979; Pavlů 1986; Saile 1993) or four subphases (Kneipp 1998:185), though in some cases the existence of sub-phase Ia is only postulated.

The Issue of ‘Pot Archaeology’ Finally, I should like to briefly mention two more issues. First, ‘pot archaeology’ has usually taken for granted and subconsciously accepted, that similar materials should be similarly dated. Indeed, it may not have been so, and perhaps never was (Czerniak and Kośko 1993:95-7; Farrugia 2002:66, 88). Here in particular, I stress the fact that archaic/early items may have existed for a very long time alongside younger ones, or alternatively some items may have even been intentionally archaised. Second, the possibility has to be taken into account that in some areas, materials may be found combining features that are found separately in other areas. In other words, even though materials from region A show the presence of elements that are typical of several typological phases in other regions (e.g. B, C, or D), this does not necessarily equal to the chronological multiplicity of region A.

In light of the sources quoted, nowadays one cannot state that these sub-phases have their own, completely separable character. Instead, the difference between them arises from the varied frequencies of different components. I think that generally speaking, it is possible to distinguish three main horizons. The Earliest phase contains features close to the Starčevo-Körös tradition (e.g. Čižmář 1998:106-8; Kalicz 1995:29, 34; Pavúk 1980:16), the most important of which are bi-conical vessels (often with a small, deflected rim), hollow-pedestalled vessels, short incised lines (vrypy), barbotine on coarse wares, einpolierte motifs, flask-like vessels, finger and nail impressed ornaments and organic temper.

Considering the Origin of the LBK in the Scope of ‘Pot Prehistory’ Let us now turn to the question of LBK genesis, and the influence exerted on it by the above briefly discussed problems that stem from using pottery in reconstructions of prehistory.

This is followed by Early linear features, which comprise broad, incised, u-shaped lines often forming short or long bands of three lines, roughly conical deep ‘bowls’ with a wide mouth, big spherical vessels; Vinča-like features (polished motifs, vertical or oblique grooves, fine, black pottery with a burnished or polished surface, a horizontal row of various impressions below the rim of the vessel) (e.g. Čižmář 1998:109, Fig. 2; Czerniak 1994:40, 56, Figs. 6-7; Kalicz 1995: 41; Pavúk 1980: 23, 25, 33, 49).

The classic outline of LBK development (Neustupný 1956; Quitta 1960; Tichý 1960), assumes there was an earlier phase of the LBK (in this article I use the term ‘early LBK’ in its broad sense, namely as embracing phases: Älteste Bandkeramik and Ältere Bandkeramik i.e. Kneipp 1998:185; Stöckli 2002:18; compare also Lenneis 1995:14). This phase has been defined largely on the basis of ceramics which resemble the ceramics of the Starčevo-Körös cultural circle, especially the ceramics belonging to the Starčevo culture. These features are the most conspicuous in Transdanubia, south-western Slovakia, Lower Austria and Moravia, and therefore these

Finally, this is followed by Terminal Early LBK features, with indications for the Later LBK including bands filled with points, music notes, fine spherical bowls, narrow vshaped lines and sand temper (e.g. Čižmář 1998:109, 110; Pavúk 1980:46-7). 9

LBK DIALOGUES

As it is mentioned above, many of these features occurred together, either within the same set (e.g. Čižmář 1998:107, 109, 113-4; Czerniak 1994:40, 42-4, 56; Kalicz 1995:28; Pavlů and Zápotocká 1979:294; Pavlů 1986:329; Pavúk 1980:37, 42, 74; Podborský 1993:79) or even on the same vessel (e. g. Čižmář 1998:108, 111; Czerniak 1994:44). So, in theory we could expect the general picture of early LBK pottery development to follow a sequence of three Gaussian-like, partially overlapping curves (Fig. 1). In categories of space, this would mean that each subsequent sub-phase of the early LBK, embraced a larger area.

Fig. 2: Real variability in the characteristic components of LBK pottery in the early phase of LBK development. However, this picture is only a theoretical one. If we include the aforementioned facts concerning sub-phases (the appearance of very early elements within almost the entire extent of the early LBK is particularly significant) as well as the above listed limitations of ceramic-based analyses, the reality will be reflected by a different picture (Fig. 2). The reason does not lie only in the different points of time when the described sequences commenced in different areas. The problem is that we have many local sequences during the early LBK, instead of a global one. These local sequences also consist of Gaussian-like curves but the shapes of many curves can be different, some sequences are incomplete, some sequences are delayed, and in some settlements or microregions settled by the LBK, all features developed jointly. I suggest therefore, that the most startling outcome of the fragmentary state of research, could result in a false

Fig. 1: Theoretical variability in the characteristic components of LBK pottery in the early phase of development. 1-Earliest LBK, features close to the Starčevo-Körös tradition; 2- Early LBK features; 3-Terminal Early LBK features anticipating later phases of the LBK.

10

MAREK NOWAK: IS ‘POT PREHISTORY’ REAL PREHISTORY? THE CASE OF EARLY LBK

inference in regards to frequency and, consequently, in regards to chronology. If, for example, we excavated a part of a site where only materials similar to StarčevoKörös culture were present, we would date the site to the earliest sub-phase. But this would be an incorrect conclusion. Certainly the very opposite situation is also possible.

Reconsidering the Earliest LBK All of these considerations, can be supported by the premises described below. The eclipse and disappearance of Starčevo-Körös culture may have taken place as late as circa 5400-5300 BC (Hertelendi et al. 1995; Lenneis and Stadler 1995: 11), therefore the presence of Starčevo-Körös features in the LBK does not always have to imply an early date (that is between 5700 and 5500 BC). The early phase of the LBK lasted quite long, until 5200/5100 or even later, possibly 5000/4900 BC (Lenneis 2001:100; Lenneis et al. 1996:105; Stäuble 1995; Stöckli 2002:55). It is evident then, that an LBK set with Starčevo-Körös features is not necessarily as old as 5700-5500 BC.

It appears that the phenomena described above, are relatively well illustrated by seriation analyses conducted at some ‘German’, ‘Austrian’ and ‘Czech’ sites (Kneipp 1998:102, 106, Figs. 32, 33; Lüning 1988:65-7; Lenneis 2001; Lenneis and Stadler 2002; Pavlů 1986), although they do not always refer exclusively to the early LBK. As these sites have been exceptionally well examined, the materials coming from them are allegedly the most representative of all the hitherto examined LBK sites (though even here some issues may be debatable, such as the homogeneity of artifacts in settlement-pits). These materials clearly testify to the fact that only some features are characterized by an almost normal distribution, while the shape of the curve of several other features is more or less elongated, or in some cases resembles a χ2 distribution, while some other curves are broken, or discontinuous. It is also evident that materials from the ‘middle’ phases may contain practically all of the other elements: not only the most typical, but also theoretically earlier or later ones. As a result, the identification of phases or sub-phases is largely subjective (Lenneis and Stadler 2002:193).

Early linear ceramics are absent from some areas which for some reason (such as house construction) are categorized as Early LBK (Modderman 1988: 69). There is no clear stratigraphic evidence that would confirm the sequence of any sub-phase. It is not possible to determine a definite sequence of 14C dates from a region settled by the early LBK (Jeunesse 1999:459). Even the earliest dates from Austria are only slightly older than other sites (Lenneis 2001; Lenneis and Stadler 1995; Lenneis et al. 1996). A consequence of the two latter points is that the developed and early LBK clearly overlap. Hence, stylistic difference does not necessarily prove a chronological difference. Under such circumstances, the interpretation of sub-phases within the earlier phase of the LBK are implausibly grounded. Even if such subphases existed, they were more likely the result of regional stylistics. Consequently, evolutionary linear development of ceramics of the early phase of the LBK, did not occur either in the typological or in the territorial sense. These regional stylistics, although relatively uniform in regards to technological, morphological and ornamental features, differed in the frequency of many of these features.

Moreover, not all of the ornamentation characteristics can be of use in dating. For instance at Bylany, incisions indicative of the ‘middle’ horizon, were present all the time (Pavlů 1986:353, 357; Pavlů 2000:184-5). Some characteristics were usually present, such as the Notenkopf technique and lastly, some characteristics disappeared and reappeared such as lines associated with single impressions (Pavlů 1986:353, 357; Pavlů 2000:184-5). Pavlů (1986: 322, 328, 333) himself admits that it is impossible to establish an ideal linear dating scheme, and that not all of the artifacts found, fit his dating scheme. It should also be regarded as significant that at Neckenmarkt and Strögen, radiocarbon dates did not allow, contrary to what was expected, the establishment of a chronological sequence of three sub-phases (which were identified in seriation analyses) within the early LBK (Lenneis and Stadler 2002). The authors generally attribute this to the old wood effect (Lenneis and Stadler 2002:97), but I regard that as questionable. The old wood effect may be responsible for the earlier dating of certain samples (e. g. Stöckli 2002:12), but nevertheless it should not completely obliterate the chronological sequence. As a matter of fact, the same phenomenon may be observed at Bylany (Pavlů 1986:354-5; 2000:318), where 14C dates from phase Ic are not considerably earlier than dates from phases IIa-IIIa (compare also Fig. 13 and Fig. 23 in Stöckli 2002:25, 31).

Hence, it is my belief that the appearance of this stylistic conglomerate, on a large territory between the Rhine River and the Bug River, can be explained mainly by a very rapid migration of rather small groups and the colonization of small territorial enclaves (‘leapfrog colonization’; Zvelebil 2001:2). This process lasted roughly from 5600 to 5400 BC. That the appearance and spread of the above mentioned stylistic conglomerate was a result of more or less intense contacts of various kinds, is rather improbable. This is true for several reasons. For one, the relatively fast expansion of the LBK over a large territory, from the middle Rhine to Transdanubia and Chełmno Land - it is noteworthy that throughout this 11

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 3: Model of LBK expansion from 5600 to 5400 BC, based on Gronenborn 1999: Fig. 15. have tried to argue however, such a situation did not occur.

territory there is a presence of elements evidently derived from the Starčevo-Körös tradition. The expansion of the LBK as a consequence of the exchange of information, would have lasted remarkably longer. In such a case, the first scenario of early LBK development (Fig. 1) would have been much more probable, wherein all the regions settled by the LBK underwent the same stylistic stages. These stages would have begun at different times, as new elements reached subsequent areas of expansion. As I

In addition, there is a nearly total lack of any symptoms of inexperience, transition, or imitation in early LBK pottery. Such phenomena should result in the presence, at least in some regions, of more primitive ceramics as well as more technologically or stylistically differentiated ceramics than actually existed. 12

MAREK NOWAK: IS ‘POT PREHISTORY’ REAL PREHISTORY? THE CASE OF EARLY LBK

Conclusion

References

To sum up, a model of LBK expansion can be split into the following three stages (Fig. 3). First, a group of the Starčevo culture that was located north-west in the area of Balaton ‘discovered’ linear ornament around 5600 BC (Bánffy 2000; Virág and Kalicz 2001). It slowly spread throughout Transdanubia (as Starčevo stylistics were replaced by early linear ones), but some of the ‘Starčevoturned-LBK’ people also moved further west and north (that is to south-western Slovakia, Lower Austria and Moravia). A new pottery style emerged that contained, in various proportions, a number of new features side by side with Starčevo-Körös features (circa 5600-5550 BC).

Bánffy, E. (2000) The Late Starčevo and the Earliest Linear Pottery groups in western Transdanubia, Documenta Praehistorica 27: 173-87. Braun, D. P. (1991) Why Decorate a Pot? Midwestern Household Pottery, 200 B.C.-A.D.600. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 10: 360-97. Breuning, P. (1987) 14C – Chronologie des Vorderasiatischen, Südost- und Mitteleuropäischen Neolithikums. Böhlau Verlag, Köln-Wien. Buko, A. (1990) Ceramika wczesnopolska. Wprowadzenie do badań. Wrocław, Ossolineum. Čižmář, Z. (1998) Nástin Relativní Chronologie Lineární Keramiky na Moravĕ, Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientae Sociales 83: 105-41. Czerniak, L. (1994) Wczesny i Środkowy Okres neolitu na Kujawach. 5400 – 3650 p. n. e. Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Poznań. Czerniak, L. and Kośko, A. (1993) Z Badań nad Genezą Rozwoju i Systematyką Kultury Pucharów Lejkowatych na Kujawach. Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Poznań. Dorn-Ihmig, M. (1974) Bandkeramik an Mittel- und Niederrhein. Beiträge zur Urgeschichte des Rheinlandes 1. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 15: 51-142. Farrugia, J.P. (2002) Une Crise Majeure de la Civilisation du Néolithique Danubien des Années 5100 Avant Notre Ère. Archeologické Rozhledy 54: 44-98. Gibson, A. and Woods, A. (1997) Prehistoric Pottery for the Archaeologist. Leicester University Press, London-Washington. Graves, M. W. (1998) The History of Method and Theory in the Study of Prehistoric Puebloan Pottery Style in the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 309-43. Gronenborn, D. (1994) Überlegungen zur Ausbreitung der bäuerlichen Wirtschaft in Mitteleuropa–Versuch einer Kulturhistorischen Interpretation Ältestbandkeramischer Silexinventare. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 69: 135-51. Gronenborn, D. (1999) A Variation on a Basic Theme: the Transition to Farming in Southern Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13: 123-210. Gruner, D. (1991) Töpferei der Malinke. IN: H. Lüdtke and R. Vossen (eds) Töpfereiforschung Archäologisch, Ethnologisch, Volkskundlich. Töpferei- und Keramikforschung. Band II. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. pp. 93-103. Herbich, I. And Dietler, M. (1991) Aspects of the Ceramic System of the Luo of Kenia. IN: H. Lüdtke and R. Vossen (eds) Töpfereiforschung Archäologisch, Ethnologisch, Volkskundlich. Töpferei- und Keramikforschung. Band II. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. pp. 105-135. Hertelendi, E.; Kalicz, N.; Raczky, P.; Horváth, F.; Veres, M.; Svingor, E.; Futo, I. and Bartosiewicz, L. (1995) Re-Evaluation of the Neolithic in Eastern Hungary Based on Calibrated Radiocarbon Dates Radiocarbon

Second, between circa 5550-5500 BC, the main factor in propagating LBK ceramics was a very rapid migration of small groups. Their ceramics varied in the proportion of Starčevo features and early linear features since the background of these groups was already characterized by differences in proportions of these features. Third, these processes went on until the early LBK spread over the territory to the middle Rhine valley in the west (Gronenborn 1999:156), and to the area of Chełmno Land in the north (Kirkowski 1994), circa 5400 BC. The intense, multi-level exchange of information with Mesolithic people also took place, but at the outskirts of enclaves already settled by the LBK (Gronenborn 1999:138-43; Kozłowski 1989:190-1, 201-3; Nowak 2001; Svoboda et al. 1999; Vencl 1996; Zvelebil 2001:69). Their contribution to the propagation of the early LBK was generally of less importance. The participation of Mesolithic foragers may have been more significant during the later stages of early LBK expansion (after 5400 BC), in the course of which the Rheinland, Alsace and the upper Bug basin was settled. It should be strongly accentuated, that this scenario was written on the basis of practically one source, namely ceramics. Perhaps it would look different from the point of view of other categories of LBK material culture. For example, some elements of LBK chipped stone industries seem to be generally similar to Mesolithic ones (Gronenborn 1994; 1999:132-3, 168-70, 180), although the meaning of this fact is, for the time being, rather ambiguous (Mateiciucová 1997:84, 87-92; 2000:225, 232-4; 2001:297). For example, one should emphasize, that there is also a striking similarity between LBK and Vinča lithic industries. Perhaps the middle of the 6th millennium BC was a period of relatively homogeneous chipped industries in a vast area of Central Europe and the Balkan Peninsula, both in Neolithic and Mesolithic communities.

13

LBK DIALOGUES

Lenneis, E. (2001) The Beginning of the Neolithic in Austria - a Report About Recent and Current Investigations. Documenta Praehistorica 28: 99-116. Lenneis, E. and Stadler, P. (1995) Zur Absolutchronologie der Linearbandkeramik Aufgrund von 14 C-Daten. Archäologie Österreichs 6(2): 4-13. Lenneis, E. and Stadler, P. (2002) 14C-Daten und Seriation Altbandkeramischer Inventare Archeologické Rozhledy 54: 191-201. Lenneis, E.;Stadler, P. and Windl, H. (1996) Neue 14CDaten zum Frühneolithikum in Österreich. Préhistoire Européenne 8: 97-116. Lüning, J. (1988) Frühe Bauern in Mitteleuropa im 6. Und 5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 35: 27-97. Mateiciucová, I. (1997) Štípaná Industrie na Pohřebišti Kultury s LnK ve Vedrovicích. Pravĕk 7: 77-103. Mateiciucová, I. (2000) Časně Neolitická Štipaná Industrie z Osady Kladníky a Ivanovice na Moravě. Památky Archeologické – Supplementum 13: 218-37. Mateiciucová, I. (2001) Silexindustrie in der Ältesten Linearbandkeramik-Kultur in Mähren und Niederösterreich auf der Basis der Silexindustrie des Lokalmesolithikums. IN: R. Kertész and J. Makkay (eds) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in the Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, September 22-27, 1996. Archaeolingua, Budapest. pp. 283-301. Meier-Arendt, W. (1966) Die Bandkeramische Kultur im Untermaingebiet. Veröffentlichungen des Amtes für Bodendenkmalpflege im Regierungsbezirk Darmstad 3. Bonn. Mershen, B. (1988) Bemerkungen zur Handgetöpferten Gebrauchskeramik in der Dorfkultur des CAğlūn (Jordanien). IN: R. Vossen (ed) Töpfereiforschung Zwischen Archäologie und Entwicklungspolitik. Töpferei- und Keramikforschung. Band I. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. pp. 81-96. Modderman, P. J. R. (1970) Linearbandkeramik aus Elsloo und Stein. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 3: Modderman, P. J. R. (1988) The Linear Pottery Culture: Diversity in Uniformity. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38: 63-141. Neustupný, E. (1956) K Relativní Chronologii Volutové Keramiky. Archeologické Rozhledy 8: 386-406. Neustupný, E. (1996) Poznámky k Pravěké Sídlištní Keramice. Archeologické Rozhledy 48: 490-509. Neustupný, E. (1998) K Variabilitě Laténské Keramiky. Archeologické Rozhledy 50: 77-94. Nielsen, S. (1999). The Domestic Mode of Production – and Beyond. An Archaeological Inquiry into Urban Trends in Denmark, Iceland and Predynastic Egypt. Nordiske Fortidsminder, Berie B, Volume 18. Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab, København. Nowak, M. (2001) The Second Phase of Neolithization in East-Central Europe. Antiquity 75: 582-92. Orton, C.; Tyers, P. and Vince, A. (1993) Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press,

37: 239-44. Hołubowicz, W. (1950) Garncarstwo Wiejskie Zachodnich Terenów Białorusi. Towarzystwo Naukowe w Toruniu, Toruń. Hołubowicz, W. (1957) Garncarstwo Wiejskie Albanii. Archeologia Śląska 1: 5-64. Jeunesse, C. (1999) Le Néolithique Ancien Danubien. IN: J. Evin, C. Oberlin, J.P. Daugas and J.F. Salles (eds) 14 C et Archéologie, 3éme Congrés International Lyon 6 - 10 avril 1998. Société Préhistorique Française, Lyon. pp. 459-61. Kalicz, N. (1995) Die Älteste Transdanubische (Mitteleuropäische) Linienbandkeramik. Aspekte zu Ursprung, Chronologie und Beziehungen. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47: 23-59. Kirkowski, R. (1994) Kultura Ceramiki Wstęgowej Rytej na Ziemi Chełmińskiej. Zarys Systematyki Chronologiczno-Genetycznej. IN: L. Czerniak (ed) Neolit i Poczatki Epoki Brązu na Ziemi Chełmińskiej. Muzeum w Grudziądzu, Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu, Grudziądz. pp. 57-101. Kloos, U. (1997) Die Tonware. IN: J. Lüning (ed) Ein Siedlungsplatz der Ältesten Bandkeramik in Bruchenbrücken, Stadt Frieiberg/Hessen. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 39. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. pp. 151-256. Kneipp, J. (1998) Bandkeramik Zwischen Rhein, Weser und Main. Studien zu Stil und Chronologie der Keramik. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 47, Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Kobylińska, U. and Kobyliński, Z. (1993) Struktura Wielkościowa Zespołów Ceramiki na Stanowiskach Wielowarstwowych: Metody Analizy i Możliwości Badawcze. Archeologia Polski 38: 229-60. Köpke, W. and Graf, W. (1988) Zur Typologie der Keramischen Brennanlagen im Westlichen Mittelmeergebiet. IN: R. Vossen (ed) Töpfereiforschung Zwischen Archäologie und Entwicklungspolitik. Töpfereiund Keramikforschung. Band I. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. pp. 111-128. Kozłowski, S. K. (1989) Mesolithic in Poland. A New Approach. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa. Kulczycka-Leciejowiczowa, A. (1988) Erste Gemeinschaften der Linienbandkeramikkultur auf Polnischem Boden. Zeitschrift für Archäologie 23: 137-82. Kulczycka-Leciejowiczowa, A. (2000) Early Linear Pottery Communities to the North of the Sudeten and Carpathian Mountains. Recent Research. Památky Archeologické – Supplementum 13: 196-204. Lenneis, E. (1995). Altneolithikum: Die Bandkeramik. IN: E. Lenneis, C. Neugebauer-Maresch and E. Ruttkay (eds) Jungsteinzeit im osten Österreichs. Niederösterreichisches Pressehaus, St. Pölten-Wien. pp. 11-57. 14

MAREK NOWAK: IS ‘POT PREHISTORY’ REAL PREHISTORY? THE CASE OF EARLY LBK

Virág, Z. and Kalicz, N. (2001) Neuere Siedlungsfunde der Frühneolitischen Starčevo-Kultur aus Südwestungarn. IN: B. Ginter et al. (eds) Problems of the Stone Age in the Old World. Jubilee Book dedicated to Professor Janusz K. Kozłowski. Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków. pp. 265-81. Wotzka, H.P. (1991) Keramikbrand im Offenen Feuer: Vergleichende Analyse Pyrometrischer Daten aus dem Töpferdorf Ikenge (Äquatorregion, Zaire). IN: H. Lüdtke and R. Vossen (eds) Töpfereiforschung Archäologisch, Ethnologisch, Volkskundlich. Töpferei- und Keramikforschung. Band II. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. pp. 289-319. Zápotocká, M. (1986a) Stroked Pottery Culture (Stk). Critical Analysis of Find Complexes and Preliminary Dating. IN: I. Pavlů, J. Rulf and M. Zápotocká (eds) Theses of the Neolithic Site of Bylany. Památky Archeologické 77: 288-412. Zápotocká, M. (1986b) The Correlation Between the LnK and StK Settlement: the Problem of the Homogeneity of Building Complexes. IN: I. Pavlů, J. Rulf and M. Zápotocká (eds) Theses of the Neolithic site of Bylany. Památky Archeologické 77: 288-412. Zvelebil, M. (2001) The Agricultural Transition and the Origins of Neolithic Society in Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 28: 1-27.

Cambridge. Pavlů, I. (1986) Ceramic Chronology of the Linear Pottery Culture Site. IN: I. Pavlů, J. Rulf and M. Zápotocká (eds) Theses of the Neolithic site of Bylany. Památky Archeologické 77: 288-412. Pavlů, I. (1997) Pottery Origins. Initial Forms, Cultural Behavior and Decorative Styles. Praha, Karolinum. Pavlů, I. (2000) Life on a Neolithic Site. Bylany – Situational Analysis of Artefacts. Institute of Archaeology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Praha. Pavlů, I. and Zápotocká, M. (1979) Současný Stav a Úkoly Studia Neolitu v Čechách, Památky Archeologické 70: 281-318. Pavúk, J. (1980). Ältere Linearkeramik in der Slowakei. Slovenská Archeológia 28(1): 7-90. Pavúk, J. (1994) Zur Relativen Chronologie der Älteren Linearkeramik. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36: 135-51. Podborský, V. (ed)(1993) Pravěké Dějiny Moravy. Muzejní a Vlastivĕdná Společnost, Brno. Quitta, H. (1960) Zur Frage der Ältesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 38: 1-38. Rulf, J. (1998) K Výzdobě České Neolitické Keramiky. Archeologické Rozhledy 50: 20-34. Saile, T. (1993) Kodierungsprobleme und ihre Lösung am Beispiel der Magerungsanalyse eines Ältestbandkeramischen Keramikkomplexes aus Goddelau im Hessischen Ried. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 23: 37-48. Salač, V. (1998) Standartní Soubor Laténské Sídlištní Keramiky. Archeologické Rozhledy 50: 43-76. Schiffer, M. B. and Skibo, J.M. (1987) Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 28: 593-622. Schneider, K. (1991) Töpferei der Lobi. IN: H. Lüdtke and R. Vossen (eds) Töpfereiforschung Archäologisch, Ethnologisch, Volkskundlich. Töpferei- und Keramikforschung. Band II. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. pp. 65-93. Skibo, J. M. (1992) Ethnoarchaeology, Experimental Archaeology and Inference Building in Ceramic Research. Archaeologia Polona 30: 39-53. Stäuble, H. (1995) Radiocarbon Dates of the Earliest Neolithic in Central Europe. Radiocarbon 37: 227-37. Stöckli, W. E. (2002) Absolute und Relative Chronologie des Früh- und Mittelneolithikums in Westdeutschland (Rheinland und Rhein-Main-Gebiet). Basler Hefte zur Archäologie 1. Archäologie Verlag, Basel. Svoboda, J.; Cílek, V.; Jarošová, L. and Peša, V. (1999) Mezolit z Perspektivy Regionu: Výzkumy v Ústí Pekla. Archeologické Rozhledy 51: 243-64. Tichý, R. (1960) K Nejstarší Volutové Keramice na Moravĕ. Památky Archeologické 51: 415-41. Tite, M. S. (1999) Pottery Production, Distribution, and Consumption - the Contribution of the Physical Sciences. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6: 181-233. Vencl, S. (1996) Předneolitické Osídlení Okolí Tatenic, okres Ústí nad Orlicí. Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae Sociales 81: 79-95. 15

16

SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK) Alena Lukes Abstract The LBK emerged around 5500 BC as the first sedentary agro-pastoral culture in central Europe, and with it came a collection of cultural traits never before seen in continental Europe including sedentism, permanent structures, ceramics and agro-pastoral farming – which became associated with the end of the Mesolithic and the beginning of the central European Neolithic. In this paper I will explore the implications of social constructs on the three main approaches to LBK origins, specifically the migrationist, indigenist and integrationist models of origin. This will include a discussion of inter-generational transmission of culture and identity, framed by notions of agency, structure, habitus or routine practice, as well as emblemic and isochrestic symbolism. This will be applied to LBK pottery from the Vedrovice site in Moravia (Czech Republic), as a preliminary case study. This approach arises from “renewed interest in the anthropological analysis of the ‘person’ – a socially shaped construct – in order to better understand social relationships” (Gillespie 2001:73), rather than the ‘artifact’ which is often more visible in LBK research than the people who created them.

The Early LBK culture has traditionally been characterized by a uniformity of characteristics (Tringham 1971; Modderman 1988; Whittle 1996; Price 2000). LBK people everywhere appear to have made similar choices in settlement locations, longhouse construction, adze and pottery manufacture (Whittle 1996). Due to these striking similarities, the emergence of the LBK has traditionally been understood as the result of colonization by people in Neolithic settlements at the periphery of the Northern Balkans (Childe 1957; Piggott 1965; Lüning 1988). In this way, the LBK culture has usually been understood as a clean break from the indigenous forager population of central and western Europe, which lacked the social complexity and the technological knowledge to become Neolithic.

Introduction to the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK) The Linear Pottery culture or Linearbandkeramik culture (LBK) was first identified in the late 1800s by the German art historian-turned-archaeologist Friedrich Klopfleisch on the basis of the pottery’s distinctive curvilinear incised decoration (Bogucki 1995). On stratigraphic grounds alone, the LBK is the oldest clearly identifiable Neolithic culture in Central Europe (Modderman 1988). Since its identification more than a century ago, the LBK has been referred to by a variety of different names at different times and in different countries. Gordon Childe labeled it as “Danubian I” in his sequence of prehistoric European cultures, and although this term has generally fallen from use, the generic term “danubian” is still sometimes used (Bogucki 1995). Other names used throughout Europe include Linearbandkeramik / Linienbandkeramischekultur in Germany and Austria, Céramique Rubanée in France, Ceramika Wstęgowa in Poland, and Volutová or Lineární Keramika in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Sometimes the term Transdanubian LBK (TLBK) is also used, in order to distinguish from the separate, albeit closely related, Älfold LBK of the Great Hungarian Plain. The expansion of the LBK has been described as very rapid, such that within a period of possibly less than 200 years from its initial emergence, small LBK farming villages appeared across Central Europe from western Hungary, Slovakia, northern and eastern Austria, the Czech Republic, southern and parts of central Poland, Germany as far north as Braunschweig and Magdeburg, to the southern Netherlands, eastern Belgium, and the river valleys of central northern France in the Paris basin (Whittle 1996; Price 2000). These settlements were not continuous in most regions, but appear to have occurred as scattered clusters of early farming communities (Bogucki 1995). These LBK farmers produced a variety of crops ranging from emmer and einkorn wheat, to barley, peas, flax and poppy, in addition to herding cattle and pigs (Price 2000).

It is important to note however, that this degree of uniformity can be exaggerated, since the actual details of house construction and crop choice, for example, were quite varied even in the early phases of the LBK (Whittle 1996). In recent years, research has postulated a greater role of the Late Mesolithic inhabitants in the emergence of the LBK, at times even challenging the entire notion of an agricultural colonization (Zvelebil 1989, 1996, 2000; Tillman 1994; Gronenborn 1999; Price 2000). The LBK assemblages that once appeared uniform, have upon closer scrutiny, revealed a significant variability in material culture and patterns of exchange which may confirm the role of indigenous populations in the emergence of the LBK culture (Gronenborn 1998; Gronenborn 1999; Price 2000). The Earliest LBK Although the Neolithic period of Central Europe has been the subject of many studies since the early 20th century and numerous attempts have been made to define a chronology of the LBK culture (see for instance Neustupný 1956; Soudský 1956; Tichý 1960, 1962), the earliest phase of the LBK did not gain widespread acceptance until the 1960s (Quitta 1960). Quitta (1960) studied the ceramic assemblages from a range of Early

17

LBK DIALOGUES

New research has also led to the refinement of emergent LBK pottery characteristics. It is now evident that emergent LBK pottery was fired at low temperatures, yielding a red black red profile characteristic of the early Neolithic throughout southeast Europe (Bánffy 2000, see also Bánffy this volume). Organic tempering was almost always complemented with sand. Pedestalled vessels occur in two types: high and conical or low resembling a foot ring (Bánffy 2000). Lugs are often cut. Fineware, consisting of small bowls and goblets, was often carinated with a concave upper body. Both the inner and outer surface was often polished (Bánffy 2000). Coarseware, consisting of pots and storage vessels, was frequently covered with true schlickwurf barbotine arranged with fingers in lines or different patterns (Bánffy 2000, see also Pavúk this volume). True schlickwurf barbotine involved the addition of fine liquid clay to the dry surface of globular vessels. Although similar in appearance, this is not the same as barbotine applied in lines with fingers on a still wet surface, which is characteristic of the Milanovce phase, a later phase of the Early LBK (Pavúk 1980, see also this Pavúk this volume). Pots and storage vessels were often also decorated with nail impressions. However other linear decoration, comprising of three parallel lines or spiraloid, “voluted” motifs which previously characterized early LBK pottery (Quitta 1960) are extremely rare in this emergent phase, and indeed emergent LBK sites such as Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb (Bánffy 2000) and Brunn (Stadler 1999) are distinguished by the very low ratio of vessels bearing linear ornamentation.

Neolithic sites, and recognized two different phases within the LBK culture: the älteste LBK (äLBK), and the younger Flomborn LBK. In general, early LBK ceramics comprise a range of vessel shapes including: open, conical and bi-conical bowls, sometimes with an attenuated rim and a concave upper vessel body (Quitta 1960; Makkay 1978; Kalicz 1993). Many of these vessel shapes were made with a pedestal (hollow or solid) or a foot ring (Quitta 1960; Makkay 1978; Kalicz 1993). Some vessels were made with a flat base, although this is also sometimes evident in the younger Flomborn LBK (Quitta 1960). The technology of pottery manufacture relied heavily on the use of organic materials for tempering and small pebbles (Quitta 1960; Makkay 1978; Kalicz 1993). The ceramics were fired at relatively low temperatures, with fineware fired in a reduced atmosphere and coarseware fired in an oxidizing atmosphere (Quitta 1960; Makkay 1978; Kalicz 1993). The vessel decoration comprised broad incised lines, often forming a band of three lines (Quitta 1960). Although the earliest LBK is known from western Hungary, how far and where this emergent LBK culture spread, continues to be debated. Some researchers presume the distribution of the emergent LBK from western Hungary to Slovakia, Austria and Moravia (Tichý 1960; Pavúk 1979), whereas others postulate the spread of the emergent LBK from western Hungary, Slovakia and lower Austria, but exclude Moravia and regions further west (Podborský 1993). For others still, the “Earliest LBK culture” represents a much broader cultural horizon developing across most of central Europe from Transdanubia to the Rhineland (Lüning 1988; Gronenborn 1994; Jochim 2000; Bogucki 2001).

It is also noteworthy, that stone tools on emergent LBK are dominated by Szentgál radiolarite originating in the Bakony Mountains of Hungary, and although this raw material still surfaces in the later phases of the Early LBK, its proportion is lower (Gronenborn 1994, 1999). Furthermore, it is significant that lithics at emergent LBK sites often encompass microlithic elements strongly reminiscent of late Mesolithic technologies (Gronenborn 1994; Stadler 1999; Bánffy 2000).

However, recent research at sites such as Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb (Bánffy 2000, see also this volume) in Hungary, and Brunn in Austria (Stadler 1999, see also Lenneis this volume) has significantly improved the current state of knowledge of the emergent LBK culture, and I emphasize the distinction between the emergent phase of the Earliest LBK culture in the core area of Transdanubia and the Danube Valley, present day north west Hungary, south west Slovakia, Austria and Moravia (Pavúk 1980, 1994; Kálicz 1995; Gronenborn 1998; Zvelebil 2000), and the ensuing initial expansion of the Early LBK into a large part of central Europe.

Even if considering a limited range of material culture, the emergent LBK comprises characteristics some of which find parallels in the Starčevo-Criş-Körös, and some of which are of unknown origin, and may either represent a continuation of Mesolithic traditions, or local innovation.

The emergent phase of the earliest LBK culture is often synchronized with the First Balkan Neolithic complex of Starčevo-Criş-Körös cultures (Podborský 1993; Kalicz 1993; Pavúk 1994; Gronenborn 1999; Lenneis and Lüning 2001) whereas the phase of initial expansion of the early LBK is synchronized with the Vinča A culture (Pavúk 1994; Čižmář 1998; Gronenborn 1999; Lenneis and Lüning 2001).

Inter-Generational Transmission of Culture Previous studies involving cultural transmission, wherein cultural phenomena are understood as inherited lineages, have relied heavily on tenets of evolutionary theory (see for instance Spencer 1993; MacDonald 1998) and complex statistical manipulation such as clade-diversity diagrams or bootstrapping (see for instance Lipo et al. 1997; Lyman and O’Brian 2000; Shennan and Wilkinson 2001; Jordan and Shennan 2003).

18

ALENA LUKES: SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

particular” (Stone 2003:31). This is significant since material culture can be used both consciously to signal meaning and identity through agency, emblemic stylistic variation, and structuration (see for instance Wiessener 1983; Hodder 1989; Giddens 1991; Tilley 1991; Schiffer and Miller 1999; Dornan 2002). However material culture can also unconsciously express tenets of identity as a result of enculturation and social reproduction (see for instance Barrett 1994) via isochrestic stylistic variation, habitus and/ or doxa (see for instance Bordieu 1977; Sackett 1985; Hastorf 1997; Frankel 2000; Silliman 2001). The goal is to explore the “situational expression of identity, and the actions used by individuals and groups to either de-emphasize separate identities or emphasize and constantly reify the we/they distinction” (Stone 2003:32).

When applied specifically to the LBK culture, such studies of LBK ceramics have resulted in the identification of both a phylogenetic (modified descent from an ancestral assemblage) and an ethnogenetic (blending of two or more contemporaneous assemblages) “factor in the cultural affairs of past human societies” (Collard and Shennan 2000:96). More importantly, these studies also “do not inevitably lead to the conclusion that change in decoration is solely the result of innovation and drift” (Shennan and Wilkinson 2001:592). In other words, these findings suggest an ancestral plus “other” influence in the constitution of LBK pottery assemblages, and factors other than adaptation to local conditions (innovation) or differential material culture replication (drift) account for the full scope of its variability. This has also been corroborated ethnographically such that “a large proportion of variation in the assemblages is not accounted for by either the effects of distance, ecology, or broad linguistic affinity (Jordan and Shennan 2003; see also Gosselein 2000). In view of the debates surrounding the nature of LBK origin, several interpretations of this phenomena in human terms come to mind, and serve as a point of departure.

This dialectic of material culture is significant, especially since some items are highly visible and public in their display, while others are private and only visible to individuals with whom there are close personal ties (Stone 2003). The frequency of ethnic signaling and the permanency of the markers is integrally tied to the importance of ethnicity as a role to the members in the community. Meaning that variability in the importance of this role between two communities or regions should be “evident in the variability, portability, and frequency of the use of [these] ethnic markers” (Stone 2003:44).

To begin with, culture constitutes an inheritance system (Boyd and Richerson 1985). This perception of the intergenerational transmission of culture draws heavily on a “synthetic approach that draws upon evolutionary theory while also emphasizing the reflexive relationship between human agency and institutional structures as outlined in structuration theory” (Spencer 1993:46). “Cultural attributes are passed on through the generations and are affected by a variety of processes that result in change” (Jordan and Shennan 2003). Similarities and differences are maintained through active social selection, to signal both identity and the bounds of general recipricocity (Nettle 1999; Jordan and Shennan 2003). “Humans learn by mimicking and imitating the behaviors of those conspecifics around them” (Lyman and O’Brian 2000). “A wide distribution of common cultural phenotypes suggests inter-regional contact and transfer of technological as well as possibly socio-religious ideals between cultural groups,” indicating the “cultural transmission of knowledge from elders to young over generations and across large tracts of geography” (Macdonald 1998:231).

However, the identities expressed may not always be ‘ethnic,’ in the sense that it “is not the only ‘role’ an individual or group displays in their daily lives” (Stone 2003:43), and leads to a discussion of ‘personhood’ (for general discussion see for instance Gillespie 2001). An individual’s ‘identity’ encompasses various aspects including personal (adjusted by age, gender, social status, and life biography), corporate (special interest groups, adjusted by training, role and social position), communal (territorial ‘ethnic’ identity) and inter-regional. These are an enactment of social relationships within society which form a part of everyday experience and practice, including relationships between the living and the dead, as well as people and objects (Gillespie 2001). Therefore “personhood is not limited to the older view of social structures composed of groups and roles, but can be integrated within the contemporary perspective of society as a system of contexts…when such relationships come into play and are open to negotiation, subversion and transformation” (Gillespie 2001:75). Overall this implies that choices in the symbolism, manipulation, and promotion of material culture are both actively and passively used by people in social interactions based on their own personhood and context of interaction. This can be elaborated into a perception of its change over the course of inter-generational transmission and results in a framework within which the earliest LBK can be approached for informative potential regarding its origins.

Material Culture, Identity, Habitus, and Agency People use material culture and variations of style to communicate (see for instance Osborn 1996; Wobst 1999; Hall 2001; Bauer 2002; Stone 2003). It is noteworthy that the “choice of symbols and instances in which they are displayed are not random” (Stone 2003:43), and that in order to interpret the variability of material culture we must explore the nature of social identity in general and the role material culture plays in the formation, negotiation and /or reification of identity in

19

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 1: Mesolithic and Neolithic settlement of the Czech Republic. A- Mesolithic settlement; B- Mesolithic overlapping with Neolithic; C- Early Neolithic settlement. hitherto predominantly lithic evidence (Fridrich and Sýkorová 2002). The presence of Hungarian radiolarite (Mateicicucová 2002) and suggestion of polished stone adzes (Svoboda et al 2000) in pre-LBK assemblages imply mutual knowledge and interaction amongst the local Mesolithic and LBK populations emerging in the area.

Vedrovice: A Case Study in Eastern Central Europe Interpretive debates and formative processes aside, there is clear evidence for Mesolithic settlement of the Czech Republic (Fig. 1) (see for instance Prošek 1951, 1950; Klíma 1953; Beneš 1966; Vencl 1990, 1992, 1993; Podborský 1993; Svoboda et al. 1999, 2000; Vencl and Fröhlich 2002). From the history of research covering the Mesolithic, it is becoming increasingly clear that, despite major problems of site taphonomy and recognition, many areas of Bohemia, Moravia and surrounding regions were utilized by established Mesolithic communities of long duration, as implied by the work of the above cited authors.

Therefore, considering that there is evidence for Mesolithic occupation of the Czech Republic, and that there are characteristics in the Early LBK which do not find precedence in the first Balkan Neolithic, an examination of the material culture within the framework of the outlined social perspective at the Vedrovice site as a case study, should elucidate the nature of social interactions taking place at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the region.

Forthcoming research promises to enrich significantly the current state of knowledge on the Mesolithic period in this area. Recent research which indicates the Mesolithic occupation in northern Bohemia took place between 7000 and 5000 BC (Svoboda et al 2000) merits emphasis, since it not only confirms the contemporaneity of the Mesolithic and the Early LBK in the area, but one step further, also suggests its continuity after the emergence of the LBK. Furthermore, the recently identified Mesolithic dwelling sites Bučiny and Chržín in central Bohemia, an area later extensively settled by LBK communities, yielded a multitude of features, including housing structures and burials, which should supplement the

The site of Vedrovice is located in southern Moravia in the south eastern part of the Czech Republic within the drainage basin of the rivers Jihlava and Svratka. Sections of the site were excavated between 1961 - 2000 and have yielded various enclosures as well as at least two cemeteries (Podborský 2002a). The site is polycultural, and includes features from younger periods of the LBK, as well as several post-LBK occupations, the most significant of which involves the Moravian Painted Ware culture (MMK) (Humpolová 2001). The site has an 20

ALENA LUKES: SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

with, amongst others, the occupants of Bylany (see for instance Pavlů et al 1986, Pavlů 2000;) and Křeslice (Lukes, current research) in Bohemia, Milanovce in Slovakia (see for instance Pavúk 1980, 1994) and Neckenmarkt and Strögen in Austria (Lenneis and Lüning 2001).

excellent state of preservation and has yielded a considerable range of material culture including ceramic vessels, miniature vessels and figurine fragments, housing structures, construction pits, pits, ovens, flaked and polished stone tools, grinding stones, bones and bone tools (see Berkovec et al., this volume), ceramic weights, drilled pottery sherds and drilled ceramic disks. Burials were also found within the settlement, usually children, in addition to a scatter of split human bones interpreted as indications of ritual cannibalism by the excavator (Podborský 2002a).

However it is noteworthy that recent research has identified the presence of an earlier occupation at the site of Vedrovice (Lukes, current research). These features predate the Široká u Lesa cemetery, and may correspond with the emergent phase of the earliest LBK. This constitutes the oldest LBK presence in Moravia, especially since the previously accepted assignment of the sites Újezd-Žadlovice u Zábřeha, and Žopy u Holešova into the earliest LBK phase (Tichý 1960, 1962) has recently come into question, and is in need of reevaluation (Čižmář, pers. comm.).

Analyses by colleagues are nearing completion, and therefore only cursory remarks will be made here. Most of the data available so far pertains to pottery (Čižmář 2002; Lukes, current research), and although we “cannot decipher social interaction by looking at only one artifact class” (Stone 2003:42), pottery does constitute a rich craft tradition, exhibiting variation both within and between different groups, and as such serves as a focus for investigation of cultural transmission. Especially since all groups produce pottery, presumably according to local traditions which are therefore regionally comparable (see for instance Jordan and Shennan 2003 in reference to basketry). Therefore, since at present most of the available information from the settlement involves pottery, this class of material culture will be stressed in the ensuing discussion.

These earliest LBK features at Vedrovice yielded ceramics with distinct archaic features, often cited as characteristic of the emergent LBK phase only. These include predominantly organic temper with sand and pebbles, poor firing resulting in a red-black-red sherd cross-section, schlickwurf barbotine, double conical vessels with pronounced carination, and vertically cut lugs (Tichý 1962; Kálicz 1993, 1995; Bánffy 2000; Lenneis 2001; Pavúk 1980, 1994). This means that these emergent LBK features at Vedrovice were contemporaneous with corresponding features at sites such as Szentgyörgzvölgy-Pityerdomb in Hungary (Bánffy 2000), Nitra, Hurbanovo and Bíňa in Slovakia (Pavúk 1980, 1994), and Brunn II in Austria (Stadler 1999, Lenneis 2001). The low frequency of actual linear ornamentation and predominance of undecorated pottery in these features at Vedrovice, corresponds in particular with Szentgyörgzvölgy-Pityerdomb (Bánffy 2000) and Brun II (Stadler 1999; Lenneis 2001).

I examined more than 14,500 pottery sherds from the settlement. This does not comprise the entire ceramic assemblage, since purely younger LBK ceramic assemblages were not a part of the current study. The total number of pottery sherds at the site can therefore be estimated around 30, 000 sherds or more. Of all the sherds recorded, less than 2500 (or less than 20 %) date to the earliest phase of the LBK. During examination, the relative chronology was based on Tichý’s (1962) ceramic typology with amendments suggested by Čižmář (1998, 2002), and the Bylany codex was used for recording (Pavlů et al 1986). Most of the pottery was highly fragmented. However, in spite of the degree of fragmentation, many of the sherds do not indicate signs of weathering and still preserve the original vessel surface, indicating relatively rapid deposition. Interestingly the pattern of breakage on some sherds suggests intentional fragmentation, caused by driving a sharp object through the vessel base, a practice which has also been recognized at later LBK sites (Tichý 1958).

Inter-generational transmission of cultural knowledge can therefore be established at the site between the emergent phase and the phase of initial expansion, and the manner in which identity was expressed amongst its occupants through material culture can be examined. The Migrationist Approach This approach suggests the colonization of Central Europe by agro-pastoral populations without significant Mesolithic influence (Fig. 2) (Childe 1957; Piggott 1965; Vencl 1986; van Andel and Runnells 1995; CavalliSforza and Cavalli-Sforza 1995). This model therefore anticipates a sparsely populated landscape available to pioneering agro-pastoral groups (Starčevo-Criş-Körös) arriving from the south-east. Indigenous huntinggathering populations, such as there were, ceased to exist without ever significantly influencing the arriving populations, or possibly were terminated by them (see for instance Vencl 1982).

The majority of the early LBK material at the site (both the Široká u Lesa cemetery and the settlement) has been dated typologically (Mateiciucová 1997; Čižmář 2002; Lukes, current research) to phase 1B (Tichý 1962; Čižmář 1998, 2002). Two radiocarbon samples taken from the “Široká u Lesa“ cemetery, VERA-1831 and VERA-1832 (Podborský 2002b: 238), suggest a date range of 5300 – 5100 BC (Podborský 2002a: 316-317; Podborský 2002b: 238). This means that at this time, the occupants of Vedrovice were probably contemporary 21

LBK DIALOGUES

TIME 1st BALKAN NEOLITHIC

MESOLITHIC POPULATIONS

6000 – 5600

BC

5600 – 5400

BC

5000

BC

Generational Transmission

Generational Transmission

Generational Transmission

LBK EMERGENCE N.W. HUNGARY W. SLOVAKIA, E. AUSTRIA S. MORAVIA

MESOLITHIC POPULATIONS Generational Transmission

Generational Transmission

Generational Transmission

LBK SPREAD

MESOLITHIC POPULATIONS

BOHEMIA POLAND GERMANY

Generational Transmission

Generational Transmission

Generational Transmission

Fig. 2: The Migrationist Approach. This model anticipates a sparsely populated landscape available to pioneering agro-pastoral groups (first Balkan Neolithic) arriving from the south-east. Indigenous hunting-gathering populations ceased to exist without ever significantly influencing the arriving populations. 22

ALENA LUKES: SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

Emblemic Symbolism (Stressed Symbolism) Status & Prestige Communal Identity Agency

Isochrestic Symbolism (Unstressed Symbolism) Individual Personhood Habitus – Routine Practice

Intentional Replication

Unintentional Replication

Colonists First Balkan Neolithic Symbolism

Colonists First Balkan Neolithic Symbolism

Use of such symbols through Agency

Use of such symbols through Habitus Routine Practice Expression of Personhood

Symbol modification by following generations via Agency&Innovation

Symbol modification by following generations via Habitus&Innovation

Fig. 3: The Migrationist Approach. The nature of routine practice resides in the originating colonist population, implying that virtually all of the variation in material culture should find precedents in the ancestral culture of the first Balkan Neolithic (Starčevo-Criş-Körös) since the newly arrived settlers would have replicated their traditional ways in the new homeland. should involve primarily changes in technology such as pottery fabric sources, stone tool sources, building materials, and dietary requirements – but not changes in emblemic symbolism such as decorative designs and cultural objects which would have continued to reinforce the distinctiveness of the Starčevo-Criş-Körös.

In this model, the nature of routine practice resides in the originating colonist population, implying that virtually all of the variation in material culture should find precedents in the ancestral culture of the Starčevo-Criş-Körös since the newly arrived settlers would have replicated their traditional ways in the new homeland (Fig. 3). In other words, in all domains of material culture, there should be imported characteristics with obvious links to the older, ancestral and parental culture of the Starčevo-Criş-Körös. Some variation may be anticipated due to innovation and adaptation to suit the new environment and sources – but

This model finds some support in the ceramic assemblage. Characteristics often attributed to the Starčevo-Criş-Körös tradition such as double conical shapes, flat bases, hollow feet, relief bands with finger

23

LBK DIALOGUES

a

1st BALKAN NEOLITHIC

MESOLITHIC POPULATIONS

Generational Transmission

Generational Transmission

6000 – 5600 BC

Generational Transmission

Generational Transmission

N. W. HUNGARY

TIME

FORMATION AND EMERGENCE OF LBK N. W. HUNGARY

5600 - 5400

BC

Generational Transmission W. SLOVAKIA, MORAVIA Generational Transmission S. E. AUSTRIA Generational Transmission

S. POLAND, BOHEMIA Generational Transmission S. E. GERMANY

Fig. 4: The Indigenist Approach. This model anticipates the adoption of elements of the “Neolithic Package” by indigenous Mesolithic populations.

Generational Transmission 5000

24

BC

ALENA LUKES: SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

display, should emphasize Neolithic symbols and innovation arising from a desire to adopt the Neolithic lifestyle and partake in the wider “Neolithic” world. Agency plays a large role as the Mesolithic folk replicate Neolithic elements while still involved in negotiation of social relationships within essentially Mesolithic communities.

impressions were present in the overall earliest LBK ceramic assemblage. However their presence is minimal. Painting, a widespread practice in the south east, was not identified on any of the earliest sherds. No clay models were identified amongst the assemblage, nor were clay spoons or clay stamps. This suggests therefore, that the identified Starčevo-Criş-Körös characteristics constitute a practice of intrusive origin.

Several unique sherds at Vedrovice were decorated by incisions into still wet clay. These sherds bear a striking resemblance to motifs used on some Körös clay stamps. No clay stamps were identified within the overall assemblage of the earliest LBK at Vedrovice however, which can be interpreted as a transference of the decorative motif – but a rejection of the function associated with the object (since the clay stamp itself was not replicated). In other words, they copied the design, but not the tool itself.

At some earliest LBK sites, the proportion of stone tools made from Hungarian radiolarite exceeds 50% of the total assemblage (Gronenborn 1999, 1997; Lenneis and Lüning 2001) as would be expected from colonists arriving with an entirely imported range of material culture with ancestral links in south eastern Europe. However this argument is weakened by two observations: this is not true at all earliest LBK sites, and the use of Hungarian radiolarite has been identified amongst Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (Mateiciucová 2002). Furthermore, it is illuminating to consider that Hungarian radiolarite was almost exclusive at Neckenmarkt, Austria yet the ceramic material did not reflect an equally close relationship with south eastern Europe (Lenneis and Lüning 2001).

There are additional variations in the earliest LBK material culture repertoire. Clay spoons were found at Bojanovice, but not at Újezd-Žadovice or Boškovstejn which lacked spoons but yielded clay altars (Podborský 1993). Whereas Mohelnice included a wooden well onsite (Tichý 1998), an enclosure was already constructed at Brno-Lískovec at this time (Berkovec and Čižmář 2001), neither of which have been identified at Vedrovice.

The Indigenist Approach

Not in the emergent phase, but in the following phase of initial expansion, potters began to add ground up ceramics to the clay paste. The same has been identified at Mohelnice (Ra. Tichý, pers. comm.). At Vedrovice potters also added ochre to the clay paste. Ochre was not only found on the settlement in raw form, but also placed with the dead in both cemeteries (Podborský 2002a). Given that the preliminary interpretations presented here imply the presence of an indigenous population in the earliest LBK, I interpret these actions as practices related to the creation of “place” and a link with the ancestors. In this regard it may also be interesting to associate the presence of drilled ceramic ‘disks’ (sherds roughly shaped into circular disks) on the settlements with spondylus pendants in the cemetery due to their approximately similar appearance (especially those drilled twice). Alternatively, the presence of unprepared drilled sherds are sometimes interpreted as the remains of strainers, which are predominantly known from postLBK times, but which have been securely associated with younger LBK assemblages (Spurný 1981) and are ascribed a dairy or cheese making function. Their usually small size and light weight negate the function of these drilled ‘disks’ as spindle whorls.

An alternative approach suggests the adoption of elements of the “Neolithic Package” by indigenous Mesolithic populations exclusively through frontier contact and cultural diffusion (Fig. 4) (Dennell 1983; Barker 1985; Tilley 1994; Thomas 1996; Whittle 1996; Pluciennik 1998). In this model, agro-pastoral farming and associated culture are adopted by Mesolithic huntergatherers and disseminated via already present contact networks. This scenario predicts interactions between indigenous Mesolithic groups and Starčevo-Criş-Körös farmers. As predicted by the model of frontier mobility (Zvelebil 2000), after initial contact, the groups engage in trade and exchange leading to kinship networks eventually resulting in the transfer of individuals as partners between the indigenous communities and the Starčevo-Criş-Körös groups. On ethnographic grounds, and now with some additional archaeological evidence from south-west German LBK contexts (Bentley et al. 2003), this usually involved the movement of women to farming communities. In response to these developments, Mesolithic people, more specifically men, adopt aspects of Neolithic social and economic life in order to remain competitive, but do so within the scope of their own traditions, while at the same time striving to maintain their own unique sense of personhood and communal identity. In terms of material culture, the isochrestic and private realm within routine practice should reflect Mesolithic practices (Fig. 5). However the emblemic, prestige elements of material culture intended for public

Often, designs complementary to the main motif were added to the overall ornamentation. These comprised short dashes (“II” or “=”) between the main design, and have strong parallels elsewhere both east and west beginning with the earliest LBK. I interpret this as an emblematic expression of “LBKness” that would have been recognized by fellow members of the LBK 25

LBK DIALOGUES

Emblemic Symbolism (Stressed Symbolism) Status & Prestige Communal Identity Agency

Isochrestic Symbolism (Unstressed Symbolism) Individual Personhood Habitus – Routine Practice

Intentional Replication

Unintentional Replication

Indigens First Balkan Neolithic Symbolism

Indigens Mesolithic Ancestral Symbolism

Use of such symbols through Agency

Use of such symbols through Habitus Routine Practice

Symbol modification by following generations via Agency&Innovation

Symbol modification by following generations via

Habitus&Innovation

Fig. 5: The Indigenist Approach. In terms of material culture, the isochrestic and private realm within routine practice should reflect Mesolithic practices. However the emblemic, prestige elements of material culture intended for public display, should emphasize Neolithic symbols and innovation arising from a desire to adopt the Neolithic lifestyle and partake in the wider “Neolithic” world. mechanisms such as leapfrog colonization, frontier mobility and contact, and offers and intermediary, regionally specific position (Fig. 6) (Zvelebil 1986, 1989, 1995, 1996; Price 1987; Price and Gebauer 1992; Zilhno 1993; Chapman 1994; Renfrew 1996; Thorpe 1996; Auban 1997).

community. This is supported by the fact that the application of these motifs remains constant over time at Vedrovice, in spite of changes in fabric, firing and design. This pattern was therefore transmitted from one generation to the next, and replicated without change – implying its meaning or significance was still considered important enough or valid enough to replicate unaltered (Lukes, current research).

In this model, small groups of Starčevo-Criş-Körös colonists leave their homeland and settle new areas to the north-west. While exploring the new area and getting acquainted with locally available resources, the colonists come into contact with indigenous hunter-gatherers. They establish contacts with Mesolithic groups which

The Integrationist Approach This model predicts the integration of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers into an agro-pastoral lifeway through

26

ALENA LUKES: SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

1st BALKAN NEOLITHIC

MESOLITHIC POPULATIONS

Generational Transmission

TIME 6000 – 5600 BC

Generational Transmission

Generational Transmission

Generational Transmission

INFLUENCED & MARGINALIZED

LBK EMERGENCE N.W. HUNGARY W. SLOVAKIA, E. AUSTRIA S. MORAVIA

5600 – 5400 BC Generational Transmission

Generational Transmission Generational Transmission

Generational Transmission

INFLUENCED & MARGINALIZED

LBK SPREAD BOHEMIA POLAND GERMANY

Generational Transmission

Generational Transmission Generational Transmission

Generational Transmission

ACUTELY MARGINALIZED

5000

BC

Fig. 6: The Integrationist Approach. This model predicts the integration of the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers into an agro-pastoral lifeway through mechanisms such as leapfrog colonization, frontier mobility and contact, and offers and intermediary, regionally specific position. 27

Colonists

28 Symbol modification by following generations via Habitus&Innovation

Use of such symbols through Agency

Symbol modification by following generations via Habitus&Innovation

Use of such symbols through Habitus Routine Practice Expression of Personhood

Colonists First Balkan Neolithic Symbolism

I

Symbol modification by following generations via Habitus&Innovation

Use of such symbols through Habitus Routine Practice Expression of Personhood

ndigens Mesolithic Ancestral Symbolism

Fig. 7: The Integrationist Approach. This approach implies the blending of two populations, with the Neolithic segment of the population in a position of dominance. This results in a dual track situation such that in public, or emblemic discourse and social action dominated by agency, the code of interaction would have been dominated by the idiom of the intrusive Neolithic element. However in the isochrestic and private realm, each individual segment of the population would continue with its own routine practice (Neolithic and Mesolithic respectively).

Symbol modification by following generations via Agency&Innovation

Use of such symbols through Agency

Indigens First Balkan Neolithic Symbolism

Unintentional Replication

Intentional Replication

First Balkan Neolithic Symbolism

Habitus – Routine Practice

Isochrestic Symbolism (Unstressed Symbolism) Individual Personhood

Emblemic Symbolism (Stressed Symbolism) Status & Prestige Communal Identity Agency

LBK DIALOGUES

ALENA LUKES: SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

Bowls formed a large proportion of vessel shapes identified in the overall earliest LBK assemblage at Vedrovice. Bowls have been associated with a function of food preparation and consumption, and as such imbued with emblemic meaning (Halstead 1996). This model therefore predicts the presence of Starčevo-Criş-Körös identity signifiers on these bowls – however instead most bowls are either undecorated or bear deep wide grooves, which although distinctive of the earliest LBK is not entirely characteristic of the Starčevo-Criş-Körös.

result in exchanges of Starčevo-Criş-Körös items such as pottery, polished stone tools and agricultural produce for raw materials, furs, honey, and other wild produce. Through such contacts, hunter-gatherers are co-opted to join the farming communities and to adopt farming practices themselves. This implies the blending of two populations, with the Neolithic segment of the population in a position of dominance. This results in a dual track situation such that in public, or emblemic discourse and social action dominated by agency, the code of interaction would have been dominated by the idiom of the intrusive Neolithic element (Fig. 7). However in the isochrestic and private realm, each individual segment of the population would continue with its own routine practice (Neolithic and Mesolithic respectively).

Although not all analyses have been completed, and comparisons have emphasized aspects of ceramics, this preliminary interpretation of the pottery does suggest indigenous elements in the assemblage. However the extent to which indigenous Mesolithic communities participated in the replication of Neolithic traditions is not clear at this point. In other words, while the integrationist “blending” scenario remains a concrete possibility, the relative contribution of each community to the generation of the new LBK cultural identity remains to be established.

In this scenario, the colonists have the dominant role, and engage in the replication of their culture – especially material culture involved in activities of social importance and emblemic significance. For the first few generations, while the “homeland” and its cultural traditions are still in living memory, the replication of these signifiers is likely to occur with only minor variations brought about by individual expressions of personhood.

The Indigenist Versus the Integrationist Approach Both the indigenist and the integrationist approaches call attention to the indigenous population in the earliest LBK. It merits emphasis that the distinction between these two approaches is a matter of degree, not a categorical difference.

The assimilated hunter-gatherers on the other hand, emulate the colonists’ identity signifiers in the public domain in order to minimize social distance between the groups whenever referring to emblemic material culture involved in the public displays of status and identity. At the same time however, they can be expected to express their ancestral identity and individual personhood in the socially unstressed, private and routine domain, by continuing to use hunter-gatherer symbolism via habitus and isochrestic variation.

The local tradition in the indigenist model represents the hunter-gatherer population both culturally and genetically. All members of the community shared the same basic traditions and lifeways, and were free to explore the new ideas and technologies made available to them, resulting in a high degree of experimentation and variation in the earliest LBK. However in the private domain, the indigenist symbolism continued to be emphasized.

Several distinct coarseware sherds were identified in the overall earliest LBK pottery assemblage. These globular/ spherical vessels are often associated with a function of storage - implying a minimal emblemic significance, and primary use in the private realm associated with isochrestic meaning and within routine practice. These sherds have a distinct “corded appearance,” resulting from pinching of the clay, are porous, and fired at low temperatures. These sherds are similar in appearance to two other vessels in Moravia, one from Brno-Holásky and the other from Želešice (Podborský 1993:78). The Brno-Holásky pot appears to employ a similar technique of decoration, but the decorative motif on the Vedrovice sherds is completely different. Furthermore, although the decorative motif on the Želešice pot is similar to the Vedrovice sherds (repeating diamond) the technique of decoration appears to be slightly different (the Želešice pot appears to be more “bead” like). Finally it is interesting to note that this type of decoration, identified in the private realm, finds no precedence in the pottery assemblages of south eastern Europe.

The local population in the integrationist approach also shared the same basic traditions and lifeways, but had become subsumed in the emblemically dominant colonist culture, resulting in the described dual track situation. This becomes evident in the private realm, wherein the colonists and indigenist material culture exists side by side. Conclusion In this paper I have explored an approach for understanding change and continuity in the earliest LBK based on the inter-generational transmission of cultural knowledge within the scope of routine practice, agency and structure. The strength of this approach is in linking archaeological signatures with human actions and interactions which elucidate the origin of the LBK in terms of human behavior.

29

LBK DIALOGUES

and J.W. Hoopes (eds) The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies. pp. 89-97. Bogucki, P. (2001) Recent Research on Early Farming in Central Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 28: 85-97. Bordieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. (1986) Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Cavalli-Sfroza, L.L. and Cavalli-Sforza, F. (1995) The Great Human Diasporas: the History of Diversity and Evolution. Addison-Wesley, New York. Chapman, J. (1994) The Origins of Farming in South East Europe. Prehistoire Européenne 6: 133-156. Childe, V.G. (1957) The Dawn of European Civilisation. Kegan Paul, London. Čižmář, Z. (1998) Nástin Relativní Chronologie Lineární Keramiky na Moravě: Poznámky k Vývoji Výzdobného Stylu. Časopis Moravského Muzea 83: 105 – 139. Čižmář, Z. (2002) Keramika z Pohřebiště v „Široká u Lesa.“ IN: V. Podborský (ed) Dvě Pohřebiště Neolitického Lidu S Lineární Keramikou Ve Vedrovicích na Moravě. Ústav Archeologie a Muzeologie, Filozofická Fakulta Masarykovy Univerzity, Brno. pp. 151-190. Collard, M. and Shennan, S.J. (2000) Ethnogenesis versus Phylogenesis in Prehistoric Culture Change: a Case-Study using European Neolithic Pottery and Biological Phylogenetic Techniques. IN: C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds) Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. pp. 89-97. Dennell, R. (1983) European Economic Prehistory. Academic Press, London. Dornan, J.L. (2002) Agency and Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9(4): 303-329. Frankel, D. (2000) Migration and Ethnicity in Prehistoric Cyprus: Technology as Habitus. European Journal of Archeology 3(2): 167-187. Fridrich, J. and Sýkorová I. (2002) Chržín (okres Kladno). Preliminary report presented at the Archeologické Výzkumy v Čechách Colloquium in Prague, April 3 – 4. Giddens, A. (1991) Structuration Theory: Past, Present and Future. IN: C. Bryant and D. Jary (eds) Giddens’ Theory of Structuration: A Critical Appreciation. Routledge, London. pp. 201-222. Gillespie, S.D. (2001) Personhood, Agency and Mortuary Ritual: A Case Study from the Ancient Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20: 73-112. Gosselein, O. (2000) Materializing Identities: An African Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(3): 187-217. Gronenborn, D. (1994) Überlegungen zur Ausbreitung der bäuerlichen Wirtschaft in Mitteleuropa: Versuch

I have applied this approach to various aspects of the ceramic assemblage from Vedrovice. The material culture strongly suggests the presence of an indigenous population in the earliest LBK (as illustrated by the integrationist or indigenist scenarios above). The refinement of this approach, and future research, will identify the more likely pathway for the constitution of the LBK and elucidate the motivation behind human actions leading to the formation of this cultural tradition. One of the most important applications of this approach is the reliance on social process and behavioral involvement such that “people” and their actions are once again the main focus of study – rather than the descriptive lists of material culture that have dominated this field of research for so long. Acknowledgements I wish to thank Dr. Alena Humpolová of the Moravské Zemské Muzeum, and Mgr. Tomáš Berkovec of the Archeologické Centrum in Olomouc, for inviting me to participate in the research project “Vedrovice: Ohrazená Osada Kultůry s LnK [Vedrovice: Enclosed Settlement of the LBK Culture]” funded by grant number 404-03-0741 of the Czech Grant Agency. References Auban, J.B. (1997) Indigenism and Migrationism: the Neolithisation of the Iberian Peninsula. Poročilo o Raziskovanju Paleolitika, Neolitika in Eneolitika v Sloveniji 24: 1-18. Bánffy, E. (2000) The Late Starčevo and the Earliest Linear Pottery Groups in Western Transdanubia. Documenta Praehistorica 27: 173-184. Barker, G. (1985) Prehistoric Farming in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Barrett, J. (1994) Fragments from Antiquity: An Archaeology of Social Life in Britain, 2900 – 1200 BC. Blackwell, Oxford. Bauer, A.A. (2002) Is What you See All You Get? Recognizing Meaning in Archaeology. Journal of Social Archaeology 2(1): 37-52. Beneš, A. (1966) Příspěvek k Poznání Mesolitického Osídlení Jižních Čech. Archeologické Rozhledy 18(1): 67-70. Bentley, R.A., Price, T.D. and Chikhi, L. (2003) Comparing Broad Scale Genetic and Local Scale Isotopic Evidence for the Spread of Agriculture into Europe. Antiquity 77: 63-65. Berkovec, T. and Čižmář, Z. (2001) Příkopové Areály v Prostředí Kultury s Lineární Keramikou na Moravě Příspěvek k Řešení Problému Rozšíření, Interpretace, Funkce a Postavení Aréalů s Příkopy v Sídelní Struktuře LnK. Otázky Neolitu a Eneolitu Našich Zemí 2000: 19-45. Bogucki, P. (1995) The Linear Pottery Culture of Central Europe: Conservative Colonists? IN: W.K. Barnett

30

ALENA LUKES: SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

Diversity Diagrams. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19: 39-74. Macdonald, D.H. (1998) Subsistence, Sex and Cultural Transmission in Folsom Culture. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17: 217-239. Makkay, J. (1978) Excavations at Bicske I: The Early Neolithic. Alba Regia 16: 9-60. Mateiciucová, I. (1997) Štípaná Industrie na Pohřebišti Kultury s LnK ve Vedrovicích. Pravěk Nová Řada 7: 77-104. Mateiciucova, I. (2002) Silexartefakte der Ältesten und Älteren LBK Aus Brunn Am Gebirge, Niederösterreich (Vorbericht). Antaeus 25: 170-187. Modderman, P.J.R. (1988) The Linear Pottery Culture: Diversity in Uniformity. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38: 63-120. Nettle, D. (1999) Linguistic Diversity. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Neustupný, E. (1956) K Relativní Chronologii Volutové Keramiky. Archeologické Rozhledy 8: 386-407. Osborn, A.J. (1996) Cattle, Co-Wives, Children and Calabashes: Material Context for Symbol use Among the II Chamus of West-Central Kenya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15: 107-136. Pavlů, I. (2000) Life on a Neolithic Site: Bylany – Situational Analysis of Artefacts. Institute of Archeology, Prague. Pavlů, I.; Rulf, J. and Zápotocká, M. (1986) Theses on the Neolithic Site of Bylany. Památky Archeologické 77: 288-412. Pavúk, J. (1979) Genetické a Chronologické Vzťahy Lineárnej Keramiky v Strednom Podunajsku. Sborník Poczƒtki Neolityzacji Polski PoÄudniowo-Zachodniej. pp. 69-80. Pavúk, J. (1980) Ältere Linearkeramik in der Slowakei. Slovenská Archeológia 28(1): 7-90. Pavúk, J. (1994) Zur Relativen Chronologie der Älteren Linearkeramik. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36: 135-149. Piggott, S. (1965) Ancient Europe. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Pluciennik, M. (1998) Deconstructing ‘The Neolithic’ in the Mesolithic – Neolithic Transition. IN: M.R. Edmonds and C. Richards (eds) Social Life and Social Change in North-Western Europe. Cruithne Press, Edinburgh. Podborský, V. (ed) (1993) Pravěké Dějiny Moravy. Muzejní Vlastivědná Společnost, Brno. Podborský, V. (ed)(2002a) Dvě Pohřebiště Neolitického Lidu S Lineární Keramikou Ve Vedrovicích na Moravě. Ústav Archeologie a Muzeologie, Filozofická Fakulta Masarykovy Univerzity, Brno. Podborský, V. (2002b) Spondylový Šperk v Hrobech Lidu s Lineární Keramikou ve Vedrovicích. Archeologické Rozhledy 54: 223-240. Price, T.D. (1987) The Mesolithic in Western Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 1: 225- 332. Price, T.D. (2000) Europe’s First Farmers: An Introduction. IN: T.D. Price (ed) Europe’s First

einer Kulturhistorischen Interpretation Ältestbandkeramischer Silexinventare. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 69: 135-151. Gronenborn, D. (1998) Ältestbandkeramische Kultur, La Hoguette, Limburg, and...What else? Contemplating the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in Southern Central Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 25: 189198. Gronenborn, D. (1999) A Variation on a Basic Theme: The Transition to Farming in Southern Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13(2): 123-210. Hall, M. (2001) Social Archaeology and the Theaters of Memory. Journal of Social Archaeology 1(1): 50-61. Halstead, P. (1996) The Development of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Greece: When, How, Who, What? IN: D. Harris (ed) The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. University College London Press, London. Hastorf, C. (1997) The Cultural Life of Early Domestic Plant Use. Antiquity 72(278): 773-782. Hodder, I. (1989) The Meanings of Things. Harper Collins Academic, London. Humpolová, A. (2001) Rondeloid Číslo III Lidu s Moravskou Malovanou Keramikou ve Vedrovicích. IN: V. Podborský (ed) 50 Let Archeologických Výzkumů Masarykovy University na Znojemsku. pp. 157-166. Jochim, M. (2000) The Origins of Agriculture in SouthCentral Europe. IN: T.D. Price (ed) Europe’s First Farmers. pp. 183-196. Jordan, P. and Shennan, S. (2003) Cultural Transmission, Language and Basketry Traditions Amongst the California Indians. Journal of Anthropological Archeology 22: 42-74. Kálicz, N. (1993) The Early Phases of the Neolithic in Western Hungary (Transdanubia). Poročilo o Raziskovanju Paleolitika, Neolitika in Eneolitika v Sloveniji 21: 85-92. Kálicz, N. (1995) Die Älteste Transdanubische (Mitteleropäische) Linienbandkeramik: Aspekte zu Ursprung, Chronologie und Beziehungen. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47: 23-59. Klíma, B. (1953) Nové Mezolitické Nálezy na Jižní Moravě. Archeologické Rozhledy 5: 297-302. Lenneis, E. (2001) The Beginning of the Neolithic in Austria – A Report About Recent and Current Investigations. Documenta Praehistorica 28: 99-116. Lenneis, E. and Lüning. J. (2001) Die Altbandkeramischen Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen. Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt, Bonn. Lipo, C.P.; Madsen, M.E.; Dunnel, R.C. and Hunt, T. (1997) Population Structure, Cultural Transmission and Frequency Seriation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16: 301-333. Lüning, J. (1988) Frühe Bauern in Mitteleuropa im 6. und 5. Jahrtousend v. Ch. Jährbuch des Römischgermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 35(1): 27-93. Lyman, R.L. and O’Brien, J. (2000) Measuring and Explaining Change in Artifact Variation with Clade31

LBK DIALOGUES

Thorpe, I.J. (1996) The Origins o Agriculture in Europe. Routledge, London. Tichý, Ra. (1998) The Context of the Early LBK Well At Mohelnice. Brunnen der Jungsteinzeit. Boden Kmalfleige im Rheinland. pp. 45 – 50. Tichý, Ru. (1958) Antropomorfní Nádoby z Mohelnice na Moravě a Jiné Poznámky k Volutové Keramice. Památky Archeologické 44(1): 1-14. Tichý, Ru. (1960) K Nejstarší Volutové Keramice na Moravě. Památky Archeologické 51: 415-439. Tichý, Ru. (1962) Osídlení s Volutovou Keramikou na Moravě. Památky Archeologické 53(2): 245-305. Tilley, C. (1991) Material Culture and Text: The Art of Ambiguity. Routledge, London. Tilley, C. (1994) A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Berg, Oxford. Tillman, A. (1994) Kontinuität oder Diskontinuität? Zur Frage Einer Bandkeramischen Landnahme im Südlichen Mitteleurupa. Archäologische Informationen. 16(2): 157-187. Tringham, R. (1971) Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of Eastern Europe 6000-3000BC. Hutchinson University Library, London. Van Andel, T.H. and Runnells, C.N. (1995) The Earliest Farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69: 481-500. Vencl, S. (1982) K Otázce Zániku Sběračsko Loveckých Kultur: Problematika Vztahů Mesolitu Vůči Neolitu a Postmesolitických Kořistníků Vůči Mladším Pravěkým Kulturám. Archeologické Rozhledy 34: 648-689. Vencl, S. (1986) The Role of Hunting-Gathering Populations in the Transition to Farming: A Central European Perspective. IN: M. Zvelebil (ed) Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 43 – 52. Vencl, S. (1990) K Otázkám Časoprostorových Rozdílů v Intenzitě Paleolitických a Mezolitických Osídlení ve Střední Evropě. Památky Archeologické 81: 448-457. Vencl, S. (1992) Mesolithic Settlement on Cadastral Territory of Sopotnice, District Ústí nad Orlicí. Památky Archeologické 83: 7-40. Vencl, S. (1993) Zum Forschungsstand des Tsechoslowakischen Mesolithikums. Památky Archeologické 84: 148-151. Vencl, S. and Fröhlich J. (2002) Prvý Doklad Mezolitické Výtvarné Aktivity z Čech? Archeologické Rozhledy 54: 810-816. Whittle, A. (1996) Europe in the Neolithic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wiessener, P. (1983) Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48: 253-276. Wobst, H.M. (1999) Style in Archaeology or Archaeologists in Style. IN: E.S. Chilton (ed) Material Meanings. University of Utah, Salt Lake City. pp. 118-132. Zilhno, J. (1997) Maritime Pioneer Colonization in the Early Neolithic of the West Mediterranean: Testing

Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 1-18. Price, T.D. and Gebauer A.B. (1992) The Final Frontier: Foragers to Farmers in Southern Scandinavia. IN: A.B. Gebauer and T.D. Price (eds) Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Prehistory Press, Madison. Prošek, F. (1950) Mesolitické Hroby v Obříství? Archeologické Rozhledy 2: 40-44. Prošek, F. (1951) Mesolitická Chata v Tašovicích. Archeologické Rozhledy 3: 12-15. Quitta, H. (1960) Zur Frage der Ältesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 38: 153-188. Renfrew, C. (1996) Prehistory and Identity of Europe, or Don’t Let’s be Beastly to the Hungarians. IN: P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones, and C. Gamble (eds) Identity and Archaeology: the Construction of European Communities. Routledge, London. Sackett, J.R. (1985) Style, and Ethnicity in the Kalahari: A Reply to Wiessner. American Antiquity 50(1): 154159. Schiffer, M.B. and Miller, A.R. (1999) The Material Life of Human Beings: Artefacts, Behaviour and Communication. Routledge, London. Shennan, S.J. and Wilkinson, J.R. (2001) Ceramic Style Change and Neutral Evolution: A Case Study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity 66(4): 577-593. Silliman, S. (2001) Agency, Practical Politics and the Archaeology of Culture Contact. Journal of Social Archaeology 1(2): 190-209. Soudský, B. (1956) K Relativní Chronologii Volutové Keramiky. Archeologické Rozhledy 8: 408-412. Spencer, C.S. (1993) Human Agency, Biased Transmission, and the Cultural Evolution of Chiefly Authority. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12: 41-74. Spurný, V. (1981) Pozoruhodný Nález Lineární Keramiky na Moravě. Praehistorica 8 Varia Archaeologica 2: 27-30. Stadler, P. (1999) Frühneolithische Fundstellen von Brunn am Gebirge, Flur Wolfholz, NÖ. http://www.nhm-wien.ac.at/NHM/Prehist/Stadler/ Brunn/index.html. Stone, T. (2003) Social Identity and Ethnic Interaction in the Western Pueblos of the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10(1): 31-67. Svoboda, J.; Cílek, V.; Jarošová L. and Peša, V. (1999) Mezolit z Perspektivy Regionu: Výzkumy v Ústí Pekla. Archeologické Rozhledy 51: 243-264. Svoboda, J.; Jarošová L. and Drozdová, E. (2000) The North Bohemian Mesolithic Revisited: The Excavation Seasons 1998 – 1999. Anthropologie 38(3): 291-305. Thomas, J. (1996) The Cultural Context of the First Use of Domesticates in Continental Cental and Northwest Europe. IN: D. Harris (ed) The Origin and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. University College London Press, London. pp. 310-322.

32

ALENA LUKES: SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

the Model Against the Evidence. Poročilo o Raziskovanju Paleolitika, Neolitika in Eneolitika v Sloveniji 24: 19-42. Zvelebil, M. (ed) (1986) Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Zvelebil, M. (1989) On the Transition to Farming in Europe, or what was Spreading with the Neolithic: A Reply to Ammerman (1989). Antiquity 63: 379-383. Zvelebil, M. (1996) Farmers, our Ancestors, and the Identity of Europe. IN: S. Jones, C. Gamble and P. Graves (eds) European Communities: Archaeology and the Construction of Cultural Identity. Routledge, London. Zvelebil, M. (2000) The Social Context of the Agricultural Transition in Europe. IN: C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds) Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge. pp. 57-79.

33

34

Part 2 The Earliest LBK and What Came Before: The Emergence of Traditions

36

THE NEOLITHISATION OF THE BALKANS: WHERE IN THE PUZZLE? Mihael Budja Abstract The transition to farming in the Balkans is discussed as a palimpsest related to artefact assemblages, subsistence and archaeo-genetic data. It is suggested that the transition was well embedded in the Late Mesolithic-Early Neolithic Balkans koine, where the transformation of hunting and gathering into farming societies took place in an arena of selective integration of the new technologies and social practices, as much as the result of intensive connections and exchange networks.

1980: 66-67). It is worth remembering it was historian Herodotus of Halicarnassus (ca 485-425 BC) who marked the agricultural frontier in his book The History as the boundary between the civilized and the barbarian world. In the Balkans, the transition to farming has been related to intrusive agricultural communities that created the Neolithic diaspora in which farming communities dispersed across the regions. It was hypothesised that the migrating farmers brought in the new technologies, and since Gordon Childe put forward the idea that pot making is a virtually universal characteristic of Neolithic communities, as well as an indicator of cultural identity and diffusion, the appearance and the dispersal of pottery have been understood for decades as the exclusive marker of cultural discontinuity between Late Mesolithic and Early Neolithic cultures, and the southeast to north-west expansion of Early Neolithic ethnic groups. It was even hypothesized that the region was a permanent recipient of repeated waves of migration, cultural diffusion and know-how transfer from Asia Minor. The ex oriente lux model has been used for decades as a tool for reconstructing the ethno-genesis of Early Neolithic Balkan cultures. The main argument in identifying the dependence on near eastern cultural traditions has been limited to typological similarities in Anatolian and Balkan pottery production. Population movement was chosen as a better explanation for change in the archaeological record, rather than local indigenous development.

Introduction We certainly have to draw attention in the very beginning to the restrictions which will influence the success of our approach. The first states on an epistemological level, that we are dealing with processes which cannot be directly observed. The second restricts the empirical importance of explanations from actual ideological contexts. We must also not overlook the loop that can be described as “double discontinuity”, the discontinuity between the past and the present, and between the material world and the world of ideas, all of which makes relative the value of archaeological explanation. In other words, we can research the archaeological record, but we cannot study the processes, which created them (Klejn 1982). After many years of modern investigation, the transition from the mainly hunter-gatherer Mesolithic, to the predominantly farming societies of the Neolithic in the Balkans still remains embedded in the context of a succession of periods, a linear evolution and cultural development which links mobile hunter-gatherer groups with the Mesolithic, and sedentary farmers with the Neolithic. The Mesolithic social system has been hypothesised to comprise exogamous and territorial band organizations economically based on common access to resources. Indeed, the conclusion often drawn is that large parts of the region were completely uninhabited during the early Postglacial, and the absence of Mesolithic habitation has been accepted as fact by a number of scholars (Tringham 1968: 46-53, 67. Fig.7; Perlès 2001: 20-63). The initial appearance of Neolithic communities ascribed to tell-type sites on the tip of the Balkan Peninsula, has therefore been linked to the first farming communities supposedly migrating from the Near East and colonising the Southern Balkans. It became broadly accepted that migrating farmers brought in all the concomitant knowledge and skills of farming and cultivation, that they removed many risks and uncertainties thereby allowing for accumulation and redistribution, and thus making sharing far from desirable.

A recent revival of interest in the transition to farming has brought about the understanding that shifts from hunting, fishing and gathering to agriculture depend on a number of particular conjunctions of circumstances in particular places at particular times, and that recognition of the processes by which agriculture and pastoralism became established throughout Eurasia remain problematic. The Balkans The Balkans comprise a complex geographic region in the shape of a triangular peninsula with a wide northern border, narrowing to a tip as it extends to the south, embedded in southeast Europe. In the northeast and north it is exposed to the steppe regions of the Ukraine and the Carpathian basin. The Black, the Aegean, the Mediterranean and the Adriatic Seas surround it in the east, south and the southwest. The narrow straits of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles in the southeast are a natural gateway between the Balkans and Anatolia, and

The prejudices toward hunter-gatherers in general, and Mesolithic peoples in particular, are still current in the typologically oriented perception of Balkan prehistory ever since Gordon Childe put forward the concepts of “an oriental view” and of the European Neolithic “as a story of imitation” and “at best an adaptation of Middle Eastern achievements” (compare Budja 1996: 61-76; Trigger 37

LBK DIALOGUES

Asia beyond. In the northwest, the valley of the Danube and the flat Pannonian plain connect it to Central Europe. Going into the Central and Northern Balkans, one is moving from a dominantly Mediterranean and subMediterranean environment into an increasingly continental one. The mountains divide the region into small units, in which distinct ethnic groups have been able to sustain themselves. Every district has been subdivided into vertical ecological zones, ranging from more valuable lowland farming areas to less valuable wooded or rocky uplands. This variety of ecological niches supports various cultures in close proximity. Balkan is actually a Turkish word which means “woody mountain,” and was introduced in the fifteenth century to name a mountain in northern Bulgaria. It was adapted quickly to encompass the wider area of the mountain range between the Adriatic and the Black sea. The term “Balkan Peninsula” was used to name the entire area, and was first used in the nineteenth century. We use the name today within a cultural and political context to denote a concrete geographical and historical reality. By the Boreal period the environment of the region had became not too dissimilar from the one today. Such an environment was populated with hunter-gatherer groups, and although their presence in central and northern Europe is well documented, only a sparse settlement pattern is observable in the Balkans. Mesolithic sites are unequally distributed throughout the region, with clusters reported on the Aegean seacoast as well in Thessaly, the Dinarid Mountains in the Adriatic, the Ionian hinterland and the Danube microregion of the northern Balkans.

The Colonization of the Balkans The most popular orthodox model of the transition to farming in the Balkans is related to intrusive agricultural communities, originally from Anatolia that established various Neolithic settlements from which they gradually colonized the entire region. Therefore the microregion first settled by Anatolian migrants is identified as the primary centre of “neolithisation” in Europe, and corresponds with the spatial distribution of “pre-ceramic” and “monochrome” pottery levels in the active floodplains of Thessaly by the estuary of the Maritza River in Eastern Thrace on the southern tip of the Balkans. The colonization of the entire region is believed to relate to a subsequent wave of northward migrations that was recognized in the dispersion of pottery with white and/or red painted decoration in the northern and eastern Balkans and Cardium-Impresso pottery on the Adriatic coast (van Andel et al. 1995: 481-500; Özdoğan 1997: 19-27; Perlès 2001: 288-89; 2003: 99-114). In the scenario of endemic movement, the first pioneers of the Balkans are hypothesised to have been adventurous individuals, continuing the Near Eastern “great exodus”, who followed different pathways from their original ancestral home to their ultimate settlement in the southern Balkans, along with their most valuable symbols and objects. The restricted geographical distribution of “pins” and “stamp seals” has been used as a key argument in the modelling of the “insular colonisation” and rapid displacement over long distances, since they are hypothesised to have been well embedded in the baggage of the immigrants (Figs. 1 and 2) (Perles 2001: 283-290; 2003: 99-113). They maintain a central position in this context as indicators of initial links to Anatolia in general, and to Hacilar in particular, ever since Milojčić (1959/1960, 1960: 6, 327-328) conceptualized the prepottery Neolithic of Greece. It is well known that in modelling cultural and linguistic transformations of the early spread of farming in Europe, Renfrew (1987: 169170) used “studs”, “nails” and “stamp seals” as signifiers of a “marine version of the wave of advance model,” and as the markers of early farming settlements in the Balkans. But, it is less known that his model was actually based on a cluster of “cultural similarities between Nea Nikomedia and other early sites in Europe, Asia Minor and the Middle East”, that Rodden had previously determined to ground the idea that “southeastern Europe was not peripheral to the region within which the Neolithic revolution began but was an integral part of it” (Rodden 1965: 83-84; 1976: 152-153). The typological similarities between Balkan and Anatolian pottery, as well as the spatially restricted dispersal of selected ornaments, reached paradigmatic status as a cluster of settlements comprising “monochrome” pottery layers on the tip of the Balkans. This became objectified as the primary centre of neolithisation in Europe, and confined as the region first settled by Anatolian migrants. Subsequent expansions

It is evident however, that the present distribution of the late Mesolithic and early Neolithic was very much affected by processes (long-term and catastrophic) that restructured the geomorphology and reshaped the relief of the Balkans in the Holocene. By plotting sites on a general map of southeastern Europe and hypothesising a spatial discontinuity between Mesolithic and Neolithic settlements, we have to take into consideration the fact that the patterns available to research are the outcomes of consecutive cycles of alluviation, erosion, and sedimentation, rise in the Mediterranean sea-level, and recent anthropogenic impacts on the landscape. Many coastal and riverside sites still remain unavailable, while many others have been entirely erased from the surface due to recent intensive agricultural activities. The distinction between Neolithic and Mesolithic sites has also been based on general typological categorizations, which were used to define the cultural sequences of hunter-gatherers and farmers. This dichotomy encourages the perception that farming practices could only have been embedded in typologically-determined Neolithic “cultural” contexts. From this point of view, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the spatial distribution of early Neolithic settlements may not reflect the actual diffusion of farming practices and changes in subsistence strategies.

38

MIHAEL BUDJA: THE NEOLITHISATION OF THE BALKANS: WHERE IN THE PUZZLE?)

Fig. 1: Spatial distribution of Early Neolithic “pins” (●) and “zoomorphic amulets” (▲). List of sites plotted on the map: Gediki, Magoula Koskinas, Sesklo, Soufli, Achilleion, Zappeio, Ayios Georgios, Larisas, Elasson, Nea Nikomedeia, Yannitsa, Dendra, Rudnik, Divostin, Lug kod Zvečke, Kozluk Kremenjak, Grivac, Banja, Dobanovci, Kučajna, Drenovac, Donja Branjevina, Lepenski Vir, Kamenicki potok, Knjepište, Velešnica, Rakitovo, Vaksevo, Koprivec, Cuina Turcului, Ocna Sibiului,Gura Baciului (after Budja 2003: Map 1).

Fig. 2: Spatial distributions of Early Neolithic seals. List of sites plotted on the map: Spiral (●): Bălgarčevo, Kurdžali, Slatino, Grabovac, Hódmezővásárhely, Rug Bair, Trn, Nea Nikomedeia; Horizontal wave and zigzag lines (▲): Tùrkeve, Hódmezővásárhely, Donja Branjevina, Bălgarčevo, Čavdar, Gradešnica, Kazanlik, Slatino, Karanovo, Azmaška mogila, Anzabegovo, Maluk Preslavec, Rakitovo, Gălăbnik, Nea Nikomedeia; Labyrinthine design (▼): Nea Nikomedeia, Sesklo, Pyrasos, Tsangli, Philia, Achilleion, Nessonis, Tečić, Endrőd; Impressed shallow holes (■): Supska, Porodin, Elešnica, Rakitovo, Nea Nikomedeia (after Budja 2003: Map 2). 39

LBK DIALOGUES

hypothesised that a contour map of the distribution of the first principal component of gene frequencies in modern European populations overlapped the pattern of temporal and spatial distribution of early Neolithic settlements. As a result, the frontier lines were converted into isochronic lines marking the simple expansion of populations demic diffusion (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984: 58-62, Fig. 4.5; Cavalli-Sforza 1996: 51-69).

were hypothesised in mutually exclusive regional pottery distributions, reflecting two groups of migrating farmers. The first was objectified in the dispersal of “white and/or red painted” pottery which originated from the Konya plain in central Anatolia (Hacilar), crossed the Marmara region (Ilipinar and Fikirtepe) and served as the marker of migration towards the Carpathian basin. The second centre of Balkan Neolithisation was recognized as the Karanovo and the Starčevo-Körös-Criş complex of Neolithic cultures. The second migration was linked to the dispersal of “Cardium-impresso” pottery restricted to the eastern Adriatic and Ionian coastal area, which is believed to have originated in Syro-Palestinian and Cilician coastal regions. There is a recognizable microregion in the central Balkans and Bosnia, where the complexes overlapped. The combination of painted, barbotine and Cardium-impresso pottery that had been identified in the early Neolithic settlement deposits at Obre, was interpreted as the Starčevo-Impresso culture.

Although archaeological data cannot directly address the question of demic expansion and genetic replacement, estimation of dynamics at the agricultural frontier is directly linked to the identification of the distribution of Early Neolithic sites in “time and space.” An old idea that was revived recently holds that because of an almost total lack of evidence of Mesolithic sites in both Central and Southeast Europe, the Mesolithic population must have been very sparse and, in consequence, allowed farmers to rapidly expand into and colonise the regions (Tringham 1968: 46-53, 67, Fig.7; Pinhasi et al. 2000: 45-56; Gkiasta et al. 2003:45-62). In plotting sites on a map and hypothesising a spatial discontinuity between Mesolithic and Neolithic settlements, we have to take into consideration the fact mentioned above, that the patterns available to research are limited, not only because of the post-depositional processes and recent anthropogenic impacts that reshaped the landscape and restructured the settlement patterns, but also because of fragmentary and incomplete field surveys in the region (Chapman 1989; 1994; van Andel et al. 1995: 131; Lambeck 1996; Ryan et al. 1997: 119-126; Okay et al. 1999: 129).

The most popular recent interpretation is based on the premise of a primary and secondary neolithisation of the Balkans. The first hypothesizes that migrating farmers initially settled the flood plains of rivers and lakes in the Larissa plain in Thessaly. The area to be settled by Anatolian migrants is recognized in the distribution of settlements comprising “pre-ceramic” and “monochrome” pottery layers (Milojčić 1952: 313-318; 1956: 208-210; van Andel and Runnels 1995: 481-500; Perlès 2001: 64-97; 2003: 99-113). The subsequent regional demic expansion towards the Carpathian basin can be related to painted pottery and its dispersal in the central, eastern and northern Balkans. White painted ornament that was embedded in the ornamental practices of the late Early Neolithic southern Balkans, was recognized as the marker of demic expansion, and the creation of a secondary centre of neolithisation in the northern and eastern Balkans. This made it possible to equate the initial phase of the Early Neolithic in the northern Balkans and the Carpathian basin, with its end in Thessaly (Garašanin 1979: 103; Nikolov 1987: 8-19; Garašanin and Radovanović 2001: 118-125; Todorova and Vajsov 1993; Todorova 1998: 27-54).

The idea of demographic explosion on the flood plains, rivers and lakes of the southern Balkans supposedly first occupied by migrating farmers, and the consecutive rapid demic diffusion towards the northern Balkans, fits well with typologically grounded ideas regarding the genesis of the Starčevo-Körös-Çris cultural complex. In this perspective, the spatially restricted dispersal of white painted pottery reverts to the orthodox interpretation of the breakthrough of allochthonous Anatolian “ethnic components.” It is believed that a part of the southern Balkan-Anatolian complex migrated northwards, and through enclaves in Transylvania created the Criş group. The primary colony has been recognized at Gura Baciului, and characterized by red monochrome pottery and white dotted decoration. The earliest Neolithic in the central and northern Balkans is defined through the Carpathian-Balkan complex, which is believed to have developed separately. It comprises the Starčevo culture in the Balkans, and the Körös culture in the Carpathian Basin. Coarse barbotine and common impressed wares dominate in both. Red monochrome and white painted pottery are considered to have been less popular in the development of these groups (Garašanin 1979: 92, 103104, 140; Garašanin and Radovanović 2001: 121-122; Perić 1998/1999: 11-33; 2001/2002: 37; see also Pavlů 1989: 217-222; Schubert 1999: 71-95; Kalicz 2000: 295310; Whittle et al. 2002: 87-88). The grouping of the

The rate of spread of these newcomers across the Balkans and the colonisation of Europe, was objectified for the first time in the sixties by a suggestive pattern of radiocarbon dates plotted on a map of the continent and included the earliest Neolithic settlement strata comprising pottery and domesticates (Clark 1965: 58-73). The updated versions (Breunig 1987; Pinhasi et al. 2000: 45-56; Gkiasta et al. 2003: 45-62) reflect the same southeast to north-west gradient believed to correspond with lines marking the 500 year intervals of the frontier of early Neolithic sites that run parallel to one another over the Balkans. Together these suggested a slow expansion of farmers into Europe, where no prolonged chronological overlap between hunter-gatherers and the onset of early farming was possible. In the eighties it was

40

MIHAEL BUDJA: THE NEOLITHISATION OF THE BALKANS: WHERE IN THE PUZZLE?)

chronologically. However the available dates show an evident contemporaneity of contexts, whether located in the southern or northern Balkans, or in the Ionian or Adriatic coastal areas. It is interesting to consider a plot of settlement contexts used to define the “initial Neolithic” and the “primary centre of neolithisation,” in relation to the original and modified wave-of-advance model of colonisation on the one hand, and the “secondary centre of neolithisation” located about eight hundred kilometres to the north and about five hundred kilometres to the west, on the other (Fig. 3). The first cluster comprises a combination of probability distributions of calibrated radiocarbon dates representing the sequence of events occurring within the initial Neolithic settlement levels at Sesklo and Achilleion in the southernmost part of the Balkans. The latter combination of dates relates to monochrome-impresso pottery and the settlement contexts at Lepenski Vir, Donja Branjevina and Poljanica in the northern and eastern Balkans, as well as Sidari on the Ionian and Vela Spilja on the eastern Adriatic coast. Two sites, Nea Nikomedeia and Anza, were incorporated in the cluster samples, since they have been hypothesized as the markers of a northward oriented demic diffusion. The probability distributions of available radiocarbon dates do not confirm sequential migration and colonization, but rather show a chronologically overlapping regional distribution of settlements where the Neolithic package, or parts of it, were embedded equally in farmer and hunter-gatherers settlement contexts (Budja 2001: 27-47; 2003a: 347-360). The idea that early agriculture in southeastern Europe spread by diffusion and was adopted by local foragers, rather than through migration, has received little recognition. The Balkans are often excluded as a possible area of primary domestication of wild einkorn (Triticum boeoticum), although present-day habitats for wild einkorn exist on the tip of the Balkan Peninsula. It is interesting to note that wild einkorn wheat has been reported amongst the archaeobotanical remains collected from Mesolithic deposits in Theopetra cave. Although einkorn wheat appears to have been less frequent than the two other founder cereals, emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) in the Levantine Neolithic, this is certainly not the case in the Balkans where much richer remains of einkorn wheat are available. Einkorn prevails over emmer wheat in “the frequency of pure hoards”, retaining its principal role throughout the Neolithic and even later periods (Zohary and Hopf 2000: 38-39, 36-42, 243; Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000: 137).

Starčevo-Körös-Criş recognizes typological variation in pottery styles, but it could also have been driven by the recognition of modern political territorial boundaries. While the Starčevo culture relates to the early Neolithic of Serbia, the Körös is located in southeastern Hungary, and the Criş in early Neolithic sites of Romania. There are two alternative interpretations of neolithisation of the eastern Balkans. The first is based on the premise that the sequence of Early Neolithic phases (Karanovo IIII) corresponds with the succession of the colours that were used in colouring the ornaments on (tulip beaker) pottery: white, wine red, brown and polychrome. While white is the one and only colour that marked the initial phase, the others appeared later. Similarity to the traditional Thessalian sequence is, of course not coincidental. Nikolov (1990: 63-69; 1997: 140) hypothesised direct communication between Karanovo, Haçilar VI and Ilipinar X, and that groups of Neolithic farmers first migrated along the Struma and Mesta river valleys to settle Upper Thrace. In contrast, Todorova and Vaysov (Todorova and Vajsov 1993; Todorova 1998: 2736; Vajsov 1998: 108) believe initial neolithisation is reflected in the distribution of “monochrome” pottery, and closely connected with the “great migration” in the mid seventh millennium BC that began from south Central Anatolia, entered Europe via Thessaly and an estuary of the Marica river. Revisiting the Concept Allochthonous Components

of

Autochthonous

and

That the first occupants arrived in Thessalay with the full Neolithic “package” of domesticates and their most valuable objects (“pins”) but not pottery, and that the demographic explosion in the area resulted in demic diffusion towards the northern Balkans - remains speculative. Emphasis has been laid on the increasing quantity of pottery deposited in the so-called aceramic settlement layers, which strongly contradicts the concept of a pre-pottery Neolithic in the southern Balkans and Peloponnesus (Bloedow 1991: 1-43; Vitelli 1993: 39-40; Gallis 1994: 58; 1996: 32; but see also Perlès 1990: 130137; 2001: 64-97). It was calculated on the other hand, that it must have taken some 1500 years to reach “saturation” in the Thessalian flood plains, and that the demic diffusion into the northern Balkans seemed to have been a time of steady but not very rapid population growth and expansion (see also Wilkie and Savina 1997: 201-207; Zvelebil 2000: 57-97; 2001: 1-26). It is worth remembering that in a broader Eurasian context, the earliest pottery in Thessaly, predates by two centuries the appearance of pottery in eastern Thrace, western Anatolia and the Marmara region. Furthermore, Thessalian pottery is considered to have been a local invention, developed on the spot (Thissen 2000a: 133, 194-195, 305; 2000b: 148-149).

Furthermore, several collections of capriovid bones have been found in Mesolithic contexts along the Adriatic coast, mostly ignored by archaeologists, that open the possibility for a very early adoption of capriovids in hunter-gatherer societies. The collections have been dated to around 6000 BC, and are often associated with pottery, whether “impresso” or ”monochrome” (Budja 1993: 163-193; Boschin and Riedel 2000: 74, 83; Mlekuž 2003: 139-151).

Few radiocarbon dates are available in the Balkans to anchor the Early Neolithic settlement distribution 41

LBK DIALOGUES

C:\Programi\OxCal\intcal98.14c OxCal v3.9 Bronk Ramsey (2003); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Vela spilja 7300±120BP Sidari 7340±180BP R_Combine DBranjevinaIII R_Combine Lepenski Vir H54 LepenskiVir H36 7275±60BP R_Combine Poljanica R_Combine Anza Ia R_Combine Nea Nikomedeia R_Combine Achilleion I R_Combine Sesklo 8000CalBC

7000CalBC

6000CalBC

5000CalBC

Calibrated date Fig. 3: C14. Probability distribution plot of radiocarbon dates correlating with the contexts and assemblages at Sesklo, Achilleion, Nea Nikomedeia, Anza, Poljanica, Lepenski Vir, Donja Branjevina, Sidari and Vela špilja mentioned in the text (after Todorova 1989; Müller 1994; Bonsall et al. 2000; Thissen 2000a; Garašanin and Radovanović 2001; Perlès 2001; Čečuk and Radić 2001; Whittle et al. 2002). Sesklo - “aceramic” (P1681, 7755±97; P1682, 7483 ±72; P1680, 7300±93); Achilleion - Ia+Ib (P2118, 7471±77; GrN7437, 7440±55; GrN7438, 7390± 45; Lj3329, 7370±50; Lj3184, 7320±50; Lj3328, 7310±50; Lj3186, 7300±50; Lj3325, 7290±50; Nea Nikomedeia (OxA-4281, 7100±90; OxA-4280, 6920±120; OxA-3876, 7370±90; OxA-3875, 7280±90; OxA-3874, 7370±80; OxA3873, 7300±80; OxA-1606, 7400±100; OxA-1605, 7400±90; OxA-1604, 7340±90; OxA-1603, 7050±80); Anza Ia (Lj3032, 7210±50; LJ2330/31, 7170±60; LJ3186, 7140±70; LJ3183, 7150±50); Poljanica (Bln1571, 7535±80; Bln1613, 7380±60; Bln1613A, 7275±60); Lepenski Vir House no. 36 (7335±71) and House no. 54 (Z143, 7300±124; KN407, 7280±160; Bln738, 7225±100; Bln653, 7040±100); Donja Branjevina III (OxA8557, 7080±55; GrN15974, 7155±50; GrN15976, 7140±90; Sidari (7340±180); Vela špilja (7300±120) (After Todorova 1989; Müller 1994; Pyke and Yiouni 1996; Bonsall et al. 2000; Thissen 2000a; Garašanin and Radovanović 2001; Perlès 2001; Čečuk and Radić 2001; Whittle et al. 2002).

associated with “microliths and typical trapezes” as well as “poorly developed agriculture” (Todorova 1989: 1112; 1998: 27-36). In the central and northern Balkans forty-six sites have been identified, but many have been compromised by inconsistent excavation procedures and post excavation processes. At sites such as Lepenski Vir, Donja Branjevina, Divostin, Rudnik, Dobanovci and Lug-Zvečka, a stratigraphic superposition of “monochrome-impresso” and painted pottery has been confirmed. The cluster was defined as “the oldest phase of the Starčevo group” representing the initial phase of the Early Neolithic in the region. It is interesting to note the ensuing phase was characterized by the presence of white painted ceramics, which represent not more than 17% of the whole cluster of Early Neolithic (Phase I) sites in the region (Perić 1998/1999:11-33).

Desimplification of colonizing logic, and the relevance of sequential demic expansion in correlation with the exclusivity of “monochrome” and/or “painted” pottery dispersals in the Balkans, has already been questioned (Budja 2001: 27- 48; 2003a: 347-359). It is not that the first predates the latter in the southern Balkans, but that the dispersal of the latter in the north does not objectify the subsequent demic diffusion and the creation of the agricultural frontier zone in the Danube region where it supposedly stopped until farming techniques adapted to Central European climate conditions. Recently available data indicates clusters of well stratified sites where layers of unpainted pottery - “monochrome” and “impresso” are stratigraphicaly separated from those with white painted ceramics. The “monochrome-impresso” assemblages at Poljanica, Orlovec, Koprivec and Obhodov in the eastern Balkans have been contextually 42

MIHAEL BUDJA: THE NEOLITHISATION OF THE BALKANS: WHERE IN THE PUZZLE?)

Fig. 4: Lepenski Vir trapezoidal buildings, new born infants and juvenile burials, stone statues, sculptures and pottery distributions (after Babović 1997, Fig. 1; Srejović and Babović 1983; Garašanin and Radovanović 2001:118-120, Figs. 1-4; Borić 1999:41-70, 2002, Fig. 7). The 14C ages of buildings are based on charcoal samples (after Borić 1999, Fig.7; Bonsall et al. 2000, Fig. 8; Garašanin and Radovanović 2001:119) and calibrated on 2nd σ (OxCal v3.5). throughout the stratigraphically determined settlement sequence, although it correlates with geometric microliths in the first (houses 5-10) and supposedly domestic animals in the lattermost phase 3 (houses 16-21) (Jovanović 1974: 1-19; 1987: 1-16). The presence of domesticates, which represent 1.2% of the total faunal remains, have not been confirmed recently, specifically that “faunal reanalyses do not suggest any clear association of domestic animals and houses” (Radovanovć 1996: 287, 311; Borić 2002: 1030).

It is essential to realize that “monochrome-impresso” pottery has been contextually embedded into semisedentary or sedentary hunter-gatherer contexts in the region. The unique examples at Lepenski Vir and Padina in the Danube Gorge have recently become available. Unfortunately, most of the pottery assemblages are still scantily published, apparently due to archaeological politics (Borić 2002: 1028). While interpreting the Mesolithic cultural phases at Lepenski Vir I and II, the excavator of the site pointed out that monochrome pottery fragments had been found lying on the floor of fifteen Mesolithic trapezoidal buildings. He described the pottery assemblage as comprising simple forms with limited ornamental techniques and motives. The pots were mainly undecorated (90 %), and those that were ornamented comprised impressed ornamentation made by fingertip and fingernail or the edges of freshwater shells and awls (Srejović 1971: 8-9).

It has been hypothesised that ceramics at Lepenski Vir indicate the increased interaction between two social networks, the farming communities outside the Gorge, and the hunter-gatherer community inside. It has also been suggested that the ceramics at Lepenski Vir served as containers for foods, and appeared in the context of a dietary shift from aquatic resources to largely terrestrial resources. In spite of the fact that domesticates in the discussed contexts have not been proven, stable isotope analyses suggest they formed a major component of agriculture (Radovanović and Voytek 1997: 21; Bonsall et al. 2000: 119-132; Borić 2002: 1030).

On an interpretative level, the pottery has been discussed out of context and in accordance with the evolutionary typological paradigm - in harmony with the prejudices towards hunter-gatherers mentioned above, attributed to taphonomic filters and stratigraphic problems of vertical displacement of Neolithic artefacts and post-depositional disturbance. However, it has recently been confirmed that pottery was contextually associated with the famous stone and other decorated sculptures, altars, and artefacts ornamented by various symbols deposited on the floors of the same buildings (Garašanin and Radovanović 2001: 118-125; Borić 1999: 41-70; 2002: 1026-1039). There is no doubt that monochrome-impresso ceramics had been deposited in Padina B buildings. Pottery was disposed

It is interesting to consider the contextual correlation of pots, sculptures and groups of newborns and children buried below the floors and in the rear of some buildings (Fig. 4). A remarkable symbolic structure was well preserved in the centrally positioned trapezoidal building no. 54. The pot, adorned with spiral ornaments that characterize local ornamental principles and symbolism, was deliberately incorporated into the context characterized some years ago as “a sanctuary of the Sun deity.” It was 43

LBK DIALOGUES

north-eastern Asia predates the transition to farming, and that it developed in mobile hunting and gathering contexts (Kuzmin 2002: 37-46; Zhang 2002: 29-35). Very recently, La Hoguette pottery and pointed-base pots of the groupe de Melsele have been associated with a Late Mesolithic lithic tradition, and almost exclusively hunter-gatherer subsistence (Jeunesse 2000: 361-378; 2001: 147-165; Crombé et al. 2002: 699-706; Van Neer et al. 2001: 85-96).

associated with two burials of newborns in the rear of the building, and a mandible of a mature woman deposited within the hearth, along with red and black coloured sculptures and an altar. Special attention should also be drawn at this point to building no. 28, where pottery was associated with a red deer skull and antlers, a figurine (known as “Adam”) and two juvenile burials, one of which was embedded in a special grave construction (Srejović and Babović 1983: 69, 85, 107, 122; Radovanović 1996: 183; Babović 1997: 97-108; Garašanin and Radovanović 2001: 120. Fig.4; Borić 1999: 52; 2002: Fig. 7; Budja 2003a: 347-359).

The pottery at Lepenski Vir and Padina constituted in a hunter-gatherer context, was a newly adopted technology, used as serving dishes for living, or in sacrificial rituals, dead children buried beneath the buildings. It was well embedded as it seems, in ideological and cultural identity of the non-farming communities in the region, reflected in the standardized settlement architecture, location of burials and burial practices, stone sculptures and statues, mortars and altars. But keeping in mind the evident differences in ornamental systems, it can be speculated that ideological and technical manipulation of a complex iconography of symbols, ornamental techniques and pigments were not (yet) generally transferable to the new media, although in some cases, as mentioned above, it acted as a new media carrying an old symbols.

All interpretations of Lepenski Vir iconography have been based on the myth that all men were children of the river, and the descendants of water-men (Radovanović 1997: 8791), implying the critical and central importance of the river as the direction for passage upstream for the ancestors, and the departure downstream for the dead - a metaphor for death and endings on the one hand, and life and return on the other. The annual return of sturgeons must have been an impressive event, and it is not surprising that fish find a place in the local symbolism. The fish-like statues are an obvious example. The wavelike and spiral symbols engraved, carved and incised on bone, antler and stone implements, altars, sculptures and statues, seem to have been standardized and uniform on the one hand, and broadly applied on the other. All of the statues, sculptures and many mortars, altars and pebbles were coloured red, with some coloured black. The surfaces were covered by black secondary (hydrothermal) pigment, that can be distinguished from traces of burning, and the carved ornaments were filled with red pigment (see Srejović and Babović 1983; Radovanović 1996: 140). These findings have been curiously neglected in almost all interpretations.

There is no direct evidence of pottery production (firing) available in the Balkans, but there is a presence of unbaked clay material, as well as some associated monochrome, primitive and slightly baked pottery that has been documented in a late Mesolithic context in Theopetra Cave (Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000: 136). In Place of Concluding Remarks While contemplating the processes of neolithisation in the Balkans, it is interesting to consider that not only has a similar pattern of monochrome-impresso pottery dispersal been attested in the Ionian and Adriatic coastal areas, but also that in some contexts, it was connected with typologically determined hunter-gatherer stone tool sets. It was distributed over a wide area, symbolizing the hunter-gatherer koine in the Balkans and the Adriatic on the one hand, and marking an arena of selective and diachronic processes of agro-pastoral integration within existing subsistence strategies on the other (Budja 2001: 38-49).

Pottery however, represented a newly adopted material and a new medium. It was not painted, and the ornamental system was limited to finger, nail and awl impressions which does not correlative to the system of symbolism applied to tools and sculptures. There is one exception, not coincidentally, the pot adorned with spiral ornament (Garašanin and Radovanović 2001: 118, Figs. 1-3; see also Srejović 1971: 8, Tab. 14.1; Budja 2003a: 347-360). Although an attempt to contextualise symbolic structure and social power and to decode the symbolic systems of the hunter-gatherers in the Danube Gorges, will not be made here, it is pertinent to suggest that the pot may be understood as a new media carrying old (spiral) symbols. Accepting that, it should not be overlooked that although it has been contextually connected with the two red and black coloured “stone obelisks” in the centrally positioned trapezoidal building, it was not painted.

We do not know if the first pottery in the Balkans and the Adriatic in general, and in the Danube Gorges in particular, emerged as prestige items or as practical technology used primarily for storage or cooking. We also do not know when this technology became affordable to a large number of people in the communities that used it. What we do know, is that pottery was involved in social practices at Lepenski Vir. We may speculate that there was a development of competitive feasts, and that ceramics became a part of them as a choice of new technological media used as

To consider pottery a “Neolithic” trait, overlooks the background of its origins, especially given the characterization of agriculture as the marker of the Neolithic period. It is worth remembering that pottery in

44

MIHAEL BUDJA: THE NEOLITHISATION OF THE BALKANS: WHERE IN THE PUZZLE?)

barriers that stopped the circulation of goods and/or people over medium and long-distances. This isolationism may be seen as a strong dominance of social and ideological continuity that slowed down the process of social and ideological restructuring of forager and hunter-gatherer communities.

prestige containers for food serving procedures in an almost deterministic fashion. It has been hypothesised that competitive and hierarchical societies often use marriage and burial as occasions to reaffirm exchange relations and to advertise the wealth and success of the group. Prestige ceramics might also be expected to feature frequently in these contexts (Hayden 1995:261).

In the Balkans intensive communication and exchange networks available well after 7000 BC, are marked by long-distance connections and trans-Aegean exchange networks, originally based on Melian obsidian transport (Cherry 1990; Perlès 2001). It is interesting that the spatial dispersals of “pins” and “zoomorphic amulets” mentioned at the beginning of this paper were mutually exclusive, although well embedded in the distribution of monochrome-impresso pottery (see Fig. 1). While “pins” were dispersed throughout the southern Balkans (Thessaly), “amulets” were clustered in the Danube region. We have hypothesised that they were linked to regional hunter-gatherer social networks, and maintained a long regional tradition after farming adoption. Early Neolithic seal distribution overlaps both, and is well embedded in the dispersal of painted pottery that entered into the Carpathian Basin but not into the Adriatic. The latter pattern was discussed in the context of broadly adopted agriculture and the formation of Early Neolithic social elites who became contextually associated with prestige items such as the half-metre long nephrite sceptre, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic vessels, female figurines, clay altars and “exotic flint.” They clearly indicate dynamics of interregional and long-distance connections and exchange networks (see Fig. 2 and also Budja 2003b: 121-127).

The pattern of monochrome-impresso pottery distribution, and its emergence in hunter-gatherer contexts, indeed contradicts the orthodox concept of primary and secondary centres of neolithisation and the model of sequential demic diffusion and colonisation. It has been hypothesised that pottery in hunter-gatherer contexts symbolised social and behavioural dynamics the different forms of contact and material exchange in the context of forager - farmer interactions across the frontier and within the frontier zone, whether it was stationary or mobile (Zvelebil 1998: 9–28; 2001: 1-26). On the contrary, we suggest it is possible that simultaneous interregional pottery distribution in the Balkans, Ionia and the Adriatic reflects a network of integrative mechanisms that in some regions predate farming economy and make possible the selective adoption of crops and/or animal husbandry in others (Budja 2001: 27-47; 2003a). Boundaries in the Balkans may have been formed, not on the basis of farming and/or herding adoption, but on the dynamics of social networks. We have related them to the distributions of painted pottery, contracts and tokens in the Balkans on the one hand, and “impresso-cardium” pottery in the Adriatic and the Dinaric hinterland on the other. The spatial dispersals of these two ornamental techniques and principles do not overlap, since the monochrome-impresso principle evidently maintains a longue durée while painted pottery does not enter into the Adriatic region north of the Bojana River before the Middle Neolithic, still a 30 km distance from the hinterland. Furthermore, there is no evidence of “impresso-cardium” pottery in the Balkans. However recently published analyses of ornamental principles and settlement contexts of painted pottery show “an autochtonous, independent development” in southeastern Europe, and a rapid overlap with the distribution of monochrome pottery in the Balkans (Shubert 1999: 198; Budja 2001: 27-47; see also Müller 1994).

The basic premise of this discussion, is that the dispersal of farming in the Balkans was embedded in the existing, regional pre-Neolithic social structures. It was set by networks of social relationships and contacts, as well as the traditional, socially and culturally defined principles of inter-generational and inter-community transmission of knowledge. People, through contact, local and/or regional migrations, provided the agency of such transmissions for the incorporation of innovations such as cultigens, domesticates and pottery, and in a social context allowed for changes to the structural framework. We have hypothesised already that boundaries in the Balkans had formed not on the basis of demic diffusion and population replacement, but through the dynamics of autochthonous social networks. This hypothesis can also account for differences in incoming Near Eastern lineages, and the different genetic values of Near Eastern origin, for the Balkans (~20%) and the Mediterranean coastal area including the Adriatic (~10%) as indicated by mitochondrial DNA analysis (Richards and Macaulay 2000: 139-151; Richards 2003: 159-167), and can be linked to continuous networks of more (Balkan) and less (Adriatic) intensive circulation of people that accelerated the dynamics of social and ideological restructuring of hunter-gatherer communities.

We have pointed out elsewhere that the distribution of monochrome-impresso and painted pottery corresponds well with the dispersal of “pins,” “stamp seals,” “zoomorphic amulets,” and “split-leg figurines,” recognized as tokens that mark intensive contacts and exchange networks in and between regions (Budja 2001: 27-47; 2003a: 347-360; 2003b: 115-130). None of these objects entered into the eastern Adriatic coast and the Dinaric hinterland. This permits the hypothesis that the region, although adopting farming, did not enter into a network of reliable integrative mechanisms through interregional exchanges and, that there were social 45

LBK DIALOGUES

The Mesolithic in Europe. Papers Presented at the Third International Symposium. pp. 500-515. Chapman, J.C. (1994) The Origins of Farming in South East Europe. Préhistoire Europé 6: 133-155. Cherry, J.F. (1990) The First Colonisation of the Mediterranean Islands: a Review of Recent Research. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3: 145-221. Clark, J.G.D. (1965) Radiocarbon Dating and the Expansion of Farming Culture from Near East over Europe. Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 31: 5773 Crombé P.; Perdaen, Y.; Sergant, J.; Van Royen, J.P. and Van Strydonck, M. (2002) The MesolithicNeolithic Transition in the Sandy Lowlands of Belgium: New Evidence. Antiquity 76: 699-706. Čečuk, B. and Radić, D. (2001) Vela Špilja – Preliminarni rezultati dosadašnjih istraživanja. Arheološka Istraživanja na području otoka Korčule i Lastova. Hrvatsko Arheološko Društvo. Znastveni Skup. Vela Luka i Korčula, 18.20. Travnja 1991. pp. 75-118. Gallis, J.K. (1994) Results of Recent Excavations and Topographical Work in Neolithic Thessaly. La Thessalie. Volume A. pp. 57-60. Gallis, J.K. (1996) The Neolithic World. IN: G.A. Papathanassopoulos (ed) Neolithic Culture in Greece. pp. 23-37. Garašanin, M. (1979) Centralnobalkanska Zona. IN: A. Benac (ed) Praistorija Jugoslovenskih Zemalja II Neolitsko doba. pp. 79-212. Garašanin, M. and Radovanović, I. (2001) A Pot in House 54 at Lepenski Vir I. Antiquity 75: 118-125. Gkiasta, M.; Russell T.; Shennan S. and Steele J. (2003) Neolithic Transition in Europe: the Radiocarbon Record Revisted. Antiquity 77: 45-62. Hyaden, B. (1995) The Emergence of Prestige Technologies and Pottery. IN: W.K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes (eds) The Emergence of Pottery. Technologies and Innovation in Ancient Societes. Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry. Washington and London. pp. 257-265. Jovanović, B. (1974) Praistorija Gornjeg Djerdapa. Starinar 22: 1-23. Jovanović, B. (1987) Die Architektur und Keramik der Siedlung Padina B am Eisernen Tor, Jugoslawien. Germania 65(1): 1-16. Jeunesse, C. (2000) Les Composantes Autochtone et Danubienne en Europe Centrale et Occidentale entre 5500 et 4000 av. J.-C.: Contacts, Transfers, Acculturations. IN: Les Derniers Chasseurs-Cuilleurs d'Europe Occidentale, Actes du Colloque International de Besançon, Octobre 1998. Presses Universitaires Franc-Comtoises 361 à 378, Annales Littéraires 699, Série “Environnement, sociétés et archaéologie” 1. pp. 361-378. Jeunesse, C. (2001) Armatures Asymétriques, Régionalisation, Acculturation. Contribution à l'étude des Relations entre la Rubané et la Composante Autochtone dans l'oust de la Sphère Danubienne. IN:

References Ammerman, A.J. and Cavalli-Sforza L.L. (1984) The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Babović, L. (1997) Položaj i Funkcija Svetilišta na Lepenskom Viru [Location and Function of the Sanctuaries at Lepenski Vir]. IN: M. Lazić (ed), Uzdarje Dragoslavu Srejoviću. Beograd. pp. 97-108. Bloedow, F.E. (1991) The “Aceramic” Neolithic Phase in Greece Reconsidered. Mediterranean Archaeology 4: 1-143. Borić, D. (1999) Places that Created Time in the Danube Gorges and Beyond, c. 9000–5500 BC. Documenta Praehistorica 26: 41–70. Borić, D. (2002) The Lepenski Vir Conundrum: Reinterpretation of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Sequences in the Danube Gorges. Antiquity 76: 1026139. Boschin, F. and Riedel, A. (2000) The Late Mesolithic and Neolithic of the Edera Cave (Aurisiana, Trieste Karst): A Preliminary Report. Atti della Società per la Preistoria della Regione Friuli Venezia-Giulia. Quaderno 8: 73-90. Breunig, B. (1987) C14-Chronologie des Vorderasiatischen, Sudost-und Mitteleuropaischen Neolithikums. Fundamenta. Monographien zur Urgescichte A13. Bonsall, C.; Cook, G.; Lennon, R.; Harkness, D.; Scott, M.; Bartosiewicz, L. and McSweeney, K. (2000) Stable Isotopes, Radiocarbon and the Mesolithic– Neolithic Transition in the Iron Gates. Documenta Praehistorica 27: 119-132. Budja, M. (1993) The Neolithisation of Europe. Slovenian Aspect. Poročilo o Raziskovanju Paleolita, Neolita in Eneolita v Sloveniji 21: 163-193. Budja, M. (1996) Neolithisation in the Caput Adriae Region: Between Herodotus and Cavalli-Sforza. Poročilo o Raziskovanju Paleolitika Neolitika in Eneolitika v Sloveniji 23: 61-76. Budja, M. (2001) The Transition to Farming in Southeastern Europe: Perspectives from Pottery. Documenta Praehistorica 28: 27-47. Budja, M. (2003a) Symbolic Systems in the Context of Transition to Farming in Southeast Europe. Pottery and Boundaries. IN: L. Nikolova (ed) Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe. British Archeological Reports International Series 1139. pp. 347-360. Budja, M. (2003b) Seals, Contracts and Tokens in the Balkans Early Neolithic: Where in the Puzzle. Documenta Praehistorica 30: 115-130. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (1996) The Spread of Agriculture and Nomadic Pastoralism: Insights from Genetics, Linguistics and Archaeology. IN: D.R. Harris (ed) The Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. pp. 51-69. Chapman, J.C. (1989) Demographic Trends in Neothermal South-East Europe. IN: C. Bonsall (ed)

46

MIHAEL BUDJA: THE NEOLITHISATION OF THE BALKANS: WHERE IN THE PUZZLE?)

Perić, S. (1998/1999) Višeslojna neolitska naselja i problem kulturne stratigrafije neolita na teritoriji Srbije. Starinar 49: 11-39. Perić, S. (2001/2002) Der kulturelle Charakter die Chronologie der Starčevo-Elemente im Neolithikum der Westlichen Balkanregionen. Starinar 51: 9-40. Perlès, C. (1990) Les Industries Lithiques Taillées de Franchthi (Argolide, Grèce) vol. II, Les industries du Mésolithique et Du Néolithique. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece, Fasc. 5. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis. Perlès, C. (2001) The Early Neolithic in Greece. The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge World Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Perlès, C. (2003) An Alternate (and Old-Fashioned) View on the Neolithisation in Greece. Documenta Praehistorica 30: 99-114. Pinhasi, R.; Foley, R.A. and Lahr, M.M. (2000) Spatial and Temporal Patterns in the Mesolithic Neolithic Archaeological Record of Europe. IN: C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds) Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge. pp. 45-56. Pyke, G. and Yiouni, P. (1996) The Excavation and the Ceramic Assemblage. IN: K.A. Wardle (ed) Nea Nikomedeia I. The Excavation of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961-1964 Directed by R. J. Rodden. The British School at Athens, Athens. Radovanović, I. (1996) The Iron Gates Mesolithic. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series 11. Radovanović, I. (1997) The Lepenski Vir Culture: a Contribution to Interpretation of its Ideological Aspects. IN: M. Lazić (ed) Uzdarje Dragoslavu Srejoviću. Beograd. pp. 87-93. Radovanović, I. and Voytek, B. (1997) Hunters, Fishers or Farmers: Sedentism, Subsistence and Social Complexity in the Djerdap Mesolithic. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29: 19-32. Renfrew, C. (1987) Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Penguin Books. London. Richards, M. and Macaulay, V. (2000) Genetic Data and the Colonization of Europe: Genealogies and Founders. IN: C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds) Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge. pp. 139- 151. Richards, M. (2003) The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Archaeological Models and Genetic Evidence. Documenta Praehistorica 30: 159-167. Rodden, R.J. (1965) An Early Neolithic Village in Greece. Scientific American 212(4): 82-88. Rodden, R.J. (1976) An Early Neolithic Village in Greece. IN: B. M. Fagan (ed) Avenues to Antiquity. Readings from Scientific American. San Francisco. Ryan, W.B.F. et al. (1997) An Abrupt Drowning of the Black Sea Shelf. Marine Geology 138: 119-126.

Préhistoire de la Grande Plaine du Nord de l'Europe. Actes du Colloque Chaire Francqui interuniversitaire au titre étranger. ERAUL 99: 147-165. Kalicz, N. (2000) Unterscheidungsmerkmale zwischen der Körös- und der Starčevo- Kultur in Ungarn. IN: S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (eds) Karanovo III. Beitrage zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. pp. 295-310. Klejn, L. S. (1982) Archaeological Typology. British Archaeological Reports International Series 153. Kuzmin, V.Y. (2002) The Earliest Centres of Pottery Origin in the Russian Far East and Siberia: Review of Chronology for the Oldest Neolithic Cultures. Documenta Praehistorica 29: 37-46. Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. (2000) The Mesolithic/ Neolithic Transition in Greece as Evidenced by The Data at Theopetra Cave in Thessaly. Documenta Praehistorica 27: 133-140. Lambeck, K. (1996) Sea-Level Change and Shore-Line Evolution in Aegean Greece since Upper Palaeolithic Time. Antiquity 70: 588-611. Milojčić, V. (1952) Die frühesten Ackerbauer in Mitteleuropa. Germania 30(3/4): 313-318. Milojčić, V. (1956) Die erste praekeramische baeuerliche Siedlung der Jungstenzeit in Europa. Germania 34(3/4): 208-210. Milojčić, V. (1959/1960) Ergebnise der Deustschen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien (1953-1958). Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseums Mainz 6: 1-56. Milojčić, V. (1960) Praekeramisches Neolithikum auf der Balkanhalbinsel. Germania 38(3/4): 320-335. Mlekuž, D. (2003) Early Herders of the Eastern Adriatic. Documenta Praehistorica 30: 139-152. Müller, J. (1994) Das ostadriatische Frühneolithikum. Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 9: Nikolov, V. (1987) Beitrage zu den Beziehungen zwischen Vorder Asien und Südosteuropa aufgrund der frühneolitischen bemalten Keramik aus dem Zentralbalkan. Acta Prahistorica et Archaeologica 19: 8-19. Nikolov, V. (1990) Das Flusstal der Struma an der frühneolithischechen Strasse von Anatolien nach Mitteleuropa. IN: Die ersten Bauern, Band 2. Zürich. Nikolov, V. (1997) Periodiserung un Chronologie der südwestlichen Variante der Kultur Karanovo I. IN: Uzdarje Dragoslavu Srejoviću. Beograd, pp.139-145. Okay, A.I., Demirbag, E., Kurt, H., Okay, N. and Kuscu, I. (1999) An Active, Deep Marine Strike-Slip Basin Along the North Anatolian Fault in Turkey. Tectonics 18(1): 116-134. Özdoĝan, M. (1997) The Beginning of Neolithic Economies in Southeastern Europe: an Anatolian Perspective. Journal of European Archaeology 5(2): 1-33. Pavlů, I. (1989) Early Neolithic White Painted Pottery in SE Europe. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2:217222.

47

LBK DIALOGUES

Whittle, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Borić, 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: 15-62. Wilkie, C.N. and Savina, E. M. (1997) The Earliest Farmers in Macedonia. Antiquity 71: 201-207. Zohary, D. and Hopf, M. (2000) Domestication of Plants in the Old World. Third Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Zvelebil, M. (1998) Agricultural Frontiers, Neolithic Origins and the Transition to Farming in the Baltic Basin. IN: M. Zvelebil, R. Dennell, and L. Domanska (eds) Harvesting the Seas, Farming the Forests, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. pp. 9–28. Zvelebil, M. (2000) The Social Context of the Agricultural Transition in Europe. IN: C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds) Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge. pp. 57-79. Zvelebil, M. (2001) The Agricultural Transition and the Origins of Neolithic Society in Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 28:1-26. Zhang, C. (2002) The Discovery of Early Pottery in China. Documenta Praehistorica 29: 29-35.

Schubert, H. (1999) Die Bemalte Keramik des Frühneolithikums in Südosteuropa, Italien und Westanatolien. Internationale Archäologie 74 Srejović, D. (1971) Die Lepenski Vir – Kultur und der Beginn der Jungsteinzeit an der Mittleren Donau. IN: H. Schwabedissen (ed) Die Anfänge des Neolithikums vom Orient bis Nordeuropa. Teil II. Östliches Mitteleuropa. Fundamenta. Reihe A. Band 3. pp. 139. Srejović, D. and Babović, L. (1983) Umetnost Lepenskog Vira. Beograd. Thissen, L. (2000a) Early Village Communities in Anatolia and the Balkans: Studies in Chronology and Culture Contact. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Leiden. Thissen, L. (2000b) Thessaly, Franchthi and Western Turkey: Clues to the Neolithisation of Greece? Documenta Praehistorica 27: 141-154. Todorova, H. (1989) Das Frühneolithikum Nordbulgariens im Kontakte des Ostbalkanischen Neolithikums. Tell Karanovo und das BalkanNeolithikum. Salzburg. pp. 9-26. Todorova, H. and Vajsov, I. (1993) Novokamennata Epoha v Bulgaria. Izdatelstvo Nauka Iskustvo, Sofia. Todorova, H. (1998) Der Balkano-Anatolische Kulturbereich vom Neolithikum bis zur Frühbronzezeit. IN: M. Stefanovich, H. Todorova and H. Hauptmann, (eds) James Harvey Gaul. In memoriam. In The Steps of James Harvey Gaul 1. pp. 27-54. Trigger, B. (1980) Gordon Childe. Revolutions in Archaeology. London. Tringham, R. (1968) A Preliminary Study of the Early Neolithic and Latest Mesolithic Blade Industries in Southeast and Central Europe. IN: J.M. Coles and D.D.A. Simpson (eds) Studies in Ancient Europe. Leicester. van Andel, H.T. and Runnels, N.C. (1995) The Earliest Farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69: 481-500. van Andel, H.T.; Gallis, C. and Toufexis, G. (1995) Early Neolithic Farming in a Thessalian River Landscape, Greece. IN: J. Lewin, M.G. Macklin and J.C. Woodward (eds) Mediterranean Quaternary River Environments. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam. pp. 131-143. van Neer, W. et al. (2001) Dierenresten uit een Vroege Swifterbant-Nederzetting te Doel-Deurganckdok (Vlaanderen, België): Jachtweld, Maar Vooral Veel Vis. Notae Praehistoricae 21: 85-96. Vajsov, V. (1998) The Typology of the Anthropomorphic Figurines From Norteastern Bulgaria. IN: M. Stefanovich, H. Todorova, and H. Hauptmann (eds) In The Steps of James Harvey Gaul Vol. 1. Sofia. pp. 107-141. Vitelli, D.K. (1993) Franchthi Neolithic Pottery. Volume 1: Classification and Ceramic Phases 1 and 2. IN: Excavations in Franchthi Cave, Greece. Fascicle 8. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis.

48

ADVANCES IN THE RESEARCH OF THE NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN Eszter Bánffy Abstract The Carpathian basin is not only vertically divided by the Danube and Tisza rivers into different regions like Transdanubia or the Great Hungarian plain, but also encompassed a frontier zone in the 6th millennium BC, an ecological-cultural barrier, which cut the basin into a southern part with the Körös and Starčevo cultures of Balkan origin, and a northern part about which little is known. The further development of the Carpathian basin indicates some differences between the early Neolithic communities, possibly rooted in the earlier population. Cultural differences mainly reflect the fact that only the western Transdanubian groups played a definite role in the neolithisation of vast areas of the northwest. With the help of new analyses concerning raw flint material and types, as well as environmental studies including domesticated animal bones and archaeobotanic remains, attitudes to the Körös culture mode of food production has begun to change. Admittedly, the contrasts between Mesolithic and early Neolithic practices are less different than assumed earlier. New excavations like Ecsegfalva, as well as numerous new 14C-data analyzed by a British-Hungarian team, provides further help, especially where the earliest data i.e. the beginnings of the Neolithic are concerned. Between the Tisza and the Danube, a new German-Hungarian project has not only the task of clarifying the possible contacts and frontier zone between the Körös and the Starčevo groups, but also to gain information about the strong impact of the earliest Vinča culture in the area. In Transdanubia, new investigations have changed the state of research in several respects. On the basis of new, thorough excavations as well as soil and pollen analyses, a series of earliest LBK settlements can be dated to the formative phase of the culture. Interestingly enough, these sites almost all fall outside of the north-Balkan climatic zone and/or are directly placed near lakes and river banks, or islands in marshy areas. This indicates that agriculture might not have played a major role in subsistence in the beginning. A detailed study of the Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb site and its finds, including those of other coeval west Transdanubian settlements, gives new information about this contact area from where the first farmers probably reached the Danube valley and remote areas of Central Europe.

Introduction Traditionally, Neolithic research has concentrated on two separate regions: Transdanubia and the Eastern Hungarian Plain, with the latter region the more investigated. Owing to advantageous circumstances, open sites and rich layers of burnt archaeological remains have been preserved, and as a result intensive Neolithic excavations have been carried out here since the first half of the 20th century. Neolithic research of Transdanubia started much later, leaving major questions of neolithisation unresolved.

(Fig. 1) The Carpathian Basin comprises a large area in south-eastern central Europe, encircled by the Alps from the west, and by the similarly high Carpathian mountains from the north, east, and partly also the south. To the south west, the Trieste Carstic region and the Dinar mountains cut the way to the Adriatic Sea. In this way, the Carpathian Basin is not only a fairly closed geographic entity, but also a fertile region with an advantageous climate. This must have made it a fascinating place for the different groups of people which settled it in various prehistoric and historic periods, beginning with the Paleolithic and ending with the Hungarian Conquest period 1100 years ago. In this summarizing paper, I concentrate on the beginnings of food production in the central region, with some emphasis on my own research in Transdanubia.

(Fig. 2) Accordingly, this situation has led to a static view on the distribution and formation of the two MidBalkan early Neolithic cultures: the Körös and the Starčevo. Namely, that the Körös of the Eastern Plain, and the Starčevo of Transdanubia, are but two independent archaeological cultures which had – apart from their original common southeastern European roots – no territorial contact points, but rather marked differences in most aspects.

The central region is strongly divided into two parts by a long and wide river flowing from Germany to the Black Sea: the Danube. Eastwards of it lies the Tisza region, where the flat Great Hungarian Plain extends. The western part, Transdanubia, consists of flat river valleys as well as low and high fertile hills. Transdanubia is also divided into a southern and a northern part by the largest lake in Central Europe, Lake Balaton. Between the two major rivers, lies the Danube-Tisza Midland, which is mainly covered by sandy soil, and has been thought to have been uninhabited prior to the Bronze Age. However, with new research completed over the last few years, this opinion can no longer be maintained, as shall be discussed below.

The First Evidence of an Indigenous Pre-Neolithic Substrate in Eastern Hungary Until recently, apart from a small series of uncertain surface lithic finds tentatively assigned to the late Mesolithic on the basis of their typological character, not much has been known from this period. Sporadically, some earlier opinions appeared assuming the presence of Mesolithic groups in North Eastern Hungary. According to these assumptions, these Mesolithic groups were 49

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 1: The Carpathian basin with sites mentioned

Fig. 2: Early and Middle Neolithic cultures in the Carpathian basin 50

ESZTER BÁNFFY: ADVANCES IN THE RESEARCH OF THE NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

local raw material sources. In Transdanubia however, Szentgál red radiolarite reached late Mesolithic and early Neolithic communities living in distant regions: from southern Transdanubia to southern Moravia in the Mesolithic, and to western Germany in the early phases of LBK distribution (Mateiciucová 2002; Marton 2003). These observations can be of major importance when discussing the differences between the Alföld and the Transdanubian type of neolithisation.

invisible in the archaeological record, even though the northern limits of the Körös culture should be explained by the hostile behavior of these unknown indigenous groups (e.g. Makkay 1982:68-71). At the time, these hypotheses did not have a significant effect on research. In fact, the absence of late Mesolithic population groups was not disturbing at all: setting out from the theory of a quick early Neolithic migration and proliferation of early Neolithic inhabitants, there was no need to assume the existence of an indigenous hunter-gatherer population. It is noteworthy that at around the same time D. Srejović published the Lepenski Vir site at the Danube Gorges: a site that he dated to the pre-ceramic period, inhabited by a hunting-fishing Mesolithic population (Srejović 1975). The setting of sites located on rocky terraces along highspeed rivers and high mountains, again proved to be a good argument: it seemed logical that the very different landscape, the marshy lowland of eastern Hungary, was unsuitable for foraging and thus uninhabited in the Mesolithic (see Bánffy 1985). However we now know that both the chronology, and the lifestyle, of the Lepenski Vir inhabitants different in various points from the one published by Srejović (see Borić 1999; Radovanović and Voytek 1997).

The Beginning of Settled Life in the Great Hungarian Plain When more intensive archaeological research began in the Tisza-Körös-Maros region, thousands of organic tempered sherds, fishing net weights and fragments of broken clay female figurines came to light from huge pits. The sites themselves occurred in an amazing density. In the forties of the 20th century, the relative chronology of the “Körös” culture within the Neolithic was still an open question. In 1944, a young archaeologist accepted this task, and managed to publish a book on the Körös culture, the main theses of which, can still be maintained even today (Kutzián 1944)! In the sixties, Trogmayer from the Szeged Museum led both small and large-scale excavations, and also tried to create a chronology of the long-lasting Körös culture on the basis of the pottery (Trogmayer 1964, 1966, 1966-67). Only small advances were made, resulting in the fact that even today, questions of Körös development and chronology, remain unsolved problems in early Neolithic research! Until recently, one fact remained clear: that the Körös culture introduced a radically new economic pattern, which brought a decisive change. This was, as a matter of course, ascribed to larger migrations from the Near East, or at least from the Balkan Peninsula (Raczky 1982-83:5).

Similarly in Transdanubia, the emergence of the Starčevo culture and the Neolithic way of life, are said to have formulated in its southern half. A large area was thought to have been uninhabited due to climatic changes just preceding the early Neolithic period. Thus, the environmental circumstances were considered to have been unsuitable for living there (Gábori 1981, Kalicz 1990:25). On the basis of the above mentioned research, it is no wonder that the first real settlement traces of the Mesolithic that could be registered and excavated, were found in the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain. These were identified by a young expert from the Szolnok Museum, who spent a long time conducting field surveys along the river meanders in the Jászság area (Middle Tisza region) (Kertész 1994, 1996; Kertész et al. 1994). In this region, early Holocene layers are in nearsurface positions along the low terraces of the younger meanders of the Zagyva river, providing good conditions to confirm the presence of non-permanent campsites. Among other settlement traces of the Mesolithic, the site Jásztelek I, can be dated to the late phase of this period (Kertész 1994). Side scrapers and geometric microliths were prepared mainly from limnoquartzite raw materials coming from the closely located Mátra mountains (Kertész 1994:29, 1996) (Fig. 3). Animal bones and mollusks reflect hunting and collecting activity. On the basis of some related sites in northeastern Hungary (e.g.Tarpa-Márkitanya, see Dobosi 1983) and in Transdanubia (e.g. Kaposhomok, see Pusztai 1957 and also below) (Fig. 4), the hypothetical presence of a late Mesolithic population in the Carpathian Basin could be outlined. A basic difference seems to distinguish the two regions. The eastern flint industry was based on more

It was the thorough and detailed analysis of the early Neolithic settlement ecology of eastern Hungary by Kosse, which gave the first synthesis of environmental and archaeological data on the Körös culture (Kosse 1979). Kosse (1979:149) was the first to point out the following: “Although the Körös people were farmers, ... the faunal evidence also indicates very heavy reliance on wild resources. ... Fish, shellfish, water birds, deer and wild swine from the gallery forests constituted an important, perhaps even a major part of the Körös diet.” Statistical charts in the monograph on animal keeping by Bökönyi, also indicate that the ratio of hunted (wild) animals was by far the highest at the beginning of the Neolithic (Bökönyi 1974:22). These analyses began to change attitudes to the Körös culture, admitting that the contrast between Mesolithic and early Neolithic lifeways was less different than assumed earlier. Most recently, the early Neolithic flint material study by Starnini, clearly supports the above scenario (Starnini 2000). According to her lithic tool-kit analysis, Hungarian sites from this period reflect a mixed economy based on hunting, gathering, as well as some cultivation and animal 51

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 3: Lithic finds from Jásztelek I (after Kertész 1996) 52

ESZTER BÁNFFY: ADVANCES IN THE RESEARCH OF THE NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

Fig. 4: Lithic finds from Kaposhomok (after Marton 2003) How does all of the above reflect in the archaeological record of the Körös culture? Today, Körös sites have been identified with amazing settlement density along ancient river meanders. Unfortunately even in the intensively investigated regions where traces of late Mesolithic settlement have been found, there are no Mesolithic and Körös sites immediately (or at least closely) related to each other. In order to gain a reliable prehistoric knowledge of the neolithisation of the Great Hungarian Plain, evidence of settlement continuity should

keeping. Starnini interprets this as a mostly Mesolithic population slowly adapting to a food producing economy (Starnini 2000). Also, the manner of retouching blades in the early Neolithic is considered to be similar to the Mesolithic technique (Whittle 1996:152). Some palaeobotanical data also seems to dispute intensive plant cultivation in early Neolithic communities, suggesting people were clearing the woods and forests to gain grazing land for animal husbandry, rather than for agriculture (Willis and Bennett 1994). 53

LBK DIALOGUES

first be demonstrated.1 Even in the absence of these indications, the striking concordance between environmental, animal bone and flint analyses, still suggest the switch to food production should be considered a more complex process than was thought earlier.

region however, no real attention was paid to this occurrence of the Körös culture near the Danube. On the contrary, surface finds and those gained from small sondages along the (modern) eastern banks of the Danube seemed to reinforce the opinion that due to the changing river bed, this area has historically (and pre-historically) belonged to Transdanubia.

In the last few years, the opinion that the Körös (and the related Transylvanian Criş) culture formulated in the later phase of the Karanovo-Starčevo Balkan early Neolithic, and therefore associated with adaptation of indigenous groups rather than migrant groups from the Balkans (Thissen 2000:283-285), has again been challenged. What is more, there has also been a resurgence of the suggestion that the so-called Szatmár II group (Kalicz and Makkay 1977; Kalicz and Koós 1997; Kalicz and Koós 2000), found north of the Körös distribution area, and which represents the oldest phase of the Linear Pottery ware cultures in the Upper Tisza region, can be attributed to the adaptive creativity of local late Mesolithic groups (Makkay 1996:42). This time, the idea seems to deserve consideration, due to new Mesolithic data available in the region.

The finds from Baja and Fajsz on the eastern side of the Danube, belonging to the oldest Transdanubian Linear pottery, were thought to demonstrate this idea (Kalicz 1994). More recently, a study by Kalicz stresses the marked differences between the Körös and the Starčevo cultures (Kalicz 2000). In the year 2000, in cooperation with the present author and J. Petrasch from the Tübingen University (Germany), landscape analysis and field survey was carried out around the above mentioned sites. The work resulted in a striking number, dozens (!) of Körös sites together with the oldest and later Linear Pottery sites, not necessarily belonging to the Transdanubian variant, as well as some pottery fragments belonging to the early Vinča culture. Certainly, this latter occurrence can be regarded both as imported ware, and thus as an indication of Vinča presence in the area. This question can only be resolved by excavation of at least some of the settlements.

The inner chronology of the Körös culture will hopefully be elaborated in the next few years, with data arising from new systematic excavations and statistical analyses (e.g. the project at Ecsegfalva, see Whittle 2000). Likewise, the numerous new 14C-data analyzed and collected by the British-Hungarian project will provide further help, especially where the earliest data i.e. the beginning of the Neolithic, is concerned (Whittle et al. 2002). This latter source of evidence certainly does not have importance on its own, but as a means of crosschecking the typological analyses of pottery, the lithic material, and other aspects of the archaeological record.

On the other side of the Danube, not far from Baja, important settlements of the Starčevo culture are known, partly belonging to its late phase (Kalicz 1990; Bánffy 2001). Although anticipated, up till now no traces at all of the Starčevo culture have been found around Fajsz and Baja. The project continued in 2001 with soil analysis, pollen analysis, magnetometric investigations and field surveys. On the basis of the investigation, it appears that the hypothesized large gap between the Körös and the Starčevo cultures may not have existed. The area may therefore play a special role in the formation of the Linear pottery culture, and as a consequence, also in the formation of the Central European Neolithic. In order to have a better understanding of this question, the Bácska area south of the Great Hungarian Plain along the left side of the Danube (e.g. Donja Branjevina), can probably be considered as a parallel region where the Körös and the Starčevo cultures seem to have come together (Karmanski 1968, 1977, 1979, 1988, 1990; Trbuhović and Karmanski 1993).

The First Traces of the Early Neolithic between the Tisza and the Danube Rivers Taking a glance at the mapped distribution of cultures in the Early Neolithic, it is apparent that neither the Körös, nor the Starčevo cultures are supposed to have been distributed between the two major rivers, nor traces of Mesolithic sites. An overwhelming majority of the area is covered by wind-blown sand. Therefore until now, hardly any efforts have been made to investigate the area, especially since there was little hope of finding uncovered settlement traces.

The Early Neolithic in Transdanubia In studies of the Transdanubian early Neolithic, the identification and description of Starčevo settlements as well as research into their chronological position, versus the earliest Transdanubian Linear Pottery ware groups, have been the greatest steps forward. This is thanks to N. Kalicz and J. Makkay, who carried out several small sondages and field research in the late sixties, although their term the “Medina-phase” for the transition between the two cultures is a forgotten and outgrown category (Kalicz 1978-79; Kalicz and Makkay 1972).

The first site at which small-scale excavation was carried out lies closer to the Danube than to the Tisza river. It belongs to the Körös culture, included a burial with a contracted skeleton and a coarse pot as a grave good (Bognár-Kutzián 1977). Lacking further data in the 1

A new late hunter-gatherer site at the northernmost edge of the Great Hungarian plain (Tarnaörs) suggests a possible continuity or at least a close dating to the Neolithic (L. Domboróczki, and R. Kertész, pers. comm.).

54

ESZTER BÁNFFY: ADVANCES IN THE RESEARCH OF THE NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

Fig. 5: Babarc – late Starčevo pottery (after Bánffy 2001)

55

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 6: Balaton region – earliest pottery (after Sági and Törőcsik 1991)

56

ESZTER BÁNFFY: ADVANCES IN THE RESEARCH OF THE NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

Now on the basis of the new finds, two territorial groups of the late Starčevo culture may be outlined in Transdanubia. Babarc belongs to a group which is strictly bound to its southern relatives beyond the Drava river. Its best parallels can be found on Croatian sites like Podgorac, Vinkovci-Gradska Zona and GolokutVizić (Minichreiter 1992b: 43-49; Petrović 1976, 198687). Many typological features from Kaposvár and Dombovár still resemble this southern version of the late Starčevo.

As it is known from the detailed publications of N. Kalicz, in addition to his monograph published in 1990, the settlement pattern of the Starčevo culture cannot be compared to that of the Körös. The former is far less intensive (Kalicz 1978-79, 1983, 1990:39-40). This is reflected not only in the number of settlements, but also in their extent. Kalicz concluded by assuming a few smaller population groups which never stayed in one place for long. Based on his observations he made two important conclusions about the Starčevo culture. First, they appeared from the South in the Linear B phase (according to the periodisation by Dimitrijević) and survived until the final Spiraloid B phase, even though only four sites can be dated to this phase. Second, their distribution area only reached up to the southern shores of Lake Balaton.

In contrast with the above stylistic and typological features, are the two late Starčevo settlements in the northwest: Vörs-Máriaasszonysziget and GellénházaVárosrét, as well as the finds from the northern banks of Lake Balaton. These seem to belong to a slightly different group, with less evidence for direct Balkan contacts. To the excavators, a number of these features resemble characteristics typical of the oldest Linear Pottery culture (e.g. deeply incised linear patterns), and occur in an unusually high quantity when compared to the entire Starčevo area (Kalicz et al 1998:163-164). This is similar to Gellénháza where the character of the pottery, as well as some other find groups, strongly resemble those of the earliest Linear Pottery in the vicinity, as will be discussed below (Simon 1996; Bánffy 2000a: 376, 2000b, 2000c). In the case of a cultural formation like the Starčevo culture, which remained almost identical throughout a vast geographic area from Macedonia to the Pannonian hills, these differences observed at the northwestern boundary cannot be neglected!

In recent years, both statements have had to be corrected as new settlements of the Starčevo culture have been excavated. The site at Babarc brought new data, and added to our knowledge of the distribution of the early Neolithic Starčevo culture in Transdanubia (Bánffy 2001) (Fig. 5). Other newly excavated and published sites are Gellénháza-Városrét and Vörs-Máriaasszonysziget along the northern frontier (Simon 1994, 1996; Kalicz et al 1998; Kalicz et al. 2002). Surprisingly, some smaller assemblages from the Kapos valley and around Lake Balaton can also be assigned to the late Starčevo culture (Sági and Törőcsik 1991) (Fig. 6). These latter sites lie on the northern borderland of the culture, or even outside of it. Moreover, the site at Gellénháza-Városrét expanded this border about 50 km to the north and west, since it lies near Zalaegerszeg in the Zala hills in western Transdanubia.

The largest site excavated is SzentgyörgyvölgyPityerdomb close to the Slovenian-Austrian border. This

Fig. 7: Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb, the excavated area 57

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 8: Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb, houses early Neolithic settlement, which consisted of two houses and adjacent fields, has been almost fully excavated and the finds evaluated, waiting for publication (Fig. 7). The longhouses evidently belong to early Central European types (Fig. 8). The pottery however, resembles late Starčevo ware, or at least suggests a mixture, a transition between the Spiraloid B phase of the Starčevo culture, and the earliest Linear pottery (Figs. 9-14). This concerns the method of firing, the tempering and the surface of the vessels, the applied and the slightly incised decoration (einpolierte ware), the predominance of biconic, strongly carinated forms, the polished fineware, and also the coarseware. What is more, there is also a unique clay weight with an amorphous pear form, which occurs in a greater number both at Gellénháza and at Pityerdomb, but which to my knowledge, has not been found elsewhere. This weight has a hole at both ends, but is never completely perforated. These typological parallels, in addition to similar geographical preferences, suggest not only the possibility of synchronicity, but also live contacts between the late Starčevo and the inhabitants of Pityerdomb.

long-term contact with local hunter-fisher-gatherer groups. Both groups, one way or another, were forced to make some serious changes in their traditions. The Starčevo people met a considerably more Atlantic climate, cooler summers and particularly wet winters with much snow. In order to settle, their adaptation had to accommodate not only almost Alpine circumstances such as the case of Pityerdomb reflects, but also low, marshy areas, in islands of wet moorland as indicated by Vörs and Tihany-Apáti. Local groups were confronted with the rising water-level and wet climate, leading them to move upwards to the new shores of the more extended Lake Balaton. Alternatively, they could have also quickly adopted food-producing techniques and the making of pottery from the Starčevo immigrants. The result was most probably a mixed population, which slowly extended farming activity in Transdanubia. Meanwhile, or at least very soon, it also quickly spread through the Danube valley to the inner part of Central Europe, and participated in the formation of the Linear Pottery culture and settled life. What are the indications that make such inferences possible? I have found four types of direct and seven types of indirect evidence that support the existence of the above outlined processes. I consider the indirect evidence to have more weight, as follows.

Possible Hunter-Gatherer, Late Starčevo and Early Linear Pottery Ware Groups in the Balaton Region (Figs. 15-16) In the last few years, my own research in Transdanubia, based on three micro-regional projects and investigations around Lake Balaton, have led me to the conclusion that western Transdanubia was a frontier zone in the mid-centuries of the 6th millennium BC. This means Starčevo farmers of southern origin came into

Direct Evidence: 1.

58

the existence of a rich late Mesolithic tool-kit around Lake Balaton;

ESZTER BÁNFFY: ADVANCES IN THE RESEARCH OF THE NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

Fig. 9: Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb, pottery

Fig. 10: Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb, pottery

59

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 11: Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb, pottery

Fig. 12: Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb, pottery types Fig. 13: Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb, pottery types

60

ESZTER BÁNFFY: ADVANCES IN THE RESEARCH OF THE NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

2. 3. 4.

the correlation between hazelnuts and cereals in the pollen analysis; the signs of pre-Neolithic burning in the soil analysis; the presence of a boat in the moorland near Keszthely, an area of open water before the Neolithic.

1. Trapezoid microliths and other tool types of the late Mesolithic tool-kit have been known from surface finds for many years, and their pre-Neolithic character has never been argued. Two regions seem to be especially rich in such surface finds: the Kapos valley in Southern Transdanubia and the Vázsony Basin in the Balaton highland. In both regions, the Szentgál red radiolarite is typical (Biró 1991, Marton 2003). 2. According to pollen sequences measured from lake sediments and the marshy so-called Little Balaton area, the hazelnut increased to such an extent that around 5600 BC, 55 % of all ligneous plant pollens, were those of corylus! Western Transdanubia must have been a refuge for the hazelnut during the last Ice Age, but the sudden increase just before the early Neolithic, can most probably be ascribed to human activity. The appearance of the first domesticated cereals is inversely proportional with hazelnut pollens: the spread of wheat and barley is related to a decrease of hazelnut.

Fig. 14: Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb, pottery types

Fig. 15: Late Mesolithic, Starčevo, Earliest and Classical LBK sites in Western Transdanubia

61

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 16: Late Mesolithic, Starčevo, Earliest and Classical LBK sites in the Balaton region 6. 7.

3. Near the site Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb at the marshy banks of the Szentgyörgy-stream, traces of intentional burning were registered in the course of soil analysis. It was dated to 8771+55BP. The burnt organic remains, and the small extent of erosion, may correspond to frequent burning, i.e. not more that 15-30 years apart, according to the calculations made by Zvelebil (1994:61).

1. Some characteristics of settlement structures seem to be of great importance in the mid-6th millennium BC. From sedimentological and palynological investigations, in addition to satellite photographs, it has become clear that the extent of the Lake Balaton changed from time to time. At times the lake was reduced to two, or sometimes even three separate ponds. In other periods water covered even the Tapolca basin in the north, and all the valleys to the south, reaching the river Kapos, or at the beginning of the Holocene, the Drava river. The banks of the Balaton have always been a moorland, so that even the road used by Roman soldiers runs high on the hill sides, since the waterside area was inaccessible. Although the final Mesolithic period was fairly dry and a reduced extension of the Balaton, the water level dramatically rose around 5500-5400BC.

4. In the course of topographic investigations near the western banks of lake Balaton, a flat based wooden boat was identified. It was found deep in the soil of the marshy Keszthely region that had once belonged to the lake, but had became atrophied since the early Neolithic. Therefore, the boat must have belonged to groups active in the region before the Starčevo people’s arrival. Indirect Evidence: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

local imitations of cult objects; rich Mesolithic tool-kit used by early LBK people.

Mesolithic sites might be underwater; Mesolithic settlement patterns in the transitional Neolithic; a high variety, but low quantity of domesticated plants; settling on loess terraces in the early/classical LBK phase; local imitations of Starčevo pottery;

2. Accordingly, late Mesolithic sites are most probably under the present water level. However, numerous sites are known from the banks of the early Neolithic Balaton, which are located in a very “Mesolithic” way: i.e. in swampy reeds or in small islands near the banks. There are a series of earliest “Linear Pottery” sites along long

62

ESZTER BÁNFFY: ADVANCES IN THE RESEARCH OF THE NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

Fig. 17: Earliest LBK sites in the Balaton region settlement structure, the earliest “Linear Pottery” sites arose from indigenous hunter-gatherer groups.

islands, which were not far from the wet area – and which may have been a swamp, or in the middle of the 6th millennium BC, open water. The location of these settlements perfectly corresponds with the late Mesolithic water-bound tendency (Fig. 17). It is noteworthy that this type of biotope is unsuitable for extended farming, yet, almost all of the 65 earliest “Linear Pottery” sites lie in the marshy waterside area! Some so-called late Starčevo sites can also be assigned to this range.

4. To affirm the above mentioned hypothesis, the change in life-style truly did occur – but a phase later, during the early/classical Transdanubian Linear Pottery culture, the so-called Keszthely phase. (Fig. 18) Sites belonging to this phase do not lie immediately at the waterside any more. On the contrary, TLBK people began to move upwards to higher terraces and hillsides, seeking good loess soils. A good example of this change is the Marcal valley north of Lake Balaton, which was densely settled with classical sites located on loess terraces. Although no detailed macrobotanical analyses are available yet, the pollen data suggest more extensive agriculture. The quantitative change, the “revolution” in practices must have happened, but not at the initial phase of the Transdanubian Neolithic. It became typical about three generations later.

3. In spite of this, quite a wide range of domesticated plants can be registered in the earliest phase. As indicated at Pityerdomb: emmer, einkorn, and Triticum aestivum wheat, barley, and some edible wild plants like goose-foot were present. However, these cereal types occur at the sites in low amounts, i.e. not more than twenty pieces of grain or chaff remains. The dimensions of the farming activity do not extend to late Mesolithic horticulture, i.e. small areas within or around the settlement, complemented with newly received domesticated plant species and technology learnt from the immigrant Starčevo groups. This all speaks for a qualitative change – but in this phase by no means a quantitative change, concerning plant cultivation or especially life style. Therefore, according to the

5. The thorough analysis of pottery has not yielded a contradictory picture. Over the last two years I finished the analysis of the pottery excavated from Pityerdomb, some 15,000 sherds. In connection with this analysis, I also investigated the material found in Western 63

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 18: Classical LBK sites in the Balaton Region parallel in the assemblage from Balatonszentgyörgy, a site from the Little Balaton swamp. This latter find is coarsely elaborated, but belongs to a very similar human legged vessel. Some elements of the southeastern European cult life might have been adopted, while other elements – like the making of figurines as mass products – diminished from LBK cult life. The changes might not have happened independently from the beliefs of local groups.

Transdanubia and around Lake Balaton. A small portion of the material came from excavations, with the greater portion found during topographical work. (Figs. 19-20) In sum: I have found that at formative LBK sites, only the proportion of the Starčevo pottery changes. There are settlements, just like Pityerdomb or the Sármellék sites, where the strong Starčevo character most probably indicates real people of southern origin. Pottery from other sites reveal however, that they are of a different character, lower quality, and restricted to house ware. An interesting observation, in all cases is that linear decoration is negligible or completely absent on this pottery. On the basis of the analysis, it seems that pottery of the minor Starčevo character coming from waterside sites, may have been the first attempts of imitation by local people that just adopted the know-how of pottery making.

7. The transitory phase with a quasi Mesolithic way of life, is perfectly reflected in flint assemblages. The sites Vöröstó and Mencshely in the southern Bakony mountains near Szentgál, are of special importance, because the lithic assemblages previously found on the surface, can now be securely assigned to the terminal Mesolithic due to their Tardenoisien microlithic character (Mészáros 1948; Dobosi 1972). Only after a small-scale rescue excavation did it become clear that at least a portion of the flints show sickle glow, and must therefore have belonged to some early Neolithic farming groups (Biró 1991: 55). However, there is a slight contradiction between this latter statement, and the LBK finds found together with sickle blades in the course of the rescue excavation. The potsherds published mostly belong to

6. A very similar observation can be made concerning the so-called cult finds. Imitations of typical Starčevo objects are found. The head of an altarpiece with real grain inserted as eyes is a coarse imitation of the famous altarpiece from Lánycsók, southern Transdanubia. The same can be said of a leg fragment belonging to an anthropomorphic vessel from Pityerdomb, which has a 64

ESZTER BÁNFFY: ADVANCES IN THE RESEARCH OF THE NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

Fig. 19: Balaton region – earliest pottery (after Sági and Törőcsik 1991)

Fig. 20: Balaton region – earliest pottery (after Sági and Törőcsik 1991)

the developed, so-called “Keszthely,” phase of the culture (Regenye 1991). I cannot exclude an earlier population group at Mencshely and Vöröstó, whose settlement traces were destroyed by the “Keszthely” phase occupation. In my opinion, the question whether the archaic types in the lithic assemblage belong to the “epipalaeolithic” or the early Neolithic is almost inconsequential. Especially since both in the early and in the more developed phase of the LBK community, the use of exactly these types must have been adopted from the earlier local huntergatherer groups. This opinion is supported by the evaluation by Regenye and Biró, as follows: “A small part of the Mészáros collection are reminiscent, typologically, of Epipalaeolithic forms as well. This impression would coincide with the existence of rich and very early LBC [LBK] groups on the Balaton highlands, a region unusually rich in stone tools within Hungary” (Biró and Regenye 1991: 352).

from agriculture. New analyses of early Neolithic sites in other areas of the Carpathian basin have come to the same results (Starnini 1994, 2000, 2001). In the Keszthely phase, exactly at a period when the loess plateaus were settled in Transdanubia, lithic instruments were reduced to only some basic types such as sickle blades, and can be correlated with an extension of farming activity (Biró 2001). It is perhaps also possible to assign the site of Brunn II, near Vienna to this group since it also seems to be an earliest Linear Pottery ware settlement. Here, some features such as house forms resemble Linear Pottery types, but the name-giving linear decoration of the pottery is missing (Lenneis 1995:14-16; Stadler 1999). This does not mean that differences of the two territorial late Starčevo groups, and the transitional assemblages in the northern periphery, respectively, were caused by a certain presence of late Mesolithic (Mencshely-Vöröstó?) groups. This presence cannot be proven yet in a direct way, but the above mentioned criteria, suggest their participation in the process of neolithisation north of the Starčevo distribution area.

Two inferences can be drawn from the evidence listed above. Firstly, the presence of some late Mesolithic groups must be assumed, from whom the early Neolithic settlers learned many of the tool types they used. Secondly, since many of these earlier tool types were still in use in the earliest LBK phase in Transdanubia, it necessarily means that people were still in need of them, i.e. their life was based on many different activities apart

It is now known, especially due to the research work carried out by D. Gronenborn, that all earliest Linear Pottery ware groups in Transdanubia, and also some in 65

LBK DIALOGUES

technique are largely due to this statistical difference. Namely, we do not know of any timber structures, or wattle-and daub houses in the Starčevo area, only pits while such houses have been found on some Körös sites. Nevertheless, in an earlier phase of Neolithic research, Körös people were also thought to have dwelt in amorphous pit-houses! The two buildings at Pityerdomb give us some hints of possibly similar settlement houses and structures in the Transdanubian late Starčevo culture. I should like to draw attention to a recently published ecological model (Kertész and Sümegi 1999, 2001). This model makes clear at last, why the Körös and also the Starčevo cultures stopped at a borderline which does not coincide with any natural physical barriers, neither in the Szolnok-Berettyó line in the middle of the Tisza region, nor at or around Lake Balaton in Transdanubia. In their publication, there is a map showing the northern limits of the common climatic, petrologic and ground soil conditions that were necessary in combination for a Körös-Starčevo-typed food production (Kertész and Sümegi 1999: 18, Fig. 3). The line is not straight because of some environmental mosaics, but roughly it represents the real borders of the early Neolithic distribution area in the Carpathian Basin. This line should represent the “Central European agro-ecological barrier,” north of which it was impossible to continue the southeastern European way of food production. Consequently, the early Neolithic groups of Southern origin slowed down and finally had to stop. This pause might have given time to the local, indigenous Mesolithic groups living northwards of them in the contact zone to learn most of the Neolithic inventions without a total assimilation and melting into the Körös-Starčevo civilization.

Central Europe, appreciated and used the Transdanubian Szentgál raw material (Gronenborn 1994, 1999). Red radiolarite from the Bakony mountains of northern Transdanubia must have become a prestige material in western Hungary, and more than one thousand km to the northwest. Similarly with Tokaj obsidian for the Alföld region. As has been mentioned above, the about one and a half thousand flints and cores at Pityerdomb all come from the Szentgál mine, more than 200 km away. According to the excavator P. Stadler, this is also the case at the Brunn settlement, an even greater distance from Szentgál. People of the late Starčevo settlement at Gellénháza also used the same raw material, and the same flints are also found at those Transdanubian Starčevo settlements where lithic material is used (see the article by Biró in Kalicz et al 1998). Concerning this, it is important to mention that Szentgál lies far outside and northwards of any modified Starčevo area! Consequently, if the Starčevo people had access to this raw material, they must have known about it from a group of people about whom we hardly have any firm knowledge yet, apart from some guesses, like in the case of Mencshely and Vöröstó. All the more, it can be considered a fact that these people ruled over the northern Bakony forests, had a sort of exchange with the Starčevo inhabitants, and also, that they must have had an influence on the character of the earliest Linear Pottery ware culture. Thus it is likely that traces of an important boundary can be identified along the Balaton coast and westwards in Transdanubia. Conclusion (Fig. 21) To sum up, it is likely that the Körös-StarčevoCriş culture, i.e. all formations of the Balkan early Neolithic which reached the Carpathian basin, developed according to geographic differences with a different rhythm, but each had similar basic features in later development. This statement can be equally demonstrated by pottery analysis (Kalicz 1990, 2000) and also by the similarity of so-called cult objects. Both were rooted in the south east European Early Neolithic way of constructing female figurines, animal figures, anthropomorphic vessels and those having human legs, as well as small pedestalled, rectangular or triangular clay objects, interpreted as altarpieces (Kutzián 1944; Raczky 1979-80; Bánffy 1990-91; Bánffy 1997).

And finally, one day the question of why Transdanubian Mesolithic groups participated in the neolithisation of Central Europe must also be answered. In the context of the Carpathian basin, it would seem that Neolithic conditions for the Alföld groups, i.e. the Körös and the Szatmár II culture, were far more advantageous than those in western Hungary. These include connections with the mid-Balkan Early Neolithic, very dense settling along the Körös river, extremely rich sites (where one Körös pit might contain more that 50,000 sherds), and good trade connections to the Tokaj obsidian mine as well as to the Criş culture groups in Transylvania and the Banat. And yet contrary to what might be expected from these indications, the distribution area of the Transdanubian LBK grew remarkably while its distribution in eastern Hungary remained roughly stagnant.

The settlement structure and the house building technique of the Starčevo and Körös cultures cannot be compared to that extent. This can be attributed to several reasons. First of all, the settlement density of the two cultures cannot be compared: while more than 300 settlements are known from the distribution area of the Körös culture in the southern Great Hungarian Plain alone, less than 20 of the Starčevo culture have come to light from a much larger geographic area than the Körös-Tisza region (Makkay 1982: 113; Kalicz 1990, 2000). I am convinced, however, that the differences in building

The differences might lie in different ways of communication. While the Alföld region had good contacts to the east, they had little connection with northern Transdanubia, according to the average number of Szentgál import pieces in the Tisza region. Transdanubian groups however, used long-distance routes of up to several hundred kilometers to the north

66

ESZTER BÁNFFY: ADVANCES IN THE RESEARCH OF THE NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

Fig. 21: The Neolithic transition in western Transdanubia

67

LBK DIALOGUES

Dobosi, T.V. (1972) Mesolithische Fundorte in Ungarn Mezolithikus Lelőhelyek Magyarországon. IN: J. Fitz (ed) Aktuelle Fragen der Bandkeramik. Székesfehérvár. pp. 39-60. Gábori, M. (1981) Az Ősember Korának Kutatása Magyarországon (1969 – 1980). Magyar Tudományos Akadémia II. Osztály Közleményei 30(1): 91-109. Gronenborn, D. (1994) Überlegungen zur Ausbreitung der Bäuerlichen Wirtschaft in Mitteleuropa - Versuch einer Kulturhistorischen Interpretation Ältestbandkeramischer Silexinventare. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 69(2): 135-151. Gronenborn, D. (1999) A Variation on a Basic Theme: The Transition to Farming in Southern Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13(2): 123-210. Kalicz, N. (1978-79) Funde der Ältesten Phase der Linienbandkeramik in Südtransdanubien. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (later: Antaeus) 8/9: 13-46. Kalicz, N. (1983) Die Körös-Starčevo-Kulturen und ihre Beziehungen zur Linearbandkeramik. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 52: 91-130. Kalicz, N. (1990) Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae, Budapest. Kalicz, N. (2000) Unterscheidungsmerkmale Zwischen der Körös- und der Starčevo-Kultur in Ungarn. IN: St. Hiller and V. Nikolov (eds) Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien. pp. 295-309. Kalicz N. and Koós J. (1997) Mezőkövesd-Mocsolyás. Újkőkori telep és Temetkezések a Kr. e. VI. évezredből IN: Utak a Múltba. Paths into the Past. Az M3-as Autópálya Régészeti Leletmentései. Rescue Excavations on the M3 Motorway. Budapest. pp. 2833. Kalicz N. and Koós S. J. (2000) Település a Legkorábbi Újkőkori Sírokkal Északkelet-Magyarországról [Eine Siedlung mit Ältestneolithischen Gräbern in Nordostungarn]. Herman Ottó Múzeum Évkönyve, Miskolc 39: 45-76. Kalicz, N. and Makkay, J. (1972) Südliche Einflüße im Frühen und Mittleren Neolithikums Transdanubiens. Alba Regia 12: 93-105. Kalicz, N. and Makkay, J. (1977) Die Linienbandkeramik in der Großen Ungarischen Tiefebene. Studia Archaeologica VII. Budapest. Kalicz, N., Virág, Z.M. and Biró, T.K. (1998) The Northern Periphery of the Early Neolithic Starčevo Culture in South-Western Hungary: a Case Study of an Excavation at Lake Balaton. Documenta Praehistorica 25: 151-187. Kalicz, N., Virág, Z.M. and Biró, T.K. (2002) Vörs, Máriaasszony-sziget. IN: Z. Bencze et al. (eds): Régészeti Kutatások Magyarországon 1999 [Archaeological Investigations in Hungary 1999]. Budapest. pp. 15-26. Karmanski, S. (1968) Žrtvenici, statuete i amuleti sa lokaliteta Donja Branjevina kod Deronja. Odžaci.

and west. Szentgál flints in Mesolithic sites in southern Moravia (Mateiciucová 2002), as well as pre-Neolithic Danubian shell finds, prove that these routes and contacts might have formulated prior to the LBK period. Considering also the extremely quick spread of early LBK groups, I can only think of already existing old, preNeolithic, well-known routes which were used by a mixed population, consisting of Starčevo immigrants and local hunter-gatherers. The groups would possibly not have gone to the unknown, but rather to familiar people and places along the Danube. This exactly might have been the point that defined the character of the process that carried the Neolithic way of life to the inner part of central Europe. References Bánffy, E. (1985) review: Makkay J.: A Magyarországi Neolitikum Kutatásának új Eredményei. [New results in Research of the Hungarian Neolithic] Bonner Jahrbücher 185(2): 552-555. Bánffy, E. (1990-91) Cult and Archaeological Context in Central and South East Europe in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. Antaeus 19-20: 183-250. Bánffy, E. (1997) Cult Objects of the Lengyel Culture. Connections and Interpretation. Budapest. Bánffy, E. (2000a) Neue Daten zur Entstehung der Bandkeramik. IN: St. Hiller and V. Nikolov (eds) Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien. pp. 375-382. Bánffy, E. (2000b) The Late Starčevo and the Earliest Linear Pottery Groups in Western Transdanubia. Documenta Praehistorica 27: 173-185. Bánffy, E. (2000c) Starčevo und/oder LBK? Varia Neolithica I. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 22: 47-60. Bánffy, E. (2001) Neue Funde der Starčevo-Kultur in Südtransdanubien. IN: F. Drahovean (ed) Festschrift für Gheorghe Lazarovici. Timişoara. pp. 41-58. Biró, T.K. (1991) Mencshely-Murvagödrök Kőanyaga [The Lithic Assemblage from MencshelyMurvagödrök]. A Tapolcai Városi Múzeum Közleményei 2: 51-60. Biró, T.K. (2001) Lithic Materials from the Early Neolithic in Hungary. IN: R. Kertész and J. Makkay (eds) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in Szolnok 1996. Budapest. pp. 89100. Bíró, T.K. and Regenye, J. (1991) Prehistoric Workshop and Exploitation Site at Szentgál-Tűzköveshegy. Acta Archaeologica Hungariae 43: 337-375. Bognár-Kutzián see Kutzián Borić, D. (1999) Places that Created Time in the Danube Gorges and Beyond, c. 9000-5500 BC. Documenta Praehistorica 26: 41-70. Bökönyi, S. (1974) History of Domestic Mammals in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest.

68

ESZTER BÁNFFY: ADVANCES IN THE RESEARCH OF THE NEOLITHIC TRANSITION IN THE CARPATHIAN BASIN

Szeged. pp. 39-48. Mateiciucová, I. (2002) Silexartefakte aus der Ältesten und Älteren LBK. Fundstellen in Brunn am Gebirge in Niederösterreich (Vorbericht). IN: E. Bánffy (ed): Prehistoric Studies. In memoriam Ida BognárKutzián. Antaeus 25: 169–187. Mészáros, G. (1948) A Vázsonyi-Medence Mezolit- és Neolitkori Települései [The Mesolithic and Neolithic Settlements in the Vázsony Basin]. Veszprém. Minichreiter, K. (1992) Starčevačka kultura u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj. Zagreb. Petrović, J. (1976) Golokut - Vizić, praistorijsko naselje. Arheološki pregled 18: 11-22. Petrović, J. (1986-87) Zemunica u naselju Starčevačke kulture na Golokutu [Erdhütten in der Siedlung der Starčevačkaer Kultur auf Golokut]. Rad Vojvođanskog muzeja 30: 13-28. Pusztai, R. (1957) Mezolitikus Leletek Somogyból. Janus Pannonius Múzeum Évkönyve, Pécs. pp. 95-105. Raczky, P. (1979-80) A Körös-Kultúra Újabb Figurális Ábrázolásai a Közép-Tiszavidékről és Történeti Összefüggéseik [New Figural Representations of the Körös Culture from the Middle Tisza Region and their Historical Connections]. Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve. 5–37. Raczky, P. (1982-83) Origins of the Custom of Burying the Dead Inside Houses in South East Europe. Szolnok Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve. pp. 5-10. Radovanović, I. and Voytek, B. (1997) Hunters, Fishers and Farmers: Sedentism, Subsistence and Social Complexity in the Djerdap Mesolithic. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29: 19-31. Regenye, J. (1991) Neolitikus Leletek Mencshely Környékéről. A Tapolcai Városi Múzeum Közleményei 2: 31-47. Sági K. and Törőcsik Z. (1991) A Dunántúli Vonaldíszes Kerámia Kultúrája “Tapolcai Csoportjának” Balaton Környéki Lelőhelyei. Fundorte der zur Kultur der Transdanubischen Linienbandkeramik gehörenden “Tapolca-Gruppe” in der Balatongegend. Bibliotheca Musei Tapolcensis 1. Tapolca. Simon, H.K. (1994). Frühneolithische Kultgegenstände bei Gellénháza, Kom. Zala. IN: G. Lőrinczy (ed) A Kőkortól a Középkorig. Von der Steinzeit bis zum Mittelalter. Studien zum Geburtstag von O. Trogmayer. pp. 53-65. Simon, H.K. (1996) Ein neuer Fundort der StarčevoKultur bei Gellénháza (Kom. Zala, Ungarn) und Seine Südliche Beziehungen. IN: F. Draşovean (ed) The Vinča Culture, its Role and Cultural Connections. Timişoara, pp. 59-92. Srejović, D. (1975) Lepenski Vir (Serbian edition: Beograd 1969) Bergisch Gladbach. Stadler, P. (1999) Die Ältestlinearbandkeramische Fundstelle von Brunn am Gebirge, Flur Wolfholz (5620-5200 v. Chr.) Führer zur Austellung in Brunn im August 1999. pp. 1-13. Starnini, E. (1994) Typological and Technological Analysis of the Körös Culture Stone Assemblages of Méhtelek-Nádas and Tiszacsege (North East

Karmanski, S. (1977) Katalog antropomorfne i zoomorfne plastike iz okoline Odžaka. Odžaci. Karmanski, S. (1979) Donja Branjevina. Odžaci. Karmanski, S. (1988) Donja Branjevina. IN: D. Srejović (ed) The Neolithic of Serbia. Belgrade. pp. 75-76. Karmanski, S. (1990). Donja Branjevina. Beiträge. Odžaci. Kertész, R. (1994) Late Mesolithic Chipped Stone Industry from the Site Jásztelek I (Hungary). IN: G. Lőrinczy (ed): A kőkortól a Középkorig = Von der Steinzeit bis zum Mitterlalter. Studien Zum 60. Geburtstag von Ottó Trogmayer. Szeged. pp. 23–44. Kertész, R. (1996) The Mesolithic in the Great Hungarian Plain: A Survey of the Evidence. IN: L. Tálas (ed): At the Fringes of Three Worlds. Hunter-Gatherers in the Middle Tisza valley. Szolnok. pp. 5–39. Kertész, R., Sümegi, P., Kozák, M., Braun, M. and Félegyházi, E. (1994) Mesolithikum im Nördlichen Teil der Ungarischen Tiefebene. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, Nyíregyháza 36: 15–61. Kertész, R. and Sümegi, P. (1999) Teóriák, Kritika és Egy Modell: Miért Állt Meg a Körös-Starčevo Kultúra Terjedése a Kárpát-Medence Centrumában? [Theories, Critique and a Model: Why Did the Expansion of the Körös-Starčevo Culture Stop in the Centre of the Carpathian Basin] Tisicum 11: 9-23. Kertész, R. and Sümegi, P. (2001) Theories, Critique and a Model: Why did the Expansion of the KörösStarčevo-Culture Stop in the Centre of the Carpathian Basin? IN: R. Kertész and J. Makkay (eds) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in Szolnok 1996. Budapest. pp. 225-246. Kosse, K. (1979) Settlement Ecology of the Körös and Linear Pottery Cultures in Hungary. British Archeological Reports, International Series 64. Kutzián, I. (1944) A Körös-Kultúra [The Körös culture]. Dissertationes Pannonicae II/23, Budapest. Kutzián (Bognár-Kutzián), I. (1977) Ausgrabungen in Szakmár – Kisülés im Jahre 1975. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (later: Antaeus) 7: 13-17. Lenneis, E. (1995) Altneolithikum: Die Bandkeramik. IN: Jungsteinzeit im Osten Österreichs. St.Pölten. pp. 11-56. Makkay, J. (1982) Some Comments on the Settlement Patterns of the Alföld Linear Pottery. IN: J. Pavúk (ed) Siedlungen der Kultur mit Linearkeramik in Europa. Internationales Koll. Nové Vozokany 1981. Nitra. pp. 157-166. Makkay, J. (1996) Theories About the Origin, the Distribution and the End of the Körös Culture. IN: L. Tálas (ed): At the Fringes of Three Worlds. HunterGatherers and Farmers in the Middle Tisza Valley. Szolnok. pp. 35–49. Marton, T. (2003) Mezolitikum a Dél-Dunántúlon – a Somogyi Leletek Újraértékelése. [Das Mesolithikum im Südlichen Transdanubien – die Neubewertung der Funde aus dem Komitat Somogy.] Festschrift for István Fodor. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve 69

LBK DIALOGUES

Hungary). A Preliminary Report. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve, Nyíregyháza 36: 101-110. Starnini, E. (2000) Stone Industries of the Early Neolithic Cultures in Hungary and their Relationships with the Mesolithic Background. Societa Preistoria Protoistoria Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Trieste 8: 207-219. Starnini, E. (2001) The Mesolithic/Neolithic Transition in Hungary: the Lithic Perspective. IN: R. Kertész and J. Makkay (eds) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conference held in Szolnok 1996. Budapest. pp. 395404. Thissen, L. (2000) Early Village Communities in Anatolia and the Balkans, 6500–5500 cal BC. Studies in Chronology and Culture Context. PhD Dissertation, University of Leiden. Trbuhović, V. and Karmanski, S. (1993) Donja Branjevina 1989-1993. Odžaci Trogmayer, O. (1964) Megjegyzések a Körös-Csoport Relatív Időrendjéhez [Remarks on the Relative Chronology of the Körös Group]. Archaeológiai Értesítő 91: 67–86. Trogmayer, O. (1966) A Körös-Csoport Lakóházáról. Újkőkori Házmodell-Töredék Röszkéről [On the Dwelling of the Körös group]. Archaeológiai Értesítő 93: 235-240. Trogmayer, O. (1966-67) Bemerkungen zur Chronologie des Frühneolithikums auf dem Süd-Alföld. Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve. pp. 35-40. Whittle, A. (1996) Europe in the Neolithic. The Creation of New Worlds. Cambridge World Archaeology, Cambridge. Whittle, A. (2000): New Research on the Hungarian Early Neolithic. Antiquity 74: 13-14. Whittle, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Borić, 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. Willis K. J. and Bennett K.D. (1994) The Neolithic Transition - Fact or Fiction? Palaeoecological Evidence from the Balkans. The Holocene 4: 326-330. Zvelebil, M. (1994) Plant Use in the Mesolithic and its Role in the Transition to Farming. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60: 35-74.

70

EARLY LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE CENTRAL EUROPE

IN

SLOVAKIA

AND THE

NEOLITHISATION

OF

Juraj Pavúk Abstract The aim of this contribution is to summarize the origin, development and spread of early Neolithic cultures in the Balkans, with a short commentary on the mechanisms and processes that led to the neolithisation of southeast and central Europe, and the origin of the Earliest LBK culture.

both of which required a more sedentary lifestyle. However, to date no early Neolithic monochrome ceramics of a local Balkan character, have been identified in the anticipated contact zone in the area of the lower bank of the Marcia river drainage basin.

Balkan Prologue to the Neolithisation of Central Europe The problem of Neolithic spread from the Near East and Anatolia, need not be considered in the origins of the Early Linear Pottery culture (LBK). Especially since the Neolithic cultures that were key in the neolithisation of Central Europe, had already developed and thrived in the western Carpathian Basin for several hundred years. Instead, it will suffice to summarize the origin, development and spread of early Neolithic cultures in the Balkans, with a short commentary on the mechanisms and processes that led to the neolithisation of south east and central Europe.

Consequently, the Hoca Çeşme site near the mouth of the Marica river, merits further attention. The settlement was built on an intentionally flattened cliff plateau by incoming colonists from western Anatolia, the Hacilar VI culture, and enclosed by a circular stone wall (Özdogan 1998). The bottom most layer IV yielded ceramics typical for Hacilar VI. Anatolian traditions continued up to layer III. In layer II, circular houses were replaced by the typical Balkan rectangular mud houses. White painted pottery, likewise of a Balkan character, was also found in this layer. In my opinion, this white painted pottery preceded the well known Karanovo I ceramics of Bulgarian Thrace, and was probably contemporaneous with Gălăbnik group and the earliest white painted pottery from Kovačevo on the Struma, as well as the early phases of Gianitsa B and Nea Nikomedeia B pottery in Greek Macedonia. In other words, the Balkan cultural unit at the Hoca Çeşme settlement was found in layers above the levels containing cultures of Anatolian provenience. Similarly, it may be worthwhile to consider the possibility of Anatolian origin for the early red painted ceramics at Nea Nikomedeia, the technology of which is unique in the Balkans, but very similar to Anatolian ceramics type Hacilar VI, as already pointed out by Rodden (1965). Hacilar VI ceramics at Hoca Çeşme may indicate the presence of a contact network between Anatolia and Macedonia. Unfortunately, the chronological relationships are uncertain. Similar uncertainties exist in considerations of the genetic and chronological relationship of the early Neolithic monochrome pottery from Krajinici on the upper Struma in Bulgaria, in comparison with ceramics from the Frühkeramikum period in Thessaly. Amongst the fineware pottery at Krajinici, I identified fragments of globular necked vessels, which were probably formed by adding dried clay pellets to the ceramic paste. After firing, the surface of these large vessels had an irregular undulating appearance. Comparable necked vessels from Hoca Çeşme IV, kindly made available for examination by M. Özdogan, had a similar appearance. These vessels may either be an indication of insufficient skill in pottery making, or a production technique associated with the beginning of pottery manufacture.

The following considerations are largely based on the results of cultural and chronological analyses of ceramic finds from the tell settlement Gălăbnik, located on the upper bank of the river Struma in southwestern Bulgaria. The site was settled in the Early Neolithic, for a time by the Gălăbnik group, and another by the classical Starčevo (Pavúk and Čochadžiev 1984; Pavúk and Bakamska 1989; 2000; Bakamska and Pavúk 1995). A monograph is being prepared on the finds and results of these analyses from Gălăbnik, and therefore only some of the main findings will be summarized here. The presence of the Fikirtepe and Hacilar VI cultures in the area west of Bospor, is significant in understanding and interpreting the spread of the Neolithic lifestyle into the eastern and central Balkans from northwestern Anatolia in the early ceramic Neolithic. The small number of Fikirtepe ceramics hitherto uncovered at Yarimburgaz and Aşagi Pinar (Özdogan 1998, 1999) probably represent the earliest monochrome ceramics in this area of the Balkans. It is at this point, that the knowledge and intentional care of culturally significant plants and the keeping of animals may have become widespread, signaling the spread of Neolithic civilization into the Balkans. This does not mean however, that the actual Fikirtepe culture spread throughout the Balkans. Indeed, no traces of it have been uncovered in the ensuing development in the Balkans, such as those found in its homeland around Bospor and north west Anatolia. Instead, the Fikirtepe culture can be understood as a mediating force, enabling the spread of the Neolithic way of life into southeastern Europe. The receivers of this agricultural knowledge were the Balkan pre-Neolithic populations, which over the course of many generations, became familiar with raising crops and keeping animals, 71

LBK DIALOGUES

uncovered beneath two Gălăbnik layers with white painted pottery (Tchochadijev and Bakamska 1990) and is significant for understanding the early Neolithic in the Central Balkans. Some of the basic characteristics indicate commonality with monochrome ceramics (Frühkeramikum) from both Otzaki Magula and Achilleion. In contrast to Thessaly, ceramics from Krajinici include vessels with vertical and diagonal tubelike coiled handles, in addition to vessels decorated with finger and nail impressions, suggestive of contacts with Anatolia. Coarseware ceramics, represented by approximately 70 fragments, consisted mostly of small necked vessels, only slightly different from the predominant fineware and thin walled vessels. A thin coating of liquid clay Schlickbewurf was usually applied in a wide band on the body of the vessel, followed by many finger and nail impressions, or roughening of the surface with a dull point. This type of surface finishing is not known from Early Neolithic ceramics of Anatolia and Thessaly. Consequently, Schlickbewurf as well as finger and nail impressions, constitute a central Balkan innovation, similar to the later white painted ceramics. Monochrome ceramics from Krajinici in all respects differ from the stratigraphicaly and chronologically younger Gălăbnik ceramics. There are no indications that cast doubt on the stratigraphic relationship of these ceramics at the site, or the presented antecedence of monochrome ceramics to the white painted Gălăbnik ceramics, and other contemporaneous types. It is possible to assume that while monochrome and Schlickbewurf decorated ceramics were made, white painted pottery had not yet come into existence either on the central or upper bank of the Struma, or the parallel bank of the river Vardar.

Considering that white painted pottery can be regarded as a Balkan innovation (since it has not been identified in the earliest Neolithic of Anatolia, or even Thessaly), the stratigraphy at Hoca Çeşme can be used to illustrate the genetic and cultural relationships involved in the process of neolithisation of south east Europe. Knowledge of the Neolithic way of life may have been acquired by preNeolithic hunter-gatherers over the course of long term contacts with the earliest Neolithic populations of Anatolian origin, such as Fikirtepe and Hacilar VI. Following adaptation, this knowledge was autonomously elaborated and passed on to other groups. In Turkish Thrace it is evident that Neolithic cultures which formed in the Balkans, over the course of their additional development, settled border areas previously inhabited by Anatolian cultures. This resulted in a shift of the boundary in favor of the Balkan cultures, the cultures with white painted ceramics represented by Hoca Çeşme II. Local populations in the contact zone which acquired the Neolithic way of life, may have passed it on to neighboring regions, following the necessary consolidation of agriculture with social structure. This kind of diffusion, encompassing the principles of animal husbandry and breeding, may have resulted in small regionally differentiated cultures, such as are suggested by the ceramics of southeast Europe. This gradual emergence of local regional groups, probably led to delays in spread, as adaptations were made to suit the local geomorphology and ecology. The current state of knowledge of white painted ceramics in the Balkans, permits both regional and culturalchronological divisions, which characterize small geomorphological units. The three main zones of early Neolithic development in southeast Europe are represented by the sequences Sesklo, Karanovo and Starčevo. A fourth south Balkan zone can also be identified, which separates the Sesklo sequence from the Starčevo sequence, but does not belong to any of the other sequences. I am referring to white painted ceramics, such as were found at Gianitsa B (Chrysostomou 1993), Nea Nikomedeia B (Yiouni 1996) and Podgorie type ceramics. Velušina-Porodin ceramics from Macedonian Pelagonia, and probably also the finds from Kovačevo (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2000), Dobrinište (Nikolov and Radeva 1992) and Elešnica (Tao 2000) in south west Bulgaria, can also be attributed to this group. Hoca Çeşme II ceramics from the eastern part of this zone, can also be attributed to this group. Especially since they share more characteristics with the aforementioned sites, than with Karanovo I ceramics. Since this zone is both regionally differentiated and chronologically heterogeneous, it is worthy of additional research. From our point of view, it is significant to note that this zone separates the southern Proto-Starčevo cultures (Anzabegovo-Vršnik I and Gălăbnik) from the Sesklo sequence in Thessaly.

Fully developed Neolithic settlements in the eastern and central Balkans, suggest the presence of individual cultural groups with strongly differentiated white painted pottery. These were usually located in small geomorphological units, mostly situated in narrow valleys and basins. The Macedonian Anzabegovo-Vršnik culture in the lower Vardar near Skopje, between the Sesklo and Starčevo sequences, can also be included with the aforementioned cultures. The situation on the lower bank of the Struma river, is not only noteworthy, but probably also typical. The well differentiated Gălăbnik group (Pavúk and Čochadžiev 1984) was distributed on its upper banks, from the Pernik and Radomir basins up to the northern mouth of the Kresna; while the culture best represented by the settlement at Kovačevo (Lichardus-Itten et al. 2000), was distributed along its central bank. At the same time, the Gălăbnik culture was also contemporaneous with the Elešnica group (Tao 2000) near the banks of the river Mesta/Mestos. Furthermore, the contemporaneous cultural group represented by Gianitsa B (Chrysostomou 1993) and Nea Nekomedeia (Yiouni 1996) with white pottery, also thrived in the Haliakmon river delta at that time. Finally, the concurrent Slatina culture, again with typical white

The monochrome pottery found at Krajnici, was

72

JURAJ PAVÚK: EARLY LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE IN SLOVAKIA AND NEOLITHISATION OF CENTRAL EUROPE

Fig. 1: Map of early Neolithic cultures and key sites in southeast Europe. Culture and Site Abbreviations: FK-Fikirtepe Culture, HC-Hoca Çeşme, NN-Nea Nikomedeia, VP-Velušina-Porodin, PO-Podgorie, KO-Kovačevo, EL-Elešnica, KR-Krajinici, KAI- Karanovo I Group, AV-Anzabegovo-Vršnik I, GA- Gălăbnik Group, SL-Satina Culture, CA-Čavdar, GR-Gradešnica, CA-Cărcea, GRI-Grivac, DB-Donja Branjevina, OS-Ocna Sibiului, GB-Gura Baciului. Serbia (Gavela 1956/57). Due to the presence of red painted pottery of a Starčevo character at tell sites belonging to Karanovo I in Thrace (Nikolov 1989), and various other typological criteria, this group was probably contemporaneous with the Starčevo-Criş culture, but formed after Gălăbnik and Anzabegovo-Vršnik I (Bakamska and Pavúk 1995; Pavúk 1993). The period preceding Karanovo I has yet to be firmly established, however may be indicated by finds such as those at Hoca Çeşme II.

painted pottery, and traditionally considered a part of the Karanovo I culture (Nikolov 1992), also flourished north of the Gălăbnik culture. The groups Slatina, Gălăbnik and Anzabegovo-Vršnik I, form a chronological and cultural-genetic part of the Proto-Starčevo culture (Pavúk 1993). In a later phase of development, these cultures were the foundation of the classical Starčevo (which is best documented in ceramics by the appearance of vessels later typical of the StarčevoCriş culture) and the first appearance of red painted ceramics with new linear and spiral designs, typical of this newly emerging culture. Additional Proto-Starčevo groups emerged northwards, along both banks of the Danube. However these formed after AnzabegovoVršnik I, Gălăbnik and Slatina, probably when red painted pottery had already emerged in these three southern groups. These included the cultures Gradešnica in NW Bulgaria (Nikolov 1974), Cărcea in the Rumanian Oltenii (Nica 1977), Gura Baciului (Vlassa 1972; Lazarovici and Maxim 1995) and Donja Branjevina (Karmanski 1968), as well as the group represented by white and red painted pottery at the Grivac site in central

The area between the Aegean sea and the southern boundary of the Carpathian basin, comprised at least 15 contemporaneous yet regionally differentiated groups, all of which produced white painted pottery (Fig. 1). Each group was characterized by 2-3 basic vessel shapes associated with specific decoration distinctive of each group. In addition to specific vessel shapes, other aspects of their material culture as well as the type of settlement and house construction, also differed for each group. Areas of larger groups were bound by earthen enclosures into geomorphological units, with their ethno-cultural differentiation beginning in the pre-Neolithic period. It 73

LBK DIALOGUES

has been stratigraphically confirmed that Gălăbnik and Proto-Starčevo cultures followed Early Neolithic monochrome ceramics of the Krajinici type, with the end of their development resulting in their transformation into the classical Starčevo-Criş culture. The chronological span of the Proto-Starčevo culture is probably best indicated by the 7 settlement levels, often with houses built directly over each other, at the Gălăbnik tell. Unfortunately, the entire developmental sequence was not preserved archaeologically. Nevertheless, several typological characteristics on various aspects of the material culture at the settlement, permit the synchronization of the Gălăbnik culture with neighboring groups.

representative of the entire cultural area, seem to indicate that the anticipated neolithisation of the Balkans proceeded from the northern banks of the Aegean sea, along the southern Carpathian Basin and advanced from region to region in a span of 400 to 500 years starting in 5600 BC (C14 dates from Thissen 2000). The classical Starčevo culture may already have been developing in the Danube valley, west of the Iron Gates, and not only reached the southern banks of Lake Balaton, but also brought neolithisation into Central Europe, up to the future boundary with the Linear Pottery culture (Pavúk 1996).

According to the current data, the neolithisation of the eastern and central Balkans occurred from northwest Anatolia in two directions: (1) relatively directly from the area of the Fikirtepe culture into the lowlands of Thrace in Bulgaria, where the well known Karanovo I culture emerged later (2) along the banks of the Aegean Sea from the area of the Hacilar VI culture and further west, where local groups emerged, represented by sites such as Krajinici or Nea Nikomedeia. Knowledge of the Neolithic way of life spread from the areas near the banks of the rivers Axios/Vardar, Strymon/Struma, and Nestos/Mesta, into the central Balkans, and later into the area of the Danube. From the pottery, it is clear that by this point, the white painted pottery cultures had become completely independent, and typologically differentiated from one another. It is interesting to note, that Anatolian elements are completely absent in white painted pottery assemblages. Instead various characteristics, such as the shapes of regular and pedestalled vessels, coarseware pottery decorated with Shlickbewurf and various types of impressions, white paint, polished and channeled designs, culturally, regionally and chronologically differentiated altars, were all clearly the result of local Balkan development. Accordingly, this assemblage of mobile material culture, indicates autochthonous development, rooted in the pre-Neolithic environment. Furthermore, while white painted pottery cultures thrived in the eastern and central Balkans, the material culture did not contain characteristics which could have been derived from the Neolithic cultures of Thessaly. The so called Neolithic coiné common to Anatolia, Pelopenese, Thessaly, as well as the central and eastern Balkans, was reduced to applied anthropomorphic and zoomorphic applied elements figurines on a small range of ceramics such as spoons, ladles, handles, lugs, and so on. Long-term multi-purpose contacts between neighboring populations (exchange system) from the onset of Neolithisation in the Balkans, resulted in what we today describe as the diffusion of a Neolithic way of life. The speed at which this spread took place is difficult to estimate, given the incomplete state of knowledge in all of the pertinent regions, but appears to indicate a relatively slow advance. Furthermore, the small number of C14 samples, which were taken from various locations and are not

The neolithisation of Central Europe is undisputedly associated with the origin and spread of the Linear Pottery culture. The Carpathian Basin itself underwent neolithisation in two stages and involved 4 cultures. In the first stage, the Körös culture emerged in the Tisza basin, and the Starčevo culture spread into Transdanubia via Lake Balaton. In the second stage, the Méhtelek culture (Kalicz and Makkay 1976) emerged north of the Tisza basin, and north of the Körös river, as the earliest phase of the Alföld LBK. Meanwhile in Transdanubia, the Starčevo culture north of lake Balaton and in southwest Slovakia, developed into the Earliest LBK out of the pre-Neolithic cultures (Fig. 4). When considering the problem of LBK genesis, it is important to consider: (1) the geographical distribution of the Starčevo and early LBK territory (2) the internal chronology of the LBK, and its indications (3) synchronization with the Starčevo culture (4) synchronization of the LBK with Vinča A, and (5) the possible application of both the internal chronology and the typological criteria derived from the finds in Slovakia and Hungary, to the rest of the LBK territory.

Neolithisation of Central Europe

The Internal Chronology of the Earliest LBK In studies of central European origin, the Early LBK is often interpreted as a culturally and typologically homogenous unit, and therefore used for synchronization. All of the early LBK characteristics important for classification, as well as the resolution of chronological and regional trends, are often considered chronologically homogenous and equivalent. Periphery effects and retardation, are not usually considered. To date, the internal divisions of the LBK have been based on a few sites from western Slovakia. By 1962, two early LBK phases, Ia to Ib, were identified (Pavúk 1962), and later amended to four phases, Nitra - Hurbanovo - Bíňa Milanovce (Pavúk 1980). These chronological divisions are based on combinations of certain characteristics of both the fineware and the coarseware ceramics. Fine thin-walled burnished ceramics, both in terms vessel shape and associated ornamentation, developed relatively independently without clear influences from the Starčevo, Körös or Vinča cultures. Coarseware on the other hand,

74

JURAJ PAVÚK: EARLY LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE IN SLOVAKIA AND NEOLITHISATION OF CENTRAL EUROPE

encompasses certain characteristics which can be related to coarseware pottery manufacture in the aforementioned Balkan cultures, specifically involving the surface finish of globular vessels. In the Starčevo-Criş culture, as well as the Körös, finger and nail impressions into the vessel surface were more common than barbotine Schlickbewurf. Barbotine was especially characteristic for the late to terminal Starčevo-Criş (Spiraloid B, Cărcea-Viaduct), and was applied to 60% of coarseware vessels. The presence of barbotine on Early LBK and Starčevo-Criş ceramics constitutes a chronological determinant applicable only to a specific stage of development, the Bíňa phase. In principle, material culture found in Early LBK pits, can be either younger or older, than this phase. However, since barbotine is not found on ceramics of the Nitra or Hurbanovo phase, these must have preceded the Bíňa phase, which was in turn succeeded by the Milanovce phase, again lacking barbotine.

Fig. 3: Coarseware with barbotine (Schlickbewurf). 1-8 Borovce (Excavated by D. Staššíková-Štukovská), 9-12 Budapest, after Kalicz 1995. Various dimensions. 1997). Biconical vessels with slightly elaborated rims and strong carination that had been typical in the Bíňa phase (Fig. 2), were replaced by non-carinated globular vessels in the ensuing Milanovce phase (Fig. 7). A completely new feature appears in the Milanovce phase, which is the application of three vertically perforated cord handles to the vessel body, in addition to a wave motif made from one to four circular incised lines. Furthermore, Milanovce coarseware ceramics lack the typical Schlickbewurf which was always applied to dried vessels. Instead, barbotine was applied to coarseware ceramics with fingers or spatula to a still wet surface (Fig. 5: 7, 9, 10). Coarseware ceramics usually also contained applied bands, finger and nail impressions and various lugs. Another new characteristic in this phase, is the addition of a row of shallow finger impressions beneath the rim of coarseware vessels (Fig. 5). This type of decoration however, was not found on any of the more than 1000 sherds from Nitra or Bíňa. Moreover, rows of finger impressions beneath the rim are also not known from Starčevo ceramics, and first appear on coarseware ceramics of early Vinča A (Pavúk 1997), which is significant in the synchronization of the Milanovce LBK phase with the Vinča A culture.

Fig. 2: Bi-conical vessels from the Bíňa phase. 1-9, 1112: Bíňa. 10: Bicske. 10 after Makkay 1978. Various dimensions. It is important to both elaborate on the typological characteristics of Milanovce phase pottery, and its synchronization with the Vinča A culture. Especially since it signifies the spread of Neolithisation into central Europe, north and west of the Carpathian basin (Pavúk

The Bíňa phase was contemporaneous with the finds 75

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 4: Sites from the initial area of early LBK origin and distribution of contemporaneous cultures. Legend: 1 Starčevo culture sites, 2 Early LBK sites, 3 Starčevo distribution, 4 Körös distribution, 5 Criş distribution, 6 MéhtelekGroup distribution (after Kalicz 1995; Kalicz et al. 1998). found in this region south of lake Balaton, and were characterized by linear painted pottery as well as coarseware bearing finger and nail impressions, but lacking Schlickbewurf (Kalicz 1990:92, Tab. 11-30). However, due to the high quality and advanced technology of Bíňa phase pottery, and therefore also the pottery from Bicske and Budapest, as well as the horizontal stratigraphy, these ceramics do not constitute the Earliest LBK. There had to have been settlements with finds earlier than Bíňa. Accordingly, these older settlements comprise Nitra and Hurbanovo (Pavúk 1980, 1994), and represent the phase of the LBK that was contemporaneous with Starčevo-Linear B. This may also have been the formative period of the LBK. As a result, the Bíňa phase can be interpreted as a period of early LBK stabilization in the Carpathian Basin during the period of the Starčevo-Criş (Spiraloid B, CărceaViaduct). In contrast, the Milanovce phase can be interpreted as an optimal period during which the LBK flourished and spread throughout Europe, after the fall of the Starčevo-Criş culture, and during the period of Vinča A.

from Bicske in Hungary (Makkay 1978), and most of the ceramics from Budapest-Aranyhegyi ut (Kalicz-Schreiber and Kalicz 1992; Kalicz 1993, Fig. 29, 33, 34; 1995, Fig. 16, 22-24). The newly identified finds from Szigetszentmiklós near Budapest (Virág 1992:32, Fig. 47), can probably be attributed to the Milanovce phase. Likewise, the early LBK ceramics from sites in southern Transdanubia, where the Starčevo culture had previously been distributed (Kalicz 1980: 15-16, Tab. 1; 1993: Fig. 1-2, 14), can also be ascribed to the Milanovce phase. The same can be said of the sites Becsehely, Medina, Sármellék, Zalavár, Ógarabonc, Fajsz, Barcs and Baja, which yielded ceramics characteristics of the Early LBK Milanovce phase. As a result, the following conclusions can be made in regards to the chronology and synchronization of the Early LBK in western Slovakia and Hungary. Due to the presence of the characteristic Schlickbewurf (Fig. 3), Bíňa phase pottery from Slovakia and Hungary was probably contemporaneous with Starčevo Spiraloid B ceramics from Transdanubia, south of lake Balaton. Settlements of the previous Linear B phase were also 76

JURAJ PAVÚK: EARLY LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE IN SLOVAKIA AND NEOLITHISATION OF CENTRAL EUROPE

inherited from the Balkan Starčevo-Criş. The further development of the Early LBK therefore, in all aspects and characteristics as well as cultural-historical significance and genetic origin, must be considered both as autonomous and autochthonous. It is possible to imagine that pre-Neolithic and ethnically related populations on the northern boundary with the Starčevo, gradually became acquainted with the Neolithic way of life, and incorporated aspects of agriculture. The Early LBK culture emerged in the area northwest of Hungary, in line with lake Balaton, Budapest, along the river Ipeľ/Ipoly and hence also southwestern Slovakia up to the Malé Karpaty mountain range. The settlement of Nitra lies within this initial area of the LBK (Pavúk 1980), which represents the Earliest LBK to date, predating coarseware ceramics with channeled barbotine. The emergence of the Early LBK in its initial area of origin, occurred while the Starčevo Linear B Culture thrived in the area south of lake Balaton and decorated coarseware pottery with finger and nail impressions, but before the addition of Schlickbewurf. In a wider cultural and chronological context, significant changes had taken place in south east Europe: the Sesklo culture emerged in Thessaly, while Proto-Starčevo groups transformed into the classical Starčevo-Criş culture in the central Balkans. The formation of the classical Starčevo culture involved new vessel shapes painted with dark red paint (Bakamska and Pavúk 1995). At the same time, the Körös culture emerged in the Tisza basin, and later the Méhtelek group, which became the foundation of the Alföld LBK, formed in the north.

Fig. 5: Coarseware ceramics with finger applied barbotine and row of finger impressions beneath the rim from the Milanovce phase. 1 Strögen, 2 Eilsleben, 3, 5, 8 Stary Zamek, 4 Goddelau, 6 Medina, 7 Révfülöp, 9-10 Barcs. 1 after Lenneis 2001; 2 after Kaufmann 1981; 3, 5, 8 after Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa and Romanow 1985; 4 after Cladders 2001; 6-7, 9-10 after Kalicz 1995.

The introduction of agriculture and the manufacture of pottery, undoubtedly took longer than can be determined from the study of ceramic technology and typology. It is therefore unlikely that neolithisation of the northwest began during the Bíňa phase with technologically advanced ceramics, which were contemporaneous with Starčevo-Spiraloid B. By that time, there had already been mutual contacts between the early LBK and Starčevo in southern Transdanubia, as is suggested by the finds at Vörs (Kalicz et al. 1998; Virág and Kalicz 2001) or Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb (Bánffy 2000:377-378), and which the cited authors interpret as indication that the LBK emerged in the border zone with the Starčevo culture. I am convinced however, that alongside other theories, it is possible to develop the hypothesis that the LBK emerged in NW Hungary and SW Slovakia during the early classical Starčevo Linear B phase, when red painted pottery was made. This was the initial and main area of LBK origin, where both the formative and the classical development, which peaked in the Bíňa phase, took place. Neolithisation of a large part of Central Europe took place in the later Milanovce phase, typologically identified by globular vessels with specific designs, as populations moved out of this initial area in the Carpathian Basin.

Consequently, the development of the early LBK can be identified in three main phases: (1) the formative phase, Pre-Bíňa (Nitra and Hurbanovo), (2) the Bíňa phase, with the typical bi-conical vessels and application of barbotine (Schlickbewurf) on coarseware vessels and (3) Post-Bíňa, or the Milanovce phase, during which the Neolithisation of Central Europe began via the spread of the LBK. The first two phases took place in the Carpathian Basin during the period of the Starčevo-Criş. The Milanovce phase on the other hand, took place parallel with Vinča A, at which point the LBK spread via the Pripjat swamp to the east (Pavúk 1994, Fig. 1-2) and via the Rhine to the west. The Initial Area of Early LBK Origin The fact that the Starčevo territory south of lake Balaton has yielded LBK pottery of the Milanovce phase which are younger than the early LBK pottery north of lake Balaton and south west Slovakia, indicates that the LBK moved from the north to the south after the fall of the Starčevo in the area (Fig. 6). The first Neolithic culture of Central Europe, represented by the Early LBK, was not

77

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 6: Early LBK sites of the Milanovce phase in Hungary, Slovakia, Moravia, Austria and Poland. Legend: 1 Milanovce phase, 2 distribution of Vinča A, 3 early Alföld LBK - Szatmar II. After Kalicz 1990; Lenneis 1989; Quitta 1960. to the dry surface of globular vessels, such as can be seen at Budapest (Kalicz 1995, Fig. 22-24) or Bíňa (Pavúk 1980, Fig. 28). This cannot be equated with barbotine applied in lines with fingers on a still wet surface, such as is typical of the Milanovce phase.

Spread of the Early LBK from the Initial Center Comparisons of basic fineware vessel shape and decoration, as well as the surface finish of coarseware vessels from sites in the NW Carpathian Basin with ceramics from other areas of the early LBK, should reveal the mechanisms and cultural-chronological relationships of its spread. The early LBK in the NW Carpathian Basin can be divided into three main typological and chronological phases: (1) the Pre-Bíňa phase (Nitra and Hurbanovo), (2) the actual Bíňa phase and, (3) the Milanovce phase. The Bíňa phase is best characterized by bi-conical vessel shapes (Fig.2) and coarseware ceramics bearing Schlickbewurf (Fig. 3). From published finds, it is clear that these bi-conical vessels with pronounced carination of the body and semicircular designs in the upper half of the vessel, are not found outside of the initial LBK area. This is also true of authentic Schlickbewurf, which with the exception of the initial area, is not indicated at other sites. True Schlickbewurf involves the application of fine liquid clay

Poorly applied barbotine has been identified on the ceramics from Eitzum (Cladders 2001:52, Tab. 14, 10.11; 15, 3.5) and Stary Zamek (Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa and Romanow 1995, Fig. 7, b. g. h; 13, a. c. f; 22, a). However it is also associated with finger impressions beneath the rim on the same vessels, which in the Carpathian Basin, is typical of the Milanovce phase. In addition to the row of finger impressions beneath the rim, (Cladders 2001, Tab. 15, 2; 16, 1) globular vessels with a typical curvilinear wave pattern and handles with vertical perforations (Fig. 7. 6, 9), have also been identified at Eitzum. These characteristics also emerged in the Carpathian Basin for the first time in the Milanovce phase. As already indicated (Pavúk 1994; 1997), it is worthwhile to emphasize that in areas north and west of

78

JURAJ PAVÚK: EARLY LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE IN SLOVAKIA AND NEOLITHISATION OF CENTRAL EUROPE

Fig. 7: Globular vessels with a typical curvilinear wave pattern and handles with vertical perforation from the Milanovce phase. 1-2 Hurbanovo, 3 Cífer-Pác, 4 Ógarabonc, 5 Smiřice, 6 Schwanfeld, 7 Bruchenbrücken, 8 Steinfurt, 9 Eitzum, 10 Erfurt. 4 after Kalicz 1995; 5 after Pavlů 1998, 6-8 after Cladders 2001; 9 after Schwarz-Mackensen 1983; 10 after Kaufmann 1982.

79

LBK DIALOGUES

insight into the duration of Early LBK spread into Central Europe during the Milanovce phase is suggested by the settlement in section F at Bylany, which lasted through 7 to 9 phases of construction (Pavlů 2000, Fig. 7.6.2.a-b; Pavlů et al. 1986:336, Fig. 18). However corresponding differences were not identified in the ceramics. This also implies the duration of the Milanovce phase, which cannot be understood as a short transitional phase, but as part of a long-term process during which a large part of central Europe underwent Neolithisation. It must be emphasized, that this process of neolithisation in loess areas of central Europe, continued during the early Vinča A culture, or at a time when the Starčevo culture no longer existed in the Balkans. At that time, many cultural changes were taking place in southeastern Europe, associated with the emergence of black, grey and greybrown polished ceramics bearing channeled ornamentation (Dimini, Paradimi, Karanovo III, Vinča A, Dudeşti). Unfortunately the innovation and acculturation of Central European Mesolithic populations in this process, cannot be identified directly. The remarkable time span during which agricultural Neolithic culture, specifically the early LBK, spread into new central European areas, agrees with the theory of neolithisation by the process of gradual diffusion.

the Carpathian Basin, typological features characteristic of the Early LBK, include elements which appear later in the Carpathian Basin, during the Milanovce phase. These primarily involve the already mentioned globular vessels with curvilinear wave patterns and handles with vertical perforations (Fig. 7), as well as coarseware vessels with rows of finger impressions beneath the rim (Fig. 5). It is unlikely that these characteristics appeared earlier in the west than in the Carpathian Basin. Instead it is probable that these features developed from earlier templates in SW Slovakia and NW Hungary, and from there spread west. These simple vessel shapes, bearing the aforementioned decorative characteristics, accompanied the spread of agriculture out of the initial LBK center in the NW Carpathian Basin, further north and west. This process of Neolithic expansion out of the initial area and into Central Europe took place at a time when the Balkan Starčevo-Criş was replaced by Vinča A, and other contemporaneous cultures (Dudeşti, Karanovo III, etc). This involved a long-term process, during which local pre-Neolithic communities living in naturally bound geomorphological areas with primary contacts between settled populations in nearby regions, became acquainted with, and gradually incorporated, aspects of Neolithic life. Identifying the variable input of these individual local Mesolithic groups in the origin of the new cultural group, under the guise of the early LBK, will be a necessary aspect of future research. A starting point may be the many well differentiated groups of the Late LBK (Pavlů 1998, Fig. 73), the specific differences of which may have been rooted in the Mesolithic. The typological unity of the early LBK in all areas of its distribution, often lead to the conclusion that the rapid spread of the early LBK was caused by southeast migrants, recently revived by Petrasch (2001). The homogeneity of vessel shapes and their decoration, may relate with specialized pottery manufacture, wherein specialized potters in a defined area practiced, developed, and spread the technology, shape and decoration of the vessels. Moreover, it is unlikely that there was over-population and a demographic explosion during the formative period of the LBK in the NW Carpathian Basin, such that it could have led to the colonization of Central Europe by a large number of independent and self-sufficient migrants.

References Bakamska, A. and Pavúk, J. (1995) Die Rotbemalte Keramik und der Anfang der Starčevo-Kultur Acta Musei Napocensis 32: 29-45. Bánffy, E. (2000) Neue Daten zur Entstehung der Bandkeramik. IN: S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (eds) Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien. pp. 375-82. Cladders, M. (2001) Die Tonware der Ältesten Bandkeramik. Untersuchung zur Zeitlichen und Räumlichen Gliederung. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 72. Dr. R. Habelt Verlag, Bonn. Chrysostomou, Pan. (1993) O Neolithikos Oikismos Giannitson B. Archaiologiko Ergo sti Makedonia kai Thraki 7: 135-46. Gavela, B. (1956/57) Eneolitska Naselba u Grivcu. Starinar 7-8: 237-265. Kalicz, N. (1980) Funde der Ältesten Phase der Linienbandkeramik in Südtransdanubien. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Institutes der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 8-9. Budapest. pp 1346. Kalicz, N. (1990) Frühneolithische Siedlungsfunde aus Südwestungarn. Inventaria Praehistorica Hungariae 4. Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum. Archaeologicae Hungariae. Budapest, pp. 5-30. Kalicz, N. (1993) The Early Phases of the Neolithic in Western Hungary (Transdanubia). Poročilo o Raziskovanju Paleolitika, Neolitika in Eneolitika v Sloveniji 21: 85-135.

Conclusion It is not easy to specify the time span of Early LBK expansion and the advancement of the Neolithic way of life into areas outside of the Carpathian Basin. It is possible, that by the time the Early LBK reached the Rhine, the Late LBK of the Notenkopf phase, may have already emerged in the Carpathian Basin. Especially since, while the Lengyel development (Protolengyel and Lengyel I) was underway in the Carpathian Basin, Late LBK ceramics continued to be made in the western LBK periphery. A similar delay in development can also be anticipated in the spread of the Early LBK. A certain

80

JURAJ PAVÚK: EARLY LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE IN SLOVAKIA AND NEOLITHISATION OF CENTRAL EUROPE

Karanovo I. IN: Tell Karanovo und das BalkanNeolithikum. Gesammelte Beiträge zum Internationalen Kolloquium in Salzburg, 20. - 22. Oktober 1988. Salzburg. pp. 27-41. Nikolov, V. (1992) Rannoneolitno Žilišče ot Slatina (Sofia). Raskopki i Proučvanija 25. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia. Nikolov, V. Radeva, M. (1992) Sondažni Proučvanija na Rannoneolitno Selište v Dobrinište, Razložko. Archeologija Sofia 34-1: 1-14. Özdogan, M. (1998) An Early Neolithic Anatolian Colony in The Balkans? IN: P. Anreiter; L. Bartosziewicz and W. Meid (ed) Man and the Animal World. In Memoriam S. Bökönyi. Budapest. pp 43551. Özdogan, M. (1999) Northwestern Türkey: Neolithic Cultures in Between the Balkans and Anatolia. IN: M. Özdogan (ed) Neolithic in Türkey. Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yay, Istanbul. pp. 203-24. Pavlů, I. (1998) Die Chronologische und Geographische Verteilung der Linienbandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. IN: J. Preuß (ed) Das Neolithikum in Mitteleuropa. Kulturen - Wirtschaft - Umwelt vom 6. bis 3. Jahrtausend v. u. Z. Band I/2, Weissbach. pp. 274-85. Pavlů, I. (2000) Life on a Neolithic Site. Bylany Situational Analysis of Artefacts. Praha, Institute of Archaeology, Czech Academy of Sciences. Pavlů, I.; Rulf, J. and Zápotocká, M. (1986) Theses on the Neolithic site of Bylany. Památky Archeologické 77: 288-412. Pavúk, J. (1962) Gliederung der Volutenkeramik in der Slowakei. IN: Študijné Zvesti Slovenského Archeologického Ústavu Nitra 9: 5-20. Pavúk, J. (1980) Ältere Linearkeramik in der Slowakei. Slovenská Archeológia 28: 7-87. Pavúk, J. (1993) Beitrag zur Definition der ProtostarčevoKultur. Anatolica 19: 231-42. Pavúk, J. (1994) Zur Relativen Chronologie der Älteren Linearkeramik. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36: 135-50. Pavúk, J. (1996) Zur Frage der Verbreitung des Neolithikums auf dem Zentralbalkan und in Mitteleuropa. IN: F. Draşovean, The Vinča Culture, its Role and Cultural Connections. The Museum of Banat, Timişoara. pp. 23-40. Pavúk, J. (1997) The Vinča Culture and the Beginning of Linear Pottery. IN: M. Lazić (ed) Antidoron Dragoslavo Srejović, pp. 167-78. Pavúk, J. and Čochadžiev, M. (1984) Neolithische Tellsiedlung bei Gălăbnik in Westbulgarien. Slovenská Archeológia 32: 195-228. Pavúk, J. and Bakamska, A. (1989) Beitrag der Ausgrabung in Gălăbnik zur Erforschung des Neolithikums in Südosteuropa. IN: S. Bökönyi (ed) Neoilithic of Southeasten Europe and its Near Eastern Connections. Varia Archeologia. Hungarica 2: 223231. Pavúk, J. and Bakamska, A. (2000) Typologie und Stratigraphie der Verzierten Monochromen Keramik

Kalicz, N. (1995) Die Älteste Transdanubische (Mitteleuropäische) Linienbandkeramik. Aspekte zu Ursprung, Chronologie und Beziehungen. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47: 23-59. Kalicz N. Makkay, J. (1976) Frühneolithische Siedlungen in Méhtelek-Nádas. Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Institutes der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 6. pp. 13-26. Kalicz, N.; Virág, Z.M. and. Biró, K.T. (1998) The Northern Periphery of the Early Neolithic Starčevo Culture in South-Western Hungary: a Case Study of an Excavation at Lake Balaton. Documenta Praehistorica 25:151-88. Kalicz-Schreiber, R. and Kalicz, N. (1992) Die Erste Frühneolithische Siedlung in Budapest. Hommage a Nikola Tasić. Balcanica 24. Beograd. pp. 47-76. Karmanski, S. (1968) Bemalte Keramik aus der Lokalität Donja Branjevina bei Deronje. Odzaci. Kaufmann (1981) Neue Funde der Ältesten Linienbandkeramik von Eilsleben, Kreis Wanzleben. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte 1, Beiheft 16. Berlin. pp.129-43. Kaufmann (1982) Zu Einigen Ergebnissen der Ausgrabungen im Bereich des Linienbandkeramischen Erdwerks bei Eilsleben, Kreis Wanzleben. IN: J. Pavúk (ed) Siedlungen der Kultur mit Linearkeramik in Europa. Internationales Kolloquium Nové Vozokany 17.-20. November 1981. Nitra. pp. 69-92. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa, and A. Romanow, J. (1985) Wczesnoneolityczne Osiedla v Gniechowicach i Starym Zamku. Silesia Antiqua 27: 9-68. Lazarovici, G. and Maxim, Z. (1995) Gura Baciului. Cluj-Napoca. Muzeul National de Istorie a Transilvaniei. Lenneis, E. (1989) Zum Forschungsstand der Ältesten Bandkeramik in Österreich. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 19: 23-36. Lenneis , E. (2001) Die Altbandkeramischen Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen. Das Fundgut. IN: E. Lenneis and J. Lüning (eds) Die Altbandkeramischen Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 82. Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag, Bonn. pp. 1-314. Lichardus-Itten M., Demoule, J.P., Perničeva, L., Grebska-Kulova, M. and Kulov, I. (2000) Zur Bemalten Keramik aus der Frühneolithischen Siedlung von Kovačevo. IN: S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (ed) Karanovo 3: Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien. pp. 27-50. Makkay, J. (1978) Excavations at Bicske. I. The Early Neolithic - The Earliest Linear Band Ceramic. Alba Regia 16: 9-60. Nica, M. (1977) Nouvelles Données sur le Néolithique Ancien d´Olténie. Dacia 21: 6-56. Nikolov, B. (1974) Gradešnica. Praistoričeski Selišta. Sofia. Nikolov, V. (1989) Zu Einigen Aspekten der Kultur

81

LBK DIALOGUES

aus der Neolithischen Tellsiedlung in Gălăbnik. IN: S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (ed) Karanovo Band III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Phoibos Verlag, Wien. pp. 263-272. Petrasch, J. (2001) Seid Fruchtbar und Mehret Euch und Füllet die Erde und Machet sie Euch Untertan: Überlegungen zur Demographischen Situation der Bandkeramischen Landnahme. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 31: 13-23. Schwarz-Mackensen, G. (1983) Die Siedlung der Ältesten Linienbandkeramik von Eitzum, Lndkr. Wolfenbüttel. Frühe Bauernkulturen in Niedersachsen. Archäologische Mitteilungen Nordwestdeutschland. Beih. 1.Oldenburg. pp. 23-36. Quitta, H. (1960) Zur Frage der Ältesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 38: 1-38, 153-188. Rodden, R. J. (1965) An Early Neolithic Village in Greece. Scientific American 212(4): 82-92. Tao, M. (2000) Early Neolithic Pottery from Delnicite near Elešnica. IN: S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (ed) Karanovo 3: Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien. pp. 51-58. Tchochadijev, S. and Bakamska, A. (1990) Etude du site Néolithique Ancien de Krainitsi Dans le Départment de Kustendil. Studia Praehistorica 10: 51-76. Thissen, L. (2000) Early Village Communities in Anatolia and the Balkans, 6500 - 5500 cal BC. PhD Thesis at the Leiden University. Leiden. Virág, Z. M. (1992) Újkökori és Középsö Rézkori Telepnyomok az MO Autópálya Szigetszentmiklósi Sakaszánál. IN: P. Havassy and L. Selmeczy (ed) Régeszeti Kutatások az MO Autópálya Nyomvonalán I. BMT Mühely 5. Budapest. pp. 15-60. Virág, Z. and Kalicz, N. (2001) Neuere Siedlungsfunde der Frühneolithischen Starčevo-Kultur aus Südwestungarn. IN: Problems of the Stone Age in the Old World. Jubilee Book dedicated to Professor Janusz K. Kozłowski. Kraków. pp. 268-79. Vlassa, N. (1972) Eine Frühneolithische Kultur mit Bemalter Keramik der Vor-Starčevo-Körös-Zeit in Cluj-Gura Baciului. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 47(2): 174-197. Yiouni, P. (1996) The Early Neolithic Pottery. IN: R.J. Rodden and K.A Wardle (eds) Nea Nikomedeia I: The Exacavation on an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece 1961-1964. British School Athens Supplement Volume 25. London. pp. 55-193.

82

THE ORIGINS OF THE EARLY LINEAR POTTERY CUTURE IN BOHEMIA Ivan Pavlů Abstract The Earliest Linear Pottery culture (ELBK) was defined in the early sixties as the initial period of the Classic Linear Pottery culture. However considering its chronological duration (400 years) and artifactual features (settlement patterns, architecture, pottery, stone tool industry etc.), it would be preferable to consider the ELBK as a completely independent cultural entity, even though its exact origin and range of geographical dispersal are not yet fully understood. Relationships with both preceding and contemporary, albeit culturally different, settlements have been underestimated. Individual artifactual characteristics need to be reconsidered from this point of view.

In the Central European Neolithic, it is possible to discern 4 genetically related yet geo-chronologically distinct cultural periods: Early LBK (5600/5500-5200 BC), Classic LBK (5200-4900/4800 BC), Decorated StK (4800-4500 BC) and Undecorated StK (4500-4200 BC). The range of absolute chronological dates for each must be understood as approximate, in the sense that individual regions may vary from the norm, for example the case of extended duration intervals during transitions between periods. This also holds true for the distinction between the end of the Early LBK and the onset of the Classic LBK, which varies from region to region (compare Cladders 2001: 115). Furthermore, this transitional period has regionally specific names: in Bohemia “Áčkový” (Soudský 1954), in Poland “Žofipole” (Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1988: 139), and in the Rhine Valley “Flomborn”. The end of the Early LBK era can be defined by a range of artifactual changes along with discontinuity in a majority of regions (Cladders 2001: 114) followed by a clear expansion of settlements throughout Europe during this time. Unfortunately, the synchronization of individual European regions remains incomplete (compare Tab.1 in Lenneis and Lüning 2001:8).

The Invention of the Early LBK Near the end of the 1950’s, while researchers in the Czech Republic (Neustupný 1956; Soudský 1956) debated the existence of the Early LBK, this cultural period was defined elsewhere on the basis of larger museum collections (Quitta 1960; Tichý 1962). However it is noteworthy that ceramic types and decorative motifs now attributed to the Early LBK, had not only already been recognized by preceding researchers and were known from earlier literature (Stocký 1926), but had also been correctly positioned as the starting point of development in relative chronologies, especially in Moravia (Palliardi 1914). This was further confirmed during excavations at Bylany in 1963 when Early LBK structures were unearthed in section F of the site (1966-1967) as well as at the site Miskovice (Pavlů 1981), both corroborated by non-ceramic artifacts and corresponding radiocarbon dates. A similar situation arose with excavations in Moravia (Mohelnice, Žopy). It is noteworthy that the current definition of the Early LBK, which suggests that it was merely the initial phase of an already known culture, implies a short time period within which the Neolithic was introduced into Bohemia. Detailed information regarding the nature of the Early LBK and its current state of research, is the subject of other works (see for instance Kloos 1997; Lenneis and Lüning 2001:3-10) and will not be repeated here.

Core Area Although the geographical position of the LBK “birthplace” has often been attributed to southern Transdanubia (Quitta 1960) or more often northern Transdanubia and the Danube Valley (Kalicz 1995; Makkay 2001: 22; Zvelebil 2000, Fig. 7.2), a detailed characterization is lacking in both theoretical and archaeological terms. Changes anticipated primarily in ceramic typologies, have not been confirmed. Earliest indications of the Early LBK are considered to be present in the Sármellék and Révfülöp (Fig.1) collections in Hungary (Kalicz 1995), among which incised decoration is an exception. More convincing indications of cultural change are expected from finds in the Wien-Brunn excavations, within which not only the nature of the artifacts but also the settlement areas Brunn IIa Brunn I (Lenneis et al. 1996: 102) vary greatly. Relationships with more distant regions in the southern Mediterranean are indicated in material culture changes, for instance changes in ceramic technology to incorporate a stage of black polished ceramics (Lichardus and Lichardus-Itten 1990). In view of later decorated LBK pottery, it would also be possible to consider contacts with southern

In the 1980’s a large scale research project supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), was begun by the Frankfurt University and is currently yielding results which may require a change in the present theories constructed for the Early LBK (most recently Cladders 2001; Lenneis and Lüning 2001). Much of this work primarily involves housing structures of the Earliest LBK in relation to relative and absolute chronologies (Lenneis et al. 1996; Lenneis and Stadler 2002). Renewed interest in the radiocarbon dating method, results of dozens of newly dated samples and a critical re-evaluation of their archaeological context, have led to the conclusion that the Earliest LBK lasted around 300-400 years, which is comparable with later developmental phases of both decorated and undecorated wares. Considering that other artifactual characteristics (settlement, architecture, ceramics, stone tool industry etc.) of the Earliest LBK are unique and differ from later developmental phases, it may be possible to define it as an independent archaeological culture, such as the definition of the Stroked Pottery Culture (StK). 83

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 1: Location of some sites mentioned in the text. documented in peripheral regions of initial Early LBK spread, which can be attributed to the unique mechanisms of sequential formation of Neolithic society via border contact zones (Zvelebil and Lillie 2000, Fig. 3.1). As a result, LBK emergence in Bohemia has often been presented (Soudský 1956; Neustupný 1982: 279) in terms of diffusionist perspectives involving “folk migration” (Zvelebil 2000: 57), wherein the role of the older settlement was reduced, or completely nullified at the time of expansion. Due to the absence of archaeological finds and analyses of contrasting cultural traits, this view has been interpreted to indicate the newly arrived Neolithic population settled an empty landscape, or at most, moved into regions within which contacts with residual Mesolithic populations did not have a significant influence on the ensuing development of the LBK. It is interesting to note that a founding role of the indigenous population had been previously anticipated on the basis of anthropological studies (Modderman 1988: 74). Current research finds some support for this in molecular genetics studies of current European populations on the one hand, which anticipate a founding contribution of at least 15% (Price 2000: 305), and a deeper understanding of the structure of later Neolithic settlements on the other (in particular the Early LBK which permits a detailed study of the onset of the LBK in various regions). Both suggest a re-evaluation of

Transdanubia via the Adriatic Sea in the Mediterranean (Pavlů 1990; Barnett 2000). It is therefore only possible to hypothesize the area of origin for the western LBK from a wider region of birth in the eastern LBK (Lichardus 1972; Strobel 1997:11). The core of both cultures are therefore anticipated within the northern periphery of earlier Neolithic cultures: the region of the Criş culture in the east, and the Starčevo culture in the west. This anticipates an active role on the part of the various Mesolithic groups within these regions (Makkay 2001:24). This view is necessarily simplified since the internal development and regionalization of neither the Criş nor the Starčevo culture is presently fully understood. It may however be indicated by a lower variability of ceramic vessel shapes and decorative motifs of early Neolithic ceramics which are also “copied” in the Earliest LBK. However the absence of anticipated Mesolithic groups in the core area of origin and in the majority of regions of its primary spread, reduces the probability of this theoretical view of LBK genesis. Theoretical relationships with earlier cultures in areas outside this core have been invalidated due to a lack of positive evidence (Vencl 1982). Nevertheless, renewed interest in their hypothetical presence remains (Tillmann 1993; Jochim 2000). Supporting finds have only been 84

IVAN PAVLŮ: THE ORIGINS OF THE EARLY LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE IN BOHEMIA

section F in particular (Pavlů 2002, Fig. 38-46). However it is important to note that radiocarbon dates were obtained from animal bones that originated in the upper layers of associated ditch 3, and therefore cannot be part of this development since they are too young. The second housing structure (house 39 with pits 23 and 33) may have been comparable with house 11, based on the ceramic finds. Other ceramic collections obtained in trench VIII/87 may indicate a minimum of three additional houses, however a more secure date is not possible due to the reasons described above. The character of pit 35 and 36, which is significant due to the higher proportion of undecorated ceramics fired at a low oxidizing atmosphere, may contain even older materials.

previous assumptions and models of the origin of the Early LBK in Bohemia. Chronology Overlooking the low variability of the Early LBK, it is now possible to reconstruct a chronology of the Early LBK in some Bohemian regions. Its spread has been documented in detail in northeast Bohemia and associated central Bohemia (Pavlů and Zápotocká 1979, Fig. 1 and 9; Pavlů and Vokolek 1992, Fig. 1, 28 and 29). A chronological relationship has been discerned between three houses at the Holohlavy site (A->B->C), which was based on the proportions of various ceramic classes of fineware in combination with a proportion of incised decorative motifs (Pavlů and Vokolek 1996, Tab. 21: A). House complex A contained the smallest amount of greyblack fineware ceramics (code 21), the highest amount of black coarseware ceramics (code 62) and undecorated ceramics. However this sample came from incompletely excavated pits (77, 78). The proportion of grooved and incised decoration in house B (ditch: 24, 52, 53, 54 a 59) was indicated by index 2.06 (N=46) and in house C (ditch 34, 35b and 37) it was indicated by index 0.67 (N=5). In the first instance, the proportion of grooved decoration is nearly twofold. In the second instance it is significantly lower, however the significance of these results is uncertain due to the low number of decorated sherds. The collection of finds from feature 78 at Holohlavy can be understood as earliest (Pavlů and Vokolek 1996, Fig. 10).

Site ND2 can be attributed to phase Ib, and as such, the onset of the Early LBK in this region. In a wider European context this phase can be synchronized with other Early LBK developments, since there are indications of burnishing typical of the Bíňa-Bicske phase. The development of section F at Bylany must be placed before the Flomborn phase. The Flomborn phase corresponds with later developments attributed to the Bohemian “Áčkový” phase or LBK IIa (compare Tab. 1 in Lenneis and Lüning 2001: 9). The role of site ČA6 is uncertain due to a low quantity of finds (Pavlů and Rulf 1996b, Fig. 8) and it is therefore not possible to confirm it involves another site of comparable age in a different micro-region. The development of the Early LBK in the Kolín subregion is similarly difficult to characterize, since sites are only indicated by older unstratified finds (Pavlů and Zápotocká 1979, Fig. 9). It is only possible to hypothesize that the founding site may have been located on the left bank of the river Labe, within the present day city of Kolín, such as sites Kolín B or D (Pavlů and Rulf 1996a: 140). Within the Kolín-Kutná Hora region it was possible to distinguish 5 micro-regions (Pavlů and Rulf 1996a, b), and we anticipated that each would consist of a founding settlement datable to the Early LBK. The question of whether there was only one founding settlement for the entire region at the onset of this culture remains uncertain.

In the Hradec region, House A is only comparable with the collection of finds from feature 8 at the Předměřice na Labem site (Pavlů and Vokolek 1992, Fig. 20). Both have been attributed to phase Ib of the Early LBK (Pavlů and Vokolek 1992, Tab. 6) and it is possible to consider them to be the first indications of this culture within the micro-region of the upper Labe Valley. It is not currently possible to interpret these finds as indicators of the anticipated Bohemian phase Ia, since these collections are both of low quality and uncertain significance. Other micro-regions in this area, which include upper Bystřice (Cerekvice, Chlum), Cidlina (Nový Bydžov), Mrlina (Rožďalovice) and Chrudimka (Tuněchody) have not yielded comparably dated collections.

Each instance of these Early settlements involved an individual isolated household, not a collection of a large number of houses which may sometimes be described as a village. During the development of the Early LBK, these economies may have been organized into specific co-operating groups on the basis of kinship or other relationships. This is indicated by the 7 settlement phases discerned at Bylany in section F (Pavlů 2000), where within one phase there were at most four to six houses. Additional organization or divisions are not evident within the settlement space, and therefore cannot be labeled as a village in the historical sense of the word. These settlements have at most a quasi-village character, wherein individual families co-ordinated their economy

A similar situation is evident in the region of Kutná Hora and Čáslav where the earliest finds come from the sites Nové Dvory 2 (ND2) and Čáslav (ČA6) “U třech svatých” (Pavlů and Rulf 1996b, Fig. 8). Site ND2 encompasses five to six houses from the Early LBK phase which may indicate a minimum of two households over three phases, however in view of the low quantity of ceramics and especially the low proportion of decorated ceramics, it is not possible to quantify these sites in further detail. House complex 11 is the most significant (ditches 13 and 14), in view of characteristics which indicate it played a founding role at the Bylany site,

85

LBK DIALOGUES

the site Holohlavy in Bohemia, not only in the initial settlement phase, but throughout the continuance of the Early LBK. A similar situation is evident at Litice. Radiolites appear sporadically (Bylany, Holohlavy) indicating contacts with the southeast, but the importance of this must have been small (peripheral) due to the quantity found. This complicates the pre-conceived understanding of colonists arriving from the southeast to the northwest. Also according to ceramic characteristics, when organized in a table according to diagnostic characteristics (Cladders 2001, Fig. 87), it is more likely that the direction was through the Danube Valley to Moravia, and Silesia into central Germany which may have temporarily left out the anticipated direction into eastern Bohemia. In this instance the wealth of glacial raw sources would be accounted for through secondary acquisition from the northwest into the initial Neolithic, “pioneered” in Bohemia and mediated by gradual changes brokered via local indigenous pre-Neolithic populations. The use of the river Labe for these purposes anticipates the ability to travel against the current, which was not an easy task. However, transport from the Black Sea down to the Danube river would have encountered the same problem.

on the basis of even older kinship and other relationships. Their development was not stabilized within a span of three to four generations, which is indicated by the cyclical character of artifactual refuse (Pavlů 2000: 268). It is therefore possible to anticipate that these settlements rose and fell in correspondence to the demographic character of houses and settlement areas, even microregions. As the Neolithic continued, this economy maintained a measure of mobility restricted only by the character of individual regions. Settlement areas of the Early LBK did not continue. The Early LBK site Nový Dvory is discontinuous until the onset of the Early StK. In contrast, a continuous settlement is found 1km away in Hlízov. In other Bohemian regions, the situation of the Early LBK is not well documented. In Northwest Bohemia, the site of Chabařovice u Ústí nad Labem (Kruta et al. 1966) will be key in resolving this question. Within the region of Prague, only one Early LBK site is currently known, Praha-Liboc (Olmerová and Pavlů 1991), however based on the ceramic typology, it may not indicate the founding settlement in this region. Newest finds from the site Plzeň-Litice (Braun and Sokol 1996) have shifted the understanding of the Early LBK in relative geography within the closed region of Plzeň. This site has yielded many housing structures typical of Early LBK construction, which according to ceramic typology, may be dated into the initial Early LBK phase in the Plzeň region. This may involve one, at most two homesteads in three, possibly more, phases thus far not published in detail. The position of this settlement area in this microregion remains unique (Sokol 2001, Fig 2). It is thus far also the only one in the entire region, since other Early LBK settlements (Dobřany, Malesice, Šťáhlavice) are primarily discerned on the basis of ceramic decoration, which appears to be relatively younger in comparison with others in the earliest phase.

The morphology of Early LBK flaked stone industry is often compared to and contrasted with Early Mesolithic industries. However it has thus far not been possible to compare artifacts with a similar chronological date. At Holohlavy there are indications that some varieties of small retouched arrowheads were comparable with traditional Mesolithic transverse points (Pavlů and Vokolek 1996, Fig. 24). Typical microliths, such as trapezoid transverse points which are anticipated as direct evidence of indigenous populations may not be sufficiently diagnostic in Central Europe. Even when considered chronologically, they do not suggest a singular time horizon as indicated in the Balkans, where they appear as isolated examples in younger collections (Lichardus et al. 2000), even if retouch is not understood as a randomly applied technique. The genesis of a regular arrowhead industry has previously been associated with an earlier southeastern tradition (Clark 1980; Jochim 2000:190; compare Tillmann 1993:165).

Re-Evaluation of Artifacts The Bohemian region of the LBK lacks securely synchronized pre-Neolithic settlements which can be compared with other Early LBK settlements. However even if it is not possible to find direct evidence of these settlements, it is possible to find their indirect indications within the context of the Neolithic. Furthermore, it is possible that indications of these earlier settlements may be hidden in the inventories of the initial phases of the Early LBK, considering that until now they were considered to be a natural part of the standard Neolithic package. It is important to point out that in many cases there may be multiple interpretations of the same phenomena. Evaluation of individual types of artifacts, leads to several interesting observations, discussed below. Flaked stone industry of the Early LBK in Bohemia is distinguished by the reliance on specific raw materials, primarily glacial silicate sediments whose origin may be found north of the Bohemian region. This is indicated at

Polished stone tools are sometimes found in Mesolithic contexts. These include irregularly perforated hammeraxes which are also present in Early LBK contexts. At Holohlavy one segment was found in feature 24 (Pavlů and Vokolek 1996, Fig. 12), and in Bylany one was found in feature complex 2200 dated into the first phase (feature 2126). Another was found in feature 2233 and its source is a well known quarry in northern Italy (Přichystal, pers. comm.). A third was found in feature 2249 datable to interval 5 of phase II of the Bylany chronology. Plane-convex adzes are also sporadically present in Mesolithic contexts in various regions, not all of them peripheral (Tillmann 1993: 167).

86

IVAN PAVLŮ: THE ORIGINS OF THE EARLY LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE IN BOHEMIA

relationships with incoming Neolithic populations, but may also be the result of earlier conceptions of territoriality by indigenous populations which were used to operating in large areas. This would also explain the well known idea of “diversity in uniformity” (Modderman 1988).

The presence of isolated finds of polished stone tools outside of the settlement area are often attributed to movement of Neolithic populations within the surrounding countryside in the course of their day-to-day lives while searching for supplemental nutritional sources in forested regions (Vencl 1960). The distribution of later, Eneolithic tools is explained through different mechanisms, in particular as markers of long distance communication (Zápotocký 2002). However in the case of the Early LBK, the preferred interpretation of these items regards them to be markers of local population movement wherein the items were acquired through trade or some other means, and then left behind as people moved throughout the landscape. In opposition of this traditional view, it can be argued that the initial early settlements probably kept clear of forested areas which were settled in later phases of the Early LBK. Quantities of wood required for construction could have been met via immature trees growing in the vicinity of the settlement since it can be shown that houses from the Early LBK in Bylany had a lower demand for wood than later constructions.

The architecture of the Early LBK is also distinguishable by details of construction when compared with houses of the Classic LBK. These include related pits, and a concentration of three deep post holes near the middle of the central section of the house which was used to support the exterior walls of the house (this made for an architecturally weaker construction than was built in later times). Precursors of Neolithic architecture are sought in the Balkans (Lenneis 1997, 2000) and it would be difficult to look for local templates. Posthole longhouse construction was no doubt the result of adaptation to locally available sources of building material. As seen in the manufacture of ceramics, the builders of the earliest houses at Bylany suffered from inexperience. When compared with later constructions, early houses contained postholes of smaller diameters and various redundant exterior features, as if the builders could not strengthen the house from the inside. These exterior features may be residual techniques from older building methods.

It is difficult to define the full range of Early LBK ceramics. The site Nové Dvory has yielded primarily undecorated coarseware which was fired in a slightly oxidizing atmosphere (feature 36: Pavlů 2002), which is in accordance with techniques of manufacture of the Early Neolithic in the Carpathian Basin and in the Balkans. Striations present on coarseware ceramics probably had a functional rather than decorative purpose, and grooves in these collections are rarely present. A similar scenario is present in feature 8 at the Předměřice nad Labem site. The question remains whether there may have been a short period in which ceramics were not decorated. Regardless, it is clear that the role of ceramics in the social life of the settlement was not equal in the early and later phases, as indicated by the small presence of decorated fineware. However the proportion of decorated ceramics increased quickly, and reached 20% of the Early LBK ceramics assemblage at Bylany (Pavlů 2000, Tab. 5.1.10.A).

Symbolic clay models, known from Bylany and Boskovštejn, although more commonly interpreted as models of ritual ovens, may also be models of older house types (Pavlů 2000). Circular housing structures are anticipated for indigenous central European pre-Neolithic settlements, and somewhat corresponding reconstructions are known from the aceramic Neolithic of the Levant. This may indicate a transference of real patterns into symbolic concepts of a later time. A similar explanation can also be offered for the well known model of a marksman’s house from the Lengyel culture, which bares a striking resemblance to earlier LBK houses. Given that Nový Dvory 2, Holohlavy and Litice date to the initial phase, it is noteworthy that these settlements contained one, at most two, houses. Housing concentrations of later phases are the result of a different development pattern. Nevertheless it is interesting to note that the number of houses in the Early phase reached a maximum of half the number of houses known from the Classical LBK phase. This would indicate a slower population growth than previously assumed. In most settled areas, the continuity of the Early LBK is disrupted, and does not continue into the Classical period (Áčkový, Flomborn) when settlements are sought in different locations (Cladders 2001: 114). Overlapping groups of radiocarbon dates (Stäuble 1994) do not rule out the possibility that there may have been a chronological overlapping of ceramic styles connected with a different group of Neolithic “pioneers”. Fluctuating intensity of settlement in one settlement area may have been analogous to fluctuations in demography

The different role of ceramics in the Early, as opposed to the Classical LBK, has often been explained by the low variability of decorative methods in use during the Early LBK. However, the question of ethnicity of the Bohemian potter remains unanswered. If these were women of indigenous origin, then the conservative nature of decoration manufacture could be explained by their inexperience with ceramics. This can, in turn, be interpreted as one of the many markers of ideological and social contacts and influences which were a part of the process of neolithisation (Zvelebil and Lillie 2000: 65, Price 2000: 318). However at the same time, networks interconnecting the various settlements must have existed, since Central Europe has not yielded localized styles such as can be seen in the Mediterranean. These interconnections may not only indicate

87

LBK DIALOGUES

in all regions in various time intervals. The peaks of these demographic intervals may serve as indicators to seek out other settlement areas.

possible to “occupy” the entire region of present day Bohemia within a relatively short period of time without the influx of a large incoming population.

The earliest occupied locations are found on classic loess soils. These are commonly found in open areas in lower elevations, that were unaffected by floodplain soil accumulations (Nový Dvory 2, Holohlavy). However, favored locations were open areas in unforested regions irrespective of the type of soil present (Litice). The deciding factor probably remained accessibility to water. Burning of forests need not be the main sign of settlement, since the field requirements for a small number of occupants were not too high. Indications of burning, even in central European regions, are datable to various prehistoric times (Veselý 2000). Similar signs in the region of the Šumava lakes are datable to 47004000BC (Dr. Veselý, ČGS Praha, pers. comm.). Even older fires, though not proven, may not be indications of neolithisation but signs of hunter-gatherer ingenuity who must have, since the Atlantic period, found ways to deal with forestation of the landscape (Zvelebil 1994:60).

Populations within the newly settled economic units, probably based their diet on wheat and legume cultivation, with a smaller reliance on animal products. In some regions, reliance on hunting dominated over domesticated livestock in the initial phase. The role of gathered foods has not been documented, however it cannot be ruled out in either the Early or in the Late phase. Within a few generations of the initial onset of the Early LBK, the demographic proportions of the population are likely to have been disrupted by higher proportions of men. Foreign men are not likely to have mastered the earlier and superior techniques of flaked stone tool manufacture. A similar scenario can be seen in pottery manufacture, in the sense that its manufacture was poorly understood in the early phase, as implied by the minimal quantity of decorated fineware. In other words, a portion of the ceramics were produced by inexperienced potters – women from within the region of the early settlement.

The LBK in the First 100 Years: Considerations

The symbolic role of pottery decoration evolved fully in the later Classical LBK. However, the founding decorative motifs of the earliest wares may have been mediated by the survival of earlier symbols placed on new artifactual media, which became ceramic vessels.

Following the multi-centennial spread of the Neolithic in the Balkans, the Earliest LBK became the first Neolithic culture in Central Europe, and appeared in the first half of the 6th millennium BC in the region naturally bound by the middle Danube basin and the lower Elbe valley. Judging from the stylistic developments identified from ceramics, this period lasted approximately 400 years.

References The time period before LBK emergence has been poorly documented archaeologically. Nevertheless, it is before the emergence of the Earliest LBK that the already present indigenous populations may have been capable of accepting a limited number of incoming persons, which can be tentatively labeled as “pioneers” or “prospectors” or more suitably as “colonists.” Therefore, even before the advent of the earliest LBK, it cannot be ruled out that “Neolithic” characteristics infiltrated into a “Mesolithic” environment.

Barnett, W.K. (2000) Cardial Pottery and the Agricultural Transition in Mediterranean Europe. IN: T.D. Price (ed) Europe´s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 57-92. Braun, P. and Sokol, P. (1996) K Neolitickému Osídlení na Katastru Litice, okr. Plzeň-Město (Zur Neolithischen Besiedlung im Kataster Litice, Bezirk Pilsen-Stadt). Sborník Západočeského Muzea v Plzni 13: 5-15. Cladders, M. (2001) Die Tonware der Ältesten Bandkeramik. Untersuchung zur Zeitlichen und Räumlichen Gliederung. R. Habelt, Bonn. Clark, J.G.D. (1980) Mesolithic Prelude. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Jochim, M. (2000) The Origins of Agriculture in SouthCentral Europe. IN: T.D. Price (ed), Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 183-196. Kalicz, N. (1995) Die Älteste Transdanubische (Mitteleuropäische) Linienbandkeramik. Aspekte zu Ursprung, Chronologie und Beziehungen. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 47: 23-59. Kloos, U. (1997) Die Tonware. IN: J.Lüning Ein Siedlungsplatz der Ältesten Bandkeramik in

Among the abundant archeologically documented characteristics of the initial phase, are posthole housing constructions and associated stone tools for woodworking. It is noteworthy that posthole constructions were already known from early Neolithic cultures in the Carpathian Basin. Furthermore, polished stone tools became incorporated into the symbolic realm such that polished axes are sometimes found in “Mesolithic” burials, while perforated polished adzes are also found on Earliest LBK settlements. Amongst the earliest acts of neolithisation, were probably new ways of interpreting the landscape and delimiting regions of interest to various groups within the relatively large boundaries of local territories. In this way it was

88

IVAN PAVLŮ: THE ORIGINS OF THE EARLY LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE IN BOHEMIA

Pavlů, I. (1990) Early Linear Pottery Culture in Bohemia. IN: D. Srejović, and N. Tasić (eds), Vinča and its World. pp. 133-141. Pavlů, I. (2000) Life on a Neolthic Site. Archeologický Ústav, Praha. Pavlů, I. (2002) Neolitické Komponenty na Polykulturních Lokalitách v Mikroregionu Vrchlice a Klejnárky [Neolthic Components of Localities Within VrchliceKlejnárka Microregion]. Bylany Varia 2: 45-116. Pavlů, I. and Rulf, J. (1996a) Nejstarší Zemědělské Osídlení na Kolínsku. Práce Muzea v Kolíně 6: 121169. Pavlů, I. and Rulf, J. (1996b) Nejstarší Zemědělci na Kutnohorsku a Čáslavsku. Archeologické Rozhledy 48: 643-673. Pavlů, I. and Vokolek, V. (1992) Early Linear Pottery Culture in the East Bohemian Region. Památky Archeologické 83: 41-87. Pavlů, I. and Vokolek, V. (1996) The Neolithic Settlement at Holohlavy (Hradec Králové). Neolitické sídliště v Holohlavech. Památky Archeologické 87: 560. Pavlů, I. and Zápotocká, M. (1979) Současný Stav a Úkoly Studia Neolitu v Čechách. Památky Archeologické 70: 218-318. Price, T.D. (2000) Lessons in the Transition to Agriculture. IN: T.D. Price (ed) Europe´s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 301-318. Quitta, H. (1960): Zur Frage der Ältesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 38: 153188. Soudský, B. (1954) K Metodice Třídění Volutové Keramiky. Památky Archeologické 45: 75-105. Soudský, B. (1956) K Relativní Chronologii Volutové Keramiky. Archeologické Rozhledy 8: 408-412. Stäuble, H. (1994) Häuser und Datierung der Ältesten Bandkeramik. Master of Science Dissertation, Mainz. Sokol, P. (2001) K Neolitické Kolonizaci Krajiny, Podobě a Proměnám Sídelního Areálu. Otázky Neolitu a Eneolitu Našich Zemí 2000: 109-117. Strobel, M. (1997) Ein Beitrag zur Gliederung der Östlichen Linearbandkeramik. Versuch einer Merkmalanalyse. Sastuma 4(54): 9-98. Stocký, A. (1926) Pravěk Země České I. Věk Kamenný. Praha. Tichý, R. (1962) Zur Ältesten Volutenkeramik in Mähren. Památky Archeologické 51: 415-441. Tillmann, A. (1993) Kontinuität oder Diskontinuität? Zur Frage einer bandkeramischen Landnahme im südlichen Mitteleuropa. Archäologische Informationen 16(2): 157-187. Vencl, S. (1960) Kamenné Nástroje Prvních Zemědělců ve Střední Evropě. Sborník Národního Muzea v Praze, Řada A 14(1/2): 1-91. Vencl, S. (1982) K Otázce Zániku Sběračsko-Loveckých Kultur. Problemaika Vztahů Mesolitu Vůči Neolitu a Postmesolitických Kořistníků Vůči Mladším Pravěkým Kulturám. Archeologické Rozhledy 34:

Bruchenbrücken, Stadt Frieberg/Hessen. R. Habelt, Bonn. Kruta, V., Neustupný, E. and Vencl, S. (1966) Village Néolithique a Chabařovice près de Ústí nad Labem (Boheme). IN: J. Filip (ed) Investigations Archéologiques en Tchécoslovaquie. Praha. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa, A. (1988) Erste Gemeinschaften der Linienbandkeramikkultur auf polischem Boden. Zeitschrift für Archäologie 23: 137-182. Lenneis, E. (1997) Houseforms of the Central European Linearpottery Culture and of the Balkan Early Neolithic - a Comparison. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji 24: 143149. Lenneis, E. (2000) Hausformen der Mitteleuropäischen Linearbandkeramik und des Balkanischen Frühneolithikums im Vergleich. IN: Karanovo III, Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. Wien. pp. 383-395. Lenneis, E. and Lüning, J. (2001) Die Altbandkeramischen Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen. R. Habelt, Bonn. Lenneis, E., Stadler, P. and Windl, H. (1996) Neue 14CDaten zum Frühneolithikum in Österreich. Préhistoire Européene 8: 97-116. Lenneis, E. and Stadler, P. (2002) 14C Daten und Seriation Altbandkeramischer Inventare. Archeologické Rozhledy 54: 191-201. Lichardus, J. (1972) Zur Entstehung der Linienbandkeramik. Germania 50: 1-15. Lichardus, J., Gatsov, I., Gurova, M. and Iliev, I. K. (2000) Geometric Microliths from the Middle Neolithic Site of Drama-Gerena (southeast Bulgaria) and the Problem of Mesolithic Tradition in southeastern Europe. Eurasia Antiqua 6: 1-12. Lichardus, J. and Lichardus-Itten, M. (1991) Der Komplex mit Schwarz-, Braun- und Graupolierter Keramik und der Beginn des Mittelneolithikums in Sudosteuropa. Starinar 40-41: 43-49. Makay, J. (2001) Neolithic Prelude to the IndoEuropeanization of Italy. An Old Theory in a New Perspective. Budapest. Modderman, P.J.R. (1988) The Linear Pottery Culture: Diversity in Uniformity. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Outheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38: 63 139. Neustupný, E. (1956) K Relativní Chronologii Volutové Keramiky. Archeologické Rozhledy 8: 386-407. Neustupný, E. (1982) Prehistoric Migrations by Infiltration. Archeologické Rozhledy 34: 278-293. Olmerová, H. and Pavlů, I. (1991) Neolitický Sídelní Areál v Liboci, k.ú. Praha 6 – Dolné Liboc. Archaeologica Pragensia 11: 5-64. Palliardi, J. (1914) Die Relative Chronologie der Jüngeren Steinzeit in Mähren. Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 1: 256-277. Pavlů, I. (1981) Altneolithische Häuser. Archeologické Rozhledy 33: 534-543.

89

LBK DIALOGUES

648-694. Veselý, J. (2000) The History of Metal Pollution Recorded in the Sediments of Bohemian Forest lakes: Since the Bronze Age to the Present. Silva Gabtera 4: 147-166. Zápotocký, M. (2002) Eneolitická Broušená Industrie a Osídlení v Regionu Kutná Hora – Čáslav [Eneolithic Polished Industry and Sttlement Within the Region Kutná Hora – Čáslav]. Bylany Varia 2: 159-228. 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. (2000) The Social Context of the Agricultural Transition in Europe. IN: C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds) Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. McDonald Institute Monographs, London. pp. 57-79. Zvelebil, M. and Lillie, M. (2000) Transition to Agriculture in Eastern Europe. IN: T.D. Price (ed) Europe´s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 57-92.

90

MESOLITHIC (LBK)1

TRADITIONS AND THE ORIGIN OF THE

LINEAR POTTERY

CULTURE

Inna Mateiciucová Abstract Chipped stone tools made by both Mesolithic foragers and Neolithic farmers play a significant role in discussions about the beginning of the Neolithic in Central Europe (LBK culture). In this paper I compare the technology of blade production, the distribution of raw stone sources and the occurrence of so-called “culturally specific” tool types (trapezes, borers and retouched blades) of the chipped stone industries of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Central Europe and the Balkans. I suggest indigenous development of the LBK culture in the region of Transdanubia. I would like to emphasize the psychological implications of neolithisation. I suggest long before the physical acceptance of the Neolithic, some changes occurred at the level of the psyche. First, there was a neolithisation of the hunter-gatherer soul (psyche), followed by neolithisation at the material level. With this in mind, at the end of this paper I indicate a possible explanation of the rapid dispersion of the Early LBK culture throughout Central Europe.

Introduction The Technique of Regular Blade Production The beginning of the Neolithic in Central Europe is defined by the appearance of first farming communities, mainly in association with the origin and spread of the LBK culture. The issue of Neolithic origin eventually became my main focus of study, not only because most of the chipped stone material available to me dated to the earliest LBK, but also because discussions regarding the beginning of the Neolithic period in Central Europe have been revived in the last few years. Chipped stone tools made by both Mesolithic foragers and Neolithic farmers, play a significant role in these discussions (Tillmann 1993; Gronenborn 1994; 1997; J.K. Kozłowski 1994; Kind 1998; Mateiciucová 2001a).

In the LBK, the production of blanks was tailored to the production of regular blades. With the exception of the Upper Paleolithic, regular blade industries appear in Europe for the first time at the end of the Early Mesolithic period. They are often considered to be the first indications of Near Eastern influence due to their initial appearance in southeast Europe (Clark 1958; Taute 1974/75:76). From there, they spread throughout the entire Mediterranean during the Late Mesolithic, and reached as far as the area of the Paris Basin, and southern Germany (S.K. Kozłowski 1987). However development did not proceed in the same way in all areas of southern Europe. In some areas, regular blades appeared much later in the early ceramic Neolithic period.

I therefore structured my research around several key questions. How and where did the LBK originate? To what extent did the early Balkan Neolithic communities (Starčevo and Körös cultures) participate in the origin of the LBK? To what extent was the local Mesolithic background important? Finally, how did the LBK spread so quickly and into such a vast area of Central Europe?

The presence of regular blades in the Mediterranean, from the Late Mesolithic to the Early Neolithic period, is often cited as a sign of continuity in this area. Development in the Balkans and the Danube basin on the other hand, is said to be discontinuous. Many researchers therefore support the opinion that the Early Neolithic period in Central Europe – the complex of StarčevoKörös cultures and the LBK culture – did not develop from the local Late Mesolithic, but as a part of neolithisation, through the expansion of new populations from the southeast (Vencl 1982; 1986; S.K. Kozłowski 1987; J.K. Kozłowski 1989a). However, research conducted over the last few years suggests indigenous development of Early Neolithic cultures in the Balkans and the Danube valley, also implying local development of the LBK culture (Whittle 1996; Zvelebil 2002; Bánffy 2003). Regular blades are one of the main arguments for autochthonous as well as allochthonous development of the LBK culture (Tillmann 1993; Gronenborn 1997; Kind 1998). Advocates of allochthonous development argue that regular blades occur in the Balkans and Central Europe only at the onset of the Pottery Neolithic (J.K. Kozłowski 1989a). Unfortunately, the Late Mesolithic period is almost unknown in these initial areas. Advocates of autochthonous development, or at least of partial acculturation of the local Mesolithic population, therefore seek the roots of early Neolithic regular blade

To resolve these questions, I concentrated my study on three main features of the chipped stone industry, which can shed light on the issue of LBK origin. Specifically the technology of blade production, particularly the phenomenon of regular blade production, the distribution of raw stone sources and the occurrence of so-called “culturally specific” tool types (trapezes, borers and retouched blades). Comparisons of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic chipped stone industries brought interesting results, which I compare with the results of other archaeological studies, and new evidence acquired from related disciplines. On this basis, I formulate a hypothesis of LBK origin and dispersal into other parts of Central Europe at the end of this paper. 1

This contribution is a brief summary of the results published in my PhD thesis, which passed the viva in September 2002. In the thesis I summarized my analyses of LBK chipped stone industry from the area of Moravia and Lower Austria (Mateiciucová, 2002a).

91

er im en ex tN pe o. rim 1 (n en =4 ex tN ) pe o. rim 2 (n en =3 ex tN ) pe o. rim 3 (n en ex =7 t pe ) rim No. 4 en (n tN =3 ex ) pe o. 5 rim (n en =1 tN 1) o. 6 (n ex =3 pe ) rim en tN ex pe o. 1 rim (n en =1 ex tN 0) pe rim o. 2 en (n tN =6 ex ) pe o. 3 rim (n en =1 ex tN 5) pe o rim .4 (n en =6 tN ) o. 5 (n =5 ex ) pe rim en ex t pe rim No. 1 en (n tN =3 ex ) pe o. 2 rim (n en = 15 ex tN ) pe o. rim 3 (n en =4 tN ) o. 4 (n =6 )

ex p

lenght : width : thickness ex pe rim ex e pe nt N rim o. 1 ex e pe nt N (n= rim 4) o. 2 ex e pe nt N (n= r 3) ex ime o.3 pe nt (n rim N =7 o ) ex ent .4 ( n= pe N rim o.5 3) ( en t N n=1 1) o. ex 6 pe (n =3 rim ) ex ent pe N o r e x i me . 1 ( n pe nt rim N =10 o ) ex ent .2 ( n= pe N rim o.3 6) ex ( e pe nt N n=1 rim 5) o en .4 ( t N n= 6) o. 5 ex (n pe =5 r ) e x i me pe nt rim N o ex ent .1 ( n pe N rim o.2 =3) ex ( e pe nt N n=1 rim 5) o. en 3 ( t N n= 4) o. 4 (n =6 )

lenght : widht

LBK DIALOGUES

8

7

6

4

punch technique

5

2.5

92

direct impact technique

4

3

2 pressure technique

1

0

Fig. 1: Lenght/width indices of experimentally manufactured blades.

4.5

pressure technique

3.5

3

punch technique

Fig. 2: Lenght/ width/thickness indices of experimentally manufactured blades. direct impact technique

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

INNA MATEICIUCOVÁ: MESOLITHIC TRADITIONS AND THE ORIGIN OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

production at Late Mesolithic sites in the area of southern Germany (Tillmann 1993; Kind 1998).

Results of Blade Production Comparisons The defined criteria was used for comparing techniques of blade production at Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in southeastern and southern parts of Central Europe, and resulted in the identification of two blade production traditions in the Early Neolithic period (Fig. 3-6). One being the Danubian Tradition, associated with blade production by the punch technique, and the other being the Mediterranean Tradition, associated with blade production by the pressure technique.

When I compared techniques of blade production at different Mesolithic sites with results obtained by other scholars, I realized the term “regular blade” can have a double meaning. In the general sense, as a blade with parallel edges (Ginter and Kozłowski 1990: 34; Zimmermann 1988: 580), which can be made by the pressure technique or by the punch technique. Or specifically as a blade made by the pressure technique (Kozłowski 1987: 9; Perlés 1987: 28; Kozłowski: 1989a). The origin of blade production by the pressure technique occurred in the Epi-Paleolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic periods of the Near East and Central Asia (Gronenborn 1997: 83).

The Danubian tradition was recognized throughout the area of the earliest LBK. It was also partially used in the Starčevo and Körös cultures as well. However the complex of Starčevo-Körös-Criş cultures is primarily associated with the Mediterranean tradition of blade production.

This dual understanding of the phenomenon “regular blade,” leads to the interfusion of two different technologies of blade production, which can be associated with different traditions. This is then reflected in reconstructions of development during the Boreal and the beginning of the Atlantic periods, and influences the formulation of hypotheses about the continuity or discontinuity of development from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic period.

The origin of the Mediterranean tradition can be found in the Epi-Paleolithic and Proto-Neolithic cultures of Central Asia and the Near East, from where it spread to the Mediterranean and the Balkans during the Late Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic period (the Early Neolithic period of southeastern Europe, the complex of Impresso-Cardial cultures). The Mediterranean tradition did not spread northward to Central Europe, and its expansion is limited to the areas of earliest neolithisation in Europe. Evidence of the Mediterranean tradition was not found in northern Transdanubia, Moravia or Lower Austria.

The Use of Experiment In order to resolve this problem, I tried to make a more detailed research analysis of the blade production technology practiced at selected sites.2 Arising from my analyses of experimentally manufactured blades and information provided by experimental archaeologists (Tixier, Inizan and Roche 1980; Weiner 1985; 1987), I tried to define criteria according to which it would be possible to distinguish the pressure, versus the punch technique of blade production. Criteria characteristic for blades made by the direct impact technique, were also noted (Mateiciucová 2002a).

I therefore interpret the Danubian tradition as a local Late Mesolithic tradition, which developed in the south and southeast parts of Central Europe, possibly also in the Balkans, as a local answer to innovations and new ideas coming from the Near East, and later from the Mediterranean. I call this adaptation a variation on the Mediterranean tradition. I do not claim that the production of blades by the punch technique was unknown in the Mediterranean area or the Near East. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish the difference between blades made by the punch technique, and certain variations of the pressure technique. It is also probable that the production of blades by the punch technique existed parallel with the pressure technique. It is apparent that blade production by pressure did not occur in Central Europe, with rare exceptions in the Late Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic period.4

Although it is possible to securely distinguish the use of the direct impact technique, the pressure and the punch technique share many similarities. I therefore tried to compare the indices of length and width (Fig. 1) and of length, width and thickness (Fig. 2). Index values are markedly higher for blades made by pressure (indices length/width fall between 4-6, and length/width/thickness between 1-3) than for blades made by the punch or direct impact technique, for which the index values are similar (length/width falls between 2-4 and length/width/ thickness is less than 1)3.

4 Gronenborn (1994; 1997:80; 1999) also uses the term Danubian tradition. However, he defines it more generally as a tradition associated with the appearance of regular blades with remnants of a primarily faceted platform without dorsal reduction. He traces the roots of this phenomenon far to the Near East and Central Asia, and does not distinguish between regular blades made by the pressure and by the punch technique. Tillmann’s understanding of regular blades in the southern part of Central Europe is closer to my own, as an adaptation of already established Early Mesolithic technologies to new influences (Tillmann 1993:165). The difference is that in some regions, I presume the migration of groups or single inhabitants from areas with farming subsistence, which had a significant impact on the dispersion of Neolithic lifeways to surrounding regions.

2

When evaluating and comparing the blade production technologies used in the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic periods, the experiments of Witek Migal from the National Museum of Warsaw were of significant importance to me. 3 All experimentally made blades match this scheme, except experiment no. 4 which involved blades made by pressure. These resulted in ridged blades directly from the beginning of core reduction.

93

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 3: Lenght/width indices of blades from Mesolithic,Starčevo and Körös sites.

Fig. 4: Lenght/width indices of blades from Early LBK sites.

94

INNA MATEICIUCOVÁ: MESOLITHIC TRADITIONS AND THE ORIGIN OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

Fig. 5: Length/width/thickness indices of blades from Mesolithic and Körös sites.

Fig. 6: Lenght/width/thickness indices of blades from Early LBK sites. 95

LBK DIALOGUES

The identification of different traditions in areas of southeastern Central Europe indicate that the process of neolithisation in Central Europe was not homogenous; that indigenous Mesolithic populations played an important role in some regions, and were gradually acculturated; and that the Balkan complex of cultures participated in the neolithisation of Central Europe indirectly, through the transfer of information via contacts in the exchange of raw materials, products and partners. The local Mesolithic population, at least in some regions, participated in the formation of the Körös culture and possibly also the Starčevo culture, as indicated by the Danubian tradition of blade production which originated in the Late Mesolithic period as a local answer to technological changes in the Mediterranean area (as a variation on the Mediterranean tradition). Distribution of Stone Raw Materials The second focus of my work involved the distribution of raw stone materials. I monitored changes in the distribution of raw materials from the Mesolithic to the end of the Neolithic period, with emphasis on raw materials which may have played an important role in the process of neolithisation of Central Europe (Szentgál radiolarite, Carpathian obsidian, Jurassic Krakow flint). Distribution of raw materials indicates that the boundaries between Central and southeastern Europe were not distinct, and that a network of contacts already existed at the end of the Early Mesolithic period in some areas. Mesolithic period

Fig. 7: Distribution of Transdanubian radiolarite, Carpathian obsidian and Jurassic Krakow flint during the Mesolithic period. The presence of imported raw stone materials on Mesolithic sites (Fig. 7, Appendix), in addition to their economically negligible significance, suggests the existence of developed social networks connecting areas of Central Europe with areas in the Balkans, long before the beginning of the Neolithic. These networks enabled the flow of information even between very distant areas, through which the existence of other worlds, possibilities of living and subsistence, made their way into the consciousness of forager communities.

Mesolithic communities in the southeastern part of Central Europe used a wide range of raw stone materials, mainly of local and regional origin, predominantly low quality fluvial or other secondary deposits. The demand for quality stone changed during the Late and Terminal Mesolithic period, due to the new technology of blank production tailored to the production of regular blades. In the late phase of the Early Mesolithic, raw materials of local and regional origin regularly occur alongside sporadic imports from distant areas (Kind 1992: 344; Vencl 1993; Gronenborn 1999: 130; Mateiciucová 2001a; 2001b). Their wide distribution served as an ideal precondition in the ensuing formation of the Neolithic period (e.g. the occurrence of Szentgál type radiolarite on south Moravian Mesolithic sites, the presence of Carpathian obsidian in Pre-Neolithic layers at the Danube Gorges).

Early Neolithic period Some features of distribution typical for the Mesolithic period, also continue to appear in the Early Neolithic period (Fig. 8, Appendix). Various raw materials were used, and the proportions of regional raw stone materials

96

INNA MATEICIUCOVÁ: MESOLITHIC TRADITIONS AND THE ORIGIN OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

Fig. 8: Distribution of Transdanubian radiolarite, Carpathian obsidian and Jurassic Krakow flint during the Early Neolithic period. A characteristic feature of the Early Neolithic period, is the large-scale distribution of particular raw stone materials, unmatched in later time periods. Some imported raw stone materials gained dominance even in areas with quality local sources, especially Transdanubian radiolarite, Carpathian obsidian and Jurassic Krakow flint (Gronenborn 1997; Mateiciucová 2001a; 2001b; 2002b). Transdanubian radiolarite spread out from primary sources in the Bakony Mountains (northwards from Lake Balaton), mainly in a westerly (up the river Danube and down the river Main, a distance of ca 800 km) and northerly direction (to Moravia and Bohemia, a distance

remain fairly high in some areas, in contrast to later phases of the LBK. This can be interpreted as evidence of specific mobility of the Early Neolithic groups and the individuals obtaining the raw stone materials (collected from fluvial and glacial sediments, Mateiciucová 2001b). However regionally available sources were eventually replaced with local or imported raw materials as a result of: a lifestyle involving more permanent residence; a decrease in territory size (Bakels 1978:5-9; de Grooth 1994:363); the acquisition of more distant products and raw materials due to exchange networks and finally, due to higher demands for quality raw stone materials. 97

LBK DIALOGUES

They are also absent in the Mesolithic of northern Hungary and the Pre-Neolithic layers of the Danube Gorges (Kozłowski and Kozłowski 1982; 1984; Kertész et al. 1994). On the other hand, they more frequently occur in the eastern Linear Pottery culture of eastern Slovakia (Kaczanowska and Kozłowski, 1997).

of 350 km). Its dispersion corresponds with the west and northwest spread of the earliest phase of the LBK culture (Gronenborn 1994; 1997; Mateiciucová 2002b). Primary sources of Jurassic Krakow flint are found in the southern part of the Polish Jura near Krakow. Jurassic Krakow flint regularly appears in the Mesolithic period in southern Moravia and southeastern Slovakia (Mateiciucová 2001a), albeit in small amounts. In the earliest phase of the LBK, it was distributed up the river Vistula to Moravia, and down to the north. It became the dominant raw material for the earliest LBK at its northern most borders (a distance of more than 360km from the source!) in spite of nearby quality raw materials (i.e. chocolate flint and Baltic erratic flint; Mateiciucová 2002b). Jurassic Krakow flint does not appear in the earliest Eastern Linear Pottery culture, even though Carpathian obsidian was already distributed to Little Poland in this period (Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 1997).

Borers/perforators Borers/perforators known as the Halsbohrer [borers having a long, well distinguished point], are traditionally considered to be characteristic tools of the Early Danubian Neolithic period. Their occurrence in the LBK culture is interpreted as evidence of its southeastern origin (Tichý 1962: 297; J.K. Kozłowski 1970: 74; Vencl 1971: 91). They do not occur in the Mesolithic period of Central Europe (Taute 1974/75:88-89; Davis 1975:75-76; S.K. Kozłowski 1980; Ginter and Kozłowski 1990:136; Nielsen 1991:88; 1997:60). However, according to recent research, these tools are also absent in the context of the earliest phase of the LBK culture (Biró 1987; J.K. Kozłowski 1989b; MałeckaKukawka 1992; Gronenborn 1997; Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 1997; Mateiciucová 2001a; 2002a). Although there are numerous examples of these tools in later phases of the Linear Pottery culture, especially in the even later Stroked pottery and Rössen cultures. Their occurrence is particularly concentrated in the area of present Bavaria, southern Germany and Switzerland, with intermittent appearances in the Rhine valley (Davis 1975: 91-93; Zimmermann 1988: 700). Borers/perforators borers with a long, well distinguished point are known as the Dickenbähnli-Spitze in Switzerland.

In the Late Mesolithic, Carpathian obsidian was distributed from the area of southeastern Slovakia and northeastern Hungary, in a west and northwest direction (to southern Moravia and southwestern Slovakia) as well as south, to the area of the Danube Gorges (Kozłowski and Kozłowski 1984: 261; Gronenborn 1997: 106; Mateiciucová 2002a). Carpathian obsidian became a sought after raw material in the Körös culture. Its primary sources lay outside of the Körös culture, in an area inhabited by hunting-gathering communities (Mateiciucová 2001a; 2002a; in press). Their popularity also continued in the eastern Linear Pottery culture. However its use in the Starčevo culture, and the earliest phase of the LBK culture is minimal.

These borers cannot therefore, be considered to be culturally specific for the earliest phase of the LBK culture, or for the Early Balkan Neolithic period (Gronenborn 1997: 90-91). Instead they represent a general tool of the Neolithic period, with their occurrence culminating at the end of the Early Neolithic and in the Middle Neolithic (according to western European chronology) in southwestern Central Europe.

The Occurrence of so-called “Culturally Specific Tool Types” During my studies of retouched tools, I especially focused on tool types, which are considered to be “culturally specific,” and the presence or absence of which, has potential to inform on the continuity or discontinuity of development from the Late Mesolithic to the Early Neolithic.

In contrast, borers/perforators with a weakly distinguished point, frequently occur in the earliest phase of the LBK (Mateiciucová 2001a; 2002a). These tools represent an indigenous type already known in the Early Mesolithic period of northern Europe and in the Epi-Paleolithic of North Africa (Tixier 1963; Heinen 1998: 135). Until recently, these tools were unknown in Central Europe, and have only been identified in the last few years on several Early and Late Mesolithic sites in southern Europe (Heinen 1998: 135; Mateiciucová 2002a). Perforators of this shape appear in the literature as a Mèche de foret [awl], or are sometimes classified as Sauveterrien points (Ginter and Kozłowski 1990:136; Heinen 1998). This shape of perforator has also been found in the Early Neolithic, in association with the

Lateral retouched blades Lateral retouched blades are typical for the StarčevoKörös-Criş cultural complex, and other Early Neolithic cultures of the Anatolia-Balkan circle. However, they are almost missing in the earliest phase of the LBK culture in southeastern Central Europe (J.K. Kozłowski 1982; Kozłowski and Kozłowski 1984; Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 1984/85; Bacskay and Siman 1987; Biró 1987; Paunescu 1987; Kaczanowska 1989; Mateiciucová 2002a).

98

INNA MATEICIUCOVÁ: MESOLITHIC TRADITIONS AND THE ORIGIN OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

Cardial pottery culture of southwestern Europe (Heinen 1998: 144). No characteristic examples have been found in the context of the Körös culture (Starnini 1993; Starnini and Szakmány, 2000). The occurrence of thin borers/perforators with a weakly distinguished point in the earliest phase of the LBK, can therefore be considered to be a relic of Mesolithic traditions in the Early Neolithic period of Central Europe.

Late Mesolithic period at sites such as Dolní Věstonice and Mikulčice (Škrdla et al. 1997). Another type of trapeze is the short trapeze (AZ), most common in the Late Mesolithic and also the Early Neolithic of southern Central Europe. In the LBK culture, short trapezes concentrate on sites which belong to phases chronologically later than the settlements Brunn IIa and Brunn IIb in Lower Austria, but earlier than sites, where broad trapezes prevail such as the sites Vedrovice, Kleinhadersdorf, Brunn I, and Flomborn (Mateiciucová, 2002a: 257-262).

Trapezes Trapezes made from regular blades are a phenomenon characteristic of the Late Mesolithic and the Early Neolithic period. The presence of trapezes on Mesolithic sites is commonly considered to be a sign of Late Mesolithic settlement. Together with regular blades, trapezes are considered to be evidence of the first influences which came to Europe from the Near East, and indicate the beginning of the Neolithisation process (Taute 1974/75; Kozłowski 1987; Gronenborn 1997). Trapezes which occur in the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of southern Central Europe, can be divided into two different and chronologically separate groups, long trapezes (AA) and broad trapezes (AC).

Segments Segments occur in Central Europe from the Early Mesolithic period onwards. In southern Central Europe, segments disappear in the Late Mesolithic and are replaced by trapezes (Hahn 1993: 263-264; Nielsen 1991: 77,84). In southeastern Central Europe and in the Balkans, segments are still present in the Late Mesolithic period, where they appear together with trapezes in the context of the Starčevo-Körös complex, and also the earliest phase of the LBK culture at sites such as Brunn IIa, Brunn IIb, and Neckenmarkt (Gronenborn 1997, Fig. 1.2.1; Mateiciucová 2002a: 262-263; 2002b). Their occurrence represents a survival of local Pre-Neolithic traditions in this area in the Early Neolithic period.

Long trapezes (AA) occur only on settlements of the earliest LBK culture (for example at Brunn IIa and Brunn IIb in Lower Austria, Steinfurth in Hesensk and Schwanfeld in Bavaria). They have also been found in the Körös culture (for example at Ecsegfalva 23 and Méhtelek-Nádas) and in the early Eastern Linear Pottery culture (for example at Zbudza) (Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 1997; Starnini 1993; Mateiciucová, 2002a; 2002b; in press). They are also known from Late Mesolithic contexts in southeastern Central Europe and in the Balkans (for example Mikulčice and Kůlna cave in Moravia, Kaposhomok in Transdanubia, Vlasac and Lepenski Vir in the Danube Gorges - Dobosi 1972; Kozłowski and Kozłowski 1982: 96, Fig. 9.17 and 24.6; 1984:270, Fig. 4.10; Škrdla et al. 1997, Fig. 3; Bánffy 2000:175). It is probable that the long trapezes present in the late phase of the Körös culture and at the beginning of the LBK culture, were based on forms already in use in this area in the Late Mesolithic.5

Sickle Gloss It is noteworthy that only a small number of artifacts with sickle gloss are known from the earliest phase of the LBK culture. Their proportion increases in later phases of the LBK (Mateiciucová 2002a: 266). The Beginning of the Neolithic Period in Central Europe: A Hypothesis of LBK Origin and Spread According to the available data and my own observations, I suggest that the LBK culture was developed in the region of Transdanubia by indigenous Mesolithic groups, with some biological input from early Neolithic Balkan cultures, especially the Starčevo culture. I call this adaptation a Central European variation on the Mediterranean Tradition.

Broad trapezes (AC), also called transverse arrowheads with a rectangular shape, have been found on LBK sites dated to the end of the Early phase and to the beginning of the middle phase. For example, broad trapezes have been found at the Široká u lesa cemetery at Vedrovice in southern Moravia, the Kleinhadersdorf cemetery and settlement Brunn I in Lower Austria; as well as in the Flomborn and Sondershausen cemeteries in Germany (Mateiciucová 2002a; 2002c; 2002d). However, broad trapezes are also known in southern Moravia from the

In many ways I build on the origin of the Neolithic hypothesized by Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy (Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy 1984; Zvelebil 1986; 1995), the socalled availability model. According to this hypothesis, in the initial availability phase prior to actual Neolithisation, Mesolithic populations become aware of Neolithic agriculture through the exchange of information, raw materials and finished products. I suggest that reciprocal communication, based on social interaction, significantly influenced this process. The acculturation model presented by Whittle (1996: 44,85,361) corresponds to a certain extent with this view,

5

To what extent the shape of the trapeze is influenced by the width of the blade, is still in question. Nevertheless, long trapezes do not occur in later phases of the LBK culture.

99

LBK DIALOGUES

since this model predicts the process of neolithisation from a social perspective, and does not exclude partial colonization in some areas.

consciousness of their southern neighbors - the communities of the Starčevo culture. Occasional contacts, and increasing links between both populations led to marriage alliances. Assuming a low density of population in Transdanubia during this period, the need for exogamous marriage would occasionally arise. The nearby and surely interesting early Neolithic communities of the Starčevo culture would have been suitable, and partners were exchanged to different communities. The chipped stone industry indicates blade production techniques in the earliest phase of the LBK culture do not originate from traditions of blade production in the Starčevo culture of the Balkans. Instead, the production of blades in the LBK culture arose out of local Late Mesolithic traditions. I therefore suggest that the Mesolithic communities living in northern Transdanubia practiced a patrilocal or virilocal residential pattern.8 This would mean the occasional arrival of women from the Starčevo culture to Mesolithic neighborhoods.9 The occasional arrival of women from the Starčevo culture, would on the one hand act as a catalyst in the transition to the Neolithic way of life when social networks based on kinship lines were created - without influencing some crafts such as the tradition of chipped stone industry (which was in hands of indigenous Mesolithic hunters and fishermen) on the other. The Mesolithic men continued to chip blades and make tools according to their predecessors’ traditions. If Mesolithic communities in northern Transdanubia were practicing a matrilocal or uxorilocal residential pattern, then along with men from the Starčevo culture, a new tradition of chipped stone industry similar to the Balkan tradition would appear in both the Mesolithic environment, and later in the LBK culture.

From my point of view, I would like to emphasize the psychological implications on neolithisation. I suggest long before the physical acceptance of the Neolithic, some changes occurred at the level of the psyche.6 First, there was a neolithisation of the hunter-gatherer soul or psyche, followed by neolithisation at the material level, which is possible to trace archaeologically. Quite probably, this was a long-term process with many levels, in which the acceptance of the Neolithic represents only the tip of the iceberg (only the last phase of this process). The ideal environment for neolithisation of the huntergatherer psyche were predominantly the frontier areas (according to Zvelebil 1986) between the still Mesolithic and the new Neolithic world, where Mesolithic man gained consciousness of a new subsistence strategy. The frontier areas had to become contact zones, creating social networks between both worlds – the world of hunters, fishermen, gatherers and the world of early farmers. Individuals and entire communities were involved in this complex social network, interwoven via reproduction and reciprocal links (such as kinship ties, marriage alliances, trading of raw materials and products, and exchange of information). Existence of such networks is suggested by the chipped stone industry of the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic period in southeastern Central Europe (described above). Some differences may have been resolved by conflict, as suggested by Vencl (1982: 672-676; 1986), however these were probably the exception, rather than the rule. I suggest the first Neolithic communities in the Mediterranean and the Balkans, did not markedly differ from their Late Mesolithic neighbors, especially since interactions between both communities necessarily set the stage for a certain degree of neolithisation of the huntergatherer psyche. Furthermore, it is highly likely that the psyche of early farmers was still in touch with the forager’s way of life.7

But Why is Evidence of Such Contacts Largely Missing? I suggest that women of the Starčevo culture, who occasionally became the partners of Mesolithic hunters, must have adjusted to a new environment. In this new environment, pottery and other Neolithic innovations did not have their place for a long time. As a result, the interactions of populations did not visibly manifest in the material culture. Instead, intensive changes left their mark on the psyche.

How did the LBK Culture Originate? Here I would like to introduce a model of LBK origin. Sometime at the beginning of the 6th millennium BC, the (still largely hypothesized) Mesolithic foragers in northern Transdanubia, gained a certain experience and

Mesolithic populations accepted the Neolithic way of life after a long period of adjustment, after which, neolithisation could occur rapidly on a material level. Pottery of the earliest Transdanubian LBK culture is very similar in some aspects to pottery of the Starčevo and

6

Many authors note that the process of neolithisation began much earlier than indicated by material culture (Zvelebil 1986:.6; Hodder 1990; Tillmann 1993:173-174; Gronenborn 1994; Whittle 1996). Subsistence and learning new technologies seems to have been a secondary matter. With reference to the Near East, more scholars see the transition to the Neolithic way of life as a process, which was at its onset particularly influenced by social, political and ritual factors (Cauvin 1972; Hodder 1990:41-43; Matthews 2000:52). 7 I define “psyche” on the basis of analytical psychology, wherein its unlived parts do not fade, but gradually become a part of the human Collective Unconscious (Jung, 1933; 1999:38-49).

8

The majority of recently living forager communities were patrilinear with patrilocal, virilocal or bilocal residence patterns (Murhpy 1999:106). It is probable that Mesolithic communities were organized in a similar way. 9 According to recent isotope analyses in Western Europe, there was movement of women into the LBK of the Rhine from neighboring areas, and movement of coastal Late Mesolithic women in Brittany from the interior (Price et al. 2001; Schulting and Richards 2001).

100

INNA MATEICIUCOVÁ: MESOLITHIC TRADITIONS AND THE ORIGIN OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

(Baltic erratic flint, chocolate flint) were used more than in later phases of the LBK.

Körös cultures. However from the beginning, there are also various unique elements (Pavúk 1980; Kalicz 1993; Bánffy see this volume). It is possible to envisage that the first pottery was made by women arriving from Early Neolithic Balkan cultures, and that Mesolithic women then tried to imitate it, resulting in the various differences.

How to Explain the Size and Speed of Dispersion? Where were the Initial Communities of the LBK? According to the recently available data, the first Neolithic settlements were built close to large watercourses, especially in the Danube and Main basin in the west, and along the rivers Morava and Vistula in the north. I suggest the rapid dispersion of the LBK culture throughout Central Europe, was not only due to existing communication networks, but also due to the landscape. Heavy forests north and west of the Carpathian Basin resulted in natural corridors along scarcely overgrown river valleys at the beginning of the Atlantic. These natural corridors had a decisive influence on the dispersion of the Neolithic, since the first Neolithic settlements in Central Europe were built precisely in the corridors of these otherwise heavily forested areas. Therefore, the earliest LBK settlements did not spread into open spaces, but instead followed a linear pattern. This linear dispersion of settlements resulted in larger distances of expansion than was seen in the southern Carpathian Basin and the Balkans, where forest steppe vegetation prevailed (Sümegi and Kertész 2001). Here the dispersion of Early Neolithic settlements into open space was not limited by dense forest, and the result was a higher density of settlement in a smaller area than was seen in the area of Central Europe. Undoubtedly, a certain level of “maturity” and readiness of the indigenous Mesolithic population to join such a process, only speeded up the entire process of Neolithisation.

The construction of long houses, characteristic of the LBK culture, is not known in early Neolithic Balkan cultures (Lenneis 1997; also see this volume). Building houses was probably men’s work. Southern models inspired them, but the buildings acquired a distinctive character suitable for local needs; again, as in the case of pottery, a certain variation on southeastern models. Surely, the similarity of long houses can also support the hypothesis of pioneering settlements as secondary neolithisation centers (Gronenborn 1994; 1997)? The beginning of agriculture was in many ways, a period of experimentation. It was also a period when the psyche of originally Mesolithic man, transformed into the psyche of Neolithic man. Everything adapted to a new rhythm, fixed by the cycle of agricultural work. People settled down, and acknowledged the priority of different values. How did the LBK Culture Spread to Other Areas? On the subject of spread, I largely agree with Gronenborn (1994; 1997), who suggests pioneering settlements were also secondary centers of neolithisation, which spread from already domesticated areas. The Mesolithic population had an important role in the area settled by the earliest LBK culture. Various regional distinctions visible in material culture support this model. The main direction of the neolithisation process is explicitly indicated by the distribution of raw stone materials. In the Earliest phase of the LBK culture, some raw stone materials traveled not only in the direction of LBK spread, but also farther than in later periods of the Neolithic. Transdanubian radiolarite for instance, especially Szentgál radiolarite, a natural source in the supposed center of LBK emergence, dispersed via the Danube and the Main valleys to the westernmost border of the Earliest phase of the LBK (Ostheim-Mühlweide – 780 km). During the entire duration of the oldest phase of the LBK, Transdanubian radiolarite was the most important raw material at settlements up to a distance of 250 km away from the primary source. Only at the beginning of the middle phase of the LBK, more distant settlements started to make use of nearby raw stone sources.

Conclusion In this contribution I have discussed chipped stone tools made by both Mesolithic foragers and Neolithic farmers in order to ascertain the role of each in the beginning of the Neolithic in Central Europe, the LBK culture. Comparisons between the technology of blade production, the distribution of raw stone sources and the occurrence of so-called “culturally specific” tool types (trapezes, borers and retouched blades) of the chipped stone industries of Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites in Central Europe and the Balkans have led me to suggest indigenous development of the LBK culture in the region of Transdanubia. I emphasized the psychological implications of neolithisation, and suggested that long before the physical acceptance of the Neolithic, some changes occurred at the level of the hunter-gatherer psyche. With this in mind, I concluded the paper by presenting a hypothesis of LBK origin and its rapid dispersion throughout Central Europe.

Likewise with the distribution of Jurassic Krakow flint, which traveled up the river Vistula to the northernmost border of the Earliest phase of LBK. During this period, Jurassic Krakow flint dominated in these distant areas (360-365 km), even though high quality materials were available nearby. Other kinds of raw stone materials

Acknowledgements I am grateful to Marek Zvelebil for inviting me to submit this contribution to the current volume. I would like to

101

LBK DIALOGUES

English version, and for reading and commenting on the final draft of this paper.

thank Eszter Bánffy and Eva Lenneis for availability of unpublished information. Finally, I would also like to thank Jan Turek and Alena Lukes for correcting the Appendix Listing of sites corresponding with Figures 7 and 8. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Site Brno - Ivanovice Kladníky Žopy I Mohelnice Vedrovice Za dvorem Bylany I Szentgyörgyvölgy Pityerdomb Rigyác Szentlörinc - Téglagyár Veszprém - Nándortelep

-

Country Czech Rep. Czech Rep. Czech Rep. Czech Rep. Czech Rep. Czech Rep. Hungary

PERIOD LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I

Reference own study own study own study Gronenborn 1997:110 own study Lech 1989:112 own study

Hungary Hungary Hungary

LBK I LBK I LBK I

Biró 1987:131-167,145 Biró 1987:131-167,145 Biró 1987:131-167,146; 1998:48 Biró 1987:131-167,145 Biró 1998:59,251 Gronenborn 1997:20 Gronenborn 1997:108 own study own study own study Gronenborn 1997:24 own study Gronenborn 1997:26 Tillmann 1993 Gronenborn 1997:34 own study Biró 1998:46,145-146 own study own study Mateiciucová 2002d

Hungary Hungary Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Austria Germany Germany Germany Germany Hungary Austria Austria Czech Rep.

LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I/II LBK I/II LBK I/II

28 30 31 32 33 34 35

Hidegkut Bicske – Galagonyás Neckenmarkt Perchtoldsdorf Brunn Iia Brunn Iib Brunn IV Strögen Rosenburg I Mintraching Langenbach Schwanfeld Ostheim-Mühlweide Budapest-Aranyhegyi út Brunn I Mold Vedrovice Široká u lesa cemetery Kleinhadersdorf - cemetery Nowy Dwór Linowo 6 Lužice u Štenberka Čečejovce Zemplínské Kopčany Zalužice - 1/91+1,2/94

Austria Poland Poland Czech Rep. Slovakia Slovakia Slovakia

LBK I/II LBK I LBK I LBK I/II Eastern LBK I Eastern LBK I Eastern LBK I/II

36

Zbudza

Slovakia

Eastern LBK I/II

37 38

Košice - Barca Slavkovce D-F 1988

Slovakia Slovakia

Eastern LBK I Eastern LBK I

39

Batonya - Landesman dülö

Hungary

Körös 102

Biró

own study Małecka-Kukawka - pers.comm. Małecka-Kukawka 1992:18 own study J. K. Kozłowski 1989b:390 J. K. Kozłowski 1989b:391 Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 1997:184-192 Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 1997:192-210 Kaczanowska 1985:47 Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 1997:177-184 Bacskay and Siman 1987:117

INNA MATEICIUCOVÁ: MESOLITHIC TRADITIONS AND THE ORIGIN OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

40 41 42 43

Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary

Körös Körös Körös Körös

Bacskay and Siman 1987:121-122 Bacskay and Siman 1987:120-121 Bacskay and Siman 1987:123 Bacskay and Siman 1987:124-125

44 45

Dévaványa 26 Dévaványa 6 Szentpéterszeg - Körtvélyes Szolnok Szanda, Tenyósziget Tiszagyenda - Garahalom Endröd 119

Hungary Hungary

Körös Körös

46

Endröd 23

Hungary

Körös

47

Endröd 35

Hungary

Körös

48

Endröd 39

Hungary

Körös

49 50 51 52

Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary

Körös Körös Körös Körös

Hungary

Körös

Bacskay and Siman 1987:118-119

54 55 56

Endröd-36 Furta - Csátó Gyoma 51 Hódmezövásárhely Bodzáspart Hódmezövásárhely Kotacpart Szarvas 23 Szarvas 8 Endröd 6 - Kápolnahalom

Bacskay and Siman 1987:125 Starnini and Szakmány 1998,Tab.1 Starnini and Szakmány 1998,Tab.3 Starnini and Szakmány 1998,Tab.4 Starnini and Szakmány 1998,Tab.2 Bacskay and Siman 1987:120 Bacskay and Siman 1987:122 Bacskay and Siman 1987:120 Bacskay and Siman 1987:117-118

Hungary Hungary Hungary

Körös Körös Körös and ELBK

57

Gura Baicului

Rumania

Proto-Starč.-Criş

58

Starčevo

Serbia

Starčevo

59

Golokút

Serbia

Starčevo

Bacskay & Siman 1987 p.119 Bacskay & Siman 1987 p.120 Starnini and Szakmány 1998,Tab.5 Willms 1982;Gronenborn 1997:106 Willms 1982; Gronenborn 1997:106 Kozłowski and Kozłowski 1984:275; Kaczanowska and Kozłowski 1984-85:27

60

Ostrovul Banului

Rumania

Starčevo - Criş

61

Schela Cladovei

Rumania

Starčevo - Criş

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

Tomášikovo Bratislava Sereď Mikulčice Kaposhomok Tarpa -Márki tanya Košice - Barca I Vörs - Máriaasszonysziget Gellenháza - Városrét Ecsegfalva 23 Tiszaczege - Homokbánya Méhtelek - Nadás Jászberény II

Slovakia Slovakia Slovakia Czech Rep. Hungary Hungary Slovakia Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary Hungary

Mesolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic Starčevo Starčevo Körös Körös Körös Mesolithic

75 76 78 79

Jászberény III Jásztelek I Dolní Věstonice "Písky" Přibice

Hungary Hungary Czech Rep. Czech Rep.

Mesolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic

53

103

Willms 1982; Gronenborn 1997:106 Willms 1982; Gronenborn 1997:107 Mateiciucová 2001a Mateiciucová 2001a Mateiciucová 2001a Škrdla et al. 1997 Kertész 1993:89 Kertész 1993:90 Bárta 1965:162,199 Kalicz et al. 1998:181 Biró 2002 Mateiciucová in press Starnini 1994:103 Starnini 1993:29-96 Kertész et al. 1994:29; Mateiciucová 2002b own study Kertész et al. 1994; own study Mateiciucová 2001a Mateiciucová 2001a

LBK DIALOGUES

80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

Smolín Kazimierza Mała 1 Kraków - Mogiła 62 Nowa Huta - Bieńczyce Samborzec Boguszewo 43a Boguszewo 41 Šišma Grabie 4 Brno - Nový Lískovec Ciołki - Zagłoba 1 Płazówka II Poręby Dymarskie 2/2-3 Raniżów 1 Dzierżo 3 Czernichów Mokracz Grzybowa Góra - "Rydno" XIII/59 Grzybowa Góra - "Rydno" VI/59

Czech Rep. Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland Czech Rep. Poland Czech Rep. Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland

Mesolithic LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I LBK I/II LBK I/II Mesolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic Mesolithic

Mateiciucová 2001a own study Kaczanowska and Lech 1977:9 Kaczanowska 1987:175 Kaczanowska 1987:175 Małecka-Kukawka 1992:37 Małecka-Kukawka 1992:38 Janšák 1935:33 Czerniak 1994:117 own study Cyrek 1981:25 Cyrek 1981:27 Cyrek 1981:29 Cyrek 1981:30 Cyrek 1981:31 Cyrek 1981:34 Cyrek 1981:34 Cyrek 1981:43

Poland

Mesolithic

Cyrek 1981:45-46

Biró, K.T. (1998) Lithic Implements and the Circulation of Raw Materials in the Great Hungarian Plain During the Late Neolithic Period. Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. Biró, K.T. (2002) Advances in the Study of Early Neolithic Lithic Materials in Hungary. Antaeus 25: 168. Cauvin, J. (1972) Religions Neolithiques de SyroPalestine. Documents, Paris. Clark, J.G.D. (1958) Blade and Trapeze Industries in the European Stone Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 24: 24-42. Cyrek, K. (1981) Uzyskiwanie i Użytkowanie Surowców Krzemiennych w Mezolicie Dorzeczy Wisły i Górnej Warty. Prace i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego w Łodzi, Seria Archeologiczna 28: 5-108. Czerniak, L. (1994) Wczesny i Środkowy Okres Neolitu na Kujawach, 5400 - 3650 p. n. e. Polska Akademia Nauk, Poznań. Davis, F.D. (1975) Die Hornsteingeräte des Älteren und Mittleren Neolithikums im Donauraum Zwischen Neuburg und Regensburg. Bonner Hefte zur Vorgeschichte 10. Dobosi, V.T. (1972) Mesolithische Fundorte in Ungarn – Mezolithikus Lelöhelyek Maggyarországon. IN: J. Makkay (ed) Die Aktuellen Fragen der Bandkeramik. Akten der Pannonia Konferenzem I (Az I. Pannonia konferenzia aktái). Alba Regia 12: 39-60. Ginter, B. and Kozłowski, J.K. (1990) Technika Obróbki i Typologia Wyrobów Kamiennych Paleolitu, Mezolitu i Neolitu. Warszawa.

References Bacskay, E. and Siman, K. (1987) Some Remarks on Chipped Stone Industries of the Earliest Neolithic Populations in Present Hungary. IN: J.K. Kozłowski and S.K. Kozłowski (eds) Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Europe. Archeologia Interregionalis CCXL, University Press, WarsawCracow. pp. 107-130. Bakels, C.C. (1978) Four Linearbandkeramik Settlements and their Environment: A Paleoecological Study of Sittard, Stein, Elsloo and Hienheim. Annalecta Praehistoria Leidensia 11. Bánffy, E. (2000) Starčevo und/oder LBK? Die Ersten Ergebnisse der Westungarischen Ausgrabungen aus der Entstehungsphase der Bandkeramik. Varia Neolithica I: 47-60. Bánffy, E. (this volume) Advances in the Research of the Neolithic Transition in the Carpathian Basin. Bánffy, E. (2003, in press) The Boundary in Western Transdanubia: Variations of Migration and Adaptation. Presented at Cardiff, May 2003. Bárta, J. (1965) Slovensko v Staršej a Strednej Době Kamennej. Slovenský Archelogický Ústav, Bratislava. Biró, K.T. (1987) Chipped Stone Industry of the Linearband Pottery Culture in Hungary. Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Europe. IN: J.K. Kozłowski and S.K. Kozłowski (eds) Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Europe. Archeologia Interregionalis CCXL, University Press, Warsaw-Cracow. pp. 131167. 104

INNA MATEICIUCOVÁ: MESOLITHIC TRADITIONS AND THE ORIGIN OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

Kalicz, N. (1993) The Early Phases of the Neolithic in Western Hungary (Transdanubia) – Zgodnje Neolitske faze v Zahodni Madžarski (Transdanubiji). Documenta Praehistorica 21: 85-135. Kalicz, N.; Virág, Z.M. and Biró, K.T. (1998) The Northern Periphery of the Early Neolithic Starčevo Culture in South–Western Hungary: a Case Study of an Excavation at Lake Balaton. Documenta Praehistorica 25: 151-187. Kertész, R. (1993) Data on the Mesolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain (New Surface Finds in the Lower Zagyva Region). Jahrbuch der Museen des Komitates Szolnok. 8: 81-104. Kertész, R.; Sümegi, P.; Kozák, M.; Braun, M.; Félegyházi, E. and Hertelendi, E. (1994): Mesolithikum im Nördlichen Teil der Großen Ungarischen Tiefebene. A Nyíregyházi Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve (Nyíregyháza) 36: 15-61. Kind, C.J. (1992) Der Freilandfundplatz Henauhof Nord am Federsee und die „Buchauer Gruppe“ des Endmesolithikums. Archäologisches Korrespondebzblatt 22: 341-353. Kind, C.J. (1998) Komplexe Wildbeuter und frühe Ackerbauern. Bemerkungen zur Ausbreitung der Linearbandkeramik im Südlichen Mitteleuropa. Germania 76(1): 1-24. Kozłowski, J.K. (1970) Z Badań nad Wytwórczścią Krzemieniarską w Kulturze Ceramiki Wstęgowej Rytej. IN: J.K. Kozłowski (ed) Z Badań nad Kulturą Ceramiki Wstęgowej Rytej. Polskie Towarzystwo Archeologiczne, oddział w Nowej Hucie, Konferencja w Nowej Hucie (1969), Kraków. pp.73-94. Kozłowski, J.K. (1982) La Néolithisation de la Zone Balkano-Danubienne du Point de Vue des Industries Lithiques. IN: J.K. Kozłowski (ed) Origin of the Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in the Balkans. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego DCLVIII, Prace Archeologiczne 33. pp.131-170. Kozłowski, J.K. (1989a) The Neolithization of SouthEast Europe – an Alternative Approach. IN: P. Raczky (ed) Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connection. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2: 131-148. Kozłowski, J.K. (1989b) The Lithic Industry of the Eastern Linear Pottery Culture in Slovakia. Slovenská Archeologia 37(2): 377-410. Kozłowski, J.K. (1994) Bałkansko – Dunajski Model Neolityzacji. IN: L. Czerniak (ed) The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age in the Chełmno Land. Grudziądz. Kozłowski, J.K. and Kozłowski, S.K. (1982) Lithic Industries from the Multi-Layer Mesolithic site Vlasac in Yugoslavia. IN: J.K. Kozłowski (ed) Origin of the Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in the Balkans. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego DCLVIII, Prace Archeologiczne 33. pp.11-109.

Gronenborn, D. (1994) Überlegungen zur Ausbreitung der Bäuerlichen Wirtschaft in Mitteleuropa - Versuch einer Kulturhistorischen Interpretation Ältestbandkeramischer Silexinventare. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 69(2): 135-151. Gronenborn, D. (1997) Silexartefakte der Ältestbandkeramischen Kultur. Mit Einem Beitrag von JeanPaul Caspar. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie, Band 37, Frankfurt am Mainz. Gronenborn, D. (1999) A Variation on Basic Theme: The Transition to Farming in Southern Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13(2): 123-210. Grooth de, M.E.Th. (1994) Die Versorgung mit Silex in der Bandkeramischen Siedlung Hienheim „Am Weinberg“ (Ldkr. Kelheim) und die Organisation des Abbaus auf Gebänderte Plattenhornsteine im Revier Arnhofen (Ldkr. Kelheim). Germania 72: 355-457. Hahn, J. (1993) Erkennen und Bestimmen von Stein- und Knochenartefakten. Einführung in die Artefaktmorphologie. Archaeologica Venatoria 10, 2nd ed., Tübingen. Heinen, M. (1998) Mèche de Foret – Eine Charakteristische, aber Weitgehend Unbekannte Werkzeugform des Mesolithikums. Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 12: 133-146. Hodder, I. (1990) The Domestication of Europe. Blackwell, Oxford. Janšák, Š. (1935) Praveké Sídliská s Obsidiánovou Industriou na Východnom Slovensku. Bratislava. Jung, C.G. (1933) The Basic Postulates of Analytical Psychology. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Jung, C. G. 1999: Osobnost a Přenos [The Original Title: Persönlichkeit und Übertragung], Výbor z díla, Svazek III, Nakladatelství Tomáše Janečka, Brno. Kaczanowska, M. (1985) Rohstoffe, Technik und Industrien im Nordteil des Flussgebietes der Mitteldonau. Warszawa. Kaczanowska, M. (1987) Die Feuersteinindustrie der Ältesten Landgemeinschaften in Südpolen. IN: J.K. Kozłowski and S.K. Kozłowski (eds) Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Europe. Archeologia Interregionalis CCXL, University Press, Warsaw-Cracow. pp. 175-185. Kaczanowska, M. (1989) Die Feuersteinindustrie der Linearbandkeramik-Kultur. Ursprungsprobleme. IN: Bylany Seminar. pp.121-130. Kaczanowska, M. and Kozłowski, J.K. (1984/85) Chipped Stone Industry from Gologut. Rad Vojvođanskih Muzeja 29, Novi Sad 1984-85, pp.2731. Kaczanowska, M. and Kozłowski, J.K. (1997) VI. Lithic Industries. IN: J.K. Kozłowski (ed) The Early Linear Pottery Culture in Eastern Slovakia, Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat, Tom I, Kraków. pp.177-253. Kaczanowska, M. and Lech, J. (1977) The Flint Industry of Danubian Communities North of the Carpathians. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 17: 5-28.

105

LBK DIALOGUES

Site of Ecsegfalva 23, Co. Békés. University of Wales, Cardiff. Matthews, R. (2000) The Early Prehistory of Mesopotamia 500,000 to 4,500 bc. Subartu V. Brepols Publishers, Turnhout. Murhpy, R.F. (1999) Úvod do Kulturní a Sociální Antropologie. Sociologické Nakladatelství (Slon), Praha. Translated after 3rd ed. (1989): Cultural and Social Anthropology: An Overture. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Nielsen, E.H. (1991) Gampelen – Jänet 3. Eine Mesolithische Siedlungsstelle im Westlichen Seeland. Mit Beiträgen von Affolter, J. Ammann, B. Koenig, F.E. Rentzel, Ph. & Suter, P.J., Bern, Stattlicher Lehrmittelverlag. Nielsen, E.H. (1997) Fällanden ZH-Usserriet. Zum Übergangsbereich Spätmesolithikum-Frühneolithikum in der Schweiz. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesselschaft für Urund Frühgeschichte 80: 57-84. Pavúk, J. (1980) Problem der Genese der Kultur mit Linearkeramik im Lichte ihrer Beziehungen zur Starčevo-Cris-Kultur. IN: J.K. Kozłowski and J. Machnik (eds) Problémes de la Néolithisation dans Certaines Régions de ľEurope. Ossolineum, Kraków. pp.163-174. Paunescu, A. (1987) Les Industries Lithiques du Néolithique Ancien de la Roumanie et Quelgues Considérations sur l’Inventaire Lithique des Cultures du Néolithique Moyende Cette Contrée. IN: J.K. Kozłowski and S.K. Kozłowski (eds) Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Europe. Archeologia Interregionalis CCXL, University Press, Warsaw-Cracow. pp. 75-105. Perlés, C. (1987) Les Industries du Néolithique „Précéramique“ de Gréce: Nouvelles Études, Nouvelles Interprétations. IN: J.K. Kozłowski and S.K. Kozłowski (eds) Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Europe. Archeologia Interregionalis CCXL, University Press, WarsawCracow. pp. 19-39. Price, T.D.; Bentley, R.A.; Lüning, J.; Gronenborn, D. and Wahl, J. (2001) Prehistoric Human Migration in the Linearbandkeramik of Central Europe. Antiquity 75: 593-603. Schulting, R. and Richards, M. (2001) Dating Women and Becoming Farmers: New AMS and Stable Isotope Evidence from the Breton Mesolithic Cemeteries of Téviec and Hoëdic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20: 314-44. Starnini, E. (1993) Typological and Technological Analysis of the Körös Culture Chipped Stone Assemblages of Méhtelek-Nádas (North-Eastern Hungary). Atti Società Preistoria Protoistoria FriuliVenezia Giulia VIII, 1993, Trieste. pp.29-96. Starnini, E. (1994) Typological and Technological Analysis of the Körös Culture Stone Assemblages of Méhtelek-Nádas (North-Eastern Hungary); A

Kozłowski, J.K. and Kozłowski, S.K. (1984) Chipped Stone Industries from Lepenski Vir, Yugoslavia. Preistoria Alpina 19: 259-293. Kozłowski, S.K. (1980) Atlas of the Mesolithic in Europe. First Generation Maps. Warsaw. Kozłowski, S.K. (1987) The Pre-Neolithic Base of the Early Neolithic Stone Industries in Europe. IN: J.K. Kozłowski and S.K. Kozłowski (eds) Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Europe. Archeologia Interregionalis CCXL, University Press, Warsaw-Cracow. pp. 9-18. Lech, J. (1989): A Danubian Raw Material Exchange Network: a Case Study from Bylany. IN: Bylany Seminar. pp.111-120. Lenneis, E. (1997) Houseforms of the Central European Linearpottery Culture and of the Balkan Early Neolithic - a Comparison. Documenta Praehistorica 24: 143. Lenneis, E. (this volume) Architecture and Settlement Structure of the Early Linear Pottery Culture in East Central- Europe. Małecka-Kukawka, J. (1992) Krzemieniarstwo Społeczności Wczesnorolniczych Ziemi Chełmińskiej (2 połowa VI - IV tysiąclecie p. n.e). Toruń. Mateiciucová, I. (2001a) Silexindustrie in der Ältesten LBK Kultur in Mähren und Niederösterreich auf der Basis der Silexindustrie des Lokalmesolithikums. IN: R. Kertész, and J. Makkay (eds) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeol. Conference, Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, Hungary, September 22-26 (1996) Archeolingua. pp.283-299. Mateiciucová, I. (2001b) Mechanismy Distribuce Kamenné Štípané Industrie v Moravském Neolitu. Otázky Neolitu a Eneolitu Našich Zemí 2000: 7-18. Mateiciucová, I. (2002a) Počátky Neolitu ve Střední Evropě ve Světle Zkoumání Štípané Industrie Raně Zemědělských Společností (LnK) na Moravě a v Dolním Rakousku: 5700-4900 př. n. l. Manuscript of PhD thesis, Masaryk University, Brno. Mateiciucová, I. (2002b) Silexartefakte aus der Ältesten und Älteren LBK Fundstellen in Brunn am Gebirge in Niederösterreich (Vorbericht). Antaeus 25: 169-187. Mateiciucová, I. (2002c) Štípaná Industrie z Pohřebiště v „Široké u lesa“ (Steinerne Spaltindustrie aus dem Gräberfeld in der Flur „Široká u lesa“). IN: V. Podborský (ed) Dvě Pohřebiště Neolitického Lidu s Lineární Keramikou ve Vedrovicích na Moravě [Zwei Gräberfelder des Neolithischen Volkes mit Linearbandkeramik in Vedrovice in Mähren]. Philosophische Fakultät der Masaryk Universität, Brno. pp.217-230. Mateiciucová, I. (2002d) Silexartefakte und Gerölle im Gräberfeld der Linearbandkeramischen Kultur in Vedrovice in Mähren. Preistoria Alpina 37: 81-107. Mateiciucová, I. (in press): Obsidian, Limnoquarzite and Other Worked Stone at Ecsegfalva 23B. IN: A. Whittle (ed) The Early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain: Investigations of the Körös Culture

106

INNA MATEICIUCOVÁ: MESOLITHIC TRADITIONS AND THE ORIGIN OF THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

Weiner, J. (1987) Techniken und Methoden der Intentionellen Herstellung von Steingeräten (mit Bibliographie). IN: M. Rind (ed) Feuerstein: Rohstoff der Steinzeit-Bergbau und Bearbeitung Technik. Archäologisches Museum Stadt Kelheim, Museumsheft 3. pp.46-102. Willms, C. (1982) Zwei Fundplätze der Michelsberger Kultur aus dem Westlichen Münsterland, Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zum Neolithischen Silexhandel in Mitteleuropa. Münsterische Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte 12. Whittle, A. (1996) Europe in the Neolithic. The Creation of New Worlds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Zimmermann, A. (1988) Steinmaterial. IN: U. Boelicke et al. (eds) Der Bandkeramische Siedlunsplatz Langweiler 8., Gem. Aldenhoven, Kr. Düren. Beiträge zur Neolithischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte 3. Rheinische Ausgrabungen 28. pp. 569-787. Zvelebil, M. (1986) Mesolithic Prelude and Neolithic Revolution. IN: M. Zvelebil (ed) Hunters in Transition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp.5-15. Zvelebil, M. (1995) Indo-European Origins and the Agricultural Transition in Europe. IN: M. Kuna and N. Venclová (eds) Whither Archaeology? Papers in Honour of Evžen Neustupný. Institute of Archaeology, Praha. pp.173-203. Zvelebil, M. (2002) Indo-European Dispersals and the Agricultural Transition in Northern Europe: Culture, Genes, and Language. IN: K. Julku (ed) The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia. Oulu. pp.318-343. Zvelebil, M. and Rowley-Conwy, P. (1984) Transition to Farming in Northern Europe: a Hunter-Gatherer Perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review 17: 104-128.

Preliminary Report. A Nyíregyházi Jósa Andras Múzeum Évkönyve (Nyíregyháza) 36: 101-110. Starnini, E. and Szakmány, G. (2000) The Lithic Industry of the Neolithic Sites of Szarvas and Endröd (SouthEastern Hungary): Techno-Typological and Archaeometrical Aspects. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 50: 279-341. Sümegi, P. and Kertész, R. (2001) Palaegeographic Characteristic of the Carpathian Basin – an Ecological Trap During the Early Neolithic? IN: R. Kertész and J. Makkay (eds) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeology Conference, Damjanich Museum of Szolnok, Hungary, September 22-26 (1996) Archeolingua vol. 11. pp.405-415. Škrdla, P. Mateiciucová, I. and Přichystal, A. (1997) Mesolithikum (Gespaltene Steinindustrie). IN: L. Poláček (ed) Studien zum Burgwall von Mikulčice, Band 2, Archeologický Ústav České Republiky, Brno. pp.45-91. Taute, W. (1973/74) Neolithische Mikrolithen und Andere Neolithischen Steinartefakten aus Süddeutschland und Österreich. Archäologische Informationen 2-3: 71-125. Tichý, R. (1962) Osídlení s Volutovou Keramikou na Moravě. Památky Archeologické 53(2): 245-305. Tillmann, A. (1993) Kontinuität oder Diskontinuität? Zur Frage einer Bandkeramischen Landnahme im Südlichen Mitteleuropa. Archäologische Informationen 16(2): 157-187. Tixier, J. (1963) Typologie de l’Epipaleolithique du Mahreb. Paris. Tixier, J. Inizan, M. L. and Roche, H. (1980) Prehistoire de la Pierre Taillee: Terminologie et Technologie. France (1980-2e ). Vencl, S. (1971) Současný Stav Poznání Postmezolitických Štípaných Industrií v Československu. IN: J.K. Kozłowski (ed) Z Badań nad Krzemieniarstwem Neolitycznym i Enenolitycznym. Polskie Towarzystwo Archeologiczne and Muzeum Archeologiczne w Krakowie, Kraków. pp.74-99. Vencl, S. (1982) K Otázce Zániku Sběračsko-Loveckých Kultur. Problematika Vztahů Mesolitu Vůči Neolitu a Postmesolitických Kořistníků Vůči Mladším Pravěkým Kulturám. Archeologické Rozhledy 34: 648-693. Vencl, S. (1986) The Role of Hunting-Gathering Populations in the Transition to Farming: a CentralEuropean Perspective. IN: M. Zvelebil (ed) Hunters in Transition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp.43-51. Vencl, S. (1993) Zum Forschungsstand des Tschechoslowakischen Mesolithikums. Památky Archeologické 84: 148-151. Weiner, J. (1985) Praktische Versuche zur Neolithischen Klingenproduktion. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Sogenannten Punchtechnik. Archäologische Informationen 8: 22-33.

107

108

FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO CENTRAL EUROPE: ORIGINS OF THE LBK Radomír Tichý Abstract The aim of this contribution is to consider how the neolithisation of Central Europe occurred. Attention is given to archaeological data available on the neolithisation of the Czech Republic, since the region was recently emphasized in a recent synthesis of the European Neolithic (Whittle 1999). Finally, acculturation hypotheses are evaluated, and a model of neolithisation via Learning is presented as one of the possible explanations for the process of neolithisation in the aforementioned areas.

Neolithic has been described as uncertain. This is partly because of the level of knowledge of the earlier periods, i.e. the Mesolithic, and partly because the studied sources do not clearly indicate interrelations between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic (the different locations of sites of the two populations oppose the idea of cultural continuity) (Vencl 1993: 148-151). Despite this, the area of the Czech Republic was included in a recent synthesis of the European Neolithic (Whittle 1999), among those regions where the mobile lifestyle of the indigenous foraging populations allowed them to become the bearers of Neolithic culture.

Introduction Recently, Tillmann (1993: 157-187) began a discussion of how the neolithisation of Central Europe occurred. He asked if the migration of farmers was necessary for its realization. He worked with observations of the supposed continuity of knapped tool technology from the early Mesolithic (Beuronien) to the early Neolithic in the territory which was later almost completely occupied by the Early LBK. The production of blades and the preparation of striking areas from nodules were, according to him, already different from surrounding regions in the early Mesolithic. The long development of the Mesolithic allowed for the adoption of southern Neolithic elements in the southeastern part of this region, without any actual population movements, as is shown by the physiological differences between the bearers of the LBK and Körös cultures (Tillmann 1993: 157-187). None of the ensuing discussions (Cziesla 1994: 43-47; Kind 1994: 47-49; Gronenborn 1994: 50-52; Kaczanowska and Kozlowski 1994: 52-54; Gläser 1994: 58-61; Strien 1994:61-63; Modderman 1994:63-64), nor Tillmann’s responses (1994: 65-77) have brought a satisfactory solution.

Recent research by Mateiciucová (2002) has introduced new interpretations. The importance of her work is in observing the interrelations between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic on the only possible point of contact between the two cultures - i.e. the knapped industry. She assumes that the LBK originated in Transdanubia, but derives it from the indigenous Mesolithic. This corresponds to her research of the knapped industry in the regions of modern Moravia and Lower Austria. Her model of east central European neolithisation also incorporates Zvelebil’s (1986; Zvelebil and Lillie 2000) discussion about the “availability model” and Whittle’s (1999) acculturation model. It is also appropriate for the discussion of the partial role of Neolithic migration in the process of neolithisation in Eastern Central Europe that follows below.

At the same time, Küssner (1994: 7-18) studied the relationship between the late Mesolithic and the early Neolithic in the Middle Elbe and Saale Valley. As there is no evidence of domestication before the LBK, he suggests the possible mechanisms of change, to be either migration or acculturation. He identified elements of the Starčevo, Körös and Vinča cultures in the material culture. Together with radiocarbon dates, this suggests the rapid spread of the LBK over a large territory, perhaps even through Bohemia. Imported domesticated animals, strong social structures documented by burials, knapped tools and other materials, point more to a migration from the southeast. There is however, the question of what role the Cardial or La Hoguette cultures played in the development of the LBK, which may eventually shift the centre of its origin further west.

Observations from Real Life Reconstructions The above mentioned models (Zvelebil, Whittle, Mateiciucová), encompass the only realistic approach, and involve concrete explanations of neolithisation. It is possible to agree with their suppositions, and with the application Mateiciucová’s model on Central European development up to the point of acquaintance with the Neolithic (through the exchange of information, materials and products), when the “Neolithic package” became introduced to Mesolithic people. As I already pointed out (Tichý 2000c, 2001c), many human activities connected with the existence of the “Neolithic package”, are dependant on the actual presence of a person knowledgeable of the function and production of the corresponding artifacts and structures. Mateiciucová explains away this problem via marriage patterns (Mateiciucová 2002: 324), with an influx of Neolithic women into the sparsely occupied environment of

In the Czech Republic, there has always been a long tradition supporting the wave of advance colonization model for the adoption of farming from the southeast (Soudský 1950: 5-162; Filip 1951: 209-213; Tichý 1962; Soudský 1966: 8-20; Pavlů and Zápotocká 1979: 281315; Vencl 1982: 648-689). This colonization model kept its place in explanations of the origins of the Neolithic, until very recently. Lately, however, the origin of the

109

LBK DIALOGUES

Activities Identified in the Neolithic

Obtaining materials

Continuity Original Element in Unchanged Material Context X

Original Element in New Material Context X

Knapped industry production Textile manufacture

X X

X X

Making of clay figurines Production of bone tools Use of thermal energy Gathering Hunting Pottery manufacture Settlement location Working fields

X X X X X

Growing crops Building cereal silos Polished industry production Wood working Building houses Breeding animals Burial rites

Discontinuity New Element

Archaeological Evidence

X

Mines & exploitation areas Knapped industry Textile imprints, whorls, loom weights Clay figurines Bone industry Hearths, ovens/ kilns Paleobotanical remains Paleozoological remains Pottery vessels Location of settlements Hoes, digging sticks, shovels Cereal remains querns Cereal Silos Polished industry Houses, wells House Plans Paleozoological remains Graves

X X

X X X X X X X X X

Systematic Activity Unlimited by Physical Labor X

X

X X

Table 1: The Mesolithic-Neolithic cultural change in Central Europe: continuation and discontinuation of archaeologically detectable activities. transfer the entire repertoire of abilities which lead to the adoption of Neolithic culture, as a whole. Even today, we are often not able to create perfect replicas or reconstructions of ancient crafts. The main problem is that both individual and social learning was involved. It is possible that in the Mesolithic and the Neolithic, as today, a number of cultural characteristics were acquired in childhood by copying adults. Perhaps there were also a number of activities, which could be learned during the meetings of hunters and farmers over the course of exchange, or during visits to Neolithic settlements. However the basics of a number of activities would have been hidden from the view of visitors, since they would have taken place outside of the settlement (the use of polished tools, or the acquisition of raw materials for polished tools), or they would have been hidden within the settlement, away from the “official” visitor (making ceramic paste and vessels). The visitor’s outside view of the Neolithic settlement may have been similar to that of the present day archaeologist. He may have observed the size and shape of artifacts, but their composition and function would have remained obscure, if he did not live at the settlement. Only then, would he have been able to learn the qualities of raw materials and their preparation, the use of tools and the right timing for activities (for example farming).

Mesolithic Transdanubia. She bases her theory on a patrilinear and patrilocal character of the Mesolithic society. According to her, this is documented by the knapped industry in continued production using the soft hammer technique. Neolithic women either did not, or were not, allowed to show their innovative abilities in the new environment. This became possible only after a long preparation period for neolithisation. How can we explain the role of the “male” in the “Neolithic package”? I do not think it is enough to look for the explanation only by researching the knapped industry. It is necessary to work with the “Neolithic package” as a whole, and to attempt comparisons with the evidence of late Mesolithic activities, although these cannot always be proven archaeologically. In such cases, the sequence leading to an artifact’s meaning- from reconstruction to function to activity - plays an important role. Reconstruction drawings can partly inform us about the appearance and difference of the Neolithic world (Fig. 6 to Fig. 9), but it is also necessary to attain an understanding of the functional form, in order to achieve an awareness of the necessary human activities. For this reason, an experimental reconstruction of a Neolithic settlement took place in the years 1994 – 1998, including the associated activities (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) (Tichý 2000c: 71-118). This illustrated the necessity to

110

RADOMÍR TICHÝ: FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO CENTRAL EUROPE: ORIGINS OF THE LBK

Fig. 1: The Monoxylon Expedition in 1995.

Fig. 2: The Monoxylon Expedition in 1995.

111

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 3: The Neolithic Package through the eyes of experimental archaeology.

Fig. 4: The Neolithic Package through the eyes of experimental archaeology. 112

RADOMÍR TICHÝ: FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO CENTRAL EUROPE: ORIGINS OF THE LBK

Fig. 5: The Mesolithic-Neolithic cultural change in Central Europe: continuation and discontinuation of archaeologically detectable activities.

Fig. 6: Reconstruction of the way of life in the Early Neolithic of Greece and the Balkans (Melichar 2001). 113

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 7: Reconstruction of the way of life in the Early Neolithic of Greece and the Balkans (Melichar 2001).

Fig. 8: Reconstruction of the way of life in the Early Neolithic of Greece and the Balkans (Melichar 2001).

114

RADOMÍR TICHÝ: FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO CENTRAL EUROPE: ORIGINS OF THE LBK

Fig. 9: Reconstruction of the way of life in the Early Neolithic of Central Europe (Melichar 2001). For the time being, I will disregard activities related to the manifestation of “spiritual life,” since it is not possible to compare these archaeologically between hunting and farming societies (for example funeral rituals, female figurines). I do agree however, with Mateiciucová (this volume) that the psyche of Mesolithic and Neolithic people were not too different, and that these differences were less than enormous (Vencl 1982).

for the above mentioned transfer of Neolithic culture, via learning. It is mostly based on the transfer of knowledge, abilities (use and production) and behavioral stereotypes. The low transfer capacity would have not only suited the demands of acculturation (long distance contacts), but it would have also been sufficient for a small scale migration of farming colonists or Mesolithic people that adopted farming (Fig. 5 and Tab.1).

Testing the viability of travel between the Near East and Europe via the Aegean Sea, was the second method of experimental reconstruction which we tested during the Monoxylon Expedition in 1995 (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) (Tichý 2000 a,b, 2001 a,b, 2002).

Archaeological Evidence of Selected Neolithic Activities from the Region of Bohemia and Moravia I would like to expand the experiences gained through these experiments in the following sections, into a concrete discussion of the “Neolithic package” in the eastern part of Central Europe. The activities necessary for its adoption will be examined below, beginning with archaeologically documented data.

It is not necessary to emphasize the importance of this route - especially the impact of a difficult, but also relatively fast, transport by sea on the neolithisation of southeast and central Europe. If the possibilities of the “sea route” were understood in such time dimensions by people of the time (navigation from the coast of Asia Minor to Greek Attica in 70 hours), then a similar understanding of human possibilities can also be presumed for the slower “land route.” Because our 1995 Monoxylon Expedition tested only a small vessel - a log boat - we can talk only about our experiences in transporting small loads and groups of people. Even at this small scale, the conditions may have been sufficient

Growing Crops Although hoes and diggers already known from the Moravian Gravettien were a potential element of domestication (Klima 1955: 18-25), they were not used in farming. No traces of tillage have been documented anywhere in the Czech Republic before the end of the Neolithic (Pleinerová 1981: 139). At the beginning of the Neolithic, we can presume slash and burn or garden

115

LBK DIALOGUES

Starting in the Neolithic, it was possible to use new materials - flax and hemp. Unfortunately, it is not possible to trace the route of their spread. Flax originated in the Near East. It does not appear wild locally (Opravil 1981: 229-301). On the other hand, domesticated hemp differs only slightly from its wild form. It originated in Central Asia. In Central Europe, both of these plants would have to have been purposefully grown (Opravil 1983: 206-211). The use of the new fibers (growing), and the ways of weaving (loom with weights) make this early Neolithic textile different from the documented, high quality cloth produced by foragers of the Moravian Gravettien (Adovasio et al. 1999: 61-103). In both cases, we may presume that it had been the work of women.

farming, involving co-operative labor and the use of wooden hoes and digging sticks (Chotek 1961: 391-423). Such a system seems to have been important in a period of optimum climate, when average temperatures were higher than today and rich rainfall supported the growth of forests. As experiments have shown, burning positively influences the productive characteristics of soil (Peške and Tintěra 1985: 221-228). At the same time, the effectiveness of harvesting tools has been experimentally demonstrated at 10 m2 in about 7-10 minutes, using a stone sickle (Kazdová 1983: 1984). Central Europe is similar to Greece and the Balkans, in that flood plains were used for farming. In Eastern Bohemia, the majority (48.3%) of the earliest settlements were located on terrace edges above the flood plain. Some (16.1%), were located within the flood plain of the Elbe or Cidlina rivers (Pavlů and Vokolek 1992: 84-85). The flood plain was probably overgrown with sparse vegetation that ranged from grassland to woodland. Flooding and erosion existed only on a restricted scale (Opravil 1984: 167-176). However, the importance of flood plains for agriculture, has recently been questioned (Rulf 1991: 381). Nevertheless, a mixed model of Neolithic agriculture is generally accepted.

Grain Silos and the Storage of Cereals Few storage pits are known from the early Neolithic, and therefore a different form of cereal storage is presumed (Neustupný 1986: 228). Storage pits appear from LBK phase Ic and younger. According to an analysis of 283 structures of this type from 34 Neolithic sites in Central Europe, it seems that such structures (round foundation with sloping or straight walls, possibly roofed) fulfilled the primary function of a silo, or as organic material storage (Šumberová 1996: 61-103). In any case, it was a new type of structure, the use of which implied knowledge of the annual agricultural cycle in relation to the Neolithic settlement (both female and male labor). For strategic reasons, this activity probably would have been hidden from the casual visitor.

In Central Europe, Neolithic populations sought warm locations on the loess. They grew einkorn and spelt wheat, barley, millet, peas, lentils, flax, perhaps also rye, oats and hemp (Hajnalová 1993). Most often, they grew dinkel wheat complemented with einkorn. We also have evidence of pear, cherry and plum trees, sloe, grapes, walnut trees, dogwood (Tempír 1974: 17-21) and apple trees (Opravil 1975: 377, 381).

Food A type of gruel made from crushed plant fibers has already been documented for the Moravian Gravettien, as identified in a hearth at Dolní Věstonice II (Svoboda 1999: 179). It is probable that the baking of grain cakes or bread, represented a fundamental change in the food culture, involving the use of ovens. The common preparation of flour is documented by numerous querns. This anticipated change in the composition and preparation of food between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic, is suggested both by the presence of new crops (see above), and also the structures used for their preparation (ovens). We know little about the quantity of cereal use, and the methods of food preparation (cooking in vessels? preparation of cereals in ovens?) since these activities cannot be proven archaeologically. The evidence of cereals mostly constitutes grain imprints in daub. Indirect evidence can also be gained from the volume of storage pits (Šumberová 1996: 98) or pottery storage jars, such as the Kuzmice storage jar which had a volume of 257 liters (Vizdal 1982: 63). We do not know the proportion of plant to animal foods (Neustupný and Dvořák 1983: 245-254). Fishing net weights from Opava-Kateřinky, indicate fishing (Šikulová 1961: 1-10). Complementing the diet with diary products, may be documented by a deep bowl with holes in the bottom

Care for new species of plants was a completely new experience for these populations regardless of whether it involved substantial amounts, or was merely complementary. Care for the harvest was probably everyone’s responsibility, and its knowledge was unequivocally tied to the annual agricultural cycle. These activities were obviously connected to south-eastern models (types of soil, plant species). Textile Use and Production We do not know the scale of textile use. It was certainly produced in a specialized way, involving weaving looms and pear-shaped clay weights. Thread was spun with whorls, which acted as flywheels. Thanks to a cloth imprint 40 by 15 mm in size on an LBK sherd from a storage jar found in Luleč, we know the quality of the material. A densely packed linen weave was created with 6 threads per 10 mm. The fiber used is not certain, and was probably either flax or wool (Kostelníková 1985:197-198). Flax strings were found during the excavation of an early LBK well at the Mohelnice settlement near Zábřeh. These were made by twining together three simple threads (Tichý 1972).

116

RADOMÍR TICHÝ: FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO CENTRAL EUROPE: ORIGINS OF THE LBK

from Bezměřov (Spurný 1981: 27-30). Acorns, hazelnuts and other fruits also may have been gathered (Neustupný 1986: 229). It is probable that the preparation of food, was again mostly female work, but the results would necessarily have influenced the whole of the community. Under the guise of hospitality, food and its preparation, would have been one of the first activities encountered by a visitor at the settlement (during exchange?).

The spread of the earliest LBK settlements must be coordinated with the contemporaneous spread of the “Neolithic package”, involving entire families. The construction of a house, represented a foreign model, that did not correspond with Central European materials (wood and clay).

Settlements and Dwellings – their Construction and Use

The quality and quantity of wood working in Central Europe is documented in the early phase by wood working tools, traces of longhouses and wells. We can not anticipate analogous activity in the Mesolithic on a similar scale.

Wood Working

Settlements of the early LBK appeared relatively quickly in four independent groups in Bohemia and Moravia (Zápotocká 1993: 389), which corresponds with independent groups in Greece and the Balkans. Unfortunately, the structure of the earliest LBK settlements in Moravia is still largely unknown (Čižmář 1998:106).

Evidence of the wooden parts of long houses, mainly comprise traces of foundations, created by posts. The darker soil in postholes often indicates that the post crosssection was either semi-circular, square (for example Rasdorf) or triangular. Foundation trenches were made from side by side wooden posts of the same or different cross-sections, all sunk to the same depth (Sklenářová 1996: 8-34). The collapsed wall of house 41 at Bylany, was 200 cm in height (Soudský 1966: 24). These buildings differ from Mesolithic ones, and knowledge of their construction, implies long visits amongst the men of the settlement.

Settlements spread along the river Elbe, between Pardubice and Ústí nad Labem, and throughout its tributaries. This would have been fast, thanks to the use of river transport (Pavlů and Zápotocká 1979: 290). This is evident in the Kolín region (a territory of about 45 to 20 km), where the earliest sites were based along the Elbe river, and only later moved upland. In the middle and late LBK, only some sites continued to be occupied, while others were abandoned (Pavlů and Rulf 1996: 126-137). This developmental trend is also evident at other settlements, for example in eastern Bohemia (Pavlů and Vokolek 1992: 85).

It is interesting to note, there is already evidence for the modification of waterways in the Mesolithic (Gramsch 1998: 17-24). However real wells are only known from the Neolithic, not only from the eastern Mediterranean (Galili-Sharvit 1998: 31-44), but also from the Balkans. In Central Europe they are known from Mohelnice (Tichý 1972: 17-21), Most (Rulf and Velimský 1993: 545-560) and Schletz (Windl 1998: 85-94). Neolithic wells differ from the previous period in the use of wooden casings, demanding large quantities and good quality of wood working (Lobisser 1998: 177-192). In this sense, it was an activity similar to building a longhouse.

The so-called long houses, known from the early Neolithic (Pavlů 1981: 534-542), were a characteristic element of these settlements. They were a specific adaptation to the forested area of the temperate zone. LBK houses were uniform up to the late phase when, the tie-beam and fewer inner posts were introduced. The load bearing function was transferred to walls (Sklenářová 1996: 58). The massive construction of LBK houses, is sometimes interpreted as the foundation for a roof made from split logs (Sklenářová 1996: 58). Occasionally, sunken buildings (Bicske-Galagoyas: Kalicz 1993: 336) which have also been found in our region (Čižmář 1999: 103-114) are suggested. These may have been a parallel type of dwelling or an outbuilding. It has been documented that the orientation of these houses differed from the organization of Mesolithic houses. Connection with the weather has been excluded, and instead it is more probable that they resulted from cultural influences. The necessity to dry the houses also may have played a role. In western areas, an orientation of NW-SW prevailed, while in eastern areas it was NE-SW (Marheusser 1991: 41). Neustupný (1997: 316) presumes that the life of a house was shorter than ten years. At Bylany the length of one phase is estimated to have been 15-30 years (Pavlů and Rulf 1991: 362). However according to paleobotanists, the estimate may need to be increased up to 70 years (Beneš, pers. comm.).

Polished Stone Tools - Use and Production Although stone polishing was already known in the Moravian Gravettien (Svoboda 1999: 182), it was only used for the manufacture of wood working tools at the beginning of the Neolithic. In Bohemia, settlements with evidence of polished stone tool production were concentrated in the eastern and north-eastern part of the region (Vencl 1975: 53-67). Presumably, there had been expeditions to obtain raw material (Vencl 1975: 67; Salaš 1986: 53). Until recently, evidence of stone mining to make axes and adzes had been missing. It was petroarchaeology which showed that the amphibolites from central Bohemian settlements originated from the area around Jablonec nad Nisou (Bukovanská 1992: 7-16). Large amphibolite quarrying areas found near Dolní Černá Studnice and Velké Hamry on the southern edge of the Jizerské Mountains (Příchystal 2002: 12-13, Šrein et

117

LBK DIALOGUES

represented a substantial use of clay. The mixture had its own composition, which was important. According to preserved finger imprints, the clay was put on with hands. Daubing was repeated after drying (Sklenářová 1996: 3436). Work with clay thus introduced a new activity, linked to both male and female labor.

al. 2002), may have, according to recent analyses, supplied not only sites in the Czech Republic but also a substantial part of Central Europe (Central and East Germany, Southern Poland, Lower Austria). It has been confirmed that the stone was acquired from pits of 3 to 15 meters in diameter. Blanks were probably produced on the spot, but blocks of stone up to 12 kg in weight were sporadically transported to settlements (Vencl 1975: 6667). In Moravia, several more of these “upland” quarrying zones can be anticipated; amphibolites near Želešice in the Brno region, and diorite in the Svratka valley, Upper Dyje valley, western Moravia and Walsviertl in Austria (Podborský 1993: 76, Map 7).

Ceramic Vessels - Use and Production Current chronological systems of the Czech Neolithic presume that the evolution of linear decoration occurred more or less concurrently in all related population units. The ascertainable alterations in ceramics are assumed to have been the result of changes applied by potters from one generation to the next. These may have been women. Daughters would have learnt the making of pottery from their mothers, or a close relative. Everyday contacts ensured the stability of local traditions, which excludes all other reasons for change other than chronological. One tool was sufficient to decorate pots - the engraver with variously shaped points. It didn’t need to be a bone point, it could also have been made from stone, wood or pottery fragments, as has been indicated at Suchohrdly near Znojmo (Kovárník 1982: 275).

The production process has been documented in pits, or structures of a manufacturing character, but mostly from caches found outside of the settlements. Production began with knapping and flaking. From the Late LBK there is also evidence of stone cutting, drilling and mainly grinding (Vencl 1975: 53-64). Sandstone polishers or their remains, have commonly been found on settlements, but it is a question whether they could have been used for manufacturing large artifacts. There is less evidence of production on the more remote settlements. For example, the large settlement at Bylany produced 986 artifacts (polished tools) but only 23 of them were blanks. The size of these artifacts also varied according to the find environment. Conspicuously, the largest shoe-last adzes were found in caches (over 20 cm), those found in graves were generally 10-18 cm long, and finds from settlements had a length of 5-18 cm. It has been suggested that at the settlement, large pieces may have been reduced or modified after damage, or destroyed outside the settlement during work in the forest (Vencl 1975: 54-61). At Bylany only small fragments were preserved from the once complete tools (Pavlů and Rulf 1991: 361-362).

The earliest LBK pottery has an independent character: it is less decorated, contains organic temper, specific shapes and is less frequent in features (Rulf 1993: 19). The manufacture of LBK vessel shapes in Moravia was uniform. This indicates that not only the level of pottery production was high, but also that there was a lot of communication between single groups of inhabitants (Pavlů 1999: 960). However due to the current level of research, it is not possible to determine the exact relationship between Transdanubian LBK pottery and western Hungary, where advanced pottery shapes such as pedestalled bowls, pedestalled double conic vessels or bottles were present from the beginning (Čižmář 1998: 107-108, 134).

From the point of view of function, there is no doubt that polished stone tools were primarily used for wood working. Experiments indicate that the tools are quickly destroyed if used for working soil, but are very effective for cutting down trees (Malina 1970: 295; Vencl 1961).

Imports are not known from the earliest LBK. Later imports (fragments of Proto-Želiezovce culture vessels from Uhřetice) have been found near the main Elbe route (Pavlů and Zápotocká 1979: 305). One sherd from the eastern Slovakian LBK was found in the Kolín region (Pavlů and Rulf 1996:126-137).

From this data it is obvious that raw materials for the manufacture of polished tools were obtained from remote, specially selected places. This indicates a perfect knowledge of the nature of the material. Most of the production, and also the use of at least part of the tools, took place outside of the settlements. Who and under what circumstances introduced these processes to the Mesolithic patrilocal hunters?

We still know little about the technology and production of LBK pottery. It is certain that it demanded skill and technological knowledge. Sporadically LBK, Stroked Ware and Lengyel sherds have been analyzed. The results show technological improvement over time. LBK pottery was thick walled, of low density, and low degree of firing. It is generally accepted that the pottery was made from local clay (Pleinerová and Pavlů 1979: 112, Bareš et al. 1981-1982: 155, Hložek 2002). The temperature of firing was low, that is below 700 C, in most cases (Podborský 1993: 91; Pleinerová and Pavlů 1979: 112; Hložek 2002).

Work with Clay The building of houses was linked with loess (digging construction pits), and is a feature typical of the spreading Neolithic (Sklenářová 1996: 50). The basic housing structure was made from posts. It was easier to put posts into pre-dug holes rather than to drive them in, even in loose soil (Sklenářová 1996: 9). Wall daubing 118

RADOMÍR TICHÝ: FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO CENTRAL EUROPE: ORIGINS OF THE LBK

Preparation of the ceramic mixture, making pots, firing and use of ceramic vessels were surely visible on the Neolithic settlement. But the whole process required a certain amount of time and surely would not have been fully revealed to a casual visitor.

In comparison with this, hunting seems to have been a prestigious (Oliva 1997: 409) and supremely free activity. Harvesting fruit was also a completely different sort of labor. Even without archeological evidence, there is no doubt that the use of wooden hoes and digging sticks was laborious (Neustupný 1967: 8). Some elementary agricultural experiments (Podborský 1984: 225) showed that there are not only physical demands, but also the need to understand the consequences of individual actions, in the case of agriculture for example burning, use of hand-held picks, and the technique of sowing.

Ovens/Kilns

Breeding Animals

Although from a superficial viewpoint there are certain similarities between the oven from the Moravian Gravettien (Lazničková 1999: 126-138) and the documented Neolithic ovens, it is necessary to differentiate. Neolithic ovens were built in pits (Mohelnice, Vedrovice), dug into slopes (Mohelnice) or without any relation to depressions (Blatná). On the settlement, ovens appeared singly (Březno) or in a series (Mohelnice, Vedrovice, Bylany, Horné Lefantovce). From the point of view of construction, the ovens could have been dug into loess, or the arch could have been built on a stone base. Some could have been roofed (Šedo 1983: 40-46). Although we know their design (Podborský 1971: 59-65) their function has yet to be fully understood. Small and badly fired pots have been found on the inside (Podborský 1971: 59-65; Ondruš 1975-76: 137). This may mean the use of badly fired pottery, or it may be evidence that they were indeed used for firing pottery. According to other authors, the ovens could have been used for the preparation of crops and food, drying grain, roasting cereals, and extracting flax oil (women’s work?). In this case, their use would probably not have been hidden from visitors. However, their use for firing pottery would have involved a specialized activity which would have demanded knowledge of the basic rules of use.

The earliest evidence of domesticated and wild animals proportions at the beginning of the Neolithic in Central Europe (Pit #3 from Nové Dvory, Bylany, Dolní Březany), indicate the importance of cattle even at the beginning of the Neolithic occupation. Bone fragments of sheep/goat and domesticated pig are less numerous. The presence of wild animals was still large, including deer, red deer, and wild boar, complimented with aurochs and hare (Peške 1997: 546; Clason 1967: 91,96; Čtverák and Rulf 1984: 142-155). The problem of bone classification at settlements, lies in both their quantitative and structural reduction (there is a higher probability of preservation of bones from older and bigger animals). Deformation was also caused by different methods of consumption (different, for example, preparation of wild animals?) and the time between consumption and deposition in the cultural level, settlement surface or in the infill of structures (Neustupný 1981: 162-163). They probably didn’t have large herds, but small numbers of animals (Neustupný 1965: 7-8). A sufficient quantity of fodder represented a big problem in breeding domesticated animals. With the exception of winter, this need would have been fulfilled by open pastures, maybe within sight of the settlement. According to estimates of meat consumption and the age of slaughtered animals, it is possible to predict 10-70 animals per 15-20 people (e.g. small settlement) (Neustupný 1986: 228-229).

One-phase settlements have yielded very little pottery. In the layers before a longer hiatus, (supposed desertion of the settlement) the number of pottery sherds on the settlement decreased, probably because the pottery was taken away (Rulf 1993: 19).

Labor

Acquisition (new species) of animals again represented a specific experience linked to the yearly cycle, and involved the care of both men and women.

Prehistoric farming is described as less demanding, with hard labor presumed only at key times (Neustupný and Dvořák 1983: 238). The Neolithic way of life encompassed different physical demands in comparison with the previous period: artifacts and structures indicate demanding construction activities (longhouses up to 40 m long, wells 10 m or deeper, enclosing settlements with symbolic or large ditches), acquisition of clay for building and pottery, cutting down wood, obtaining other materials, agricultural work, transporting heavy stone materials or blanks, and grinding cereals with querns. Individually these activities involved long term and stereotypical labor. Exertion could have been decreased only through the co-operation of the community (Neustupný 1967).

Bone Tools and Shell Jewellery - Use and Production Early Neolithic bone industry receives very little attention in Czech literature. Therefore, the find of 28 tools and bone fragments in pit #287 near a Middle LBK house in Roztoky, was of great importance. These tools were identified as polishers, spatulas, spoons (also with a drilled handle), S-shape tools, knives, split and flat awls. Awls were the most common (50-70%), followed by chisels, polishers, spatulas and spoons (20-30%). The origin of the last three is supposed to have been in southeast Europe (Rulf 1984). The shapes do not link with the Mesolithic industry, which contained hunting tools. 119

LBK DIALOGUES

(Mateiciucová 2000: 234), since these tools, which were typical for the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic, were missing.

On the other hand, the Neolithic did not bring any new innovations in the production of bone tools. All the processes had been known since the Paleolithic. The bones of wild animals were used most often, primarily for making firm tools. Flat tools were made from the flat bones of aurochs, and awls from sheep and goat. Manufacturing was not time demanding (a needle required about 2 hours) (Rulf 1984: 241-254). “Workshops” are documented from VedroviceZábrdovice (Ondruš 1975-76: 133-137).

In comparison with the Early LBK, tool size in the Later LBK increased (Pavlů and Rulf 1991: 361). The knapped industry also differed in size, according to the find environment. The industry found on settlement sites was medium sized (5-8 cm) or small (3-5 cm), with long blades appearing only rarely (Vencl 1971: 74-75). In caches, blades were 5-10 cm long (Vencl 1967: 183).

We know little about the manufacturing of Spondylus jewellery, which was represented in various forms – bracelets, beads, pendants or buckles (Neiszery and Breinl 1993: 427-438).

Among tools, the most common were scrapers, and less regular were sickle blades (at Bylany 10%), blades with a blunted side or end, drills, engravers, trapezoids and in the later periods, triangular arrowheads. Some of the tools were used in combination (Popelka 1987: 13-14). Use of the bow is also indicated by the find of two-part polishers for polishing arrows (Vencl 1964: 31-33). Manufacture of knapped tools is documented near dwellings. It seems to have been especially concentrated around some pits (Ondruš 1975-76: 133-137; Popelka 1994: 9-10). There were differences between the settlements of producers and of users (Mateiciucová 2000: 235).

From the point of view of transition between the Mesolithic and Neolithic, the difference was more in the change of function, rather than in the use of the above mentioned tools, even though we know very little about them. Knapped Stone Tools - Use and Production Views on the Mesolithic - Neolithic transition in terms of the knapped industry vary (see for instance Mazálek 1953: 203-211; Vencl 1971: 74-75). The latest research done by Mateiciucová (2002), indicates that new technology (long blades from high quality materials made by pressure) appeared in the Mesolithic before interaction with the Neolithic environment. In the late Mesolithic of south-eastern Central Europe, the soft hammer technique appears to have originated in the indigenous environment. The knapped industry corresponded with that of the Early LBK: it had small shapes, and used the soft hammer technique without lateral retouch. In these respects it differed from Starčevo tools (long blades, pressure technique, lateral retouch). But the Neolithic technology also differed from the Mesolithic one. The base of Neolithic blades were faceted, while the base of Mesolithic blades were either flat or pointed (Mateiciucová 2000: 234).

Neolithic settlements in the Czech Republic with the largest amount of knapped industry (Lobec, Nové Branice) are from a period when we do not have evidence of silica mining. It is true that some settlements made do with a minimal amount of material (Březno), but others yielded vast evidence of silica working (Bylany, Mohelnice). There is also evidence of mining from the Mesolithic (Polany - colony I in the Holy Cross Mountains, Gojsc on the Upper Varta). The biggest pits reached 2.5 m depth with a diameter of 7 meters. Evidence of silica quarrying in the Neolithic at Tomaszowo was at a depth of 4 m, but this dates to the Late LBK (Oliva 1999). Raw material also could have been gathered on the surface (Neustupný 1963: 69-72) or transported over long distances via contacts between early Neolithic communities. Blade caches may be evidence of expeditions for material or workshops (Vencl 1967: 184). We do not know of digging tools, but judging from later periods, these may have included boulder mallets, antler diggers, wooden and bone tools or secondarily reused axes (Neustupný 1988: 291).

The use of raw materials in the Neolithic, was similar to the Mesolithic. Mateiciucová (2001: 12) determined that imported materials prevailed even in regions with high quality local sources (especially Lower Austria and Burgenland). This may be evidence of movement of Neolithic or neolithisized groups, into a new area where they did not know the local sources. This idea is supported by sites in northern Moravia and Poland (Mateiciucová 2000: 232).

The above mentioned data shows that both the knapped industry, materials, and manufacture, may have been common to Mesolithic and Neolithic populations, and were used in abundance. Knowledge of material sources would have been a valuable resource to hunter-gatherers. On the other hand, the lack of such knowledge on the part of Neolithic people at the beginning of the Neolithic may mean that communication between the two societies wasn’t fully developed. This would shed doubts on the possibility of transfer of other elements of the “Neolithic package”.

In the Mesolithic and Starčevo, the knapped industry included long trapezoids and segments (Mateiciucová 2002: 321-323) which connects them with Early LBK sites, where there were also finds of trapezoids and drills with a well distinguished point. Some sites in Moravia however, suggest this may not have been the rule

120

RADOMÍR TICHÝ: FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO CENTRAL EUROPE: ORIGINS OF THE LBK

central Europe and parts of the central and western Mediterranean) underwent their own selective process of neolithisation. The basis of the preferred model is the emphasis on the learning process in the adoption of elements of farming culture (see Tichý 2001c). I begin with the certainty that this would have been possible in all parts of Europe, but did not take place everywhere. The “tutor” might have been a bearer of Neolithic culture or a neolithisized forager. This model is, to a certain degree, connected with an idea of migration, although it does not require the movement of large populations across Europe. It need not concern itself with a large demographic scale of migration, since it only anticipates small groups of colonists which had to have mastered elements of Neolithic culture. Subsequently, everything depended on the specific conditions of the given situation. The advance of neolithisation into Europe is documented archaeologically in a certain chronological and geographical context. It is possible to assume the presence of a mixed culture with foraging and farming elements everywhere. Likewise, it is necessary to consider the presence of people who underwent neolithisation everywhere. It is not important in which generation, or of what genetic origin, they were.

Model of Neolithic Culture Transfer via Learning The discussion above indicates that managing the “Neolithic package” in the eastern part of Central Europe (LBK) represented the combined activities of both men and women. According to this model, we cannot presume a patrilocal neolithisation (Mateiciucová 2002: 321), otherwise it is necessary to explain neolithisation by the presence of a small number of farming families, perhaps neolithisized Mesolithic people of foreign (southeast?) origin. The complexity of production, and use of various components of the “Neolithic package” means a prerequisite of close contact between Neolithic and Mesolithic societies (probably by mingling of the two populations, e.g. arrival of Neolithic men and women into a Mesolithic environment) or the presence of fully functional Neolithic families (colonization). Therefore, we could consider colonization over long distances, both for Central Europe, as well as for the Southeast. Perlés (2001: 58-59) suggests the same phenomenon for Greece, encompassing both islands and dry land. He presumes a radical transformation in material culture during colonization. The barrier theory (van Andel and Runnels 1995) also works with colonization over long distances. Tringham (2000: 53-54) compares the situation in the Balkans with a mosaic, but a certain degree of movement may have occurred in various ways in every village, and every family. Even a concrete sequence of the entire process has been suggested (Nikolov 1989, 1990).

The actual “tutors” of Neolithic culture need not be genetically related to Greek or even Anatolian populations. Their interaction with the indigenous hunter-gatherer population might have happened in many ways. None of the populations were very numerous, and there was probably still plenty of space for both cultures. The foragers could have been “perceiving students.” Imitation of Neolithic culture without direct contact should show in the archaeological evidence, in the form of unsuccessful material culture transfers, since there was no one to correct the mistakes. These norms may have become part of the cultural repertoire, but without the presence of knowledgeable individuals, it would not have been able to maintain the original technological and functional components. The presence of these knowledgeable “tutors” can not be substituted by information acquisition during exchange or by social levers for adopting culture, or the mobility of foragers spreading information over long distances.

Central Europe may have been neolithisized via colonization by small groups moving over long distances (Fig. 10). The homogeneity of the Neolithic culture (LBK) is often perceived as evidence of this colonization (Perlés 2001: 56, 58). However it may be difficult to archaeologically differentiate the starting phase of colonization, from the later phases of the Early LBK. The origin of the LBK cannot be explained by the marital practices of Mesolithic populations (influx of Neolithic women), and a contemporaneous prohibition on innovation (Mateiciucová 2002: 324-325). The argument that only at the beginning of the LBK materials traveled over long distances, can be explained not only by the actual pioneering settlements of Mesolithic people, but also by the necessity of (pioneer) Neolithic people to acquire sources of materials in a new environment. An orientation towards more sources (ecotypes), can be as important for the farming colonists, as for the local foragers. The speed of LBK spread then, does not need to be linked to the mobility of foragers, but can also be a result of the discussed colonization by Neolithic people over long distances. It is necessary to emphasize that this model respects the fact that the “Neolithic package” does not appear everywhere (Zvelebil and Lillie 2000: 70), and that these regions (with the exception of Greece, the Balkans,

neolithisation involved a large series of changes based on technological innovations (production of knapped industry, polished stone tools, ceramic vessels, use of special fibers for textile manufacture) and their practical use. These included the acquisition of different materials (for example stone for polished tool manufacture, clay and wood for building purposes), building different structures with different construction principles (houses, cereal silos, and ovens), and changes in lifestyle (care for new species of animals and plants, different diet and work ethics). In order for the “Neolithic package” to

121

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 10: Model of neolithisation allowing for the transfer of Neolithic culture via learning. a - infiltration by culturally transformed groups of farmers or neolithisized Mesolithics into Central Europe, b - possible route of migration according to Nikolov, c - early Neolithic settlements with painted ware, d - spread of painted ware by sea according to V. Nikolov 1989 and Nikolov 1990, e - route of the Monoxylon Expedition in 1995, f - shift of early Neolithic settlements based on absolute dating: the barrier theory (according to van Andel and Runnels 1995, Fig. 11), g - possible trade routes in the southern Aegean region (according to van Andel and Runnels 1988, Fig. 1).

122

RADOMÍR TICHÝ: FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO CENTRAL EUROPE: ORIGINS OF THE LBK

“archaeological evidence of artifacts, features and architecture can be copied, borrowed or stolen.” But there are human activities hidden behind these, and they compose a way of life. Let’s look for its basics, and then we might find that not only could a forager have been acquainted with domesticated animals and plants through contact, but that a farmer could also have been, in a certain phase of colonization, a hunter. I think that if there was a sudden accumulation of Neolithic package components, as in the LBK, then there had to be a person present in the region that had adopted a way of life practiced in the areas of southeast Central Europe and the Balkans. The difficulty lies in the fact that the role of experience and cultural learning, can not possibly be traced, even with genetics.

become a cultural part of the prehistoric population, the following circumstances were needed: a certain degree of knowledge necessary for the manufacture and use of artifacts and structures connected to Neolithic culture, a different perception of the landscape in regards to its exploitation, a different life style with new inspirations evident in the shapes and attributes of both artifacts and structures. Conclusion There was a time in the history of Neolithic archaeology, when understanding the process of European neolithisation was based more on assumption than fact. Recently, the number of facts have increased (Price 2000). Although the final solution is still remote, modern models, based on combinations of autochthonous and diffusionist theories, suggest that a concrete solution to the neolithisation of various parts of Europe is possible. The target of this contribution was to consider acculturation hypotheses (for example Whittle 1999; Jochim 2000). In the case of early farming cultures associated with the so-called Neolithic package, e.g. parts of the Balkans or the Central European LBK, I don’t perceive these models to be exhaustive. I do not believe the forager predecessors were unskillful or inferior, exactly the opposite. Perhaps they only took from the farming population what suited their own culture and way of life (for example the area of the Iron Gates). Progress was accelerated at the moment of close contact between the two populations, e.g. at the point of frontier mobility as described by Zvelebil.

References Adovasio, J.M., Soffer, O., Hyland, D.C., Klíma, B. and Svoboda, J. (1999) Textil, Košíkářství a Sítě v Mladém Paleolitu Moravy. Archeologické Rozhledy 51: 58-94. Bareš, M.; Lička, M. and Růžičková, M. (1981-1982) K Technologii Neolitické Keramiky, I-II. Sborník Národního Muzea A 35-36: 137-227, 121-237. Bukovanská, M. (1992) Petroarchaeology of Neolithic Artifacts from Central Bohemia, Czechoslovakia. Scripta, Geology 22: 7-16. Chotek, K. (1961) Kopanicový a Žďárový Způsob Přípravy Půdy v Československých Karpatech. Archeologické Rozhledy 13: 391-426. Clason, A.T. (1967) The Animal Bones at the Bandkeramik Settlement of Bylany Archeologické Rozhledy 19: 90-96. Cziesla, E. (1994) Kommentare zu: Tillman,A. 1993: Kontinuietät oder... Archäologische Informationen 17 (1): 43-47. Čižmář, Z. (1998) Nástin Relativní Chronologie Lineární Keramiky na Moravě. Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae Sociales 83: 105-139. Čižmář, Z. (1999) Několik Poznámek k Existenci Polozemnic v Kultuře s Lineární Keramikou. Pravěk Nová Řada. 8: 103-114. Čtverák, V. and Rulf, J. (1984) Neolitický Sídelní Areál v Dolních Břežanech, okres Praha – Západ. Archeologické Rozhledy 36: 121-153. Filip, J. (1951) Nejstarší Zemědělci ve Střední Evropě. Archeologické Rozhledy 3: 209-214. Galili, E. and Sharvit, J. (1998) Submerged Neolithic Water-Wells from the Carmel Coast of Israel. Brunnen der Jungsteinzeit. Internationales Symposium in Erkelenz 27. bis 29. Oktober 1997. Bonn. pp. 31-44. Gramsch, B. (1998) Mesolithische Wasserlöcher in Brandenburg. Brunnen der Jungsteinzeit. Internationales Symposium Erkelenz 27. bis 29. Oktober 1997. Materialien zur Bodendenkmalpflege im Rheinland. Koln-Bonn. pp. 17-23.

In the nineteen eighties, the role of indigenous foragers in the process of neolithisation was emphasized by Zvelebil (1986). Today this idea is widely accepted. However, I think the time has come to reconsider the role of the farming colonist. In Greece and the Balkans, farmers did not begin with a fully developed Neolithic package. Recently Tringham (2000: 19-56) suggested that the appearance of a fully developed farming culture occurred only at the point of the contact with the foraging population. We need to look for populations which only used select elements of the “Neolithic package,” and to compare them with those that had a deeper knowledge of field cultivation, the physical labor which accompanied agricultural work, the construction of completely different houses, quality of pottery, and maintaining the composition of domesticated animal herds. These could have been colonists in the accepted sense of the term – either by demic diffusion, folk migration or leapfrog colonization (Zvelebil and Lillie 2000). In the beginning, colonists may have used materials and knapped tools acquired from the foragers - Zvelebil’s phase of cooperation with foragers (Zvelebil and Lillie 2000: 65). Their activity did not yet need to project on to palynological data. Price (2000) is correct in stating that

123

LBK DIALOGUES

Symposium Erkelenz 27. bis 29. Oktober 1997. Materialien zur Bodendenkmalpflege im Rheinland. Koln-Bonn. pp. 177-192. Malina, J. (1970) Archeologické a Petrografické Poznámky k Funkci Kamenné Broušené Industrie. Vlastivědný Věstník Moravský 22: 295-305. Marheusser, E. (1991) Die Geographische Ausrichtung Bandkeramischer Häuser. Studien zur Siedlungsarchäologie I. Band 6. Bonn. Mateiciucová, I. (2000) Časně Neolitická Štipaná Industrie z Osady Kladníky a Ivanovice na Moravě. Památky Archeologické – Supplementum 13: 218-37. Mateiciucová, I. (2001) Mechanismy Distribuce Kamenné Štípané Industrie v Moravském Neolitu. Otázky Neolitu a Eneolitu Našich Zemí 2000: 7-18. Mateiciucová, I. (2002) Počátky Neolitu ve Střední Evropě ve Světle Zkoumání Štípané Industrie Raně Zemědělských Společností (LnK) na Moravě a v Dolním Rakousku: 5700 - 4900 př.n.l. Rukopis doktorské práce, Filosofická Fakulta Masarykovy University. Brno. Mazálek, M. (1953) Otázka Vztahů Mesolitu a Neolitu. Anthropozoikum 3: 203-211. Melichar, R. (2001) Reconstruction Drawings of the Way of Life in the Early Neolithic of Greece, the Balkans and Central Europe. IN: R. Tichý Expedice Monoxylon: Pocházíme z Mladší Doby Kamenné. Hradec Králové. Moddermann, P.J.R. (1994) Kommentare zu: Tillman, A. 1993: Kontinuietät oder... Archäologische Informationen 17 (1): 63-64. Neustupný, E. (1963) Pravěké Doly v Tušimících. Památky-Příroda-Život (Zpravodaj Vlastivědného Muzea v Chomutově) 3: 69-72. Neustupný, E. (1965) Pastevectví v Našem Pravěku. Dějiny a Současnost 7(1): 7-10. Neustupný, E. (1967) K Počátkům Patriarchátu ve Střední Evropě. Praha. Neustupný, E. (1981) Zachování Kostí z Pravěkých Sídlišť. Archeologické Rozhledy 33: 154-165. Neustupný, E. (1983) Demografie Pravěkých Pohřebišť. Praha. Neustupný, E. (1986) Sídelní Areály Pravěkých Zemědělců. Památky Archeologické 77: 226-234. Neustupný, E. (1988) Nástroje z Pravěkých Dolů na Křemenec v Tušimicích. Slovenská Archeológia 36: 291-298. Neustupný, E. (1997) Šňůrová Sídliště, Kulturní Normy a Symboly. Archeologické Rozhledy 49: 304-322. Neustupný, E. and Dvořák, Z. (1983) Výživa Pravěkých Zemědělců – Model. IN: Památky Archeologické 74: 224-257. Nieszery, N. and Breinl, L. (1993) Zur Trageweise des Spondylusschmucks in der Linearbandkeramik. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 23: 427-438. Nikolov, V. (1989) Das Flusstal der Struma als Teil der Strasse von Anatolien nach Mitteleuropa. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2: 191-199. Nikolov, V. (1990) Problemt za Centralnobalkanskite

Gläser, R. (1994) Kommentare zu: Tillman, A. 1993: Kontinuietät oder... Archäologische Informationen 17(1):58-61. Gronenborn, D. (1994) Kommentare zu: Tillman,A. 1993: Kontinuietät oder... Archäologische Informationen 17(1): 50-52. Hajnalová, E. (1993) Obilie v Archeobotanických Nálezoch na Slovensku. Nitra Hložek, M. (2002) Využití Mikroskopických Metod při Experimentální Výrobě Pravěké Keramiky. (Re)konstrukce a Experiment v Archeologii 3: 72-82. Horáková-Jansová, L. (1933) Dvoudílné Pískovcové Brousky v Českém Neolitu. Památky Archeologické 39: 49-54. Jochim, M. (2000) The Origins of Agriculture in SouthCentral Europe IN: T.D. Price (ed) Europe´s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 183-196. Kaczanowska, M. and Kozlowski, J. K. (1994) Kommentare zu: Tillman, A. 1993: Kontinuietät oder... Archäologische Informationen 17(1): 52-54. Kalicz, N. (1993) Le Bassin du Danube Moyen, la Plaine Pannonienne. Atlas du Néolithique Européen. Vol. 1. L´Europe orientale. E.R.A.U.L. pp. 285-242. Kazdová, E. (1983) Příspěvek k Neolitickým Sklizňovým Nástrojům. Sborník Prací Filozofické Fakulty Brněnské University E 28: 161-169. Kazdová, E. (1984) Pokusy s Replikami Neolitických Srpů. Sborník Prací Filozofické Fakulty Brněnské University E 29: 226-229. Kind, C.J. (1994) Kommentare zu: Tillman, A. 1993: Kontinuietät oder... Archäologische Informationen 17 (1): 47-49. Klíma, B. (1955) Přínos Nové Paleolitické Stanice v Pavlově k Problematice Nejstarších Zemědělských Nástrojů. Památky Archeologické 46: 7-26. Korfmann, M. (1988) East-west Connections Throughout the Mediterranean in the Early Neolithic Period. Processes of Neolithization in the Mediterranean and Europe. Symposium held at the 12th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (ICAES), July 24-31 1988, Zagreb. pp. 926. Kostelníková, M. (1985) Otisk Tkaniny z Mladší Doby Kaměnné z Lulče (okr. Vyškov) Archeologické Rozhledy 37: 197-198. Kovárník, J. (1982) Kostěná Industrie k Vhloubené Výzdobě Neolitické Keramiky. Sborník Prací Filozofické Fakulty Brněnské University E 31: 274275. Küssner, M. (1993) Jüngeres Mesolithikum - Altestes Neolithikum. Zur Neolithisierung im Mittelelbe-SaaleGebiet (MESG). pp. 7-25. Lázničková, M. (1999) Experimentální Výroba „Replik“ Paleolitických Artefaktů z Pálené Hlíny. Archeologické Rozhledy 51: 126-138. Lobisser, W.F.A. (1998) Die Rekonstruktion des Linearbandkeramischen Brunnenschachtes von Schletz. Brunnen der Jungsteinzeit. Internationales

124

RADOMÍR TICHÝ: FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO CENTRAL EUROPE: ORIGINS OF THE LBK

Kyjovicích. Sborník Prací Filozofické Fakulty Brněnské Univerzity E 29: 225-226. Podborský, V. (1993) Nástup Zemědělské Civilizace (Neolit). IN: V. Podborský (ed) Pravěké Dějiny Moravy. Brno. pp. 71-152. Popelka, M. (1987) Štípaná Industrie z Chabařovic, okr. Ústí nad Labem. Praehistorica 13 Varia Archaeologia 4: 9-26. Popelka, M. (1994) Neolitická Štípaná Industrie z Chotěbudic, okr. Louny. Praehistorica 21 Varia Archaeologia 6: 9-19. Price, T.D. (ed) (2000) Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Příchystal, A. (1985) Štípaná Industrie z Neolitického Sídliště v Bylanech (okr. Kutná Hora) z Hlediska Použitých Surovin a Jejich Provenience. Archeologické Rozhledy 37: 481-488. Příchystal, A. (2002) Objev Neolitické Těžby Zelených Břidlic na Jižním Okraji Jizerských Hor (Severní Čechy). Kvartér 2002: 12-14. Rulf, J. (1984) Příspěvěk k Poznání Neolitické Kostěné Industrie v Čechách. Archeologické Rozhledy 36: 241-260. Rulf, J. (1991) Neolithic Agriculture of Central Europe Review of the Problems. Památky Archeologické 82(2): 376-384. Rulf, J. (1993) The Structure of Neolithic Pottery Finds in Bohemia: The Bylany Example. Památky Archeologické 84: 9-20. Rulf, J. and Velímský, T. (1993) A Neolithic Well from Most. Archeologické Rozhledy 45: 545-560. Salaš, M. (1986) Hromadné Nálezy Neolitické Broušené Industrie na Moravě. Časopis Moravského Muzea Brno 71: 19-58. Sklenářová, Z. (1996) Konstrukce Obytných Staveb v Neolitu, Eneolitu a Době Bronzové. Nepublikovaná Diplomová Práce. Filozofická Fakulta Universita Karlova, Praha. Soudský, B. (1950) Nejstarší Zemědělské Civilizace v Přední Asii. Obzor Prehistorický 14: 5-162. Soudský, B. (1966) Bylany - Osada Nejstarších Zemědělců z Mladší Doby Kamenné. Praha. Spurný, V. (1981) Pozoruhodný Nález Lineární Keramiky na Moravě. Praehistorica 8 Varia Archaeologica 2: 27-30. Strien, H.CH. (1994) Kommentare zu: Tillman,A. 1993: Kontinuietät oder... Archäologische Informationen 17(1): 61-63. Svoboda, J. (1999) Čas Lovců. Brno. Šedo, O. (1983) Pece z Mladší Doby Kamené v Lulči a Možnosti Výkladu Jejich Funkce v Hospodářském Životě Tehdejší Společnosti. 90 Let Muzejní Práce na Vyškovsku (1893-1983). Vyškov. pp. 39-47. Šikulová, V. (1961) K Otázce Rybolovu v Mladší Době Kamenné. Časopis Slezského Muzea B 10: 1-18. Šrein, V., Šreinová, B., Šťastný, M., Šída, P. and Prostředník, J. (2002) Neolitický Těžební Areál na Katastru obce Jistebsko. Archeologie ve Středních Čechách 6: 91-99.

Migracionni Ptišča prez Rannija Neolit: Interdisciplinaren Podchod. Archeologičeski Institut i Muzej na BAN. Interdisciplinarni Izledovanija 17: 924. Oliva, M. (1997) O Lidech a Mamutech. K Paletnologii Moravského Gravettienu. Archeologické Rozhledy 49: 407-435. Oliva, M. (1999) Pravěká Těžba Silicitů ve Střední Evropě. Pravěk Nová Řada 8: 3-83. Ondruš, V. (1975/76) Neolitické Dílny z VedrovicZábrdovic. Sborník Prací Filozofické Fakulty Brněnské University E. 20-21: 133-139. Opravil, E. (1975) Příspěvek k Rozšíření Jabloně v Pravěku Střední Evropy. Archeologické Rozhledy 27: 375-384. Opravil, E. (1981) Historie Lnu v Našich Zemích a ve Střední Evropě. Archeologické Rozhledy 33: 299305. Opravil, E. (1983) Z Historie Šíření Konopě Seté. Archeologické Rozhledy 35: 206-213. Opravil, E. (1984) Poznámky k Rekonstrukci Přírodního Prostředí v Neolitu Československé Socialistické Republiky. Sborník Prací Filozofické Fakulty Brněnské Univerzity E 29: 167-178. Pavlů, I. (1981) Altneolithische Häuser in Böhmen. Archeologické Rozhledy 33: 534-543. Pavlů, I. (1999) Prototypy v Moravské Lineární Keramice. Pravěk Nová Řada 8: 85-102. Pavlů, I. and Rulf, J. (eds) (1991) Stone Industry from the Neolithic Site of Bylany. Památky Archeologické 82: 277-365. Pavlů, I. and Rulf, J. (1996) Nejstarší Zemědělci na Kolínsku. Sborník ke 100. Výročí Založení Muzea v Kolíně. Kolín. pp. 126-137. Pavlů, I. and Vokolek, V. (1992) Early Linear Pottery Culture in the East Bohemian Region. Památky Archeologické 83(1): 41-87. Pavlů, I. and Zápotocká, M. (1979) Současný Stav a Úkoly Studia Neolitu v Čechách. Památky Archeologické 70: 281-318. Perlés, C. (2001) The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 56-59. Peške, L. (1997) The Oldest LnK Bone Evidence from Nové Dvory (Czech Republic). Archeologické Rozhledy 49: 546. Peške, L. and Tintěra, L. (1985) Pěstování Pšenice Dvouzrnky na Žďářeném Pozemku. Archaeologia Pragansia 6: 221-229. Pleinerová, I. (1981) Problém Stop Orby v Časně Eneolitickém Nálezu z Března. Archeologické Rozhledy 33: 133-141. Pleinerová, I. and Pavlů, I. (1979) Březno, Osada z Mladší Doby Kamenné v Severozápadních Čechách. Ústí nad Labem. Podborský, V. (1971) Hliněná Pec na Sídlišti s Lineární Keramikou v Těšeticích. Sborník Prací Filozofické Fakulty Brněnské Univerzity E 16: 59-66. Podborský, V. (1984) Zpráva o Počáteční Fázi Některých Experimentů na Neolitické Lokalitě v Těšeticích –

125

LBK DIALOGUES

Postmesolitických Štípaných Industrií v Československu. IN: Z Badaň nad Krzemieniarstvem Neolitycznym i Eneolitycznym. Kraków. pp. 74-99. Vencl, S. (1975) Hromadné Nálezy Neolitické Broušené Industrie z Čech. Památky Archeologické 66(1): 1273. Vencl, S. (1982) K Otázce Zániku Sběračsko-Loveckých Kultur. Problematika Vztahů Mesolitu Vůči Neolitu a Postmesolitických Kořistníků Vůči Mladším Pravěkým Kulturám. Archeologické Rozhledy 34: 648-690. Vencl, S. (1986) The Role of Hunting-Gathering Populations in the Transition to Farming. A CentralEuropean Perspective. IN: M. Zvelebil (ed) Hunters in Transition. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. pp. 43-52. Vencl, S. (1993) Zur Vorschungsstand des Tschechoslowakischen Mesolithikums. Památky Archeologické 84(1): 148-151. Vizdal, J. (1982) Nález Neolitickej Zásobnice z Kuzníc, okres Trebišov. Archeologické Rozhledy 34: 63. Vokolek, V. and Vencl, S. (1961) Štípaná Industrie z Porcelanitu v Čechách. Archeologické Rozhledy 13: 464-472. Whittle, A. (1999) Europe in the Neolithic. The Creation of New Worlds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Windl, H. (1996) Der Brunnen der Linearbandkeramik von Schletz/Asparn a.d. Zaya, p. B. Mistelbach. Brunnen der Jungsteinzeit. Internationales Symposium Erkelenz 27. bis 29. Oktober 1997. Materialien zur Bodendenkmalpflege im Rheinland. Koln-Bonn. pp. 85-94. Zápotocká, M. (1993) La Moravie et la Boheme. IN: Atlas du Néolithique Européen Vol 1, L´Europe orientale. E.R.A.U.L., Liége. pp. 373 - 393. Zápotocká, M. (1998) Bestattungsritus des Böhmischen Neolithikums (5500 - 4200 B.C.) Praha. Zvelebil, M. (1986) Mesolithic Prelude and Neolithic Revolution. IN: M. Zvelebil (ed) Hunters in Transition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Zvelebil, M. and Lillie, M. (2000) Transition to Agriculture in Eastern Europe. IN: T.D. Price (ed) Europe´s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 57-67.

Šumberová, R. (1996) Neolithic Underground Storage Features. Památky Archeologické 87(1): 61-103. Tempír, Z. (1974) Příspěvek k Počátku Pěstování Rostlin ve Střední Evropě. Vědecké Práce Zemského Muzea 14: 17-27. Tichý, Rad. (2000a) Námořní Plavba v Raném Neolitu. Příspěvek Experimentální Archeologie k Počátkům Neolitizace Středomoří. Archeologické Rozhledy 52: 234-260. Tichý, Rad. (2000b) Expedice Monoxylon II. Dlabaný Člun v Neolitu Západního Středomoří. Rekonstrukce a Experiment v Archeologii 1: 37-70. Tichý, Rad. (2000c) Projekt „Borek.“ Příspěvek ke Stavbě a Funkci Neolitického Obytného Areálu. Rekonstrukce a Experiment v Archeologii 1: 71-118. Tichý, Rad. (2001a) Expedice Monoxylon. Pocházíme z Mladší Doby Kamenné [Monoxylon Expedition. Our Journey from the Neolithic]. Společnost Experimentální Archeologie, Hradec Králové. Tichý, Rad. (2001b) Expedice Monoxylon I. Dlabaný Člun v Egejském Moři. Rekonstrukce a Experiment v Archeologii 2: 21-44. Tichý, Rad. (2001c) Příspěvek Experimentální Archeologie k Neolitizaci Střední Evropy. Otázky Neolitu a Eneolitu Našich Zemí 2000: 238-244. Tichý, Rad. (2002) Monoxylon Expeditions 1995 and 1998 - Facts about the Oldest Sea Navigation. Experimentelle Archäologie in Europa. Bilanz 2002. pp. 189-197. Tichý, Rud. (1962) Osídlení s Volutovou Keramikou na Moravě. Památky Archeologické 53(2): 245-305. Tichý, Rud. (1972) XIII. Grabungssaison in Mohelnice (Bez. Šumperk) Přehled Výzkumů 1971: 17-21. Tilmann, A. (1993) Kontinuität oder Diskontinuität? Zur Frage einer Bandkeramischen Landnahme im Südlichen Mitteleuropa. Archäologische Informationen 16(2): 157-187. Tilmann, A. (1994) Autochthone Entstehung, Diffusion oder Migration? Archäologische Informationen 17(1): 65-77. Tringham, R. (2000) Southeastern Europe in the Transition to Agriculture in Europe: Bridge, Buffer, or Mosaic. IN: T. D. Price (ed) Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 53-54. van Andel, T.H. and Runnels, C. (1988) Trade and the Origins of Agriculture in the Eastern Mediterranean. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1(1): 83-109. van Andel, T.H. and Runnels, C.N. (1995) The Earliest Farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69: 481-500. Vencl, S. (1961) K Otázce Interpretace Funkce Pravěkých Předmětů. Archeologické Rozhledy 13: 666-668, 678-693. Vencl, S. (1964) Dvoudílné Pískovcové Brousky. Archeologické Studijní Materiály 1: 31-37. Vencl, S. (1967) Depot Čepelí z Borče, okres Litoměřice. Archeologické Rozhledy 19: 180-186. Vencl, S. (1971) Současný Stav Poznání

126

Part 3 Perspectives on the Early LBK: Life and Times

128

EVERYDAY

LIFE

AT

THE

LBK

SETTLEMENT:

A

ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL

PERSPECTIVE

Arkadiusz Marciniak Abstract The objective of this article is to discuss the social and spatial aspects in the dimension of relations between humans and animals, food acquisition and food consumption, as well as refuse disposal practices among the Band Pottery Culture farmers. The research procedure of interpretive social zooarchaeology is applied. It involves taphonomic analysis of animal bone assemblages along with evaluation of density driven attrition, food indices and interpretation of horizontal distribution of faunal remains in relation to other categories of archaeological data.

difficult to capture due to the nature of the available empirical evidence, in particular various categories of artefacts and ecofacts. These intrinsically comprise the debris of everyday activities, and as such cannot be treated as an isomorphic reflection of the general social system within the realm of which these activities were performed.

Introduction The nature and mechanisms of social change in European Neolithic communities are often conceptualised within a long-term temporal perspective, and refer to broader processes and transformations extended through many generations. In particular these comprise: large scale changes in social structure, social differentiation, emergence of inequality, communication and longdistance interaction, wealth accumulation, mechanisms and nature of social position, power, patterns of exchange, technological innovations such as pottery manufacture or wheeled transport, organisation of cult practices, etc. A local community is commonly viewed as a bounded entity with articulated social roles and positions of its constituent parts.

Therefore, the nature of early farming communities and their subsequent transformation, should instead be revealed at the microscale level of everyday activities. This local, fine-grained scale of social action, is arguably more relevant in capturing these characteristics than the general processes mentioned earlier. In particular, concentration upon the taken-for-granted routines of daily life, can give insight into the ways in which Neolithic groups depended upon institutions, beliefs, and traditions they participated in, and at the same time transformed and modified these constituent principles and rules. The major driving forces were the pursuit of identity followed by the sense of stability, power, and later, gender dynamics. All of these factors appear to be supplementary, rather than contradictory aspects of social life. It is worth stressing, that the everyday-activitiesperspective could also contribute to a better understanding of changes taking place at the interregional scale. Furthermore, such a new perspective is far less distanced from the empirical evidence, and thus secures its more relevant use.

These general changes in the early European Neolithic arguably appeared during and through, the direct colonisation of subsequent portions of the continent by farming groups, and in the following process of acculturation of the local foraging communities resulted in the adoption of a farming lifestyle by them. This colonisation scenario is strongly advocated with regard to the emergence and dispersal of the Linear Band Pottery culture (LBK) in Central Europe. It is argued that LBK territory was colonised by immigrants from south-eastern Europe, who brought with them an entire array of new material culture including pottery, house forms, stone technology, etc., along with a new social organisation and a mixed-farming subsistence technology (e.g. Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1973, 1984; Starling 1985; Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1970, 1979, 1993; Milisauskas and Kruk 1989; Wiślański 1970; Keeley 1992, Price et al. 1996). This process began in southwestern Hungary and continued westward up to the Paris Basin (e.g. Bogucki 1987: 21).

It is clearly not my intention to focus on all the transformations at the micro-scale level among the early Neolithic farmers. This paper is aimed at addressing changes in everyday activities related to food acquisition and consumption as well as refuse disposal practices, occurring at the time of emergence of small groups of LBK farmers north of the Carpathians. These aspects give a significant insight into social relations, and indirectly address economic relations, since they are also a part of food production (see also Douglas 1984; Hastorf 1991). The procedure of interpretive social zooarchaeology is adopted here as an efficient research procedure for capturing local variability and small-scale changes in regard to human-animal relationships, food acquisition and eating, as well as refuse disposal practices.

However, an adequate and satisfactory recognition of the nature and mechanisms by which these long-term transformations occurred in social terms in the early Neolithic turned out to be difficult to achieve. The reasons for this situation are twofold. Firstly, the very nature of social existence and social change in smallscale communities are too complex and idiosyncratic to be fully grasped by such general normative models operating at the inter-regional level. Secondly, general trends affecting changes in small-scale communities are

This article is too short to fully present the detailed results of the advocated approach (for detailed analysis 129

LBK DIALOGUES

of skeletal parts within a settlement. It is aimed at the recognition of various strategies of food preparation and consumption as well as refuse disposal practices. The universal tool for evaluating the quality of consumed food, as measured from a contemporary nutritional standpoint, was provided by Binford (1978). He measured the amount of meat (weight of fat and muscle tissue) and marrow (marrow cavity volume multiplied by the percentage of fatty acids in the marrow) of particular skeletal parts of two domestic sheep (Ovis aries) and one caribou (Rangifer tarandus). This led to the calculation of food utility indices of anatomical parts (see detailed calculation of indices in Binford 1978:74). A correlation between these indices and frequency of body parts in particular contexts across the site is aimed at evaluating the extent to which the observed consumption pattern met contemporary requirements of nutritional sciences.

see Marciniak 2004a). What follows, is a brief research strategy outline and its results, addressing the most important aspects of everyday life at LBK settlements with regard to food related activities and refuse disposal practices. Social Zooarchaeology of Farming Communities A research procedure of interpretive social zooarchaeology (see its detailed presentation in Marciniak 1999, 2001, 2004a) was applied to the data. It is explicitly aimed at concentrating on everyday dimensions of the social context of animal use, food acquisition and consumption, as well as refuse disposal practices. It consists of the following steps performed in contextually different features/parts of the settlement: (1) taphonomy; (2) correlation between density and body part representation (Lyman 1984; Kreutzer 1992); (3) correlation between the Modified General Utility Index (MGUI) (Binford 1978) and body part representation; and (4) correlation between the Marrow Index (MI) (Binford 1978) and body part representation. The results of the first four steps enabled a careful examination of (5) anatomical body part distribution, followed by (6) species composition. This is followed by the interpretation of horizontal distribution of faunal remains in relation to other categories of archaeological data.

The Binford food indices clearly do not take into consideration the idiosyncratic nature of food preference and consumption among various local communities, both in the past and the present. Hence, these cannot be used as the only frames of reference for recognizing food related practices among LBK farmers. Thus, the next analytical step comprises a thorough evaluation of body part representation of particular species in spatially different contexts across the settlement. It is proceeded by the categorisation of the animal body into seven categories based upon the proposal by Stiner (1991) with further modifications (Tab. 1): (S1) horn/antler, head, neck, (S2) axial column below the neck, (S3) upper front limbs, (S4) lower front limbs, (S5) upper hind limbs, (S6) lower hind limbs, and (S7) feet.

The first step of interpretive social zooarchaeology comprises a thorough examination of taphonomic history of the animal bone assemblage. It is intended to recognise and evaluate a number of taphonomic signatures indicative of practices of food acquisition, preparation and eating as well as refuse disposal. The former can be discerned through various butchery and cooking modifications such as cut and chop marks, the presence of burning and heating, size of bones, etc. The latter comprises in particular, weathering and carnivore modifications (see Marciniak 2004b).

This kind of analysis has to be supplemented by the interpretation of horizontal distributions of faunal remains in relation to other categories of archaeological data such as dwelling structures, burials and numerous artefacts and ecofacts. This step is followed by the analysis of species composition in spatially distinct features and layers across early farming settlements.

Differential preservation of particular bones depends upon their density. The study of density driven attrition is thus a means of assessing to what extent the observed variability of various anatomical segments is caused by selective preservation due to differential density. Therefore, this is a necessary element in the advocated research strategy. In order to evaluate the impact of this factor, a correlation between the frequency of skeletal parts of particular species in different features and layers across studied settlements and their structural density values was calculated. It is based on the structural bone density of deer (Odocoileus spp.) and sheep (Ovis aries) as measured by Lyman (1984), and North American bison (Bison bison) measured by Kreutzer (1992).

The analytical procedure of interpretive social zooarchaeology is primarily intended to address food related activities and refuse disposal practices routinely performed at prehistoric farming settlements. Food acquisition, preparation and consumption are one of the activities that are performed on a daily basis, and are a prerequisite for human existence. At the same time, the importance of food goes far beyond the simple necessity to deliver a certain amount of nutrients. It is particularly idiosyncratic, and crosscuts a number of constituent elements of human community. Food, being in constant demand, is especially well suited to address social issues at the level of family, kinship, and local community. It is an important and active element of delimiting and creating a cultural and social realm. Cuisine is a common

The most appropriate strategy, in which the social dimension of human-animal relationships in prehistoric farming communities can effectively be addressed, is the analysis and interpretation of the horizontal distribution

130

ARKADIUSZ MARCINIAK: EVERYDAY LIFE AT THE LBK SETTLEMENT: A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

which faunal and archaeological material was deposited. Considering all of these requirements, seven suitable Linear Band Pottery settlements from Poland were selected. Faunal and archaeological material from these sites was carefully analysed in all six of the aspects discussed above. Six settlements come from the lowlands, namely from the Kujavia region in Central Poland, while the seventh comes from the loess uplands in the Małopolska region. The first group comprises the following settlements: Bożejewice, site 22/23; Kuczkowo, site 5; Łojewo, site 35; Miechowice, site 7; Radojewice, site 29; Siniarzewo, site 1; and Żegotki, site 2, while the second group includes the site Samobrzec.

tradition of a group that is linked with certain sets of activities as well as material objects. As such, food is a powerful and important means in the construction of identity of the individual, family, kin, community, or society, and for maintaining social links (see e.g. Goody 1982; Hartmann 1981; Huelsbeck 1989). Food also has an extraordinary ability to convey social and cosmological meaning and value, which is centered around its giving, receiving, and refusal (Counihan and van Esterik 1997: 2). It is sometimes defined as ‘a system of non-verbal communication’ (Sherratt 1995: 11), however this meaningful component of food is usually situated somewhere between a discursive and non discursive level.

The majority Early Neolithic faunal data from Kujavia, comes from rescue excavations on the gas pipe between the Yamal Peninsula (Siberia) and Western Europe, which took place in the last decade of the twentieth century. These comprise sites at Bożejewice, Radojewice, Siniarzewo, Żegotki, and Kuczkowo. Archaeological monographs from these sites have yet to be published, and thus their exact chronological position remains unspecified. The settlement at Łojewo, site 35, belongs to phase II of the LBK, i.e. to the classical phase of this culture in Kujavia (Czerniak 1994). The Miechowice settlement represents phase III of the LBK in Kujavia and this assignment is based on the formal characteristics of pottery (Czerniak 1994).

By the same token, equally significant is the process of deposition. It is by no means an isolated epiphenomenon, but rather an intrinsic part of social activities. Thus, focusing on these activities might result in addressing social questions in a new and challenging way. The deposition of various categories of material objects, including animal bones, was part of constituting and transforming the social milieu and the reworking of everyday practices. These practices are idiosyncratic and very complex. They depend upon a number of factors, such as the categorisation of objects as garbage, the distinction between clean and dirty, the nature of food preparation and consumption, and so on. Various categories of material may have been treated differently, depending on the set of associations in which they were involved. Due to the different meanings they embody, they are deposited in different places. The practice of refuse disposal is also of crucial importance, as it is archaeologically visible as the last step of an animal’s “life history.” Accordingly, it is archaeologically discernible and should be a subject of detailed studies.

The Małopolska region is represented by the settlement at Samborzec. Empirical materials from other sites in this territory did not fulfil the required criteria, and thus they could not be included in this study. The settlement at Samborzec belongs to the oldest phase of the LBK in southern Poland, and is dated to the second half of the 6th millenium BC. (Kamieńska 1964; Kamieńska and Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa 1970).

Empirical Material Social and Spatial Nexus of Food Eating at the LBK Settlement

Relatively limited interest in studies at a small-scale level of analysis is the result of a range methodological difficulties. These comprise the availability of appropriate spatial and contextual data, satisfactory stratigraphic control, representative sampling, impact of depositional and postdepositional processes, etc. Thus, the careful selection of empirical evidence to be used in small-scale social studies is badly needed. Considering the contextual requirements of interpretive social zooarchaeology, empirical material, both faunal and archaeological, has to fulfil certain criteria to be included in the analysis. It must come from sites that have been properly excavated, with the available evidence properly recorded. It is required that all archaeological and faunal data can be attributed to a given stratum and/or feature, as well as part of the feature and/or its layer. Moreover, the required empirical material has to contain detailed information about the archaeological data, such as pottery, flint, ash, clay objects, etc. as well as detailed information about context (features, the parts and layers within them) in

The beginning of the Neolithic is marked by the emergence of a new spatiality created by the house and the settlement. Of special significance was the space of the longhouse, the eminent signature of LBK occupation, which begins the sequence of the Neolithic spatiality. This construction was the focus of communal life of early farmers in the Polish Neolithic, which defined all practices related to food acquisition, eating and refuse deposition. Longhouses represent the basic form of the built environment of early farmers. They were a means for creating social identity and a sense of becoming, and was where the everyday life of inhabitants was linked with the timeless and stable world of ancestors, creating security and stability. They were places in which time and space were especially closely intertwined. As with any other types of vernacular architecture, they were the product of

131

LBK DIALOGUES

often labeled domestic, and include food preparation, childcare, cleaning, etc. They comprised all “tasks involved in generational replacement” (see Picazo 1997:59). These activities were constantly repeated, reproduced, modified and transformed, thus creating the arena for exercising habitus. Accordingly, they were directly involved in constituting and reconstituting social life, the creation of identity and the creation of individuals. People involved in everyday practices were “woven into webs of preexisting social and material conditions, rules, values hierarchies of knowledge, demands and expectations” (Dobres 2000: 129). Thus, repetition and routinization of domestic activities became a constitutive element of social life and social reproduction, taking into account that Neolithic communities defined themselves “through principles which appeared secure in the practicalities of their daily lives” (Barrett 2000:67).

a long-standing process, incorporating a wide range of elements, both new and old (Stea and Turan 1990:121). These were further supplemented and enforced by the architectural permanence of these structures, which contributed to the perception of long-term social stability. The meaning of Neolithic space, was neither given nor predefined (see also Marciniak 2000). On the contrary, it was being created in the course of everyday life, undertaken within the framework of existing rules and ideas, within the realms of social memory, through daily routines, arrangement and movements through the built environment, etc. Such houses were thus an embodiment of the past, history and memory, not only a place for living. They were a focus of meaning and action, in which social co-operation and practices were undertaken. They not only involved the bonds, dependencies and boundaries between people, but also provided an orientation, an attunement to the world, by establishing a frame for everyday activities (Moore 1986; Hodder 1997).

The early Neolithic farmer was neither completely passive, subordinated to social and/or psychological rules and conditions, nor completely active, having a will of his own. The level of passivity and non-discursiveness among early farmers was greater than in later phases of the European Neolithic. However, it is impossible that all members of the same group, being themselves a part of one habitus, had identical experiences; however, they did share many experiences, and were confronted with similar situations (see Bourdieu 1977:85). The level of this “variance” is not clearly specified; however, one can presume that its degree varied among individual groups. Thus, I would argue that for LBK communities, this limit of non-identical experience was marginal, and thus, all individuals followed basically similar routines. However, it has to be remembered that despite this large uniformity of the LBK, there was room for considerable diversity in terms of lifestyles and everyday practice (e.g. Modderman 1988; Coudart 1991). This process certainly intensified along with the expansion of these communities, and led inevitably to their gradual regionalization. This was especially visible when the early farmers left the loess areas, and moved into new areas of the North European Plain. There the village/settlement was the basic social unit, creating definable groups in the Early Neolithic. Individual and family identity was closely tied to communal social identity, which is characteristic for many traditional communities (Stea and Turan 1990:119).

I would argue that LBK groups were caught up in a web of images, signs and symbols, and lived in what Lefebvre (1991: 98) calls a logic of metaphor embodied in spatialization. Such a demarcated space embraced some things and excluded others (Lefebvre 1991:99). The horizontal and vertical dimensions of their social existence were complementary. As stressed by Gupta and Ferguson (1992:8), “notions of locality or community both refer to a demarcated physical space and to clusters of interaction.” The settlement and the house were thus an area of social action in which food preparation, consumption and refuse disposal was executed. The intertwined link between the spatial, the social and the historical, defined the conditions of mutual relations between farmers and animals in the early Neolithic. Everyday routines of LBK communities remained almost frozen, leaving very little room for individual reflexivity and independence. A collective dimension of identity creation, was stronger than an individual one. Neolithic farmers performed their actions “in the context of traditions, normative values, and consensual expectations about how one should proceed” (Dobres 2000: 138), and as such they were not fully discursive. They arguably acted according to sets of dispositions, i.e. habitus, which were part of social experiences, landscapes and representations (Pauketat 2000: 116).

LBK communities were closely tied with their ancestral past and a sense of timeless belonging, not only through the use of monumental architecture but also through domesticated animals. Therefore, the importance of animals, and cattle in particular, for these groups, was far larger than simply providing meat or milk. They were important social and symbolic resources that provided metaphors for the creation of the group and its identity by appealing to ancestors, and by stressed and signified ties and relations with both living and previous generations.

A large part of the actions of early farmers, comprised continuous actions which were hardly verbalized. These activities occured in mutually interlinked temporalities: day-to-day events and routines, the lifespan of the individual, as well as institutional continuity and change. Social life was executed by the presence of various individuals in specific locations, called interactive settings. This is where all interactions took place. This led to a high degree of routinization. Routinized activities are

132

ARKADIUSZ MARCINIAK: EVERYDAY LIFE AT THE LBK SETTLEMENT: A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

categories, normally on the non-discursive level, in order to achieve certain goals, both those of the group as well as those of the individual. In the long run, this led to further considerable transformation, and modification of early rules and categories.

Livestock of the early Neolithic farmers, was probably inheritable. Having animals, was more important than eating them. The importance of cattle was built into the continuing process of farmers moving northwards into new areas, which was accompanied by social fragmentation, an intrinsic feature of these communities. Cattle accompanied farmers in this dispersal, and under these circumstances, local communities used “the potential of cattle to build enduring social bonds,” similar to the Tswana in Southern Africa (Comaroff and Comaroff 1991: 37). For groups living in a rather hostile environment and relative isolation, domesticated animals were the very basis for maintaining their stability and providied security in the new “frontier” situation (see discussion about frontiers Green and Perlman 1985; see more on cattle importance in Marciniak 2004a).

The results of my analysis are in contradiction to Sherratt (1995: 15-16), who argued that feasting in the early Neolithic was only available to a small segment of the whole community, and that this fraction was defined by status, gender, wealth or a combination of these elements. This kind of communal eating among LBK farmers, did not have an aura of something uncommon and mysterious, or as belonging to the domain of a minority in opposition to an ordinary form of consumption. It cannot therefore be regarded as a form of “cult” consumption. Such a situation might have appeared only later, namely in the later Neolithic, where the public was separated from the domestic, and life’s rituals were separated from those of death (see also Bender 1992: 747).

As indicated above, longhouses were clearly the focus of communal life of the early farmers in the Polish Neolithic, and defined all the practices related to food acquisition, eating and refuse deposition (see similar observations by Hastorf (1991: 142) in the pre-Hispanic Sausa). One of the means of practicing this communality, was a form of ceremonial communal feasting. This was a way to stress the integrity of the residential group and possibly also its separateness from neighboring groups. It played a crucial role in the introduction of a Neolithic mode of life, especially in the lowlands. This communal feasting, however, can by no means be viewed as stemming from a distinction between the sacred and the profane. Consequently, feasting does not refer to the sacred as opposed to the profane.

Feasting consumption by LBK farmers involved collectivity and was practiced in a very standardized and repeatable manner. It is characterized by the consumption of clear anatomically definable cattle segments, which comprise the head and neck, as well as the axial column parts below the neck (Fig. 1 and 2, Tab. 1). Limb bones, both front and hind, as well as foot bones, were present in very small numbers, and thus this composition might be called a “leglessness pattern”. It is completely different from the contemporary consumption pattern of this species, and hence indicates a deliberate choosing of these segments for this kind of consumption. This consumption was performed on a regular basis in the same way throughout the entire region. This is manifested in the identical deposition of cattle bones at different settlements, over a considerable time span, as is indicated by the same anatomical composition of cattle bones in all layers of deep pits.

The most important element of feasting is food. It creates social relations and bonds through giving and acceptance, which led to a strengthening of links and loyalties between the groups involved (Hayden 1990). The best food for that purpose, comprises the one most laborintensive to produce, i.e. the rarest and most difficult to procure. Domesticated species, in particular cattle, were ideal to introduce into the network of feasting, considering their social significance and difficulty of acquisition and production. They became items more suitable for feasting rather than as a staple food. Certain foodstuffs or substances were given special significance in such communal feasting (Sherratt 1995: 15-16). Cattle in the early Neolithic, was one such appropriate resource used in feasting and provided the provisions used during ceremonial practices (see Thomas 1999a: 74). This might have also appealed to traditions and ancestors, and “these concerns may have been addressed in feasts and offerings” (Edmonds 1999: 28). These feasts, along with other routinized and ritualized activities, were possibly an arena to exercise idealized concepts and categories embedded in the group’s beliefs and traditions. At the same time, they were an arena of social power and action concentrated around the manipulation of these normative

An intergral part of this communal consumption, comprised cattle marrow. This is confirmed by the results of correlation between the Marrow Index and body part representation in all studied assemblages. This is additionally supported by taphonomic analysis conducted on Kujavian faunal assemblages, indicating marrow and pulp consumption after cooking. The bones were roasted, broken and the marrow then consumed. This kind of breakage is very common in the studied material, and can be recognized by the very characteristic way the cooked bones were broken, which produced jagged fractures usually oriented transversely to the bone’s long axis, accompanied by hammer stone and anvil dents as well as scratches. This kind of marrow consumption, appears to have been a common and quite unique culinary practice of early lowland farmers, and might have had a discursive character. Sheep/goat marrow consumption was spatially, and possibly also temporally, separated from that of

133

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 1: Miechowice, site 7, Feature 1. Cattle body part representation.

Fig. 2: Kuczkowo, site 5. Cattle body part representation.

134

ARKADIUSZ MARCINIAK: EVERYDAY LIFE AT THE LBK SETTLEMENT: A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Symbol S1

Anatomical region horn/antler, head, neck

S2

axial column below the neck

S3 S4 S5 S6 S7

upper front limbs lower front limbs upper hind limbs lower hind limbs feet

Bones horn/antler, skull, mandible, tooth, axis, atlas, cervical vertebrate, hyoid thoratic vertebrate, lumbar vertebrate, ribs, sternum, pelvis, sacrum scapula, humerus radius, ulna, carpal, metacarpal femur tibia, tarsal, metatarsal, astragalus, calcaneum, patella phalanges, sesamoid

Table 1: Anatomical regions according to Stiner (1991) with further modifications. elements of animal carcasses that were eaten outside the settlement (Baer 1991). Alternatively, these parts were not consumed at all, and might have been regarded as inedible. This indicates a structured deposition, characterized by a straightforward and repeatable selection of certain categories of bones as well as small amounts of artifacts (see Hodder 1999: 35).

cattle, and had a different social importance. Inhabitants of the house undertook the former, while the latter had a communal character. The impossibility of undertaking taphonomic analysis of the Samborzec material, makes it impossible to observe this pattern at this settlement. Communal food was probably cooked in a hearth or oven, located outside the longhouses. The hearth was an important component in the organization of Neolithic space. Various activities in SE Europe were concentrated around food and the hearth, usually located in the front part of the house, as opposed to the back or the dark, usually associated with death. These rules, however, were not followed in all contexts (Hodder 1990: 27). It is striking that the majority of LBK sites in Poland lack hearths/ovens (there are exceptions such as at Olszanica described by Kruk and Milisauskas (1999: 39) or at Bożejewice). This may have been caused by their location far from houses, or by post-depositional destruction. The use of hearths for cooking has been proven by the taphonomic analysis of bones, which reveals that in many cases (e.g. at Bożejewice and Radojewice) bones were exposed to fire.

The second kind of eating had an ordinary character and comprised mainly of sheep/goats. The body part representation differs largely from that of cattle, and is characterized by a variable composition of all anatomical parts. Additionally, considerable differences exist between settlements and particular features. This indicates that all animal parts were eaten. This kind of eating took place usually in the house and/or directly around the house, and bone remains were deposited in pits around the entrances of these houses. Analysis of anatomical part distributions, reveals the considerable similarity of cattle and pigs, that clearly differs from sheep/goats (Fig. 3, Tab. 1). It may indicate that early farmers commonly ate mutton in an ordinary fashion, while both pork and beef may have been embedded in complex symbolic associations. The small amount of pig bones makes it impossible to discern rules of pig eating in more detail. However, the fragmentary evidence that is available, seems to imply that pigs were also an important element in feasting, and that pork was probably not consumed on a daily basis.

Habitation and cooking areas were clearly separated at the LBK settlement (see also Hodder 1984: 60). Cattle eating was regarded as appropriate in one social context and inappropriate in another, and over time, this became a self-defining variable reflecting belonging to a particular group and a sense of exclusiveness (Sherratt 1995: 12). Cattle consumption by LBK communities took place in at least two different locations. Depositional practices revealed in my analysis, suggest that “communal feasting facilities” may have existed outside longhouses, probably between them. Their exact character remains, however, unknown. Considering the very strict rules of cleaning and refuse disposal, only cattle bones, being of particular significance for this group, were deposited, others were not. Other parts, more particularly those we now define as those most edible, were consumed elsewhere, probably at the ridge of the settlement or outside. Cattle were also probably slaughtered in this location. It is clear that various patterns of “eating out” directly reflect the quantity and quality of food residue deposited at a settlement, as this leads to an underestimation of these

Interestingly, the body part composition of aurochs from two analyzed units – Bożejewice and Łojewo – is completely different from that of cattle. In one case, it is characterized by a firm dominance of lower hind limbs – Łojewo (Fig. 4, Tab. 1) – while in the other, by a dominance of upper front limbs followed by head, neck, axial column, and lower hind limbs. To sum up, the available evidence indicates that early cattle and pig exploitation was not meat focused. In general, meat made up a relatively small proportion of the food intake of early farmers. Even when meat was eaten, it was usually that of sheep/goats, and in a way similar to contemporary nutritional standards. The consumption of 135

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 3: Bożejewice, site 22/23, Feature 5. Sheep/goats body part representation.

Fig. 4: Łojewo, site 35. Aurochs body part representation. 136

ARKADIUSZ MARCINIAK: EVERYDAY LIFE AT THE LBK SETTLEMENT: A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Site

Identified N LINEAR BAND POTTERY: KUJAVIA Bożejowice, site 22/23 2396 Łojewo, site 35 1305 Miechowice, site 7 1468 Radojewice, site 29 822 Siniarzewo, site 1 208 Żegotki, site 2 256 LINEAR BAND POTTERY: MAŁOPOLSKA Samobrzec 2771 SUM TOTAL

%

Unidentified N

%

Total

49.8 55.5 59.6 72.0 67.5 56.0

2413 1045 996 320 100 201

50.2 44.5 40.4 28.0 32.5 44.0

4809 2350 2464 1142 308 457

N/A

N/A

N/A

2771 14301

Table 2: Studied LBK animal bone assemblages. horn items, etc. At the same time, storage pits contain the bones of far more species than do clay pits, with their number varying from 3 to 7. Interestingly, they often contain bones of wild animals, albeit in extremely low numbers. These comprise roe deer, red deer, wild boar and bear. There is a clear distinction between the bones of two major domesticated species in these two kinds of features. Cattle marrow bones were deposited exclusively in clay pits, while sheep/goat marrow bones were placed in storage pits associated with the house. Cattle marrow bones were never deposited in the latter context. This was a constant pattern at all of the analyzed settlements. This is also indicated by the deposition of cattle bones, representing the leglessness pattern in clay pits, usually located between longhouses. This fixed practice implies the settlement space was categorized, perceived, and used by the inhabitants in a very straightforward way. Certain categories of refuse were deposited in certain locations, and these practices took place at all of the settlements of early farmers.

marrow was considerable, and of a communal character. Certain products and their combination, was appropriate in one defined social context, but inappropriate in another. Results from both the loess uplands (Samborzec) and the lowlands, indicate that early farmers did not follow contemporary nutritional standards. The nutritional value of particular anatomical segments of subsequent species, measured by the MGUI, is calculated on the basis of the amount of meat, namely, weight of fat and muscle tissue (Binford 1978: 74). Thus, the value of the index, is exponentially dependent on the content of fat and muscle tissue, and as such, describes contemporary values ascribed to particular body parts. Moreover, the majority of local communities kept fewer domestic animals than were needed, if meat is regarded a dietary staple. This would simply have been prohibitive for most of them. Social and Spatial Nexus of Deposition Practices at LBK Settlements

A common archaeological routine, is to treat storage and refuse pits as ordinary features at Neolithic settlements, casually backfilled with rubbish. Early Neolithic refuse pits are regarded as very similar, both qualitatively and quantitatively, and do not differentiate subsequent buildings. More particularly, it is assumed that large pits at LBK settlements were open for about 10-25 years, gradually being filled both intentionally and unintentionally (van de Velde 1979).

As indicated above, the space of the LBK settlement, of which refuse disposal was an integral part, was socially and symbolically organized, and its particular parts may have had different meanings. Disposal practices were a part of habitus. Depositional practices at LBK settlements in Kujavia, were clearly spatially separated. The two major categories of features at the LBK settlements in which faunal and other archaeological material was deposited, are storage and clay pits. The remains of longhouses in the form of rows of postholes, did not bear any archaeological or faunal material. Results of the studied material indicate that clay pits contain more animal bones than any other kinds of archaeological material. The latter are usually scarce, and comprise a few sherds and other individual items such as pestles, grinding stones and querns. Moreover, clay pits contain bones of far fewer species than do storage pits. At the same time, storage pits located around longhouses, contained very rich and diverse archaeological material such as a wide range of pottery, querns, smoothers, grinding stones, awls, pestles,

Results of my studies indicate that pit-digging and pitfilling must be regarded as a significant component of refuse disposal, which went far beyond the utilitarian function of cleaning up. Pit-digging cannot be treated exclusively as a functionally dictated activity to get rid of rubbish. On the contrary, the practice of pit-digging went beyond simple utilitarian requirements to get clay, or to deposit garbage, and had a different and complex meaning. This may well have been associated with intervention into the ancestral past, which is clearly visible in wells with multi-layered depositions present in the British Neolithic, testifying of successive generations of inhabitants. Pit-digging became increasingly common 137

LBK DIALOGUES

outside longhouses, but also quite possibly eaten on the ridge of the settlement or outside. This cannot be ruled out, considering the strictly followed routinized practices present in LBK communities. It is very dubious to ascribe the lack of wild animal bones at these settlements, to depositional processes.

from the beginning of the British Neolithic onwards, and was extensive in the late Neolithic (Grooved Ware) (Thomas 1999b: 69). Pit-filling in the early Neolithic was usually a formalized act, which comprised the selection of certain categories of materials. The filling of some pits with certain categories of bones was not a single event. On the contrary, it was a continuous process that accompanied a duration of cyclical communal feasting and certainly involved routinization. However, these routines were not completely standardized, nor were they given one meaning recognizable by all of the social actors. This comprised the practice of depositing cattle bones - the debris of marrow consumption - in elongated pits along the walls of longhouses. The filling of some pits with these bones, was not a single event. On the contrary, it was a continuous process that accompanied a duration of cyclical communal feasting. Generally, my taphonomic analysis tends to support this observation. Namely, I observed a lack of weathering in the early Neolithic bones. This implies that the bones were directly deposited in pits shortly after an animal was killed and consumed. This applies to all LBK sites studied here. This continuous deposition, is also indicated by the identical deposition of cattle bones in deep features. The infills of these pits are different when compared to the Neolithic pits in Britain, which were shallower, smaller, and had fewer layers of infill, which is not linked with their lesser volume, but with different patterns of backfilling. Their homogenous filling indicates a prompt backfilling (Thomas 1999b: 64).

The deposition of sheep/goat bones at LBK sites both in Małopolska and Kujavia, was very similar, and at the same time considerably different from that of cattle. It is characterized by a considerable diversity of proportions between particular anatomical segments, and it is impossible to indicate any dominant pattern. The only characteristic element is a general lack of upper hind and front limbs, one that is similar to what was observed for cattle. It must, however, be remembered that the number of units in which the proportion of particular anatomical segments for sheep/goats could be observed was limited. The deposition of pig bones at LBK sites both in Małopolska and Kujavia, was very similar. However, the way in which pig bones were deposited is more regular than that of sheep/goats. E.g. at Samborzec, in 10 units of analysis out of 15, we observed an anatomical segment distribution similar to the cattle leglessness pattern. The practice of deposition of pig bones in Kujavia cannot be securely discerned, due to the small number of bones of this species. The pattern observed there is closer to cattle than to sheep/goats, however, it lacks the regularity observed for cattle. Conclusion Early LBK communities were different in many respects from what is commonly believed and taken for granted. Namely they have been perceived as settled people with domesticated herds of animals and small fields around their settlements – more or less how contemporary peasants are viewed. I would argue that domestic animals, and possibly also cultivated plants, were not the dominant contribution to the diet of the Early and Middle Neolithic communities in Europe (see also Ehrenberg 1989:84). The collectivity of early LBK communities defined a role, the importance and intertwined relations between farmers and animals. Domesticated animals, especially cattle, were important social and symbolic resources, which provided metaphors for the creation of the group, its communal identity and security in a new ‘frontier’ and unknown situation. The importance of cattle for these communities, was clearly far larger than just providing meat or milk.

Cattle bones at LBK settlements were deposited in two distinct ways: the first, involving the leglessness pattern characterized by the firm dominance of head and neck bones, as well as the bones of the axial column (categories S1 and S2) and the second, characterized by the dominance of lower segments of front and hind limbs. Interestingly, in the majority of cases, the classical leglessness pattern was observed in all layers of deep features. The leglessness pattern is completely different from the contemporary consumption model of this species, and hence indicates a deliberate choosing of these segments for ceremonial consumption and feasting. Gifford-Gonzalez (2004) observed that during culinary processing, appendicular segments of the animal body are often separated from the axial skeleton. These units are then treated differently, and even cooked in different ways. Similarly, the dish being prepared by the Druze, a traditional society of the Levant, determines which carcass part is to be used, e.g. the vertebral column is used for shishlik, while the fore and hind limbs for kabob and kubeh (Hesse and Grantham 1991: 14). Thus, the bone refuse might comprise thoracic and lumbar vertebrae and proximal ribs in the first case, and limb bones in the latter. This might be an interesting analogy for the separation of the cattle body by LBK communities. Wild animals were not only slaughtered

Pigs in the LBK, and to some extent also in the Middle Neolithic, played a significant and complex role that went far beyond the simple providing of meat. They were certainly an important part of social relations connected to the group’s identity. This is indicated by a very similar way of depositing pig bones as compared with those of cattle. In some cases, this deposition was identical.

138

ARKADIUSZ MARCINIAK: EVERYDAY LIFE AT THE LBK SETTLEMENT: A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

Counihan, C. and van Esterik, P. (1997). Introduction. IN: C. Counihan and P. van Esterik (eds) Food and Culture. A Reader. Routledge, London and New York. pp. 1-7. Czerniak, L. (1994) Wczesny i Środkowy Okres Neolitu na Kujawach, 5400-3650 p.n.e. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, Poznań. Dobres, M. A. (2000) Technology and Social Agency. Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Douglas, M. (1984) Standard Social Uses of Food: Introduction. IN: M. Douglas (ed) Food in the Social Order. Studies of Food and Festivities in the American Communities. Russell Sage Foundation, New York. pp. 1-39. Edmonds, M. (1999) Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic. Landscapes, Monuments and Memory. Routledge, London and New York. Ehrenberg, M. (1989) Women in Prehistory. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman and London. Gifford-Gonzalez, D. (2004, in press) Zooarchaeology. An Introduction. California University Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Goody, J. (1982) Cooking, Cuisine and Class. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Green, S. W. and Perlman, S.M. (ed) (1985) The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries. New York, Academic Press. Gupta, A. and Ferguson, J. (1992) Beyond ‘Culture’: Space, Identity, and the Politics of Difference. Cultural Anthropology 7(1): 6-23. Hartmann, H. (1981) The Family as the Locus of Gender, Class, and Political Struggle: the Example of Housework. Signs 6(3): 366-94. Hastorf, C. A. (1991) Gender, Space and Food in Prehistory. IN: J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey, (eds) Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Blackwell, Oxford. pp. 132-158. Hayden, B. (1990) Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers, and Planters: The Emergence of Food Production. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 31-69. Hesse, B. and Grantham, B. (1991) Cuisine and Bone Counts: Kabob, Dami and the Archaeology of Canaan. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Chicago. Hodder, I. (1984) Burials, Houses, Women and Men in the European Neolithic. IN: D. Miller and C. Tilley (eds) Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 51-68. Hodder, I. (1990) The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies. Blackwell, Oxford. Hodder, I. (1997) Architecture and Meaning: the Example of Neolithic Houses and Tombs. IN: M. Parker Pearson and C. Richards (eds) Architecture and Order. Approaches to Social Space. Routledge, London. pp. 73-86. Hodder, I. (1999) The Archaeological Process. An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford and

My analysis reveals that early farmers perceived and used sheep and goats differently from cattle and pigs. This is especially evident in large and constant differences in anatomical part distribution when comparing cattle and pigs. This difference is clear in all contexts at the LBK settlements analyzed here. In general, relations between humans and different species of animals, patterns of food consumption and refuse disposal practices of LBK communities conform to the general view of uniformity of these communities. It becomes clear that this was not only manifested in the homogeneity of the material culture, especially its architecture through which the relations between individual and society were expressed, but also in relation to animals and their consumption. References Ammerman, A. and Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (1973) A Population Model for the Diffusion of Early Farming in Europe. IN: C. Renfrew (ed) The Explanation of Culture Change: Models in Prehistory. Duckworth, London. pp. 343-358. Ammerman, A. and Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (1984) The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Baer, D.R. (1991) Cultural Factors Affecting Relationships between Household Refuse and Household Food Consumption. IN: E. Staski and L.D. Sutro (eds) The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal. Arizona State University, Anthropological Research Papers No. 42, Tempe. pp. 5-12. Barrett, J.C. (2000) A Thesis on Agency. IN: A.M. Dobres and J.E. Robb (eds) Agency in Archaeology. Routledge, London and New York. pp. 61-68. Bender, B. (1992) Theorizing Landscapes and the Prehistoric Landscapes of Stonehenge. Man 27: 735755. Binford, L. R. (1978) Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York. Bogucki, P. (1987) The Establishment of Agrarian Communities of the Northern European Plain. Current Anthropology 28(1): 1-24. Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Comaroff J. and Comaroff, J.L. (1991) “How Beasts Lost Their Legs”: Cattle in Tswana Economy and Society. IN: J.G. Galaty and P. Bonte (eds) Herders, Warriors, and Traders. Westview Press, Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford. pp. 33-61. Coudart, A. (1991) Social Structure and Relationships in Prehistoric Small-Scale Sedentary Societies: The Bandkeramik Groups in Neolithic Europe. IN: S.A. Gregg (ed) Between Bands and States. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 9. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. pp. 395-419.

139

LBK DIALOGUES

Cambridge. pp. 333-346. Marciniak, A. (2001) Scientific and Interpretive Components in Social Zooarchaeology. The Case of Early Farming Communities in Kujavia. Archaeologia Polona 39: 87-110. Marciniak, A. (2004a, in press) Placing Animals in the Neolithic. Social Zooarchaeology of Farming Communities. University College London Press, London. Marciniak, A. (2004b, in press) Social Changes in the Early European Neolithic. A Taphonomy Perspective. IN: T.P. O'Connor (ed) Biosphere to Lithosphere: New Studies in Vertebrate Taphonomy. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Milisauskas, S. and Kruk, J. (1989) Neolithic Economy in Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 3: 40346. Moddermann, P.J.R. (1988) The Linear Culture: Diversity in Uniformity. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Ouheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38: 63-139. Moore, H. L. (1986) Space, Text, and Gender. An Anthropological Study of the Marakwet of Kenya. First edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pauketat, T. R. (2000) The Tragedy of Commoners. IN: A.M. Dobres and J.E. Robb (eds) Agency in Archaeology. Routledge, London and New York. pp. 113-129. Picazo, M. (1997) Hearth and Home: the Timing of Maintenance Activities. IN: J. Moore and E. Scott (eds) Invisible People and Processes. Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology. Leicester University Press, London and New York. pp. 59-67. Price, T.D.; Gebauer, A.B. and Keeley, L.H. (1996) The Spread of Farming into Europe North of the Alps. IN: T.D. Price and A.B. Gebauer (eds) Last Hunters-First Farmers. New Perspectives on the Prehistoric Transition to Agriculture. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. pp. 95-126. Sherratt, A. (1995) Alcohol and its Alternatives: Symbol and Substance in Pre-Industrial Cultures. IN: J. Goodman, P.E. Lovejoy and A. Sherratt (eds) Consuming Habits: Drugs in History and Anthropology. Routledge, London. pp. 11-46. Starling, N. J. (1985) Colonization and Succession: The Earlier Neolithic of Central Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 51: 41-57. Stea, D. and Turan, M. (1990) A Statement on Placemaking. IN: M. Turan (ed) Vernacular Architecture. Paradigms of Environmental Response. Ethnospace: volume 4. Aldershot, Avebury. pp. 102121. Stiner, M. C. (1991) Food Procurement and Transport by Human and Non-Human Predators. Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 455-482. Thomas, J. S. (1999a) An Economy of Substances in Earlier Neolithic Britain. IN: J. Robb (ed) Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. pp.

Malden, MA. Huelsbeck, D. R. (1989) Food Consumption, Resource Exploitation and Relationships within and between Households at Ozette. IN: S. MacEachern, D.J.W. Archer, and R.D. Garvin (eds) Households and Communities. Proceedings of the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. The University of Calgary Archaeological Association, Calgary. pp. 157-167. Kamieńska, Jadwiga. (1964) Osady Kultur Wstęgowych w Samborcu, pow. Sandomierz. IN: S. Nosek (ed) Studia i Materiały do Badań nad Neolitem Małopolski. Warszawa and Kraków, Zakład im. Ossolińskich, Wrocław. pp. 77-189. Kamieńska, J. and Kulczycka-Lecejewiczowa, A. (1970) The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlement at Samborzec in the Sandomierz District. Archaeologia Polona 12: 223-246. Keeley, L. H. (1992) The Introduction of Agriculture to the Western North European Plain. IN: A.B. Gebauer and T.D. Price (eds) Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. pp. 81-95. Kruk, J. and Milisauskas, S. (1999) Rozkwit i Upadek Społeczeństw Rolniczych Neolitu. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Kraków. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa, A. (1970) Kultura Ceramiki Wstęgowej Rytej w Polsce. Zarys problematyki. IN: J.K. Kozłowski (ed) Studies on the Linear Pottery Culture. Polskie Towarzystwo Archeologiczne, Kraków. pp. 11-28. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa, A. (1979) Pierwsze Społeczeństwa Rolnicze na Ziemiach Polskich. Kultury kręgu naddunajskiego. IN: W. Hensel and T. Wiślański (eds) Prahistoria Ziem Polskich, t. II, Neolit. Zakład im. Osslińskich, Wrocław, Warszawa, Kraków and Gdańsk. pp. 19-164. Kulczycka-Leciejewiczowa, A. (1993) Osadnictwo Neolityczne w Polsce Południowo-Zachodniej. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii PAN, Wrocław. Kreutzer, L.A. (1992) Bison and Deer Mineral Densities: Comparisons and Implications for the Interpretation of Archaeological Faunas. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:271-294. Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space. Translated by D. Nicholson-Smith. Blackwell, Oxford. Lyman, L. R. (1984) Bone Density and Differential Survivorship of Fossil Classes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:259-299. Marciniak, A. (1999) Faunal Materials and Interpretive Archaeology - Epistemology Reconsidered. Journal of Archaeological Theory and Method 6(4): 293-320. Marciniak, A. (2000) Living Space. Construction of Social Complexity in Central European Communities. IN: A. Richie (ed) Neolithic Orkney and its European Context. McDonald Monographs in Archaeology,

140

ARKADIUSZ MARCINIAK: EVERYDAY LIFE AT THE LBK SETTLEMENT: A ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

70-89. Thomas, J. S. (1999b) Understanding the Neolithic. A revised second edition of Rethinking the Neolithic. Routledge, London. Van de Velde, P. (1979) On Bandkeramik Social Structure. An Analysis of Pot Decoration and Hut Distribution from the Central European Neolithic Communities of Elsloo and Hienheim. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 12. Wiślański, T. (1970). Uwagi o Kulturze Ceramiki Wstęgowej Rytej na Terenie Polski PółnocnoZachodniej. IN: J.K. Kozłowski (ed) Studies on the Linear Pottery Culture. Polskie Towarzystwo Archeologiczne, Kraków. pp. 29-36.

141

142

PALAEOECOLOGY OF THE LBK: THE EARLIEST AGRICULTURALISTS LANDSCAPE OF BOHEMIA

AND THE

Jaromír Beneš Abstract The origin of the LBK complex is connected with a broad scale of questions ranging from its cultural origins and paleoeconomy to the genetic affiliation of people and their use of plants and livestock. This article links up the Near Eastern and south-eastern European LBK paleoeconomy and the interaction of humans with their environment. Attention is given to principal environmental constrains of moderate climatic conditions present in the deciduous forest biome of Central Europe, especially the role of people in the initial clearing of the forests. Some aspects of the Near East paleoeconomy are described, with regards to important archaeobotanical samples. This is particularly significant, since the first archaeobotanical assemblages indicate not only processes of domestication, but also a presence of specific weed types, which thereafter accompany crop agriculture in Central Europe. The second topic of this paper considers the interaction between temperate deciduous woodland and the building activity of LBK people. Several questions are examined, above all the relation of LBK sites to different recent soil types. Natural constrains of settlement and environmental preferences are compared with previous Mesolithic site requirements.

traditionally based on the analysis of material culture, especially thanks to the site of Bylany, representative of most typical Central European LBK settlement remains (Pavlů 2000). This site is situated in central eastern Bohemia close to the city of Kutná Hora, continually excavated and analysed by specialists from the Institute of Archaeology of Prague since 1953.

The Neolithic in Bohemia The concept of the Neolithic in Czech archaeology is associated with cultural evolution and historical paleoeconomy. The notion of the Neolithic is broadly connected with the LBK cultural complex (derived from the German term Linienbandkeramik). The Neolithic of Bohemia is usually divided into the Early Neolithic period (5500-5000 BC), which is dominated by LBK cultural continuance. The ensuing Late Neolithic is characterized by the Stichbandkeramik (StK) cultural complex (5000-4500 BC) whereas in Moravia, this period is characterized by the Lengyel cultural complex (48003800 BC). The final Neolithic period of Bohemia lasted between 4500 – 3800 BC.

Southeastern Roots of the LBK Paleoeconomy It is generally known that the Near East served as a crucial backdrop to the south-eastern and Central European Neolithic palaeoeconomy. The Neolithic period can be viewed as a palaeoeconomical system involving plant and animal husbandry directed by humans (Rindos 1984). The place and time of crucial plant domestication in the Near East is generally known, however, the definition of an initial centre (or centres) is currently under discussion (Heun et al. 1997, Nessbitt 2002, Willcox 2004). For the evaluation of the earliest agriculture in Central Europe, it is very important to consider domesticated plants and other “weed” flora, which usually accompany the Neolithic package of domesticated species in the Near East. There are several regions, namely the Levant, the Upper Euphrates and South East Anatolia (Garrard 1999), which are particularly important. The upper Euphrates region especially, since it plays an extraordinary role in attracting present day research.

In the Czech Republic, the notion of the Neolithic corresponds with the earliest agricultural economy based upon non-ploughing arable field techniques, and the keeping of herds mostly to supply meat. This initial form of agriculture was introduced from the Balkans (Halstead 1989), where there is a documented high level of juvenile mortality of sheep and goats (Payne 1973). The same pattern is recorded in archaeozoological assemblages of the Bohemian LBK, especially in cattle. According to this evidence, animals were slaughtered young, between one to two years of age (Peške 1994a, 1994b). The Eneolithic is used to contrast the notion of the Neolithic (Neustupný 1967; Pleiner and Rybová 1978), as an equivalent to the category the Late Neolithic of western Europe. The Czech system is based on paleoeconomy rather than criteria of material culture. The Eneolithic period is characterized by the economy of ploughing agriculture with animals used to meet a variety of demands: energy (cattle), wool (sheep) and milk (both cattle and other ovicaprids). This economic base sharply separates off the old Neolithic and the new Eneolithic economy (Neustupný 1967; Pleiner and Rybová 1978; Peške 1994b).

Open steppe and woodlands covered the region of the Upper Euphrates during the warm Atlantic period. According to charcoal analysis conducted at Neolithic sites, the presence of Pistacia type atlantica, Rhamnus, Amygdalus and Quercus can be documented, which points to a moist steppe climate with a mosaic of trees and shrubs. Several important sites such as Halula, Jerf el Ahmar and Mureybet were studied by Willcox (1996, 2002), allowing a palaeoeconomical characterization of the first agriculturalists undergoing a process of plant domestication. An ancient domesticated plant package is clearly visible, which is dominated by einkorn (Triticum

Study of the Neolithic in the Czech Republic is

143

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 1: Loess distribution in Bohemia and Central Europe. diffusion (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1973, 1984), which explains the dense network of Neolithic settlement sites as a result of demographic expansion. An opposing concept developed by Zvelebil (1986) anticipates the adoption of agricultural practice along agricultural frontiers, which moved from the Balkans to northwest Europe. Whether accepting the first or second (or indeed any another) concept, it seems clear that the process of the Neolithic transition in south-eastern and central Europe was particularly rapid, spreading along suitable lowlands. The warmer climatic condition of the Atlantic period (Maise 1998; van Andel 2000) probably supported the expansion of steppe elements into the lowlands of south east Europe, and accelerated demographic human proliferation across the Balkans, where subsistence strategies resemble the Near East and Anatolia (Halstead 1989).

monococcum), emmer (Triticum dicoccum) and barley (Hordeum vulgare), dated here to between 8000 – 6000 BC. The archaeobotanical assemblage also includes plants from the genus Adonis, Astragalus, Avena, Bromus, Camelina, Centaurea, Galium, Glaucium, Hordeum type murinum, Papaver, Polygonum, Reseda, Silene and Fumaria, all representing local steppe grass flora. Some of these specific plants later accompany the earliest Neolithic activity and crops across the Balkans and Central Europe. Although these plants may not have been native to Central Europe, their presence in Central European archaeobotanical assemblages allows their definition as apophytes (Kreuz 1991). They indicate open secondary anthropogenic grassland, which surrounded the earliest Neolithic settlement sites. Another important question of the Central European Early Neolithic (the LBK culture) is the way this new mode of life spread. Although the solution of this key topic is somewhat tangent to the focus of this paper, it is obvious that favouring any one of the several theoretical concepts surrounding this question could influence the description of human impact on the palaeoecological characteristics of the Central European landscape. One concept of Neolithic expansion across Europe is demic

The main characteristics of the Early Neolithic economy in the Near East, the Balkans and the LBK core areas of Central Europe seem obvious today. Those economies are based on an Early Neolithic plant package involving einkorn, emmer, lentils, pulses and flax as the main cultural plants on one side, and the keeping of cattle, sheep/ goats and pigs as a living supply of meat on the 144

JAROMÍR BENEŠ: PALAEOECOLOGY OF THE LBK: THE EARLIEST AGRICULTURALISTS AND THE LANDSCAPE OF BOHEMIA

The first observation usually connected with LBK settlers, is their soil preference. It is argued that LBK sites are related to loess-based soils. Loess is glacial sediment especially present in the northern Bohemia lowlands. Although Bohemian LBK sites generally correspond with loess based soils, this correlation is not quite strict. It is probably little known that the distribution of LBK sites in Bohemia more accurately reflects a relationship to easily tilled soils, rather than the fertile but heavy chernozem. In younger Neolithic periods (StK and Lengyel), there is a higher tendency to occupy heavier soils (Fig. 2, see also Rulf 1983). It is uncertain whether these soil preferences reflect the actual settlement choices of the earliest agriculturalists, or if this process indirectly records the expansion of secondary anthropogenic grassland and therefore an increase in the development of chernozem. The second possibility seems more probable.

other – not for milk or wool. During the expansion across Europe, such an Early Neolithic “Near Eastern” system was more and more confronted with different environmental conditions. Somewhere in the northern areas of the Carpathian basin, the southernmost limit of the early LBK culture is visible. It would be interesting to see if this southern frontier of LBK expansion correlates with the boundary of a deciduous temperate forest of the Atlantic period in Central Europe. Deciduous Oak Forest in Bohemia and Neolithic Human Impact The western part of the Czech Republic, namely Bohemia, can be perceived as a suitable region for understanding the LBK paleoeconomy and paleoecology. In comparison with eastern Moravian regions which were (and still are) essentially influenced by the warmer, dryer and generally more continental “steppe” conditions of the Carpathian Basin, the environment of Bohemia is more akin to the moderate and wetter conditions of the temperate climate that influences much of Central Germany, Bavaria and the Rhineland. The second reason to focus on Bohemia is unambiguous: this region lies within the area of LBK origin (Fig. 1). Therefore, it is pertinent to examine the constrains involved in the first agriculture of Bohemia.

Another issue surrounding LBK origin is the appearance of temperate Atlantic forest as the main environment of LBK people. Recent knowledge about forests in Neolithic Bohemia is based on pollen analyses (Pokorný 2004), in addition to charcoal analyses from Bylany (Fig. 3) and other LBK sites (Peške et al. 1998). Avifaunal osteology (Peške 1981) and fossil malacofauna (Ložek 1973) provide some supporting data. It is likely that Bohemia was almost completely forested in the Atlantic period. There are indications of difference between fully forested regions, and areas of semi-opened landscape. The “virgin forest” cannot be perceived as a closed canopy cover, but more or less as an open mixture of woodland with scattered islands of small steppe-like areas. This concept was developed by Ložek (1973, 1981) on the basis of malacostratigraphic data, postulating a continuity of xerothermic herbaceous vegetation in some Bohemian (and Moravian) regions. In the Atlantic period important changes in the natural forest composition are recorded. At all altitudinal zones, previous pine and/or birch-dominated woodlands were replaced by a new set of forest trees. In the lowlands, mixed oak woodlands developed, characterised by the occurrence of broadleaf trees (Quercus, Tilia, Ulmus, Corylus, Fraxinus) (Pokorný 2004). How open the woodland actually was, and how much energy was spent for its initial clearing, is still being researched. Two decades ago J. Slavíková analysed charcoal from the Bylany site (Peške et al. 1998). The database comprised almost 6000 fragments of charcoal. The diagram in figure 3 indicates the kinds of wood (botanical genus) represented. The proportion between wood species reflects the woodland character around the Bylany site, and the character of local wood exploitation and consumption. This reflection is indirect since the charcoal assemblage is determined by human activity,

Fig. 2: Diagram showing Neolithic site locations in relation to different soils. Abbreviations: Ch- Chernozem, O- (other kinds of soil), BS- brown soils (Luvisol and Cambisol), N – no determination; LBK – “Linienbandkeramik”, StK – “Stichbandkeramik”, LG – Lengyel culture. Adapted from Rulf 1983.

145

LBK DIALOGUES

Bylany charcoal proportion (without oak)

Corylus 12.64%

Ulmus 17.35%

Euonymus 1.98% Fagus 8.05%

Tilia 8.30%

Fraxinus 10.66%

Sorbus 5.95%

Juniperus 0.37%

Salix 7.68% Pyrus 3.84% Prunus 1.36%

Pinus 13.75%

Malus 1.24%

Populus 6.82%

Fig. 3: Diagram of charcoal obtained from the Bylany site. Analysed by J. Slavíková, data from Peške et al. 1998, processed by author. The standard LBK site in Bohemia yields several contemporaneous long houses (Pavlů 2000). The construction of one longhouse required the use of approximately 100 middle-aged oak trees. Almost every charcoal examined from LBK postholes has been from oak wood (Peške et al. 1998). Natural oak forest can offer maximally 100-150 adult trees per hectare (Fig. 4), but not every trunk was suitable for building, and not every suitable standing tree will have been used. The building of one longhouse probably affected several hectares (2-4 ha) of woodland, and made it more open and accessible for other agricultural activity such as pasture or growing crops. The lifetime of one house has been estimated at most several decades (Pavlů 2000), despite the good preservation and quality of oak wood. It is therefore very probable, that a continually developing LBK site strongly affected a large area of surrounding woodland extending tens of hectares into the hinterland. Under these conditions, the oak forest was reduced, and resulted in open space for the expansion of alternative species.

particularly deliberate choices in the selection of wood. The dominant wood is undoubtedly oak (Quercus), present in 79% of all studied charcoals. The second category represents elm (Ulmus) with 2.45%. This interesting species was more frequent in the Atlantic period, during which however its decline also began. This was usually connected with human activity in the creation of land for pasture, slash and burning and a variety of other reasons (see Dincauze 2000). The other present species, namely Pinus, Corylus, Fraxinus and Tilia fully correspond with the general knowledge of recent palynology (see above). This composition of wood species is representative of the Atlantic Central European woodland. The forest character of Neolithic Bohemia can also be indicated by archaeozoology, since some animal species live in specific ecological conditions. Their presence in the archaeological context signifies the rate of canopy opening, the character of the woodland and shrubs and other environmental constrains – all reflected in animal bone assemblages. For example capercaille (Tetrao urogallus) is a typical inhabitant of dark forest, and never leaves it. Archaeozoological finds of capercaille were recorded from two Neolithic sites in Bohemia (Chotěbudice – LBK, Klíčany – StK). Another interesting species is grouse (Lyrurus tetrix), which lives in open wet woodlands and is frequently found on Bohemian Neolithic sites (Peške 1981).

The LBK Crop Plant Package The environment of the LBK site included space for herd keeping and other activities (Neustupný 1986). Fields surrounded this core area, followed by pasture zones which continuously tapered into natural woodlands 146

JAROMÍR BENEŠ: PALAEOECOLOGY OF THE LBK: THE EARLIEST AGRICULTURALISTS AND THE LANDSCAPE OF BOHEMIA

Early Neolithic system of Central Europe was a distant relation of the Near East, corresponding with the good climate of the Atlantic period, and which enabled LBK expansion. Collected plants represent a specific group of objects, the character of which is difficult to interpret. As a fragment of the local flora, they are most frequently interpreted as a weed admixture of Neolithic crop technology. However, their frequent clustering among archaebotanical assemblages also offers their explanation as intentionally gathered species. Especially in the case of edible species such as Chenopodium album and Fallopia convolvulus, which are most frequent amongst LBK assemblages. This subsistence practice corresponds with the Late Mesolithic plant management customs described in northwestern temperate Europe (Zvelebil 1994). Archaeobotanical data from core regions of the LBK show not only cultural and collected plants, but also indicate open secondary grassland. The LBK settlement area and its hinterland particularly affected soil development. Human impact probably stimulated the expansion of chernozem, and other types of fertile lowland soils.

Fig. 4: Age structure of trees (and animals) found in the forest. Dotted segment indicates age group most influenced by tree cutting. (Bakkels 1978). An important element of the LBK paleoeconomy is the early Neolithic crop field. Its character can be recognized namely by archaeobotany. Archaeobotanical data are still rare in Bohemia, although they have become more accessible since Tempír (1966, 1979) published some of his studies. A recently published LBK archaeobotanical assemblage from Prague-Hlubočepy (Beneš 2001) represents a typical sample of LBK cultivated and collected plants from Central Europe (see Table 1). Collected plants Corylus avellana Cornus mas Prunus spinosa Echinochloa crus-galli Fallopia convolvulus Chenopodium album

Mesolithic – Neolithic Interaction in Bohemia Studies of interactions between hunter-gatherers and LBK occupation is limited by different levels of archaeological knowledge. Study of the Mesolithic period was neglected in the second half of the 20th century by Czech prehistorians, who instead laid emphasis on the study of the “first farmers.” The study of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Bohemia, is therefore distorted by large systematic error.

Cultivated plants Triticum dicoccum Triticum monococcum Hordeum vulgare Lens esculenta Panicum miliaceum Pisum sativum Linim usitatissimum

Nevertheless, there are indications that the origin of agriculture in Bohemia relies on a possible interaction between people of the Mesolithic and the Neolithic. Radiocarbon dates for the latest Bohemian Mesolithic sites indicate an overlap between both groups may have been possible, namely the recently reported radiocarbon data from the Pod zubem rockshelter in northern Bohemia (upper bed, charcoal 6790±70 BP, 6580±50 BP uncal, Svoboda 1999) and from the sediment layer of lake Švarcenberk in southern Bohemia (6340±110 BP, Pokorný 2000). The last case comprises lake sediment which specifically indicates Mesolithic occupation of the lakeshore in the same layer. Both of the cited examples permit the possibility of contemporaneous appearance of Mesolithic and Neolithic activity in the landscape of Bohemia.

Table 1: Cultivated and collected plants from Central European LBK site. Plants signed by bold characters were presented in Prague-Hlubočepy site. Plants from Bohemia showing a typical early LBK cultivated and collected plant package (Tab. 1), are generally comparable with archaeobotanical collections from Germany and Austria, published or evaluated by Kreuz (1991). In comparison with the Neolithic cultural plant structure from the Near East (see above) and the Balkans, it is possible to observe large similarities among these cultural plant packages. It is apparent that the Early Neolithic system promoted expansion of secondary grassland and dissemination of apophytes in catchment’s areas of the first farmers. Similarities in cultural plant composition as well as in the herd structure, show the

Mesolithic and Neolithic occupations preferred different landscape settings in Bohemia (Fig. 5). Hunter-gatherers preferred rocky areas with lakes, wetlands and forested areas in the west, north and south of Bohemia. Farmers on the other hand, dispersed into the lowland regions of central, eastern and northwest Bohemia, which had 147

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 5: Map of Bohemia indicating approximate expansion of Mesolithic and Neolithic populations. Black area – highlands and mountains; Dark grey – extent of the Mesolithic; Light grey – extent of the Neolithic; Square area – region comprised of four eastern Bohemian districts with relatively dense occupation.

percentage

80 60

PA

40

HK

20

RK

0

PA

PALE BR.UN BR.LU PP.SL HA.SL MEZO NEOL ENEOL O E Z P P 8.62

6.59

25.38

12.18

6.59

NA LA

RI

EM

HM

10.15

19.28

58.88

20.81

7.1

14.72

12.69

HK

7.5

3

35

20.5

7.5

21.5

10.5

21.5

16.5

17

24.5

51

RK

5.55

2.22

19.44

6.66

0

16.66

7.22

10

3.33

6.11

10

51.11

NA

6.8

1.04

20.94

6.8

1.04

10.47

6.8

15.7

10.99

8.9

14.65

49.73

Fig. 6: Landscape occupation of eastern Bohemia (four districts). Percentage of occupied cadastres (parishes) from the Palaeolithic (PALEO), the Mesolithic (MESO), the Neolithic (NEOL: LBK, StK, Lengyel), the Eneolithic (ENEOL: 5 different Eneolithic cultures), the Early Bronze Age (BR.UNE), the Late Bronze Age (BR.LUZ), the Final Bronze Age (PP.SLP), the Hallstatt Period (HA.SLP), the LaTène period (LA), the Roman Iron Age (RI), the Early Medieval period (EM), and the High Medieval Period (HM). Source: ARCHIV database, Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences, Prague. Adapted from Beneš and Pokorný 2001. 148

JAROMÍR BENEŠ: PALAEOECOLOGY OF THE LBK: THE EARLIEST AGRICULTURALISTS AND THE LANDSCAPE OF BOHEMIA

the LBK is its large-scale, extensive and forcible influence on deciduous forests of the Atlantic period. The impact of the LBK settlement network caused the opening oak woodland, establishing a secondary grassland in an occupied landscape. It enabled the development of chernozem and other fertile soil types in the Bohemian lowland.

generally drier and warmer climatic conditions in addition to more suitable soil types. Although the paleoecological preferences between Mesolithic and Neolithic people were different, their contacts need not have been antagonistic. Broader contact between Mesolithic and Neolithic regions should not be excluded. The geographical overlapping of those two cultures existed, especially in central, northern and eastern Bohemia! Southern Bohemia was only sparsely settled in the LBK period, and the LBK sites in this region are situated namely on island outcrops of specific lowland soils. Clusters of Mesolithic sites were recorded in the high mountains of the Bohemian Forest (Šumava mountains) in the Upper Vltava river basin (Vencl 1989) and in western Czech regions like Karlovy Vary (Karlsbad) and the Cheb districts (Pleiner and Rybová 1978).

References Ammerman, A.J. and Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (1973) A Population Model for the Diffusion of Early Farming in Europe. IN: C. Renfrew (ed) The Explanation of Culture Change. Duckworth, London. pp. 343-357. Ammerman, A.J. and Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (1984) The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Population in Europe. Princeton. Bakkels, C. C. (1978) Four Linearbandkeramik Settlements and their Environment: A Paleoecological Study of Sittard, Stein, Elsloo and Hienheim. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 11. Beneš, J. (2001) Sídliště Kultury s Lineární Keramikou v Praze-Hlubočepích [An LBK Culture Settlement at Prague-Hlubočepy]. Otázky Neolitu a Eneolitu Našich Zemí 2000: 87-94. Beneš, J. and Pokorný, P. (2001) Odlesňování Východočeské Nížiny v Posledních Dvou Tisíciletích: Interpretace Pyloanalytického Záznamu z Olšiny Na Bahně, okr. Hradec Králové [Deforestation of EastBohemian Lowland During the Last Two Millenia: Interpretation of Pollen Record from the Site „Na bahně,“ Hradec Králové district]. Archeologické Rozhledy 53: 481-498. Dincauze, D. (2000) Environmental Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Garrard, A. (1999) Charting the Emergence of Cereal and Pulse Domestication in South-west Asia. Environmental Archaeology 4: 67-86. Halstead, P. (1989) Like Rising Damp? An Ecological Approach to the Spread of Farming in South East and Central Europe. IN: A. Milles et al. (eds) The Beginnings of Agriculture. British Archaeological Reports International Series 496. pp. 23-53. Heun, M.; Schäfer-Pregl, R.; Klawan, D.; Castagna, R.; Accerbi, M.; Borghi, B. and Salaminiet, F. (1997) Site of Einkorn Wheat Domestication Identified by DNA Fingerprinting. Science 278: 1312-1314. Kreuz, A. (1991) Die Ersten Bauern Mitteleuropas – Eine Archäobotanische Untersuchung zu Umwelt und Landwithschaft der Ältesten Bandkeramik. Analecta Prehistorica Leidensia 23. Ložek,V. (1973) Příroda ve Čtrtohorách. Academia, Praha. Ložek,V. (1981) Změny Krajiny v Souvislosti s Osídlením ve Světle Malakologických Poznatků [Der Landschaftswandel in Beziehung zur Besiedlung im Lichte malakologischer Befunde]. Archeologické Rozhledy 33: 176-188.

There was a network of LBK and StK sites, consisting of hundreds settlements close to each other. The distance between two typical sites was usually quite small (hardly overreaching one kilometre), enabling large-scale human impact on the Atlantic woodland. Neolithic sites in Bohemia were clustered in lowland mosaics orientated along creeks and small rivers, and maintained continual influence on the Czech lowlands for more than one thousand years. It is interesting to consider the relative settlement density of eastern Bohemia from the Palaeolithic until the Medieval Period (Beneš and Pokorný 2001). Figure 6 indicates the percentage of occupied cadastres within four districts. The districts Pardubice (PA) and Hradec Králové (HK) represent the typical landscape of the Czech lowland, in opposition to the districts Náchod (NA) and Rychnov nad Kněžnou (RK) near the highland periphery of the Bohemian basin. Mesolithic (and Palaeolithic) finds are recorded in 3% and 6.6% of the cadastres present in lowlands, with 1% and 3 % in the highlands. Neolithic finds however, are recorded in 20% of highland cadastres and between 25-35% in the lowland cadastres! This variability is affected by different standards of research in many of these districts, but also indicates the expansion of Neolithic settlement activity in the LBK and StK cultures. It is significant because such expansion into the landscape of eastern Bohemia was not repeated until the Medieval period, and represents supportive evidence of large-scale impact on the landscape of Neolithic Central Europe. Conclusion The character of the LBK palaeoeconomy reflects southeastern roots of the earliest Neolithic culture in Bohemia. This includes similarities in archaeobotanical as well as in archaeozoological assemblages not only between Central Europe and the Balkans, but also between the Near East Neolithic and the Central European LBK. The crucial palaeoecological impact of

149

LBK DIALOGUES

Cultivation of Agricultural Plants in the ČSSR]. Vědecké Práce Zemědělského Muzea. pp. 27-144. Tempír, Z. (1979) Kulturpflanzen im Neolithicum and Äneolithicum auf dem Gebiet von Böhmen und Mähren. Archaeo-Physica 8: 302-308. van Andel, T.H. (2000) Where Received Wisdom Fails: the Mid-Palaeolithic and Early Neolithic Climates. IN: C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds) Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. Cambridge. pp. 31-39. Vencl, S. (1989) Mezolitické Osídlení na Šumavě [Mesolithic Occupation of the Bohemian Forest]. Archeologické Rozhledy 41: 481-501. Willcox, G. (1996) Evidence for Plant Exploitation and Vegetation History from Three Early Neolithic PrePottery Sites on the Euphrates (Syria). IN: K.H. Behre and K. Oeggl (eds) Early Farming in the Old World (A Special Volume of Vegetation History and Archaeobotany). pp. 143-152. Willcox, G. (2002) Charred Plant Remains from a 10th Millennium B.P. Kitchen at Jerf el Ahmar (Syria). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11: 55-60. Willcox, G. (2004) Measuring Grain Size and Identifying Near Eastern Cereal Domestication: Evidence from the Euphrates Valley. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:145-50. Zvelebil, M. (ed) (1986) Hunters in Transition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Zvelebil, M. (1994) Plant Use in the Mesolithic and its Role in the Transition to Farming. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 60: 35-74.

Maise, C. (1998) Archäoklimatologie – Vom Einfluss nacheiszeitlicher Klimavariabilität in der Ur- und Frühgeschichte. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 81: 197-235. Nesbitt, M (2002) When and Where did Domestic Cereals First Occur in Southwest Asia? IN: R.T.J. Cappers and S. Bottema (eds) The Dawn of Farming in the Near East. Berlin. pp. 113-132. Neustupný, E. (1967) K Počátkům Patriarchátu ve Střední Evropě [The Beginnings of Patriarchy in Central Europe]. Rozpravy Československého Archeologického Ústavu 67/2. Praha. Neustupný, E. (1986) Sídelní Areály Pravěkých Zemědělců [Settlement Areas of Prehistoric Farmers]. Památky Archeologické 77: 226-234. Pavlů, I. (2000) Life on a Neolithic site: Bylany – Situational Analysis of Artefacts. Institute of Archaeology, Prague. Payne, S. (1973) Kill-off Patterns in Sheep and Goats: the Mandibles from Asvan Kale, Anatolian Studies 23: 281-303. Peške, L. (1981) Ekologická Interpretace Holocenní Avifauny Československa – Ökologische Interpretation der Holozänavifauna in der Tschechoslowakei, Archeologické Rozhledy 33: 142153. Peške, L. (1994a) The History of Natural Scientific Methods in the Archaeological Institute and Their Present Objectives. Památky Archeologické, Supplementum 1: 259-278. Peške, L. (1994b) Příspěvek k Poznání Počátku Dojení Skotu v Pravěku. Archeologické Rozhledy 46: 97104. Peške, L.; Rulf, J. and Slavíková, J. (1998) Bylanyekodata: Specifikace Nálezů Kostí a Rostlinných Makrozbytků [Bylany Ecodata: Determination of Bone and Anthracological Macroremains]. Bylany Varia 1: 83-118. Pleiner, R. and Rybová, A. (1978) Pravěké Dějiny Čech. Academia, Praha. Pokorný, P. (2000) Paleoekologie Bývalého Jezera Švarcenberk a Vývoj Okolní Krajiny v Pozdním Glaciálu a Holocénu [ Palaeoecology of Former lake Švarcenberk and the Development of the Surrounding Landscape During the Late-Glacial and the Holocene]. Unpublished dissertation. University of South Bohemia, Faculty of Biological Sciences. Pokorný, P. (2004, in press) Postglacial Vegetation Distribution in the Czech Republic and its Relationship to Settlement Zones: Review from OffSite Pollen Data. IN: M. Gojda (ed) Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in Bohemia – The Potential of Non-Destructive Archaeology. Academia, Prague. Rindos, D. (1984) The Origins of Agriculture. An Evolutionary Perspective. Academic press, London. Svoboda, J. (1999) Čas Lovců. Brno. Tempír, Z. (1966) Výsledky Paleoetnobotanického Studia Pěstování Zemědělských Rostlin na Území ČSSR [Results of Palaeoethnobotanic Studies on the

150

ARCHITECTURE AND SETTLEMENT STRUCTURE CULTURE IN EAST CENTRAL EUROPE

OF THE

EARLY LINEAR POTTERY Eva Lenneis

Abstract In East-Central Europe, excavations conducted within the last two decades have brought new information about the houses and even the settlement structure of the Earliest Linear Pottery culture. This article analyzes the evidence of these recently investigated sites, and presents some ideas about the beginning of this architecture and about the reasons for the different organisational patterns present on the settlements right from the beginning.

close to each other. A large dataset of 14C measurements was obtained, and the associated material culture indicates there was a chronological sequence of habitation at these settlements. The eldest and most interesting of them is site II, where 14C dates reach up to 5620 BC (Stadler 1999b). Unfortunately the preservation of these houses was not very good. The most typical early LBK house, the so-called Mohelnice type with outside trenches (Stäuble 1994) is recognisable at this site (Fig. 1). It is interesting to note that although the material culture has more of a Starčevo than an LBK character (Lenneis 2004) the houses clearly indicate the well known LBK architectural pattern. I was not able to detect traces of the most characteristic division of the houses into several parts, however this may be due to the fact that the houses have yet to be studied and analysed in detail. Since there are nearly no traces of posts outside the houses, and the area is delimited merely by the outside trenches, one gets the impression the houses only had a central part. This is also indicated by two rather unclear plans (see Fig. 1: house 29, 30) where the area of the house designated by the posts seems to exceed the area indicated by the outside trenches. All of this might be due to poor preservation, since only some of the main posts and the side trenches were intact and all of the weaker wall-posts were missing.

Introduction Within the supposed birth region of the LBK in east central-Europe, the only evidence of the earliest houses comes from a few recently investigated sites. These include Moravia (Čížmář, paper given at Vienna university on May 14, 2002), the new, but rather small scale excavation at Pityerdomb in western Hungary (Bánffy, this volume), and six sites in the eastern part of Austria. These Austrian sites were excavated within the last twenty years at different scales, and have brought evidence of about 70 houses, giving some idea of how this impressive architecture could have begun. The Earliest Longhouses The construction principle of interior parallel rows of three posts as roof supports, resulting in a rather narrow but long house, seems to have been an indigenous invention by the people of central Europe. All house plans known from southeast Europe prior to 5300 BC, show very different ground plans, especially very different traces of roof construction (Lenneis 1997). The issue of where exactly this most characteristic house of the Linear Pottery culture (further LBK) developed or was invented remains an open question. For some time, it seemed as if the eldest houses just appeared both inside and outside the LBK territory, evidenced for example by the longhouse from the site Füzesabony – Gubakút which lies in north east Hungary and belongs to the early Alföld Linear Pottery culture (Domborócky 2001). Although the absolute date of this site has been estimated for the middle of the 6th millennium BC (Domborócky 1997), new unpublished radiocarbon dates indicate a time span after 5500 BC.1 Therefore at the moment, the eldest longhouses with several parallel rows of three posts, are securely demonstrated at Brunn II near the southern border of Vienna. As with the key Hungarian site of Füzesabony, the detection of the Brunn site (I – III) is due to motorway construction (Stadler 1999 a).

The Hungarian site of Pityerdomb shows an even worse preservation of houses of this type, with only the outside trenches surviving. The ceramics at Pityerdomb have a striking similarity to the pottery of Brunn II, and are also associated with the Starčevo culture (Bánffy 2000 a, b). The ideal “Mohelnice-type house” (Fig. 2) is difficult to trace throughout the Early LBK in east central Europe. In addition to the name-giving type site (Tichý 1962: Fig. 1,3) there are also a few examples from Bohemia, at Bylany site F (Modderman 1986: 393, Fig. 29-house 2197; Pavlů 2000: 198-200, Fig. 6.4.1b) and at Miskovice (Pavlů 1998: 58-61, Fig. 5,6). A house of this type may also be indicated at Stary Zamek in Poland, however only the outside trenches have been preserved (Kulczycka– Leciejewiczowa 1988: Fig. 4,6).

By 1999 an area of about 100,000 square metres and the remains of 43 houses, were uncovered by P. Stadler. These houses belong to 4, possibly even 5 settlements,

In Austria, the remains of outside trenches have been confirmed in the recently published houseplans from Neckenmarkt (see Fig. 5: house 2,3,5; see also Lenneis and Lüning 2001), Strögen (see Fig. 6: house 2,4; see also Stäuble 2001: Fig. 119) and Rosenburg (see Fig.3:

1

I would like to thank E. Banffy for this important personal communication.

151

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 1: Brunn. The outside trenches, as well as the posts, have been marked black by E. Lenneis for this article. House numbers were also added following the numbering convention devised by P.Stadler. Adapted from Lenneis et al. 1996, Fig. 3. house 3; see also Lenneis 1992). Strögen house 4, is the only tripartite building with outside trenches. LBK houses normally all have a very constant width of 6 - 7 metres, and only differ remarkably in their length which may comprise two or three parts. Among Austrian LBK I houses, there are also some poorly preserved small houses from Rosenburg with an unusual width of nearly 8 metres (see Fig. 3: house 4; house 1+6 ?). Houses with this shape are scarce, and comparable plans are known from Bavaria (Reinecke 1983:38, Fig. 4). In Austria, the only well preserved plan of an early tripartite house without outside trenches and roughly dated to the end of LBK I, is known from Mold in Lower Austria (Fig. 4). This huge house, no.1, belongs to a settlement of an estimated total area of 40,000 square metres. Including excavations in the summer of 2002, I have investigated around 10,000 square metres and the remains of 12 houses in this area (Lenneis 2001a: 106 and Fig. 10; Lenneis 2002). Due to its tripartite structure, house no.1 from Mold belongs to the so called Großbauten (or “big buildings”) according to the system devised by Modderman (1972). Characteristically, the boundary between the middle and

Fig. 2: Reconstruction of an early LBK house from Schwanfeld by J.Lüning. Adapted from Stäuble and Lüning 1999:170, Fig. 1a. 152

EVA LENNEIS: ARCHITECTURE AND SETTLEMENT STRUCTURE OF THE EARLYLINEAR POTTERY CULTURE

Fig. 3: Part of excavated surface at the Rosenburg site showing houses 1-7. Illustration by E. Lenneis.

Fig. 4: Plan of House number 1 excavated at the Mold site. Illustration by E. Lenneis. 153

LBK DIALOGUES

for the Rhineland (Boelicke 1981; Lüning 1997: 30, Fig. 3,5). One of the main goals of my analysis of the two early LBK sites Neckenmarkt and Strögen,2 was to prove this model for the preceding LBK I.

the northern part is marked by a so called “corridor,” the southern row of which contains the largest and deepest dug postholes of the whole building (Fig. 4: posts 75, 77, 78). In cases of heavy erosion, these postholes may be the only ones to survive (see for example Strögen, Fig. 6: house 1 – 3; Brunn Fig. 1: house 18 +23).

During excavation, finds from pits were recorded in metre squares. Decorated and undecorated pottery, as well as burnt daub, were counted and weighted, stone artefacts, animal bones and carbonised plant remains were listed by respective specialists, and the relevant totals were included in an overall inventory. This inventory of 10 find categories was the basis for a statistical analysis of the finds conducted by P. Stadler. The results were presented on 10 plans for each site (Lenneis and Lüning 2001: 47-78, Fig. 10-29). The common indication evident in all the distribution plans for Neckenmarkt, was the importance of the southern area of the house. However, this observation does not allow a definition of different activity zones within this area.

In the case of house no.1 from Mold, unfortunately erosion and local unfavourable geological phenomena destroyed most of the northern part. It should consist of 4 - 5 cross rows of triple posts, and a row of smaller posts forming the northern wall. The last remains of this wall may include post hole 181. The following middle part, consisting of the corridor and three more cross rows of rather weak posts, is quite small compared with the size of this building (length of middle part: 9.5 m; estimated total length of the house: 37.5 m). The structure of this middle part lies within the normal pattern wherein sometimes even several rows of posts are missing.

Interestingly, results from the second site, Strögen, did not emphasize the area south of the house with the same distinctness. This may simply be because it was a different building, or because the organisation pattern of this site was different, or simply that the site suffered from heavy damage by erosion.

The southern part of the “big-buildings” normally consists of one or two cross rows with double posts, but here there are five rows with double or multiple posts. Therefore, the southern part has the extraordinary length of 18 m. The profiles of the postholes show mostly one big post, which was supposed to have supported the roof, and one or more smaller posts, supposed to be the remains of a substructure, the granary. House no.1 from Mold must have had an unusually big granary, consisting of two separated parts as illustrated in my reconstruction (Fig. 4).

There is little comparable data from other Early LBK settlements, except for Bruchenbrücken in Hesse (Stäuble 1997) and Miskovice in Bohemia (Last 1998). The common result seems to be that the model of defined activity zones in the immediate surroundings of the house applicable to the Late LBK, does not correspond to the preceding Early LBK. The observed importance of the space immediately south of the house, may be better understood if considering the succeeding occupational phases at the site.

There are only about ten houses in the whole of the LBK with a southern part of this size, and they are limited to east Central Europe. Pavúk illustrated this fact while publishing the most similar plans of the Čataj houses from Slovakia (Pavúk 1986; Lenneis 2001b, Fig. 164).

The succession of houses at both settlements (as seen on Fig. 5 and Fig. 6) is deduced from the successful seriation of ceramics. The basis was a dataset of numerically coded descriptions of more than 3,200 ceramic units from the two sites Neckenmarkt and Strögen. A dataset of twelve 14C dates for this sequence only gave a secure result for the entire lifetime of all three occupational phases, lasting between 5380-5200 BC with a 53.6 % probability (Lenneis and Stadler 2002). The estimated time span of 75-150 years for the whole sequence, is too short to date each phase, even when conducting high precision dating via Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS).

Structure of the LBK Settlement In addition to the characteristic LBK house, the structure of the LBK settlement is also very unique and distinctly different from the Early Neolithic villages of Greece and the Balkans. While the latter had been organised village communities where houses were sometimes built very close together, the typical LBK settlement consists of houses always rather large distances apart. There are few or no common areas or structures, especially at the earliest sites where each household gives the impression of being an almost independent unit.

The chronological sequence of houses at the two sites explains why the southern surroundings of the houses had a more distinct importance at Neckenmarkt than at Strögen. The succeeding houses of Neckenmarkt were built so close to each other, they had to partially reuse the

Household areas may have been stable (Lüning 1997: 37, Fig. 11) or variable (Pavlů 2000: 240-243, Fig. 7.2.1.a,b) throughout the lifetime of a settlement. However the organisation of activities around the houses seems to have become quite standardised in the younger period of the LBK. This is especially indicated in a model worked out

2

154

Excavated in the eastern part of Austria by J.Lüning and E.Lenneis.

EVA LENNEIS: ARCHITECTURE AND SETTLEMENT STRUCTURE OF THE EARLYLINEAR POTTERY CULTURE

Fig. 5: Neckenmarkt, illustrating occupation phases deduced from pottery seriation. Diagonal lines indicate phase 1. Horizontal lines indicate phase 2. Vertical lines indicate phase 3. Illustration by E. Lenneis. trench of a preceding building in the construction of a new one. As a result, the houses give the impression of being oriented towards the area south of the house, which was common for all three buildings throughout the entire time of occupation.

distance apart (Fig. 6). This sort of organisation seems to have been much more common both in the Early and in the Later LBK. Not so common is the fact that this site represents a single homestead or farmstead, which may have survived within a certain settlement community.

Evidence for this kind of clustered succession within the area of the homestead is only available from few other early LBK sites. I have the impression that Brunn site II (Fig. 1) may have a similar organisation, in addition to parts of Schwanfeld in Bavaria (Gronenborn 1997, Fig 2.14: houses 15-18) and a small part of Bylany, site F (Pavlů 2000, map Bylany 1, section F: houses 2295, 2294, 2293).

Conclusion To conclude, there are indications that from the beginning of the early Neolithic, small settlements or hamlets with 3-4 contemporaneous houses existed together with single homesteads in the nearby vicinity, suggesting regional settlement communities. Within the homesteads of these settlements, we can observe two different building structures, apparently since the earliest phase. The reason for this is unclear. Do these different building structures reflect different traditions of the groups building them, or

The site of Strögen shows a very different structure, wherein the succeeding houses were built a certain 155

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 6: Strögen, illustrating occupation phases deduced from pottery seriation. Diagonal lines indicate phase 1. Horizontal lines indicate phase 2. Vertical lines indicate phase 3. Illustration by E. Lenneis. Prähistorischen Archäologie, Band 37, Frankfurt. Kulczicka-Leciejewiczowa, A. (1988) Erste Gemeinschaften der Linienbandkeramikkultur auf Polnischem Boden. Zeitschrift für Archäologie. 23: 137-182. Last, J. (1998) The Residue of Yesterday’s Existence: Settlement Space and Discard at Miskovice and Bylany. Bylany Varia 1: 17-46. Lenneis, E. (1992) Vorbericht Über die Ausgrabungen 1988 - 1991 der Linearbandkeramischen Siedlung in Rosenburg im Kamptal, Niederösterreich, Archaeologia Austriaca 76: 19-37. Lenneis, E. (1997) Houseforms of the Central European Linearpottery Culture and of the Balkan Early Neolithic - a Comparison. Poročilo o Raziskovanju Paleolitika, Neolitika in Eneolitika v Sloveniji. 24: 143-149. Lenneis, E. (2001 a) The Beginning of the Neolithic in Austria - a Report About Recent and Current Investigations. Documenta Praehistorica. 27: 99-116. Lenneis, E. (2001b) Ein Bandkeramischer Großbau aus Mold bei Horn, Niederösterreich, in Seinem Europäischen Kontext. Tagungsakte 9. Österreichischer Archäologentag, Salzburg. pp. 135137. Lenneis, E. (2002, in press) Ein Bandkeramischer Großbau aus Mold bei Horn, Niederösterreich, IN: Gedenkschrift für Viera Nemecková-Pavúková, Studia Honoraria. Lenneis, E. (2004, in prep) Zu Einigen Wesentlichen Merkmalen der Keramik aus Brunn. IN: P. Stadler

are there other reasons? This is an interesting and still open question, to be solved in the future. References Banffý, E. (2000a) The late Starčevo and the Earliest Linear Pottery Groups in Western Transdanubia, Documenta Praehistorica 27: 173-186. Banffý, E. (2000b) Neue Daten zur Entstehung der Bandkeramik, IN: S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (ed) Karanovo III. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa. pp. Wien. 375-382. Boelicke, U. (1981) Gruben und Häuser: Untersuchungen zur Struktur Bandkeramischer Hofplätze. IN: Siedlungen der Kultur mit Linearkeramik in Europa. Internationales Kolloquium Nové Vozokany 1981, Nitra. pp. 17-28. Domborócky, L. (1997) Füzesabony – Gubakút. Neolithic Village from the 6th Millennium B.C. IN: P. Raczky; T. Kovacs and A. Anders (eds) Paths Into the Past. Rescue Excavations on the M3 Motorway. Budapest. pp. 19-46. Domborócky, L. (2001) The Excavation at Füzesabony – Gubakút. IN: R. Kertész and J. Makkay (eds) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Proceedings of the International Archaeological Conferenceconference Held in Szolnok 1996. Budapest. pp. 193-214. Gronenborn, D. (1997) Silexartefakte der Ältestbandkeramischen Kultur. Universitätsforschungen zur 156

EVA LENNEIS: ARCHITECTURE AND SETTLEMENT STRUCTURE OF THE EARLYLINEAR POTTERY CULTURE

Korrespondenzblatt 29: 169-187. Tichý, R. (1962) Osídlení s Volutovou Keramikou na Moravě. Památky Archeologické. 55: 245-305.

(ed) Bilddatenbank „Montelius“ zur Erstellung Einer Dynamischen Typologie als Ausgangspunkt für Relativchronologie durch Seriation und Analyse des Nächsten Nachbarn. Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission. Lenneis, E. and Lüning, J. (2001) Die Altbandkeramischen Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 82, R. Habelt, Bonn. 14 Lenneis, E. and Stadler, P. (2002) C-Daten und Seriation Altbandkeramischer Inventare Archeologické Rozhledy 54: 191 – 201. Lenneis, E.; Stadler,P. and Windl,H. (1996) Neue 14CDaten zum Frühneolithikum in Österreich Préhistoire Européenne 8: 97-116. Lüning, J. (1997) Wohin mit der Bandkeramik? Programmatische Bemerkungen zu Einem Allgemeinen Problem am Beispiel Hessens. IN: Chronos - Festschrift B.Hänsel. Modderman, P.J.R. (1972) Die Hausbauten und Siedlungen der Linearbandkeramik in Ihrem Westlichen Bereich. Fundamenta A/3, Teil Va, Köln. Modderman, P.J.R. (1986) On the Typology of Houseplans and their European Setting. IN: I. Pavlů; J. Rulf, J. and M. Zápotocká (eds) Theses on the Neolithic Site of Bylany. Památky Archeologické. 77: 383-394. Pavlů, I. (1998) Linear Pottery Settlement Area of the Miskovice 2 Site (Distr. Kutná Hora), Bylany Varia 1: 53-82. Pavlů, I. (2000) Life on a Neolithic Site. Bylany – Situational Analysis of Artefacts. Praha. Pavúk, J. (1986) Linearkeramische Großbauten aus Čataj Slovenská Archaelogia. 34(2): 365-382. Reinecke, K. (1983) Zwei Siedlungen der Ältesten Linearbandkeramik aus dem Isartal, Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 48. Stadler, P. (1999 a) http://www.nhmwien.ac.at/NHM/Praehist/stadler/brunn Stadler, P. (1999 b) Die Älterlinearbandkeramische Fundstelle von Brunn am Gebirge, Flur Wolfholz (5620-5200 v.Chr.) [text for an exhibition in Brunn]. Stäuble, H. (1994, in press) Häuser und Absolute Datierung. Unpublished Master of Science Dissertation, Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie, Universität Frankfurt, Mainz. Stäuble, H. (1997) Häuser, Gruben und Fundverteilung, IN: J. Lüning (ed) Ein Siedlungsplatz der Ältesten Bandkeramik in Bruchenbrücken, Stadt Friedberg/ Hessen. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 39. pp. 17-150. Stäuble, H. (2001) Strögen, Die Häuser und Gruben. IN: E. Lenneis and J. Lüning Die Altbandkeramischen Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 82. R. Habelt, Bonn. pp. 425-439. Stäuble, H. and Lüning, J. (1999) Phosphatanalysen in Bandkeramischen Häusern, Archäologisches

157

158

BONE INDUSTRY MORAVIA

OF THE

LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE (LBK)

AT

VEDROVICE,

Tomáš Berkovec, Gabriela Dreslerová, Miriam Nývltová-Fišáková, Jarmila Švédová Abstract Since bone tools are rare at many early LBK sites, the main purpose of this contribution is to introduce the range of LBK bone tools found at the site of Vedrovice in Moravia. The collection comprises more than 270 artifacts, of which 90 are complete tools and 180 are tool fragments. The collection has been divided into bone industry found in the Široká u lesa and Za dvorem sections of the settlement as well as the two associated cemeteries. Since the collection does not appear to have significantly varied over the course of LBK settlement, the entire assemblage was examined as a whole, irrespective of individual LBK settlement phases. The bone assemblage was examined in terms of three major divisions: practical implements (including awls, scrapers, polishers, handles, grinders, antler adzes, knives and hooks), decorative implements (including pendants and buckles) and finally miscellaneous implements (including antler tools and bone pins). Examination revealed that the entire bone tool collection is not only characteristic of the Linear Band Pottery culture, but also the general European Neolithic period.

A large variety of artifacts have been found at the site, ranging from a rich collection of ceramics, daub and stone tools, to osteological materials including bone tools. Due to its range and size, the osteological collection undoubtedly presents a unique opportunity to explore the bone tool industry of the LBK. As a result, the main purpose of this contribution is to introduce the range of LBK tools found at Vedrovice, which comprises more than 270 artifacts of which 90 are complete tools and 180 are tool fragments. The collection has been divided into bone industry found at the settlement sections Široká u lesa and Za dvorem, in comparison to the bone industry identified at the two cemeteries. Each of these has been examined in terms of three major divisions: practical implements (including awls, scrapers, polishers, handles, grinders, antler adzes, knives and hooks), decorative implements (including pendants and buckles) and finally miscellaneous implements (including antler tools and bone pins). Since the collection does not appear to have significantly varied over the course of LBK occupation, the entire assemblage was examined as a whole, irrespective of individual LBK settlement phases.

Introduction The site of Vedrovice (region Znojmo) was excavated between 1961 and 2000 by the Archeology Department of the Moravské Zemské Muzeum in Brno. Vladimír Ondruš led the excavations between 1961-1989, and Alena Humpolová between 1996-2000. The Vedrovice site comprises several sections, which were arbitrarily assigned during excavation. The settlement portion of the site spans across the Široká u lesa and Za dvorem sections, and also includes several enclosures. One cemetery was identified in the Široká u lesa section, hereafter referred to as the Široká u lesa cemetery, and was excavated between 1975-1982. A second burial ground, possibly a younger cemetery, was identified in the Za dvorem section of the site. A critical evaluation of both funerary areas has recently been completed (Podborský 2002). Analysis revealed that the Široká u lesa cemetery (excavated between 1975-1982) was primarily used between phase Ib and IIa of the LBK culture, using the chronology devised by Tichý (1962) – the end of the early LBK and the onset of the classical LBK.

Typological distinctions made during the course of the study were compared with the results obtained by Ondruš (1967), who established the bone tool typology for Moravia. These comparisons resulted in the identification of new tool types, and several amendments to the accepted Moravian bone tool typology.

Both the settlement and the burial grounds were founded on loess outcrops south east of the Krumlov Forest foothills. The Široká u lesa inhumation cemetery was located 275m above sea level. Nearly 200m to the south, and 270m above sea level, lay the northern edge of the enclosed settlement, primarily used in phase IIa. Aerial photography1 and surface collections2 indicate occupation of the site began in the early LBK phase Ib1 (sub-phases Ib1 and Ib2 defined by Čižmář 2002: 151 – 190) and continued up to the end of the LBK period. The settlement itself however, had a tendency to stay within the boundaries of the enclosed area. Nevertheless, settlement features have also been identified southeast of this enclosure, and recent research has indicated the unexpected presence of the earliest LBK (phase Ia) culture in this area outside the enclosure. The quantity of features rapidly decrease as the elevation drops down to the Kubšický river floodplain (245 m a.s.l.). 1 2

Bone Artifacts from Settlement Sections “Široká u lesa” and “Za dvorem” 1. Practical Implements 1.1 Awls (135 tools) This group of tools has the highest representation in the assemblage. Their manufacture was restricted strictly to domestic sheep/goat bones of the species Ovis ammon f. aries / capra aegagrus f. hircus. Especially variants A and B, which were only made from the lengthwise split bones of ovis/capra. Bone joints, when found preserved,

Photographic materials made available by M. Bálek. Surface collection conducted by V. Ondruš.

159

LBK DIALOGUES

2.2 cm) display a sharp distinction between the concave point and the body of the tool.

had been left in the original state (unworked). Signs of wear, and polish are present infrequently. Bone Type Metapodium Os longa Tibia Ulna Costae Indeterminate

Quantity 63 14 13 1 1 38

Body Point

Body Point

37.51%

Cross Section Shape “I”

Indetermin ate

35.95% 46.87%

6.25% 15.62%

Body Point

20% 20%

20% 20%

Atypical Awls – Variant F (39 tools) Tools in this category vary greatly. Some were manufactured from bone fragments or splinters (ulna - 2 tools, costae - 1 tool; and various poorly split hollow bones). 1.2 Scrapers (40 tools) This category of tools is characterized by a flat crosssection in the shape of an “I” with the thickness ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 cm. Scrapers manufactured from split costae have a characteristic bent body. The inside of the arch was carefully smoothed, and the often present diagonal or cross-wise marks represent signs of wear. Cancellous bone is sometimes visible on the exterior side of the arch.

Awls with a relatively short and convex point – Variant B (14 tools) (Fig.1:5). These tools were made in the same way as the afore mentioned awls, that is, from split hollow bones. The tool dimensions varied from an overall length of 5.3 to 9 cm; and length of the point from 0.2 to 1.6 cm. 57 % of the tools in this category do not exceed a point length of 0.8 cm. Cross Cross Section Section Shape “O” Shape “I” 21.43% 28.57% 35.71%

Indetermin ate

Awls with a “V” cross-section of the body – Variant E (3 tools) The cross-section of tools in this category always resembles a “V”. The overall length of the tool ranges from 4.9 to 9.8 cm.

Table 2: Cross-section shapes associated with awl variant A.

Cross Section Shape “C“ 78.57% 14.28%

60%

Cross Section Shape “I”

Awls with a flattened point – Variant D (1 tool) This tool was found in several fragments. The body and point display a flat cross-section, and slightly convex point. The overall length of the tool is 4.8 cm, and the point length is 0.1 cm.

Awls with a relatively long and narrow point - Variant A (68 tools) (Fig. 1:1-4). Within this group of tools, a precise distinction between the point and the actual body of the awl cannot be made. Overall lengths of the implement itself (4.7 to 12.6 cm) versus the point (0.7 to 5.2 cm) vary greatly. This group of tools represents not only the most common, but also the longest tool type on the site. It is also the most widely distributed bone tool of the LBK culture (compare Štúrovo (Pavúk 1994: 128, Fig. 52: 1-13), Roztoky (Rulf 1984: 242-244, Fig.1: 1-3; 8-9; 11-12), Kreuzenberg bei Kreuzbach (Bernard and Czepluch 1987: 437-442, Fig.1: 1-4). Cross Section Shape “O”

Cross Section Shape “O”

Table 4: Cross-section shapes associated with awl variant C.

Table 1: Overview of Ovis ammon f. aries / capra aegagrus f. hircus bones used for awl manufacture.

Cross Section Shape “C” 57.80%

Cross Section Shape “C” 60%

Species Bos primigenius f. taurus Indeterminate Indeterminate Indeterminate

Indetermin ate

Bone Type Costae Scapula Metapodium os longa Costae Indeterminate

Quantity 4 2 1 3 29 1

Table 5: Overview of species and bone types used in the manufacture of scrapers.

21.44 %

Table 3: Cross-section shapes associated with awl variant B.

Scraper lengths range from 5.5 to 11.7 cm, with fragments between 4.6 and 14.6 cm. Detailed categorization of scrapers was compromised by the high level of fragmentation of these tools. Categories identified in the assemblage are described below. (Fig. 2:5-7; Fig. 3:1-5; Fig. 4:1-4).

Awls with a short and concave point – Variant C (9 tools) (Fig. 1:6-7). Tools in this category suffered from poor preservation. Points with cross-section shape “O” (point length 0.7 to

160

TOMÁŠ BERKOVEC, GABRIELA DRESLEROVÁ, MIRIAM NÝVLTOVÁ-FIŠÁKOVÁ, JARMILA ŠVÉDOVÁ: BONE INDUSTRY

Fig. 1: Awls. 1-4: variant A; 5: variant B; 6-7: variant C; 8: variant D. From Široká u lesa settlement features excavated between 1961-1974: 1- Feature O 105, S25/26; 2- Feature O97; 3- Feature O31-D; 4- Feature O93, inv. # V18686; 5- Feature O38, S 8; 6- Feature O120, S 25B; 7- Feature O11/II, inv. # V5451, 8- Feature O27, inv. # V15283. Drawn by Alena Komendová. 161

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 2: Awls and Scrapers. 1-5: awls; 5-7: scraper fragments (1-2: variant A, 3-4: irregular variants). From Široká u lesa settlement features excavated between 1961-19741: 1-Feature O101A; 2- Feature O39; 3- Feature O32, inv. # V5781; 4- Feature O39C; 5- Feature O67, inv. # V17257; 6- Feature O72, inv. # V17849; 7- Feature O 11/III, inv. # V7432. Drawn by Alena Komendová.

162

TOMÁŠ BERKOVEC, GABRIELA DRESLEROVÁ, MIRIAM NÝVLTOVÁ-FIŠÁKOVÁ, JARMILA ŠVÉDOVÁ: BONE INDUSTRY

divided into three main groups of scrapers: straight, oval and pointed. The boundaries between these groups tend to blur, depending on the degree of use wear.

One Sided Scrapers (6 tools) Triangular Scrapers(1 tool ) (Fig. 3:3-5; Fig. 4:1-4). The tool has a length of 11.7 cm, width of 4.8 cm, and thickness of 0.7 cm. The shape is a result of the anatomical properties associated with the scapula of Bos primigenius f. taurus from which it was made (feature O57-B).

Amongst the blanks (3 tools), it is interesting to note the presence of an artifact 8.2 cm in length bearing cut marks. Considering the thickness of the scrapers (from 0.2 to 0.3 cm), it is unlikely that these tools were used under significant pressure. These tools were probably used in pottery manufacture, to finish the vessel surface. However, future chemical and use wear analyses will confirm their true function.

Pointed Scrapers (2 tools) The first tool in this category had the following dimensions: length – 8.9 cm; width – 1.7 cm; thickness – 0.3 cm. It was found in feature O89, and appears to have been manufactured from the costae of Bos primigenius f. taurus (?) (Fig. 3:4). The other tool was found in feature O119-S12, and was 14.9 cm long, 1.4 cm wide, 0.3 cm thick and was made from the metapodia of Bos primigenius f. taurus (Fig. 4:3).

1.3 Polishers (29 tools) Tools in this category were made both from bones (26 tools) and from antlers (3 tools) of larger dimensions (Fig. 5:1-5). One or more sides of the tool were used, and gradually polished along the entire length of the tool (7 to 12.3 cm). Cross-section shapes “D”, “I” and “O” resulted from both the bone anatomy, and the use of the tool. 78.8 % of tools in this category are less than 0.6 cm thick. The species used for blanks in this category could not be identified (2 tools). Tool length varied from 6.7 to 8.0cm.

Cut-off Scrapers (1 tool). This tool was 8.2 cm long, with the width of one side 1.5 cm and the width of the other side 1.1 cm. The tool thickness was 0.3 cm. The tool was found in feature O89 and was manufactured from the costae of Bos primigenius f. Taurus(?) (Fig. 3:5). Oval edged Scrapers (1 tool). The tool was 9.0 cm long, 1.9 cm wide and 0.1 cm thick. It was found in feature O98 and was made from the costae of Bos primigenius f. taurus (?) (Fig. 4:4). A similar tool was found in feature 287 at Roztoky (CZ), and was labeled as a “razor-like” scraper (Rulf 1994:244, Fig. 2:5,9; and Fig. 3:2).

Species Ovis ammon f. aries/ Capra aegagrus f. hircus Sus scrofa f. domestica Indeterminate Bos primigenius f. Taurus Capreolus capreolus Indeterminate Indeterminate Bos primigenius f. Taurus Indeterminate Ovis ammon f. aries/Capra aegagrus f. hircus Bos primigenius f. Taurus Capreolus capreolus Cervus elaphus Indeterminate Indeterminate

Combination Scrapers (1 tool) This tool had both a pointed and a square edge. It was 13.4 cm long, with the square edge 1.7 cm long and the pointed edge 2.7 cm long. The tool thickness was 0.2 cm. It was found in feature O89 and was manufactured from the costae of Bos primigenius f. taurus (?) (Fig. 4:2). Feature 287 at Roztoky (CZ) yielded a similar tool, interpreted as an awl made from the scapula of Bos primigenius f. taurus (?) (Rulf 1991: 258, Fig. 2:3). Two Sided Scrapers (2 tools) (Fig. 2:5, 7; Fig. 3:1-2).

Bone Costae

Quantity 1

Costae Costae Tibia Tibia Tibia os longa Metapodium Metapodium Humerus

2 7 1 1 1 7 1 1 1

Humerus Cornu Cornu Cornu Indeterminate

1 1 1 1 2

Table 6: Species and bones used in the production of polishers.

Oval edged Scrapers (1 tool). The tool length was 10.5 cm, width 1.7 cm, and thickness 0.2 cm. It was found in feature O51-B and was manufactured from the costae of Bos primigenius f. taurus (?) (Fig. 3:2).

1.4 Handles (3 tools) This category of tools was mainly manufactured from the bones of Ovis ammon f. aries/Capra aegagrus f. hircus. Cancellous bone was carefully removed from the body of the tool. The joint was left intact at one end of the tool, but removed from the other and smoothed off. One of the three tools in this group was perforated.

Combination Scrapers (1 tool). This tool had one pointed and one cut-off edge. The tool length was 10.7 cm, width 2.0 cm and width of the cutoff edge 1.7 cm. The tool thickness was 0.3 cm. The tool was found in feature O164 and was manufactured from the costae of Bos primigenius f. taurus (?) (Fig. 3:1).

Experiments have confirmed the function of some tools in this category as handles for borers (Ondruš 1967, Fig. 38:1, 5 and Fig. 39:2, 5).

The various fragmented tools in this category can be 163

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 3: Scrapers. 1-2: two sided scrapers; 3-5: one sided scrapers. From Za dvorem settlement features excavated between 1985-1989: 1- Feature O164. From Široká u lesa settlement features excavated between 1961-1974: 2Feature O51B, inv.# V15594; 3- Feature O57B, inv. # V16767; 4- Feature O89, inv. # V18484; 5- Feature O89, inv. # V18478. Drawn by Alena Komendová.

164

TOMÁŠ BERKOVEC, GABRIELA DRESLEROVÁ, MIRIAM NÝVLTOVÁ-FIŠÁKOVÁ, JARMILA ŠVÉDOVÁ: BONE INDUSTRY

Fig. 4: One sided scrapers. From Široká u lesa settlement features excavated between 1961-1974: 1- Feature O31D; 2- Feature O89; 3- Feature O119, S 12; 4- Feature O98. Drawn by Alena Komendová. a necklace. Similar implements have been identified amongst spondylus necklaces, found not only at the Vedrovice cemetery, but also at the settlement Twann in Switzerland (Schibler 1980:42, Fig. 46). The length of the tool was 4.6 cm and the diameter of the body 0.9 cm.

Tool dimensions varied from a length of 9.4 to 13.0 cm, and diameter from 0.4 to 1.3 cm. Simple Tube Handle (1 tool) Made from the tibia of Ovis ammon f. aries/Capra aegagrus f. hircus) (Fig. 6:2). The tool surface was carefully polished. The length was 3.2 cm, and the diameter 1.5 cm.

Cylindrical Handle (1 tool) This tool was made from the cornu of an indeterminate species (Fig. 6:4). The tool was tapered, and cut off at the oval perforation. Similar implements are known from other LBK sites (Štúrovo), and Pavúk (1994:130, Fig. 53:17, 18) interprets them as battleaxes. However since these tools were found without signs of use, the authors suggest their function as a handle instead. The tool’s preserved length was 19.0 cm, with a diameter of 4.3 cm. The perforation was 3.3 x 2.0 cm.

Tube-like Handle with Opening (1 tool) Made from the ulna of Ovis ammon f. aries/Capra aegagrus f. hircus. The shape of this tool resembles the afore mentioned simple tube handle, however one end has a circular cut around 0.3 cm in diameter (Fig. 6:1). This tool has been variously interpreted as a musical instrument (Hrubý 1957:179-180, Fig. 17:2), or as part of 165

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 5: Polishers. From Široká u lesa settlement features excavated between 1961-1974: 1- Feature O11/II, inv. # V6907; 2- Feature O105, S 25/26; 3- Feature O 11/II, inv. # V7693; 4- Feature O89, inv. # V18475; 5- Feature O36. Drawn by Alena Komendová. 1.5 Grinders (2 tools)

1.7 Knives (2 tools)

These tools were manufactured from the metacarpus and metapodium of Bos primigenius f. Taurus (Fig. 8:3). The shape of the tool is completely determined by the anatomical characteristics of the bones used. Grinders do not display fine usewear patterns, only coarsewear patterns on the functional surface. The length of the tools varied between 8.5 to 14.2 cm.

These tools were manufactured from boar tusks (Fig. 10:2). The tusks were split lengthwise resulting in flat disks which maintained the original tusk shape. The narrow concave ends were sharpened to form the cutting edge. Only fragments have been preserved from both the Široká u lesa section of the settlement and the cemetery (grave H79/79). Analogous tools with a similar shape and sharpened edge, have been identified at Aszód in Hungary (Kalicz 1985:142, Fig. 32:2a, 2b), Roztoky in the Czech Republic (Rulf 1984:224, Fig. 2:3), and Twann in Switzerland (Schlibler 1980:41, Fig. 44). Their function however, remains uncertain.

1.6 Antler Adzes (3 tools) These tools comprise modified antlers of Capreolus capreolus (1 tool) and Cervus elaphus (2 tools) (Fig. 8:1) and range in length from 15.0 to 18.3 cm. The wider ends were altered into a rough semicircular shape, and the narrow end was diagonally cut to form a blunt edge. Nacre was left intact, with the exception of the interior side of the arch adjacent to the tip. The narrow ends of the tips contain lengthwise signs of usewear. The function of these tools remains unknown.

1.8 Hooks (1 tool) This tools was undoubtedly manufactured from a tooth (Fig. 8:2). Unfortunately the exact tooth or species of animal used are uncertain. Similar tools have also been identified at other Neolithic sites (LBK – Štúrovo (Pavúk

166

TOMÁŠ BERKOVEC, GABRIELA DRESLEROVÁ, MIRIAM NÝVLTOVÁ-FIŠÁKOVÁ, JARMILA ŠVÉDOVÁ: BONE INDUSTRY

Fig. 6: Handles and Pins (1-4: handles; 5-6: pins). From Široká u lesa settlement features excavated between 19611974: 1- Feature O30, inv. # V5604; 2- Feature O101B; 3- Feature O25B, inv. # 14862; 5- Feature O101B; 6- Feature O66. From Za dvorem settlement features excavated between 1985-1989: 4- Feature O124A. Drawn by Alena Komendová. 167

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 7: Pendants and Buckles (1-8: pendants, 9: buckle). From Široká u lesa settlement features excavated between 1961-1974: 1- Feature O48; 2- Feature O48; 3- Feature O31A, inv. # V14849, 4- Feature O48, inv. # V15523; 5Feature O 11/II, inv. # V5779; 6- Feature O31D, inv. # V14248; 8- Feature O23B; 9- Feature O31C, inv. # 14797. From Za Dvorem settlement features excavated between 1985-1989: 7- Feature O181, Sector A2. Drawn by Alena Komendová. 168

TOMÁŠ BERKOVEC, GABRIELA DRESLEROVÁ, MIRIAM NÝVLTOVÁ-FIŠÁKOVÁ, JARMILA ŠVÉDOVÁ: BONE INDUSTRY

Fig. 8: Adze, Hook and Grinder (1: shoe-last adze; 2: hook; 3: grinder). From Široká u lesa settlement features excavated between 1961-1974: 1- Feature O55, inv. # V15889; 2- Feature O1; 3- Feature O31D, inv. # V14247. Drawn by Alena Komendová. Animal Teeth Pendants (7 items) (Fig. 7:1-3, 7) These pendants were made from the teeth of: Canis lupus f. domesticus (1 caninus pendant, 1 incisivus pendant) (Fig. 7:2); Castor fiber (1 incisivus pendant) (Fig. 7:3) and Sus scrofa f. domestica (4 caninus pendants). Pendants made from the teeth of Sus scrofa f. domestica (Fig. 7:1,7), were made from the larger part of the boar tusk lamella. A pendant made from the caninus of a young female Sus scrofa contained a biconical perforation (Fig. 7:7). One of these pendants was drilled from both sides. Similar pendants have been identified at the settlement Twann in Switzerland (Schibler 1980:41, Fig. 44). The maximum length of pendants was 5 cm.

1994:128, Fig. 52:18, 19, 25), Lengyel – Friebritz (Neugebauer et al 1983:93). The hook was 3.9 cm high and 0.4 to 0.5 cm thick, tapering to the tip. 2. Decorative Implements 2.1 Pendants (14 items) To make the process of perforation easier, the area to be drilled was first flattened. Either there was an exact duplication of the tools used for drilling, or a very small range of tools was used repeatedly, since the diameters only vary from 0.3 to 0.4 cm. 169

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 2:8 and Rulf 1991:257, Fig. 3:6) wherein feature 245 yielded an item similar in appearance, but which Rulf (1984, 1991) interpreted as an S-shaped tool used for net weaving. The item was made from antler (diameter of 1.6 cm and length of 8.1 cm). The preserved edge was unfinished (without an incision) and the other damaged. A similar tool was also found in grave 1/84 at Eilsleben in Germany (Kaufmann 1986:246, Fig. 5b).

Unworked Bone Pendants (5 items) Pendants made from the metatarsus of Vulpes vulpes (Fig. 7:4), contained a perforation on the distal part of the bone (3 pendants). The joint was left intact and unworked (i.e. in the natural state). The Cartaillod Culture at Twann made similar implements from the metatarsus of Canis familiaris, often interpreted as hunting amulets (Schiller et. Al. 1997: 175-176). Another pendant in this category was made from the humerus of Lepus europaneus (1 pendant), and the os longa of an indeterminate species (1 pendant).

3. Miscellaneous Implements 3.1 Antler (1 item)

Worked Bone Pendants (3 items). This category encompasses a “J” shaped pendant made from the costae of Sus scrofa f. domestica (Fig. 7:6). It was 8.5 cm high and 0.3 to 0.9 cm wide). The thicker portion (thickness – 0.9 cm) was found perforated, and broken in the area of the perforation. The perforation is biconical and at a diameter of – 0.5 cm, almost matches the width of the entire pendant (0.6 cm). The pendant tapers gradually toward the opposite end. The entire surface was carefully smoothed with the cancellous bone removed from the exterior of the arch.

This artifact was made from the cornu of Cervus elaphus (Fig. 9:3). The antler was formed into an oval with the cancellous bone removed. The item has the following dimensions: edge “A”: exterior diameter – 5.6 cm, interior area - 4.0 x 2.9 cm; edge “B”: exterior diameter – 5.8 cm, interior area – 3.5 x 2.4 cm; with an overall artifact height of 5.7 cm. Edges “A” and “B” were cut conically. Nacre was left intact. Two opposing oval incisions were made into the tapered edges of the artifact, but only one was actually completed (1.2 x 0.9 cm). Morphologically similar artifacts are known from Twann where the phalanx of Cervus elaphus were perforated on the medial and lateral side, in direct opposition of each other (Schibler 1980:41, Fig. 42). They have been interpreted as buckles.

Another pendant in this category was made from the os longa of an indeterminate species and has cross-section shape “O” (Fig. 7:8). Its preserved length is 4.4 cm and the diameter is 1.2 cm. The perforation diameter is 0.6 cm. Only the base of the pendant was preserved.

3.2 Pins (2 items) The final implement in this category involves a pendant blank found at the site. It was 6.1 cm long and 0.3 to 0.5 cm thick. It is in the shape of a semi-circle and was made from the tibia of an indeterminate species (Fig. 7:5). It also contained two perforations 0.7 cm apart, and with a diameter of 0.3 to 0.4 cm. Only the upper perforation was completed, with the lower perforation only sunk up to a depth of 0.1 cm. The body of the pendant is tapered from the center out.

These items were made from the os longa of an indeterminate species (Fig. 6:5-6). A high degree of wear is evident on the implements. One of the implements in this category has an overall length of 7.5 cm, cross-section shape “O” and a diameter of 0.6 cm. The diameter at the edge varies from 0.2 to 0.3 cm. The other artifact in this category was only partially preserved, with a length of 6.6 cm, cross-section shape “O” and diameter of 0.7 cm. Similar items were also found at the LBK settlement Štúrovo, (Pavúk 1994:128, Fig. 53:1, 3). However, the functional purpose of these items remains uncertain.

2.2 Buckles (1 item) The buckle found in feature O31-C was made from a thoroughly polished cornu of Capreolus capreolus (Fig. 7:9). The buckle is 7 cm long, and the 1.6 cm diameter of the body tapers from the center outward to reach 1.2 cm near edge “A”. Although the cancellous bone was removed in this section of the buckle, the surface was otherwise unfinished. The diameter near edge “B” reaches 0.8 cm, and 0.3 cm near the incision which was made into the arch. Ondruš (1967:59-60) compared the shape of the buckle with the beak of a goose. A similar buckle was also found in grave H7/88 at the Za dvorem cemetery (discussed below) (Podborský et al. 2002:109, Fig. 115:1).

Osteological Analysis of Bone Artifacts from Settlement Sections “Široká u lesa” and “Za dvorem” During the osteological analysis, emphasis was placed on the identification of species, and whenever possible, also the age of the animal from which the bone tools were made. Dimensions were not considered, due to the high degree of wear on most of the implements. Most tools made from the bones of Bos primigenius f. taurus, and involved individuals older than 4 years of age, with the exception of one bone tool displaying unfused epiphysis of the humerus, and therefore from an individual less than 3.5 years of age.

Similar implements are known from other LBK sites. One of these is the site Roztoky u Prahy (Rulf 1984:244,

170

TOMÁŠ BERKOVEC, GABRIELA DRESLEROVÁ, MIRIAM NÝVLTOVÁ-FIŠÁKOVÁ, JARMILA ŠVÉDOVÁ: BONE INDUSTRY

Species

Proportion (%) 34.05

Tool Type

Bone Used

Awls

Bos primigenius f. Taurus

5.4

Cervus elaphus Sus scrofa f. domestica Capreolus capreolus Sus scrofa Canis lupus f. domesticus Castor fiber Lepus europaneus Vulpes vulpes Indeterminate Indeterminate

3.62 2.52 2.16 0.72 0.72 0.36 0.36 1.08 0.36 48.65

Grinder Polisher Handle, scraper Scraper Polisher, shoe-last adze Polisher Polisher, shoe-last adze Knife, pendant Pendant Pendant Pendant Pendant Hook (fish hook)

Metapodium Tibia ulna, humerus et femur Costae Metapodium os longa, humerus Tibia metapodium, scapula et costae Cornu Costae Cornu Caninus Caninus Caninus Humerus Metatarsus Dens

Ovis ammon f. aries/ Capra aegagrus f. hircus

Table 7: Overview of species and tools represented in the bone tool assemblage.

Fig. 9: Awl blanks and Antler artifacts (1-2 awls blanks; 3 antler artifact). From Široká u lesa settlement features excavated between 1961-1974: 1- Feature O 37; 2- Feature O11, inv. # V10933; 3- Feature O72, inv. # V17850. Drawn by Alena Komendová.

171

LBK DIALOGUES

preserved awl. The body of the tool was present, but the pencil-shaped point had broken off and was missing (Dimensions: length – 4.2 cm; body cross-section shape “C”; point cross-section shape “O”).

Tools made from the bones of Ovis ammon f. aries/Capra aegagrus f. hircus indicate at least 21 individuals younger than 20 months of age, and 3 additional individuals younger than 15 months of age. The large quantity of tools made from the limbs of this species can be explained by their anatomy. There is very little meat on the limbs, and they are too small to break open for marrow. It is interesting to note that the limbs of meatier species were rarely used to make implements, and instead their less meaty parts such as shoulder blades, ribs, antlers or teeth were used.

1.2 Knives (1 tool) Male burial H79/79 yielded a disk made from the dens of Sus scrofa. Both ends had been sharpened, with one side filed into a cutting edge. This tool had a square crosssection (Dimensions: length – 5.4 cm, width – 2.0 cm, thickness – 0.3 cm).

Larger animals such as Bos primigenius f. taurus and Sus scrofa f. domestica were processed completely, and very little remained for use in bone tool manufacture.

2. Decorative Implements 2.1 Pendants (3 items)

The bones of fur bearing animals such as dog, fox and beaver were used to make various pendants, perhaps as hunting trophies (?).

As was done with pendants on the settlement, pendants found at the cemeteries were also filed prior to perforation. It is interesting to note that pendants were only placed in the burials of men between the ages of 20 and 45 years of age (Fig. 10:4-6).

As is the case with Bos primigenius f. taurus and Sus scrofa f. domestica, wild animals suitable for consumption such as boar, roe and red deer were processed completely, and with the exception of the antlers, very little remained for bone tool manufacture.

Grave H19/75 yielded a circular pendant made from the os longa of an indeterminate species (dimensions: length – 6.7 cm; thickness – 1.4 cm; perforation diameter - 0.3 cm). One side had been perforated and fractured in the area of a flattened oval cut (cross-section “I”). The opposing side is thicker (cross-section shape “O”) with the longer side oriented diagonally from the long side of the opposite perforation. A similar pendant was found alongside this one in the same grave, but made out of spondylus and with only one perforation.

Bone Artifacts from the Cemeteries “Široká u lesa” and “Za dvorem” The Široká u lesa and Za dvorem cemeteries yielded a total of 12 bone and antler tools: 4 awls; 3 pendants; 5 buckles, and 1 small knife (?) made from the dens of Sus scrofa. Unfortunately, the entire collection suffers from poor preservation.

Grave H76/79 also yielded a circular pendant, but made from antler and carefully polished (dimensions: length 13.3 cm; thickness - 2.4 cm; perforation diameter – 0.4 cm). The rounded surface was flattened from both sides, and still contained some cancellous bone. A biconical perforation had been placed approximately 1 cm from the edge.

1. Practical Implements 1.1 Awls These are the only worked tools which also served as grave goods.

The last implement in this category was found in grave H88/80 and was made from the os longa of an indeterminate species (dimensions: length -6.0 cm; diameter – 1.2 cm, perforation diameter – 0.3 cm). The pendant is pendulum shaped with body cross-section shape”O“. The implement had been carefully polished. There is slight tapering in the area of the arch, with a biconical perforation near one edge.

Awls with a relatively long and narrow point – Variant A (3 tools) These tools were only found in male burials. Only one tool in this category was preserved complete (dimensions: length – 9.4 cm; body cross-section shape “C”, point cross-section shape “I”). It was found in grave H69/78 (Fig. 10:1), and was made from the metapodia of Ovis ammon f. aries/Capra aegagrus f. hircus. The remaining two tools in this category were only partially preserved, often with most of the body missing. The awl in grave H12/74 had the point intact (dimensions: length – 3.7 cm; point cross-section shape “C”) as did the awl in grave H2/85 (dimensions: length 6.3 cm; point cross-section “I”).

2.2 Buckles (5 items) Grave H71/79 of a male individual, yielded a buckle made from antler with a broken tip (dimensions: length – 6.5 cm; body cross-section shape “O”). Cancellous bone had been removed from the wider end, up to a depth of 1.2 cm. The opening encompasses an oval edge with an approximate diameter of 0.5 cm, and a distinctive

Awls with a short and concave point – Variant C (1 tool) Grave H18/75 yielded a child burial and this partially

172

TOMÁŠ BERKOVEC, GABRIELA DRESLEROVÁ, MIRIAM NÝVLTOVÁ-FIŠÁKOVÁ, JARMILA ŠVÉDOVÁ: BONE INDUSTRY

Fig. 10: Bone tools from the Široká u lesa cemetery (1: awl-variant A; 2: knife; 3: buckle; 4-6 buckles. From graves excavated in the Široká u lesa cemetery between 1975-1982: 1- Grave H69/78, inv. # Ve 13156; 2- Grave H79/79, inv. # Ve 13186; 3- Grave H77/79, inv. # Ve 13176; 4- Grave H76/79, inv. # Ve 13172; 5- Grave H19/75, inv. # Ve 13031; 6- Grave H19/75, inv. # Ve 13030. Drawn by Alena Komendová. The final implement in this category was placed in the grave of a young woman (H8/88). This item had been made into an unusual round shape from the cornu of Capreolus capreolus (dimensions: length – 6.7 cm; point cross-section shape “I”, body cross-section shape “O”). Due to its shape, this item may have served as a buckle (pin?). Although the surface was poorly preserved, some sections indicate careful polishing.

usewear pattern. Unfortunately the actual surface has been poorly preserved. Male grave H77/79 also yielded an antler buckle fragment (dimensions: length – 8.2 cm; diameter – 1.6 cm; body cross-section shape “O”). This implement had been widened at one end, and lengthwise cut up to the cancellous bone. The tip and widened end indicate lengthwise drilling. Preserved segments of the surface suggest careful polishing.

Conclusion Geological conditions at Vedrovice were suitable for the preservation of a large quantity of osteological materials, including bone tools. The opposite is true for example at Bylany where the osteological material is extremely fragmented and significantly limits possibilities of species identification. Furthermore, no bone tools were identified at Bylany. As a result, the main objective of this paper has been to introduce the nature of the various bone tools preserved at Vedrovice.

Female grave H7/88 yielded a circular buckle made from the tine of Capreolus capreolus (Dimensions: length – 3.9 cm; diameter – 0.8 cm; incision length – 0.4 cm; body cross-section “O”). An incision had been made into the shorter end. As before, preserved segments of the surface suggest careful polishing. Female grave H10/89 also yielded a buckle, but this one had been made from the cornu of Capreolus capreolus (dimensions: length 5.1 cm, diameter – 0.6 cm; body cross-section “O”. This buckle has a distinctive wide open “V” shape. As with the previous buckle, an incision had been made into one side.

The bone tool assemblage was divided into bone industry found at the settlement sections Široká u lesa and Za dvorem, and compared with the bone industry found at 173

LBK DIALOGUES

the two associated cemeteries. Examination revealed the entire bone tool collection is not only characteristic of the Linear Band Pottery culture, but also the general European Neolithic period. These characteristics include the dominance of practical tools, the morphology of which is largely determined by the intended function and actual use of the tool. Comparisons between tools were made in terms of three major divisions: practical implements (including awls, scrapers, polishers, handles, grinders, antler adzes, knives and hooks), decorative implements (including pendants and buckles) and finally miscellaneous implements (including antler tools and bone pins).

of its higher durability.

Practical implements form the largest collection of tools in the Vedrovice bone industry, with awls the most common at 34% of the entire bone tool assemblage. In fact, awl variant A represents the highest represented tool type and also the most common tool of the LBK, which was present both at the settlement and in the two cemeteries both at Vedrovice and elsewhere. Awls were made exclusively from the bones of Ovis ammon f. aries/Capra aegagrus f. hircus.

Similarly, different buckle types seem to have been used at the settlement versus the cemeteries. On the settlement, each buckle was made to be unique and individual. Funerary buckles on the other hand have a more unified character. Furthermore, antler buckles occur exclusively in male burials, which came to be encircled by additional burials in later phases of the LBK.

Comparisons between the settlement sections Široká u lesa and Za dvorem, with the two associated cemeteries indicate different practices. It appears as thought the world of the living had been kept separate from the world of the dead. Several tools are common on the settlement, but absent in the cemeteries. These include pendants made from the metatarsus of Vulpes vulpes and pendants made from various animal teeth. In this respect, it is interesting to consider the similarity of appearance between animal teeth pendants and bone pendants, such that the latter may be an attempt to imitate the former.

Finally, the cemeteries contain a large number of bone beads and spondylus jewelry, which are missing at the settlement. Indications of their manufacture are also absent on the settlement. On the contrary, awls (variant A) and boar tusks may have served as a link between the two “worlds,” since they are present on both the settlement and in the cemeteries.

The next most common practical implements were scrapers. Unfortunately their relatively high degree of fragmentation does not permit additional conclusions regarding their nature, even though in most cases at least half of the tool was preserved.

Thus far, very little reference has been made to the possible functions of most of the above mentioned bone tools. This is in large part due to incomplete analyses. Future chemical and usewear analyses will significantly improve the state of knowledge of these tools, and what their makers used them for.

The morphology of polishers was largely determined not only by the intended function but also the actual use of the tool. These practical implements were common not only to the LBK, but also in other post-Neolithic cultures. Knives made from boar tusks fall into the final group of practical implements. Unfortunately, their purpose remains uncertain. The second category of bone tools comprises decorative implements. Most items in this category fall under the category of pendants. Most pendants were filed to facilitate easier perforation. The tools used for perforation at the site must have been made to exacting specifications, since the perforation diameters fall within the narrow range of 0.3 to 0.4 cm. In most cases, perforation was completed only from one side. In addition to pendants made from animal teeth, some pendants were also made from worked bones, the metatarsus of Vulpes vulpes in particular, resulting in unique individual pendants. There are some suggestions that these items served as hunting talismans. Most of the bone tools at Vedrovice were made from domestic as opposed to wild animal bones. This tendency is familiar from other LBK sites, and can perhaps be attributed to the easier access, and regular supply of domestic bones as opposed to bones and antlers of wild animals. The use of antler does not equate with the frequency known from post-Neolithic periods, in spite

174

TOMÁŠ BERKOVEC, GABRIELA DRESLEROVÁ, MIRIAM NÝVLTOVÁ-FIŠÁKOVÁ, JARMILA ŠVÉDOVÁ: BONE INDUSTRY

Appendix Tool Type

Site

Schalkenburg Quenstedt (A)

Awl Spatula Spoon Scraper Knife Chisel Point Polisher Handle Hook Pendant Needle Necklace fragments Pin Battleaxe Buckle

bei Roztoky (CZ)

139

23 1 2 5 3

Vedrovice (CZ)

settlement 135

Cemetery 4

40 2

1

Štúrovo (SK)

Twann (CH)

30 6

2786 20

5 236 1682 18

82

24

29 6 1 14

5

1 2 3 2 1

3

2 141 3

2

2 1

1 1

1

5

Table 8: Comparison of bone tool quantities found at some LBK/ Neolithic sites. Site

Roztoky (CZ)

Twann (CH)

Štúrovo (SK)

Domestic (tools) Wild (tools) Indeterminate (tools)

24 11

764 864

32 15

Schalkenburg Questesdt (A) 72 27

13

42

13

bei Vedrovice (CZ) 115 23 132

Table 9: Comparison of domestic versus wild animal bone tools at some LBK/Neolithic sites Site Roztoky (CZ) Schlalkenburg bei Questedt (A) Štúrovo (SK) Twann (CH) Vedrovice (CZ)

Bone (%) 87.5 93.7 95 100 94.2

Antler (%) 12.5 6.3 5 5.8

Table 10: Comparison of bone versus antler use at some LBK/Neolithic sites. Kalicz, N. (1985) Kökori Falu Aszódon. Petöfi Muzeúm. Aszód. Kaufmann, D. (1986) Ausgrabungen in Linienbandkeramischen Erdwerk von Eilsleben, Kr. Wanzleben, in den Jahren 1980 bis 1984. Zeitschrif für Archäologie 20: 237-251. Neugebauer, J.W., Neugebauer-Maresch, C., MeinradWinkler E. and Wilfing, H. (1983) Die Doppelte Mittelneolitische Kreisgrabenanlage von Friebritz,

References Bernhardt, G. and Czepluch, P. (1987) Knochengeräte vom Linearbandkeramischen Siedlungspllatz Krauzenberg bei Bad Kreuznach. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 4: 437-44. Hrubý, V. (1957) Slovanské Kostěné Předměty a Jejich Výroba na Moravě. Památky Archeologické 48: 118217.

175

LBK DIALOGUES

NÖ. Vorbericht über die Rettungsgrabungen der Abteilung für Bodenkmale des Bundesdenkmalamtes in den Jahren 1979, 1981-1983. Fundberichte aus Österreich 22: 87-112. Ondruš, V. (1967) Kostěné a Parohové Předměty Mladší Doby Kamenné na Moravě. Rukopis Dizertační Práce, Uloženo na Ústav Archeologie a Muzeologie, Filosofická Fakulta Masarykovy University, Brno. Pavúk, J. (1994) Štúrovo Ein Siedlungsplatz der Kultur mit Linearkeramik und der Želiezovce- Gruppe. Nitra. Podborský, V. (ed.)(2002) Dvě Pohřebiště Neolitického Lidu s Lineární Keramikou ve Vedrovicích na Moravě. Ústav Archeologie a Muzeologie, Filozofická Fakulta Masarykovy University, Brno. Rulf, J. (1984) Příspěvek k Poznání Neolitické Kostěné Industrie v Čechách, Výsledky Předstihového Archeologického Výzkumu na Stavbě Měnírny v Roztokách. Archeologické Rozhledy 36: 241-260. Rulf, J. (1991) Archeologický Výzkum Neolitického Sídliště v Roztokách, Kostěná Industrie. Muzeum a Současnost 10(2): 257-270. Schibler, J. (1980) Die Neolithischen Ufersiedlungen von Twann, Band 8, Osteologische Untersuchungen der cortaillodzeitlichen Knochenartefakte. Staatlicher Lehrmittelverlag, Bern. Tichý, R. (1962) Osídlení s Volutovou Keramikou na Moravě. Památky Archeologické 52(2): 245-305.

176

SYMBOLIC OBJECTS IN THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE1 Agnieszka Czekaj-Zastawny Abstract The category of “Symbolic Objects” is rather difficult to define in relation to the Linear Band Pottery culture (LBK). It includes artifacts that cannot be classified as every-day objects, ornamentation, or weapons. Artifacts of this group are interpreted most often as prestigious goods, and insignia of authority. They are meticulously shaped, and made of material distinguished by its esthetic values. In the LBK these objects appear in graves, settlement pits, and as stray finds. One group of these artifacts – polished stone picks – are taken as an example, and analyzed to determine the position of symbolic artifacts within the LBK. Although they are rare finds, they have been registered throughout the entire area of the culture. The question of symbolic objects appears to be especially important in the context of the commonly accepted theory of the egalitarian character of LBK communities.

1964 reflects morphological characteristics of the tool in question (Pittioni 1964). I believe my proposed term, Polished Stone Pick, is closest to the term proposed by R. Pittioni, and reflects not only its morphological features, but also its non-utilitarian function.

Introduction of Terminology Polished stone picks are distinctive artifacts in assemblages related with the Linear Band Pottery culture (LBK). In comparison with other elements of the inventory, they are very rare. Until now, only a few dozen (ca. 40) such artifacts have been registered. However, these objects appear throughout the entire area of the LBK (Fig. 1).

Typology LBK polished stone picks are typologically very uniform in terms of morphology, technological characteristics and raw material used in their production: (Fig. 2)

So far only a few archaeologists have devoted their attention to polished stone picks. They were mentioned for the first time in Werner Buttler’s 1929 monograph on the LBK of the northwestern periphery (Buttler 1929). Also Slavomil Vencl (1960), Hermann Behrends (1973), Norbert Nieszery (1995), Jean-Paul Farruggia (1992), and Christian Jeunesse (1997) have referred to polished stone picks to some degree. The function of these objects has been unclear for a long time. Most often they have been interpreted as farming tools. Moreover, archaeological literature lacks any universal or widely accepted name for artifacts of this type. There are several terms in use, none of them reflecting the entire range of characteristics: In

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

German literature – Doppelschneidige Hacke, Doppelhacke (Nieszery 1995), in English Double Blade-Adze or Doppelaxt (Behrends 1973), in English Double Axe

They are massive stone artifacts, made by polishing stone; They are precisely and perfectly made, both in terms of size ratio and symmetry; They have an oblong trapezoidal outline; They have a perfectly flat bottom section; Their cross-section resembles the upside-down letter “U”; They have a centrally placed small opening; They have symmetric “arms” with blunt ends; Their length is between 17 and 45cm; They show no traces of use wear; They are made of amphibolites

Preservation These artifacts are found in various states of preservation, mostly as fragments, usually half of the object. The weakest point prone to breaking, was obviously around the opening. When found in graves, these artifacts are usually burnt and fractured, such as those found in graves from Aiterhofen (Nieszery 1995) and a grave from Heidelberg-Schwezingen (Jeunesse 1997).

In French literature – Herminette double perforée (Jeunesse 1997), in English Perforated Double Axe In Czech literature – Dvojramenný Mlat (Vencl 1960), in English Double-Shouldered Hammer In Polish literature – Kilof, Motyka Dwustronna (Kozłowski 1924; Cabalska 1960a,b), in English Hack, Two-Sided Adze

Context and Function LBK polished stone picks appear in three contexts: in cremation graves, in settlement pits and as stray finds. They are known from seven graves (1 artifact per grave), all of them in the Rhine River basin including: Aiterhofen in Bavaria – 3 graves, (Nieszery, 1995:157-159), Rouffach, Dingsheim and Entzheim in Alsace and Heidelberg-Schwezingen in Baden-Würtengerg (Jeunesse, 1997: 91).

The terms named above are not satisfactory. They directly suggest a practical function of the tool, although many archaeologists interpret it as an artifact of a special character (as a symbol of power or prestige, for example). Only the name Dopelpickel, used by Richard Pittioni in 1

The author is a holder of the Foundation for Polish Science Scholarship for the years 2003 and 2004.

177

LBK DIALOGUES

Fig. 1: Location of LBK sites with polished-stone picks across Europe. 1 – cemeteries, 2 – settlements, 3 – stray finds, 4 – territorial boundary of the LBK.

Fig. 2: Polished-stone pick from Krakow Wola Justowska, Poland. 178

AGNIESZKA CZEKAJ-ZASTAWNY: SYMBOLIC OBJECTS IN THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURE

Fig. 3: Examples of LBK polished-stone picks. a-c – Aiterhofen, Bavaria, d – Klein-Helmsdorf, Central Germany, e – Entzheim, Alsace. example, compares these Early Neolithic picks to similar artifacts from Egypt and the Aegean, where they were used as symbols of power and authority by persons of exceptional social position (Vencl 1960). Likewise, Christian Jeunesse also describes them as prestigious goods, and classifies them – together with perforated stone maces (Scheibenkeule in German literature) and very long blades – to the category of “status symbols and power insignia” (Jeunesse 1997). However questions of their use as weapons remain, especially since some authors interpret them as “forerunners” of Late Neolithic battle-axes (Zapotocký 1992).

Single picks are known from settlement pits, e.g. at Bylany, Dětkovice, and Močovice (?) in Bohemia; Velatice (?) in Moravia, and in Entzheim in Alsace (Vencl, 1960:31-32; Nieszery, 1995:157-159; Jeunesse, 1997:90-91). However, the majority of finds have no cultural context, such as the recently published and only object of this type in Poland found at Cracow-Wola Justowska. Most finds (7) have been registered from Bohemia, with additional finds in Saxonia, Alsace (5), Moravia (4), Belgium (3), Slovakia (3), and Hungary (2) (Fig. 3). None of the artifacts show any traces of use (Nieszery, 1995). This is one of several arguments against interpreting them as working tools. Some of them have a small width of the “arms” with blunt and rounded ends. These objects were fragile and often broke around the opening. A characteristic feature is the inconsistency of object size and weight, as well as diameter of the shaft hole. Therefore, the stone could never have been equipped with a wooden handle of adequate strength. Furthermore, the small number of these artifacts also suggests their non-utilitarian function.

Polished stone picks should therefore be interpreted as objects of special function, which were however, recognized only very generally. The high quality of manufacture, lack of use wear, stylistic uniformity across various parts of Europe, as well as the context of some of the artifacts, permit their assignment to objects symbolizing prestige, high social rank, position, and wealth. These may have been display or ceremonial objects used by a closely knit group of people distinguished in the community (chieftains, shamans, warriors?). Such an assumption is confirmed by the presence of polished stone picks in burials with lavish grave goods. An example is a male grave from Aiterhofen, furnished with a polished stone pick, three stone artifacts of unusual size similar to so-called “shoe-

Recent interpretation attempts of polished stone pick function tend to be along the same lines. Researchers agree these artifacts played a specific, not utilitarian purpose within LBK communities. Slavomil Vencl for 179

LBK DIALOGUES

appearance of cemeteries with rich graves furnished, among other artifacts, also with polished stone picks. Social stratification is also supported by the appearance of fortified constructions, which required an organized effort and the appearance, within the same settlement, of a variety of houses of diverse size, quality of construction, and layout (van de Velde 1979).

last” adzes, (Schuleistenkeite), one arrowhead, two flint blades, one pottery fragment, and two graphite pieces (Nieszery 1995). Most finds of polished stone picks lack any chronological context and constitute stray finds (Vencl 1960). However, there are some indications pointing towards the middle phase of the LBK in Central Europe. Such a presumption is confirmed by artifacts from dated graves and settlement pits of the Linear Band Pottery culture in Alsace (Jeunesse 1997). At Aiterhofen, graves with polished stone picks did not contain any chronologically significant pottery. However, these burials were located in an area with a concentration of graves containing pottery younger than the Flomborn Phase. Specifically phases I c/d - II a/b of Jüngere Periode of the LBK according to chronological scheme developed by P. J. R. Modderman and M. Dohrn-Ihmig for the middle and lower basin of the Rhine River (Nieszery 1995: 32-33, Fig. 8). Also, the majority of graves at HeidelbergSchwezingen date to the middle phase of the LBK culture (Jeunesse 1997: 91). However, the best evidence for the chronological position of these picks are ornamented vessels found in graves at the cemetery in Entzheim (Jeunesse 1997).

References Behrends, H. (1973) Die Jungsteinzeit im MittelelbeSaale-Gebiet. Veroffentlichungen des Landesmuseums fur Vorgeschichte in Halle 27: 21-43. Buttler, W. (1929) Die Bandkeramik in Ihrem Nordwestlichen Verbreitungsgebiet. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 19: 1-95. Cabalska, M. (1960a) Kultura Pucharów Lejkowatych. Zeszyty Naukowe UJ, 28, Prace Archeologiczne, 1, Pradzieje Powiatu Krakowskiego, pp. 143-234. Cabalska, M. (1960b) Neolityczne Mteriały Kmienne, Zeszyty Naukowe UJ, 28, Prace Archeologiczne, z. 1, Pradzieje Powiatu Krakowskiego, pp. 235-264. Farruggia, J. P. (1992) Les Outils et les Armes en Pierre dans le Rituel Funéraire du Néolithique Danubien, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 581. Jeunesse, C. (1997) Pratiques Funéraires au Néolithique Ancien. Paris. Kozłowski, L. (1924) Młodsza Epoka Kamienna w Polsce. Lwów. Nieszery, N. (1995) Linearbandkeramische Gräberfelder in Bayern. Espelkamp: Internationale Archäologie. Band 16. Pittioni, R. (1964) Vom Faustkeil zum Eisenschwert. Horn. Van de Velde, P. (1979) On Bandkeramik Social Structure. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 12: 1242. Vencl, S. (1960) Kamenné Nástroje Prvních Zemĕdĕlců ve Střední Evropĕ. Sborník Národního Musea v Praze 14 (1-2): 1-90. Zápotocký, M. (1992) Streitäxte des Mitteleuropäischen Äneolithikums. Weinheim.

Conclusion The appearance of symbolic objects is an important issue, especially in confrontation with the prevailing opinion regarding the egalitarian character of LBK communities. Recent studies bring more and more evidence indicating the LBK social system may have been much more complex. This evidence includes the scope of architecture (whole settlements and individual houses) funeral rites, and artifacts of non-utilitarian purpose. The appearance of polished stone picks generally corresponds with the appearance of fortified settlements in the younger phases of the LBK. This is especially typical in the northwestern reaches of this culture. It also corresponds with so-called Type B cemeteries, according to Christian Jeunesse (1997), dated to the middle LBK stage and later (majority of sites). They are distinguished by a clear differentiation in grave wealth, and the presence of a small number of very rich male, female, and child burials. The gradual emergence of the above-mentioned elements, can probably be related to processes of social stratification. This probably began in the middle phase of the Linear Pottery culture, in central and western areas. In contrast, the beginning of social transformation in the eastern zone, was much-delayed (compare the cemetery in Nitra – most graves are dated to the younger phase of the LBK). There are several arguments supporting social stratification. One is the appearance of symbolic objects interpreted as insignia of power or as attributes of persons distinctive in the community (true of both polished stone picks and maces). This is also supported by the

180

Conclusion

182

THE MANY ORIGINS OF THE LBK Marek Zvelebil Abstract In this contribution I discuss and integrate the findings of the contributors to this volume, and highlight the principal advances towards our understanding of the origins of the LBK. I begin by considering the broad historical conditions of population dispersal, frontier mobility and contact between foragers and farmers – conditions within which the constitution of the LBK occurred. I go on to discuss the significant patterns in the evidence for this. This discussion concludes by suggesting future directions to research dedicated to understanding culture change as a learning process involving inter-generational transmission of culture, inter-community contact, acquisition of knowledge and innovation.

and sociological approaches to the problem, based on the development of the concept of culture as an inheritance system passed on through the acquisition of knowledge by cross-generational or inter-communal transmission of culture as well as innovation. Processes of learning involved in such cultural transmissions of knowledge are conditioned by age, gender, and status of the involved individuals, and unfold within a social context structured by the cosmology and ideology of the social actors (individuals, groups, communities) involved in this process.

Introduction: Agro-Pastoral Dispersals in Europe The origins of the Neolithic in Europe are inevitably connected with the introduction of farming to the continent. Traditionally, the Neolithic, as a period and as a way of life, has been defined by the practice of farming. Although this defining criterion has been questioned by some archaeologists (i.e. Thomas 1988, 1991; Hodder 1990), agro-pastoral farming remains the main feature which separates Neolithic farmers from the preceding hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic.

As a more conventional approach, the Migrationist explanation represents the traditional, established view formulated by Gordon Childe (1957[1925]) as well as Piggott (1965) and Clark (1966). According to this interpretation, farmers migrating from the Near East, colonised hitherto unfarmed areas of Europe, replaced indigenous hunter-gatherers and thereby introduced farming into Europe. This process is thought to have been driven by rapid population growth experienced by the Neolithic farming populations.

There can be little doubt that agro-pastoral (Neolithic) farming originated in the Levant and Anatolia some 10,000 years ago. Over the next 4000 years it spread throughout Europe, mostly between 8000 and 4000 years ago. In some regions, such as the east Baltic, northwest Russia and most of peninsular Scandinavia, farming did not develop until the Iron Age or early Medieval period (Zvelebil 1981, 1985, 1998; Taavitsainen et al. 1998; Antanaitis 1999). This means that the introduction of farming into Europe as a whole was a very long process indeed.

The Indigenist explanation adopts the opposite perspective (Dennell 1983; Barker 1985; Whittle 1996). The adoption of farming in Europe and the origins of the Neolithic came about exclusively through frontier contact and cultural diffusion. Migration from the Near East had little or no role to play. Genetically, then, populations of Near Eastern origin had little or no contribution to make. The Integrationist explanation regards both types of processes – those involving population transfer and those that do not – as being responsible for the agricultural transition (Zvelebil 1986, 1989, 1995a, 1995b, 1996; Price 1987, 1991, 1996; Zilhão 1993, 1997; Chapman 1994; Thorpe 1996). The importance of the relative contributions of each process differs from author to author.

How were farming practices and the associated techniques and traditions introduced? This is a key question if we want to understand the subsequent developments in European prehistory, because it involves humans as individuals and social groups, human action and motivation, and the passage of cultural traditions either inter-generationally, or from one community to another. The identity and cultural knowledge of people is therefore crucial to our understanding of the whole process of emergence of the Neolithic. Conventionally there are three main points of view, neither of which address directly the human communities who constituted Neolithic society and culture, or the sociology of the processes that played a role in their creation. Rather, the prevailing archaeological view seeks to explain the replacement of cultural units – assemblages of material culture – in terms of collective and general human migration, indigenous adoption through contextually unspecified contact, or as a mixture of both processes (Fig. 3).

The varying interpretations of these three groups are of a degree rather than categorical, but the implications for population history, genetic patterning and linguistic change at the agricultural transition are quite major. All of the models summarised above involve historical events marked by colonisation and contact between foraging and farming communities. These processes tend to unfold in patterned ways discussed in many previous

Our volume reflects this current position, but at the same time seeks to transcend it by focussing on anthropological 183

LBK DIALOGUES

Forms of Contact Between Foragers and Farmers a) Fork Migration – directional movement of a population to a previously defined region. b) Demic Diffusion – sequential colonization of a region by small groups or households, non-directional. c) Élite Dominance – penetration of an area by social élite and subsequent imposition of control over the native population. d) Infiltration – gradual penetration by small, usually specialist groups of a region, who fill a specific economic or social niche (i.e. itinerant smiths, tinkers, leather workers, livestock herders). e) Leapfrog colonization – selective colonization of an area by small groups, who target optimal areas for settlement, thus forming an enclave, or colony, among native inhabitants. f) Frontier Mobility – small-scale movement of a population within contact zones between foragers and farmers, occurring along the established social networks, such as trading partnerships, kinship lines, marriage alliances. g) Contact – through trade, exchange, within the framework of regional or extra-regional trading networks which served as channels of communication through which innovation spread.

Fig. 1: Forms of contact between foragers and farmers. they do in fact have differential consequences in terms of outcomes for foragers and farmers (Fig. 2) as well as for the transmission of culture, genes and language between the two communities (Renfrew and Boyle 2000; Zvelebil 2000, 2003, 2004; Shennan and Wilkinson 2001; Bellwood and Renfrew 2003; Gkiasta et al. 2003; Figure 3 here).

publications (i.e. Zvelebil 1986, 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2003), summarised diagrammatically in Zvelebil 2000: Tables 7.1, 7.2 and Figure 7.6). It merits emphasis that any historical event can consist of several forms of forager-farmer exchange, which act in aggregate to influence the constitution of a new cultural tradition.

The rationale most often cited for the immigration of Neolithic farmers from the Near East to Europe by demic diffusion is the rapid population growth brought about by the emergence and development of farming (i.e. Renfrew 1987, 1996), regarded by some as a ‘demographic explosion’ (Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza 1995:133– 134). Thus the shift to agriculture brought about an increasingly sedentary existence, improved diet, and rise in the economic value of child labour. This in turn reduced the need for population controls, and having more children became both possible and desirable. In consequence farming populations grew rapidly, colonised adjacent regions and replaced hunter-gatherer communities, whose population growth was negligible or nil.

So within the Migrationist model, the processes exclusively or primarily responsible for the introduction of farming to Europe include folk migration, demic diffusion, leapfrog colonisation, and less commonly, infiltration as well as élite dominance (Neustupný 1956, 1982; Childe 1957[1925]; Piggott 1965; Arnaud 1982; Renfrew 1987; Zilhão 1993, 2000). The Indigenist position holds that the adoption of farming in Europe came about exclusively through frontier contact and cultural diffusion (Dennell 1983, 1992; Barker 1985; Thomas 1988, 1996; Whittle 1996; Pluciennik 1998) - processes f and g, in Fig. 1. The Integrationists regard the processes of leapfrog colonisation, frontier mobility and contact as primarily responsible for the agricultural transition and the constitution of the Neolithic, although the relative contribution of each differs from author to author (Zvelebil 1986, 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003; Price 1987, 1996, 2000; Zilhão 1993, 1997, 2000; Chapman 1994; Thorpe 1996; Gronenborn 1998, 1999). While these distinctions, made between the different forms of forager-farmer contact and simultaneously also the means of agricultural dispersal, may seem pedantic,

As I have argued elsewhere, there is no clear support for the rapid population growth of early farming populations at the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Europe as a whole, either from the direct evidence or in supporting arguments (Zvelebil 2003, see also Dolukhanov 1979; Dennell 1983, 1992; Barker 1985; Larsson 1990; Midgley 1993; Thomas 1996), although such population increases may have occurred in a few selected regions (i.e. Neustupný 1982, this volume; Pavlů and Beneš this volume).

184

MAREK ZVELEBIL: THE MANY ORIGINS OF THE LBK

Outcomes of Contact Between Foragers and Farmers Replacement Annihilation. Hunter-gatherer communities are annihilated by farming communities in a violent conflict or through disease. Assimilation. Hunter-gatherer communities disintegrate and their members join farming communities, introducing some aspects of (material) culture into farming communities. Adoption. Hunter-gatherer communities adopt farming practices selectively, whilst retaining some aspects of traditional hunter-gatherer existence. Acquisition. Hunter-gatherer communities adopt farming practices selectively, whilst retaining significant elements of traditional hunter-gatherer existence thereby producing new, or mixed (hybrid) cultural traditions. Integration Infiltration. Gradual penetration by small, usually specialist groups of a region, who fill a specific economic or social niche (i.e. hunters, fishermen, honey collectors, leather workers, livestock herders). Absorption of farmers by foragers. Hunter-gatherer communities absorb farming households by force or peacefully within their communities and way of life, whilst at the same time adopting some aspects of farming existence. Survival Isolation. Hunter-gatherer communities remove themselves from contact with farming communities, usually by moving away from and imposing ‘no man’s land’ between foragers and farmers; this results in a ‘closed static frontier.’ Encapsulation. Foragers are forced by farmers to move into suboptimal areas where they survive in relative isolation and impoverishment. Commercialization. Hunter-gatherers reorganize their economy in response to demands by farming communities and commercial interests further afield (e.g. fur trade). Reversion Reversion. Farmers return to hunting, fishing and gathering as the principal means of subsistence.

Fig. 2: Outcomes of contact between foragers and farmers. exchanges between the two communities and the generation of new cultural traditions occurred.

There is however, clear evidence for the introduction of agro-pastoral farming and associated regionally variable cultural traits, in a clear chronological gradient from the southeast to the northwest of Europe (Clark 1966; Dennell 1983; Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Renfrew 1987; Pinhasi et al. 2000). The progression of farming practices along this gradient is not chronologically uniform, but temporally staggered and variable, and punctuated by the development of frontier zones between foraging and farming communities where

Forager-Farmer Contact and Agricultural Frontiers I have argued that these “agricultural frontier zones” contributed in a crucial way to the origin and development of the Neolithic (i.e. Zvelebil 1986, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003). This occurred through frontier mobility and contact, rather than through demic diffusion. 185

LBK DIALOGUES

goods or to compete with others in the farming community.

Such modes of farming dispersal were embedded in the existing social and historical conditions of each respective area, and can be seen to have had their own structural conditions and possibilities of action to knowledgeable agents. The structure was provided by the network of existing social relationships and traditions: the socially and culturally defined normative rules for the transmission of knowledge and practical skill from one generation to another. The knowledge and the skill required for the practice of agro-pastoral farming was incorporated into this tradition, in relation to the already existing rules. People, through contact, provided the transmission of knowledge, and through agency incorporated innovations in the changing structural context of such transmissions. How can we link these ideas to the archaeological record? Through geographical space, and time.

4. Ideological impact which can take several forms. This may include the formalization and enforcement of rules regarding sharing, the enforcement of sharing (or “demand sharing,” see Kent 1993); followed by partial disintegration of egalitarian ideology and the replacement of an ideology of sharing with an ideology of appropriation, and the development of concepts regarding ownership (i.e. Testart 1982a, 1982b; Woodburn 1982; Hayden 1990). 5. Ecological change and over-exploitation resulting from commercial hunting-gathering. 6. The exchange of partners between forager and farmer communities. Comparative analysis of geographically disparate, yet in terms of historical process (the transition to farming) comparable ethno-historical case studies seems to indicate a relationship between gender-specific patterns of partner exchange and the rate of farming adoption such that endogamous matrilocal female communities with exogenous males (hunter-gatherer or farmer) have been linked to a slow uptake of farming (Trigger 1978; Peterson 1978; Griffin 1984; Hoffman 1984; Headland and Reed 1989; Wilmsen and Denbow 1990; Fewster 2001; Hage and Marck 2003); whereas endogamous patrilocal male communities with exogamous (hunter-gatherer) females have been linked to a rapid transition to agriculture (Denbow 1984; Hoffman 1984; Cronk 1989; Headland and Reed 1989; Zvelebil and Dolukhanov 1991; Spielman and Eder 1994; Zvelebil 1996; Arias 1999; Bentley et al. 2003). The former can be further linked to kitchen-garden agriculture and horticulture, and extensive agro-pastoral farming with the latter (Bentley et al. 2003).

In Geographical Space In geographical space, the concept of the agricultural frontier zone helps to describe the social context within which such genetic exchanges may be identified. It also serves to reduce the gap in the often polarised discussion regarding the migration of populations at the MesolithicNeolithic transition (see e.g. Ammerman 1989; Zvelebil 1989) and allows us to contemplate gradual changes in the gene pool of the first European farmers as the adoption of farming moved from the Balkans to Northern Europe over the course of some five thousand years. Agricultural frontier zones develop in stable or slowly changing situations, allowing for the development of contact and exchange between foragers and farmers. Ethnographic evidence gives us some idea of the exchanges and developments that were common within the contact zone of a stationary frontier, which may be characterized by a variety of factors.

Partner exchange amongst farming communities usually takes the form of hypergyny, especially when foragers are viewed as culturally and economically inferior to farmers, and results in the loss through marriage of forager women to farmer men. In such situations the emigration of forager women can amount to 15 per cent of the female population (Bailey and Annger 1989; Speth 1991), causing a severe shortage of females amongst the hunter-gatherer males. Based on ethnographic case studies, forager men often respond with one of two strategies in order to prevent the loss of women partners: either by resorting to commercial hunting, or the adoption of farming (ref. above).

These factors include: 1. The exchange of technological innovations and imports, in particular high status finished products imported into hunter-gatherer communities, or raw materials exported by hunter-gatherers. 2. Increased social competition, fuelled by the everincreasing availability of high-status imports, often leading to the inflation of value tokens as well as a continuous increase in social competition, social differentiation, and wealth differentiation as some individuals gain better access to status goods than others (see e.g. Verhaart and Wansleeben 1997).

7. The transmission of disease between hunter-gatherer and farming communities, with farmers bestowing upon hunter-gatherers diseases that are linked to community ecology, hygiene and sedentism, population density thresholds, and diseases transmitted through close contact with domestic animals.

3. A shift in production from subsistence huntinggathering and a house-hold based economy to commercially-motivated hunting-gathering, marked by procurement for the market, for export, to acquire status

186

MAREK ZVELEBIL: THE MANY ORIGINS OF THE LBK

justification for the sigmoid curve of the ‘typical’ course of the agricultural transition (Zvelebil 1996; RowleyConwy in press).

In Time In terms of time, the agricultural frontier zone undergoes socio-economic transitions, a process which Peter Rowley-Convy and I have defined in three stages: availability, substitution and consolidation (see Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy 1984; Zvelebil 1986 for detailed discussion). During the availability phase farming is known to the foraging groups and there is an exchange of materials and information between foragers and farmers, without the adoption of farming. During the substitution phase, farming practices replace hunting and gathering strategies, although the newly adopted agro-pastoral farming remains embedded within an overall foragingfarming economy. The consolidation phase marks the shift to a full dependence on agriculture. In economic terms, this is the first stage of a predominantly Neolithic economy. Each stage is considered at a regional scale, rather than at the level of an individual site. This model operates within the broader socio-cultural context of an agricultural frontier: a zone of interaction between foragers and farmers marked by various forms of contact and exchange (Alexander 1978; Leacock and Lee 1982; Schrire 1984; Dennell 1985; Ingold et al. 1988; Spielman 1991).

Analogous reasoning and the same bi-modal distribution of dependence on agriculture led Hayden (1990) to suggest that societies with low dependence on farming used the products of farming mainly to attain social prestige in view of the extra labour needed to produce them. However those that depended more heavily on agriculture, having solved the problem of the higher labour cost of farming (relative to hunting and gathering), are therefore able to shift rapidly to an economic dependence on agriculture. The Case of the LBK: Uniform Culture Horizon or Internal Variation? The traditional, Migrationist model for the transition to farming has been particularly entrenched in Central Europe. Since the writings of Gordon Childe (1957[1925]), the introduction of the Neolithic has been perceived as a consequence of the migration of farming groups moving up the Danubian corridor to colonise Central Europe, and the Rhine and Paris basins, with their origins either in the Balkans or Greece and Anatolia (i.e. Quitta 1960; Piggott 1965; Točík 1970; Pleiner and Rybová 1978; Vencl 1982b, 1986; Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Lüning 1988; Modderman 1988; Bogucki and Grygiel 1993; Podborský 1993; Bogucki 1995). The rapid dispersal of the LBK was supported by the apparent cultural uniformity including architecture (longhouses), a standard cultural repertoire and the recurrent set of economic practices that defined the LBK culture (i.e. Neustupný, this volume).

Since its original presentation (Zvelebil and RowleyConwy 1984), this model has been subjected to much debate and some criticism (Zvelebil 1986; Thomas 1988, 1996; Ammerman 1989; Whittle 1996; Janík 1998). However it must be emphasised that this model is a heuristic device, allowing us to monitor the agricultural transition at a finer level of resolution than was previously possible. It was generated principally to examine the prevailing notion of a rapid introduction of farming, and to enable the recognition of the long-lasting course of the agricultural transition. Due to its design, the model can explain only one pathway of development, namely from foraging to farming. The application of the model does not preclude the opposite shift to foraging, or any other trajectories of change. Indeed, by using this model as a standard against which deviations can be observed, it is possible to identify other pathways of development, which did not include an early shift to agropastoral farming.

Recently, the notion of a rapid dispersal and the cultural uniformity of the earliest Neolithic culture in Central Europe, the Linear Pottery (LBK), upon which the idea of the introduction of farming by migration/demic diffusion was predicated, has been weakened by new discoveries. First, accelerator radiocarbon dating of seed and bone samples has shown that the diffusion of the LBK may have been slower than hitherto envisaged (Whittle 1990, 1996: 157). Second, elements of continuity in stone tool production between the Mesolithic and the LBK, noticed already by Clark (1980), has been reinforced by more recent research (Lohr 1994; Gronenborn 1990, 1998; Kind 1998; Raemakers 1998; Jeunesse 2000). Third, the recognition of La Hoguette and Limbourg ceramics, anticipated some 15 years ago (Zvelebil 1986) and generally attributed to local hunter-gatherers, points to a history of contact between the late Mesolithic communities of western central Europe and the people of the Cardial Ware culture at first, and of the LBK culture later (Jeunesse 1987, 2000; Koojimans 1993; Bogucki and Grygiel 1993). Fourth, there is a growing body of evidence for the presence of LBK imports in late Mesolithic contexts of Central Europe, such as grinding stones, axes and adzes (Jochim 1998; Gronenborn 1998,

According to this model, the substitution phase will be relatively short in most cases, due to scheduling problems and the labour costs of maintaining a balanced huntingfarming economy. Ethnographic sources support this argument since subsistence societies either depend heavily on agriculture, or use it only to a negligible extent. A survey of two hundred such societies shows a remarkable lack of cases where agriculture forms 5–45% of subsistence, although this is not the case with herding (Murdock 1967; Hunn and Williams 1982). The ‘substitution phase’ as a signature for the shift to agropastoral farming is thus a relatively rare occurrence in the ethnographic record, on a synchronic scale. This implies that it tends to be short in duration, and it provides some 187

LBK DIALOGUES

the house as a symbol of enculturation (see for instance Točík 1970; Pleiner and Rybová 1978; Hodder 1990; Kalicz 1993; Pavlů and Vokolek 1992; Bogucki and Grygiel 1993; Podborský 1993; Bogucki 1995; Groneborn 1998).

2003a) as well as the presence in the LBK culture of lithic raw materials, artefacts and cultural attributes such a decorative motifs which are thought to have originated in the late Mesolithic of western Europe in the LBK culture (Gronenborn 1990, 1998, 2003a,b; Whittle 1996; Mateituciová, Bánffy, this volume, see below). Fifth, the presence, in small numbers, of domesticated animals such as sheep, goat, pig and cattle, and paleo-botanical remains of cultivated grain which can be interpreted as a product of exchange between LBK farmers and late Mesolithic groups.

Neustupný’s Challenge In the first chapter of this volume, Evžen Neustupný notes that: “It is difficult to arrive at the true reasons behind the recent fashion of seeking local Mesolithic ancestry in the European Neolithic and Eneolithic. Motivations for this practice may differ among British archaeologists, their Scandinavian colleagues, and other, mainly Central European specialists. I wonder whether the reasons arrive from the archaeological record, as many would pretend, though it is only the Scandinavian evidence that suggests anything of the sort…. Be it as it may, not only individuals, but entire archaeological communities long to find local origins of their agricultural beginnings. In contrast to some earlier theorists, such as Kossinna, the creators of this new wave of autochthonism benevolently encourage the same process to take place in other countries as well.” (Neustupný this volume, p. 3).

Finally, the examination of strontium and oxygen isotope signatures in human teeth dated to the LBK culture of southwest Germany has suggested patrilocality in the LBK communities of this region, and that local huntergatherer females from the surrounding uplands of the Alsace and the Alpine foreland migrated to the Rhineland region to join LBK farming communities (Price et al. 2001; Bentley et al. 2002, 2003). This is a frontier mobility pattern previously predicted on the basis of ethno-historical evidence (Zvelebil 1996, 2000, 2003). So by now we have indications of forager-farmer contacts and mutual influences between late Mesolithic and LBK populations on the margins of Central Europe as the latter were expanding westwards into the Upper Danube, Rhine and Paris basins. Both the Mesolithic and Neolithic communities were transformed by this contact.

Neustupný’s wonderment-with-admonition incorporates an accusation and a challenge. The accusation is that scholars considering autochthonous origin of the LBK are seeking local Mesolithic ancestry in the Neolithic. Unscientific motivation is therefore adduced, an agenda imparted by Neustupný to these scholars in their quest for understanding the origins of the LBK, which may have influenced their impartial, objective judgement in coming to their conclusions. However the papers in this volume, as well as publications elsewhere, do not, to my mind, suggest such a clearly focussed agenda. The goal is not to seek a predetermined result, it is to comprehend the constitution of a new cultural tradition, the LBK, fully with all its implications. Furthermore, few, if any authors concerned with the LBK culture would argue for a fully autochthonous origin of the European Neolithic (see above), let alone of the LBK, although as contributions to this volume show, quite a few are prepared to consider the mixed origin of this tradition, consisting of the autochthonous Mesolithic and intrusive First Balkan Neolithic (FBN) elements. The reason for this willingness is archaeological evidence.

At the same time, we have to bear in mind arguments in favour of the origin of the LBK by colonisation, recently re-stated by Bogucki and Grygiel (1993), especially since there is no history of ceramics in the core LBK area (la Hoguette, Limbourg and other wares being regarded as peripheral), whereby LBK pottery has no local roots, in addition to a clear break between LBK broad and longblade lithic traditions in comparison with the antecedent late Mesolithic microblade tradition in most areas. Furthermore there is no overlap in settlement location and land-use between the two traditions, the earliest farming communities occupying loess areas generally avoided by the late Mesolithic hunters. Finally the large solid longhouses of the LBK differ markedly from much smaller and irregular Mesolithic structures. To this we may add the glaring differences in subsistence strategies, with little apparent overlap between the hunting and gathering of the late Mesolithic and fully agrarian economy of the earliest LBK culture in Central Europe (although LBK people did engage in hunting there is not much evidence for the “substitution phase”). Finally, indications of ancestral links between certain LBK traditions and those of the Starčevo-Criş-Körös culture are undeniable. These include both the technoeconomic (farming practices, ceramic technology and decoration, lithic reduction strategies) and ritual-symbolic domains (decorative motifs, clay altars and figurines, bone spatulae, Spondylus shell pendants, and the focus on

And herein lies Neustupný’s challenge, since Neustupný clearly believes there is no “autochthonous” case to be answered: “I would like to propose… that the formal continuity between the Linear Pottery culture on the one side, and the farming cultures of south-eastern origin on the other, is nearly complete. Specifically, that is evident

188

MAREK ZVELEBIL: THE MANY ORIGINS OF THE LBK

practice (habitus). He notes that ambiguities in the presumed relationship between vessel shape and function such that “various types could fulfil similar functions” (Nowak, this volume p. 7) as well as between vessel decoration and socio-symbolic are both contextual, situational, and geographically/locationally specific such that:

in the practical, social and symbolic aspects of the early Linear Pottery culture” (Neustupný this volume, pp. 3). Neustupný then goes on to list those practical, social and symbolic aspects, concluding: “It is incredulous that so many of the archaeologists that have recently become interested in the origins of the Linear Pottery culture, show very little interest in the mentioned continuity. Instead, many have been looking for individual inconclusive similarities with Mesolithic cultures, and keep suggesting that this is the main issue to be investigated” (Neustupný, this volume, p. 4).

“It is hard to imagine that there could have existed universal conventions, through all communities (of the LBK) for applying pot decoration” (Nowak, this volume p. 8). Given additional problems caused by uneven representation of ceramic types and styles, site taphonomies and uneven retrieval and excavation techniques, too much reliance on “pot prehistory” is a dangerous thing. As Nowak notes, Neolithic material culture was not confined to clay pots, especially since clay vessels

So who is right? Is the LBK cultural tradition defined by uniformity and continuity with earlier Balkan Neolithic traditions, suggesting cultural and genetic ancestry of this culture lies with the first farmers of south-east Europe? Are the similarities with the Mesolithic individual, inconclusive and therefore inconsequential? Or can we detect, within the early LBK, internal variation and discontinuity with the earlier Balkan Neolithic, suggesting the role, perhaps the key role, of the local Mesolithic populations?

“have always been only a part of the material and symbolic culture, and not necessarily the most important one” (Nowak, this volume p. 8). All this raises the question of the extent to which ceramic form and style symbolize communal and/or ethnic identity, cultural derivation and/or genetic ancestry.

Neustupný concludes by noting that:

In spite of these observations, Nowak goes on to consider the origin of the LBK on the basis of the ceramic record, as do other contributors to this volume (i.e. Pavlů, Pavúk, Bánffy, Lukes). Contrary to Neustupný’s conclusion, the ceramic record is marked by spatio-temporal variation, “local sequences” (Nowak, this volume), right from the earliest phase within each region, and only some of the features therein can be unquestionably traced to farming cultures of south-eastern origin in the Balkan region.

“We still do not possess sufficient factual knowledge either for an exact comprehension of what happened at the time of the origin of the Linear Pottery, nor for the comprehension of what phenomena such as La Hoguette and Limburg pottery may indicate” (Neustupný, this volume p. 5). Both of these views – the exogenous cultural and genetic origin of the LBK tradition, and of the lack of revealing evidence – stated so succinctly by Neustupný and reflecting a more conventional opinion about the LBK culture, forms the main rationale for the publication of this volume. Most of the papers address Neustupný’s challenge either explicitly or implicitly. In his contribution, Nowak addresses one major defining feature of the LBK – the ceramic tradition – and considers its complexity and variation. And here, the cultural uniformity highlighted by Neustupný as a key feature of the LBK, begins to unravel. Nowak notes that LBK ceramics, although “relatively uniform” in their characteristics, differed in the frequency of representation of these characteristics, such that the form, composition and therefore symbolic content were regionally variable (Nowak, this volume).

Nowak’s explanation for this variation is predicated on the late survival of Starčevo-Körös groups (until 54005330 BC), the long duration of the earliest LBK (until 4900 BC), and an extended chronological overlap between the two traditions. He suggests the origin and the early spread of the LBK can be best accounted for by “leapfrog colonisation” occurring rapidly between 5600 and 5400 BC. Small groups of Starčevo-Körös farmers from the Transdanubian region of the North Balkan fringe moved into Central Europe, targeting fertile patches of light soils for settlement and became rapidly isolated within the broader geographical unit of Central Europe. This led to a cultural “founder effect” which resulted in a process of rapid cultural variation and regionalisation into local stylistic sequences.

Nowak goes on to consider potential sources of this variation – quality of raw material, the nature of temper and other inclusions, firing techniques, the state of cultural knowledge and individual variation in application, both as a deliberate strategy and routine

This seems a good explanation for the role of the intrusive element in the LBK culture, but it tells only a part of the story – the story of the incoming founder communities of the Starčevo-Körös tradition. While the Starčevo-Körös origin of some aspects of the ceramic 189

LBK DIALOGUES

tradition in the LBK cannot be contested, it does not explain the full variation within the early LBK. As Nowak notes, in the LBK

hand, and how they are expressed through emblemic and isochrestic variation in stylistic elements of material culture on the other.

“a new pottery style emerged that contained, in various proportions, a number of new features side by side with the Starčevo-Körös features (circa 56005500BC)” (Nowak, this volume 13),

In applying this approach to the key site of Vedrovice in southern Moravia, she is able to distinguish a coalescence of several cultural traditions right from the beginning of the settlement’s occupation, some of which finds links in the Starčevo-Criş-Körös tradition, and patterns that fit neither of the two earlier traditions, arguably connected to earlier Mesolithic motives. Overall, the strongest pattern is apparently one of innovation!

and this situation continued in the subsequent expansion phase. The question one should really be asking is – how did these new non-Starčevo-Körös features come into being? What processes of learning and cultural transmission can account for this development: the “founder effect” (i.e. cultural drift, stochastic differentiation generated by routine practice; innovation introduced through social agency; or the transference and replication of indigenous Mesolithic cultural patterns from basketry or other containers onto new media (i.e. ceramics) by the indigenous Mesolithic segment of the new LBK community?

The Mesolithic motives appear to be associated with the application of fingers to the (wet) clay body of the pot, either by pinching, or by fingertip or fingernail impressions. Budja, in his contribution to this volume, links these practices to the process of the local huntergatherers adopting ceramic technology and importing their own decorative patterns (Budja, this volume). In so doing, the indigenous pot-makers were perhaps attempting to enculturate the clay pots within their own sphere of container experience, by trying to replicate the rough, patterned appearance of baskets.

This question reveals the limitations of the conventional approach to the problem of culture change and the emergence of new cultural traditions. The evidence as it stands can be accommodated within several behavioural scenarios. This dilemma is succinctly summarised by Lukes (this volume). In her characterisation of the earliest LBK horizon, she notes that

Budja describes the complexity of the situation in the Balkans – the source region of the LBK culture for many scholars (i.e. Neustupný, this volume) and argues against the perpetration of simple dichotomies between exogenous, colonising Neolithic farmers, and local mobile hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic. As an alternative, he proposes the existence of pre-Neolithic contact and exchange networks in the Balkans, Ionia and the Adriatic, which served as channels of communication and contact for the simultaneous and inter-regional distribution of pottery and “selective adoption of crops and/or animal husbandry” at the beginning of the Neolithic (see also Mateiciucová below for the LBK).

“the emergent LBK comprises characteristics some of which find parallels in the Starčevo-Criş-Körös, and some of which are of unknown origin, and may either represent a continuation of Mesolithic traditions, or local innovation” (idem, 18). Quoting earlier work by Shennan and Wilkinson (2001) she suggests an “ancestral plus other” influence in the constitution of LBK pottery assemblages, the “other” including factors that are neither attributable to “drift” nor to adaptation to local conditions (innovation) (Lukes, this volume).

Budja’s conception of the First Balkan Neolithic is a far cry from Neustupný’s insistence that “There is no doubt that these cultures are the result of colonization carried by fully developed farmers” (Neustupný, this volume), for it draws attention to the following patterns.

The way forward must be to recast culture change as a process of transmission and acquisition of knowledge, unfolding on a human scale and involving social actors, in other words individuals, social groups and communities. Such transmission of knowledge will occur inter-generationally or through contact between communities, and it will be structured and motivated by the social context of such learning experiences and by their ideological and cosmological significance.

The chronological pattern of the first appearance of ceramics in the Balkans does not lend unqualified support to the dispersal from Asia Minor since the earliest pottery in Thessaly predates the first ceramics further east, and may have been a local invention. Local domestication of einkorn from its indigenous progenitor, proposed by Dennell (1983) some 20 years ago receives further support from the early distribution and frequency of cultivation of this crop in southeast Europe (Budja, this volume; see also Zohary and Hopf 1988; Kyparissi-Apostolika 2000).

In her contribution, Lukes introduces these themes and presents an analytical approach to the LBK origins within a general framework of structuation theory. She shows how the key concepts of structure, agency, and routine practice (habitus) influence the process of learning and the inter-generational transmission of culture on the one

The adoption of caprines (sheep/goat) well in advance of

190

MAREK ZVELEBIL: THE MANY ORIGINS OF THE LBK

Transdanubia to farming practices developed originally in the (sub-) Mediterrenean climate of south-east Europe:

other elements of the Neolithic economy and technology, noted previously as a signature of an uneven and selective adoption of Neolithic traits (Budja 2001; Zvelebil 1996; Zvelebil and Lillie 2000) receives further support from recent studies (Mlekuž 2003).

“This line should represent the “Central European agro-ecological barrier”, north of which it was impossible to continue the south-eastern European way of food production. Consequently, the early Neolithic groups of southern origin slowed down and had to stop. This pause might have given time to local, indigenous Mesolithic groups…to learn most of the Neolithic inventions without a total assimilation and melting into the Körös-Starčevo civilisation ” (Bánffy, this volume p. 64).

The distribution patterns of painted ceramics, stamp seals, figurines, pins and “amulets” in the early Neolithic of the Balkans, Ionia and Adriatic suggests multiple pathways of adoption of farming and of the constitution of the Neolithic. Specifically, Budja argues that “monochromeimpresso pottery has been contextually embedded into semi-sedentary or sedentary hunter-gatherer contexts in the region” within which “the pot may be understood as a new media carrying old symbols” (Budja, this volume, p. 42).

Bánffy presents both direct and indirect evidence for this innovative readjustment amongst the transitional Starčevo/LBK communities (for example, at the site of Szentygörgyvölgy-Pityerdomb) and the involvement of Mesolithic communities in this process (idem). Such evidence can be found in shared similarities of the lithic technology, distribution of lithic raw materials and the use of same tool kits by the Mesolithic and the early LBK people, co-eval Mesolithic, latest Starčevo and earliest LBK site location in wetland areas unsuitable for extensive farming, emphasis on the exploitation of wild plants and animals, innovative extension of settlement to loess terraces in the second, post-initial (Keszthely) phase of the LBK, selective adoption of south-eastern Neolithic symbols and cult objects in the earliest LBK, (see also Budja, this volume, for the Balkans), and variation in ceramics that includes imitations of Starčevo pots as well as clear Starčevo “originals” made by “people of southern origin.” Bánffy concludes that

In conclusion, Budja makes a cogent case for the dispersal of farming in the Balkans through frontier mobility and contact that was “embedded in the already existing, regional PreNeolithic social structures. It was set by networks of social relationships and contacts, as well as traditional, socially and culturally defined principles of inter-regional and inter-community transmission of knowledge. People, through contact, local and/or regional migrations, provided the agency of such transmissions for the incorporation of innovations such as cultigens, domesticates and pottery, in a social context (that) allowed for changes to the structural framework” (Budja, this volume, p. 43). In her contribution, Bánffy elaborates on some of the key issues in the debate about LBK origins. She shows how the relative paucity of Mesolithic settlement in Hungary is at least partly a result of paradigmatic bias, a situation that applies equally to other parts of the LBK distribution zone (Zvelebil 1998, 2000). In this case, the absence of evidence, noted by Neustupný (this volume; see also Vencl 1986) cannot be taken as the evidence of absence. With the application of appropriate research initiatives, extensive traces of Mesolithic settlement are now being recognised in the Middle Tisza region, north-eastern Hungary and Transdanubia (Bánffy, this volume; for similar developments in Bohemia and Moravia, see for instance Vencl 1989, 1991, 1992; Svoboda et al. 1996, 1999a, 1999b, 2000).

“it seems that pottery of the minor Starčevo character coming from waterside sites may have been the first attempts of imitation by local people that just adopted the know-how of pottery making” (idem, 62). All this is clearly at variance with the notion of a seamless transition from the Starčevo-Körös to the LBK cultural tradition, a rapid and uniform dispersal of the LBK from its Transdanubian homeland, or of the uncontestable ancestry of the LBK within Starčevo-Körös communities. This thesis, stated so lucidly by Neustupný at the beginning of this volume, and supported by many other scholars, now begins to look a lot less certain. Bánffy’s thesis is fully supported by Pavúk’s consideration of the evidence from an area that is, in ecological terms, the northern fringe of Transdanubia, that is south-west Slovakia. The internal periodisation of the early LBK into three main phases: early formative (Nitra/Hurbanovo), late formative (Bíňa) and the first expansion phase (Milanovce) finds correspondence with Bánffy’s case for a two-staged, extended process of LBK emergence, prior to its dispersal across Central Europe (even though each of these episodes is judged to be relatively brief, perhaps spanning three generations, or 75-100 years each, Bánffy, this volume).

Using various indicators in the material culture and economy including the lithic material, ceramics and the heavy reliance on wild resources, Bánffy argues that the Körös already was a “mixed” culture, involving both intrusive Neolithic and local Mesolithic communities (see also Makkay 1996; Whittle 1996; Starnini 2000). During the 6th millennium BC, Transdanubia was a frontier zone, both ecologically and culturally, utilised by late hunter-gatherer communities, as well as Körös and Starčevo farmers. Bánffy shows how climatic, edaphic and geological conditions created northern limits in 191

LBK DIALOGUES

local indigenous pre-Neolithic populations” (Pavlů, this volume p. 84); by the morphology of microlithic projectiles found in LBK contexts; and by variation in ceramics and household architecture:

What is remarkable in Pavúk’s argument is the insistence that “fine-thin walled, burnished ceramics, both in terms of vessel shape and associated ornamentation, developed relatively independently without clear influences from Starčevo, Körös or Vinča cultures; coarseware on the other hand, encompasses certain characteristics which can be related to … Balkan cultures, specifically involving the surface finish of globular vessels” (Pavúk, this volume p. 73).

“As seen in the manufacture of ceramics, the builders of the earliest houses at Bylany suffered from inexperience” (Pavlů, this volume p. 85). Pavlů makes an interesting suggestion that clay models, commonly interpreted as models of clay ovens, may in fact be models of circular, pre-Neolithic house types, a case of transference of culturally-specific ancestral house-building tradition from a practical to a symbolic domain as a mnemonic device in an effort to preserve cultural identity in a changing world (see also Marciniak, this volume).

Pavúk goes on to identify finger and nail impressions, and Schickbewurf barbotine treatment (whereby fine liquid clay is applied by fingers to the dry surface of vessels) as the diagnostic elements binding the StarčevoKörös and the earliest LBK. These are precisely the decorative and technological elements linked by Budja to the local adoption of farming by indigenous Mesolithic communities in the Balkans, with the implication that these cultural traditions in south-east Europe are themselves an outcome of the process of hunter-gatherer “acculturation”. Pavúk’s observations also leave open the question of the development of the finewares whether by innovation or by transference of ancestral non-ceramic container models from the local Mesolithic communities.

As opposed to ceramics, chipped stone industries have played a small role in the consideration of the LBK origins. Mateicuicová addresses this problem in her contribution. She considers raw material distribution, production techniques, and the morphology of chipped stone tools in the early LBK, the local Mesolithic, and in the Starčevo-Körös culture of east Central Europe. The conclusions are striking: Mateiuciová clearly identifies several aspects of the tool production process in the early LBK that represents a continuation of previous Mesolithic practices! This includes the inter-regional distribution of preferred lithic raw materials, specifically Transdanubian radioralite, Carpathian obsidian and Jurassic Krakow flint, which in their distribution networks are “mapping on” to earlier networks of the Mesolithic period (see also Báffy, Lukes, Pavlů and Tichý, this volume; Gronenborn 1990, 1998, 1999, 2003b). This includes the technology of blade tool production, specifically the use of the punch technique to strike off blades from the core, a practice that follows Mesolithic traditions of the Danubian region (including the Mesolithic of Transdanubia and the north Balkan region) rather than the pressure flaking of Mediterranean origin. And it includes a range of diagnostic artefacts, specifically short-pointed borers or awls (Méche de foret), broad and short trapezes as well as segments. In contrast, laterally retouched blades are typical of the south-eastern Balkan Neolithic, but are almost completely absent in the earliest LBK.

In concluding his analysis, Pavúk is clear in his views about the origin of the LBK: “The first Neolithic culture of Central Europe, represented by the Early LBK, was not inherited from Balkan Starčevo-Criş. The further development of the Ealry LBK therefore, in all aspects and characteristics as well as cultural-historical significance and genetic origin, must be considered both as autonomous and autochthonous” (Pavúk, this volume p. 75). Pavúk goes on to make a case for the secondary “Neolithisation” of Mesolithic communities during the expansion phase, after the first LBK communities reached the lowlands of Bohemia, southern Poland and Germany, a process marked by the breakdown of cultural uniformity characteristic of the expansion phase and by the coeval development of regional traditions (also discussed by Nowak, this volume).

Tichý’s contribution also identifies cultural variation in the earliest LBK of eastern Bohemia that require explanation. In particular, while he regards early LBK houses as uniform in construction (but see Pavlů, this volume), he attributes changes in house building in the later phase to innovation and adaptation to local conditions. Tichý notes that several technological traditions used in the LBK were already employed in the Mesolithic, especially the technological process employed in bone tool production. While some new tool-types were introduced from south-east Europe,

Pavlů considers the origin of the LBK tradition in Bohemia. Here again it is possible to identify patterns in the material culture that do not conform to the view held by Neustupný, that the Starčevo-Körös communities were the exclusive cultural and genetic ancestors of the LBK. Instead, the views advanced by Bánffy and Pavúk receive further support from Pavlů, since the contributory role of local Mesolithic groups to the constitution of the LBK in Bohemia is suggested by: lithic raw material distribution patterns “mediated by gradual changes and brokered via

192

MAREK ZVELEBIL: THE MANY ORIGINS OF THE LBK

“the Neolithic did not bring any new innovations in the production of bone tools. All the processes had been known since the Palaeolithic. The bones of wild animals were used most often, primarily for making firm tools” (Tichý, this volume p. 118).

consequence of remarkable increases in settlement density (Beneš, idem). Using evidence from earliest LBK sites in Austria, Lenneis discusses the variation in LBK longhouse form and construction, noted already for other regions of the early LBK by other contributors (Bánffy, Pavlů, Tichý, Marciniak) and extends this discussion to the overall organisation of the settlement. She notes that the construction principle of the LBK longhouse “seems to have been an indigenous invention by the people of central Europe” (Lenneis, this volume p. 149) as no analogues for this exist in southeast Europe, and concludes that

This ancestral complexity and cultural diversity attendant at the time of LBK origins, evident in the discussion just presented above, comes through again when individual aspects of early LBK life are considered in part three of this volume. In his discussion of LBK houses, households and food consumption, Marciniak emphasises the importance of the ancestral past to LBK communities, and suggests a symbolic role for longhouses as mnemonic devices, monuments of collective social memory invoking the ancestral past (see also Hodder 1990; Whittle 1996; Bradley 1998). The same can perhaps be said of the clay models of circular houses, if that is indeed what they are, discussed by Pavlů in his contribution (see above), except that in this case the models would be referring to the Mesolithic ancestral past.

“the structure of the LBK settlement is also very unique and distinctly different from the Early Neolithic villages of Greece and the Balkans. While the latter had been organised village communities where houses were sometimes built very close together, the typical LBK settlement consists of houses always rather large distances apart, there are few or no common areas and structures, especially at the earliest sites where each household gives the impression of being an almost independent unit” (Lenneis, this volume p. 152)

Marciniak also discusses the social and ideological roles of ceremonial, communal feasting and the evidence for it in the form of specific pits that were sealed quickly after use, and contained selected kinds of animals and animal parts. Unsurprisingly, cattle figures as an important social and symbolic resource (see also Sherratt 1995; Thomas 1999), as do to a lesser extent domesticated pigs. It is worth noting that at some early LBK sites, for example Vedrovice, the bones of wild animals predominate in the earliest phase, in particular aurochs, deer and pigs, along with small numbers of domestic cattle and sheep, in addition to pottery and stone tools, all of which were sealed soon after deposition (Lukes 2004).

In their analysis of the bone industry from Vedrovice in Moravia, Berkovec et al. (this volume) consider the very tradition identified by Tichý (this volume) as being technologically pre-Neolithic in origin. Berkovec et al. go on to compare the differences between the bone artefacts from the settlement and the cemetery of Vedrovice, concluding that the “world of the living had been kept apart from the world of the dead” (Berkovec et al., this volume p. 172) and this is expressed in differential deposition of artefacts. It would be interesting to consider the symbolic identity of the ancestral world the bone objects at the cemetery referred to – arguably the presence of standard antler buckles occurring exclusively in burials (at the settlement analogous buckles were customised to an individual and made of bone) on the one hand, and of spondylus shells originating in the Mediterranean on the other, would indicate a complex “ancestral” situation and a symbolic duality of ancestral worlds.

In his discussion of the LBK paleo-economy and paleoecology of Bohemia, Beneš draws attention to interregional variation, and to the mutually exclusive distribution of the first Neolithic and the last Mesolithic settlement of the area (Beneš, this volume). While the apparent geographic exclusivity between Mesolithic and Neolithic settlement may have been exaggerated in lowland areas by the subsequent extensive burial of Mesolithic landscapes through alluvial and colluvial processes linked to agriculture (Kuna et al. 1993; Dreslerová 1994; Beneš 1995; Zvelebil 1998, 2000)1, it is clear that early Neolithic farming already had a largescale impact on the Neolithic landscape, partly as a

Similarly, Czekaj-Zastawny (this volume) considers the form, context and function of polished stone picks occurring in the LBK culture and discusses their symbolic significance. Altogether, these observations and analyses add to the following conclusion: there is clear evidence for the multi-cultural origin and fragmentation of the early LBK cultural horizon in time and space. In this sense, the challenge raised by Neustupný in this volume has been fully met by the strength of forthcoming evidence from several regions, and evaluated by a number of contributors. In aggregate, the corpus of data presented

1

The lack of overlap in settlement location and site territory may also be exaggerated: as I noted above, taphonomic processes operating on loess soils favoured by farmers for thousands of years obliterated any trace of Mesolithic settlement; at the same time new LBK sites are increasingly being discovered in non-loessic locations, in closer proximity to Mesolithic settlements (i.e. for Bohemia, compare, for example, Pleiner and Rybová 1978: Map 1 with Rulf and Zápotocká 1994: Fig. 1; see also Rulf 1991, 1996; Pavlů and Vokolek 1992; Pavlů and Rulf 1996, for the Neolithic, and compare with Vencl 1971b, 1989, 1992, 1995; Svoboda et al. 1996, for the Mesolithic).

193

LBK DIALOGUES

here as well as by researchers elsewhere (i.e. Tichý 1960, 1962; Pavúk 1980; Whittle 1996, 1998; Pavlů and Vokolek 1992; Gronenborn 1998, 1999; Bánffy 2000; Lenneis and Lüning 2001; Lenneis and Stadler 2002) indicate another fact, however, that the dating and the duration of the formative phase of the LBK, as well as the regional and temporal differentiation of the early LBK tradition, remains tentative and sometimes contradictory. Bearing this in mind, the chronology of the early LBK is provisionally summarised below, based on a range of sources currently available2.

known as the earliest LBK phase, dating broadly to 54005200 BC (see footnote 2). In my opinion this phase represents an actual expansion of formative LBK huntergatherers turned farmers into new ecological niches of Central Europe, opened up to colonists by the cultural transformations and adaptations carried out in the preceding phase. To name but a few, this includes the focus on bovine husbandry, the development of the longhouse, social restructuring towards greater cooperation and extended kin-group support the longhouse implies (Whittle 1996), choice of site location and use of landscape in settlement areas to maximise yields from light and fertile soils. The penetration and settlement of this part of Central Europe through “leapfrog colonisation” seems the most acceptable explanation.

Inter-Regional Chronology Earliest LBK: The Formative Phase

During the partly co-eval, partly following integration phase (5200–5000 BC) the consolidation and expansion of settlement at a regional level occurred within the area settled in the formative phase allowing for increased contact and interaction with the Mesolithic huntergatherers within the reach of the LBK communities (i.e. Gronenborn 1998, 2003a).

In Transdanubia, (understood here as western Hungary, eastern Austria, southwest Slovakia and southern Moravia), the area of the earliest (“älteste, nejstarší”) LBK culture distribution (Podborský 1993; Gronenborn 1998, 2003a; Pavlů and Rulf 1996), we can distinguish at least two phases. During the initial formative phase, (i.e. Pavúk’s Nitra/Hurbanovo, Bíňa; Tichý’s “nejstarší” phase) provisionally dated to 5700/5600-5400 BC (47004500 bc), the LBK cultural tradition arose in the middle Danube basin, including western Hungary, eastern Austria, south-west Slovakia, and, arguably southern Moravia. One viable interpretation is that both the indigenous Mesolithic foragers and farmers of the Starčevo-Criş-Körös tradition shared in this process of cultural transformation. In other words, the indigenous hunter-gatherer communities, influenced by contact, exchange and limited immigration from Starčevo-CrişKörös farming communities adopted farming in addition to many conceptual and material elements of the Neolithic culture, adapted and transformed them in the process, while at the same time retaining elements of local traditions. The major problem with this interpretation remains the relative paucity of late Mesolithic sites in the area, although this may be apparent rather than real (see above).

This phase corresponds, approximately, with regional designations such as “Flomborn”, “Áčkový”, “Zofipole”, “proto-Notenkopf” traditions in Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, and the the Carpathian basin respectively (see i.e. Pavlů, Pavúk, this volume and footnote 2). Post-Early LBK The early period of the Linear Pottery culture was followed by the middle or “classic” (ca. 5000 – 4800 BC) and late LBK phases. In the final, late period of the LBK (4800-4600 BC, 4000-3700 bc), regionalisation already apparent in the classic phase finds further expression with the emergence of ceramic styles such as Šárka, Želiezovce, Hinkelstein, Omalian, and so on, before the final break-up and transformation of the LBK traditions into more regional middle (Western Europe) or late (Central Eastern Europe) Neolithic cultures, such as Cerny, Rossen, Stroked Pottery (SBK), and Lengyel. This final phase is marked by infilling, colonisation of secondary areas, interaction with hunter-gatherer communities both within the area settled previously and at the perimeter of LBK settlement, and integration of hunter-gatherer communities within the LBK way of life (see i.e. Pavlů, this volume).

Earliest LBK: The Expansion Phase During the following expansion phase (i.e. Pavúk’s Milanovce; Tichý’s 1962 “starší” phase), the LBK culture spread into Bohemia, Bavaria, and into Saxony and Franconia as far as Eitzum and Schwanfeld, as well as into southern Poland. In conventional terms, this is also 2

C-14 dates often have confidence limits that are too broad to estimate accurately the duration of each of these phases. However, the formative phase is thought to have lasted 3-6 generations (i.e. Bánffy, Pavúk, this volume), while the expansion phase, marked by Milanovce-type ceramics lasted for example at Bylany for the duration of 6-7 building phases (Pavúk, this volume). As each of the building phases covered about 15-30 years (Pavlů and Rulf 1996; Tichý, this volume), at Bylany this phase would have lasted between 100 and 200 years. Pavúk (this volume) also makes the point that the expansion (Milanovce) phase was diachronic regionally, so that by the time the ceramics of this type reached Rhineland, Transdanuabia was already entering the next ceramic phase.

Human Scale of Culture Change: Innovation and Transmission of Cultural Knowledge One problem that we as archaeologists and prehistorians face, is the practice, out of necessity, to use the language, terminology and concepts developed during the dominance of the culture-historical paradigm in archaeology. This volume is no exception. The culture-

194

MAREK ZVELEBIL: THE MANY ORIGINS OF THE LBK

Processes of learning involved in such cultural transmissions of knowledge are conditioned by age, gender and the status of individuals. They unfold on a human scale and involve social actors, in other words individuals, social groups and communities. Such transmission of knowledge will occur inter-generationally or through contact between communities, and it will be structured and motivated by the social context of such learning experiences and by their ideological and cosmological significance.

historical paradigm was bound by the normative concept of culture wherein archaeological cultures were explicitly or implicitly understood as reflections or signatures of identity-conscious social groups, ethic units, peoples, or nations (Kossinna 1911, 1921[1914]; Childe 1929, 1957[1925]; Binford 1962, 1983; Clark 1968, 1973; Neustupný 1971; Shennan 1989; Jones 1997). This is not the place to explain in any detail the enormous amount of work carried out in archaeology about the nature of archaeological cultures in the last 40 years. However as a result of these developments, we are far less naïve today, and the problem of understanding archaeological cultures is far more complex. We now know that archaeological cultures do not, as a rule, correlate with ethnic groups. At minimum, we know that the constitution and meaning of archaeological culture can reflect a wide number of variables such as patterns of discard and deposition reflecting ecological conditions, existing levels of technology, cultural traditions, trade and exchange, social status of artefacts, routine activities in the landscape, symbolic considerations and activities; and, after discard, post-depositional processes of selective destruction and relocation, and the selective retrieval and interpretation of cultural remains, mediated by strategic, ideological and political agendas of modern investigators. Cultural variation symbolising ethnicity is merely one among such many variables that play a part in the composition of an archaeological culture.

Within such a definition, the process of learning, culture contact and intergenerational transmission of cultural traditions through social agency, routine practice and social structure assumes paramount importance: they move our investigations towards understanding the past on a human scale and in terms of human actions, leading to a humanist and anthropological archaeology. In this volume, several contributors have addressed these issues (Bánffy; Beneš; Lukes; Marciniak; Mateuiciová; Pavlů; Tichý). Lukes presents a formal model for the transmission of knowledge as a system of inheritance, taking into account both, sociological and evolutionary frameworks (for the latter, see Bettinger 1991; Shennan and Wilkinson 2001). Using concepts adopted from structuation theory (Giddens 1984) and agency in combination with isochrestic and emblemic (Sacket 1985, 1991; Wiessner 1983, 1985) stylistic expressions of identity and social practice in ceramic form and decoration, Lukes is able to identify two ancestral sources of knowledge – one derived from the Starčevo-Körös cultural tradition, the other from the regional Mesolithic, with an additional unknown/innovative element. While the Starčevo-Körös symbolism tends to be expressed through social agency in emblemic symbolism in the communal, public domain, the routine practice tends to replicate, at least in part, Mesolithic symbolism through isochrestic repetition of motives within the household. This analysis by Lukes neatly corresponds to similar dualities in other aspects of material culture analysed at Vedrovice such as lithic materials (Mateuticiová 2001, 2002, this volume), bone industry (Berkovec et al., this volume), and the symbolic use of animals in feasting (see above).

These considerations lead to the conclusion that archaeological cultures are complex units, modern artificial constructs that do not reflect faithfully the original composition of material culture assemblages or meaning attributed to them by social actors in the past. It follows then, that “archaeological cultures” cannot be equated with historical actors, since they do not represent real entities, such as “tribes”, “societies” “peoples” or “ethnic groups” (i.e. Shennan 1989; Jones 1997; Lang 1998). As an objective entity – that is with bias introduced by post-depositional taphonomic processes and consideration of the selective retrieval of finds – archaeological cultures are best regarded as broad social traditions, implying no more than a shared pool of cultural knowledge and a community of practitioners of cultural traditions and behavioural strategies, within which several identity-conscious social groups, “ethnic” or otherwise, may exist.

Innovation represents one major aspect of culture change covered in this volume. Many contributors - Bánffy, Beneš, Budja, Lenneis, Marciniak, Nowak, Pavlů, and Tichý - all discuss patterns of innovation in their contributions, relating to ceramic production and use, ecology, landuse and subsistence, cult and symbolic objects, house architecture, the symbolic use of animals, as well as stone and bone technologies. Yet there are opportunities left for further developments in considering innovation, in particular in placing both symbolic and material innovations in their social and ideological context, and in terms of understanding the motivation underlying innovative behaviour.

As noted earlier, this volume seeks to transcend traditional archaeological thought by focusing on anthropological and sociological approaches to the problem of archaeological culture, based on the development of the concepts of culture as a system of inheritance, passed on through an acquisition of knowledge by cross-generational or inter-communal transmission of culture and through innovation.

195

LBK DIALOGUES

(founder communities travelling over long distances) and frontier mobility and contact (promulgated by colonist or indigenous “tutors” through contact and partner exchange).

Several contributors discuss the key relationship between culture contact and gene exchange, and it is at this interface of human biology and archaeology, in the reconstruction of mating networks and gene exchange at the agricultural transition, that we can make significant progress in our understanding of the origins of the Neolithic. Based on his evaluation of the evidence from Bylany and eastern Bohemia, Pavlů proposes that the emergence of the LBK in this area resulted from the arrival of exogenous colonist groups, consisting mainly of men who established farming communities with the participation of local, hunter-gatherer women. On the assumption that men were responsible for stone tool manufacture, and women for pottery, he argues that “foreign men [were] not likely to have mastered the earlier and superior techniques of flaked stone tool manufacture”, (Pavlů, this volume p. 86) which is evident in the early LBK assemblages. Similarly, that local women initially had poor knowledge of pottery manufacture, is evident in the minimal quantity of decorated fineware. In other words,

One can only welcome such discussions, unfolding at a level of specific human action, whether by routine practice or agency. One can, of course, question some of the assumptions involved, for example the link between stone tool production and men (i.e. Gero 1991; Donald and Hurcombe 2000), or that between ceramic production and women (Hodder 1978, 1982; Miller 1985). However, engendering specific material culture traditions provides a bridge of great importance for linking genetic and cultural patterns in the constitution of Neolithic society. There is no inherent reason why there should be a single uniform pattern of gene exchange across the entire province of the LBK tradition. Patterns of partnership and gene exchange are of course dependent on a range of factors, such as social status of individuals and of foraging and farming communities, demographic profiles of each, matri/patrilocality, and the nature of foragerfarmer contacts. Nine different patterns of gene exchange can be envisages for founder communities at the agricultural transition:

“a portion of ceramics were produced by inexperienced potters – women from within the region of the early settlement” (Pavlů, this volume p. 86). Mateiciucová (this volume), on the other hand, favours the opposite scenario: the continuation of lithic traditions from the Mesolithic into the Neolithic in Transdanubia which she interprets as a partilocal or virilocal residence pattern, and the participation of local men in the process of the emergence of the LBK. The continuity in many (though not all – see Kalicz 1993; Bánffy, Pavůk, this volume) ceramic traditions from Starčevo-Körös into the early LBK indicates

1. 2. 3.

“the occasional arrival of women from the Starčevo culture into Mesolithic neighbourhoods [which would] act as a catalyst in the transition to the Neolithic way of life - without influencing some crafts such as the tradition of chipped stone industry” (Mateiciucová, this volume p. 98).

4.

Tichý (this volume) takes issue with the patrilocal Neolithisation process, suggested by Mateiciucová. Instead, he suggests the arrival of entire pioneer colonisation communities of south-east origin, including both men and women, as “fully functional Neolithic families” (Tichý, this volume p. 119). Such pioneer colonisation would occur over long distances. Once established in their new environment, Neolithic farmers acted as “tutors” for the surrounding local huntergatherers in the surrounding areas – a process of secondary neolithisation which was then repeated by neolithisized foragers later on in more remote areas, a process which facilitated the way by which farming practices and techniques spread. In essence, then, Tichý argues for the combination of “leapfrog colonisation”

7.

5. 6.

8. 9.

Both men and women are immigrant colonists, no gene exchange with the indigenous huntergatherers Men and women are both colonists, but there is gene exchange through hypergyny, with forager women joining faming communities Men and women are both colonist, but there is gene exchange with forager men joining farming communities Men and women are both Mesolithic indigens, but there is gene exchange with Neolithic women joining the Mesolithic communities Men and women are both Mesolithic indigens, but there is gene exchange with Neolithic men joining the Mesolithic communities Men and women of the Mesolithic adopting farming without gene exchange with the Neolithic farmers Neolithic men only immigrating into areas inhabited by the Mesolithic communities and taking as partners local hunter-gatherer women Neolithic women only immigrating into areas inhabited by the Mesolithic communities and taking as partners local hunter-gatherer men There is exchange of partners between two communities involving both genders reciprocally (i.e. combinations of 2, 3, 4 and 5)

In the specific situation of the LBK, if one takes into account the evidence for forager-farmer exchanges recorded in material culture, the bone isotope analyses discussed above, in addition to the broader ethnohistorical evidence, options 2, 4, and 5 constitute the 196

MAREK ZVELEBIL: THE MANY ORIGINS OF THE LBK

a similar trend but accounts for only 10–20 % of mitochondrial sequences (Richards et al. 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 2000b: 1271) over all of Europe. Richards et al. (2000b: 1271) conclude that, on the maternal side, the incoming lineages were ‘in the minority, in comparison with the indigenous Mesolithic lineages whose bearers adopted the new way of life.’ However, acculturation may have occurred in southeast Europe and ‘there was considerable replacement in central Europe’ (Richards et al. 2000b: 1271).

more likely patterns of gene exchange that were active at the agricultural transition in Central Europe. These option are likely to have occurred either during “leapfrong colonisation” episodes (pattern 2), or frontier mobility (patterns 4 and 5), while contact implies cultural exchanges without any gene flow (patterns 1 and 6). While it is quite possible, indeed likely that both leapfrog colonisation and frontier mobility, possibly contact without gene exchange all occurred during the emergence of the LBK tradition, the temporal sequence and the exact nature and of such exchanges has to be established region by region.

The third is Y-chromosomal DNA analysis, the results of which fall between the nuclear and the mitochondrial evidence: the frequency of Y-chromosome haplotypes originating in the Near East averages about 20%, with more than 25% in the Balkans and the Mediterranean, and less than 10 % in northern and western Europe (Semino et al. 1999, 2000). Recent studies by King and Underhill (2002) come broadly to the same conclusions. The difference between greater male (Y-chromosome) and lesser female (mitochondrial) genetic contribution to this process is significant in itself, indicating male exogamy and long-distance travel on the one hand, and female matrilocality and regional endogamy on the other, amongst communities who were in the initial process of becoming farmers (for further elaboration and supporting evidence, see Zvelebil 1995a; Niskanen 1998; Villems et al. 1998; Künnap 2000; Zvelebil and Lillie 2000).

Archaeogenetics and Population Histories of the Agricultural Transition What of the genetic evidence? There is an ongoing debate among geneticists about the interpretation of modern genetic evidence, the dating and projection of modern genetic patterns into the past, and about the interpretation of genetic variation in terms of population histories. In general, however, increasing genetic support can be adduced for an integrationist hypothesis combining limited immigration and the indigenous adoption of farming as the two major processes responsible for the origins of farming in Europe (Richards et al. 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 2000a, 2000b; Semino et al. 1996, 2000; Julku and Wiik 1998; Torroni et al. 1998; Evison 1999, 2001; Künnap 2000; Renfrew and Boyle 2000; Simoni et al. 2000, Underhill et al. 2000, 2001; King and Underhill 2002).

Conclusion: Many Origins of the LBK In my opinion, four major population processes should be considered in the generation of of the LBK culture. In aggregate, these processes present a more plausible explanation than population-driven explanations that are based exclusively on the colonisation of Central Europe by incoming Neolithic farmers at the beginning of the Neolithic either through demic diffusion or folk migration.

Studies of modern human DNA (in addition to some prehistoric DNA) show quite clearly that the modern gene pool in Europe is mostly a consequence of three major demographic events, (although their relative contributions in terms of population numbers are still matters of debate). First the initial colonisation by anatomically modern humans, who entered Europe from North Africa/Near East between 40,000 and 25,000 years ago. Second, the Late Glacial population expansion and colonisation of areas freed by deglaciation in northern Europe between 15,000 and 10,000 year ago. Finally, the post-glacial penetration of Europe by the first farmers from the Near East; introducing farming to Europe.

In general, the genetic pattern we see today represents an ‘incremental palimpsest’ of small-scale population movements progressing from southeast Europe to the northwest over millennia. Such movements cover the entire course of modern human prehistory – from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Medieval Period – and together account for the strong southeast to northwest gradient observed in the genetic data. This is not surprising given that Europe is a northwest peninsular extension of Asia.

This post-glacial penetration is documented by three sets of data. The first includes principal component analysis of ‘classical markers’. The first principal component explains, according to Cavalli-Sforza (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984; Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza 1995), about 26–28% of the modern genetic variation of Europe, mapped as a gradual distribution in values between the Near East and northwest Europe (although the directionality of spread could be from either margin).

More specifically, at the onset of the Neolithic we can postulate ‘targeted’, ‘leapfrog’ or ‘pioneer’ settlement of selected areas by small numbers of incoming farmers from the Near East/Anatolia to southeast, central and Mediterranean Europe, resulting in the foundation of agricultural ‘enclaves’ within landscapes occupied by hunter-gatherers (see Alexander 1978; Zvelebil 1986,

The second is mitochondrial DNA analysis, which shows

197

LBK DIALOGUES

a

b

c Fig. 3: Different models for the spread of farming diagrammatically expressed and incorporating gene flow and culture change (adapted and modified from Jobling et al. 2004, figure 10.1) (A) Spread of agriculture by acculturation (B) Spread of agriculture by gene flow; demic diffusion, folk migration (C) Spread of agriculture involving gene flow, frontier mobility and contact.

within frontier zones, along the lines outlined in Fig. 2.

1996; Zilhão 1993, 2000; Tichý 1999, 2001; Zvelebil and Lillie 2000).

In Central Europe, the formation of the LBK cultural tradition was regionally variable as a process and drew on several sources. The constitution of the LBK appears to have been a four-step affair. The first step was the arrival of the intrusive farming communities into the frontier

These events were followed by the adoption of farming by indigenous foragers in individual regions of Europe through contact, intermarriage and socially regulated mobility between foraging and farming communities 198

MAREK ZVELEBIL: THE MANY ORIGINS OF THE LBK

volume suggests however, even in many areas of southeast Europe a case can be made for the genetic and cultural mixing of the two populations: the indigenous hunter-gatherers of the Balkans and the intrusive farmers originating in Anatolia or the Levant (see also Tringham 2000; Zvelebil and Lillie 2000 for supporting genetic evidence, see also Barbujani and Chikhi 2000, Richards and Macaulay 2000; King and Underhill 2002; Gkiasta et al. 2003; see also Fig. 3c).

zone of Transdanubia by a process referred to usually as “leapfrong colonisation” when optimal patches of light fertile soils were targeted for settlement by the farming communities of Starčevo and Körös traditions. However, as Bánffy (this volume) points out, in so doing these farmers were already entering a different ecological zone, poorly suited to farming regimes developed originally in the Mediterrenean climates. The second step was the establishment of contact, exchange and frontier mobility between these late Starčevo-Körös communities and the local huntergatherer groups resident in Transdanubia. Exchanges of practical cultural knowledge, symbolism and information, as well as gene exchange trough inter-community partnerships were all involved in these contacts.

In 1986 I was convinced that the LBK culture was generated principally by demic diffusion of intrusive farmers from the south-east (Zvelebil 1986: Chapter 12, Fig. 10 and Fig. 11). My understanding of the problem has now changed. It has changed because of the new archaeological evidence forthcoming from the key regions of the LBK origins in eastern Central Europe, because of the recent advances in the reconstruction of the genetic (and archaeo-genetic) profiles of European populations, and above all, because of the more sophisticated and theoretically informed understanding of the genesis of archaeological cultures and the constitution of social identity. The Linear Pottery Culture has many origins – and we should celebrate its cultural and genetic diversity.

The third step in this process was marked by innovation in the realm of practical technological knowledge and social and symbolic structures (described, for example, by Lenneis 1997, 2001, this volume for the development of the longhouse and the organisation of the LBK settlement, or by Marciniak in this volume for symbolic changes) and selective integration of ancestral traditions both indigenous Mesolithic and Starčevo/Körös Neolithic - into a new cultural tradition by the means of routine practice and social agency. These processes are illustrated, among others, by Lukes, Bánffy, and Mateiciuciová in this volume. The time of this crucial development corresponds to the final phase of the Starčevo/Körös (i.e. Starčevo Spiraloid B), and to the formative phase of the LBK, sometimes sub-divided into two episodes (Nitra/Hurbanovo and Bíňa in south-west Slovakia). The best estimates for the duration of this phase is 6-8 generations, or about 200 years between 5700/5600 and 5400 BC.

References Alexander, J. (1978) Frontier Studies and the Earliest Farmers in Europe. IN: D. Green, C. Haselgrove, and M. Spriggs (eds) Social Organisation and Settlement. British Archaeological Reports (International Series), Oxford. pp. 13–29. Ammerman, A.J. (1989) On the Neolithic Transition in Europe: a Comment on Zvelebil and Zvelebil (1988) Antiquity 63: 162–5. Ammerman, A.J. and Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (1984) The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Population in Europe. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Antanaitis, I. (1999) Concerning the Transition to Farming in the East Baltic. Documenta Praehistorica 26: 89–100. Arias, P. (1999) The Origins of the Neolithic Along the Atlantic Coast of Continental Europe: A Survey. Journal of World Prehistory 13: 403–464. Arnaud, J.M. (1982) Neolithique ancien et processus de neolithisation dans le sud du Portugal. Archéologie en Languedoc, no. special, Actes du Colloque International de Prehistoire. pp. 29–48. Barbujani, G. and Chikhi, L. (2000) Genetic Population Structure of Europeans Inferred from Nuclear and Mitochondrial DNA Polymorphisms. IN: C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds) Archaeogenetics: DNA Population Prehistory of Europe. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge. pp. 119–130. Bailey, R.C. and Annger J.R.R. (1989) Net Hunters vs. Archers: Variation in Women’s Subsistences Strategies in the Ituri Forest. Human Ecology 17: 273–97.

The fourth step is represented by a ‘star-burst’ pattern of regional population expansion, that consisted of the colonisation and settlement of locally available niches by a genetically mixed population including local huntergatherers and some immigrant farmers (in the first instance, this would correspond to the expansion (“Milanovce”) phase of the early LBK). This episode too, lasted about 200 calendar years between ca. 5400 and 5200 BC. In summary then, a balanced assessment of both the archaeological and genetic evidence leads to the same conclusion: the first farmers of Europe originated genetically and culturally from interbreeding of intrusive Near Eastern and indigenous Mesolithic populations, with the continuation of hunter-gatherer genetic inheritance and cultural traditions increasingly predominant in regions further away from the east Mediterranean and south-east Europe. The first farmers of Central Europe, those of the early LBK tradition, originated in Transdanubia in the main as a population, but their cultural repertoire owes much to the knowledge and traditions of south-east Europe. As Budja in this 199

LBK DIALOGUES

Clark, J.G.D. (1980) Mesolithic Prelude. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Cronk, L. (1989) From Hunters to Herders: Subsistence Change as a Reproductive Strategy Among the Muckogodo. Current Anthropology 30: 224–234. Denbow, J. (1984) Prehistoric Hunters and Foragers of the Kalahari: the Evidence for 1500 Years of Interaction. IN: C. Schrire (ed) Past and Present in Hunter-Gatherer Studies. Academic Press, London. Dennell, R. (1983) European Economic Prehistory. Academic Press, London. Dennell, R. (1985) The Hunter-Gatherer/Agricultural Frontier in Prehistoric Temperate Europe. IN: S. Green and S.M. Perlman (eds) The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries. Academic Press, New York. pp. 113–140. Dennell, R. (1992) Paper given at the Conference Transition to Farming in the Baltic. Poland. Dolukhanov, P.M. (1979) Ecology and Economy in Neolithic Eastern Europe. Duckworth, London. Donald, M. and Hurcombe, L. (eds)(2000) Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological Perspective. Macmillan Press Ltd, London. Dreslerová, D. (1994) Archaeology and the Labe River Floodplain: Recent Discoveries. IN: E. Růžičková and A. Zeman (eds) Holocene Floodplain of the Upper and Middle Course of the Labe in the Czech Republic. Institute of Archaeology, Prague. Evison, M. (1999) Perspectives on the Holocene in Britain: Human DNA. Quaternary Proceedings 7: 615–623. Evison, M. (2001) Population Studies using HLA Ancient Biomolecules 4: 1–14. Fewster, K.J. (2001) Petso’s Field: Ethnoarchaeology and Agency. IN: K.J. Fewster and M. Zvelebil (eds) Ethnorachaeology and Hunter-Gatherers: Pictures at an Exhibition. British Archaeological Reports (International Series), Oxford. Gero, J.M. (1991) Genderlithics: Women’s Roles in Stone Tool Production. IN: J.M. Gero and M.W. Conkey (eds) Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Blackwell, Oxford. pp. 163–193. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cambridge, Polity Press. Gkiasta, M.; Russell, T.; Shennan, S. and Steele, J (2003) Neolithic Transition in Europe: the Radiocarbon Record Revisited. Antiquity 77: 45 – 62. Griffin, P.B. (1984) Forager Resource and Land Use in the Humid Tropics: the Agta of Northeastern Luzon, the Philippines. IN: C. Schrire (ed) Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Societies. Academic Press, New York. pp. 95–121. Gronenborn, D. (1990) Eine Pfeilspitze vom AltesbandKeramisachen Fundplatz Friedberg- Bruchenbrücken in der Wetterau. Germania 68: 223–31. Gronenborn, D. (1998) Ältestbandkeramische Kultur, La Hoguette, Limburg, and ...What Else? – Contemplating the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in

Bánffy, E. (2000) The Late Starčevo and the Earliest Linear Pottery Groups in Western Transdanubia. Documenta Praehistorica 27: 173–186. Barker, G. (1985) Prehistoric Farming in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bellwood, P. and Renfrew, C. (eds) (2003) Examining the Farming/ Language Dispersal Hypothesis. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Beneš, J. (1995) Erosion and Accumulation Processes in the Late Holocene of Bohemia in Relation to Prehistoric and Medieval Landscape Occupation. IN: M. Kuna and N. Venclová (eds) Whither Archaeology? Papers in Honor of Evžen Neustupný. Institute of Archaeology, Prague. pp. 133–144. Bentley, R.A.; Price, T.D. and Chikhi, L. (2003) Comparing Broad Scale Genetic and Local Scale Isotopic Evidence for the Spread of Agriculture into Europe. Antiquity 77: 63–66. Bentley, R.A.; Price, T.D.; Lüning, J.; Gronenborn, D.; Wahl, J. and Fullagar, P.D. (2002) Human migration in early Neolithic Europe. Current Anthropology 43: 799-804. Bettinger, R.L. (1991) Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory. Plenum Press, London. Binford, L.R. (1962) Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28: 217–225. Binford, L.R. (1983) In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. Thames and Hudson, New York. Bogucki, P.I. (1995) The Linear Pottery Culture of Central Europe: Conservative Colonists? IN: W.K. Barnett and J.W. Hoopes (eds) The Emergence of Pottery. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington. pp. 89–98. Bogucki, P.I. and Grygiel, R. (1993) The First Farmers of Central Europe: a Survey Article. Journal of Field Archaeology 20: 399–426. Bradley, R. (1998) The Significance of Monuments: on the Shaping of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe. Routledge, London. Budja, M. (2001) The Transition to Farming in Southeast Europe: Perspectives from Pottery. Documenta Praehistorica 28: 27–47. Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. and Cavalli-Sforza, F. (1995) The Great Human Diasporas: the History of Diversity and Evolution. Addison-Wesley, New York. Chapman, J. (1994) The Origins of Farming in South East Europe. Prehistoire Europeenne 6: 133–156. Childe, V.G. (1929) The Danube in Prehistory. Clarendon: Oxford. Childe, V.G. (1957[1925]) The Dawn of European Civilisation. 6th edition. Kegan Paul, London. Clark, J.G.D. (1966) The Invasion Hypothesis in British archaeology. Antiquity 40: 172–189. Clark, J.G.D. (1968) Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, London. Clark, J.G.D. (1973) Archaeology: The Loss of Innocence. Antiquity 47: 6–18.

200

MAREK ZVELEBIL: THE MANY ORIGINS OF THE LBK

New York. Jochim, M.A. (1998) A Hunter-Gatherer Landscape. Southwest Germany in the Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic. Plenum Press, New York. Jones, S. (1997) The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and the Present. Routledge, London. Julku, K. and Wiik, K. (eds)(1998) The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia. Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae, I. Turku. Kalicz, N. (1993) The Early Phases of the Neolithic in Western Hungary (Transdanubija). Poročilo o Raziskovanju Paleolita, Neolita in Eneolita v Sloveniji 21: 85–136. Kent, S. (1993) Sharing in an Egalitarian Kalahari Community. Man (New Series) 28: 479–514. Kind, C.J. (1998) Komplexe Wildbeuter und Fruhe Ackerbauern. Bemerkungen zur Ausbreitung der Linearbandkeramik im Sudlichen Mitteleurope. Germania 76(1): 1–24. King, R. and Underhill P.A. (2002) Congruent Distribution of Neolithic Painted Pottery and Ceramic Figurines with Y-Chromosome Lineages. Antiquity 76:707 714. Kooijmans, L.P. (1993) The Mesolithic/Neolithic Transition in the Lower Rhine Basin. IN: P. Bogucki (ed) Case Studies in European Prehistory. CRC Press, Bocca Raton. pp. 95–145. Kossinna, G. (1911) Die Herkunft der Germanen. Kabitzsch, Leipzig. Kossinna, G. (1921[1914]) Die Deutsche Vorgeschichte: eine Hervorragend Nationale Wissenschaft. MannusBibliotek 9. Kuna, M.; Zvelebil, M.; Foster, P.J. and Dreslerová, D. (1993) Field Survey and Landscape Archaeology Research Design: Methodology of a Regional Field Survey in Bohemia – Povrchový Průzkum a Krajinná Archeologie Program a Metodika Regionálního Průzkumu v Čechách. Památky Archeologické 84(2): 110–130. Künnap, A. (ed)(2000) The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia II and III. Societas Historiae Finno-Ugricae, Tartu. Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. (2000) The Mesolithic/Neolithic Transition in Greece as Evidenced by the Data at Theopetra Cave in Thessaly. Documenta Praehistorica 27: 133–140. Lang, V. (1998) Some Aspects of the Corded Ware Culture East of the Baltic Sea. IN: K. Julku and K. Wiik (eds) The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia. Societas Historiae Finno-Urgicae, Turku I. pp. 84 – 105. Larsson, L. (1990) The Mesolithic of Southern Scandinavia. Journal of World Prehistory 4: 257– 309. Leacock, E. and Lee, R. (1982) Politics and History in Band Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lenneis, E. (1997) Houseforms of the Central European Linearpottery Culture and of the Balkan Early

Southern Central Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 25: 189–202. Gronenborn, D. (1999) A Variation on a Basic Theme: The Transition to Farming in Southern Central Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 13(2): 123 – 209. Gronenborn, D. (2003a) Migration, Acculturation, and Culture Change in Western Temperate Eurasia, 6500 – 5000 cal BC. Documenta Praehistorica 30: 79–91. Gronenborn, D. (2003b) Lithic Raw Material Distribution Networks and the Neolithisation of Central Europe. IN: L. Burnez-Lanotte (ed) Production and Management of Lithic Materials in the European Linearbandkeramik. British Archaeological Reports (International Series 1200), Oxford. pp. 45–50. Hage, P. and Marck, J. (2003) Matrilineality and the Melanesian Origin of Polynesian Chromosomes. Current Anthropology 44: S121–S127. Hayden B. (1990) Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers, and Planters: the Emergence of Food Production. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 31–69. Headland, T. and Reed, L. (1989) Hunter-Gatherers and their Neighbors from Prehistory to the Present. Current Anthropology 30: 43–66. Hodder, I. (1978) The Spatial Organization of Culture. Duckworth, London. Hodder, I. (1982) The Present Past: An Introduction to Anthropology for the Archaeologists. B.T. Batsford Ltd., London. Hodder, I. (1990) The Domestication of Europe. Blackwell, Oxford. Hoffman, C.L. (1984) Punan Foragers in the Trading Networks of Southeast Asia. IN: C. Schrire (ed) Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies. Academic Press, New York. Hunn, E.S. and Williams, N.M. (eds)(1982) Resource Managers: North American and Australian HunterGatherers. Westview Press, Boulder. Ingold, T.; Riches, D. and Woodburn, J. (eds)(1988) Hunters and Gatherers. Berg, Oxford. Janík, L. (1998) The Appearance of Food Producing Societies in the Southeastern Baltic Region. IN: M. Zvelebil, R. Dennell and L. Domańska (eds) Agricultural Frontier and the Transition to Farming in the Baltic. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. pp. 237–244. Jeunesse, C. (1987) La Céramique de la Hoguette: Un Nouvel 'élément non-rubané' du Néolithique Ancien de l'Europe du Nord-Ouest, Cahiers Alsaciens d'Archéologie, d'Art et d'Histoire 30: 5-33. Jeunesse, C. (2000) Les Composantes Autochtone et Danubienne en Europe Centrale et Occidentale Entre 5500 et 4000 av. J.-C.: Contacts, Transferts, Acculturations. IN: Les Derniers Chasseurs-Ueilleurs d' Europe Occidentale, Actes du Colloque International de Besançon, Octobre 1998, 361-78, Presses Universitaires Franc-Comtoises, Besançon. Jobling, M.A.; Hurles, M.E. and Tyler-Smith, C. (2004) Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peolple and Disease. Garland Science Taylor and Francis Group, 201

LBK DIALOGUES

Niskanen, M. (1998) The Genetic Relationships of Northern and Central Europeans in Light of Craniometric Measurements and Gene Frequencies. IN: K. Julku and K. Wiik (eds) The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia. Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae, I. Turku. pp. 133–149. Pavúk, J. (1980) Ältere Linearkeramik in der Slowakei. Slovenská Archeológia 28: 7–90. Pavlů I. and Rulf, J. (1996) Nejstarší Zemědělci na Kutnohorsku a Čáslavsku. Archeologické Rozhledy 48: 643–673. Pavlů, I. and Vokolek, V. (1992) Early Linear Pottery Culture in the East Bohemian Region. Památky Archeologické 83: 41–87. Peterson, J.T. (1978) Hunter-Gatherer/ Farmer Exchange. American Anthropologist 80: 335–351. Piggot, S. (1965) Ancient Europe. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Pinhasi, R.; Foley, R.A. and Lahr, M.M. (2000) Spatial and Temporal Patterns in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Archaeological Record of Europe. IN: C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds) Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge. Pleiner, R. and Rybová, A. (1978) Pravĕké Dĕjiny Čech. Academia, Praha. Pluciennik, M. (1998) Deconstructing ‚The Neolithic‘ in the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition. IN: M. Edmonds and C. Richards (eds) Understanding the Neolithic of North-Western Europe. Cruithne Press, Glasgow. pp. 61–84. Podborský, V. (ed)(1993) Pravěké Dějiny Moravy. Muzejní a Vlastivědná Společnost v Brně, Brno. Price, T.D. (1987) The Mesolithic of Western Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 1: 225–332. Price, T.D. (1991) The Mesolithic of Western Europe. Annual Review of Anthropology 20: 211–233. Price, T.D. (1996) The First Farmers of Southern Scandinavia. IN: D. Harris (ed) The Origin and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. University College London Press, London. pp. 346– 363. Price, T.D. (ed)(2000) Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Price, T.D.; Bentley, R.A.; Gronenborn, D.; Lüning, J. and Wahl, J. (2001). Human Migration in the Linearbandkeramik of Central Europe. Antiquity 75: 593 – 603. Quitta, Hans (1960) Zur Frage der Ältesten Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 38: 153– 188. Raemaekers, D. (1998) The Articulation of a ‘New Neolithic’: The Meaning of the Swifterbank Culture for the Process of Neolithisation in the Western part of the North Europe Plain(4900–3400). Leiden University, Leiden. Renfrew, C. (1987) Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Jonathan Cape, London.

Neolithic – a Comparison. Poročilo o Raziskovanju Paleolitika, Neolitika in Eneolitika v Sloveniji 24: 143–150. Lenneis, E. (2001) The Beginning of the Neolithic in Austria – a Report about Recent and Current Investigations. Documenta Praehistorica 28: 99–116. Lenneis, E. and Lüning, J. (2001) Die Altbandkeramischen Siedlungen von Neckenmarkt und Strögen, Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 82, Vienna. Lenneis, E. and Stadler, P. (2002) 14C-Daten und Seriation Altbandkeramischer Inventare. Archaeologické Rozhledy 54:191-201. Lohr, H. (1994) Linksflugler und Rechtsflugler in Mittelund Westeuropa. Der Fortbestand der Verbreitungsgebiete Asymmetrischer Pfeilspitzenformen als Kontinuitatsbeleg Zwischen Meso- und Neolithikum. Trierer Zeitschrift 57: 9– 126. Lukes, A. (2004) A Social Perspective on the Constitution of the Linear Pottery Culture. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Sheffield, Sheffield. Lüning, J. (1988) Frühe Bauern in Mitteleuropa im 6. und 5. Jahrausend v. Chr. Jährbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums 35(1): 27 – 93. Makkay, J. (1996) Theories about the Origin, the Distribution and the End of the Körös Culture. IN: L. Tálas (ed) At the Fringes of Three Worlds: HunterGatherers and Farmers in the Middle Tisza Valley. Szolnok. pp. 35–49. Mateiciucová, I. (2001) Mechanismy Distribuce Štípané Industrie v Mezolitu a Neolitu aneb Význam Importovaných Kamenných Surovin. Otázky Neolitu a Eneolitu Našich Zemí 2000: 7 – 19. Mateiciucová, I. (2002) Počátky Neolitu ve Střední Evropě ve Světle Zkoumání Štípané Industrie Raně Zemědělských Společností (LnK) na Moravě a v Dolním Rakousku: 5700 – 4900 př.n.l. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Ústav Archaeologie a Muzeologie Filozofické Fakulty Masarkykovy Univerzity, Brno. Midgley, M. (1993) TRB Culture. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Miller, D. (1985) Artefacts as Categories: a Study in Ceramic Variability in Central India. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mlekuž, D. (2003) Early Herders of the Eastern Adriatic. Documenta Praehistorica 30: 139-152. Moddermann, P.J.R. (1988) The Linear Pottery Culture. Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 38: 63–139. Murdock, G.P. (1967) Ethnographic Atlas. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. Neustupný, E. (1956) K Relativní Chronologii Volutové Keramiky. Archeologické Rozhledy 8: 386 – 407. Neustupný, E. (1971) Whither Archaeology? Antiquity 45: 34–39. Neustupný, E. (1982) Prehistoric Migrations by Infiltration. Archeologické Rozhledy 34: 278–293.

202

MAREK ZVELEBIL: THE MANY ORIGINS OF THE LBK

Marcikiæ, M.; Mika, A.; Mika, B.; Primorac, D.; Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti, A.; Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. and Underhill, P.A. (2000) The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective. Science 290 (5494): 1155–1164. Shennan, S. J. (ed)(1989) Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. Routledge, London. Shennan, S.J. and Wilkinson, J.R. (2001) Ceramic Style Change and Neutral Evolution: A Case Study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity 66 (4): 577593. Sherratt, A. (1995) Alcohol and its Alternatives: Symbol and Substance in Pre-Industrial Cultures. IN: J. Goodman, P.E. Lovejoy and A. Sherratt (eds) Consuming Habits: Drugs in History and Anthropology. Routledge, London. pp. 11-46. Simoni, L.; Calafell, F.; Pettener, D.; Bertranpetit, J. and Barbujani, G. (2000) Geographic Patterns of mtDNA Diversity in Europe. American Journal of Human Genetics 66: 262–278. Speth, J. (1991) Some Unexplored Aspects of Mutualistic Plains-Pueblo Food Exchange. IN: K. Spielman (ed) Farmers, Hunters, Colonists. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Spielman, K.A. (ed) (1991) Farmers and Colonists. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Spielman, K.A. and Eder, J.F. (1994) Hunters and Farmers: then and Now. Annual Review of Anthropology 23: 303–323. Starnini, E. (2000) Stone Industries of the Early Neolithic Cultures in Hungary and their Relationships with the Mesolithic Background. Societa Preistoria Protoistoria Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Trieste 8: 207219. Svoboda, J.; Opravil, E.; Škrdla, P.; Cílek, V. and Ložek, V. (1996) Mezolit z Perspektivy Regionu: Nové Výzkumy v Polomených Horách. Archeologické Rozhledy 47(1): 3 – 15. Svoboda, J.; Cílek, V. and Jarošová L. (1999a) Mezolit na Českolipsku: Poznámky k Současnému Stavu Výzkumu. Bezděz 8: 11 – 34. Svoboda, J.; Jarošová, L.; and Peša, V. (1999b) Mezolit z Perspektivy Regionu: Výzkum v Ústí Pekla. Archeologické Rozhledy 51: 245 – 264. Svoboda, J.; Jarošová, L.; and Drozdová, E. (2000) The North Bohemian Mesolithic Revisited: The Excavation Seasons 1998 – 1999. Anthropologie 38(3): 291 – 305. Taavitsainen, J.P.; Simola, H. and Gronlund, E. (1998) Cultivation History Beyond the Periphery. Journal of World Prehistory 12(2): 199–253. Testart, A. (1982a) Les Chasseurs-Cueilleurs ou L'Origine des Inégalités. Société d'Ethnographie, Paris. Testart, A. (1982b) The Significance of Food Storage Among Hunter-Gatherers: Residence Patterns, Population Densities and Social Inequalities. Current Anthropology 23: 523–537. Thomas, J. (1988) Neolithic Explanations Revisited: the

Renfrew, C. (1996) Prehistory and the Identity of Europe, or Don’t Lets be Beastly to the Hungarians. IN: P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones and C. Gamble (eds) Identity and Archaeology: the Construction of European Communities. Routledge, London. pp. 125–37. Renfrew, C. and Boyle, K. (eds)(2000) Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population of Prehistory of Europe. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge. Richards, M.; Côrte-Real, H.; Forster, P.; Macaulay, V.; Demaine, A.; Papiha, S.;Hedges, R.; Bandelt, H.J., and Sykes, B.C. (1996) Palaeolithic and Neolithic Lineages in the European Mitochondrial Gene Pool. American Journal of Human Genetics 59: 185–203. Richards, M.B.; Macaulay, V.A.; Bandelt, H.J. and Sykes, B.C. (1998a) Phylogeography of Mitochondrial DNA in Western Europe. Annales of Human Genetics 62: 241–60. Richards, M.B.; Oppenheimer, S., and Sykes, B.C. (1998b) mtDNA Suggests Polynesian Origins in Eastern Indonesia. American Journal of Human Genetics 63: 1234–1236. Richards, M.B. and McCaulay, V. (2000) Genetic Data and the Colonization of Europe: Genealogies and Founders. IN: C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds) Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge. pp. 139–152. Richards, M.B. and 37 other authors (2000b) Tracing European Founder Lineages in the Near Eastern MtDNA Pool. American Journal of Human Genetics. 67: 1251–1276. Rowly-Conwy, P. (in press) How the West was Lost: A Reconsideration of Agricultural Origins in Britain, Ireland and Southern Scandinavia. Current Anthropology. Rulf, J. (1991) Neolithic Agriculture of Central Europe – Review of the Problems. Památky Archeologické 82: 376–384. Rulf, J. (1996) Regionální Bádání a Archeologie v Českých Zemích. Archeologické Rozhledy 48. Rulf, J. and Zápotocká, M. (1994) Neolithic Studies in Bohemia: 1969–1994. IN: 25 Years of Archaeological Research in Bohemia. Institute of Archaeology, Prague. Sackett, J.R. (1985) Style and Ethnicity in the Kalahari: a Reply to Wiessner. American Antiquity 50: 154–160. Sackett, J.R. (1991) Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology: the Case for Isochresticism. IN: M.W. Conkey and C.A. Hastorf (eds) The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 32–43. Schrire, C. (ed)(1984) Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies. Academic Press, Orlando. Semino, O.; Passarino, G.; Brega, A.; Fellous, M. and Santachiara-Benerecetti, A.S., (1996) A View of the Neolithic Demic Difficusion in Europe through two Y Chromosome-Specific Markers. American Journal of Human Genetics 59: 964–968. Semino, O.; Passarino, G.; Oefner, P.J.; Lin, A.A.; Arbuzova, S.; Beckman, L.E.; de Benedictis, G.; Francalacci, P.; Kouvatsi, A.; Limborska, S.; 203

LBK DIALOGUES

Nevlitycznym i Eneolitycznym. Krakow. pp. 74–79. Vencl, S. (1971b) Topografická Poloha Mesolitických Sídlišť v Čechách. Archeologické Rozhledy 23: 169– 187. Vencl, S. (1982a) Mladopaleolitické a Mesolitické Osídlení v Dobrušce. Archeologické Rozhledy 34: 353– 360. Vencl, S. (1982b) K Otázce Zániku Sběračko-Loveckých Kultur: Problematika Vztahů Mesolitu Vůči Neolitu a Postmesolitických Kořistníků Vůči Mladším Pravěkým Kulturám. Archeologické Rozhledy 34: 648 – 689. Vencl, S. (1986) The Role of Hunting-Gathering Populations in the Transition to Farming: a Central European Perspective. IN: M. Zvelebil (ed) Hunters in Transition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 43–52. Vencl, S. (1989) Mezolitické Osídleni na Šumave. Archeologické Rozhledy 41: 418–501. Vencl, S. (1991) Mezolitické Tábořiště v Hřibojedech, okres Trutnov. Archeologické Rozhledy 43(1): 3– 21. Vencl, S. (1992) Záchranný Výzkum v Praze 9 - Dolních Počernicích v Roce 1982. Archeologické Rozhledy 44: 29–65. Vencl, S. (1995) K Otázce Věrohodností Svědectví Povrchových Průzkumů. Archeologické Rozhledy 47: 11–51. Verhart, L. and Wansleeben, M. (1997) Waste and Prestige: the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in the Netherlands from a Social Perspective. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29: 65–74. Villems, R.; Adojaan, M. and Kivisild, T. (1998) Reconstruction of Maternal Lineages, Finno-Ugric Speaking People and Some Remarks on their Paternal Inheritance. IN: K. Julku and K. Wiik (eds) The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia. Societas Historiae Finno-Ugricae, I. Turku. pp. 180– 200. Whittle, A. (1990) A Pre-Enclosure Burial at Windmill Hill, Wiltshire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 9: 25– 28. Whittle, A. (1996) Europe in the Neolithic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wiessener, P. (1983) Style and Ethnicity in the Kalahari San Projectile Point. American Antiquity 48: 253– 276. Wiessener, P. (1985) Style or Isochrestic Variation? A Reply to Sackett. American Antiquity 50: 160–165. Wilmsen, E.N. and Denbow, J.R. (1990) Paradigmatic History of San-speaking Peoples and Current Attempts at Revision. Current Anthropology 31(5): 489–524. Woodburn, J. (1982) Egalitarian societies. Man (New Series) 17: 431–51. Zilhão, J. (1993) The Spread of Agro-Pastoral Economies across Mediterranean Europe: View from the Far west. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 6(1). Zilhão, J. (1997) Maritime Pioneer Colonisation in the Early Neolithic of the West Mediterranean: Testing

Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in Britain and South Scandinavia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54: 59–66. Thomas, J. (1991) Rethinking the Neolithic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Thomas, J. (1996) The Cultural Context of the First use of Domesticates in Continental Central and Northwestwast Europe. IN: D.R. Harris (ed) The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia. University College London Press, London. Thomas, J. S. (1999) An Economy of Substances in Earlier Neolithic Britain. IN: J. Robb (ed) Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. pp. 70-89. Thorpe, I.J. (1996) The Origins of Agriculture in Europe. Routledge, London. Tichý, R. (1960) K Nejstarší Volutové Keramice na Moravě. Památky Archaeologické 51: 415–441. Tichý, Rudolf. (1962) Osídlení Volutovou Keramikou na Moravě. Památky Archeologické 53(2): 245 – 305. Tichý, R. (1999) Monoxylon II: Plavba po 8000 Letech. JB Production, Náchod. Tichý, R. (2001) Expedice Monoxylon: Pocházíme z Mladší Doby Kamenné. Společnost Experimentální Archeologie and JB Production, Hradec Králové. Točík, A. (1970) Die Slowakei in der Jungeren Steinzeit. Slovenská Akademie Věd, Bratislava. Torroni, A.; Bandelt, H.J.; D’Urbano, L.; Laherno, P.; Moral, P.; Sellito, D.; Rengo, C.; Forster, P.; Savontaus, M.L.; Bonne-Tamir, B. and Scozzari, R. (1998) mtDNA Analysis Reveals a Major Late Palaeolithic Population Expansion from Southwestern to Northeastern Europe. American Journal of Human Genetics 62: 1137–1152. Trigger, B. (1978) Iroquois Matriliny. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 48:55 – 65. Tringham, R. (2000) Southeastern Europe in the Transition to Agriculture in Europe: Bridge, Buffer, or Mosaic. IN: T.D. Price (ed) Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 19–57. Underhill, P.A.; Shen, P.; Lin, A.A.; Jin, L.; Passarino, G.; Yang, W.H.; Kauffman, E.; Bonne-Tamir, B.; Bertranpetit, J.; Francalacci, P.; Ibrahim, M.; Jenkins, T.; Kidd, J.R.; Mehdi, S.Q.; Seielstad, M.T.; Wells, R.S.; Piazza, A.; Davis, Feldman, M.W.; CavalliSforza, L.L. and Oefner, P.J. (2000) Y Chrosome Sequence Variation and the History of Human Populations. Nature Genetics 26: 358–361. Underhill, P.A.; Passarino, G.; Lin, A.A.; Shen, P.; Mirazón Lahr, M.; Foley, R.A.; Oefner, P.J. and Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (2001) The Phylogeography of Y Chrosome Binary Haplotypes and the Origins of Modern Human Populations. Annales of Human Genetics 65: 43–62. Vencl, S. (1971a) Současný Stav Poznání Postmesolitických Štípaných Industrií v Československu. IN: Z Badannad Krzemieniarstwem

204

MAREK ZVELEBIL: THE MANY ORIGINS OF THE LBK

Ago? In Search of Prehistoric Identity. IN: Festschrift for Colin Renfrew. MacDonald Institute Publications, Cambridge. Zvelebil, M. and Dolukhanov, P. (1991) Transition to Farming in Eastern and Northern Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 5(3): 233–278. Zvelebil, M. and Lillie, M. (2000) Transition to Agriculture in Eastern Europe. IN: T.D. Price (ed) Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 57−92. Zvelebil, M. and Rowley-Conwy, P.A. (1984) Transition to Farming in Northern Europe: a Hunter-Gatherer Perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review 17: 104–28.

the Model Against the Evidence. Poročilo o Raziskovanju Paleolita, Neolita in Eneolita v Sloveniji 24: 19–42. Zilhão, J. (2000) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in the Iberian peninsula. IN: T. Douglas Price (ed) Europe’s First Farmers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Zohari, D. and Hopf, M. (1988) Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Zvelebil, M. (1981) From Forager to Farmer in the Boreal Zone. British Archaeological Reports (International Series 115), Oxford. Zvelebil, M. (1985) Iron Age Transformations in Northern Russia and the Northeast Baltic. IN: G. Barker and C. Gamble (eds) Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe: Investigations in Subsistence Archaeology and Social Complexity. Academic Press, London. pp. 147–180. Zvelebil, M. (ed)(1986) Hunters in Transition. Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and their Transition to Farming. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Zvelebil, M. (1989) On the Transition to Farming in Europe, or What was Spreading with the Neolithic: a Reply to Ammerman (1989). Antiquity 63: 379–383. Zvelebil, M. (1995a) Neolithization in Eastern Europe: A View from the Frontier. Poročilo o Raziskovanju Paleolita, Neolita in Eneolita v Sloveniji 22: 107–150. Zvelebil, M. (1995b) Indo-European Origins and the Agricultural Transition in Europe. IN: M. Kuna and N. Venclová (eds) Whither archaology? Papers in Honour of Evžen Neustupný. Institute of Archaeology, Prague. pp. 173–204. Zvelebil, M. (1996) The Agricultural Frontier and the Transition to Farming in the Circum-Baltic region. IN: D. Harris (ed) The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, University College London Press, London. pp. 323–45. Zvelebil, M. (1998) Agricultural Frontiers, Neolithic Origins, and the Transition to Farming in the Baltic Basin. IN: M. Zvelebil, R. Dennell and L. Domańska (eds) Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield. Zvelebil, M. (2000) Social Context of the Agricultural Transition in Europe. IN: C. Renfrew and K. Boyle (eds) Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge. Zvelebil, M. (2001) The Agricultural Transition and the Origins of Neolithic Society in Europe. Documenta Praehistorica 28: 1–26. Zvelebil, M. (2003) Demography and Dispersal of Early Farming Populations at the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition: Linguistic and Genetic Implications. IN: P. Bellwood and C. Renfrew (eds) Examining the Farming/ Language Dispersal Hypothesis. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. pp. 379 – 394. Zvelebil, M. (2004, in press) Who Were We 6,000 Years 205