Routledge Library Editions: Archaeology [1 ed.] 9781138799714, 9781315751948, 9781138815254, 9781315746814, 0091087902, 1138799718

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Title Page
Copyright Page
Original Title Page
Original Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
Plates
Figures
Abbreviations
Pronunciation
Preface
1 Environmental background
2 Postglacial hunting and gathering communities in eastern Europe
3 The earliest food-producers 5500-3800 B.C.
4 Economic development and the earliest use of metal c. 3800-3000 B.C.
Conclusion
General bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Pot

ROUTLEDGE LIBRARY EDITIONS: ARCHAEOLOGY

Volume 49

HUNTERS, FISHERS AND FARMERS OF EASTERN EUROPE

This page intentionally left blank

HUNTERS, FISHERS AND FARMERS OF EASTERN EUROPE 6000–3000 B.C.

RUTH TRINGHAM

ROUTLEDGE

Routledge Taylor & Francis Group

LONDON AND NEW YORK

First published in 1971 This edition first published in 2015 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 1971 Ruth Tringham All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-138-79971-4 (Set) eISBN: 978-1-315-75194-8 (Set) ISBN: 978-1-138-81525-4 (Volume 49) eISBN: 978-1-315-74681-4 (Volume 49) Publisher’s Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this book but points out that some imperfections from the original may be apparent. Disclaimer The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and would welcome correspondence from those they have been unable to trace.

HUNTERS, FISHERS AND FARMERSOF EASTERNEUROPE 6000-3000B.C.

Ruth Tringham

HUTCHINSON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY LONDON

HUTCHINSON & CO (Publishers) LTD 3 Fitzroy Square,London WI London MelbourneSydneyAuckland Wellington Johannesburg CapeTown and agenciesthroughoutthe world First published1971

The paperbackedition of this book is sold subjectto theconditionthat it shallnot, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwisecirculated without the publisher'sprior consent,in any form of binding or coverotherthanthat in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser

© Ruth Tringham 1971 This book has beenset in Times type, printed in Great Britain on opaquewovepaper by Anchor Press,and boundby Wm. Brendon,both of Tiptree, Essex ISBN

0 09 108790 2 (cased) 108791 0 (paper)

o 09

To my three mentors and the memory of V. Gordon ChiMe

This pageintentionally left blank

CONTENTS

Plates

9

Figures

11

Abbreviations

15

Pronunciation

17

Preface

19

1 Environmentalbackground

25

2 Postglacialhuntingand gatheringcommunities in easternEurope

35

3 The earliestfood-producers5500-3800B.C.

68

4 Economicdevelopmentand the earliestuseof metal c. 3800-3000B.C.

146

Conclusion

216

Generalbibliography

225

Index

233

This pageintentionally left blank

PLATES facing page

1 The hunter-fishersettlementof LepenskiVir in the Danube 96 Iron Gatesgorge, N.B. Yugoslavia 2 Clay anthropomorphicfigurine from Ludvar-R6szke, 97 S.B. Hungary 3 Clay anthropomorphicfigurine from Karanovo,layer III, S. Bulgaria 97 4 The early agriculturalsettlementof Bylany, W. Czechoslovakia 112 5 Storagepit with clay lining. Early agriculturalsettlementof Luda!-BudzaknearSubotica,N.B. Yugoslavia 113 6 Clay oven for parchinggrain. Early agriculturalsettlementof Bylany, W. Czechoslovakia 113 7 Clay anthropomorphicfigurine. Szegvar-Tuzk6ves, B.C. Hungary 176 8 Clay anthropomorphicfigurine. Divostin, E. Yugoslavia 176 9 Burnedclay floor of a houseshowingtracesof internal divisions and hearths.Divostin, E. Yugoslavia 177 10 Clay tabletswith engraveddesignsinterpretedas 'writing': above,clay tablet from Tartaria,C. Rumania;right, clay tablet from Gradesnitsa,N.W. Bulgaria 192 11 Hollow clay zoomorphicfigurine with detachablehead. Golyam Izvor, N.B. Bulgaria 192 12 Late neolithic housein which the clay tablet (PI. 10 right) was found. Gradesnitsa,N.W. Bulgaria 193

This pageintentionally left blank

FIGURES Map Map of the structural,physical and modernnational divisions ofE. Europe 2 Map of the vegetationand hunting-gatheringsettlementsof E. Europeduring the late Boreal vegetationperiod (Zone VI), c. 6500-5500B.C.

29

3 Map of the vegetationand hunting-gatheringsettlementsof E. Europeduring the Atlantic vegetationperiod (Zone VIla), c. 5500-3000B.C.

32

4 Mesolithic and neolithic stonetechniques

39

5 Mesolithic housesat LepenskiVir

43

6 Bone, antler and stoneimplementsfrom the Bug-Dniester mesolithic and neolithic cultures

49

7 The headsof thrustingand projectedweaponsfrom the E. Baltic (Kunda culture) hunting and gatheringsettlements

59

8 Map of the spreadof the earliestagriculturalsettlementsin relation to the distribution of loessdepositsand the contemporaryhunter-gatherersettlements

69

9 Reconstructionof the neolithic settlementat Karanovo, Bulgaria

72

10 Map of the distribution of early neolithic culturesin E. Europe,c. 5500-4300B.C. 11 Bone, stoneand baked-clayartefactsfrom the early neolithic

settlementsof E. Europe

27

74

77

12

Figures

12 Pottery of the early neolithic culturesof S.E. Europe

81

13 Anthropomorphicfigurines of the early neolithic settlements of S.E. Europe

82

14 Early neolithic houseconstructionin S.E. Europe

85

15 Burial practicesof the mesolithic and early neolithic settlementsof E. Europe

88

16 Pottery of the Bug-Dniesterculture. Early and middle (Samtcin)phases

97

17 Map of the distribution of middle neolithic culturesin E. Europe,c. 4300-3900B.C.

107

18 Pottery of the middle neolithic culturesof S.E. Europe

111

19 Anthropomorphicfigurines of the middle neolithic settlements ofE. Europe 113 20 Early neolithic houseconstructionin temperatecentral Europe 120 21 Linear Pottery of the eastHungarianplain

123

22 Linear Pottery of the Pannonianand Bohemianplains and the Saale-Elbebasin

127

23 Map of the distribution of late neolithic culturesin E. Europe, c. 3900-3600B.C. 147 24 Pottery of the late neolithic culturesof S.E. Europe

149

25 The Hamangiaculture

152

26 Bone, stoneand baked-clayartefactsof the eneolithic settlementsof the S.E. Balkans

159

27 Eneolithic houseconstructionin S.E. Europe

160

28 Pottery and figurines of the Gumelnitaculture

165

29 Pottery of the Bug-Dniesterculture. Late (Savran)phase

167

30 The Pre-Cucuteni-CucuteniTripolye culture

171

31 Map of the distribution of transitionallate neolithic-eneolithic culturesin E. Europe,c. 3700-3600B.C. 173 32 Eneolithic settlementsof S.E. Europe

175

33 Map of the distribution of eneolithic culturesin E. Europe, c. 3600-3200B.C.

181

34 The Vinca-Plocnik culture

183

Figures

13

35 Late neolithic and eneolithic culturesof the eastHungarian plain

187

36 Late neolithic and eneolithicculturesof the Pannonianand Bohemianplains

192

37 Map of the distribution of copperore resourcesand cast and hammeredeneolithiccopperartefactsin E. Europe, c. 38003DB~

1%

38 Early coppermetallurgyin E. Europe

199

39 Chart of early and middle neolithic Carbon14 datesin E. Europe 220 40 Chartof late neolithicandeneolithicCarbon14 datesin E. Europe222 41 Chart of cultural developmentin E. Europe,6000-3000B.C. betweenpp. 224 and 225

This pageintentionally left blank

ABBREVIATIONS Acta Arch. et Ant. Acta Archaeologicaet Antiqua (Szeged) Acta Arch. Carp. Acta ArchaeologicaCarpatica(Krakow) Acta Arch. Hung. Acta ArchaeologicaHungarica(Budapest) AlA AmericanJournalof Archaeology(Princeton) A Mora F. Muz. Evk. A Mora F. MuzeumEvkonyve (Szeged) Arch. Aust. ArchaeologicaAustriaca(Vienna) Arch. Ert. ArchaeologiaiErtesito(Budapest) Arch. lug. ArchaeologicaIugoslavica(Belgrade) Arch. Mold. ArcheologiaMoldoviei Arch. Polski ArcheologiaPolski (Warsaw-Wrodaw) Arch. Rozh. ArcheologickeRozhledy(Prague) Arh. Rad. i Raspr. Arheoloski Radovei Rasprave(Zagreb) Arh. Vestnik Arheoloski Vestnik (Ljubliana) Ausgr. u. Funde Ausgrabungenund Funde(E. Berlin) BASPRBulletin of the American Schoolof PrehistoricResearch Ber. R.G.K. Bericht der Romisch-Germanisch Kommission(W. Berlin) Dolg. Dolgozatok a M.Kir.Horthy M.-tudomanyegyetemregisegtudomanyi intezetebOl(Szeged) Glasnik z'M. Sar. Glasnik ZemaljskogMuzeja (Sarajevo) God. Nar. Arkh. Muz. Godistnik na Narodniya ArkheologiceskiMuzej (Plovdiv) God. Nar. Bibl. i Muz. Godistnik na Narodnata Biblioteka i Muzej (Plovdiv) lAD Izvestiana ArkheologieeskotoDruzestvo(Sofia) lAl Izvestiana ArkheologiceskiInstitut (Sofia) lPEK Jahrbiichfur Priihistorischeund EthnographischeKunst lRAl The Journalof the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute (London) KSIA Kratkiye SoobsceniyaInstituta Arkheologii AN SSSR(MoscowLeningrad)

(Ia~i)

16

Abbreviations

KSIIMK Kratkiye Soobsceniya Instituta Istorii Materialnoi Kulturi (Moscow) MAGW Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaftin Wien (Vienna) Materiale Materiale ~i cercetariarheologice(Bucharest) Mat. Arch. Materialy archeologiczne(Krakow) MIA Materialy i Issledovaniyapo Arkheologii SSSR. (MoscowLeningrad) MIA YuZSSSR& RNR Materialy i Issledovaniyapo Arkheologii YugozapadaSSSRi RumunskoiNarodnoi Republiki (Kisinev) Pam. Arch. PamatkyArcheologicke(Prague) PPS Proceedingsof the PrehistoricSociety(Cambridge) Priiizist. Zeitschr. PrahistorischeZeitschrift (W. Berlin) Rc. Radiocarbon SA SovetskayaArkheologiya(Moscow-Leningrad) Sbornik N.M. Sbomik NarodnihoMuzeja (Prague) SCIV Studii ~i Cercetaride Istorie Veche(Bucharest) Slov. Arch. SlovenskaArcheol6gia(Bratislava-Nitra) Spraw. Arch. SprawozdaniaArcheologiczne(Wroclaw-Krakow) Stud. i Mat. Neol. Malopolski Studiow i Materialow do Badan nad Neoliticzne Malopolsky (Krakow) Stud. Zvesti Studijne Zvesti (Nitra) Wiad. Arch. WiadomosciArcheologiczne(Warsaw) WPZ Wiener PrahistorischeZeitschrift (Vienna) Zeitschr.fur Arch. Zeitschrift fUr Archaologie(E. Berlin)

PRONUNCIATION Much of the literature referred to in this book has been written in the Slavonic group of the Indo-Europeanlanguages.The oldest of these languageswerewritten in the Cyrillic script,andmany(Russian,Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Serbian)still are. For the purposesof this book, however,they have beentransliteratedinto the Latin script, as in modernCzech,Polish and Croatian.Someof the accents,etc.,involved in this transliterationare explained below; in addition some of the special characteristicsof the pronunciation of Rumanian,a Romancelanguage,and Hungarian, a languagebelonging to an entirely different family (Finno-Ugrian), are noted. Czech

Polish

SerboCroat

Rumanian Hungarian

t

ccc

t'

t'

t'

C

C

C

cz

C

ce, ci

ch

h,ch

h,ch

h

d'

di, dzi

dj, d

jj kk

j

j

c

English equivalent

ts tsh

cs

tch 'ch' in 'loch' (translit. 'kh')

gy

'd' in 'dew'

j

i, ii, ie

j, ly

'y' in 'yet'

k

ca, co,

k

'c' in 'cat'

cU,ch

Pronunciation

18 Czech

Polish

SerboCroat

ii

Ii

nj

r

rz

ss

s

S

s, sz

v

w

je

ny

English equivalent

'n' in 'new' simultaneous'r' + French'je'

s

s

S

~

v Z

Z i, Z ('u' translit. from Bulgarian)

e

Rumanian Hungarian

e

sz

s

s v

sh

it

zs 0

's' in 'pleasure' 'er' in bigger

ie

je

ye

v j

v

phonetic '~'

l!

French'on'

~

French'in' in 'yin'

(translit. 'y' from Russian)

e

nearestequiv. is the 'i' in 'ill' 6

'or' in 'word'

a

cf. Germana

PREFACE In this book I havechosento discussa seriesof subjectsandproblems

which most interest me, rather than write a systematicdescription of prehistoric cultural developmentof east-centralEurope and the Danubebasin from c. 6000-3000B.C. A prehistory of this part of Europe is badly neededboth for studentsand researchers,because the last one to be attempted,Gordon Childe's Danubein Prehistory (1929), is now out of date. The chronologicalframework of the prehistoric culturesof this areaand periodhasbeensetout in numerous studies, more recently with reference to radiocarbon dating evidence.1* The interpretation of some of the relevant evidence and its partial description does occur as part of Childe's Dawn of European Civilisation and Stuart Piggott's Ancient Europe.2 To write a prehistory of east-centralEurope, however, from 60003000 B.C., including details of the chronologicalframework, cultural development,primary sourcesof evidenceand interpretationof this evidencein terms of prehistoriccultural processes,would be a lifetime's work, and one which has not been attempted here. The primary sourcesof the massof evidenceof eastEuropeanprehistory are generally hidden behind a barrier of unfamiliar languagesand illegible scripts. It was not my aim, however, merely to act as the transmitter or interpreter of this evidence to 'western Europe' through a familiarity with the material and a knowledge of the languages.Nor would I wish to duplicate the work of my east Europeancolleagues,or presumeto offer them new information or

* Superiorfigures refer to noteson p. 23 and subsequentlyto end-of-chapter notes.

20

Preface

evidence,or any different interpretationof the materialin terms of cultural and chronologicalidentification. Instead,I have concentratedon the interpretationof the material in terms of prehistoriccultural processes,ratherthan its description or classification.I do not considermorphologicalclassificationsor typologiesof pottery or stonetools, or the identification of cultures and their relative chronological position, to be the main end of prehistoricstudies;they are rather the meansto the interpretation of prehistoric material in terms of processesof social, economic and technologicaldevelopmentand the reconstructionof as much as possibleof the 'sum total of humanactivities'. In order that these processesmay be intelligible to a wide audience,which includesnot only studentsand specialistresearchersin prehistory,but also those interestedin everyaspectof the study of Man, referencesto specific sitesandfinds andthe discussionof complexarchaeologicalproblems of chronologyand cultureshavegenerallybeenkept out of the main text. However, studentsseeking a guide to the complex material of prehistoric easternEurope will find that this book exists on two levels in imitation of StuartPiggottin his AncientEurope. Details of the evidence and bibliographical referenceshave been brought togetherat the end of eachchapter.The generalbibliographyat the end of the book, containing works generally written in English, French and German,should be of interest to a wider audience.In general,all the bibliographicalreferenceshave beenchosenfor their availability in 'western'libraries. For this reason,I hope I shall be forgiven for omitting certain references,especiallyof pre-war date, in rathermore obscurejournals.I hopethat the notesand references may providea usefulstarting-pointfor a numberof researchprojects. In addition, for those who prefer to read the ideas expressedin this book in their chronologicaland cultural context, I have provided a pull-out chart (Fig.4l) of the cultural framework of eastern Europein this period and two tables of the relevant radiocarbon dates(Figs.39,40),all of which were up to dateat thetime of writing. It should be remembered,however,that the theoreticalposition of many specialistsin this field and the availableinformation changes eachmonth. My main aim in this book is to interpretthe availableevidenceof easternEurope c. 6000-3000B.C. in terms of human activities and cultural responsesto changing environmentalconditions and the diffusion of innovationsin their way of life; in termsof the potentialities of the environmentand how thesewere exploitedor rejectedas sourcesof food and raw materials; and in terms of the factors responsiblefor the discovery,development,diffusion, acceptance and

Preface

21

rejection of innovations, including factors such as environment, economy, technology and cultural choice. Many activities of prehistoric societiesare probably(but not necessarily)beyondthe limits of inference from archaeologicalevidence, including those connectedwith socialstructureandreligion or beliefs.The interpretation of archaeologicalmaterial, however, can be greatly enrichedif the activities of modern'ethnographic'small-scalesocietiesareexamined and used not in a one-to-onerelationship, but to provide a range of possible interpretationsof the material and to stimulate new questions and answers about the materiaP Unfortunately the evidenceavailable to a prehistorianis very much poorer than that available to an ethnographer.Whereas, for example, an ethnographercan concentratehis attentionon isolating the factors which determinethe form of an artefact including raw material, level of technologicalskill, the intendedfunction of the artefactand cultural choice of preferredshape,the archaeologistmust carefully analyse the artefact to reconstructits original form and function and its method of manufacture,before he can begin to think of other factors. Such analyses of artefacts and excavations with these questionsin mind have only very rarely been carried out in prehistoric studiesin eastern Europe. For this reason,any suchanalyses which do exist, such as the excellent work done at Bylany and in Moldavia, have beenexcessivelyusedand stressedin this book. The dominantproblemwhich runs throughthis book concernsthe diffusion of the techniques and equipment associatedwith the domesticationand exploitation of plants and animals and a foodproducingeconomyfrom the Near East through south-eastEurope and north-west through the Danube basin, through changing environmental conditions, and finally reaching western Europe. Thus to understandthe adoption of a food-producingeconomyin Europe as a whole, it is essentialto understandthe mechanisms and processesof the diffusion and non-diffusion of the techniques and associatedeconomyin central and eastern Europe.I hope that this may suggestto my eastEuropeancolleaguesnew approachesto their researchand new forms of evidenceto seek,leadingto systematic investigationsandquantitativeanalyseson a largerscalein order to prove or disprovemy hypotheses. The absolutechronology followed here is basedon radiocarbon datesquotedin the chartand the text as B.C. which havebeencalculated accordingto the 'old half-life' of 5570± 30 years; if the dates were calculatedaccordingto the 'new half-life' they would be some 200-300 years older. A further calculation on the basis of Suess's curve for Bristleconepine dating in order to bring the radiocarbon years in line with earth years would make the datesstill older by

22

Preface

300-400 years. It is clear, therefore,that those who wish to think in terms of absolutedateswill haveto indulge in mathematics.This fact, however, should not belittle the value of radiocarbondates, not leastin the field of relative dating. To acknowledgethe valuablehelp of all my colleaguesin eastern EuropeandGreatBritain and to expressmy gratitudeto thosewhose precious time I took up in various Museums and Institutes of ArchaeologythroughouteasternEurope would fill a whole book. I am especially grateful, in Bulgaria, to Dr G. Georgiev, Dr N. Dzambazov,Dr R. Katincarov and Mr B. Nikolov; in Czechoslovakia, to ProfessorDr J. Filip, Dr A. ToCik, Dr J. Neustupny, Dr J. Lichardus,Dr E. Neustupny,Dr I. Pavlu, Dr J. Pavuk,Dr M. Zapotockaand Dr R. Tichy; in Hungary, to Dr S. Bok6nyi, Dr N. Kalicz, Dr I. B. Kutzian, Dr J. Makkay and Dr O. Trogmayer; in Rumania,to Dr D. Berciu, Dr E. Com~a, ProfessorV. Dumitrescu, Mr A. Florescu, Mr I. Paul, Dr M. Petrescu-Dimbovita,Mr N. Viassa and Mme E. Zaharia; in Russia,to Dr T. S. Passekwhose tragic death was such a shock to us all, and to Dr E. K. Cernys, Dr V. N. Danilenko,Dr P. Dolukhanov,Dr N. N. Gurina, Dr G. F. Korobkova, Dr N. J. Merpert, Dr V. Masson,Mme T. A. Popova, Dr S. A. Semeonovand Dr D. J: Telegin; in Moldavia, to Dr V. I. Markyevic; and, in Yugoslavia, to Dr A. Benac, Dr B. Brukner, Dr B. Jovanovic,Dr D. Srejovic, Dr L. Szekeresand their American colleague,Dr A. McPherron. I am also grateful to Dr H. Quitta and Dr G. Kohl of E. Berlin for their helpful advice and their kind information about their radiocarbondates;it is primarily due to their efforts that so much of the eastEuropeanneolithic material is now supportedby radiocarbondates. To my colleaguesin Britain and west Europe I also expressmy thanks,in particularto Dr J. Alexander,Mr A. Ammerman,Mr R. Newell, Dr C. Renfrew, Mr M. Rowlands,ProfessorT. Sulimirski, and my editor Dr John Coles. I am indebtedto the British Council, the University of Edinburgh, and the Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological Research whose grants-in-aid and researchfellowships enabled me to visit the Museumsand Institutesof Archaeologyof Eastern Europe for long periods and gain the first-hand familiarity with the material without which this book could not have beenwritten. Finally, I should like to expressmy deep gratitude to Professor StuartPiggott of the University of Edinburgh,Dr BohumiI Soudsky of the Institute of Archaeologyin Prague,and Dr Peter J. Ucko of the Departmentof Anthropology at University College,London, the last of whom spentvaluabletime in correcting this manuscript

Preface

the

until it readlike intelligible English.I am dedicatingthis work to them becauseof the encouragement andstimulationwhich they havegiven me in my researchand becausethey have been the most instrumental in the formulation of the ideasexpressedin this book.

London January 1971

R.T.

1. MilojCic, V. (l949a): without any Carbon 14 datesand now generallyout of date;Neustupny,E. (1968a);id. (1969); Quitta, H. (1967);Ehrich, R. (1965). 2. Childe, V. G. (1957), 84-136; Piggott, S. (1965), 40-56. 3. Trigger, B. (1968); Ucko, P. (1968); id. (1969a), 262-3; id. (l969b), 27-31.

This pageintentionally left blank

I

ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND The territory coveredby this book has beenvariously describedas EasternEurope,l East Central Europe,2the 'Eastern Marchlands' and more recently the 'territory of the People'sDemocracies'.In this book, the region is not definedby any rigid physicalor political boundariesand the materialdiscussedis frequently comparedto the evidencefrom neighbouringregions: the Baltic coastin the north, Greece,the eastMediterraneanand the NearEastin the south, the Rhine basinin the west, and the steppesand forestsof the USSRin the east.The dominantdrainagesystemof this region is the Danube, but not all the valleys studied in this book belong to rivers which drain into the Danube;somelike the Dniesterdrain into the Black Sea,somelike the Vardarand Maritsadrain into the Mediterranean, and otherslike the Elbe and Vistula drain into the Baltic. Thus the region discussedin this book cannot be said to comprisea single geographicalor even political unit. Many different geographical areas,ecologicalzonesand culture areasare containedwithin it. In any investigation of the patterns and processesof cultural developmentof a human population,it is necessaryto understand their natural environment,every aspectof its potentialitiesand its limitations. Ideally this would involve a detailedstudyof the geology, geomorphology,pedology,climatic and vegetationalhistory, faunal and floral content, etc., of the micro-region of each settlementor groupof settlements.Unfortunatelythis hasonly everbeenattempted on a very limited scalein the prehistoricstudiesof easternEurope. It is possible,however,to make a few generalobservationson the geology and structureand the vegetationaland climatic history of

26

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

eastern Europe. Evidence of the physical structure of eastern Europeis readily availablesince it has changedvery little in the last 10,000 years. Pollen analysis has been useful in reconstructingthe postglacial vegetationalhistory of Europe north and north-east of the Carpathianmountains,for examplein N. Germany,Poland, the Baltic Statesand Byelorussia,wherepollen of arborealand nonarboreal specieshas been preservedin waterloggedconditions of bogs. In centraland south-eastEurope,however,the soil conditions have not beenfavourablefor the preservationof floral remains,and pollen has rarely beencollectedor analysed. Structureand relief The areawith which this book is concernedmay be divided on the basisof structureand relief into four main regions;3

1. The Russo-Siberianplatform formed by very old sediments which were covered by deposits of Mesozoic Age. The platform extendswestwardsto include much of N.W. Europe and forms the underlying structure of the north European and east European plains. Much of this area was directly affected by the Pleistocene glaciationsand showsglaciatedfeaturesincludinglake-filled hollows, drumlins, and morainicaccumulationsof boulders,boulderclay, etc. South of the maximum advance of the ice-sheet, the Mesozoic deposits were covered by alluvial and periglacial deposits, as in S.E. Germany,S. Poland, N.E. Rumania,Moldavian and Ukraine SSRs. The plains rarely rise above 250m above sea-leveland are characterised by largerivers draininginto the Baltic and Black Seas. 2. Palaeozoic deposits which later subsided, forming basins. Thesewere later filled with depositsof Pleistoceneage, in particular the periglacialaeolianloessdeposits.Basins,suchas the PannonianHungarianand Walachianplains are drained by the Danube-Tisza system;otherssuchas the Bohemianplain aredrainedby the northward-flowing Elbe system. 3. The Hercynianmountainsystemwas formed at the end of the Carboniferous period comprising predominantly granites and gneisses,and includesthe Harz and Bohemian-Moravianmountains mountainsin S.E. Europe in C. Europe, the Rhodope-Macedonian and the Urals in the east. The mountainshave been very much eroded, levelled, intruded and covered by later deposits in the Tertiary and Quarternaryperiods,so that they generallyform steepsided hills, 800-1,500m.a.s.1.with level, roundedsummits. 4. The youngerAlpine folds, formed mostlyin the Tertiary period, are often of very high elevation, are much more inhospitableand form real barriers to communications.East of the Alps themselves

LATVI A BALTIC SEA

-W.GERMAN

S GERMANY!

HU NG

'huiringari LATVI

S.

F.

S.

R

F.

U N G

NG

(PanrjpnwiW'

-W

TH

UA

^TTH

.G E

.G

'8anS

e

UANI

u

N

U K R A I NS . F . R

S RSE

.G

E

R

BYELORUSSI

M \ A N | A^

ANI

M

A

N

CRIME ;

S.F.R

A

SE

GREECE-'

N

-' CE EE GR

A

N

-' CE EE GR

M

A

MA

-W

HU ^TT

R SWITZ M ER LAN A D N

R

M

R

McJdovcD

-' CE EE GR

-W

E

F.

A

.G

HUNGARY NI

?1 Plain

S.

ER

Hungorkirf' Plain/

*pToln>

I T AY L

S SE R

ttVBSm

GREECE-'

AR

^T

-W

-

*Mqravia_J

. ^ A U S AT R I

'S '

S . F .. R•

R.

R

fotcg M t r- W SWITZERLAND .G

R

JBTQCj

SWITZERLAND I ^

HU

F.

"

R

fiphaTrtiar LATVI

A

ttVBSm

SS

Sudtzty MtSp

LATVI H

AR

A

*pToln JBTQCj f

BYELORUSSIA R

AIN

JBTQCj LATVI

S.

UKR

- W . G E R M AYN

^TTHUANI A

GREECE-' GREECE-'

GREECE-' GREECE-'

-W.G

ERMA

'

Alpine mts Hercynianmts S. limit of ice-sheet ~ Volcanic massifs Russo-Siberianplatform Platform and tabular region of secondaryage Basinspartially coveredwith quaternarydeposits(loessand alluvium)

Fig. 1 Map of the structural, physical and modern national divisions of E. Europe.

N

28

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

there are two main branchesof Alpine mountains: towards the north-east,the arc of theCarpathianmountainsandtheTransilvanian Alps continues,south of the Danube,in the Balkan mountainsor StaraPlanina.The Danubehas cut its way through the mountains in a seriesof gorges,the most famous of which is the Iron Gates. The Carpathiansformed the southern boundary of the north Europeanice-sheetduring the Pleistoceneglaciations.The southern extensionof the Alpine systemof mountainswas along the western part of the Balkan peninsulain the Dinaric Alps which are formed mainly of Cretaceouslimestone with characteristickarst scenery and excessivedrainage.In much of the easternpart of the Dinaric Alps, in C. Yugoslaviathe limestonehas beenerodedto reveal the underlyingPalaeozoicdepositsresultingin more surfacedrainage. Soils On the basis of the present-daydistribution of soils in eastern Europe4 and the evidenceof buried soils on prehistoric sites it is possibleto make somegeneralobservationson the soils of the prehistoric settlements and their potentialities and limitations as agricultural soils. Mountain soils are distributedin all upland regions regardlessof age.In every casetheir useis restrictedat mostto grazing,sincethey are generallyassociatedwith cold and wet climatic conditions,occur on steeplysloping ground and are rather shallow. These soilsalso provide wood which may be used for charcoal and other fuel. In manyareas,for examplethe Dinaric Alps which areat presentlargely without soil, there is vegetationaland faunal evidencethat in the period with which this book is concernedthere was a greatersoil covering. In addition there are pocketsin these mountains,which have fertile alluvial soil. North and east European plain soils are those of a cool and at presenthumid climate.Leachedor podsolisedsoils are characteristically formed under these climatic conditions and the degree of podsolisation varies with the acidity of the bedrock, degree of humidity, vegetation, drainage, etc. The highly podsolised soils have been formed under coniferous forest on acid soils, the less podsolisedsoils, suchasgrey-brownpodsolicsoils, havebeenformed under deciduousforest from less acid rocks. In everycase,however, they are not very fertile and their c;ultivation is difficult without deepploughingand artificial fertilisers. The degreeof podsolisation Fig. 2 Map of the vegetationand hunting-gatheringsettlementsof E. Europe during the late Boreal vegetationperiod (Zone VI), c. 6500-5500B.C.

^"CULTUR

******* *******

NORTrv SEA

) \ ' N / UUNDA

*******

0MA5LEWOSE„ ^"CULTURE "o

ICI VI IR TO

TO IR VI CI IRaife

Janlslowic *

MCL O/M A

TOIRVICII-L Raife.

MCL O/M A

/

'akin

Poznonk

IT

MCLO/MA

Ipannonton

Grwt / Hungarian

I Plain//

-Azzur a

Ipannonto

Haidutovo*

MCL O/M A

Jrt».

rRANSJLVANIA

Poznonk Poznonka

irilctni MCLO/MAN

•StIJtn

MCLO/MA

*******

CTurcMrut Danube; LaAOom Poznonk

LaAOom LaAOom/

ICI VI IR TO

ICIVIVICII IRTOIR TO

ICI VI IR TO

IO«!arT

•StIJtn •StIJtna •StIJtn

Kambnt Kambntf

Undated later postglacial hunter-gatherer sites Hunter-gatherer sites dated to the Boreal vegetational period Coastline Semi-desert Steppe Forest-steppe Oak-elm forest sub-Mediterranean vegetation Mixed pine and deciduous forest Mixed coniferous-birch forest Mountain vegetation

Fig. 2

*******

*******

E

30

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

reachedin the period with which this book is concernedis of course very much opento question. The central Europeanloess depositsat presenttend to have a less leached brown forest soil, particularly on their periphery. These have been formed under thick deciduousforest cover. They grade into 'brunizems' and 'chernozems'which are very characteristic of loess depositsalthough they may also be formed on sandy and alluvial deposits. From the buried soils it would seem that the 'chernozems'were much more widespreadin the prehistoricperiod than at the presenttime. For instance,they occur in prehistoric settlementsof East Germany and west Czechoslovakia.It would seem that they were formed in a temperatecontinental climate. Whetherthey were formed under grasslandor under forest cover is still under discussion.They are very fine soils, fertile, easyto work but are quickly eroded once their vegetationalcovering has been removed. Although some alluvial deposits, particularly in southeast Europe, for examplein the Maritsa and Morava valleys, are coveredby brunizemsand brown forest soils, in generalalluvial soils in easternEuropewere too poorly drainedto be of any use to early prehistoric agriculturalists,and were presumablycovered by thick gallery forests. Outline of the post-glacialclimatic and vegetationalhistory of E. Europe5 The most completeevidenceof the climatic and vegetationalhistory comes,as mentionedabove,from the north Europeanplain. On the basisof the pollenevidencefrom this area,thepostglacialvegetational history of northernEuropehas beendivided into vegetationalzones or periods.6 The period with which this book is concernedinvolves Zones VI-VIII. Naturally there are no sharp breaks betweenthe zones; they offer a rough guide to the vegetationaland climatic sequenceof Europe. Zone VI (Late Boreal). Dated by radiocarbon6500-55COB.C. The evidenceof the pollen indicatesthat over the continent of Europe there was a tendencytowards a more continental climate, that is towards hot dry summersand cold dry winters. This involved an increasein the glaciersin the mountainsand shrinkagein the sealevel which caused,among other things, the formation of a freshwater lake in the region of the present-dayBaltic Sea.The extremes of climate causeda general predominanceof conifers and birch. It is likely that mixed pine and oak forests,which at presentform the naturalvegetationof the eastBaltic, Byelorussiaand centralEurope were distributed further south and west so that this type of forest covered the north European plain and possibly the wetter non-

Environmentalbackground

31

loess areasof central Europe. Pine and birch predominatedon the drier podsolisedand sandysoils and spruceon the boggiersoils. On the morefertile brown forestsoils it is likely that deciduoustrees,such as oak, lime, hazel,birch, etc., predominatedover conifers.Although there is no direct evidenceof pollen remainsfrom the loessdeposits of central and eastEurope,it has beeninferred that the warm, dry summersof the Boreal period would haveencouragedthe growth of grassland, even true steppe on the dry permeable loess soils.7 Similar conditions exist at the presenttime on the loess of north Pontic Russia.In this region treesgrow only in the alluvial valleys. In south-eastEurope there is pollen evidencefrom the Dalmatian coastwhich indicatesthat during this periodthe climateencouraged the growth of a mixed oak, hazel, elm and lime forest, of the type which occurs today in C. Europe but with the addition of certain sub-Mediterranean shrubs.8 Pollen and malacological evidence from the lower Danubevalley showsthat at this time a forest/steppe vegetationpredominatedon the loessand alluvial depositsmuch the sameas at presentin that area.9 Towardsthe mountainswhere the chernozemsand brunizemsgradedinto brown forest soils a more forested vegetationoccurred, consistingin particular of deciduous trees.It is probablethat a similar forest/steppe vegetation prevailed on the loessdepositsas far as the Dniestervalley.lO Eastof this area, however, where forest/steppegradesinto steppe grasslandtoday, it is probable that in the Boreal period, with the greater aridity, ll steppegrasslandgradedinto extremesteppeor evensemi-desert. Zone VII (Atlantic). Dated by radiocarbonc. 5500-3000B.C. As mentioned above there was no suddenincreaseof humidity, but from about5500 B.C. there was a tendencyfor winters to be warmer and wetter, and summersto be cooler and wetter. The climate which is at presentprevalentin the temperatemaritime areasextended further east into European USSR. The Scandinavianand many Alpine glaciers disappearedcompletely.There was a generalrise in the sea-leveland in the areaof the modernBaltic Seathe freshwater Ancylus Lake of the Boreal period was replacedby the salt-water Littorina Sea. In the north Europeanplain there was an eastward spreadof the maritime mixed oak forestsalthoughin the eastBaltic area these were still mixed with a certain proportion of conifers, such as pine. On the more podsolisedand acid soils these would have beenlighter, but on the brown forest soils they must havebeen very densewith thick undergrowth.The forest tendedto extendup the mountain sides c: 2-300m higher than at present. The small amount of palaeobotanicalevidencefrom the C. Europeanloess deposits indicates that in this period they were coveredby mixed oak, alderand spruceforest which variedin densityaccordingto the

[NARVA / XULTURE ^-CULTUR ^-CULTUR

ERTEB0LL E ^-CULTUR E

fer

ok

U

fe

U

U

k

k

ro

ro

fe

fe kU

ro fer

ok

fer fer

•BOI*-, M A

ok

U

L»

L»

p«

p«

ni

ni

MULUAW MULUAW A

XULTUR XULTUR

2 s r »

L»p«nikl L»p«nikl

p«

XULTUR XULTUR

XULTUR

MULUAW

L»p«nikl MU

LU

AW

MULUAW

B L AKC

XULTUR XULTUR XULTUR SEA

L»p«nikl L»p«nikl

kl

l

kl

MULUAW

L»p«nikl t

nik

L»

ferokU

MULUAW

L »L » p« n inkilk l p« L»p«nikl

ferokU

U

tcTurratitN mWSILVANIA '

s

/ A i r .q»

Barco

53 *Pcmnonion\ v Ploln v \

U

ok

Undated later postglacial hunter-gatherer sites Hunter-gatherer sites dated to the Atlantic vegetational period Maritime oak forest Forest-steppe Oak-alder-spruce forest Juniper and evergreen oak forest Over 500 m.a.s.l. mountain vegetation Mixed pine and deciduous forest Steppe

Fig. 3 Map of the vegetation and hunting-gathering settlements of E. Europe during the Atlantic vegetation period (Zone VIla), c. 5500-3000 B.C.

Environmentalbackground

33

underlying soil and the drainageof the loess. In general,however, they were lighter than the forests of the N. Europeanplain. An increasein tree pollen can be seenin the lower Danubebasin and Moldavia but this was of hazel,lime, elm and birch ratherthan oak and alder. The north Pontic areaof the USSR would seemto have beenrathermoretree-coveredthan at present.On the Mediterranean coastevergreenforest including juniperpredominated(asin presentday inland Mediterraneanareassuch as Anatolia and Africa) until the latter half of the Atlantic vegetationalperiod. Everywherein Europe there is evidencethat the maximum growth of forest was reachedc. 4000 B.C. after which the climate gradually becamemore continental and the present-day distribution of Mediterranean evergreenoak forest along the coast and of steppe and foreststeppein the north Pontic areawas reached. In north-westand central Europe, however, the climate did not stabiliseinto its present-dayconditions until much more recently.12 Even now the climate is much lesspredictablein theseregions.After the vegetationalclimax there is evidencein the temperatemaritime areasof Europethat in the vegetationalperiod known as Zone VIII or VIIb (Sub-Boreal)the climate becamemore continentaland the maritime oak forests on the north Europeanplain were replaced by the lighter beech woods on brown forest soils and mixed oak and hornbeamwoods on the more podsolisedand acid soils. A similar mixed oak and hornbeam forest occurred on the loess deposits of central and south-eastEurope at this time. However, by 3000B.C. a further factor wasaffectingthe growth of forestandthe vegetationapart from climate and geology. This was the effect of cultivation of the land and clearanceof forest by an increasing humanpopulation.Even during the Atlantic periodthereis evidence in the loess plains of central and south-eastEurope of intensive humanactivity which must have involveda certainamountof forest clearance.The area of sedentarysettlementsbasedon a food-producing economywas extendedto the brown forest and podsolised soils of the N. Europeanplain in a period which coincidedwith the Atlantic-Sub-Borealtransition. The dual effect of Man in clearing the forest and intensively collecting shoots and leaves for animal fodder and the increasingly continental climate causeda sudden decreaseof various trees such as elm and hornbeam.This phenomenon,which has beenreferredto as the 'elm decline',may be seen in the palaeobotanicalevidence from numerous sites in N.W. Europe.

c

34

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

1. Pounds,N. (1969). 2. Ehrich, R. (1965). 3. Pounds,N. (1969), 11-18. 4. Pounds,N. (1969), 34--7. 5. Butzer, K. (1965a);id. (1965b); Firbas, F. (1949); Waterbolk,T. (1968). 6. N.W. Europe:Kubitzki, K., 'Zur synchronisierungder nordwesteuropaischen Pollendiagramme',Flora, 150, Jena(1961); Kubitzki, K. and Munnich, K., 'Neue C 14 Datierung zur nacheiszeitlichenWaldgeschichteNordwestdeutschlands',Deutsche Botanische Gesellschaft, 73, E. Berlin (1960). N.E. Europe: Dolukhanov, P. M., 'Poslelednikovayaistoriya Baltiki i khronologiya neolita', Noviye Metode v ArkheologiceskikhIssledovaniyakh, Moscow (1963), 57-76; Szafer, W., The Vegetation of Poland, Warsaw (1966), 561-93. 7. For a discussionof the vegetationof loess soils: Butzer, K. (1965a), 446; Garnett, A. (1945); Leimbach,W., 'Zur Waldsteppenfragein der Sowjetunion', Erdkunde, II (1948), 238-56; Lozek, V., 'Die quatare Klimaentwicklung in der Tschechoslowakei',Quartiir, XVII (1966), 1-20; Wilhemy, H., 'Das Alter der Schwarzerde und der SteppenMittel- und Ost-europas', Erdkunde,IV (1950), 5-34; Vadasz,E., 'Zur prahistorischenSiedlungs-und Klimageschichtedes Bezirks von Kalocsa', A Mora F. Muz. Evkonyve, Szeged(1969), 83-92. 8. Beug, H.-J., 'Beitragezur postglazialenFloren-und Vegetationsgeschichte in Siid-Dalmazien:Der Zoo "Malo ezero"auf Mljet' , Flora, 150(1961),601-56. 9. Leroi-Gourhan,A., Mateesco,C., et aI, 'Contributionit I'Hude du climat de la station de Vadastradu Paleolithiquesuperieurit la fin du Neolithique', Bull. Assoc.FranraiseEtudeQuatenaire,4,Paris(1967-8),271; ProtopopescuPake,E., Matooscu,C., Grosso,A., 'Formationdes conchesde civilisation de la stationde Vadastraen rapportavecIe sol, la faune palaeocologiqueet Ie climat', Quartiir, 20 (1970), 135-62. 10. Markyevic, V. I., Neolit Moldavii, unpublishedthesisfor KandidatIstoriceskikh Nauk degreein Inst. of Archaeology,ANSSSR,Moscow (1968). 11. Sulimirski, T. (1970), 27-8. 12. Frenzel, B., 'Climatic changein the Atlantic/sub-Borealtransition in the northernhemisphere:botanicalevidence',World Climatefrom 8000--0B.C., Royal Met. Soc.,London (1966), 99-123.

2 POSTGLACIAL HUNTING AND GATHERING COMMUNITIES IN EASTERN EUROPE

In the period immediatelyprecedingthe introduction of agriculture and a food-producingeconomyinto south-eastand central Europe there existed groups of food-gatherersscatteredover a variety of terrains. They were distributed especiallyalong the banks of rivers and lakes in areasof sand dunes, and the foothills of mountains, but avoidedthe loessplains of Europe.In someareasthey survived alongside the earliest of the food-producing groups, but there is rarely any evidenceto indicate that there was contact betweenthe two. For most of the postglacial food-gathering, or mesolithic, settlements,dating evidenceis lacking. In somecasesit is possibleto relate them to the climatic/vegetationalperiods of northernEurope from the evidenceprovided by the pollen remainsin the habitation debris. For the most part, however,attemptsto constructa chronological framework for these settlementshave been based on the morphologicalclassificationof their chippedstonetools. Not only is it often impossibleto assigna morespecificdateto the mesolithicsettlementsthan 'postglacial',but thereis little more than sporadicevidencefor their environment,meansof subsistence,and materialculture,apartfrom the chippedstoneindustry.The material from the mesolithic settlements,comparedwith that from the precedingUpper Palaeolithicsettlementsof the Late Pleistoceneperiod, or the succeedingearly neolithic settlements,is very poor. But this neednot be explainedby any 'cultural or economicdegeneration'due to drastic climatic changesof the early postglacialperiod and the re-adaptationwhich these necessitated.Certainly these changes had their effects, but it was rather to encouragesettlementof the

soils

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

sandy alluvial areasand limestone uplands. The former produces soils with a high acid content,and the latter producesvery thin soil, and, as such, both are unfavourableto the preservationof organic materialsuchas antler, boneand wood, or tracesof habitations.The periglacial basins,in which rich debris of the Upper Palaeolithic settlementshas been preservedin thick loess deposits,were completely abandonedby the mesolithic huntersand gatherers.Settlement in caves also becamemuch rarer. In the caseswhere there are postglacialhabitationlayers inside caves,theseprovide some of the rare evidenceof organicmaterial.

The early postglacialbackground In the final stagesof the Wiirm glaciationand the early postglacial periods, from approximately 11,000-7000B.C., the settlementsin eastern Europe which are referred to as Late Palaeolithic or Epipalaeolithic, represent the successorsof the various Upper Palaeolithicgroups. Their chipped stone industries provide a link betweenthe Upper Palaeolithicand later postglacialor mesolithic industries.1 In the western part of easternEurope, along the valleys of the upper Elbe and upper Danuberivers, settlementsof the successors of the Magdalenian reindeer hunters, referred to as the 'Epimagdalenians',have been discovered,but in the majority of cases without any satisfactorydating evidence.2 In the easternpart of east Europe, the early postglacialsites on river terracesand mountain foothills havechippedstoneindustrieswhich have stronglinks with east Gravettianindustry utilised by Upper Palaeolithic mammoth hunters. The sites are often referred to as 'Epigravettian'.These have beendatedby Carbon 14 evidenceto the 9th millennium B.C., and by palaeobotanicalevidenceto the Allemd and Younger Dryas climatic/vegetationperiods.3 The sites are characterisedby small blades steeply retoucheddown one or both longitudinal edges to form narrow pointed or parallel-sidedtools. In north-easternEurope, particularly in east Poland and west ByelorussiaSSR, settlementsare distributedpredominantlyon sand dunes with a chipped stone industry referred to as 'Swiderian'. Among the stoneimplementsof thesesites,thereoccurlargenumbers of tangedtriangular pointed implementswhich have generallybeen interpretedas arrowheads.The animals on which the arrowheads were used,however,remainunknowndueto the lack of preservation of bone materialin the sandysoils. Arrowheadsof 'Swiderian'type have beenfound as far eastas the Oka river in the easternpart of EuropeanRussia.In thesesites, however, they are associatedwith quite a different set of stoneimplementsand are datedto a different

Postglacialhunting and gatheringcommunities

37

period. It seemsvery unlikely that they representthe slow eastwards spreadof a population.It is possiblethat this particular implement was diffused from the west, along with the methodof hunting with a bow and arrow. It seemsmore likely, however,that the occurrence of 'Swiderianpoints' over sucha widespreadarearepresentsa series of independentresponsesto particular environmentalconditions.4 'Swiderianpoints' occur sporadicallysouth of Poland, but only on two sitesin any quantity.5 Evidenceof food-gatheringgroupsin the early postglacialperiod in south-eastEurope occursin cave-sitesscatteredin the limestone mountains but without any definite dating evidence. The Late Palaeolithic habitation layers of certain cave-sitesin S.E. Europe contain a chipped stoneindustry which has morphologicalsimilarities to the 'Epigravettian'further north and east,in that the tools consist predominantlyof narrow blades with one or both lateral edgesblunted by deliberateretouch.6 Thereis no evidence,however, to suggestthat this is the result of widespreaddiffusion of the Epigravettianindustry, but may be rathera local evolution from the industriesof the late glacial Upper Palaeolithicsettlements. Later postglacial(mesolithic)settlements The paucity of material from the mesolithic settlementsof eastern Europe(Figs.2, 3) hasforced many prehistoriansto divide theminto spatialand chronologicalgroupson the basis,for lack of any other criterion, of morphologicalstonetypes. The use of this basis for a classificationto distinguisharchaeologicalcultures,which are defined as consistently recurring assemblagesof various artefact types representinga comprehensive pictureof humanactivities,is questionable. It is a dangerousassumptionthat, becausethere is a certain amountof homogeneityin the form, and possibly the function and technology,of stonetools, there is thereforea similar uniformity in other aspectsof behaviouralpatternsand material culture. In easternEurope it is possibleto distinguish certain groups of settlementswhich have relatively uniform sets of stone tools, from the point of view of technology,form, and function. They may be describedmost accuratelyas belonging to various 'industries'. In most cases,it is dubious, consideringthe fact that the preserved archaeologicalmaterial consistsonly of chipped stone,whether the acceptedclassification of mesolithic assemblagesmay be used or extended to define cultures, or even 'techno-complexes'.These latter terms imply artefacts in a greater range of materials and representinga more comprehensiverangeof activities, including an 'interlinked responseto common factors in environment,economy and technology'.7 However,the mesolithicsettlementsin the present

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope may Baltic coastalarea, often referred to as the 'Baltic forest culture', may well be interpreted as two successivetechno-complexes.The waterlogged soils on which these settlementsare situated have preservedevidenceof the climate and vegetationat that time, of the means of subsistence,and artefactsin a variety of raw materials including wood and bone. Within the large techno-complexin this area, various smaller groups may be distinguishedand have been classically interpretedas cultures (p. 58), including Maglemoseand Erteb011ein the west Baltic and Kunda in the east. It is much more difficult to accept the interpretation of the assemblagesof predominantly'geometric' microlithic stone implements,often referredto as the 'Tardenoisian',in terms of a technocomplex stretching'from the Balkansto Britain and from Spain to Poland'.8It is even questionablewhetherthe term 'industry' can be applied to theseassemblages of stonetools in easternEurope,since they do not form a 'continuousspace-timearea'; they are interspersedwith 'non-geometric'microlithic as well as non-microlithic stone assemblages.Settlements with predominantly 'geometric' microlithic stone industries are not situated in a uniform topographical position. Some are at the bottom of river valleys, some on the high plateaus,and otherson slopesand river terraces.From the lack of evidence,it is impossibleto tell whethertherewasany uniformity in their meansof subsistencebeyondthe fact that they were food-gathering,or whetherthere was a correspondinghomogeneity in artefactsmade in other raw materialswhich have not survived. Thus, as far as the mesolithic settlementof easternEurope is concerned,we have to be content with building up a picture of Fig. 4 Mesolithic and neolithic stonetechniques. a Method of manufacturingmicrolithic blades by truncating large blades(after Bordaz, 1970). b-c Method of manufacturingmicrolithic bladesby striking bladelets from microcores.b Pencil-shapedmicro-core from Erbiceni, N.E. Rumania(after Paunescu,1970). c Method of retouching bladelet into requiredshape(after Bordaz, 1970). d Microlithic bladesslottedasbarbsin an antlerspearhead.Menturren, N.E. USSR (E. Prussia)Kunda culture (after S. Kozlowski, 1965). e Microlithic bladesslottedasknife edgein an antlerhandle.Raigorod, Ukraine SSSR.Dnieper-Donetzculture (after Telegin, 1968). f Microlithic bladesinsertedas tip and barbin an arrowhead.Loshult, Sweden(after Clark, 1967). g-h Reconstructionsof microlithic blades inserted as tips in arrows (after Clark). H Blades insertedin antler handle and used as a sickle. Karanovo, Bulgaria (after Georgiev, 1958). i the sickle as excavated.j Detail of the blade inserts. Dotted areadenotes'sickle-gloss'.

2cm

2cm

2cm

2cm 2cm

2cm 2cm e 20m 2cm

2cm

2cm

2cm

2cm 2c.m

Fig. 4

2cm

2cm

f

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope and industries, and of the settlementpatterns connectedwith these, supplementedby sporadic evidence for the natural environment, economy,and habitations. A widespreadfeature of the stone industriesof all the mesolithic settlementsof easternEuropeis the tendencytowardsdiminution in the size of the blades.Microlithic bladesare a distinctive feature of the mesolithicassemblages not only throughouteasternEurope,but as far east as the Urals, and throughout western Europe.9 There are a few areaswhere they are much less common,in particularthe Hungarian and inland Yugoslav cave-sites,and the Iron Gates settlementson the Danube.Microlithic bladesoccurredin the stone industry of severalUpper Palaeolithicsettlementsof easternEurope, such as Pavlov in Czechoslovakia,and the Crimean peninsulain southernUSSR. They occur with increasingfrequencyin the Late Palaeolithicsettlementsand predominatein many of the mesolithic stoneassemblages. Along the Baltic littoral they occurin association with heavy chipped and polished stone axes. In the rest of east Europethey occur in associationwith longer bladeswhich mayor may not have beenretouchedinto different shapes. Thereare two main techniquesfor producingmicrolithic blades,l° and it is the distinction of thesetwo techniques(Fig.4), ratherthan any size criterion, which is important in the classificationof microlithic blades. First, the blades may be struck directly off a microcore, in which case they are distinguished by their narrowness rather than their short length. These microbiades were especially commonin the areanorth of the Black Sea.The secondmethodwas to strike a long blade off a macrocore,and to snapthis blade into shortlengths;the truncatedsegmentswere finished off by deliberate retouch into a variety of shapesincluding trapezes,triangles, and lunates,which are referred to in generalas 'geometricmicroliths'. They are distinguishedby their shortlengthin relationto their width. In western Europe 'geometric microlithic' blades characterisethe latest mesolithic settlements.They occur all over easternEurope, predominantlyin undatedcontexts. In the waterloggedsettlementsof the Baltic coastalregion, microlithic bladesare found insertedsingly or compositelyin antler, bone, and wooden hafts. They could act as a continuous cutting edge down one or both sidesof the haft of a thrustingor projectedweapon such as a spear,or of a curved or straight knife. The advantageof using microbiadesas insertsfor cutting implementsis that the microlithic segmentswere snappedoff the middle sectionsof long blades where the maximum strength and sharpnessis found; thus, once they were retouchedto a regular shapeand size, they could be insertedclose togetherto form a continuousstrong sharpedgeof un-

Postglacialhunting and gatheringcommunities

4I

limited length. Similarly, a curved cutting edge could be produced more easily by inserting microlithic segmentsinto a curved handle. If long bladeswereinsertedinto a curvedhaft, the edgewould either be discontinuousor the bladeswould haveto be inserteddiagonally as with the later neolithic Europeansickles. Both methodswould produce an edge of uneven strength and sharpness.Microlithic bladesare also found insertedas barbsfor spearheads, arrowheads, and harpoons,or insertedsingly at the end of the arrowshaft to act as the actual piercing head. The advantageof using microlithic bladesas inserts on projectile implementsis that their light weight will not affect the speed or balancedpath of flight, yet they will causethe weaponto penetratedeeply and hold firmly. Although hafted microlithic blades have not been discovered outsidethe areaof the 'Baltic forestculture'in eastern Europe, owing to the lack of preservationof organic material, it is presumedthat they were all used for a similar variety of implements to those describedabove. The majority of mesolithic assemblages in easternEuropehavenot beenexcavatedbut are from surfacecollections.The siteswhich have beenexcavatedshow a very thin habitationlayer, rarely thicker than 0'5m, often very nearthe surfaceand partially destroyed.Tracesof surfacehabitationsare very rare. They are limited to hearths,nor concentrationsof burnt flint and boneswhich are possiblyrelatedto habitation remains.12 Theseare possibly the tracesof light wooden constructionsor tents.The only direct evidencefor more substantial surface structurescomes from Lepenski Vir in N.E. Yugoslavia, where a number of trapezoid plaster floors was excavated.These were surroundedby post-holesreinforcedby stoneswhich probably representthe basisof a solid woodensuperstructure.Other tracesof habitationsare shallowpits,13The pits are of a long irregularovaloid shape,rangingfrom 9 to 6 metreslong, and 2 to 5 metreswide, and never more than 1 metre deep. Several of the pits have traces of hearthsin and around them, and one of the pits at Tasovicehad small post-holessurroundingit. This would suggestthat someof the pits were used as habitations with a light wooden or skin superstructure.But it doesnot meanthat all pits excavatedon mesolithic sites should automaticallybe interpretedas dwelling places. To talk of movementsand diffusion of people,techniquesor ideas with referenceto the mesolithicpopUlationof easternEurope,or the whole of Europe for that matter, is very dangerousin view of the limited material and evidenceof relative or absolutedating of the settlements.There was an increasingtendencytowards the manufacture of microlithic stone bladesin many areasof Europe from about8000 to 4500 B.C. It is not yet possibleto decidewhetherthese

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope were were the result of independentresponseto the samechangesin the environmentof Europeat this time, or whetherthey were the result of migration of the huntersand gatherersthemselves,or of diffusion of the techniquesassociatedwith the manufactureof composite tools with small stoneblades. Evidencefor the chronologyof the mesolithicsettlementsofeastern Europe comesfrom two main sources,radiocarbondating and the evidence of pollen analysis. Radiocarbondates provide evidence of absolutedating from only four areasin easternEurope:14 1. The eastBaltic coastalarea,from the sitesof Kunda and Narva in Estonia. The dates range from 6500-3550B.C. and come from samples representing at least two successivecultures, possibly correspondingto the Maglemosianand Erteb011ecultures of the west Baltic area. 2. Witow, central Poland, 6230± 140 B.C. The sample (K 954) was associatedwith a predominantlygeometric microlithic stone industry, stratified abovea Late Palaeolithic'Swiderian'industry. 3. Soroki II, layers 2 and 3, Moldavia SSR. Two mesolithic layers datedc. 5500 B.C. 4. LepenskiVir, layers I and II, N.E. Yugoslavia,seriesof dates c. 5500-4600B.C. In northernEuropeit is possible,by analysisof the pollen remains from the mesolithic settlements,to reconstruct the surrounding vegetationand to correlatethis analysis with the postglacialvegetational periods or zones. The postglacial vegetational history of northernEuropehas beenwell datedby Carbon 14 dates: Pre-Boreal(zone IV): Early Boreal (zone V): Late Boreal (zone VI): Atlantic (zone VII or VIla):

c. 8000-6800B.C. c. 6800-6500B.C. c. 6500-5500B.C. c. 5500-3000B.C.

Outside northern Europe, on the basis of palaeobotanicalevidence such as pollen remains and carbonised wood and gastropodaI evidence,it is possible to a certain extent to correlate increased aridity with the Boreal vegetationalperiod and increasedhumidity Fig. 5 Mesolithic housesat LepenskiVir (after Srejovic, 1969). a Ground-planof House37. Shadedareadenotesthe limestoneplaster floor coveredwith red burnishedsurface. b Reconstructionof a houseat LepenskiVir. e Stoneslab, possibly usedas a club with incised designs(after Srejovic, 1969). d Stoneheadwith human-fishcharacteristics(after Renfrew, 1969).

Scm

Scm

Scm b

Scm

Scm Scm

10cm

Fig. 5

44

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

with the Atlantic period. However, some of the attributions of climatic-vegetational conditions to particular north European vegetational periods should be regarded with extreme caution, since they may not be related to the generalclimatic development of northern Europe, but rather may be due to local conditions.I 5 Thesesourcesdo provide at least valuableevidencefor the microenvironmentsof the mesolithic settlementsof central and southeastEurope. Upper Elbe basin

The mesolithicsettlementsof west Czechoslovakialocated on sandy river terracesand limestonefoothills have all been assignedto the 'early mesolithic' period. It is clear, however,from the vegetational evidenceas well as the chipped stone industriesthat there is more than one period of mesolithicsettlementrepresentedin this region.I 6 At some sites, similar assemblagesto those of the Late Upper Palaeolithic Magdalenian and Epimagdalenianindustries of this region have been excavatedbut with evidencefor a local environment of mixed pine-hazelforestPAt other sitesevidencefor greater forest developmentwith mixed pine-beechforest is associatedwith a stone industry consisting of 'geometric' microliths as well as long retouchedblades.I s It has been suggestedthat most of the mesolithic settlementsin west Czechoslovakiawere contemporarywith the Boreal, or perhapsPre-Boreal,periods. In north-west Czechoslovakia, however,near the Elbe-Vltavaconfluence,thereis a group of three settlements,the best documentedof which is the cave of ZatynP9 The palaeobotanicalevidence indicates a mixed pinehazel-oakforest during the period of mesolithic settlement,and the molluscaindicate a very damp but relatively warm climate without any extremesof temperatureor precipitation.It has beensuggested, therefore, that this settlementshould be assignedto the Atlantic vegetationalperiod, or later mesolithic phase. None of the stone implementsat Zatyni is more than 3cm long, but they comprise narrow microblades rather than 'geometric' microlithic blades. There are no boneimplementsfrom the site, but amongthe animal bone remains there is evidence for mixed hunting of woodland animals such as roe-deerand wild pig, pine marten and rabbit, as well as various birds, turtles, and for fishing, in particular carp. In the limestone foothills north of the Ore mountains in the southernpart of East Germanya seriesof mesolithic settlementsof various phaseshas been discovered.20 Most are unexcavatedand none has provided any evidence for environment or chronology. As with thoseof west Czechoslovakia,someof the siteshavea stone tool assemblagewhich is identical to that of the Epimagdalenian

Postalacialhuntina and aatherinacommunities

45

sites, others have 'geometric'microlithic blades as well as macrolithic blades. The Pannonianplain

Settlementswith a predominantly'geometric' microlithic industry have beendiscoveredon the sandydune-likemoundswhich provide dry groundin the seasonallywaterloggedflood plains of the Danube and its tributaries. Surface collections of trapezes,triangles and lunateshavebeenmadesporadicallyin N. Yugoslavia,W. Hungary, 21 One or two of the sites N.E. Austria and S.C. Czechoslovakia. 22 have been excavated,for example Sered' in S. Czechoslovakia. It has been assumedthat all these assemblagesdate to the later part of the mesolithic, that is the period immediately before or contemporarywith the first appearanceof food-producinggroups in the samearea.23 This assumptionis basedon stylistic analogies with west Europeanmesolithic sites where the assemblagesof the later habitation layers of stratified sites show a predominanceof 'geometric'microlithic blades.Supportfor this assumptionhasbeen soughtin the palaeobotanicalevidencefrom Sered'which indicates the presenceof a mixed pine-oakforestedenvironmentduring the mesolithic settlement.This may correlatewith the moisteningof the climate and thickening of the forest during the early Atlantic vegetationalperiod, that is c. 5500-45CO B.C. An analysis of the animal bone material at Sered'producedthe controversialevidence of domesticatedcattle and pig in associationwith a mesolithicstone assemblage.The boneshave since beentestedfor fluorine content, however,and many of them, including all thoseof the domesticated animals, clearly belong to the Halstatt Iron Age settlementon the samesite.24 The majority of wild animal bones are of large forest animals such as red-deer and wild cattle (aurochs). Part of the economyof the mesolithic settlementsat Sered'must thereforehave been basedon hunting, and part on shell collecting. Although the settlementis very close to running water there is no evidencefor fishing. On the river terracesabove these sites there are scatteredsettlements with a stone tool assemblageconsisting predominantly of long narrow blunted blades and very few 'geometric' microlithic blades.25 Although they have been termed Early Mesolithic they could as easily be dated to the Late Palaeolithic Epigravettian industry. Great Hungarian plain

In the north-easterncorner of the plain is an areaof alluvial sands blown into dunes,known asthe Nyirseg.The stonetool assemblages

of

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

of the sites on the dunes consist almost exclusively of 'geometric' microlithic blades.The assemblages are very similar to those of the Pannonianplain exceptthat more implementsare madeof obsidian. This materialproducesa sharperedgethan flint, but is not so strong. It was obtained from sourcesin the Blikk and Matra mountains about 180km away in N.E. Hungary. It is interestingto note that at in N.W. Rumania, half the blades from one such mesolithic site of Pasunewere madeof obsidian,whereasalmost all the chipped stone artefactsfrom the nearby early neolithic site of Beria were made of obsidian.26 In the Bukk and Matra mountains themselvesobsidian was used relatively infrequently in the manu27 facture of the bladesin the mesolithic settlements. Today the Nyirseg is covered by thick pine forests. The animal bone material from (Pasune)indicatesthat animals which prefer a mixed deciduousforested environmentsuch as roe-deer, aurochs, and wild pig provided an important part of the food supply. It is thereforepresumedthat this settlementexistedat a time whenthe climate was relatively humid andthe forest well developed, probablycoinciding with the Atlantic period.

Ciume~ti

Ciume~ti

Central and south Poland Sites whose assemblagesconsist predominantly of 'geometric' microlithic blades have been discoverednorth of the Carpathian mountainson the alluvial sandsof the Vistula and its tributaries, and, to a lesser extent, the Oder river. In the past, the different assemblageshave been assigneden masseto the 'Tardenoisian'.28 Recently, however, a typological classification of the internal evolution of 'geometric' microlithic industries in Poland has been constructedon the basis of morphological comparison with the west EuropeanTardenoisianindustries,and several 'cultures' such as Komornica, Janislawice, and Czerwony Borek or Majdan have been distinguished.There is very little definite chronological evidencefor the microlithic blade industriesof Poland.Apart from the radiocarbondate from Witow referred to above,at Ostrowo on the lower Vistula microlithic blades were found in a fossil humus layer which, for geological reasons,has been dated to the humid Atlantic period. In addition the mesolithicsite of Konin nearPoznan yielded pollen evidencewhich dated it to the Atlantic period. The industriesfrom the two latter sites have beenidentified on morphological grounds as 'late Tardenoisian'. 29 Thus there were clearly settlementsof huntersand gatherersin existencein this areawith a 'geometric' microlithic stone industry at least at the end of the Boreal period and beginning of the Atlantic period, and possibly before. It is clear, however,that the relevantcriteria for distinguish-

Postglacialhunting and gatheringcommunities

47

ing 'cultures' or any finer categoriesthan 'industries'are lacking in the Polish evidence.It is also impossibleto tell whetheror not they represent a local evolution from the epipalaeolithic Swiderian industry. The only evidenceof a burial and artefactsmade from organic materialsin a mesolithic settlementin central Europe comesfrom the site of Janislawicenear Warsaw.3 0 The skeletonwas buried in what seemsto be a sitting position in a grave-pitwhich cut through the alluvial sand.The burial was accompaniedby microlithic blades, long bladesand cores. There were also severalimplementssuch as points, knife-like tools, and chisel-like tools made of aurochsand red-deerbones,and boars' tusks, as well as a small bone needle, perforatedred-deer incisor teeth, and a beaver jaw-bone. On the basis of geological evidence and similarities of the chipped stone industry to the Danish Svaerdborgassemblage,the burial has been dated to the Late Boreal period. Apart from the unlikelihood of there being any connectionbetweenthe Danish and Polish assemblages, the presenceof bones of forest animals such as aurochs, red-deer, and wild pig could indicate either Boreal or Atlantic vegetationalconditions.

Moldavia Rathermore positive evidencefor chronologyand economycomes from a group of settlementsnear Soroki in the middle Dniester valley. The sites are located on the narrow bank betweenthe river and the steepslope of the lowest terrace.The chalk cliffs which rise above the river in this region provide a local sourceof flint. Two of the sites which have been excavatedcontain habitation layers representingsettlementsof hunters and gatherersstratified below layers containing a very similar chipped stone industry but with pottery and evidencefor a fully developedfood-producingeconomy basedon stock-breedingand agriculture.31 The mesolithic layersare only about 20 cm thick. At one of the sites (Soroki II) two mesolithic layers (3 and 2) were separatedby a sterile layer which, as the Carbon 14 datesshow, probablyrepresentsnot more than 100 years (p. 221). On both sites there are shallow ovaloid pits which have beeninterpretedas semi-subterranean dwellings. It is assumedthat they had a light wooden or skin superstructurealthough there is no positive evidencefor this in the form of post-holes.The interiors of the pits contain one or more hearths,and often a stone-working area. Hearthsalso occur on the old land surfaceof the habitation layers. These latter have been interpretedas summer dwellings in the form of light surfacestructuresof which no trace has survived. In support of this hypothesis,the surface hearthscontain or are

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope carp surroundedby thick layers of freshwatermolluscashells and bones of carp and roach whose exploitation is most profitable in the summer.The semi-subterranean dwellings are interpretedas winter or autumnhabitationssince the hearthsinside them either did not contain any mollusca(site II, layer 3), or were stratified with layers containing mollusca shells alternating with layers without shells. In the autumncertain molluscaare inedible. Apart from collecting freshwater mollusca, the animal bone evidenceshows that hunting and fishing were both very important sourcesof food and raw material. Forestanimals such as red-deer, roe-deer,aurochs,wild pig, fox, wolf, and rabbit were hunted, as well as beaver.It is possiblethat someof the microlithic bladeswere used as headsand barbs for projectiles such as spearsand arrows, or that someof the small bone points were usedas projectile heads. The presenceof bones of domesticateddog may indicate that this animal was usedin hunting. There is no direct evidence,however, for the methods of hunting the forest animals. Nor is there any evidenceof the methodsof catchingthe large numbersof fish which are found in thesesettlements.The majority of the fish belongto the carp family, in particular the roach (rutilus frisii). This is a small speciesof carp containing much less meat than most of the carp family and being much more gregariousin nature.In moderntimes they are extensivelyangled, but on the mesolithic sites there is no evidencefor the use of fish-hooks. It is more likely that the postglacial hunters took advantageof the shallow fast-flowing water of the Bug and Dniesterto constructtraps such as weirs, or to use nets. Although there is no evidencefor the methodsof acquiringfood, thereis direct evidencefor the methodsof processingit. The chipped stoneimplementsof the Soroki siteshavebeenanalysedfor tracesof wear in the form of scars and scratcheson their surface. By this method,bladesusedas knivesfor cutting soft material,perhapsmeat or skins or even fish, have beenidentified. One of theseknives was found hafted in an antler handle. Other flint bladeswere used to scrape meat or skins. Other blades were used to work on hard material such as wood or bone, by cutting and scraping,as well as sawing, boring and grooving. Evidencefor the bone implementsin whose manufacturethe stone tools were possibly used includes antler picks and axes, some of which were perforated to hold a handle,as well as knives madeof boars'tusks and the bone points mentionedabove. The majority of chipped stone bladesat Soroki are macrolithic, and their shapehas been modified by deliberate retouch, especially by blunting or flattening of the distal end, a technique used frequently in the Upper and Late Palaeolithic

3em

3em

.

3em

3em

3em 3em 3em

3em 3em

3em 3em

3em 3em

3em

3em

3em 3em

3em

3em ~

3em 3em

Fig. 6 Bone, antler and stQne implementsfrQm the Bug-DniestermesQlithic and neQlithic cultures. SQroki, MQldavian SSR, USSR (Institute .of ArchaeQlQgy,Kisinev). a Knife made.of split pig's tusk. SQrQki II, layer 2 (mesolithic). b Pick .of red-deerantler. Soroki II, layer 2 (mesQlithic). c Flint knife blade insertedin antler handle. SorQki II, layer 3 (mesolithic). d BladeCQre. SQrokiI, layer 1 b(neQlithic-eariyphase)(after Markyevic, 1965). e Trapeze-shaped micrQlithic blade. SQroki I, layer 1 b(neQlithic-early phase). jTrapeze-shaped microlithic blade. SQroki II, layer 3 (mesQlithic). g Pencil-shapedmicro-core.SQrQki II, layer 3 (mesQlithic). h Blade usedas a scraper.SQrQki I, layer 1 b(neolithic-eariyphase). i Blade usedas a whittier. SQroki II, layer 3 (mesQlithic). j Trapeze-shaped micrQlithic blade. SQrQki II, layer 2 (mesQlithic). k Blade usedas a scraper.SQroki II, layer 3 (mesQlithic). I Blade usedas a knife. S.oroki II, layer 3 (mesolithic). m-n Small scrapers.SQroki II, layer 3 (mesolithic). o Small scraper.SQroki J, layer 1b(neQlithic-earlyphase). p Perf.oratedantler 'axe'. SorQki II, layer 2 (mesQlithic). Unless.otherwisestated,all the .objectsare drawn tQ scale2: 1. D

so

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof Eastern Europe

industriesof this region. There are relatively few microlithic blades. 'Geometric'microliths which predominatein the industries of the lower Dniestervalley are very rare in thesemiddle Dniestersettlements, and in this respectthe stone assemblageis closer to the 32 upper Dniesterassemblages. The pollen and carbonisedremains of plants of the mesolithic settlementsat Sorokiindicatea very similar vegetationto the presentday deciduouslight woodland of birch, maple, ash, and poplar. Gastropodalevidencealso indicatesthe sameenvironmentwith a possibly slightly higher rainfall than at present.Theseindications and the Carbon14 datesof c. 5500-5400B.C. would synchronisethe mesolithicsettlementof the middle Dniestervalley with the beginning of the Atlantic vegetationalperiod of northernEurope.It has been claimedthat alreadyin the mesolithiclayersof the Soroki settlements there were domesticateddog, pig, and cattle. From the radiocarbon evidencethese settlementscould have been contemporary with the early food-producingsettlementsof the Danubebasin and south-eastEurope(Figs. 8, 39), but there is no indication from their material culture that there was any form of contact. It also seems unlikely that the settlementsof early food-producinggroups which do occur west of the Dniester in N.E. Rumania should be dated as early as 5500 B.C. The possibility of local domesticationcannot be excluded. Domesticateddog appearsas early as the pre-Boreal period in the huntingand gatheringsettlementsof northernEurope, as well as in the mesolithic settlementsof the Danubegorgesat a period contemporary with the Soroki mesolithic settlements. Domesticatedpigs have been claimed in the mesolithic cave settlementsof Zamil Koba and Tas Ayir in the Crimeanpeninsula.They are associatedwith a chipped stone industry referred to as the 'CrimeanTardenoisian'which showscloseaffinities in its 'geometric' microlithic assemblagewith the lower Dniestermesolithic sites, and certainsimilarities with the mesolithicsites of the middle Dniester.33 There is no proof, however, that the aceramiclayers at Tas Ayir and Zamil Koba are not much later than is claimed, nor that they did not exist at a time when the techniquesof animal domestication hadlong beenfamiliar on the mainlandofthe Ukraine.It waspointed out, in this context, that with encouragement,pigs like dogs will attachthemselvesrelatively easily to a humangroup as scavengers, and may be bred quickly in captivity, but that they revert as easily to the wild state.34 It shouldbe notedthat it is often very difficult to distinguishosteologicallybetweenyoung wild pigs and domesticated adults. A similar claim for very early independentdevelopmentof animal domesticationwas made with referenceto the cattle discovered in the site of Kamennaya Mogila, N.W. of the Sea of

Postglacialhunting and gatheringcommunities

5I

Azov. These were also associatedwith a 'geometric' microlithic stone industry, the dating of which is as dubious as that of the 'Crimean Tardenoisian'. At Soroki, however, the chronological position of the bonesidentified as domesticatedpigs and cattle has beenestablished.The possibility cannot be excludedthat there was someform of contact betweenthe middle Dniestermesolithic sites and the early neolithic settlementsfurther west which has no reflection in the archaeologicalmaterial apartfrom the technique,or at leastthe idea, of domesticatinganimals. Betweenthe middle Dniesterand the earliestneolithic groupsin south-eastEurope are mesolithic settlementswhich have quite a different topographical location. They are situated on the upper terracesof river valleys or the edgeof high plateaus.3s The chipped stone industries of these sites are predominantly microlithic, including 'geometric'microliths as well as microbladesstruck from conical microcores.They thereforeshow a greater resemblanceto the assemblagesof the lower Dniester sites, and the Crimean 'Tardenoisian'sites, than to the nearbysites of the middle Dniester valley. Evidence for the vegetationat Erbiceni indicates a mixed pine-oak-lime forest, and the relatively high frequency of wild horse among the animal bones may indicate drier, more open environmental conditions than in the middle Dniester valley, possibly due to the higher altitude of the sites. From the animal bonematerial,it is clearthat huntingforest animalssuchas red-deer, roe-deer,aurochs,wild pig, and wolf played an important part in the economy,as at Soroki. Although they are situatedsomedistance from the rivers, some of the higher settlementshave large numbers of freshwatermolluscashells in their habitationdebris. There is no evidenceof fish-bonesor of any fishing equipmentfrom any of these sites, unless some of the microlithic blades could have acted as insertson fish-spears,as was suggestedfor Soroki. The mesolithic settlementsof the lower Dniester valley are representedpredominantlyby assemblages consistingof largenumbers of 'geometric'microlithic blades.3 6 The sites are also distributedon the upper terracesof river valleys. The predominanceof wild horse and aurochs among the animal bones would suggestthat, as at Erbiceni, the environment consistedof lighter woodland than in the middle Dniestervalley.37 The vegetationof this areaat present consistsof steppegrassland.There is evidencein the Late Palaeolithic settlementsof the lower Dniesterarea,for exampleat BolSaya AkkarZa, that there had been a specialisedhunting of aurochs.In connection with this latter site, where a large number of animal boneswere excavatedbut no boneimplements,it was suggestedthat bone implements, being more difficult to make, were carefully

52

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

carried with the user. Stone implements,on the other hand, were thrown away after very little use, particularly in areas like the Dniestervalley, where there was an abundantsupply of local flint. This hypothesiscould possibly be applied to mesolithic sites of the Dniester and Prut valleys, where there is abundantevidence of animal bonesbut no boneimplements. Lower Danube valley West of the lower Dniestersites towards the delta of the Danube, the mesolithic settlementsare situatedon the lower terracesof river 3s The chipped stone asvalleys or in the flood plains themselves. semblagescontain microlithic blades,but there is an absenceof the trapezoid-shapedblades which characterise the lower Dniester sites.The microbladesare unretouchedor retouchedinto a segment shape.Unfortunately,there is no evidenceof the economyof these settlements,but it seemslikely that their chipped stone industry reflectsa different emphasisin the sourcesof food and raw materials and different methodsof exploiting thesefrom the methodsused in the lower Dniestervalley. Southof the Danubedelta a similar chippedstoneassemblagehas been excavatedin the cave of La Adam, S.E. Rumania, stratified betweena late glacial habitation layer and a late neolithic layer (p.151).The stoneimplementsare associatedwith a large numberof bonesof wild sheepor goats.Theselatter were formerly thought to provide proof that this site was a very early centreof sheepdomestication, but there is no evidenceto suggestthat any of them were 39 domesticated. In N.E. Bulgariaa site with an assemblage consistingof 'geometric' microlithic bladesas well as macrolithic bladeshas beenexcavated in the sandstonehills known as Pobiti Kamani, associatedwith the bonesof wild horse,wild sheepor goats,and red-deer.40 Already in the Late Palaeolithic settlementsof Bulgaria there is evidencefor the diminution of stone implements,so that it is unnecessaryto speculateon any long-rangemigrations of mesolithic huntersfrom the Ukraine. Sites with a predominantly'geometric' microlithic stone assemblage are scatteredalong the terracesof the Danubetributaries of southern Rumania, but without any evidence of environment, economy, or chronology.nThey also are likely to representlocal developmentfrom the Late Palaeolithicindustries. N.E. Hungarian mountains The limestone Matra and Bukk mountains contain a number of settlements,both open sites and caves,which, on the basis of their

Postglacialhunting and gatheringcommunities

53

palaeobotanicalevidence,representvarious later postglacialperiods. Two sites in the west of these mountains,for example, have been assignedto the Boreal vegetationalperiod of northern Europe, but the evidenceis far from consistent,ranging from mixed oak forest to mixed pine-hazelforest.42 The relative chronologicalframework for the mesolithic sites in these mountains has been constructed on the basisof a morphologicaltypology of their stoneassemblages, which consist predominantlyof macrolithic implementsincluding large flakes used as heavy scrapers,large leaf-shapedpoints, and possibleflake axes.Thereis no evidencefor the economyassociated with theseassemblages or what the purposeof theseheavytools and projectileswas. 'Geometric'microlithic bladesoccur on a few of the sites. A similar stone industry consisting of large flakes and chipped stoneaxeshas beenfound in other parts of easternEurope,and has been referred to as 'Campignian',for examplein central Rumania (Transylvania), and S.E. Rumania.43 At Lapo~ a so-called 'Campignian' assemblagewas stratified below a layer which contained 'geometric' microlithic blades. Generally, chronological and environmental evidencefor these assemblagesis entirely lacking, so that it is impossibleto tell whetherthe macrolithic industry referred to as 'Campignian'is a few hundredor a few thousandyearsearlier than the microlithic industry, and whether or not the two were associatedwith a different environmentand economy. In northern Europe,the presenceoflargestoneaxeshasbeeninterpretedas largescalewood-working and forest clearance. The Danubegorges(Iron Gates) In the limestonemountainsof S.W. Rumaniaabove the gorge cut

through by the Danube,there are severalcaveswith tracesof prehistoric habitationfrom variousperiods.44 The postglacialhabitation layersof the cavesof Baile Herculane,Veterani,and Cuina Turcului, which representsettlementsof huntersandgatherers,havebeendated to a slightly later period than Climente II (p. 64) on the basis of a morphologicaltypology of their chippedstoneassemblages. Palaeobotanical evidence from these early mesolithic caves indicates an Alpine forest-steppeenvironment at that time with juniper and willow predominatingamongthe trees.The economywas basedon hunting forest animalssuchas red-deer,fox and, to a certainextent, bison and bear, as well as open woodland and scrublandanimals, suchas ibex, and riverine mammals,suchas beavers.Fish-bonesalso occur. The chipped stone industry shows strong ties with the preceding Late PalaeolithicEpigravettianindustry of this region. The assemblageat Baile Herculanehas often mistakenlybeenreferredto

as

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

as 'Azilian' becauseof a superficial resemblancebetweenthe small blunted bladesof the Rumaniansite and thoseof the FrenchAzilian industry.45 The assemblagealso includes small denticulatedblades and scrapersand a very few microlithk blades. At the bottom of the gorges,on the banks of the Danubeitself, a series of open sites of settlementsof food-gatherershas recently been excavated.Thanks to a number of radiocarbondates, their chronologicalposition is much clearerthan is that of the mountain sites. At least sevensites have producedevidencefor homogenous settlements,housetypes, burial rites, economiesas well as artefacts of stone,boneandantler.4 6 The best-documented so far andthe most thoroughlyexcavatedis LepenskiVir which lies on thenarrowsloping southern bank of the Danube, between the river and the steep limestonesidesof the gorge(PI. 1). Eight habitationlevels have been distinguishedrepresentingthreedistinct culture layers,two of which (I and II) are virtually 'aceramic'and have evidenceof a huntingfishing economy. They are referred to by the excavator as the Lepen culture. Above them is a culture layer (III) with an assemblage which is typical of the early neolithic Starcevoculture with evidenceof a food-producingeconomy. Below these three culture layers there is evidencefor a possible habitation level which precedesthe main mesolithicsettlementof I and II. So far, however,it is apparentonly in isolatedhearthsand may not representa separate culture layer. The two mesolithic culture layers are separatedby a thin sterile layer of sand. Although this represents a break in occupationof the settlement,there is little evidencefor a break in the evolution of the 'Lepen culture'. The housesof layers I and II were built on terraceswhich were cut into the sloping bank of the Danubein order to obtain a horizontal foundation.They were alignedin rows along the terraces,with their entrancespointing towards the river, each successivehabitation level utilising the sameterraces.The culture layer I at LepenskiVir comprisesfive habitation levels each of which consistedof about twenty dwellings. All the housesare trapezoidalin plan, varying in size from 5'5-30m2 but with uniform proportions and internal arrangements,and all with their wide ends towards the river. The housefloors were of hard limestoneplaster coveredby a thin red or white burnishedsurface(Fig. 5). They were surroundedby postholes which were reinforced by stones,as the basis of a relatively solid woodenstructure.In the later culturelayer (II) which consistsof one habitation level only, the houseswere placed further apart, were not of sucha regulardesignand were without a plasteredfloor. Inside the housesof both periods,hearthsconsistedof elongatedpits lined with limestoneblocks and were often surroundedby a pattern

Postglacialhunting and gatheringcommunities

55

of thin red blocks of sandstone.Near the hearth at the opposite end to the entrancein almost every housethere was placed a block of limestone,roundedby river action,often very largeand sometimes carved with features such as eyes and a mouth, and even scales; these have been interpretedas representationsof humans or fish. Their significanceis naturally open to great speculation,but so far they are a:uniquephenomenonamongthe postglacialfood-gathering settlementsof Europe. In a number of houses,burials were placed near to the hearths.The bodieswere inhumedin a shallow pit lying on their backsin an extendedposition (Fig. 15), occasionallymore than onein the samegrave.The grave-goodswere few in number,but always included a red-deer antler (the main hunted animal) and occasionallybeads, amulets or pieces of rock. It is interestingto note that all the skeletonsfrom the mesolithic burials at Lepenski Vir have beenidentified as representinga tall, robust physical type, very similar to the easternUpper Palaeolithic'Cro-Magnon'men. The settlementof LepenskiVir is situatednear a very large and deep whirlpool which is in close proximity to the river bank. It is assumedthatthe whirlpool existedduring this mesolithicperiodand helped to churn up the small organismson which the fish of the Danube fed. It is therefore further assumedthat the whirlpool would have been an attractive place for the many speciesof fish which inhabitedthe Danube,and no doubt the areajust below the whirlpool would haveprovidedvery lucrativefishing. From the bone materialfound in the mesolithiclayersit is clearthat fishing, especially for the larger carp species,was a very important source of food. No fish-hooks have beenfound amongthe bone implementsof the mesolithic layers, although they do occur in the neolithic layer (III). Thereare a large numberof long sandstoneand schist blocks, 2S-S0cmlong, sometimeswith designsscratchedon them, which could have served to club carp during the mating seasonwhen, contrary to their normal behaviour,they float motionlessnear the surface of the water. Or they could have been used to club fish broughtout of the wateralive. If so, this would suggesttheuseof nets, possibly weighted by the stones found on the site which have runnelsfor attachingropes.This methodis still usedin the Danube gorge in modern times. Other possible methodswhich would not leaveany tracein the archaeologicalrecordare the useof fish-weirs, traps and even wooden hooks. It has been suggestedthat the long hearthsin the housesmight have beenspecially constructedfor the processof drying and smokingthe large quantitiesof fish. Pollen and charcoalremainsat LepenskiVir show that the slopes and bottom of the gorge were coveredin mixed pine-juniper-birch forest, with a wet and relatively cool climate. Juniperand hackberry,

S6

Hunters. Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

which is also found at Lepenski Vir, are typical of present-dayinland upland areaswhich have a Mediterraneanclimate. From the bone remains it is clear that hunting animals in these forests, in particular red-deerand aurochsas well as wild pig and roe-deer, provided the mesolithic inhabitants of Lepenski Vir with a substantialpart of their diet. As with Soroki, thereis no direct evidence for the methodsof hunting theseanimals. Someof the bone points may havebeenusedasprojectileheads,but therearevery few chipped stone blades which could have served as heads or barbs for projectiles. The chipped stoneindustry used poor quality local pebble flint, chert and frequently quartz. The blades are struck off and normally used without any subsequentmodification of their shape by deliberateretouch. There are no 'geometric'microliths and very few of the bladescould be termedmicrolithic. It is assumedthat the domesticateddog whosebonesalso occur in the mesolithiclayers at LepenskiVir was usedin hunting forest animals,and that traps, pits and nooses,etc., were used but have left no surviving trace. Apart from food, many of the animals provided a valuable sourceof raw materialas may be seenin the rich bone and antler industry. Many of the points are very small and fine, and some are decoratedby engraving.The function of most of the bone and antler implements is very difficult to assesswithout a careful examination of their working edges. The series of implements referred to as 'shovelshapedobjects'and 'chisels'may even have beenusedfor digging in the earth. As will be seen in the following chapter, the material culture, economyand population of the mesolithic settlementat Lepenski Vir presentsa complete contrast to that of the succeedingearly neolithic assemblagefrom this site. The radiocarbondates which range from 5410-4610B.C. show the mesolithic settlementto have been contemporarywith the early part of the Atlantic vegetation period of northern Europe, and therefore contemporarywith the initial expansionof a food-producingearly neolithic populationinto the plains and loessbasinsof south-eastand centralEurope(Fig. 39), but thereis no indicationin the archaeologicalmaterialof the mesolithic settlementof LepenskiVir, for instancein the form of domesticatedanimalsor cultivatedgrain, that therewasany contactbetween the two populations(Fig. 8). Potterydoesoccurin someof the mesolithic housesbut this has been assumedto be contaminationfrom the upper Starcevolayer at Lepenski Vir, although it may be imported or manufacturedlocally in the 'mesolithic'settlements. On the northernside of the gorge on the banksof the Danubein s.w. Rumania, a series of settlements,similar to but not so well 47 preserved as Lepenski Vir I-II, has recently been excavated.

Postglacialhunting and gatheringcommunities

57

Severalof the sites have more than one mesolithic habitation level and, like LepenskiVir, are stratified below early neolithic habitation layers. There are no floors of houses but square or rectangular hearthssurroundedby a border of stones,and in one caseset on a platform of polished clay and sand, occur at three sites. At two of these sites burials have been excavatednear the hearths. As at LepenskiVir they consistedof extendedinhumationslying on their backs with very few grave-goods.At SchelaCladovei there were twenty burials all with their feet pointing towards one hearth. The assemblagesand evidenceof the economyfound in thesesites are also similar to that of LepenskiVir I-II. Inland Yugoslavmountains Evidence for habitation layers of late postglacial food-gatherers comesfrom cavesin the limestonemountainsof S.W. Yugoslavia.4 8 The mesolithic levels are stratified betweenLate Palaeolithiclevels andlevelswith ImpressedWare which may be contemporarywith the earliest introduction of agriculture to the plains of south-eastern Europe(p. 102). The chippedstoneindustry showsvery little change in form during the period of developmentfrom the Late Palaeolithic to the early pottery-producinglayers. The stone implements consistof long bladesmodified by deliberateretouchon the lateral edgesto form knives and scrapers.There are small flake scrapers, but there are no 'geometric'microliths or any microblades.Nor are there any stonebladeswhich could have actedas headsor barbsof projectiles.The faunal remainson the settlementsinclude bonesof red-deer as well as wild pig, roe-deer,and aurochs,all of which would indicate that the limestone mountains were rather more thickly forestedthan they are today. At CrvenaStijenathe bonesof wild goat occur in the habitation level immediately below that containing the earliest pottery. As at La Adam, these were interpreted as indications of an early domesticationof ovicaprids in S.E. Europe,but this suggestionhas since beenwithdrawn. Adriatic coast Along the Adriatic coast there are further cave settlementswith habitation levels of hunters and gatherersdating to the later postglacial period. The chippedstoneassemblages of thesecoastalsites is rather different from those inland in that they contain a larger proportion of microlithic blades, including those of geometric shape.A local evolution can be seenin the morphologicaltypes of theseindustriesfrom the Late Palaeolithicsettlementsthrough later mesolithic levels and continuing until the layers in which pottery decoratedby impressionsof Cardium shell occurs.4 9

S8

Hunters, Fishasand Farmersof EasternEurope

Well-documentedevidencefor this local evolution and associated economycomesfrom the Azzura cave near Trieste where a number of postglacial levels have been divided into two main mesolithic culture layers.50 The chippedstoneindustry consistsof coarseround flakes and long bladeswith their lateral edgesretouched,sometimes so that they are narrowedin the middle as at CrvenaStijena.There are also a large numberof small, round scrapersand narrow microbladeswith oneedgebluntedby retouchin a mannerwhich characterises the Late Palaeolithic Romanellian industry of the Italian Adriatic coast. In the later mesolithic habitation levels, thesewere supplementedby wider 'geometric' microlithic blades including trapezesand segments.The hunting of larger forest animals, in particular red-deer, but also roe-deer, wild pig, ibex and wolf, formed the basis of subsistencethroughout the duration of the mesolithic settlement. In the later mesolithic habitation levels, however, there is a marked increasein marine mollusca, although the caveis at presentseveralmiles from the sea. 'Baltic forest culture' Sites with assemblages which belongto the techno-complexreferred to as the 'Baltic forest culture' are locatedpredominantlyby rivers or on former lake-shores,many of which havesincebeencoveredby peat. Under these waterloggedconditions, the evidence of stone artefacts is supplementedby rich evidence of artefacts made in organic materialssuch as wood, bone, and antler. Therelative and absolutechronology of the settlementswithin the north European postglacial vegetational periods has been well established and checkedby Carbon 14 evidence.The settlementsdate to the Boreal and early Atlantic periods, and continue with a similar economy Fig. 7 The heads of thrusting and projected weapons from the E. Baltic (Kunda culture) hunting and gatheringsettlements. a Blades inserted in wooden spearhead.Tarvastu, Estonia (after Indreko, 1948). b Barbedantler harpoonhead. Kunda, Estonia(after Indreko, 1948). c Barbedantler harpoonhead. Kunda, Estonia(after Indreko, 1948). d Single-barbedantler spearhead.Gniewino, N.E. Poland (after S. Kozlowski, 1965). e Barbed antler blade of fish-spear (leister). Kunda, Estonia (after Indreko, 1948). f Barbedantlerharpoonhead witha slot for the insertionof flint blades. Kunda, Estonia(after Indreko, 1948). g Bone daggerfragmentwith incised dec'oration.River Uzava, Latvia (after Loze, 1968). h Bonedaggerwith inciseddecoration.Lake Luban,Latvia (after Loze, 1968).

3cm

3cm

h

3cm

3cm

2cm 20m

3cm

3cm 3cm 3cm

3cm

3cm

30m 3cm

Fig. 7

60

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

and material culture, but with the addition of pottery, into the later part of the Atlantic period. The mesolithicsettlementsof the eastern Baltic Kunda culture were probably not inhabited until the end of the Boreal period.51 Throughouttheseperiods,the mixed deciduous and coniferousforest extendednorth of its modernlimits as far as Finland and Karelia. It seemsprobablethat animal life favouredthe marginal zones of the forests such as rivers, lakes and marshes ratherthanthe interior, becauseof the greatervariety of food sources andcomparativeeaseof movement. Thismayhavebeenasimportant a factor in the siting of mesolithicsettlementsby rivers and lakes as the potential source of food from freshwater fish and mammals. This hypothesisis supportedby the faunal remains of the Maglemose and Kunda culture settlements,where the bones of forest mammals such as red-deer, elk, aurochs, wild pig, and roe-deer are very numerous. Unlike the settlementsof the Maglemose52 culture, the faunal material from the settlementsof the Kunda culture indicate a consistentdegreeof specialisationin hunting one animal-the elk-which was unusual in mesolithic settlements. 53 It is impossibleto tell from the existinganalysisof animalbonesfrom thesesiteswhetherthe elks werehuntedonly in thesummerwhenthey come down to the lakes to eat water-lilies. At this time of year they only move in very small groups. In winter, however, when they form larger bands,they move away from the lakes to drier, higher ground. In all seasonsthe elk, by its great speedof movementand excessiveshyness,is a very difficult animalto hunt. The methodsused by mesolithic huntersmay have included such traps as pitfalls and nooses,none of which have left any trace in the archaeological record. They very probably made use of the domesticateddog, the bones of which occur on all sites of the Kunda culture as in the west Baltic Maglemosesites. Thereis a large variety of barbedbone and antler points found in the Kunda assemblages which may have beenusedas the headsof thrusting or projectedspears,but there is no evidencefor the use of the bow and arrow in the eastBaltic sites. Chipped stoneimplements,including possibleinserts for bone and antler hafts in the form of microlithic blades, occur much less frequently than in the west Baltic Maglemose assemblages.The chipped stone artefactsof the Kunda culture are made from small river and morainepebbles.The only sourceof flint is in Estoniaand this of very poor quality. The decreasein the importanceof elk in the economyof the settlementsduring the Atlantic period,andits virtual disappearance in the west Baltic during this period, must be associated with the drastic decreaseof pine, whosebark is essentialto the diet of the elk. Someof the barbedboneand antler points were perforatedat the

Postglacialhunting and gatheringcommunities

6r

basco They have been interpreted as 'harpoons',or spearswhose headsare attachedto a long line in order to retain contactwith the victim. They may be used on land, although this is difficult in a thickly forestedenvironment.They are especiallyeffectivein hunting animals, whether mammalsor fish, moving through water, such as beavers which were an important source of food in the Kunda settlements,or sealswhich were also huntedat this time. The seals were huntedin the eastBaltic in the springand autumn,and possibly even winter. The methodsof hunting them would have varied dependingon the seasonand the speciesof sea1.54 During the breeding seasonthey may have been clubbed while on the ice; during the seasonwhen the sea was frozen they may have been harpooned while surfacing at their breathing holes. Among the bone implements there are thick segmentsof long bones which have been sharpenedat oneendand interpretedas 'ice-picks',and may possibly have beenused to widen existing breathingholes or make artificial ones.Other possibleevidencefor winter habitationof the settlements is the presenceof a ski for use in soft seasonalsnow. It is also possible that seals were hunted from boats but no evidencefor these hasyet beenfound in the eastBaltic. Seals,however,did not become important in the economyuntil the subsequentSub-Borealvegetational period in associationwith the Narva culture.55 Fish-bones,particularly those of pike, have been found on the settlementswhose bone material has been analysed. Pike bones were found at the site of Kunda itself in close associationwith unperforatedbone points, which were armed down their whole lengths by small barbs.56 It is very likely that thesebarbedpoints were hafted doubly or trebly in the manner of modern leisters, in order to have a betterchanceof spearinga fish. They are especially effective in shallow water, and when usedin conjunction with fishweirs. The presenceof barblessbonehooksin the settlementsof the east Baltic coast indicate that other methodswere used in fishing. Fragmentsof nets have survived at Kunda and Narva, as well as net-weightsof stoneor gravel wrappedin bark, and floats of pinebark. Many other methodsof fishing including traps were probably used, but there is no evidenceof them in the east Baltic mesolithic sites. Evidenceof other activities include polished greenstone,granite, or diabaseaxesand adzes.They are trapezoidin shapeand oval or plano-convexin cross-sectionand were probably used for similar functionsto thoseassumedof the chippedflint axesof the Maglemose culture, such as wood-working, tree-felling, and bark-stripping. Antler sleeves for these axes and perforated antler axes closely resemblingthose of the Maglemoseculture have also been found.

62

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

Many of the bone and antler objects of the Kunda culture settlements were decoratedwith inciseddesignswhich consist of chevrons,cross-hatching,and other geometricpatterns(Fig. 7). On the other hand,inciseddecorationof the antler and bone objects of the Maglemoseassemblagesoften takes the form of human and animal representationsas well. There is no evidence for amber pendantsin the Kunda settlementsof Boreal and Atlantic periods, althoughthey occurin the west Baltic Maglemosesettlements.There are no traces of housesin the east Baltic from this period, except possibly the evidence for a rough flooring of wood and bark at Menturiai bog in former eastPrussia.Similar flooring of brushwood and bark has beenfound in somesites of the Maglemoseculture, and it has been suggestedthat these representseasonalsummer habitations.It is possiblethat more permanenthabitations,or those inhabited during winter as at Kunda, may have beenlifted off the ground and supportedon corner-stonesor corner pillars, in which casethey would leave very little trace.

excIu~ively

Conclusion As far as it is possibleto tell from the rather sporadicnatureof the palaeontologicalevidencefrom the mesolithicsettlementsof eastern Europe, there was no specialisationin the exploitation of anyone animal speciesfor food or raw materials apart from the Kunda culture; a variety of animalswas eaten,including a large numberof mammals,fish, birds and mollusca. It is presumed,although there is no proof apart from sporadic finds of hazel-nut shells, that a similarly largevariety of plant specieswasexploited.Theremay have been a greater concentrationon the exploitation of fish at some settlements,for examplethose on the banks of rivers, or on large forest animals at others, but in no case to the exclusion of other resourcesat their disposal. The mesolithic settlementsof eastern Europe were located by lakes and along rivers, either on the sandyalluvial and flood plains, or on the banks of the rivers, or on terracesand the edgesof high plateausoverlooking the rivers. A small number were situated in mountainareas,but only in the foothills. As far asit is possibleto tell from the availableevidence,no mesolithic settlementswere located on loess depositsin easternEurope. During the Boreal vegetation period,the loessdepositswerevery probablycoveredby opensteppelike grasslandwith very few trees, in which casethey would have been avoided by mesolithic hunters and gatherersbecauseof their lack of game. During the period equivalentto the north European Atlantic zone, however,the loessareaswere certainly coveredby a light mixed oakwoodlandwith a rich undergrowth,which would have

PostglacialhuntIng and gatheringcommunities

been

been highly suitablefor the mammalshunted by mesolithic groups, such as red-deer, aurochs, roe-deer, and wild pig. There are two factors which may account for the continued lack of mesolithic settlementon loess areas during the Atlantic period. First, it is possiblethat the growth of the deciduousforest and spreadof large mammals on the loess may have been a relatively slow process and may only have reachedits climax during the middle of the Atlantic period. By this time the loess deposits would have been settled by early neolithic food-producinggroups (Fig.8). Secondly, the location of settlementsby rivers and lakesmay not have beenso much to facilitate fishing or even mobility, as to exploit the rich sourcesof food which tendedto congregatein the convergenceareas of various micro-ecologicalzones.Such convergenceareasoccurred most frequently by rivers and lakes. A characteristicof loessregions is the lack of large expansesof surface water and of streamsand rivers with definite valleys, the majority of which would be insufficient to break up the large homogenousecologicalzonesprovided by the loess basins.There are a few large rivers which run through the loess basins,such as the Danubeand its tributaries, and mesolithic settlementsdo occur along these.But in each casethe settlements are strictly limited to the alluvial or flood-plain sand, although the loess plains may have been used to a certain extent as hunting territory.

1. For general discussion of the epipalaeolithic and mesolithic industries of easternEurope: Boriskovski, P. I., 'Ocerky po paleolitu Centralnoii YugoVostocnoiEvropi', Pt. I, SA, XXVII (1957), 29-70; ibid., Pt. II, SA, XXIX (1959), 5-41; Valoch, K. (1968); Vertes, L. (1960); Waterbolk,T. (1968). 2. e.g. at Hendelhammer,Chocoviceand Ti'eben on the S. edgeof the Ore Mts. (Klima, B., 'Epipaliiolithikum im oberenEgertal', Quartiir, XVII, 1966,91116) and at PfortenerBerg and Dobritz on the N. edge of the Ore Mts. (Feustel,R., 'DasMesolithikumin Thuringen',Alt-Thiiringen,V, 1961,18-75). 3. e.g. Szekszard,C 14 (H 408) 8350±500 B.C. and dated by palaeobotanical evidenceto the transition betweenthe Allemd and Younger Dryas periods: Vertes,L., et ai, 'Die Ausgrabungenin Szekszard-Palank und die archaeologischenFunde',Swiatowit,24 (1962),182.Also Witow, C 148855± 160 B.C. and palaeobotanicaldating to the YoungerDryas period (Valoch, K., 1968; Hont: Gabori, M., Arch. Ert., 83, 1956; Kulna cave: Valoch, K., et aI., 'Die Erforschungder Kulna-Hohle bei Sloup in Miihrische Karst', Quartiir, XX, 1969; BolSayaAkkadaand Borsevo:Valoch, K., 1968 and Boriskovski, P. I., 'Problemele paleoliticului superior ~i ale mesoliticului de pe coastade nord-vesta Marii Negre', SCIV, XV: 1, 1964, 5-15; Ostromei': Vend, Sl., 'Ostromerskaskupina', Arch. Rozh., XVIII; 3 Prague, 1966, 309-40). 4. For the widespreaddiffusion of 'Swiderian'points: Gimbutas,M. (1956), 28; Sulimirski, T. (1970), 31-2.

and

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof Eastern Europe

5. Kylesovicc in N. Czechoslovakia: Boriskovski, P. I., 'Voprosi mezolita Cekhoslovakii i Rumuni', MfA, 126 (1966), 136; Klima, B., 'Mesoliticka industrie na Kylesovskem kopci v Opave', Casopis ZemskehoMusea, I, Opava (1948). Ceahliiu (La Sciiune) in N.E. Rumania:Boriskovski, P. I., arheologicBicaz', op. cit. (1966), 132; Nicolaescu-Plop~or"Ceahliiu C. S., Materiale, VI (1960), 57-63. 6. e.g. Devetaki, C. Bulgaria: Mikov, V., & Diambazov, N., Devetaskata pe§tera, Sofia, (1960); LoveC, C. Bulgaria: Dzambazov,N., 'Loveskite Pesteri',fAI, XXVI (1963), 195-241;Climente II, S.W. Rumania:Boroneanj, V. (in press);CrvenaStijena, S.W. Yugoslavia: Benac,A., & Brodar, M., 'CrvenaStijena', Glasnik Z.M. Sar., 13 (1958) 43-61. 7. Clarke, D. (1968), 357. 8. Clarke, D. (1968), 324; Clark, J. G. D. (1958); Zotz, L. (1932). 9. Clark, J. G. D. (1969), 91-123; id. (1958). 10. Bordaz,J. (1970), 88-93. 11. e.g. Soroki, Moldavia SSR: Markyevic, V. I., Neolit Moldavii, unpublished thesis for Kandidat Istoriceskikh Nauk degree in Inst. of Archaeology, ANSSSR, Moscow (1968); Icoana and Schela Cladovei, S.W. Rumania: Boroneanj,V. (in press). 12. e.g. Mikhailovka, nr. Odessa,USSR: Boriskovski, P. I., & Kraskovskii, v., Pamyatniki drevneisei celovyeeeskoikulturi severo-zapadnovoPriCernomorye,Odessa(1961), 31. 13. e.g. Smolin, C. Czechoslovakia:Valoch, K., 'Ein mittelsteinzeitlicherWohnplatz bei Smolin in SUdmiihren', Quartiir, XIV (1962), 105-14, fig. 1; Tasovice, Czechoslovakia:Prosek, F., 'Mesoliticka chata v Tasovicich', Arch. Rozh.,III: 1, (1951), 12-15, fig. 4; Razice (Putim I), S.W. Czechoslovakia: Mazalek, M., 'Mesoliticka chataz Pisecnikuu Razice (Putim I)', Anthropozoikum,II, Prague(1952), 161--72,fig. 2; Fiera (Cleanov), S.W. C. S., 'Industriesmicrolithiquesen Oltenie', Rumania: Dacia as, VII-VIII (1937-40), 3-8; Soroki, Moldavia, SSR: Markyevic, V. I., op. cit. (1968). 14. EastBaltic Carbon14 dates:Radiocarbon,VIII (1966). Witow: Radiocarbon, VIII (1966); Chmielewska, M., 'Badania stanowiska mezolitycznego w Witowie, Leczyckim pow.' Spraw. Arch., 3 (1957), 11-23. Soroki: Carbon 14 datesin Quitta, H., & Kohl, G. 'Neue Radiocarbondaten zum Neolithikum und zu frUhen Bronzezeit SUdosteuropasund der Sowjetunion', Zeitsch. fiir Arch., 3, Berlin (1969), 249-51; Soroki II, layer 3-5565± 120 B.C. (Bin 588); Soroki II, layer 2-5470±80 B.C. (Bin 587): Lepenski Vir: Quitta, H., in Srejovic, D. (1969), 229-38. 15. For example,at LepenskiVir in N.E. Yugoslavia,layer I was attributed to the pre-Borealperiod and layer II to the Boreal. The sametwo layers have beendatedby a reliableseriesof Carbon14 datesto a periodwhich coincides with the north EuropeanBoreal/Atlantic transition. 16. Mesolithic of W. Czechoslovakia:Boriskovski, P.I., op. cit. (1966); Klima, Mesolithikum', B., op.cit. (1966); Neustupny,J.,'Zum Tschechoslowakischen MAGW, XCII (1962), 239-46; Prosek, F., & Lozek, V., 'Stratigraficke otazky ceskoslovenskeho paleolitu',Pam. Arch., XLV (1954),35-74;Skutil, J., 'Prehled ceskeho paleolitika a mesolitika', Shornik NM., VI, Prague (1952); Vend, S1., 'Mladopaleoliticka a mesoliticka stanice v Libine na Jicinsku',Arch. Rozh.,XVI: 1 (1964),3-10;Zebera,K., 'Nova paleoliticka a mesolitickasidliste v ceskychzemich', Pam. Arch., XLII (1946); Zotz, L., & Freund, G., 'Die paliiolithische und mesolithischeKulturentwicklung in Bohmenund Miihren', Quar/iir, V (1951), 7-40. 17. e.g. Sousand Hi Volu cave: Klima, B., op. cit. (1966).

'~antieruI

Nicolaescu-Plop~or,

Postglacialhunting and gatheringcommunities

65

18. e.g. Tasovice and Razice (Putim I): Benes, A., & Vend, SI., 'Prispevekk poznanimesolitickehoosidleni Jiznich tech', Arch. Rozh.,XVIII: 1 (1966), 67-71; Klima, B., op. cit. (1966); Vend, SI. 'Pokus 0 klasifikaciji posde glacialnih a staroholocennichosidleni okoli Rezabnice',Pam. Arch., L VL 2 (1964), 233-45. 19. Prosek,F., & V. Lozek, 'Mesoliticke sidliste v Zatyni u Dub6', Anthropozoikum, II (1952), 93-172. 20. Feustel, R., 'Zum Problem des UbergangesMesolithikum-Neolithikum', Alt-Thuringen,II, Weimar (1957), 27-47; id., op. cit. (1961). 21. Mesolithic settlementsof the PannonianPlain: Boriskovski, P. I., op. cit. (1966), 134; Neustupny,J., op. cit. (1962); Klima, B., 'Nove mesoliticke nalezy na jizni Morave', Arch. Rozh.,V: 3 (1953),297-302;id., 'Ubersucht tiber die jtingsten palaolithischenForschungenin Mahren', Quartiir, XIX (1957), 85-130; Dobosi, V., 'Mesolithische Fundorte in Ungarn', Alba Regia(in press);Barta, J., 'Tomasikovo,mezoliticka stanicana Slovensku', Arch. Rozh.,VII: 4 (1955), 433-6; id., 'Mezoliticka industriaz Mostovej pri Galante',Arch. Rozh.,XU: 6 (1960),787-90;Brukner, B., 'Die Tardenoisischen Funde von "Peres" bei Hajdukovo und aus Backa Palanka,und das Problem der Beziehungenin Donaugebiet',Arch. lug., VII (1966), 1-12; Mazalek, M., 'Mesoliticke nalezy ze Slovenska',Arch. Rozh.,VI: 1 (1954), 7-12; GuIder, A., 'Beitragezur Kenntnis des niederosterreichischen Mesolithikums', Arch. Aust., 12 (1953), 5-33; Zotz, L., & Freund, G., op. cit. (1951); Lichardus,J., & Pavuk,J., (1966); Vend, SI. (1968). 22· Barta, J., 'Pleistocennepiesocneduny pri Seredia ich paleoliticke a mezoliticke osidlenie',Slov. Arch., V: 1 (1957),5-72. 23. For discussion of the possible mesolithic-neolithic relationships on the PannonianPlain: Brukner, B., op. cit. (1966); Lichardus, J., & Pavuk, J. (1966); Mazalek, M., 'Zur Frage der BeziehungenzwischenMesolithikum und Neolithikum', Anthropozoikum,III, Prague(1953), 203-34; Zotz, L., (1941); Tringham, R. (1968); Vend, SI. (1968). 24. Vend, SI. (1968). 25. e.g. Smolin: Valoch, K., op. cit. (1962); Sakvice: Klima, B., op. cit. (1953). 26. Paunescu,AI., 'Perezitki Tardenuazkoikulturi v drevnei neolite v Ciume~ti (Beria)" Dacia NS., VII (1963),467-75; id., 'A proposde la periodefinale et quelques persistencesde l'epipaleolithique dans Ie neolithique ancien au Nord-Ouestet Nord-est de la Roumanie',SCIV, XV: 3 (1964), 321-35; id. (1970),31-2,148; Nicolaescu-Plop~or, C. S., 'Date noi cu privire la cunoa~­ terea inceptului ~i Paleoliticului Rominei,' SCIV, XV: 3 (1964), 314--15. Also see Barca, E. Czechoslovakia:Boriskovski, P. I., op. cit. (1966), 135; Prosek,F., 'Mesoliticka obsidianovaindustrie ze staniceBarca 1', Arch. Rozh., XI: 1 (1959), 145. Also seeValea lui Mihai (Galospetrei), C. S., & Kovacs, E., 'Cercetarile N.W. Rumania: paleolitice din regiuneaBaia Mare', Materiale, VI (1959), 40. 27. Gabori, N., 'Quelques problemes du commerce de I'obsidienne a I'age prehistorique',Arch. Ert., 77 (1950), 50-3. 28. Chmielewska,M., op. cit. (1957); Gimbutas, M. (1956), 35-7: Ginter, B., 'Niekt6re zagadnieniamezolitu w Polsce',Arch. Polski, XII: 1 (1967), 7-19; Kozlowski, L., 'L'epoque mesolithique en Pologne', L'Anthropologie, XXXVII, Paris(1926),47-61;Jai;dzewski,K. (1965),52-5; Kozlowski, S. K., 'Z problematygi polskiego mezolitu', Arch. Polski, X: 1 (1965), 151-77. Polish-Byelorussianconnectionsin the mesolithic: Gurina, N. N., 'Noviye mezoliticeskiye pamyatniki lesnoi polosi evropeiskoi casti SSSR', SA, 1, Moscow (1960), 125-36; id., 'K voprosu 0 pozdnepaleolitieeskikhi mezoliticeskikh pamyatnikakh Polsi i vozmoznosti sopostavlyeniya s nimi

sfir~itului

Nicolaescu-Plop~or,

E

66

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

pamyatnikov severo-zapadnoiByelorussii', MIA, 126 (1966), 14-34; Formosov,A. A., '0 vremeni i istoriceskikhusloviyakh slozeniyaplemennoi organizatsii', SA, 1 (1957), 13-21; id., 'Periodizatsiya mezoliticeskikh stoyanokEvropeiskoicasti SSSR',SA, XXI (1954),38-51. 29. Gimbutas,M. (1956), 36. 30. Chmielewska, M., 'Grob kultury tardenuaskiej w Janislawicach pow. Skierniewice',Wiad. Arch., 20 (1954), 23-48; Gimbutas,M. (1956), 36-7. 31. Soroki (Trifautski Les I and II): MarkYf:vic, V. I., 'Issledovaniyaneolita na SrednemDnestre',KSIA, 105 (1965), 85-90; id., op. cit. (1968). 32. e.g. Ataki and Osilevka: private communicationfrom Markyevic, V. 1., Kisinev (August 1968). 33. Bibikov, S. N., 'Pozdnepaleoliticeskoye poseleniyev naveseSan-Kobai v grote Murzak-Koba v Krimu', KSIIMK, 13 (1946), 130; id., 'Raskopki v naveseFatma-Kobai nekotoriyevoprosi izueeniyamezolita Krima', MIA, 136 (1966), 138-43; Danilenko, V. N. (1969), 19-24, fig. 2; Krainov, D. A., 'PescernayastoyankaTas-Ayir 1', MIA, 91 (1960); Venci, S1., review of Krainov (1960) in Arch. Rozh., XIII (1961), 594-5; Formosov, A. A., op. cit. (1954). 34. Stolyar, A. D., 'Ob odnom centre odomasnivaniyasvinyi', SA, 3 (1959), 3-18; Tringham, R. (1969), 384. 35. e.g. Floresti, Varvarovka and Kostesti in Moldavia, SSR: unpublished information from Markyevic, V.; Spinoasaand Erbiceni in N.E. Rumania: Zaharia, N., 'Palaeolithic discoveriesin Moldavia 1952 and 1957', Arch. Moldovei, I (1962), 28-30. Generaldiscussionof the mesolithicin Moldova, N.E. Rumania,and Moldavia, SSR: Boriskovski, P. I., op. cit. (1964); id., op. cit. (1966); Nicolaescu-PloNor,C. S., 'Descoperiri tardenoasienin R.S.S.,Moldovaneasca',SCIV, XI: 1 (1960); id., op. cit. (1964); Paunescu, AI., op. cit. (1964); id., op. cit (1970). 36. e.g. Grebeniki, Ghirzevo: Boriskovski, ]>. I., op. cit. (1964), 15-17; Korobkova, G. F., 'Tardenuazkayastoyanka Grebeniki na Niznem Dnestre', KSlIMK, 63 (1957), 59-62; Stanko, V. N., 'Nekotoriye voprosi pozdnevo mezolita Severo-zapadnovo Pricernomorye',Zapiski OdesskovoArkheologiceskovoObScestva,II, Odessa(1967), 155-67. 37. Analysis of animal bones from Ghidevo: Stanko, V. N., op. cit. (1967). 38. e.g. Mirnopolye, Mikhailovka, S.W. Ukraine, SSR: Boriskovski, P. I., & Kraskovski, V., op. cit. (1961), 31; Stanko,V. N., op. cit. (1967), 165. 39. Berciu, D. (1966), 25-31; Radulesco,c., & Samson,P., 'Sur un centre de domesticationdu mouton dans Ie mesolithiquede la grotte "la Adam" en Dobrogea',Zeitschriftfur Tierzuchtunglind Zuchtungsbiologie,76, Hamburg (1962), 282-320;Piggott, S. (1965), 40. 40. Dzambazov, N., 'Proucvaniya na paleolitnata i mezolitnata kultura v Bulgarija',Arkhe%giya,VI: 3 (1964),74; Stanko,V. N., op. cit. (1967), 165. 41. e.g. Fiera (Cleanov): Berciu, D., '$antierul archeologic Verbicioara-Dolj', SCIV, II: 1 (1951), 229-48; C. S., op. cit. (1937-40); Vertes, L. (1960),94. 42. Evidencefrom Remetecave, near Budapest,and Koporosteto,near Eger: Vertes,L. (1960),93;id., Azosk{}kor esaz atmenetik{}kor emMkiMagyarorszagon (the palaeolithicand mesolithic sites of Hungary), Budapest(1965), 214-21; Dobosi, V., op. cit. (in press). 43. e.g. at Giurgiu (Malul Ro~u) and Lap(.~: Roska, M., 'Le Campignienen Transilvanie', Buletinul Societalii de S{iin/ce din Cluj, 4, Cluj (1929); Mogo~anu, FI., 'Problemenoi in 'Probleme de la SCIV, SCIV, XV: 3 (1964), 337-50; Mogo;;anu, Fl., & Bitiri, M., 'AsupraprozenteiCampignianuluiin Romina,' SCIV, XII: 2 (1961), 215-26; C. S., 'Le

Nicolaescu-Plop~or,

Nicolaescu-Plop~or,

Postglacialhunting and gatheringcommunities

49.

paleolithique dans la Republique Populaire Romaine it la lumiere des dernieres recherches',Dacia NS, I (1957), 40-60 (Giurgiu); Vertes, L. (1960), 94; Paunescu,AI. (1970), 25. 44. Boroneant,V. (in press);Paunescu,AI. (1970), 29-30. 45. C. S., & Paunescu,AI., 'Azilianul de la Baile Herculane in lumina noilor cercetari', SCIV, XII: 2 (1961), 203-10; NicolaescuPlop~or, C. S., op. cit. (1964), 316. 46. Icoana,Ostrovul Banului, Razvrataand Sche1aCladovei in S.W. Rumania: Boroneant, V. (in press); Padina in. N.E. Yugoslavia: unpublished excavation(1970), Jovanovic,B., Institute of Archaeology,SAN, Belgrade; Vlassac, N.E. Yugoslavia: unpublished, private communication from Srejovic, D., University of Belgrade; Lepenski Vir, N.E. Yugoslavia: Srejovic, D., (1966); id. (1969); Nandris, J. (1968); Bokonyi, S. (1970). 47. Boroneant,V. (in press),seen. 46 above. 48. CrvenaStijena, S.W. Yugoslavia: Benac,A., & M. Brodar, op. cit. (1958); Velika PeCina and Vindija PeCina, N.W. Yugoslavia: Malez, M., 'Paleolit Velike PeCine na Ravnoj Gori u sjeverozapadnajHrvatskoj', Arh. Rad. i Raspr.,IV-V (1967), 7-68. 49. e.g. Gudnja cave: unpublishedin Dubrovnik Museum; JaminaSredi, Is. of Cres: Miroslavljevic, V., ' "JaminaSredi" prilog prethistorijskojkulturi na Otoku Cresu',Arh. Rad. i Raspr.,I (1959), 131-69. 50. Cannarella,0., & Cremenosi,G., 'Gli scavanella GrottaAzzuradi Samatorca nel Corso triestino', Rivista di ScienzePreistoriche,XXII: 2, Firenze(1967), 1-50. 51. Dolukhanov, P. M., 'Paleogeografijamezolita severnoi Evropi', MIA, 126 (1966), 64-74; Gaerte, W., UrgeschichteOstpreussens,Konigsberg (1929); Gimbutas, M. (1956),28-35;Jannits,L. Ju., 'Noviye danniye po mezolitu Estonii,' MIA, 126 (1966), 114-23; Kozlowski, S. K., '0 mezolice Polski polnocno-wschodnieji teren6w sl).siednich', Arch. Polski, XII: 2 (1967), 219-56; Loze, I., 'Nekotoriyemezoliticeskiyenakhodkina territorii Latvii', MIA, 126 (1966), 108-13; Sulimirski, T. (1970),49-51. 52. Clark, J. G. D. (1968),94-108. 53. Paaver, K. L., Formirovaniye teriofauni i izmenCivost mlekopitayuiikh Pribaltiki v golocene,Tartu (1965), 33. 54. Clark, J. G. D. (1952), 72-83; Nelson, R., Hunters of the Northern Ice, Chicago(1969), 220-349. 55. Paaver,K. L., op. cit. (1965), 34; Gurina, N. N., 'Iz Istorii drevnikh plemen zapadnikhoblasteiSSSR',MIA, 144 (1967). 56. Clark, J. G. D. (1952),47.

Nicolaescu-

3 THE EARLIEST FOOD-PRODUCERS 5500-3800 B.C. The preceding chapter consistedof an examination of the settleof food-gatherersin EasternEuroperoughly mentsand assemblages 7000-4500B.C. On the basisof the presentevidence,the huntersand gatherersduring this periodavoidedsettlingin the fertile loessbasins and plateaus of Europe north of the Danube and large alluvial plains of the southerntributaries of the Danube.Settlementsof the earliest food-producing groups in Europe occur in a period contemporarywith the latest of thesefood-gatherersand with the early part of the north EuropeanAtlantic vegetationalperiod. They are distributed, however,in exactly those areaswhich were avoided by the huntersand gatherers.They occur on the brown forest soils and alluvial depositsof the rivers of southBulgaria,southYugoslaviaand Greece which drain into the Aegean Sea. North of this they are located on the loess depositsof the widespreadDanubebasin and the upper reachesof rivers in Polandand Germanywhich flow into the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. Carbon 14 evidence (Fig.39) shows that the earliest of these settlementsare on the south-east edge of Europe,in Bulgaria, Yugoslaviaand Greecewhere they are dated to 5600-4500B.C.1 Settlementsat the north-westernlimits of the initial expansionof agriculture and stockbreeding(in Holland and Germany)are dated to 4500 B.C. at the earliest. It is accepted that the expansionof the earliest agriculturalistsinto Europe was from the Near East on the basis of evidenceof the presenceof the initial stagesin the cultivation of plants and the domesticationof animals in this region. Thence they spreadwestwardsand northwards via south-eastEurope into temperateEurope. But whether

A

S E A

A D

ia

ia tu

R IA T IC

s sa ave ve

ia

vis T tu I C ia

IA

ia

R

vistu

D

tu vis

tu

Fig. 8 Map of the spread of the earliest agricultural settlements in relation to the distribution of loess deposits and the contemporary huntergatherer settlements.

Loess deposi t5

Over 500 m.a.s.1

Settlements with a predominantly huntergatherer economy

vis

o

Earliest agricultural settlements

vis

S

A

vah

E

va h

vah vah

h va

vis

BLACK SEA

tu ia vah

vah

70

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

this was an expansionof actual humangroups or a diffusion of the techniquesand equipmentrelating to agricultureand stockbreeding is still opento question.The hypothesisthat the majority of the early food-producing or neolithic settlementsof south-eastand central Europerepresentan intrusive populationis basedpartly on the lack of any Europeanmesolithic elementssuch as microlithic bladesin their assemblages, and the lack of evidenceof continuity or contact with the preceding and contemporaryfood-gathering mesolithic population.2 It is also basedvery much on the closesimilaritiesin the form and content of the early neolithic assemblagesof south-east Europeto the contemporaryand immediatelyprecedingassemblages in Greeceand the Near East, particularly Anatolia.3 The breakbetweenthe mesolithicand early neolithic assemblages in easternEurope is emphasisedby their mutually exclusive distribution. It may also be seen very clearly in the few caseswhere a mesolithic habitation level is stratified below an early neolithic habitation level. Such evidenceoccurs at several open sites at the bottomof the DanubegorgesinN.E.YugoslaviaandS.W. Rumania.4 The Carbon14 evidencefrom LepenskiVir (I-II) showsthat the site was occupied by hunters and gatherersat a time when the area south of the Danubegorge was already settled by food-producers, c. 5500-4500B.C. (Fig. 39). Yet there is no trace in the material culture of theselayersthat the huntersand gatherershad any knowledge of the existenceof their food-producingneighbours,or had any relationshipwith them. The upper layer (III) at Lepenski Vir whoseassemblagebelongsto the early neolithic showsa completely different basisof economy,methodof houseconstruction,form and function of stone, bone and antler implements, burial rites and (although the evidence is rather too sparseto make such broad generalisations)physical type from that of the precedingmesolithic layers. There are no Carbon 14 datesfrom the early neolithic layer at Lepenski Vir or the other stratified sites. Carbon 14 evidence (Fig.39) from sites in N. Yugoslavia and S.E. Hungary, however, which haveidentical assemblages, have beendatedc. 4800-4400B.C. Thus the lapse in time betweenthe mesolithic and early neolithic occupationof LepenskiVir would seemto havebeenno longer than 2-300 years. On the periphery of the early neolithic culture area of eastern Europe sites occur at which habitation levels of late mesolithic hunters and gatherersare stratified below levels with evidence of pottery and a partially food-producingeconomy, for example, in the mountainsof W. Yugoslavia, on the banks of the Dniester in Moldavia SSR, or in the C. Rumania Carpathianmountains.5 Apart from the presenceof pottery and food-production, the as-

The earliest food-producers

7I

semblagesin the neolithic habitationlevels of thesesitesareidentical to the precedingmesolithic layers.It is very probable,therefore,that they representa continuationand partial acculturationof the original mesolithichuntersandgatherers,who adoptedsomeof the characteristics of their early neolithic neighboursand rejectedothers. The similarities of the early neolithic assemblagesof eastern Europe to contemporaryor immediately precedingassemblagesin Greeceand the Near East include rather shaky evidencefrom the skeletal material of a common predominantphysical type in the population (dolichocephalic'gracile Mediterranean'type), but this should perhapsbe treatedwith caution.6 In both areasthe skeletons were buried in a contractedposition lying on their sides.The major factor in interpretingthe early neolithic cultures of easternEurope in terms of an intrusive population is the economyitself which is basedto a large extent on the domesticationof sheepand goatsand the cultivation of wheat and barley. Although thewild ancestorsof wheat occur on the southernedge of the Balkan peninsulain S. Bulgaria, Greeceand S. Yugoslavia, and in some casesthe occurrence of einkorn wheat in theseareasmight indicate domestication of local grasses,it is very unlikely that emmerwheat,which occursin large quantities in early neolithic sites in south-eastEurope, was 7 Similarly, although there is evidenceof wild locally domesticated. goats on some mesolithic sites in south-eastEurope, there are no animals in a semi-domesticatedform. The sheep,goats, pigs and cattle on the early neolithic sites of central and south-eastEurope were alreadycompletelydomesticated.On the other hand the early processesof the domesticationof these animals and plants have been traced in considerabledetail in the Near East.8 It seemsvery likely, therefore, that the actual domesticatedanimals and plants were broughtinto south-eastand centralEuropefrom the NearEast. Supporting,but less conclusive,evidenceof an intrusive population includesevidencein the Near East and south-eastEuropeof settlementsoflong durationwith thick culturelayersfrequentlyconsisting of a numberof stratifiedhabitationlevels.The materialcultureshows many similarities in its content including pottery with painted decoration (Fig. 12), clay figurines (Fig. 13), clay 'stamp-seals', spinning and weaving equipment, a macrolithic chipped stone industry, polishedstoneartefacts,bonespatulae,etc. (Fig. II). Modifications in environmentalconditions and associatedcultural adaptationsin the material culture and economy occurred very gradually as a more temperateandless Mediterraneanclimate was reached.Even in the southernpart of the Balkan peninSUla, however, an important feature of the Near Eastern neolithic-early cha1colithicassemblages was modified. This consistedof a changein

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope the the form and method of constructionof houses.9 The use of mudbricks, which had been the predominantbuilding material in the Near East, was abandonedin favour of walls constructedof clay and straw or of wattle daubedwith clay, in both caseson a framework of wooden posts of varying solidity (Fig.9). It has been suggestedthat this was an adaptationto an environmentof increasingly heavierrainfall and denserwoodland. Other factors may also have beenresponsible,suchas the relative stability or instability of settlements,the absenceof sufficient hours of the right kind of sunshine for drying clay bricks, and the presenceof a different kind of clay. The housesof the Near East were squaremulti-roomed structures with fiat roofs, joined to each other by a common wall to form

Fig. 9 Reconstructionof the neolithic settlementat Karanovo,Bulgaria (after a model in the National ArchaeologicalMuseum,Sofia).

'agglomerated'villages. Thoseof south-eastEurope,including neolithic Greece,were square or rectangular one-roomedstructures. On the basisof evidencefrom house-modelsthe roofs were gabled. The houseswere arrangedin close proximity to each other but completelydetached.The causesof the changeto a sloping gabled roof may haveincludedprotectionof the house,particularly the wall foundations, from rain and dripping water. Others factors were undoubtedlythe useof different roofing materialsfrom thoseusedin the Near East, particularly deciduoustrees. It is impossible to tell whetherthe changein building materialsand roofing method were responsiblefor the changefrom agglomeratedto detachedhouses,or whetherthe changein village type, causedby a modification of the social structure,necessitateda different roofing method. Evidencefor the vegetationandclimate of the areasof Europeinto which the primary agriculturalistswere moving is still very scarce.

The earliestfood-producers

73

To a great extent it is basedon the Carbon 14 evidencefor dating the early neolithic settlementsand synchronisingthem with the north Europeanvegetationalzone system.The dateswhich range roughly from 5600-3800B.C. all fall into a period contemporarywith the early part of the Atlantic vegetational period. This period was characterisedby generallyincreasedhumidity which is reflected by an overall increasein vegetationparticularly of mixed oak forest both in temperatecentral and south-eastEurope. The processes involved in the expansionof agriculturalists from the Near East into Europe were presumablynot associatedwith any conscious organisedmovementto a new land mass.It was more a continuous processassociatedwith the movementsof semi-shiftingagriculturalists and stockbreederswho took advantageof the increasein extent and density of vegetationon the fertile soils of their northernedge. It would seemthat, at least as far as the whole Danubevalley, the upper Elbe, Vistula and Rhine rivers, there was a spreadof an agricultural population,but that beyondthoseareasthe presenceof early neolithic culturesindicatesa diffusion of the techniquesand equipment associatedwith agriculture rather than of the agriculturalists themselves. Throughoutthe whole area of the initial expansionof the agriculturalists from the south Balkans to temperateEuropethere is a large variety of micro-environments,but a general increase in humidity and a decreasein annual hours of sunshineis apparent from south to north, with a transitionalzonein the middle Danube valley in E. Hungaryand N.E. Yugoslavia.Variation andinnovation in the economy and material culture of the early neolithic settlements of easternEurope reflects the responseto these qualitative changesin the naturalenvironment.It would seemthat the evolution of the early and middle neolithic cultures of this area from 55003800B.C. was largely internalwith little diffusion of innovationsfrom outsidecentral and south-eastEurope.The variationsin the assemblages and settlementsof the earliest food-producersof eastern Europehavebeendivided into two main groups:thoseof south-east Europeor the lower Danubebasin, which have no single name but are referred to as the Karanovo I-Kremikovci-Stareevo-KorosCri~ culture group; and those of temperatecentral Europe, which wereformerly known collectivelyasDanubianI, following V. Gordon Childe'sterminology,lObut sincethey arenot confinedto the Danube drainage area have now been more correctly grouped under the name of the distinctive decoration of their pottery-the Linear Pottery culturesor culture group. In both the culture groupsthe economywas basedon agriculture and stockbreeding.In the settlementsof eacharea, however,rather

mi ca

ica j

j

S TyStareavo AR CE VO -K

j

OR

j

OS

•

Stijcn a

C r v o« n

c

R

, , X'/5'

Domicaj

m

PS

,Karanw o

j ca / I M P R S M M mi Do WARE) '

KOROS

•KARANOVO/ I •KARANOVO/

STARCEV O

Lepanski X

yStareavoy

STARCEVO-KOROS'

CRlS ,

BUG-

S o DNIESTERrok f NEOLITHIC Sorokfg

j

yStareavo

ica

KOROS

KOROS /K

KOROS

m

KOROS

Do

Domicaj

8

KOROS

KALFOLDI I (LINEAR V

Domicajg

1

^-/l Michafovc e

w

ca

Fig. 10 Map of the distribution of early neolithic cultures in E. Europe, c. 5500-4300 B.C.

m

Domicaj

j mi

jMPRESSED.c

Do

Do

Land over 500 m.a.s.I.

Early painted pottery cultures

Early Linear Pottery cultures ca j

ica

mi ca

m

Do mi

Do

Do Do

S AE

B L AK C

DDoo mmi icaca jj

The earliestfood-producers

7S

different emphasis was placed in the economy on domesticated sourcesin relationto other sources,suchas wild animals.In addition the stockbreedersof each area concentratedon rearing different domesticatedanimals.The pottery of centralEuropeincludesforms and fabric similar to certain categoriesof early neolithic south-east Europeanpottery, but there is an absenceof painted decoration and a predominanceof inciseddecoration.The chippedand polished stone industries of the two culture groups were very similar. Flat trapezoidpolishedstone implements(Fig. II) occur in both areas.u They have identical forms and presumably were used in very similar ways. (The function of theseimplements,however, is pure speculationwithout a detailed examination of their surfaces for tracesof wear.) They have beeninterpretedas axesor adzesfor use in woodworkingsuchas cutting down treesand preparingwood for the constructionof houses.They may also have been used in the manufactureof woodenartefacts.After the initial expansionof the agriculturalists, in the so-called 'middle-neolithic' settlementsin both areas, the flat 'axe-adzes'were supplementedand in many casessupersededby polishedstoneimplementsof a narrowermore rectangularshapewith a high plano-convexcross-section.From their shapethey could only have beenusedwith a transverseedge,that is as an adze,and it is likely that they performeddifferent tasksfrom the flat axe-adzes,possibly digging earth or evenin the preparation of skins in addition to woodworking. It has been suggestedthat, becauseof their large quantity on neolithic sites, polished stone implements were the principal implements of production. It is possible,however,that woodenimplementswhich have not survived were of equalimportance. Chippedstoneimplements(Fig. 11) are a constantfeature of neolithic assemblages,but occur in relatively small quantities.12 This, however,may be anaccidentof excavation.Thereareno examples,in the settlementsof the primary area of expansion,of blades made deliberately of microlithic size or shapeapart from S. Rumania. The bladesaregenerallynot longerthan 6 cm, asin the contemporary settlementsof the NearEastandGreece,with little or no modification of their shapeby deliberateretouch. From tracesof wear on their surfacesit is possibleto see that the bladeswere used to saw, cut, scrape,shaveand boreboth hard materialssuchas boneor wood and soft materialssuchas meatand skin. Thereis very little evidenceof the way in which they were hafted, whether singly or compositely. At Karanovoand Azmak in S. Bulgaria, and at Valea Raii in S.W. Rumania, antlers were excavatedin which flint blades had been slotted and fixed with resin. From the high gloss on the surfaceof the blades,thesecompositeimplementshad beenusedas 'sickles'to

cut

Hunters,Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

cut grass, reeds, or cultivated wheat,13 The blades were inserted diagonally in order to form as continuousan edge as possiblefolowing the curve of the red-deerantler. From the distribution of gloss acrossonecornerof the bladeson otherearly neolithic sitesof eastern Europe,it would seemthat this wasthe usualmethodof constructing sicklesin easternEuropein this and later periods.It is possiblethat wooden as well as antler handleswere used, but these would not have survived. The Near Eastern sickles were constructedrather differently with the bladesinsertedwith their edgesparallel to the handle.The flint bladeswere madein the sameway and in the same shapeas the Europeansickle blades,but it is clear that the handles were of different material. The Near Easternexampleswere madeof straight or only slightly curved wood such as thosefrom Fayum in Egypt or Jarmoand Hassunain Iraq, or they were madeof straight hornsof ibex or gazelleas with the Natufianknife-sicklefrom Jericho. It would seemthat the early neolithic Europeanmethod of constructing sickles was determinedto a certain extent by the more Fig. 11 Bone, stoneand bakedclay artefactsof the early neolithic settlements of E. Europe. a Bone 'spatula'.Azmak, Bulgaria. Karanovo culture (StaraZagora Museum). b Bone 'spatula'.Kopancs-Zsoldos, S.E. Hungary.Karasculture (after Kutzian, 1947). c Clay spindle-whorl.Agyai Erda, S.E. Hungary. Karasculture (after Kutzian, 1947). d Clay 'tomato-shaped'weight. Savenyhaza,S.E. Hungary. Karas culture (after Kutzian, 1947). e-f Polished stone axes. Azmak, Bulgaria. Karanovo culture (Stara ZagoraMuseum). g Polishedstone 'shoelast'adze (middle neolithic). Bylany, Czechoslovakia.Linear Potteryculture (Kutna Hora Museum). h Reconstructionof the methodof hafting prehistoricstoneaxes(after Bordaz, 1970). i Reconstructionof the methodof hafting prehistoricstoneadzes(after Bordaz, 1970). j Polishedstoneadze.Bikovo, Bulgaria. Karanovoculture(after Detev, 1960). k Bone awls. Maroslele-Pana,S.E. Hungary. Koros culture (after Trogmayer,1964). I Clay conical weight. Tiszaug-Topart,S.E. Hungary. Koros culture (after Kutzian, 1947). m Clay lamp. Hatchedareasdenotedecorationby excising filled with white encrustedpaint. Azmak, Bulgaria. Karanovo culture (Stara ZagoraMuseum). n Clay lamp. Maroslele-Pana,S.E. Hungary. Koros culture (after Trogmayer,1964). o Clay 'stamp-seal'(pintadera).S.E. Hungary. Koros culture (after Kutzian, 1947).

30m

30m

30m

30m

30m

30m

30m 30m 30m

30m 30m

30m

30m

30m

30m

30m

30m

30m

30m

30m

30m

30m 30m

30m

Fig. 11

30m

there

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

deciduousforested environmentand the shape of red-deerantler. Theseantlersincorporatea straight lower part near the head which was usedasa handle,and a comparativelytightly curvedpoint which was usedas the cutting end. In generalthere was a scarcity of bone and antler tools (Fig. 11) excavatedon early neolithic sites of easternEurope. This may be explained partly by the poor preservativequalities of loess and related soils, but it is possible, as was speculatedwith the foodgatheringsettlements,that bone tools were carried with the settlers with eachmove of occupationsite, whereasstonetools which havea shorter working life were made afresh at each new site. The implementswhich do occur in the Linear Pottery settlements,such as small bone points, have their counterpartsin the early neolithic settlementsof south-eastEurope. These may have been used for piercing leather or even as headsof projectiles. The bone spatulae which are a commonfeatureof early neolithic assemblages of southeast Europe are absent from temperatecentral Europe. In S.E. Europe these were often excavatedin association with saddle querns and may have been employedin grinding activities. It has also beensuggestedthat they were usedin burnishingpottery. Other features which are common to the assemblagesof both areasinclude the customof burying the deadlying on their side, in a contractedposition among the houseswithout any specific grave area,and the form and constructionof the houses.

KARANOVO I-KREMIKOVCI-STARCEVO-KOROSCRI~ CULTURE GROUP

The early neolithic settlementsof south-eastEurope are divided in the literature into five or six cultures or sub-cultures(Fig. 10, p. 74): Karanovo I in S. Bulgaria, Kremikovci in W. Bulgaria and S. Yugoslavia (Macedonia),Starcevoin E. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Bosnia), Karas in S.E. Hungary, a transitional form StarcevoKaros in N.E. Yugoslavia (Vojvodina) and S.W. Rumania, and Cri~ in the rest of Rumania. Generally these cultural names correspondto a variation in settlementtype and location and basis of economy.Much lessvariety is apparentin the materialculture. First of all, the featureswhich these'cultures'sharein commonwith each other will be examined, including pottery, figurines, houses and burials. Pottery The pottery may be divided into three categories:

The earliestfood-producers

79

1. Thick, coarsechaff-temperedpottery (Fig. 12), poorly fired to a buff or orangecolour. The surfaceis often roughenedall over by patterns of reed-, finger-, and nail-impressions,or by patterns madeby running the fingers over the surfacewhile it was still wet, or by the applicationof strips of clay sometimesin the form of animals and humans,especiallyin the Koros culture. In the Koros culture the unslipped surfacewas occasionallypainted with vertical black stripes in addition to the rustication.14 This coarseware comprised the main domesticpottery, including large storagevessels.It was made predominantlyinto bomb-shapedor globular pots, up to 50 cm high, with short, flaring, or cylindrical necks and low disc or flat bases.This categoryof pottery is found on every site and in many cases,especiallyfurther north, it is almost the only category of pottery. 2. Finer pottery tempered(Fig. 12) with less organic material, better fired to a grey or buff colour. The surfacewas often covered with a slip of the sameclay (self-slip) or a wash which was then polished or burnished. The pots of this category were generally undecorated.The most characteristicforms are hemisphericalor three-quartersphericalbowls, with a flat or disc base,or standingon a low hollow pedestalor on four cylindrical legs. There are also globular pots with cylindrical necks and ribbon or perforated lugs. The pottery of this categoryoccurs on the majority of settlements. 3. Fine, hard well-fired pottery (Fig. 12) without any organic admixture. This was made into the same forms as the preceding category, especially pedestalledbowls. In the Karanovo I culture the bowls were tall and tulip-shaped.The surface of this pottery was covered by a thick red or white slip which was painted before firing in red, black or white patterns or a combination of these. After firing the whole surfacewas polished. The finer paintedware has been found much more rarely and in smaller quantities than the other categories.Only in Bulgaria and S. Yugoslavia does it occur on every site about which information is available, whereas in a large numberof the more northernsites of the Koros and Cri~ culturesit has not beenfound at all. Cultural variation occursto a certain extent in the various combinationsof colour of slip and paintedpatternsin the different areas.For example,in the Karanovo I culture with very few exceptionsdecorationwas by white-painted patternson a red ground.15 This combination (and light on dark designsin general) occur very rarely in south-eastEurope outside S. Bulgaria, and apart from the ThessalianSesklo culture and the early neolithic culture (Nea Nikomedea)of Greek Macedoniait is rare in the Near East and Greece.In the Kremikovci culture, white-

80

Hunters. Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

on-red decorationoccursonly in associationwith pottery decorated by black painted designs on a red Slip.16 Black-on-red decoration predominatesin the painted pottery of the Starcevo and Koros cultures, and it is this type of painted pottery which was diffused furthest north to occur in the southernmostLinear Pottery assemblages of N.E. Hungary.I? Black-on-red painted pottery has no prototypesin the precedingearly Chalcolithicculture of Anatolia or middle neolithic culturesof Greecewhere red paintedpatternson a white slip predominated.The red-on-whitepainted pottery occurs only very rarely north of Greece.It seemspossible,therefore,that the black-on-reddecorationwas the north Balkan adaptationto the sameprinciple of painting dark patternson a light ground as was seenin the red-on-whitepaintedpatternsof the south Balkans.The patternsthemselvesconsistof bandsof thick parallel lines filled with thin parallel stripes,or cross-hatching,as well as running spirals,etc. Although elements of these patterns occur in the contemporary middle neolithic assemblages of Greece,they arecombinedinto quite different patterns,in the sameway that the Greek middle neolithic patterns differed from the late neolithic and early Cha1colithic patternsof W. Anatolia. Fig. 12 Pottery of the early neolithic culturesof S.E. Europe. a Paintedwhite-on-redpottery.KapitanDimitrievo (Banjata),Bulgaria. Karanovoculture (after Georgiev,1961). b Fine unpaintedware. Azmak, Bulgaria. Karanovo culture (Stara ZagoraMuseum). c Coarse-tempered ware decoratedby anthropomorphicrelief. Azmak, Bulgaria. Karanovoculture (after Georgiev,1961). d Paintedblack-on-redpottery. Tecic, E. Yugoslavia.Starcevoculture (after Galovic, 1962-3). e Fine-temperedunpainted ware. Endrod, S.E. Hungary. Koros culture (after Kutzian, 1947). f Coarse-temperedware decoratedby 'barbotine'relief. Starcevo,E. Yugoslavia.Stareevoculture (after Grbic, 1968). g Painted black-on-red pottery. Valea Raii, S.W. Rumania. culture culture (after Berciu, 1965). h Fine-temperedunpaintedware. Valea Lupului, N.E. Rumania. culture culture (after Berciu, 1961). i Painted black-on-red ware. Obrez-Bastinte, N.E. Yugoslavia. Stareevo-Korosculture (after Brukner, 1968). j Coarse-tempered ware decoratedby finger-nail impressions.LudasBisernaObala, N.E. Yugoslavia. Starcevo-Korosculture (Subotica Museum). k Coarse-tempered ware. Large storagepot decoratedby zoomorphic and possibleanthropomorphicrelief designs.Kotacpart-Vata,S.E. Hungary. Koros culture (after Kutzian, 1947).

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig. Fig.

Fig.

Fig. Fig. Fig.

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

Fig. Fig.

Fig. Fig.

Fig. Fig. 12 F

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig. Fig.

82

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

Clay anthropomorphicfigurines (Fig. 13) were a constantfeature of the neolithic and chalcolithic assemblagesof the Near East and Greece.IS They also occurin the neolithic andeneolithicassemblages of south-eastEurope.1 9 In the early neolithic assemblages they do not occur in more than 20 per cent of the: sites and in someareassuch as the Karanovo and they culturesthey only occur sporadicallyon one or two sites.Any resemblancebetweenthe figurines of Anatolia and Greeceand those of the north Balkans is unrecognisable,although the Near Easternfigurines undoubtedlyprovidedthe prototypes for those of south-eastEurope. Generally the south-east Europeanfigurines have been found in a broken state in rubbish pits, or as surfacefinds. A complete11gurinefrom Nea Nikomedia

c lem

lem

c

c

c

c lem

c lem

~

lem

Fig. 13 lem

Anthropomorphicfigurines of the early neolithic settlementsof S.E. Europe. a Clay figurine from Karanovo,Bulgaria (after Georgiev,1961). b Clay figurine from Slatina,W. Bulgaria (Sofia City Museum). c Clay head of figurine. Obrez-Beletinci, N.E. Yugoslavia (after Galovic, 1968). d Clay figurine from Vinca, N.E. Yugoslavia(after Vasic, 1932-6). e Anthropomorphicpot. Gorzsa,S.E. Hungary(after Kalicz, 1970). I Clay figurine head.Gladnice,E. Yugoslavia(after Galovic, 1968).

The earliest food-producers

one

in GreekMacedonia,and one from Ludvar in S.E. Hungary (PI. 2), show the range of the early neolithic figurines of S.E. Europe.20 The figurines consistedof a tall cylindrical or conical head, a fiat upper part of the torso on which the arms were rarely more than stumps.Those further south had more carefully portrayedarms.21 The lower part of the body consistedof fat buttocks with the feet unportrayed.The figurines were in standingposition, especiallyin the south,or a semi-recliningposition. Facial featuressuchas eyes, nose,and hair, but very rarely the mouth, were incised or modelled in relief. The majority of the figurines had only small pointed breasts,although those on a few were more substantial.From the fact that breastsare present,however,and buttocksare exaggerated, it has beenassumed,perhapsdangerously,that all the figurines of this type representfemales.In addition there were clay cylinders on which facial featureswere portrayedas well as sporadicanthropomorphic potS.22 The anthropomorphicpot from Gorzsacontained burnt remains of a human skull. It is more than likely that these various kinds of humanrepresentationshad different functions and significance. What these functions were is very much open to speculation.They have frequently been associatedindiscriminately in the literature with hypothesesof prehistoric fertility rites and a belief in the Great Mother Earth Goddess,but so far there is no contextual evidence in the early neolithic settlementsto support these hypotheses.Zoomorphic representations,apart from relief decorationon pottery, are very rare in the early neolithic assemblagesof south-eastEurope. While on the subject of 'cult objects',it is interestingto note the presenceof small triangularclay vesselswith straightsidesanda foot at eachangle (Fig. 11). They are decoratedover their whole surface by excised and incised patternsfilled with white encrustedpaint. The patterns and form of decoration are quite unknown in the pottery of the early neolithic assemblages of S.E. Europe,and it has been suggestedthat they were copied from patterns carved on wooden prototypes.They also occur in the precedingand contemporary assemblagesof Anatolia and Greece.There is no evidence of their function. They have been excavatedpredominantlyin a brokenstatefrom rubbishpits, and have beeninterpretedas 'altars' and as 'lamps'. Clay stamp-sealsor pintadera(Fig.1l) are a common feature of the neolithic assemblagesof the Balkans and the Near East. They consist of a fiat, concaveor convex stampingsurfaceand a short, roughly conical handle. The stamping surface is provided with excisedpatternsincludingspiralsandmeanders,againof a type which neveroccurson the pottery. From the availableevidenceit is impos-

tell

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

sible to tell what material,if any, the sealswere usedfor stamping, whetherbone, skin, clay or wax. Small round perforatedclay objects have beenfound on almost every neolithic site in the Balkanpeninsulaand the Near East.They have beeninterpretedas spindle-whorls(Fig. 11) designedto rotate at the end of a long spindle (which was probably made of wood) in order to spin fibres or the wool or hair of sheepand goats.The bone material indicatesthat sheepand goats played an important partin the economyof the earlyneolithicsites.In additionto spindlewhorls, there were larger perforatedclay objectsfor which various interpretationshavebeensuggested.The cylindrical, conical or pearshapedobjects with longitudinal or small transverseperforations have frequently beeninterpretedas loom-weights(Fig. 11) designed to weigh down the warp threads which were suspendedfrom the roof of a house. Recently, at Tiszajeno(Fig. 14) in S.E. Hungary, two small post-holeswere excavatedinside a house.23 One of these was close to a side-wall, the other was 185 cm away towards the centreof the house.It was suggestedthat thesecould not be structural elementsof the house.It was further suggestedthat they may representthe upright postsof a loom inside the house,particularly since a pile of so-called 'loom-weights'lay near the posts and did not occur elsewherein the house.The bone analysisfrom this site showeda predominanceof sheepand goats. The other large clay objects are the 'tomato-shapedweights' (Fig. 11) which are rounded,up to IOcm in diameter with a large perforation in the middle, from which radiate indentationswhich may have beenfor attachingfurther ropes in addition to the perforation. Thesehave beeninterpretedas weightsfor fish-nets.

Houses The habitations of the early neolithic settlementsof south-east Europehave beendivided in much of the literatureinto surfaceand semi-subterranean dwellings. It has beensuggestedon the basis of certain stratified sites, where only pits occur in the lower habitation Fig. 14 Early neolithic houseconstructionin S.E. Europe. a-b Housefrom Karanovo,Bulgaria.Karanovoculture(afterGeorgiev, 1961, and Piggott, 1965).a Isometricreconstruction.b Ground-plan of the house. c-d Houseexcavatedat Tiszajeno,S.E. Hungary. Keres culture (after Selmeczi, 1969). c Isometric reconstruction.d Ground-planof the house:(i) hearth,(ii) storagepot, (iii) post-holespossiblyfor weavingloom, (iv) conical clay weights possiblyfrom loom. e Fragmentof clay house-modelwith reconstruction.Reszke-Ludvar, S.E. Hungary. Keresculture (after Trogmayer,1969).

HEARTH

HEARTH d d

2m 2m

2m

2m

2m

2m

d

2m 2m

2m

e 2em

Fig. 14

86

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

level and surface houses in the upper level, that there was an evolution from the semi-subterraneanto the surface form of habitation.24 There is no positive evidenceto support this theory. From the absenceof any tracesof a superstructureover the pits or habitationfloor within them, it seemsvery unlikely that any of the pits were lived in. The absenceof any tracesof surfacehabitations on a site may be explainedeither by poor local conditions of preservation, the fact that in most cases,if the houseswere not accidentallyfired, the clay comprisingthe walls would not be preserved, or lack of recognitionof thetraces.Theevidencefrom thefoundations of houseswhich havesurvivedshowthat they were small rectangular one-roomedstructureson average8m long and 4m wide.25 None of the housesshow any tracesof internal divisions. Thereseemto havebeentwo mainmethodsof houseconstruction.26 The first was to construct a framework of thin vertical wooden posts on which were built thick walls of clay and chaff (Fig. 14). At Azmak the clay walls have been preservedup to a height of 30cm.27The small, denselypackedpost-holesof the framework are visible in the thicknessof the clay wall. The secondmethodwas to build a framework of a few heavy upright posts,visible in the large widely-spacedpost-holes,as at Tiszajeno(Fig. 14). On this framework the walls were constructedof plaited branchesor wattling which were daubedon both sideswith clay. Evidenceofthe wattling is seenin impressionsof branchesin the daub which has survived. There is evidence (e.g. at Karanovo) that the plaster walls were painted red and white, and the house-modelfrom Ludvar in S.E. Hungaryshowedthe additionof an animal'sheadat the gableend of the roof (Fig. 14). The clay for the walls and roof of the houseswas obtained from pits alongside or nearby the houses. These were frequently used secondarilyas rubbish pits, or for storage,hearths, ovensor evenburials. It seemsthat the two methodsof construction are distributed arbitrarily in the settlementsof south-eastEurope, some sites having housesconstructedby both methods. The advantageof the first methodwith heavyclay walls is that, althoughit takes longer to build, it lasts longer. It has therefore frequently been assumedto indicate a greaterpermanenceof settlement.Permanenceof settlement, however, is not the only factor to affect methods of house construction. Social factors and available raw materialsmay be of equal importance.28 It is true, though, that the first method of construction with the clay and chaff walls was favoured more, as far as one can tell from the present state of evidence,in the southernsettlementsof Bulgaria and S. Yugoslavia in thosesettlementswhosestratigraphyshowscontinuoushabitation over a considerableperiod of time. Further north, on the other

The earliestfood-producers

hand,

hand, where occupation layers were thinner, houses were built predominantlywith walls made of wattle daubed with clay. The distribution of the two methods, however, is by no means mutually exclusive. Evidenceof the interior furniture of the housesof the early neolithic settlementsof south-eastEurope is a rare feature. In many housesthe original floor, beatenhard, has beenpreservedand often containstracesof hearths,especiallyat the endoppositethe entrance. There is never more than one hearth to each house. They are generally round and up to one metre in diameter.The more solid examplesbuilt of clay and chaff on a foundationof stonesare more likely to have been the remains of ovens for drying grain and removing the clinging hull of emmerwheat. Both hearthsand ovens are also found outsidethe houses.Quernsand rubbersof sandstone for grinding grain, fibres and other plants were a universalfeature in the houses.Many housesalso havefacilities for storing grain and presumablyother vegetablecommoditiesinside the housesin the form of large storagepots. In the houseat Tiszajen6,the pot was 70cm in diameterand was dug 60cm into the ground below the floor of the house (Fig. 14). At other sites, clay-lined storagepits were dug outsidethe houses.29 They were about I metrein diameter, not more than 60cm deepand were usedto store forest productsas well as cultivatedgrain (PI. 1). Evidence of any specific arrangementof the housesin the early neolithic settlementsof south-eastEuropeis severelylimited by the lack of large-scaleexcavationsin this area.Generally,only onehouse or a very small group of houseshas beenexcavated.At Karanovo (Fig. 9), however,it waspossibleto seethat the houseswerearranged very close to each other in rows separatedby a street which may have beencoveredby logs.30At Varos in N.W. Yugoslavia,situated on a moundrising aboveswampyground,the houseswere arranged in a semi-circle.31 Along rivers, houseswere arrangedin a long row with their entrancesfacing the river32 or in an irregular cluster.33

Burials Of the large number of early neolithic sites of south-eastEurope, burials have been excavatedat only twenty-eight.34 The majority were buried in refuse pits, to one side of the pit or in a slightly deepenedgrave. In severalsites, one particular refuse pit was used for burying the dead, while the other pits were not used for this purpose. In some casesthe dead were buried in specific shallow grave-pits among the houses.The dead were always buried in a contractedposition lying on their side but without any consistent orientation.The very few grave-goodswhich occur generallyconsist

88

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

of a pot placednear the head, or ornamentssuch as a Tridachna shell arm-ring or shell necklace. Apart from grave-goods,other indications of definite rites associatedwith the burial in the early neolithic period include red ochre scatteredround a woman'shead at Szarvasand the skull covered by red paint at Endri:id in S.E. Hungary.

a a v

a

..

a

vi

a

a

c

a

a Fig. 15

Burial practicesof the mesolithicand early neolithic settlementsof E. Europe. a LepenskiVir, mesolithic burial 7 (after Srejovic, 1969): (i) auroch's skull, (ii) red-deerantler, (iii) hearthstones. b Deszk,S.E. Hungary.Early neolithic burial (after Trogmayer,1969): (iv) pot. c Sonnenhausen, S.E. Germany. Linear Pottery culture burial (after Kahlke, 1954: (v) pot, (vi) grindstoneand rubbing-stone,(vii) pot, (viii) polishedstoneaxe.

The meansof subsistenceof the early agriculturalistsin southeast Europe,the localities of their settlements,and the duration of these settlementsshow rather greater regional variation.3s Unfortunately, the evaluationof the differencesin the economyis not as reliable as it could be, since analysesof the faunal and floral evidencehas rarely beencarried out. The analyseswhich have been madeare not of uniform accuracyor detail.

The earliestfood-producers

the

North Greece Animal boneshave beenanalysedfrom sites contemporarywith or immediately preceding the earliest food-producing settlementsof S.E. Europein the Proto-Sesklocultural layers of 'tell' settlements in early neolithic levels in Macedonia.36 There was an almost complete absenceof wild animal bones and an overwhelming predominance of the exploitation of domesticatedanimals, in particular sheepor goats,and to a much lesserextent cattle and pigs. Domesticateddogs occur in very small numbers;it is possiblethat thesewere used in sporadichunting expeditions.The wild animals which do occur are the same large forest mammals which were hunted in the mesolithic settlementsof S.E. Europe: red-deer, aurochs, and wild pig. Evidence for domesticatedwheat, both einkorn and emmerwheat,as well as barleyand lentils, comesfrom the same sites.37 Analyses of flora and fauna from the preceding preceramicneolithic settlementsof Thessaly,for exampleat Argissa, indicatesa very similar basic economyto that of the ceramic neolithic sites. Theseanalysesof faunal materialfrom the north Greeksites may be used, to a certain extent, as analogiesfor the economy of the Bulgarianand southYugoslavsettlements,wherethe examinationof animalboneshasso far beenbasedonly on the roughestcalculations. On the other hand,thereare somedetailedanalysesof the cultivated grain from the Bulgarianand S. Yugoslavsites. Karanovo I In the form of its pottery and its preferencefor white-on-redpainted decoration, the Karanovo I culture of the Maritsa valley in S. Bulgaria38 is an exceptionto the generalnorth Balkan pattern.This is further emphasisedby the form of its settlements.Severalof the settlementsof the earliestagriculturalistsoccur as habitationlevels at the baseof large stratified moundsreferredto as 'tells' following the Near Eastern terminology. These are the only instances of genuine'tell' settlementsof the early neolithic period outsideGreece and the Near East. They comprisesteep-sidedmounds,:sometimes as high as 12 metres,which were formed, as far as it is possibleto assessfrom the presentstate of research,by the accumulatedoccupation debris of continuoushabitationof the samespot over many 39 The occupation may have lasted several millenia generations. and have involved severalsuccessivecultures. The processof 'tell' formation is extremely complex, involving factors of natural environment, of economyin the stability and permanenceof settlement, and of choice of building materials, especially those which are not easily destroyed,suchas clay. The stratigraphicalevidenceof

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope 90 the largest south Bulgarian 'tells', Karanovo, Azmak, Kapitan Dimitrievo, Imrancevoand Kazanlakhasformed the basis,in recent years, of the chronologicalframework for the neolithic cultures of south-eastEurope.4o It is particularly valuable since at Karanovo and Azmak eachcultural layer is supportedby a consistentseriesof Carbon14 datesY The early neolithic habitation levels at the baseof the 'tells' are thin in comparisonto the later neolithic and eneolithic levels (see Chapter4). At Karanovo,for example,the early neolithic layer with painted pottery (layer I) is 1 mthick and containsthree habitation levels. This, however,is much thicker than the majority of the more northernearly neolithic sites.The evidenceof continuoushabitation for a long period of time would suggesta considerabledegreeof permanenceof settlement.Evidencethat this stability of settlement was madepossibleby an economybasedlargely on food-production, as in the Near Eastand Greecein this period, comesfrom only two sources.First, cultivatedgrain hasbeenfound on all sitesin the form of grain impressionson potteryand fired wall plasterand carbonised grain, and has been identified as wheat, of einkorn and especially emmer varieties.42 The absenceof barley may be explainedby the fact that wild barley only grows east of this region. Secondly,although, unfortunately, there are no analysesof faunal material available, the choice of location of the settlementsin S. Bulgaria away from rivers in the middle of the fertile plain or at the springline may indicate a lack of importanceof hunting activities. As was pointedout in Chapter2, the marginsand not the centresof microecological zones are the most profitable for settlementswith an economybasedon huntingand gathering,whereasthe reversewould seem to be the case for settlementswith an economy based on agriculture and stockbreeding.It should be noted, however, that a spring-line may also be a convergencearea of several microecologicalzones. In the StaraPlaninamountainsseveralcavesettlementshavebeen discoveredwhoseassemblages areidenticalto the lowland sitesof the KaranovoI culture, evenin the painteddecorationof the pottery.43 Analyses of their faunal evidenceshows an equal importance of domesticatedanimals, especially ovicaprids and wild animals, in particular red-deer. It is possible that these were summer settlements of herdersfrom the plains who practiseda form of transhumance. Kremikovci culture

Early neolithic 'tell' settlementsoccur only occasionallyin west Bulgaria (for example at Celopec),U south Yugoslavia and, ap-

The earliestfood-producers

91

parently, Greek Macedonia.The settlementsform much shallower mounds with a more widespreaddistribution of habitation debris, which may reflect a partial horizontaldisplacementof the settlement after each break in habitation. Many of the sites have stratified layersof severalculturesas in southBulgaria, but there is much less continuousoccupationof the sites.The early neolithic culture layers of thesesitesare relatively thick, all thicker than 1 metre;the culture layer at Vrsnik in S. Yugoslavia is 3·7m thick. At many sites the early neolithic culture layer consistsof one thick habitation level, at othersthere are 2-5 habitationlevels.45 The habitationlevels on thesesites,unlike thoseof S. Bulgaria, are frequently separatedby a thin sterile layer of mud, gravel or humusrepresentinga temporary abandonmentof the site. In many casesit has beensuggestedthat the break in occupationis of a long duration. On somesites, such as Slatinaand Vrsnik, thereis a differencein the assemblages of the various levels in the presenceor absenceof pottery decorationby white-painted patterns along with the constant black painting. Whetherthis difference representsa vital stagein the evolution of the Kremikovci culture is questionable. The settlementsare locatedon the spring-lineand on the banksor lower terracesof rivers. From their thick habitationlayers,and with the help of the evidencefrom north Greece,it seemsprobablethat the economyof the settlementswas basedon the productsof domesticatedanimalsand cultivatedgrain. The analysisof grain remains at Vrsnik showed that, as in Bulgaria, only wheat was cultivated, predominantlyemmerand einkorn.4 6 Starcevoculture The settlementsof the earliest agriculturalistsin central and east Yugoslavia are generally situated on the upper terraces of river valleys or on the edgesof plateaus.47 In many casesthe early neolithic culture layersare stratified below later neolithic and eneolithic layers but the layers rarely form mounds and never form 'tells'. This would suggestthat occupationof the site was less continuous than further south,with longer and more frequentbreaks.The early neolithic culture layer is generallyc. 1 metrethick, rarely comprising more than one habitation level. Gornja Tuzla and Pavlovac are exceptionsin this respect.48 What this reflects in terms of basic economyis impossibleto tell until the faunal and floral evidenceof at leastone site has beenanalysed. Starcevo-Korosand Koros culture Further north the settlementswere located on the banks or low terracesof rivers or on mounds of alluvial sand which rise above

92

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

the waterloggedor marshyflood plain.49 They are thereforeunusual in following the favoured location of the settlementsof the mesolithic huntersand gatherers(Chapter2). Thereare a numberof sites in N.E. Yugoslaviaand S.E. Hungarywhosebonematerialhasbeen analysedin detail, thanks to the efforts of Dr S. BokonyPO Althoughthe bonesof domesticatedanimalsform up to three-quarters of the total bones, they are generally not such an overwhelming majority as in the southBalkansites. Domesticatedsheepand goats are consistentlymore important than cattle and pigs. Bokonyi has pointed out the illogicality of the dependenceon domesticated sheepand goatsin thesesettlements,which were generallysituated very closeto water or in waterloggedsurroundings.Suchconditions were unfavourablefor the growth and breedingof theseanimals.It is interestingto note that the sheepandgoatsof thesesettlementsare of a considerablyreducedsizein comparisonwith thosefurthersouth. This may be due either to the unfavourableconditions or to the necessityof breedingfrom a limited stock owing to the complete absenceof wild sheepand goats in this area. By necessity,or by cultural choice, the resourcesavailable from domesticatedanimals were supplementedby the exploitation of wildlife. In waterlogged sites, for example Ludvar and Maroslele (Pana), this comprised predominantlywater mammalssuch as turtle, and fish, freshwater shellfish and water-birds, as well as forest mammals such as roedeer and aurochs.The fish include specially the large wels or catfish which sometimesweighed up to 200 kg. There is no evidence of the use of hooks or fish-spearswhich is the methodusedto catch fish in this areaat the presenttime. There are large numbersof the tomato-shapedclay objectsdescribedabove(p. 84) which have been interpretedas net-weights,and it is likely that the net was an importantmethodof catchingfish. It hasalso beensuggestedthat, for example,in the spring when floods were frequent,the fish were collected as they lay strandedon the land after the flood-water had receded.It is interestingto note in this context that at the site of Ludvar a pit was excavatedin which fish boneswere concentrated at a certain depth, below which was a layer in which were concentrated the bonesof forest mammals. Below this was a 30 cm thick layer of freshwatermusselshells.51 It has been suggestedthat this stratificationof the bonesrepresentsthe seasonalexploitationof the resources,fish in summer,forest animals in autumn or winter and shell-fish in spring. It is likely that the pit, therefore,containsthe debrisof one year'soccupationof the site. The birds from the waterlogged sites were all fish-eaters,and all lake or marsh-birds.At the presenttime most of these,such as the grebes,grey heron, mallard, herring-gull, are residentin this area all the year round. Only the

The earliestfood-producers

93

craneno longer occursin central Europe,but at that time may have beena summervisitor. On the siteslocatedon the banksand lower terracesof rivers, such as Ludas(Budzak)(which is now situatedin the river's flood plain), there was less exploitation of water resourcesand a greaterconcentration on the hunting of land mammals. The animals included especially aurochs, roe-deer and speciessuch as wild ass (asinus hydruntinus) which are more familiar in parkland vegetation. It seemslikely from the faunathat the forest in this areawas considerably thinner than further north or south.Thereis a markeddecrease in hunting red-deerand wild pig which are animals of the thicker deciduousforests. There is a lack of any tools in the StarcevoKaras assemblageswhich could be interpretedas projectile armatures. As was pointed out in the previous chapter, however, this need not be the only method of hunting, nor are projectiles necessarily manufacturedin a durablematerial.Thereare a small number of domesticateddogs representedamong the bones which may have beenused for hunting as well as for rounding up the wild or domesticatedanimals. Along with frequent occurrenceof aurochs' bonesin the early neolithic assemblages of this area,it is interesting to note the presence,for exampleat Maroslele,of individuals which appearto be of a transitionalform betweenthe wild Bos Primigenius and the domesticatedBos Taurus. This might indicate either a deliberate, or at leastencouraged,interbreedingbetweenthe local wild stock and the imported domesticatedstock as the initial stagesin the domesticationof the local wild cattle. It is difficult to assessto what extent the animal resourceswere supplementedby vegetable resourcesin these settlements.Direct evidencefor the cultivation of einkornand emmerwheatcomesfrom the remains and impressionsof grains. It is probable that grain cultivation was not so important on the sites located in the flood plains. On some of the sites such as Ludas (Budzak) and Nosa (BisernaObala)which were formerly on the drier banksof the river thereis evidence,in the form of shallowstoragepits containingmillet, acorns and beechnuts,of intensive collection and probably cultivation of plants(p. 87). As in centralYugoslaviathe thicknessof the culture layer of the Starcevo-Karassettlementsvaries from half to one metre, and rarely consistsof more than one habitationlevel.52 In the Danubegorges,in particular the Iron Gates gorge, settlements with assemblages whosepottery and many other featuresare identical to those describedabove, were frequently stratified above mesolithichabitationlayers(e.g. LepenskiVir and SchelaCladovei). They are situatedon the banksof the Danubeor its terraces,or on the edge of the mountainson top of the gorge. The analysesof the

94

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

bonematerialfrom thesesites show that the basisof their economy 53 was rather different from that of the Starcevo-Korossettlements. The percentageof wild animal boneswas often greaterthan thoseof domesticatedanimals. There is palaeobotanicalevidencethat the settlementsof this areawere surroundedby thick deciduousforest and that large forest mammals, in particular red-deer, were the most important quarry for the hunters, as they had been for the precedingmesolithic huntersin this region. Wild pig and roe-deer were also hunted, and, to a lesserextent, aurochs,bear and lynx. Dogs were more numerousthan on other early neolithic settlements and were probably used predominantlyfor hunting. The chipped stone industry of these settlementsdiffers from that of the mesolithic settlementsof this areaand from thoseof other early neolithic settlementsin S.E. Europein that good-qualityflint from a mined source was used, whereasin the mesolithic assemblagesthe stone artefactswere madeof quartziteand pebbleflint. It is interestingto note the presencein the early neolithic assemblageat LepenskiVir of two bladesof obsidian,which must have beenacquiredfrom the mountainsof N.E. Hungary(p. 46). In additionto the useof different raw materials,the early neolithic bladeswere larger, more numerous and of a more standardshapewhich was frequently modified by the use of deliberate retouch. It is possible that some of these chippedstoneimplementswere usedfor hunting weapons,but it is more likely that some of the large bone points were used for this purposeand that, as in the mesolithic, various forms of trap were used.Bird- andfish-bonesalsooccurin largequantitiesat thesesites. Although 365 of the 400 fish-bonesat LepenskiVir (layer III) cannot be identified, it would seemthat there and at Cuina Turcului, as in the Starcevo-Koroswaterbound sites, the early food-producers preferredto fish for the huge voraciouswels and the barbel, a large memberof the carp family. Like the carp, which was the fish predominantly exploited in the mesolithic settlementsof this region, thesefish are not only difficult to catch,but they are also difficult to kill. Both thesespecies,however,producea large amountof meat. The fish may have been caughtin nets, weirs, or clubbed to death as they lay strandedon the land after inundationwater had receded. In the neolithic settlementof Lepenski Vir there is evidence of barbless bone fish-hooks which do not occur in the mesolithic assemblages of easternEuropeandare very rarein the early neolithic 54 assemblages. Among the domesticatedanimals,unlike the Starcevo-Korosand south Balkan settlements,cattle were more important than sheep and goats. As in someof the Koros settlements,some of the cattle appear to be the result of interbreeding between the imported

The earliest food-producers

9S

domesticatedstock and local wild cattle. Thereis no direct evidence of grain cultivation on any of the settlementsin this area.The settlements of the Iron Gatesarea tend to form thicker layers of occupation debristhan thoseelsewherealong the Danubevalley, in some casesas thick as 2·5m. It is possiblethat this accumulationreflects a greaterdegreeof permanencyof settlementdue to the exploitation of all the rich resourcesof the surroundingforests and river. culture of Rumania55 ments The culture culture can be subdividedinto three regional variations. West of the curve of the Carpathianmountainsin Transilvania the settlementsare situatedon the lower terracesof river valleys, and comprisea thin culture layer, lessthan half a metrethick, consisting of a single habitationlevel.56 The site of Let in S.E. Transilvaniais an exceptionto the generalpattern in that it is located on a high terraceand comprisesthreeearly neolithic habitationlevels stratified below later neolithic and eneolithic culture layers (see Chapter4). In general,however,it would seemthat thethat settlementsof this region were occupiedfor only short periods.The little evidencefor the economy shows that here too there was a greater importance attachedto cattle breedingthan sheepor goats.It is interestingto note that in the Carpathianmountainsthemselvesthere are cave settlementswhoseassemblages are identical to thoseof the lowland sites.57 Unfortunately, there is no evidenceto indicate the basis of economy,but it is possiblethat, as with the Bulgarian cave settlements such as Devetaki (p.90), these may representthe summer settlementsof herderspractisinga form of transhumance. The majority of early neolithic settlementsin Rumaniasouth of the Carpathians(O/tenia and Muntenia)arealso locatedon the lower terracesof river valleys and also consistof a thin culture layer, less than half a metrethick.58 Thetheseculturelayersof thesesettlements, however,frequently consistof more than one habitationlevel. This would suggesta different economicbasisfrom that of the settlements describedabove.From the animalbonematerialat Verbita (although this is a very small sample)it is clearthat domesticatedanimalswere more important in the economy than wild animals.As in the Iron Gatesand Transilvaniansettlementscattle predominatedamongthe domesticatedanimals whereas sheep and goats were relatively unimportantand pigs were almost absent.The cattle are of a small variety and were unlikely to be locally domesticatedanimals.Among the wild animalshuntedon the site, however,aurochswere the most numerousand, as in the Karas sites, this may indicate the initial stagesin the domesticationof, or interbreedingwith, the local wild cattle, rather than merely a concentrationon hunting aurochsfor

food.

Hunters. Fis.hersand Farmersof EasternEurope

food. At the drier, more elevatedsite of Valea Raii in N. Oltenia thereis evidenceof a greaterimportanceof sheep-andgoat-breeding. At the samesite clay figurines of rams have beenexcavated.These representsome of the rare occurrencesof solid animal figurines on early neolithic sitesof south-eastEurope.Thereis evidenceat these sitesof fishing in the form of fish-bones,but thereare no fish-hooks. It is interesting to note that on several sites in S.W. Rumania 'geometric'microlithic bladesoccur amongthe chippedstoneimplements of the early neolithic assemblages.Their size and form is identical to that of the microliths of the preceding mesolithic settlementsof this area.From the evidenceofthe main contentof the early neolithic assemblages, any cultural contactbetweenthe mesolithic and neolithic populationsof this region seemsunlikely. It is possiblethat the microlithic bladeswereusedto arm fish-spearsor as insetsin antlerhandlesto act as sickle blades.Apart from the blades with 'sickle-gloss' on their surface, there is no evidence of grain cultivation on thesesites. East of the Carpathiansin Moldova occurred the northernmost expansion of the sites with a with culture assemblageincluding paintedpottery.59 As in the restof Rumania,the siteswerelocatedon the lower terracesof river valleys and comprise predominantlya thin culture layer, less than half a metre thick, consistingof a single habitationlevel. Evidencefor the economyshowsthat domesticated animals, in particular cattle, predominated over wild animals. Domesticatedsheepor goatswere of lessimportanceand therewere very few pigs. The bone sampleis very small, but it is interestingto note that, unlike S. Rumania,the main huntedquarry was red-deer ratherthan aurochs.Grainsof einkorn wheathavebeenexcavatedon sites of N.E. Rumania,but there are no tracesof emmerwheat. Contact betweenthe early agriculturalists andfood-gatherersin Moldavia The north-easternlimit of the diffusion of the KaranovoI-StarcevoKoros-Cri~with culture group with painted pottery, etc., and of the agriculturaliststhemselves,wasthe Prut river basinof N.E. Rumania (Figs.8,10). East of this area, in particular along the Dniester and southernBug rivers, assemblages with a categoryof pottery, which is very similar in fabric andshapeto the fine undecoratedware of the and culture, and with evidence of a partially food-producing economy,occur in habitationlevels stratified abovemesolithiclevels (Chapter2). Apart from the presenceof potteryandfood-production, the assemblagesof this so-called Bug-Dniester (previously called southern Bug) culture and those of the precedingmesolithic are identical (Fig.6). The settlementsare located on the banks and the

I. The hunter-fisher settlement of Lepenski Vir in the Danube Iron Gates gorge, N.E. Yugoslavia, c. 5500 B.C.

2. Clay anthropomorphic figurine from Ludvar-Roszke, S.E. Hungary. Koras culture. About 15 cm high. (Szeged Museum)

3. Clay anthropomorphic figurine from Karanovo, layer 1.11, S. Bulgaria. VeseIinovo culture. 13·4 cm high. (Reproduced by courtesy of G .Georgiev from Le Fin de l'age de Pierre, 1961)

The earliestfood-producers

97

lowest terraces of rivers. A settlementconsists of thin stratified layers of occupationdebris, each 10-50cm thick, which represent successivestagesin the evolution of the Bug-Dniesterculture.60 Theseare frequentlyoverlainby layerscontainingassemblages of the eneolithicTripolye culture(Chapter4). Fromthe stratigraphyof these sites,for exampleat Soroki on the Dniester,and at Basikov Ostrov, Sokoletzand Zankivtse on the S. Bug, three distinct phasesof the culture are visible: Early Bug-Dniester(Petcora-Skibenitz-Sokoletz variants) Middle Bug-Dniester(Samtcin) Late Bug-Dniester(Savran-Khmelnik-Haivoransub-phases)

Scm Scm Scm

~

Scm 5cm Scm

Scm

Scm

Scm

Scm

Scm Scm

Scm Scm

Scm Scm

Fig. 16 Potteryof theBug-Dniesterculture.Early andmiddle middle phases. a Coarse-tempered Fine-tempered pot decoratedby wide deep channels.Soroki II, layer 1. Early Bug-Dniester(after Fine-tempered1965). b Fine-temperedundecoratedware. Soroki I, layer lb. Early Bug1965). Dniester(afterFine-tempered c Coarse-tempered ware decoratedby wide deepchannels.SokoItseII, S. Bug river. Early Bug-Dniester(after Danilenko, 1969). d Coarse-temperedware decoratedby wide incised lines. Basikov Ostrov, S. Bug river. Early Bug-Dniester(after Daniienko,1969). e Fine-temperedundecoratedbowl. Glinskoye, S. Bug river. Early Bug-Dniester(after Danilenko, 1969). jCoarseware decoratedby comb-stampeddesigns.Soroki I, layer 1a. Middle Bug-Dniester(after undecorated 1965). g Coarse ware decorated by comb-stampeddesigns. Glinskoya S. Bug river. Middle Bug-Dniester(after Danilenko,1969). G

The

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

The early phaseof the Bug-Dniesterculture is contemporarywith the earlyculture of Rumaniaas is shown not only by the occurrence of identical pottery but by the Carbon 14 datesof c. 4800 B.C. from the early Bug-Dniesterlevel at the site of Soroki 2.61 No surface houseshave beenfound in thesesites, but there are shallow pits in which, as in the mesolithic levels, occupation floors have been excavated.The pits may have been lived in or they may have provided material for building surfacehuts. However, since there are no tracesof fired clay from the walls of such houses,it seemsprobable that the mesolithic form of dwelling constructionwas continued. The food-producingeconomywas not on suchan establishedbasis as it is on theeconomy settlements.Only a small percentageof boneswere of domesticatedanimals. Among these, as in the Rumanian bones culture, cattle predominate.Sheepand goats, however, are entirely absentfrom the bone material of all phasesof the Bug-Dniester culture, although they form an integral, if sometimessmall, part of the economy of the early neolithic sites of south-eastEurope. Domesticatedpigs, on the other hand,. are more important than in the culture. culture. Large forest animals, in particular red-deer and aurochs,and to a lesserextentroe-deerand wild pig, continuedto be the main huntedquarry, as in the precedingmesolithic, along with birds, fish and mollusca. The fish include predominantlyroach, as in the mesolithic, as well as a small number of larger, meatier fish suchas wels and pike. The evidenceof the bird bonesshowsthat two speciesof birds of prey (sparrow hawk and honey buzzard), two speciesof duck (mallard and teal) and wood pigeon were caught, presumablyfor food, althoughit is possiblethat their featherswere used. At presentthese birds breed and live all year round in the Dniesterand S. Bug valleys exceptfor the teal, which only lives there in the winter. This andthe fact that roachhibernatefrom November to March would indicate that the settlementsof the Bug-Dniester culture at this time were occupiedat all seasonsof the year, perhaps only for a few years.The techniquesand equipmentwith which these animals were caught and processedare identical, as far as the evidencecanindicate,to thoseusedin the mesolithic,and remainthe samein the later phasesof the Bug-Dniesterculture. Apart from a single example of a possible fish-hook made from a boar's tusk found in the S. Bug valley, there is no direct evidence of fishing equipment.However, there is a type of bone point which occurred for the first time in the Bug-Dniesterarea in this period but continued to be usedin later phasesof the culture; this is a short bone point, perforatedat one end, which may have acted as a harpoon, possiblyagainstthe large wels and pike.

The earliestfood-producers

99

Grain impressions of einkorn wheat have been identified, for exampleat Soroki. There is no trace, however,of the cultivation of emmerwheatin any phaseof the Bug-Dniesterculture,althoughthis speciescommonly occurredin the early agricultural settlementsof central and south-eastEurope. From the small number of sickle bladesfound on sites of the Bug-Dniesterculture, it has beensuggestedthat the einkorn wheat was harvestedby plucking off the heads with fingers. The lack of saddle querns and grindstonesof S.E. Europeantype would suggestthat there was also a difference in the methodof processingthe cultivatedgrain and other vegetable products. In the evidence of impressionsof leaves and seeds,it would seemthat a variety of plants was deliberatelycollected for food and fibres, in particular various grasses,not all of which occurredasweedsof cultivatedwheat.It is evenpossiblethatthelarge numbersof perforatedantler 'axes'(Fig. 6), which occurin all phases of the culture, may have been used for theseactivities, since their wide cutting edges would hardly be strong enough to cut wood. They could have been used to chop small branches,roots, fibres, etc., or even for digging in the ground, as was suggestedfor the implements of the same form from mesolithic levels.62 There are very few polished stone artefactsof the type which occur in large numberson the neolithic sitesof S.E. and C. Europe,and it has been suggestedthat the antler perforated axes of the Bug-Dniester culture may have acted as substitutesfor many of the functions performedby the polishedstoneimplements. It would seem,therefore,that the techniquesand equipmentof agricultureand stockbreedingwere only partially taken over by the population of the Dniesterand S. Bug valleys, whoseeconomywas still basedpredominantlyon hunting,fishing andgathering.Theyonly partially acceptedthe innovationsin the techniquesand equipments of the largeculture. To a large extentthey adaptedtheseto methods and activities which were alreadyfamiliar. In this way their cultural equilibrium and identity was not vastly upsetand was enrichedby the presenceof agricultural communitieson their westernborder. The main innovation which was acceptedfrom thephaseculture was the techniqueof manufacturingpottery. In the early phaseof the Bug-Dniesterculture, there were two categoriesof pottery: 1. Fine, hard, grey or buff ware (Fig. 16), slightly temperedwith vegetablematerial,with the surfacecoveredin a self-slip and polished after firing. The most frequent form of this categorywas the hemispherical, three-quarterspherical or sharply biconical bowl, frequentlywith a beadedrim, with a fiat, disc, ring or low pedestalbase. The pots are generally undecoratedand are identical in form and

100

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

fabric to the categoryof fine, undecoratedpottery of thewareculture in N .E. Rumania. 2. The coarserusticatedware of thedoes culture doesnot occur. The secondcategoryof pottery (Fig. 16) consistsof pots which are unique in form and decoration to this early phase of the BugDniesterculture. The pottery is temperedby a high proportion of organic material including straw and leaves,as well as sand, grog and shells. It is generallypoorly fired to a dark grey colour on the inside and light buff or orangeon the outside.The characteristically pock-markedsurface was sometimessmoothedor even polished. The basic methodsof decorationare all known in the coarse coarse rusticated ware, but the various elementsare combined in a remarkable diversity of styles, most of which have no recognisable prototypesin theculture. culture. Thus reed-impressionsare used in zigzags;incised lines are used in volute patternsfilled with crosshatching,or in stabsin combinationwith finger- andnail-impressions and impressions of shells, small bones, etc.; fingers are drawn acrossthe wet surfaceof the pot in wavy lines. The forms into which this categoryof pottery was madeare also very different from those of the early neolithic coarseware of S.E. Europe, except for one group with flat bases, globular bodies and low ring necks. The majority of pots, however,were madein a truncatedegg-shapewith roundedor pointed bottoms.It is interestingto note that identical decorationfrequently occurs on both flat- and pointed-basedpots. The important questionis whetherthesepots are to be interpreted as a local responseto the manufactureof pottery by westernneighbours and the conversionof basketryor leather prototypesto the medium of fired clay, or whether they representa more complex diffusion of pottery, along with the technique of cattle-breeding, from the east from the lower Dnieper valley. In this region are assemblageswith evidence of cattle-breeding,and pottery which bearsa superficialresemblancein its decorationby impressionsand pointed bases to that of the early Bug-Dniester culture.63 The problem is whether these assemblagesare earlier or even contemporarywith the early phaseof the Bug-Dniesterculture. Thereis no definite evidenceof their relativechronology,andit is possiblethat the presenceof thesetechniquesin the lower Dnieper and Don valleys may be the result of diffusion either eastwardsfrom the Dniester and Bug rivers, or westwardsfrom Turkmeniaandthe north Caspian Seasettlements. On the basisof the form and decorationof the pottery, but without any relation to the stratigraphyof the sites, attemptshave been made to classify the early phaseof the Bug-Dniesterculture into

The earliestfood-producers

101

three divisions: Skibenitz, Sokoletz and Petcora.It was suggested that thesewere successivechronological sub-phasesalthoughthere is no stratigraphicalevidencefor this. It seemsmore likely that they are regional variations. Generally, in the so-called Petcoraassemblagesthere are closer resemblancesto the very culture. In the socalled Skibenitz assemblages,which occur only on the Bug river, very elementsare very rare. Habitation levels of the middle (Samtcin) phase of the BugDniester culture predominantlyoccur stratified over levels of the early phase,frequentlywith a thin sterilelayer betweenthe two levels. The assemblages show a suddenbreakin the potterytraditions but a strong continuity in the form and function of the stone, bone and antler implements,and in the basicallyhuntingandfishing economy. It is interestingto note from the evidenceof the fish-bones,which form a greaterpercentageeventhanin precedingperiods,that thereis a greatincreasein fishing activities.This coincideswith an increasein fishing for carp and wels, both of which producea large amountof meat. Roachcontinuedto be important. There is a completebreak in the pottery styles,indicatedby a disappearance of any anyculture elementssuch as fiat-based pots. The pottery becameuniform in fabric, form and decoration (Fig.16). The fabric was coarse and temperedwith sand and graphite giving the pottery a hard gritty texture and dark grey surface.The pots were exclusively of a truncated egg-shapewith a pointed bottom and short cylindrical neck. Decorationwas confinedto the upperpart of the pot and consisted of simple rows of comb or bone impressionsor, very occasionally on the Bug, incised. It has been suggestedthat this pottery was diffused from further eastwherepottery of the samefabric and, to a superficialextent,of the sameform and decoration,is characteristic of the middle phaseof the Dnieper-Donetzculture. The economy of the Dnieper-Donetzculture,however,is quite different; unlike the Bug-Dniesterfishing wasunimportant,domesticatedsheepand goats were present,and domesticatedcattle were of great importance.64 In addition, the middle phase of the Bug-Dniester culture has been synchronisedwith the middle and late phasesof the Linear Pottery culture by the presenceof sherds of the latter culture on Bug-Dniestersites, and SamtCinsherdsat a Linear Pottery site in Moldavia SSR.65Settlementsof the Linear Pottery culture occur to the north and west of the Bug-Dniestersettlements,and have been datedin S. Polandand C. Europeto c. 4200 B.C. The Linear Pottery settlementsof Moldavia and the Ukraine cannot be much later (p. 134). The middle phaseof the Dnieper-Donetzculture, on the other hand, has been synchronisedwith the early phasesof the Tripolye culture which did not developuntil after the Linear Pottery

102

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

and Bug-Dniestercultureshad ceasedto exist. It is possible,therefore, that the Samtcinpottery should be interpretedin terms of the result of local evolution after isolation from the neolithic cultures of south-eastand central Europe,rather than the result of diffusion or 'influence'from the east.As will be seenbelow, there is very little evidence of contact or interaction betweenthe settlementsof the Linear Potteryculture in the west and north and the predominantly hunting and fishing groupsof the southernBug and middle Dniester valleys. In the later phasesof the Bug-Dniesterculture, however, contactwas again renewedwith the agriculturalcommunitiesin the west, and the culture of the huntersand gatherersof the Bug and Dniester valleys gradually became absorbed in the westwards spreadof the Cucuteni-Tripolyeculture (Chapter4). Contact betweenthe early agriculturalists andfood-gatherers in west Yugoslavia Settlementsof early agriculturalistswith an assemblagecontaining paintedpotteryof the Starcevocultureandevidenceof sheepandgoat breedingdo not occur west of the Drina river in west Yugoslavia.66 West of this river, in the mountains,the narrow coastalplain and the islands,assemblages have beenexcavated(in open sites such as Smilcic and cave-sitessuch as lamina Sredi and Crvena Stijena) which consist of a chipped stone, bone and antler industry very similar to that of the precedingmesolithicbut with evidencepossibly of a partly food-producing economy and of the manufactureof potteryY The pottery, however, is quite unlike any found in the early neolithic settlementson the inland plains of eastYugoslavia. Its fabric is soft and poorly fired with large pebble and shell inclusions.It was characteristicallydecoratedby patternsmadeby the impressionsof trimmed and untrimmed shells, in particular those of the Cardium species.For this reasonthe pottery is often referred to as Cardial ImpressedWare. The only resemblanceit has to the Starcevopottery is in the forms into which it was manufactured, which consist predominantly of hemisphericalbowls with flat or concavebases.More globular and shallow bowls also occur, some of which have slightly flaring rims. This feature is absent from Starcevopottery. In many cave-sites,habitation levels containingImpressedWare are stratified abovesettlementsof mesolithic huntersand gatherers. On bothopenandcave-sitesthey arefrequentlyoverlainby habitation levels with later neolithic assemblagesof the Danilo culture. The occupation debris of the Impressed Ware settlementsgenerally formed a single habitation level, frequently more than one metre thick.

The earliestfood-producers

103

The most extensivelyexcavatedand bestdocumentedopen site is SmilCic, which is situated on the narrow sandstoneplain of the Adriatic coastnear Zadar, 6km from the sea, near a spring. Fragmentsof bakedclay with impressionsof plaited brancheshave been found concentratedin and around two pits which were dug 10m from each other. It is possible that the area betweenthe pits was formerly occupiedby a surface houseconstructedin the sameway as the Starcevo houses. As in Moldavia, there is an absenceof polishedstoneimplements,but there are large numbersof artefacts made of bone, antler and chipped stone. The bone implements include thosewith flat, sharptransverseedges('axes')and thosewith thick pointed ends. Many of the latter could have been used as projectile heads,as was suggestedfor the mesolithic bone points. None of the bonematerialhas yet beensystematicallyanalysed,but sheep or goats, cattle and red-deerhave been identified. Whether any of thesespecieswas domesticatedis still open to doubt. Wild membersof all thesespecieswere huntedduring the late mesolithic period (Chapter2), and it is possiblethat the economy continued unchangedin the ImpressedWare settlements.There is abundant evidenceon all the sites for the collection of marine shellfish, including Cardium, Spondylus,etc., both as equipmentfor decorating pottery and probably for food. The plant remains have not yet been identified so that it is not known whether they are wild or domesticatedspecies.There are a few saddle querns and rubbers, but, as mentioned above, these do not necessarilyindicate the exploitation of cultivatedgrain. None of the flint bladeshavetraces of 'sickle-gloss'.Thus, at presentthere is no positive evidenceto suggestthat the economyof the populationwith the ImpressedWare culture in Yugoslavia was based on anything but hunting and gathering. Similar assemblages have beendiscoveredinland in cavessuchas Crvena Stijena and ZelenaPecina.At neither of thesesites is there evidence of agriculture or stockbreedingin the ImpressedWare levels. The site of ZelenaPecinais the only ImpressedWare settlement with polished stone artefacts.68In addition, at this site there are a few importedmonochromesherdsof the Starcevoculture. This may be explainedby the relatively close proximity of ZelenaPeCina to Starcevo sites on the Drina river. 69 From the stratigraphical evidenceof the cave-sitesof CrvenaStijenaand, on the coast,lamina Sredi in the north and Gudnjain the south, a local evolution of the stone and bone industriesis observablefrom the Late Palaeolithic to the ImpressedWare levels. However, it is still unclear what the significanceis of the initial manufactureof pottery on these sites, whetherit was a local responseof the food-gatherersas a result of

104

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

contact with the pottery-producingagriculturalistson their eastern border in eastYugoslavia,or whetherit was the result of diffusion from the south or west.70 On the other side of the Adriatic in S. Italy and further west, on the Ligurian coastof Italy andthe coastof France and Spain, similar assemblageswith Cardial Impressed Ware have beenexcavatedpredominantlyin cavesitesand datedby Carbon 14 to 4600-4200B.C. Assemblageswith Cardial Impressed Ware havealso beenexcavatedin N. Greece,for exampleat Otzaki betweenthe Proto-Seskloand Sesklo cultural layers. In many of thesesettlements,however,there is definite evidenceof the domestication of plantsand animals.It is also unclearwhat the relationship was betweenthe groupsinhabiting the cave-sitesin which there was evidenceof long occupationfrom the Late Palaeolithicperiod and the groups occupyingthe open sites which were uninhabitedbefore the ImpressedWare culture. On many of the sites of west Yugoslavia, an assemblageof the Danila culture is stratifiedabovethe ImpressedWareculturelayer, in almost every casewith a sterile layer betweenthe twO.71 Not only is there evidenceof a break in occupationof the settlements,but there is also a changein the chipped stone industry and pottery styles. The Danilo culture is distributed in the same area as the ImpressedWare culture, but it also occursfurther east,for example on the Drina river where it bordered on the area of the VincaTordos culture (p. 108). On many sites the Danilo culture layer was overlain, without any evidence of an hiatus, by eneolithic layers with assemblages of the Hvar and LisiciCi cultureson the coastand the Butmir culture inland. It is clear that these eneolithic cultures developedon the basis of the Danilo culture. There is no such evidence, however, to indicate cultural continuation from the ImpressedWare culture to the Danilo culture. On many sites the Danilo culture layer consistsof severalhabitationlevels. At SmilCic, for example, 13 Danilo habitation levels are stratified above the single ImpressedWare level. At Danilo itself, however, the culture layer, which was only 20cm thick, included evidence of repeated occupationalong the valley floor. The settlementat SmilCic was surroundedby two ditches c. 1·5m deep and 2m wide at the top. Theseare more likely to have beena delimitation barrier, an expression of the settlement'sterritorial identity and its associationwith the valuablespring. Or they may haveactedas a corral for domesticatedanimals,ratherthan a defensivebarrier. Although there is as yet no analysis of the animal and plant remainsfrom Danilo culture sites,it would seemfrom the evidence of material culture and settlementtype that the DanBo culture was madeup of a combinationof elementsresultingfrom the absorption

The earliestfood-producers

105

of the local huntersand gatherersby neighbouringagriculturalists from the east with the Vinca culture, and possibly also from the south from Albania and Greeceand the west from Italy. Chipped stone blades with 'sickle-gloss'acrossone corner occur, as in the neolithic sitesof the plainsof south-eastEurope.OthereastYugoslav elementsinclude clay anthropomorphicfigurines, polished stone implements,long chipped blades of flint, some of which were retouched down one side or at one end. There are even sporadic blades of obsidian which it is assumedwere obtained from the central Europeansource in N.E. Hungary, as were those of the Vinca settlements.It is not impossible,however, that the obsidian was obtainedfrom the Aegeanor southItaly. Thereare also sporadic occurrencesof triangular tanged arrowheads of chipped stone flakes, which were shaped by shallow retouch over their whole surface. The only other occurrenceof such implements in S.E. Europe at this time was in the Linear Pottery settlementsin N.W. Yugoslavia, for exampleat Donja Branjevina. Tangedarrowheads of this type neednot necessarilyhavebeenusedin hunting.They may also have beenusedby stock-breedersin drawing blood of domestic animals.72 The pottery of the Danilo culture comprisesthree categories: 1. Coarseware with large stone inclusions decoratedby fingerand nail-impressions. 2. Hard, slightly finer ware with gritty inclusions; this ware was polished and decoratedby incised spirals, cross-hatching,herringbone designs,filled with white or red paint after firing. Parallelsfor this potteryoccurin the Vinca-Tordosassemblages ofE. Yugoslavia and the early Slavonian-Syrmianassemblages of N. Yugoslavia. 3. Thin ware with very fine mineralogicalinclusions, fired to a light orangecolour and coveredwith a white slip; the surfacewas paintedwith black and red patternsbeforefiring and then burnished; the patterns were predominantly rectilinear. The closest parallels for this categoryof pottery occur in the Ripoli and Capri ware of southern Italy. Finally, in the Danilo culture assemblagesthere occur four-leggedvesselswith large mouths set obliquely and with massivering handles,whoseclosestanalogiesarefound in the middle neolithic of central Greece, for example Elateia, where they are referredto as 'cult vessels'.73

The middle neolithic oj south-eastEurope At about 4200 B.C. (Fig. 39) in S.E. Europe,as early as c. 4400 B.C. in S. Bulgaria, contemporarywith the middle and later phasesof the central EuropeanLinear Pottery cultures,the early neolithic assem-

106

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

blagesunderwenta certainchange.73 Foremostamongthesewas the disappearance of paintedpotteryand an increasingpredominanceof black-burnishedpottery and decorationby channellingand incising. Assemblageswith this type of pottery occur on a numberof sitesin habitation levels stratified above thosewith early neolithic assemblages;they also occur on newly establishedsites in the samearea. It has beensuggestedthat the appearanceof this pottery signifies a break with the early neolithic traditions in this and many other aspects of the material culture as a result of stimuli or even further expansionof agriculturalistsfrom Anatolia (late chalcolithic) and Greece(late neolithic).74 However, there are many features of the latter assemblages,such as white painting on black pottery, which never occurred in the neolithic cultures of the northern Balkan peninsula.On many of the stratified sites,a sterile layer representing a break in occupationoccurs before the full acceptanceor appearanceof the black-burnishedandincisedware. This layer is frequently associatedwith a layer of burning, which has often beentakenas an indication that the new pottery was brought by 'invaders'. The breakin occupation,however,frequentlydoesnot correspondto the disappearanceof painted decorationand the appearanceof blackburnishedware. On many sites (for exampleKaranovo and Vinca) black-burnishedpottery occurs in the same assemblageas the declining paintedpottery before the break in occupation.Apart from this evidence,it should be notedthat th€:re are many factors besides the intrusion of a populationwhich may causea suddenchangein pottery styles. The recent evidencefrom the S. Bulgarian sites arguesagainst any 'wave of new farmers'comingin from the Near Eastor the south Balkansand causingthe developmentof the middle neolithic cultures of the northern Balkans. At Karanovo, for example,culture layer II is stratified directly above I and containssuch a similar assemblageto I that they were formerly termedIa and lb. The fine pottery of II (Fig. 18) was madein the sameshapesas those of I, in particular tulip-shapedpots on a low pedestal.Insteadof the painted decorationon a coloured slip, however, the surfaceof the pot was coveredwith a self-slip which was decoratedby fine channellingor fluting and was then burnished.Layer II at Karanovo was covered by a sterile layer, indicating a breakin occupation.The succeeding culture layer (III) contains an assemblageof the south Bulgarian Veselinovoculture (Fig. 18), datedby Carbon 14 c. 4400 B.C. At the 'tell' settlementof Yasa Tepe, the lowest culture layer containsan assemblageidentical to that of Karanovo II. Stratified above this, without any evidenceof a breakin occupation,is an assemblageof the Veselinovoculture.75 Furthermore,at Kazanlakthereis evidence

S S S

IA T IC S E A

-t

o

Vin6a

SMKALTJAT TORDO

LIN POTT. , . ji—1-1

•WLFOLfii

T O R D OObr TORDOS

T O R D Obr O

EARLY 4;

Obr e*

o

Tortfirlo

P 4 NO I L

SS

S

SS

VADASTRA

LBUKKJ -I I I I ,LWER

Tortfirlo

Tortfirlo

R

3S

3SS

\NOTENKOPF'(

3

J B a y a F

,

.Koronovo

X

S VAD I ASTRA SS WA

H (SAMT^IN) TSH(SAVRAN) TSH(SAVRAN

3S SS TSH(SAVRAN 3 S TSH(SAVRAN S S TSH(SAVRAN

DUDE^n,

VESEUNOVO

VADASTRA.

Tortfirlo^

VADASTRA

3SSS9

S

D

SS

SyiaKyt,

S

A

3S

T

S S

Fig. 17 Map of the distribution of middle neolithic cultures in E. Europe, c. 4300-3900 B.C.

3 •NO ENKOPF',

S

Possible surviving painted pottery cultures

S

S

Land above 500 m.a.s.l.

S

Middle and later Linear Pottery cultures

Black-burnished pottery cultures 3

S

3S

3 3

SS

LBUKK

\NOTENKOPF'

3S

r08

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

of continuousoccupationof the 'tell' from the Karanovo I culture to the Veselinovocultureand later. At this site a gradualtransitionis visible to the pottery, houses,bone,antler and stoneindustries,etc., of the Veselinovoculture.76 In Yugoslavia, W. Bulgaria and S.W. Rumania,the middle neolithic assemblagescomprise the early part of the Vinca culture, referred to as the Vinca-Tordosculture.77 There is evidence of a local evolution of the culture from the early neolithic cultures, especiallyin the south in Macedoniawhere there is an analogous situation to that in S. Bulgaria.78 The internal chronology of the Vinca culture is based on the excavationsof the large stratified site of Vinca on the banks of the Danube.7 9 An assemblageof the Starcevoculture hasbeenrecognisedin the lowest levels of this site. The early neolithic settlementwas overlain by a layer containinga transitional assemblage,referred to as Vinca-Tordos A or ProtoVinca, in which an increaseof black-burnishedpottery was associatedwith a decreaseof paintedpottery. The transitionalassemblage was coveredby a charcoallayerinterpretedas a 'destructionlevel' which has been dated by Carbon 144240± 60 B.C. Above this was stratified the Vinca-Tordosculture layer in which two main phases of developmenthave been recognised:Vinca Bl and B2. Later neolithic and eneolithic Vinca-Plocnik levels overlay the VincaTordos culture layer (Chapter4).80 Generally,the areaoccupiedby the Vinca-Tordosculture is the sameas that of the Starcevoculture except that its westwardsexpansionwas somewhatlimited by the developmentof the Danilo culture (p. 104) on its westernbordersas far as the Drina river. In the north, in the areain which assemblages of the Starcevo-Korosculture had previously occurred,the VincaTordos assemblages were mixed with elementsof the Linear Pottery cultures. The latter, by this time, dominated the area formerly occupiedby the Koros culture (p. 132). Throughoutthe area of its distribution,the Vinca-Tordosculture is locatedin the samehabitats and frequently, in a stratified context, on the samesites as the early neolithic settlements. North of the Stara Planina mountains, in N. Bulgaria and S. Rumania, similar 'middle neolithic' assemblagesoccur and are referred to as the Viidastra I culture in the west (Oltenia) and the culture culturein the east(Muntenia).81 Although the locationsof the settlementswith theseassemblages are similar to those of the early neolithic settlements,the 'middle neolithic' assemblagesare never stratified above aboveculture layers. There is, therefore,no evidence yet of any local evolution of the VadastraI or cultures culturesand no indication of the chronologicaland cultural relationship of the yet settlementsand thoseof the VadastraI andVadastracultures.

The earliest food-producers

109

A similar situation exists in C. Rumania (Transilvania). The middle neolithicassemblages which beara closeresemblanceto those of the Vinca-Tordos culture, and are referred to as the referred culture, are never found stratified abovethoseof the early neolithic culture. Very frequently, however, they are excavatedin the culture. lowest habitationlevels of large stratified sites.82 The thin habitation level of theculture culture was generallycoveredby thick later neolithic and eneolithic layers of the culture.culture (Chapter4). The most distinctive changein the material culture which marks the transition from early to middle neolithic cultures in south-east Europe was the pottery. The Veselinovo culture was rather distinct in having only two categoriesof pottery: coarse ware and thick finer ware. The latter categorywas almost always undecoratedand was manufacturedinto piriform and cylindrical beakerswith flat basesor standingon cylindrical legs; manyof the potswere provided with the very characteristiccurving handle with a round crosssectionand frequently a knobbedterminal. In general,however,the middle neolithic settlementshad three categoriesof pottery: 1. Coarse rusticated ware (Fig. 18) temperedby micaceousIllclusions ratherthan organic material. 2. Thick, finer ware (Fig. 18), fired to a brown or grey colour, with the surfacecoveredby a self-slip and frequently polished.The main forms manufacturedin this ware were globular or biconical pots with flat basesand sometimescylindrical collars. They were frequently provided with ribbon lugs. Decorationof this ware was by incised lines, in particular by bands filled with dots and stabs, referred to as 'winkleband'style. In S. Rumania,however,the incised decoration was characterisedby incised bands filled with crosshatchingwith white paint applied in the incisions after firing. 3. Fine, thin ware (Fig. 18) often fired under controlled reducing conditionsto a black or dark grey colour. The surfacewas decorated by shallow fluting or channelling,especiallyon the upperpart of the pot, and the whole surfacewas highly burnished.The fine pottery was also less frequently coveredwith a red slip which was burnished but otherwise undecorated.This technique was especially popular in the Transilvanianculture. culture. The fine ware was made predominantly into wide sharply-angledbiconical bowls with a flat base or standing on a tall solid biconical Pedestalledbowls are absentfrom the S. Rumaniansites. It has been suggestedthat the highly burnishedsurfaceof the fine ware was producedby rubbing with bone spatulae,which are found on all the sites. It seemsmore likely, from their context,however,that the spatulaewere associated with quernsand grinding activities.

I 10

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

The 'middleneolithic'assemblages of S.E.Europearedistinguished by an increasein the quantity of artefactsmadeof durablematerials such as antler, bone and stone.83 In general, however, the same categoriesof implementswere manufacturedas in the early neolithic settlements.Polishedstone artefactswere made in large quantities on all sites.The flat trapezoid 'axes' were supplemented,in particular in the Vinca-Tordos settlements,by the high-backedrectangular 'shoelast'adze (p.75). Chipped stone blades were also made in increasing quantities but were still predominantlyunmodified by retouch. Blades of obsidianfrequently occur in N. Yugoslavia and S.E. Hungary in the mixed assemblageswith Vinca-Tordos and Linear Potteryelements(p. 132).Theymustindicatecontactandsome form of exchange,direct or indirect, with the centralEuropeansource of obsidian in N.E. Hungary. (On the other hand, the presenceof Mediterraneanshells such as Spondylus,Cardium and Penctulus, usually perforatedas bracelets,amuletsand beadsin Vinca-Tordos assemblages, indicatescontactwith the south and west.) It is interesting to note that in S. Rumania, as in the preceding bladesand mesolithic settlements,a few 'geometric' microlithic blades have beenfound amongthe chippedstoneartefacts(p. 96). Many of the bone and antler implementssuch as the spatulae,flat bone points, Fig. 18 Pottery of the middle neolithic culturesof S.E. Europe. a Pot with fine channelleddecoration.Karanovo,layer II, S. Bulgaria (after Georgiev, 1961). b Pot with burnished surface. Ghedeme Mogila, nr. Kazanlak, C. Bulgaria. KaranovoII culture (after Georgiev,1961). c Pot with fine-channelleddecoration. Karanovo, layer II, Bulgaria (after Georgiev,1961). d Burnishedpot. Vasa Tepe I, S. Bulgaria. Veselinovo culture (after Georgiev,1961). e VasaTepeI. Veselinovoculture (after Renfrew, 1969b). f Vasa Tepe I, S. Bulgaria. Veselinovoculture (after Georgiev, 1961). g Coarse-tempered storagevessel.Vinca-Tordosculture. Zarkovo, E. Yugoslavia(after Garasanin,M. & D., 1952-3). h Fine-temperedpot with shallow channelleddecoration.Vrsnik II-III, S.E. Yugoslavia.Early Vinca-Tordosculture(after Renfrew,1969b). j Pedestalledbowl with shallow channelleddecoration.Zarkovo, E. Yugoslavia.Vinca-Tordo!! culture(after Garasanin,M. & D., 1952-

3). j Pot with incised'winkelband'design.VinCa, N.E. Yugoslavia.Vinca-

Tordos culture (Dept. of Arch Univ. of Belgrade). k Pot with incised and fine-channelleddecoration. Magura Fetelor, S.C. Rumania.Viidastra I culture (after Berciu, 1939). I Incisedsherd.sherd. culture. Cernica,S.E. Rumania(after Cantacuzino and Morintz, 1963). m Pot with fine-channelleddecoration.Cernica,S.E. Rumania. Rumania. culture (In st. of Arch., Bucharest).

Fig. Fig. Fig.

Fig.

Fig. Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig. Fig.

Fig. Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig. Fig.

Fig. Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig. Fig.

Fig. 18

I 12

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

awls, perforated needles were manufacturedin the same forms, probablyfor the samefunctionsas in the early neolithic settlements. Barbless bone fish-hooks were made slightly more frequently but only in the settlementsof the Vinca-Tordos culture along the Danube. For the first time in S.E. Europe, however, with the exceptionof the Bug and Dniestervalleys, there were manufactured in this period large bone and antler artefacts,including perforated antlers with a wide cutting edge, which may have acted as 'hoes' for digging earthand roots; they may also have beenusedto crush and chop soft vegetable matter or even meat. In addition, it is interestingto note the perforatedantlers with pointed ends which havebeeninterpretedas 'picks' andthe longboneswith narrowsharp transverseedgeswhich have beeninterpretedas 'chisels'. As well as an apparentincreasein the number of production implements manufacturedin durable materials, there was an increasein the manufactureof clay figurines, both anthropomorphic and zoomorphic. All the figurines were small and solid, rarely taller than 15cm.84 Although some of the anthropomorphic figurines retain the semi-recliningposition which was popularin the early neolithic cultures,the majority weremanufacturedin a standing position(PI. 3). At YasaTepein S. Bulgaria,however,a large number of anthropomorphicfigurines (Fig. 19) were manufacturedwith detachedperforatedlimbs which could be articulated.85 The anthropomorphic figurines of the easternBalkans tended to retain the tall cylindrical head of those of the early neolithic settlements,whereas thoseof the Vinca-Tordosculture were distinguishedby headswith fiat tops and triangular faces (Fig. 19). The facial features were incised but, as in the early neolithic cultures,the mouth was never portrayed.As in the early neolithic cultures,the figurines consistof a fiat, upper part of the torso with small pointed arms and a lower part of the torso on which the buttocks were frequently sharply accentuated.When breastsare portrayedthey consistexclusively of small pointed protrusions.Thus, even on the figurines with breasts and buttocks,thereis no emphasisof the sexualfeaturesof the body. Many of the figurines are of indeterminatesex. Anthropomorphicor zoomorphicpots (Fig. 19) are a rare occurrencein the middle neolithic settlements,apart from the so-called'face-lids' (Fig. 34) of the Vinca culture on which the eyesand nose(whetheranimal or human is still under discussion)were incised. Little evolution in the size and shapeof the housesis visible in the middle neolithic settlementsof south-eastEurope.8 6 They were still the small rectangularone-roomedstructuresas in the early neolithic settlements.In the Veselinovo culture settlementsof S. Bulgaria, however,thereis evidencein somehousesof internal division of the

4. The early agricultural settlement of Bylany, W. Czechoslovakia. Linear Pottery culture, c. 4400-3900 B.C. The letters refer to the three settlements in the 'cycle' (see p. 117)

5. Storage pit with clay lining. Early agricultural settlt:ment of LudasBudzak near Subotica, N.E. Yugoslavia. Stari;evo-Koros culture, c. 5500 B.C. About I m diameter 6. Clay oven for parching grain. Early agricultural settlement of Bylany, W. Czechoslovakia. Linear Pottery culture, c. 4500- 3900 B.C. About I m diameter

The earliestfood-producers

IIJ

houseinto more than one room and of a specific areareservedfor the oven, hearthand grinding quem. Most of the evidenceof the economy of the middle neolithic settlementsof S.E. Europecomesfrom Rumania8 7 wherethereis evidence of anoverwhelmingpredominanceof theexploitationof domesticated animals,in particular cattle, and to a much lesserextent sheepand goatsand pig. Theseregions,however,had shown a preferencefor cattle-breedingrather than ovicaprid-breedingeven in the early neolithic period. There is no evidenceto show that the settlements

5cm 5cm 5cm

5cm 5cm 3cm

d 5cm 5cm

5cm

5cm

Fig. 19 Anthropomorphicfigurines of the middle neolithic settlementsof E. Europe. a Anthropomorphicpot. Parta,S.W. Rumania.SzakaIhat-LebOgroup Museum).Museum). b Clay figurine. Vinca, N.E. Yugoslavia. Vinca-Tordosculture (after Vassic, 1932-6). c Clay figurine. YasaTepe,Bulgaria.Veselinovoculture(afterGeorgiev, 1961). d Clay figurine. Boskovstejn, S.C. Czechoslovakia.Linear Pottery culture (after Vildomec, 1932). H

II4

Hunters, Fishenand Farmersof EasternEurope

south of the Danubewhich, in the early neolithic, had concentrated on ovicaprid-breedingdid not continuewith this activity. The small numbersof wild animal boneswere of large forest mammalssuchas red-deerand wild pig, and of fish. An analysis of the grain from Lug in W. Yugoslaviaindicatesthat both einkorn and emmerwheat, but not barley, were cultivated. In connectionwith the relative and absolutechronology of the middle neolithic settlementsof S.E. Europe it is worth noting the claims for a 'short chronology' made recently on the basis of the Tartariatablets(PI. 10).88Threeunbakedclay tabletswere excavated at Tartariain C. Rumania(Transilvania)in a 'ritual pit' dug into the loess from theculture culture layer. The pit also containedseveral clay (and one marble)anthropomorphicfigurines. Designshad been impressedon the tabletswhich, it hasbeenclaimed,show more than a superficial resemblanceto the signs on tabletsfrom Uruk-Warka and lemdet Nasr in Mesopotamia,from the lemdet Nasr period which has been dated to c. 3000 RC. On this basis, the period culture should be dated at least 1000 years later than the dates obtainedfor the Vinca-Tordosculture by the Carbon 14 method, c. 4200-3900 B.C. There are several factors which might help to explainthis inconsistency.It seemsunlikely, as is suggestedby some fanatics, that all the Carbon 14 datesobtainedfrom archaeological sitesareinvalid or too early. Alternatively, it is quite possiblethat the similarity betweenthe Transilvanianand the Mesopotamiantablets is no morethansuperficialand that they haveno significantrelationship. In addition,it is tablets thatthetabletsarenot from the some layer at all, but from oneof the later habitationlevels,and that the pit wasnot dugfrom thepossiblelayerbutnearit, i.e., from outsidethearea of the other settlement.The othercontentsneednot be datedexclusively to the culture.culture. Signssimilar to thoseon the tabletswere incisedon the basesof pots which have beenexcavatedespeciallyat the top of the Turda~-Petre~tiexample,layer at Tartaria, and in Yugoslavia in Vinca-Plocnik assemblages(for example,at Banjica and Vinca). THE LINEAR POTTERY CULTURES

Unlike the early agricultural settlementsof south-eastEurope, the settlementsof the Linear Pottery cultures (Figs.10, 17) are distinguished by a uniformity of location and habitat.89 Apart from thosein the BUkk and Matra mountains,the settlementsare situated exclusively on the loess deposits of central and western Europe (Fig. 8). During the early Atlantic vegetational period the loess depositswere coveredby a light mixed oak forest, which varied in its compositionand density accordingto the drainagefrom the dry

The earliestfood-producers

I

IS

eastHungarianplain to the wet Bohemianplain. In general,however, the forest was light and could be clearedeasily at the sametime as providing a rich foliage and undergrowth for cattle fodder. In addition, loess under theselightly forested conditions forms fertile, easily worked, well-drained soil which was highly suitable for the cultivation of wheatwithout the useof fertilisers.90 Fromtheevidence of the bone material, which shows an almost complete lack of huntingactivitiesin the centralEuropeanLinear Potterysettlements, it is clear that, as in S. Bulgaria, the settlerswere interestedin such factors as a large expanseof foliage and fertile soil rather than the presenceof a variety of plant and animal resources.They, therefore, tendedto settle in the centre of the ecologicalzones,that is in the middle of the gently undulatingplains, and away from the marginal zonesprovided by rivers and lakes. Becauseof their origin in very fine wind-blown deposits,loesssoils are very quickly erodedoncedeprivedof their vegetationalcovering. It seemsthat, in the caseof manyof the LinearPotterysettlements,up to 30cm of the deposits including the original house-floorshave been removed.For this reasonthere is an apparentlack of a thick culturelayer or superimposedhabitationlevels on the Linear Pottery sites.The habitationareaof eachof the Linear Potterysettlementsis vast in comparison to the early agricultural settlementsof southeast Europe. This does not necessarilymean, however, that the villages of the Linear Pottery cultures covered a much larger expanse.The greaterareacoveredby occupationdebriswould appear to have been causedby a much greaterhorizontal displacementof the successiveoccupationphases.If the twenty-onehabitationlevels (or phases)at the Linear Potterysettlementof Bylany in W. Czechoslovakiahad beenlocatedon exactlythe samespot,asin S. Bulgaria, they would have produced a considerablemound of occupation debris. As it is, however,the habitationphasesare recognisedonly by a certain degreeof horizontal stratigraphyas seenin the overlap and superimpositionof successivepits and surface houses. The phases,andto a certainextenttheir durationandlengthof separation, are also distinguishedon the basis of a statistical analysis of the morphologicalfeaturesand the technologyof the fabric, forms and decorationof the pottery. A third criterion for distinguishinghabitation phaseswas the orientationof the houses,assumingthat all the housesof eachphasefaced the samedirection. However, since the housesof all phasesof the Linear Pottery cultures tended to be oriented in the general N.W.-S.E. direction, possibly against the prevailing wind, and since the difference in the orientation of the housesof two different phasescould be as little as 5 degrees,this would seema more doubtful criterion.91

116

Hunters. Fishers and Farmersof EasternEurope

The settlementof Bylany in eachphaseof its occupationcontained approximately5-6 houses,and rarely more than 10. Taking into accountthe fact that thesehouseswere frequently longer than 30m (Fig. 20) and very likely containedmore than one nuclearfamily, it would seemthat the Linear Pottery settlementsof central Europe, even in the earliest phase,as at Novy Bydzov and Mohelnice in Czechoslovakia,comprisedmuch larger populationsthan the than and Karas settlements.They may have been as large as the S. Bulgarian early agricultural settlements.It is clear from the faunal and floral remainsfrom Linear Potterysettlementsthat the different settlementtype in temperateEuropereflects a changein the basisof the economyof the earliestfood-producers.The only evidencefor the economyof the earliestLinear Pottery settlementscomesfrom sites in E. Germany(SaxonyandThuringia), which showa predominance of domesticatedanimal bones,in particular those of ovicaprids.92 This situation continued even in the later periods of the Linear Pottery culture in this region. This, however, would seemto have been a peculiar feature of the east German sites, although the material culture is identical to that of the other central European Linear Potterysettlements.In the analysesfrom otherLinear Pottery sitesof C. Europe,which arefrom the middle and later periodsof the culture,thereis an overwhelmingpredominanceof bonesof domesticated animals,in particular cattle.9:1 This is a very different picture from the economy of the Starcevoand Karas culture settlements. The evidenceof thefrom settlementsof Rumania,however,showsa similar predominanceof cattle among the domesticatedanimals, as do the Rumanianmiddle neolithic settlements.In the Linear Pottery settlements,pigs were the second most important domesticated animals and ovicaprids were almost absent. The few wild animals which were huntedincluded large forest mammalssuch as red-deer, roe-deer,wild pig and aurochs.There is no evidenceof fishing in thesesettlements. Direct evidenceof grain cultivation occursin the form of ovensfor drying grain, and pits and storagepots in which grain identified as cultivated emmerand einkorn wheat hasbeenexcavated.The ovens (PI. 6), generally found in pits alongsidethe houses,are a similar shapeto those found in the early agricultural settlementsof S.E. Europe.They were built of clay and chaff on a foundationof stone slabs,rarely to a height of more than 20cm, in a roundedshapeof c. 60cmdiameter.It hasbeensuggestedthat bakingwas not only for drying the grain but also for removingthe clinging hull, particularly of emmer wheat. Facilities for storing grain (and other vegetable products)includedlarge storagepots and storagepits. The latter are steep-sidedand up to 1 metre deep but, unlike those of the Karas

The earliestfood-producers

117

settlements,they show very few tracesof a thick clay lining. There is evidence,however, in the form of thin carbonisedlayers that they were regularly burnt out to prevent regermination of the grain. Indirect evidenceof grain cultivation in the Linear Pottery settlements includes saddle-shapedquerns and rubbers of sandstone (which need not only have been for grinding cultivated grain) and flint insetsfor sickles. At Bylany the sickle bladesform 16 per cent of the used implements.9 4 They consist predominantlyof bladesc. 4cm long (Fig. 11) which were much more carefully preparedthan the other chipped stone artefacts.Their bulbs of percussionwere generally removedand their distal ends were carefully trimmed by deliberateretouch to facilitate insertion into an antler or wooden handle.It hasbeenassumedfrom all this evidencethat the economy of the Linear Pottery settlementswas basedon shifting agriculture in which the main factor causingthe movementof the populationwas the loss of fertility of the soil. From the total evidence,however,it is clear that the economycould have beenbasedto an equalextenton stockbreedingwith the populationshifting its habitationareaand/or pastureareadependingon the availablesupply of leavesand undergrowth for fodder. On the basisof theevidencefrom Bylany (PI. 4), themostextensively excavatedof all the Linear Potterysettlements,it has beensuggested that the early agriculturalists of temperateEurope shifted their settlementsin deliberate patterns to allow the soil to regain its fertility and/or the forest to regenerate.In this way they could eventuallymove back and settle on the original site. It is suggested that there were several settlements,to which the group moved in rotation. At Bylany, for example, where 3-4 such steps in the cycle have been recognisedby surface surveys and trial excavations, it was speculatedthat, if eachsite was occupiedfor an average of 10-15years,the cycle would be completedandthe site reinhabited every 30-50 years.Sincethe twenty-onehabitationphasesat Bylany representall the main stagesand periods in the evolution of the Linear Potteryculture of W. Czechoslovakia,it has beencalculated that the culturelastedat least700 years,c. 4500-3800B.C. This duration of the Linear Pottery cultures of C. Europe is supportedby Carbon 14 evidenceand relative chronologyof other neolithic culturesin easternEurope. The evidence of such a 'cycle' of Linear Pottery settlements having existed in the area of Bylany (apart from the discovery of other Linear Potterysites nearby)is basedon the statisticalanalysis of the fabric, forms and decorationof the pottery. On the basisof the proportion of the variouscomponentsin it pottery content,eachpit and associatedhousecan, theoretically, be assignedto a particular

lIB

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

habitationphaseof the settlement.From the analysisof the pottery, it has beenshown that there was not a continuousevolution of the pottery styles at the site of Bylany and that some styles must have been developedelsewhere.One of the main argumentsagainstthe hypothesisis that it is assumedthat it was the samegroup of people who were evolving their pottery stylesand sub-stylesinternally without any contact from other groups. On the basis of ethnographic parallels, however, it is clear that, even in the prehistoric period, peopledid not live in a vacuumandthat suchgapsin the evolutionof pottery styles could as easily be the result of stimulus and contact with other groups with the same culture which, according to the evidence, could have been living nearby. The calculation of the durationof eachhabitationphase,and thereforeof the whole Linear Potteryculture,is basedon the evidenceof the storagepits, in which stratifiedlayersof burningandrelining arevisible. On the assumption that eachrelining was an annualevent,it has beencalculatedthat the pits (and thereforethe associatedhouses)were usedfor 10-15 years. If, however, the pits were relined every two years or at irregular intervals, the whole calculation would be upset. From the superimposition of the housecomplexesand from the potterystyleswhich date to different stagesin the evolution of the Linear Pottery cultures, it is clear that severalphasesof occupationare representedat Bylany and other Linear Pottery settlements.It is still open to question,however, whethertherewas a gradualhorizontal displacement of one settlement area (with or without abandonmentand rehabitationof the settlement)or whether a cyclic movementwas involved. It is also possiblethat a move in the cultivation and pasturing areaneednot haveinvolved regular movementof the habitation area.Finally, until there are more extensiveexcavationson the scale of those carried out at Bylany, the conceptof the 'micro-areainhabitedby onepopulationgroupmoving in a cycle' shouldbe applied only with greatcautionto other areasof the Linear Pottery culture. The housesof the Linear Potteryculturesare distinguishedby their largedimensionsandthe uniformity of their proportionsandgroundplan.95 In spite of the absenceof the original occupationsurface,the ground-plan of the housesis clearly indicated by post-holesand associatedpits which are filled with the original neolithic black-earth (chernozem)soil and show up dark againstthe yellow loesssub-soil. The housesare rectangularin plan with a constantwidth of c. 6m and length which varies from 8-45m (average20m). The methodof their constructionseemsto have been very similar to that of the majority of the more northernearly neolithic settlementsof southeast Europe, as for exampleTiszajeno(Fig. 14). Heavy posts, probably mostly of oak, supporteda framework of wattle walls which

The earliestfood-producers

119

were covered or daubed with clay. Evidence from Hurbanovo in Slovakiashowsthat the plasterwalls were paintedin red and white, as in S. Bulgaria. The clay for the walls and possibly the roof was obtainedfrom long irregularovaloid pits which run alongthe outside walls of the houses.96 The pits were subsequentlyusedas rubbishpits and for hearths,ovensand even burials. Unlike the surfacehouses of S.E. Europe,thoseof the Linear Potteryculture had threeinternal rows of posts,which were neededto supportthe long gabled roof. Elaborationsof the house-planwith five rows of post-holesinclude a concentrationof post-holesat the southernend of the house representingposts which may have supporteda raised floor. This feature occurs particularly in housesof the early periods of the culture when there is no evidenceof storagepits; it has therefore been suggestedthat such a raised floor may have been to act as a granaryfor storinggrain. At the northernend of the house,or occasionally all roundit, a trench(Fig. 20) was dug which could have held horizontalwoodenbeamsinto which the upright postswere inserted in order to retard the rotting processes.Alternatively the wall could havebeenembeddedin the trenchwithout the mediumof a beamin order to strengthenthe foundations and reduce draughts. In the early housesof the lower Rhine area, a characteristicfeature was that the central part of the housewas relatively free of post-holes, which frequently formed a Y-configuration(Fig. 20). On the basisof thesehousesthe centralpart hasbeeninterpretedas the main habitation area with a single hearth. In this casethe living spaceof the Linear Pottery'long-houses'would have beenlittle bigger than that of the small nuclear family housesof the early agricultural settlementsof S.E. Europe.On the basisof the central Europeanhouses, however, where the central Y-configuration of post-holesis absent, anotherhypothesishas beenproposed,accordingto which, even if part of the house was used as a granary, most of the spacewas occupiedby severalgroupsof peoplemaking up oneextendedfamily. Analogies have been drawn to support this hypothesis not only from the long-housesof the Iroquois Indians, but also from the late neolithic settlementof Postoloprty in W. Czechoslovakia,where threehearthswere aligneddown a long-house,and numeroushouses of the Tripolye culture (Fig.27) of the Ukraine, where the original floor surfacewaspreserved(Chapter4). In the latter, thereis evidence not only of severalhearths inthe long-houses,but also of division of the housesinto several rooms. In addition, at the Linear Pottery settlementof Nezviskain the Ukraine, the original floor of a house has beenpreserved.97 The constructionof the houseincluded rather more clay and lessinterior post-holesthan was usualin the C. European Linear Pottery houses,but its dimensions(12 x 7m) and pro-

5m

5m

PI

E

5m

5m

5m

5m

Fig.20

5m

The earliestfood-producers

121

portionswere the sameas many of thosein C. Europe.Aligned down the centreof the Nezviskahousewere at leastthreehearths.Unfortunately, neither of the above hypothesescan be tested since the original floor surfaceof the housesof the Linear Potteryculturesof C. and W. Europehas never beenpreserved.Although none of the interior hearthshas survived,it has been possiblein certain casesto reconstructtheir approximateoriginal position on the basis of the distribution of the debris of charcoaland fired clay in post-holesinside the houses.At Bylany, for example,in house 1111 (Fig. 20) at least threehearthshave been reconstructedin this way. At Bylany and many other Linear Potterysettlements,particularly of the later periodsof the culture,thereweresmall rectangularhousesin addition to the long-houses.They have beeninterpretedon the one hand as separatestoragebuildings, and on the other hand as housesfor offshootsof the main extendedfamily groups. In manyrespectsthe materialcultureof the Linear Potterycultures representsan expansionof the traditionsof the early agriculturalists of S.E. Europe.Thepottery of the earliestLinear Potterysettlements, for example,consistsof an organic-temperedfabric identical to that of the Starcevoand Koras coarseware.98 There is a rough division into very coarseware with walls up to 8cm thick, which was decorated by rougheningthe surfaceespeciallyby finger-impressions,and slightly thinner ware generally I'S-2cm thick, which was decorated by wide incisedlines. The two categoriesof fine pottery and painted decorationof the early neolithic culturesof S.E. Europeare missing in temperateEurope outside the transitional region of E. Hungary and S.E. Slovakia.The early pot forms of the Linear Potteryculture are similar to thoseof early neolithic pottery in S.E. Europe, including hemisphericalbowls on low pedestals,bottles with cylindrical or flaring necksand ribbon lugs, globular bowls with flat or ring bases, etc. A similar continuity of tradition can also be seenin the forms and presumablythe functions of the chipped and polished stone artefacts.As in S.E. Europe, there was a predominaceof the flat Fig. 20 Early neolithic houseconstructionin temperatecentralEurope. a Ground-plan of house 679 at Bylany, W. Czechoslovakia(after Soudsky, 1966). Hatchedfeatures representfeaturesof the house. Dotted areasare earlier or later than the house. b Isometricreconstructionof house679 (after Soudsky,1966, 1969). c Ground-planof house2 at Sittard, S. Holland (after Waterbolkand Modderman,1958-9). d Ground-planof house1111 at Bylany, Czechoslovakia(afterSoudsky, 1966), showingreconstructionof three hearths(black 'horseshoes'): hatchedareasshow concentrationof charcoal;arrows show source of charcoal;dottedfeaturesare earlier or later than house.

122

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

trapezoid polished stone axes in the earlier periods of the Linear Potterycultures,which were supersededby the high-backednarrow 'shoelastadzes'in the later periods, contemporarywith the middle neolithic culturesof S.E. Europe. In spite of thesesimilarities betweenthe early neolithic culturesof S.E. Europeand the central EuropeanLinear Potteryculturesthere are many aspectsof the former's materialculture which are missing from the Linear Potteryassemblages. Apart from the absenceof fine pottery and painted decoration, there are almost no anthropomorphicor zoomorphicclay figurines or potsoutsidethe transitional region of eastHungary.The few anthropomorphicfigurines (Fig. 19) which do occur bear a strong resemblanceto the figurines of the Vinca-Tordosculture of Yugoslaviain that they are small standing figurines with clearly defined triangular faces. Along with figurines, a number of other objects manufacturedin fired clay in the southeastEuropeanneolithic culturesdo not occur in the Linear Pottery assemblages, including ladles, 'lamps', 'stamp-seals',spindle whorls and clay weights.The absenceof the last two may be associatedwith the lack of importanceof sheep-or goat-breedingin the economy, Fig. 21 Linear Potteryof the eastHungarianplain. a Fragmentof pedestal.Black-on-redpainteddecoration.Early phase. Tiszalok, E. Hungary(NyiregyhazaMuseum). b Early phase.Incised bowl. Kiskanya, W.e. Hungary (after Csalog, 1941). c Sherdof black-on-redpaintedware. Early phase.Domica, layer la, S.E. Czechoslovakia(after Lichardus,1964). d Incised sherd,Gemorgroup. Ardovo, S.E. Czechoslovakia(Inst. of Arch., Nitra). e Black-on-redpaintedbowl. Esztargroup. Nagykallo, N.E. Hungary (after Korek, 1957). f Incised pottery, later Alf61d Linear Pottery. Abadszalok, E.e. Hungary (Szolnok Museum). g Incised pedestalledbowl, E. CarpathianLinear Pottery. Barca III, S.E. Czechoslovakia(after Hajek, 1956). h Incisedpot, Pre-ClassicalBiikk. Domica, S.E. Czechoslovakia(after Lichardus,1968). j Incised pot, Classical BUkk. Domica (after Lichardus,1968). j Painted brown-on-buff sherd. Michalovce-Hradok,S.E. Czechoslovakia. Szamosgroup (after Siska, 1961). k Incised sherd, Tiszadob group. Tiszadob-Okenez,N.E. Hungary (NyiregyhazaMuseum). I Incised sherd,SzakalMt-Leb6group. LebO C, S. E. Hungary (after Trogmayer, 1957). Dotted area denotes surface covered in red encrustedpaint. m Incised pot of SzakalMt-Leb6 group. Parta, S.W. Rumania Rumania Museum).Dotted areadenotessurfacecoveredwith red encrustedpaint.

m

4cm

m 4cm

m 4cm

m

m

4cm 4cm

m

4cm

m

m

4cm

m

m

4cm

m 4cm

4cm

m 4cm

Fig. 21

124-

Hunters, Fishersand Farmers of Eastern Europe

and the lack of spinningand weaving.It has beenargued,however, that many of the objects made in fired clay in S.E. Europe could have beenreproducedin wood in the more forestedenvironmentof temperatecentral Europe. Since there is absolutelyno positive evidencein this areafor woodenartefactsfrom the neolithic period, this hypothesisshould be treatedwith a certain amount of scepticism. Weights could quite naturally be reproducedless successfullyin wood. On some of the rare Linear Pottery settlementswhich are located by rivers, however, and which may have practisedfishing, there is evidencethat net-weights,which were made of fired clay in S.E. Europe, were manufacturedof stone.9 9 Stone weights of this type were made of gneiss pebbles of elliptical shape with dents ground out on either side. Theseobjects were formerly interpreted as stonefigurines. It is possiblethat the generallack of fine pottery, painteddecoration,and fired clay objects,in particularin the initial expansionof the agriculturalistsinto centralEurope,may have been due to a lack of suitableclay or a lack of complexfiring techniques. By the middle and later periods of the Linear Pottery cultures, a local form of fine ware which was well-fired and mica-temperedhad beendeveloped. Burials of the Linear Potteryculturesgenerallyoccurin the settlement area, either in rubbish pits without any grave-goods,or in shallow grave-pitswith a few grave-goodssuchas pots or Spondylus shells from the Mediterraneanor the Black Seawhich were perforated and madeinto necklaces.1oo The deadwere always buried lying in a contractedposition on their sides,as in the neolithic settlements of S.E. Europe(Fig. IS). In a few cases,particularly further west in East Germany(Thuringia), there were small groups of burials outside the settlementswhich have been dated to the early part of the culture.101 Cemeteriesdo occasionallyoccur further east, for example in Slovakia at Nitra where twenty-four burials were excavated.102 Eachburial in thesesmall cemeterieswas accompaniedby a pot, Spondylusshells and frequently a polished stone axe or adze. Further west still, in the Rhine valley, as at Flomborn and Elsloo, cemeterieswere much larger and more frequent. The study of the internalevolutionandthe chronologicalclassification (Fig.4l) of the Linear Pottery culturesis basedon the changes observedin the fabric, forms and decorationof the pottery.103These changesare reflected in very few other componentsof the assemblages.On the basisof the classificationof the pottery (Figs.21,22), four or five main periods have been distinguished:earliest, early, middle, later and latest.In addition, the very large areaembracedby the Linear Potteryculturesmay be divided into threebroad regions: eastern,centralandwestern.In this book thewesternregion,including

The earliestfood-producers

125

especially the Rhine basin, will not be discussed.In the eastern region, there were strong ties with the Keres and, later, the VineaTordosculture. In the assemblages in the centraland westernregions there were very few south-easternelements. In the period of the initial expansion (Fig. 10) of agriculturalists into temperateEuropec. 4600 B.C. therewasa markeduniformity of pottery fabric, forms and decorationthroughout the whole area. The potteryis similar to the coarseware of the Keresculture. Apart from rougheningthe surface,decorationconsistsof broad incised lines (3-6mm wide) in simple patternsof one to three parallel lines in curvilinear or rectilinear designs,especiallytwo opposedspirals (Fig. 21), acrossthe centreof the pot. The potterywas manufactured into similar forms to thoseof the Keres culture (p. 79). In the middle and later periods (Fig. 17) of the Linear Potterycultures, regional variation becameapparent,in particular in the patterns of incised decoration. Certain tendencies,however, may be observedin all the assemblages. For example,organic material as a meansof temperingthe potterywas rejectedin favour of mineralogical inclusions, such as the local mica in Bohemia, or graphite in Moravia. There is evidencethat more advancedfiring techniques were used with higher temperaturesand more controlled reducing conditions. The pot form most characteristicof the middle period, apart from eastern Hungary, was the three-quarterspherical or bomb-shapedvesselwith a roundedbase.In the later periods,especially in the more westernregions,the vesselstendedto be mademore piriform. In decoration, the elementsmost frequently used were parallelincisedlines (Figs.21,22)which tendedto increasein number and density in later periods of the culture. Other elementsof the decoration,suchas dots or stabsinterrupting the lines, or filling in bandsbetweentwo parallel lines, also tendedto increasein number and densityand to decreasein size until finally in the latestperiod of the culture the solid lines were dispensedwith altogetherand were superseded by bandsof stabsand dots. In the easternregion,instead of the stabsand dots, the spacebetweenthe parallel lines tendedto be filled with paint after firing. Thus, in the central region (Moravia, Austria, W. Slovakia, W. Hungary) on the Pannonianplain,l04 the decorationfirst consistedof the samepatternsas in the early period with the addition of an indentation at the end of the line or, occasionally,interrupting it. Gradually the numberof indentationsincreasedto give the 'musicnote' or 'notenkopf' effect (Fig. 22), and the patterns became morecomplex,includingspirals,triangles,zigzags,etc. The rim of the pot was surroundedby one to three parallel lines. At the sametime as the later evolution of the 'notenkopf'style was taking place, a

126

Hunters Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope J

style known as 'Zeliezovce'(Figs.21,22)was developedin the later period of the Linear Pottery culture of the easternpart of the Pannonianplain. The assemblages with Zeliezovcestyle potteryhave manyindicationsof closecontactwith the Linear Potterysettlements of the easternregion, for example in the application of red and yellow paint betweenthe incisedlines after firing. Further west in settlementsof the Bohemianplain and the ElbeSaale basin the pottery decorationdevelopedin a rather different direction in that the two or three parallel lines forming the patterns of the early period were not interrupted by indentationsbut were joined at the endsto makebands.The bandswere filled with dots or stabs in patternswhich resemblethe 'winkelband' designs of the Vinca-Tordos culture. In east Bohemia (e.g. Bylany) this form of decorationwas generallyreplacedin the later periodsof the Linear Pottery culture by the 'notenkopf' style whose popularity spread there from the Pannonianplain. Further west, however,and in the Rhineland,the 'notenkopf'style neverbecamevery popularand was generally used as a subsidiaryelement of designswhich consisted Fig. 22 Linear Pottery of the Pannonianand Bohemainplains and the SaaleElbe basin. a Early phase.Boskovstejn,S.C. Czechoslovakia(after Quitta, 1960). b Early phase. .'lopy, S.C. Czechoslovakia(after Quitta, 1960). c Early phase 'Ackovy style'. Praha-Veleslavin,W. Czechoslovakia (after Stocky, 1926). d Early phase.Boskovstejn,S.C. Czechoslovakia(after Tichy, 1962). e Early-middle phase (filled-in bands style). Praha-Bubenec,W. Czechoslovakia(after Stocky, 1926). f Middle phase(filled-in bandsstyle). Leippen, S.E. Germany (after Hoffmann, 1963). g Late phase(late 'notenkopf'style). Dresden-Nickern,S.E. Germany (after Hoffmann, 1963). h Middle phase(early'notenkopf'style).Besenova,S.C. Czechoslovakia (after Novotny, 1958). f Late phase(late 'notenkopf'style). Ludanice, S.c. Czechoslovakia (after Novotny, 1958). j Middle-late phase(later 'notenkopf' style). Gajara, S.c. Czechoslovakia (after Novotny, 1958). k Late phase(.'leliezovcestyle). Sturovo, S.C. Czechoslovakia(after Pavukova,1966). Dotted areadenotesyellow encrustedpaint. I Sherdwith 'notenkopf'designs.Bienczyce,S. Poland(after HachulskaLedwos, 1963). m Nezviska,W. Ukraine SSR (after Cerny!;, 1962). n Floresti, Moldavia SSR (afterPassek& Cernys,1963). o RumaniaVechi, N.E. Rumania(after incised 1959). p Pot decoratedby shallowchannellingandincised'notenkopf'designs. SUdi!i, S.E. Rumania RumaniaMuseum,Teodorescu,1966). q Pot of early Boian shapewith incised 'notenkopf' designs.Suditi, S.E. RumaniaRumaniaMuseum,Teodorescu,1966).

a

4cm

4cm

6cm

6cm

4cm

6cm

6cm

4cm

4cm 4cm

4cm

6cm

4cm

4cm

4cm

6cm

4cm 4cm

~

4cm 4cm

10cm 4cm

4cm

4cm

4cm

4cm

Fig. 22

4cm

I

28

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

basically of later developmentsof the filled-in bands (Fig. 22). The disappearanceof the incised lines delimiting the bands of dots and stabs (Fig. 22) marks the transformation in central Europe of the Linear Pottery culture into the Stroke-ornamented Pottery.culture (Stichbandkeramik)(Fig.36) which according to Carbon 14 dates (FigAO) dominated the western part of central Europe c. 3800-3500B.C. (Chapter 4).105 In the western part of Bohemia,an individual style of pottery decorationdevelopedin the latest period of the Linear Pottery culture in which the late 'notenkopf' incisedpots were painted,beforefiring, in black spirals on the buff ground.l 06 It is still under discussionhow this style known as 'Sarka'and the techniqueof painting pottery before firing evolved in Bohemia when it had been out of use in the rest of eastern Europeapart from a small areain eastHungaryfor severalhundred years. The classificationof the Linear Potterycultureshas beenchecked to a certainextentby the only evidenceof vertical stratigraphyin the culture, which occursin cavesin the limestonehills of S.E. Slovakia and N.E. Hungary.l07 In cavessuch as Domica, Aggtelek, Ardovo andCertovaDiera the Linear Potteryhabitationlevelsform stratified depositsof considerablethickness.The stratigraphyin the caveshas often provided the key to the complicatedinternal developmentof the Linear Pottery cultures of east Hungary and the assemblages form the link betweenthe Linear Potteryculturesof the Pannonian plain and thoseof the Great Hungarianplain. Linear Potterysettlements in this area also occur in open sites in the mountainsand valleys with identical assemblages to thosein the caves.The evidence of the economyof one of the opensitesin the mountainsshowsthat, in spiteofthe apparentlyharsherenvironment,domesticatedanimals, especiallycattle, predominatedin the bonematerials.Red-deerwere huntedbut did not play an importantpart in the economy.It is possible that, as was suggestedfor similar mountainsites in south-east Europe, thesesites locatedin the mountainsrepresentthe summer habitation sites of herdsmenfrom the plains who were practising transhumance.It is also possiblethat the mountainsites were used by groupswho settledthereto obtain or mine obsidian.The northern mountainsof Hungary and their extensionin S.E. Slovakia are the main sourceof obsidianin continentalEurope,which occursas outcrops in the limestone. It was highly prized in the early neolithic settlementsof the Near East and Europe as a raw material for chipped stone artefactsprobably becauseof its very sharp cutting edge and was frequently obtained from very distant sources.lOS There is evidencethat the centralEuropeanobsidianfound its way by some form of direct or indirect exchangeto the neolithic settle-

The earliestfood-producers

I29

ments of south-eastEurope, rarely south of the Danube, and to settlementsnorth and eastof the Carpathianmountainsas far as the Dniesterriver. Its usewas widespreadin the Linear Potterycultures of N.E. Hungary-S.E.Slovakiaas well as the GreatHungarianplain (Alf61d), and on many sitesit was the only raw materialusedin the manufactureof chippedstoneartefacts. On a numberof settlementsrepresentingthe initial expansionof agriculturaliststo temperateEurope,there occursherdsof fine, hard pottery with a red burnishedslip and sherdsof coarserware which were paintedbefore firing in a manneridentical to that of the early neolithic culturesof south-eastEurope.It is possiblethat the presenceof this potterymay reflect an establishedtrade-routein obsidian. The paintedpotterydoesnot occuron the Linear Potterysettlements immediatelynorth of the Karas culture, but in thosesettlementson the northernedgeof the E. Hungarianplain and in the N. Hungarian-S.E. Slovakian mountains.The painted ware (Fig. 21) occurs in particular on sites where large numbersof artefactsof obsidian have been excavated.lo9 At the cave of Domica painted pottery of this type occurs with incised pottery of the early Linear Pottery culture in the lowest layer (Ia).l1O The succeedinglayer at Domica (Ib) hasno paintedpottery, but the incisedpottery is very similar to the early Linear Pottery of the E. Hungarian plain (Alf6ld Linear Pottery) and that of the valleys and plairis of east Slovakia (east Slovak or east CarpathianLinear Pottery) (Fig. 21).11l The pottery was chaff-tempered,coveredby a self-slip and decoratedby broad wavy incisedlines which at Domica and northern Alf6ld sites were occasionally emphasisedby black lines painted on the unslipped surfacebefore firing. The potteryof layer IIa at Domicashowsthe beginningof a certain amountof independenceof the mountainarea from the Hungarian plain in the developmentof the pottery decoratedin the so-called Ardovo or Gem6r style (Fig. 21). This is associatedwith the earlieststagein the developmentof the Bukk culture or variant of the Linear Pottery.This was an independentpottery style developed in the mountainsof N. Hungaryand S.E. Slovakia.The pottery was still temperedby organic material.It was decoratedby parallel incised lines, in the Gem6r pottery in rectilinear patternsincluding simple meanders,in the early Biikk pottery in curvilinear patterns such as spirals. The pottery of the upper layers at Domica and the later stagesin the developmentof the Biikk variant is markedby an improvementof the fabric in mineralogicaltempering,in firing at higher temperaturesand in the quality of its surfacewhich was frequently burnished.In decorationthe incised lines becamethinner, denserand more numerous.Thus, the sametendenciesare visible in I

and

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

the middle and later periods of the Linear Pottery culture of the easternregion as occurredfurther west. The curvilinearpatternsof the BUkk pottery evolvedinto rounded arches(Fig. 21) in the Pre-Classical(BUkk AB) phaseand pointed archesin the Classical(BUkk B) phase(Fig. 21). At the caves of Ardovo and CertovaDiera the earlierPre-ClassicalBUkk potterywas associatedwith another local style of Linear Pottery known as Tiszadob-Kapusany(Fig. 21) which was more characteristicof the lowland areas surroundingthe Matra and BUkk mountains. The Tiszadobstyle was characterisedby patternsof four or five parallel wavy lines. In the earlier Pre-ClassicalBUkk phasethereis little evidenceofregularcontactbetweenthe N. Hungarian-S.Slovakmountains and the Pannonianplain. The direction of contact from the mountains,possiblyas a result of the tradein obsidian,was all in a southwards direction. Slightly later, settlements with later PreClassicaland ClassicalBUkk pottery spreadto the foothills of the central Carpathainsin N. Slovakia. Pottery of the same type frequently occursin the easternpart of the Pannonianplain in settlementswhosepotterywas decoratedpredominantlyin the Zeliezovce style. The presenceof BUkk pottery and obsidian in the Linear Potterysettlementsof S. Poland,whose pottery was decoratedpredominantlyin the later 'notenkopf'and Zeliezovcestyles, would indicate trade contacts across the Carpathianmountains (p.133). Obsidianartefactsoccur as far eastof the Caparthiansas the Linear Pottery settlementsof the Upper Dniestervalley (p. 134). Contact southwards,with the Great Hungarian plain, however, seemsto have decreased,particularly at the end of the Classicalphaseand beginningof the Late phaseof the BUkk variant, at a time when the Tisza culture or variant of the Linear Pottery cultures began to dominate most of the Tisza basin. This may be connectedwith a decreasein the popularity of obsidianlong flint blades.The final or Late phase in the evolution of the BUkk pottery (BUkk C), as seenin layer IV at Domica, was characterisedby incised lines which form a negativepatternand provide a basefor white, yellow or red encrustedpaint asin the contemporarylate Zeliezovcepottery and Tisza pottery of the Hungarianplain. It is difficult to calculateto what extentthe Great Hungarian plain (Alfold) was a transitional zone betweenthe neolithic cultures of S.E. Europe and those of temperatecentral Europe becauseof the lack of any extensiveexcavationsor systematicquantitative documentationof the finds. The early settlementsof the Linear Pottery culture, contemporarywith the Koros culture, tendedto be located away from the rivers asin centralEurope.Apart from this, however, thereis no evidencefrom the earlyperiodof the meansof subsistence.

The earliestfood-producers

from Thereis no evidenceof housesapart from the presenceof pits. The pottery consistsof coarsechaff-temperedware decoratedby broad incisedlines. In certain of the more northernsites of the Hungarian plain this was associatedwith painted pottery which was possibly imported from the area of the Starcevo and Koros cultures (see above) and pottery decorated by combined incised and painted patterns. In the middle and later periodsof the Linear Potterycultures,the technique of painting pottery before firing was practised only in settlementsof the north-easternpart of the East Hungarianplain, whereit was retainedlong after it had fallen into disusein south-east Europe.112 Two groupsof Linear Potterysettlementsof the Hungarian plain still paintedtheir pottery before firing in the middle period of the culture. The first is referredto as the Esztar-Tocovolgy group (Fig. 21), on the easternpart of the plain, in which the pottery was coveredwith a burnishedbrown self-slip or colouredbright red or occasionallywhite slip; the surface was decoratedby black, or occasionallywhite or dark red, paintedstripessimilar to the patterns of the Koras culture. There was rarely any incised ware associated with the painted pottery,but that which doesoccuris identicalto the later Alf6ld Linear Pottery incised ware of the Koros valley. The secondgroup of painted ware occursin the Szamosvalley and the Potisia plain of the north-easterncorner of the Great Hungarian plain; in this the pottery was painted in the same combinationof parallel broad and narrow stripes (Fig. 21) but in curvilinear patterns,in black or darkbrown stripeson a buff self-slip.113 Thepainted pottery occursin the sameassemblages as incisedpottery of the later Tiszadob style, describedabove, which predominatedto the west and north-westof the Szamosvalley. Thereis very little evidencethat the relatively marshywesternpart of the East Hungarianplain and the adjoining middle courseof the Tisza valley were occupiedby Linear Pottery settlementsuntil the latest (Tisza culture) period. It has been claimed that the Szilmeg group of settlementsdatesto the middle period of the Linear Pottery culture, but sincethe pottery rarely has inciseddecorationit is difficult to see the group as part of the Linear Pottery cultures. The pottery was decoratedby the applicationof warts and strips of clay. The bonesfrom Szilmeg and Polgar were analysedand indicate a similar basiceconomyto that of the Linear Potterysettlementsof the Pannonianplain. Assemblagesfrom settlementsalong the Koros river and in the areaof the Tisza-Korosconfluencecontainpottery which was decoratedby incised patternsevolved from the AlfOld Linear Pottery, especiallyrectilinear patternssuch as simple meanders. The pottery fabric of thesesettlementswhich are known as the

13 2

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

Szarvas-Erpartgroup was tempered by coarse mineralogical inclusions;it was unslippedso that its surfacewas generallyroughand gritty. Southof the Koros river after the initial period of expansionof the early agriculturalists,the declining Koros culture of S.E. Hungary wassuperseded by a culturewhich wasthe result of an amalgamation of Linear Pottery,Vinca-Tordosand surviving Koros elements,and which is known as the SzakalMt-Lebogroup (Fig. 21).114 Further southin N. Yugoslaviathe Vinca elementsgradually predominated over the Linear Pottery elementsl15 and Linear Pottery artefactsin the Danubesettlementsare rare imports.us The settlementsof the SzakalMt-LebOgroup are locatedin the samehabitatsas those of the Koros culture, that is, in close proximity to water. Most of the settlementsconsist of a thin culture layer with a single habitation level. A few settlements(for exampleCsoka and Crna Bara) comprise thicker culture layers with severalhabitationlevels. Fish-bones and turtle-bonesform an importantpercentageof the bonematerial, and on many sitesthe fishing activities are alsoindicatedby the presence of barblessbone fish-hooksand clay and stoneweights which may haveactedas net-weights.As in the Koros settlements,approximately half the boneswere of wild animals,including aurochs,wild pig and red-deer.This is a sharpcontrastto the evidencefrom the other Linear Pottery settlementsand Vinca-Tordos settlements which showedvery few hunting activities. In contrastto the Koros settlements,however,the mostimportantdomesticatedanimalswere cattle, with very few ovicaprids. This almost certainly involved the domesticationof local wild cattle, if only on a small scale.In spite of the scarcityof sheepand goatsamongthe bones,clay spindlewhorls and clay weights, which possibly actedas loom weights, continued to be made in this period as in the contemporaryVinca-Tordos culture. It is possiblethat the material which was spun and woven was the product of neither sheep nor goats. Clay 'stamp-seals', 'lamps'and anthropomorphicand zoomorphicfigurines all occur in the Szakalhat-LebOassemblages. Theseobjectsgenerallyoccurmore sporadicallyfurther north and are completelyabsentin settlements north of the Koros river. The clay anthropomorphicfigurines resemblemuch more closelythe small standingfigurines of the VincaTordos culture with their cylindrical bodies and triangular heads than thoseof the Koros culture. Like the Koros houses,the houses of the SzakalMt-Lebogroup were small rectangularone-roomed structures,2·S-4mwide, 6-lOm long, with a few post-holesroundthe edge representingthe wooden posts which supporteda wattle and daub wall. The floor of the houseswas frequently plasteredand was furnished with a round hearthand/or clay oven. The pottery of the

The earliest food-producers

133

Szakalhat-Leb6group was similar to the fine mica-temperedblack ware of the Vinca-Tordosculture, but it was decoratedby incised lines in curvilinear patterns typical of the Alf6ld Linear Pottery further north. The surfaceof the pot was left matt betweenthe incised lines and covered with red paint after firing; outside these bandsthe surfacewas burnishedas in the Vinca culture. This category of pottery was associatedwith Vinca-Tordospottery incisedin the 'winkelband'style and with later incised Alf6ld Linear Pottery. LINEAR POTTERY CULTURES NORTH AND EAST OF THE CARPATHIANS

It would seemfrom the Carbon 14 evidencefrom Strzelce(c. 4300

B.C.) and the potteryat Zofipole and Bienczycethat, evenin the early stagesof the evolution of the Linear Potteryculture, agriculturalists from C. Czechoslovakiaspreadthrough the passesof the Carpathians to the loess plains of the upper Vistula and Oder rivers in S. Poland.ll7 The burials at Zofipole and Szczotkowicecontain pots whosedecorationmay be assignedto the initial stagesin the developmentof the 'notenkopf'style. The burial at Szczotkowice118 also contained a necklaceof Spondy/us,white marble and fired clay beads, showing probably indirect connectionwith the Mediterraneanor Black Sea.The main expansionof agriculturaliststo the loessplains north and east of the Carpathianscoincided with the middle and later periods in the evolution of the Linear Pottery cultures. The pottery of the settlementsin south and central Poland (Fig. 22) is characterisedby decoration in the 'notenkopf' and Zeliezovce styles.l19 Along the Vistula, sherdsdecoratedin the style of the Bukk variant occur almost always in associationwith bladesof obsidian, and may representsome form of exchange withthe settlementsin the east Slovak mountains.1 20 Thus, although some of the Polish sites may have been territorially closer to Linear Pottery sites with the filled-in band style of decorationof the Elbe-Saalebasin, the stimulusfor their pottery decoration,and possiblyother elementsof their material culture, came entirely from central and eastern Czechoslovakia.Apart from pottery, evidenceof the Linear Pottery settlementsis minimal. The sites are generallylocatedon the upper terracesof rivers or on the loess plain, but there is no evidenceof their basicmeansof subsistenceapartfrom the presenceof tracesof einkorn and emmer wheat. In the Linear Pottery settlementsof central Poland, such as Chelmzia, sporadic 'geometric'microlithic blades occur among the chipped stone artefacts,but whether this indicatescontactwith or continuationof a local mesolithic hunting and gatheringpopUlation is impossibleto assesswithout more evi-

134-

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

dence of the economyand material culture. Microlithic bladesare absentfrom the Linear Potteryassemblages of south Poland,where the chipped and polished stone industry is identical to that of the central EuropeanLinear Pottery assemblages.The only traces of habitationsrecognisedso far in the Polishsitesare long ovaloid pits, apart from the excavationof long rectangularsurfacestructuresat Olszanica.1 21 Settlementsof agriculturalistswith Linear Potteryassemblages are scatteredalong the tributaries of the Vistula which rise near the sourceof the Dniester.Similar settlementsoccur regularly down the Dniesterand its tributariesas far as its confluencewith the Reut in the Ukraine and Moldavian SSRs.122It would seemthat the spread of the agriculturalistswas via this route, up the Vistula tributaries and down the Dniester. The Linear Pottery settlementswere distributed north and west of thoseof the Bug-Dniesterculture(p.lOl). They are situatedin various locations induding the middle of the loessplateaus,the upperandlower terracesof rivers and very occasionally on the banksof the rivers themselves.IsolatedLinear Pottery of the middle (Samtcin) sherdsoccuron a few siteswith assemblages phaseof the Bug-Dniesterculture, evenas far as Basikov Ostrov on the S. Bug river. The Linear Potterycultures,however,seemto have had no effect on the subsequentdevelopmentof the Bug-Dniester culture. In generalthe two cultures,and presumablythe settlements, were isolatedfrom eachother with a different material cultureand economy. The bone material from the Linear Pottery settlements indicatesthat domesticatedanimals were much more important in the economythan in the Bug-Dniesterculture, and that fishing was hardly practisedat all. 123 Although cattle predominatedamongthe domesticatedanimals,with pigs in secondplace,thereis evidenceon the Linear Potterysettlementsof the breedingof ovicaprids,whereas in the Bug-Dniester settlementsovicaprids were always absent. Evidence from Nezviska shows that, as in the central and southeasternEuropeanneolithic settlements,both einkorn and emmer wheatwas cultivated. At a numberof Linear Pottery sitesobsidian Nezviska, Novicultivated. and Torskoye), blades of obsidian were discovered.The obsidian must have been obtained from the N. Hungarian-S.E.Slovak mountains(p.128).Thereis no suchevidence of long-rangeexchangeand contactsin the Bug-Dniesterassemblages. The Linear Potterysettlementsof the Ukraineand Moldavia, however, show certain differencesin their economyfrom that of their counterpartsin centralEurope,eventhoughthe contentand form of their material culture was identical. Hunting activities, particularly of large forest animalssuch as red-deer,wild pig and aurochs,pro-

The earliestfood-producers

I35

vided much more food and raw material for the Dniester valley settlementsthan in central Europe. The relative proportionsof the various domesticatedspecies, however, remained the same. The chippedstoneartefactswere also very similar to thoseof the central EuropeanLinear Pottery assemblages in spite of the differencesin economy. Long wide blades whose distal ends had been carefully shapedby deliberateretouchand which could have beenassociated with the processingof meat and skins tended to occur more frequently. There is no apparentincreasein bone and antler artefacts correspondingwith the increasein hunting activities. Apart from a bone spoonfrom spoonbone implementsin the Dniester Linear Potterysettlementswere limited to small bone points. Generallythe only evidenceof habitationsin the Linear Potterysettlementsof the Ukraine and Moldavia, as in Poland,is in the form of pits. These have beeninterpretedas the dwellings themselv,es,since the erosion factor of loesssoil hasnot beenrecognised.It is very probable,however, that surfacehousesof central EuropeanLinear Pottery type were built by the samemethodsand with the samedimensionson thesesites. At Torskoyeand example,for example,long ovaloid pits have been excavatedin rows oriented in the same direction and separatedby a distanceof c. 8m. Thus, it is possiblethat tracesof long rectangularsurfacehousesoriginally existed betweenthe pits but havesincebeencompletelyerodedaway. At Nezviska,however, the remains of two surfacehouseswith clay floors have been preserved(p.119). Burials occur, as in centralEurope,in the settlement area,accompaniedby grave-goodssuchasa pot and a polishedstone artefact. The spread of agriculturalists with the Linear Pottery culture appearsto have been limited to the relatively wet loess basins.No Linear Potterysettlementsoccur eastof the Dniesteror in the lower Dniester valley on the drier loess plains, which would have been covered by forest-steppeand steppegrassland.The spread of the Linear Pottery culture, and probably the agricultural population from the Dniestervalley, was ratherwestwardsto the Prut and Seret valleys of E. Rumania(Moldova and N. Muntenia)andevensporadically back acrossthe Carpathiansto C. Rumania(Transilvania).124 At Perieniin Moldova a culturelayerwith a characteristicassemblage of the Linear Potteryculture was stratified abovea pit containingan assemblageof the culture, culture, from which it was separatedby a sterile layer representinga break in occupation.125 All the Linear Pottery settlementsof N.B. Rumania were located on the upper terracesof the river valleys unlike thoseof the precedingupper culture. The limited evidenceavailableindicatesan identicaleconomy126and identical housetype to that of the Dniestervalley settlements.

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope The The pottery of theUkrainian, Moldavianand E. RumanianLinear Pottery settlementscomprisesthe sametwo categoriesof ware as in Poland and C. Europe (Fig. 22). The coarse ware was manufacturedinto globular pots with flaring neckswhich were decorated by the application of strips of clay. The fine ware was made into three-quarterspherical pots, which were typical of the central EuropeanLinearPottery.Frequently,however,the potsof theregions east of the Carpathianshad flat instead of rounded basesand the addition of a cylindrical or flaring neck. The fine ware was decorated by an evolvedform of the 'notenkopf'style in which the indentations were much smallerand lessregular and were frequently placedcarelessly underthe incisedlines insteadof interruptingthem. The most popular patternswere the volutes and horizontal lines surrounding not only the rim but also the body of the pot. It would seemthat the groupswith the Linear Potteryculture east of the Carpathiansremainedvery isolatedfrom their neighboursand that, in spite of thriving cultureson their easternand southernborders, they retainedtheir cultural identity. On the other hand, apart from E. Rumania,they had little effect on the culturessurrounding them or on the subsequentevolution of later neolithic cultures in theseareas.In E. Rumania,however,it would seemthat the Linear Pottery cultures were partly responsiblefor the formation of the later neolithic cultures.At certainsitesa transitionalform of pottery hasbeenrecognisedbetweenthe Linear Potteryand that of the later neolithic BoianandPre-Cucutenicultures.At Suditi in S.E.Rumania, for example, two pits were excavatedin close proximity to each other.127 The first containedLinear Pottery sherdsdecoratedin the evolved 'notenkopf' style (Fig.22) typical of E. Rumania. The samepit containedfragmentsof biconical pots characteristicof the culture culture(p.108)with a highly burnishedsurfaceand decorated by shallow fluting on the upper part of the pot; on the samesherds (Fig.22) in combinationwith the fluting were incised lines which were executedin the samepatternsas the evolved 'notenkopf'style but without the indentationsor with indentationsbetweenthe lines. It would seem,therefore,that thepredominculture, which predominatedin the assemblages of the lower Danuberoughly contemporary with the Linear Pottery of E. Rumania,also played an important part in the formation of the later neolithic culturesof E. Rumania. The secondpit at Suditi containedpottery in which the amalgamation of formation and Linear Pottery elementsis visible at a slightly later stage; the pottery of this pit has been assignedto the initial stagein the developmentof the Boian culture. A parallel amalgamation of Linear Pottery and elementselementsis observablefurther north in Moldova (N.E. Rumania) in the transitional pottery at

The earliestfood-producers

137

pottery and the pottery at Traian (Dealul Vieii), both regardedas the initial stagesin the developmentof the Pre-Cucuteniculture.128 Although pottery elementssuchas the burnishedsurfaceand fluted decorationare not so strongin the more northernsettlements,it is interestingto note that the sites are locatedon the lower terracesof river valleys and that domesticatedanimals were very important in the economy,as in the economy,settlements.

1. Carbon 14 evidenceof the spreadof the neolithic and eneolithicculturesinto Europe: Ehrich, R. (1965); Clark, J. G. (1965); Gimbutas, M. (1965); Neustupny,E. (1968); id. (1969); Quitta, H. (1967); Renfrew, C. (1970a); id. (1970c); Tringham,R. (1968). 2. After the discoveryof preceramicneolithic layersin certain'tell' settlementsin Thessaly,Greece(MilojCic, V., Die DeutschenAusgrabungenaufder ArgissaMagula in Thessalien,I, Bonn,1962;Theocharis,D., 'Pre-potteryin Thessaly', Thessalika,I, Volos, 1958, 70-86), the possibility of contact betweenthe mesolithic and neolithic populationsand the idea of a pre-ceramicagricultural population in S.E. Europe was suggested:Berciu, D. (1960a); id. (1967), 30-1; id., 'Neolitic Preceramicin Balcani,' SCIV, IX: 1 (1958), 91-100; Brukner, B., 'Die TardenoisienischenFunde von "Peres" bei Hajdukovo und aus Backa Palankaund das Problem der Beziehungenin Donaugebiete',Arch. lug., VII (1966), 1-12; Grbic, M., 'Starcevo kao najraniji izraz neolitskeekonomikena Balkanu',Starinar NS,IX-X (1959), 11-16; Milojci6, v. (1956); id. (1960); Lichardus, J., & Pavuk, J. (1966); Pittioni, R. (1961). Theseideas have beenrefuted by: C. S., 'Discutii pe margineapaleoliticului de sfirsit ~i incepturilorneoliticului nostru',SCIV, X: 2 (1959),221-35;Tringham,R. (1968); Vend, S1. (1968). 3. Garasanin,M., 'Ein Beitragzur Kenntnis der friihneolithischenVerbindungen desBalkansund Vorderasiens',Arch. lug., IV (1960),1-3; id., 'Khronologiya i genezis na neolita v centralnatai yugoiztocnatacast na Balkanskiya poluostrov', Arkheologiya, VIII: 1, Sofia (1966), 16-30; Mellaart, J. (1965), 115-18; MilojCic, v. (1949b); Nandris, J. (1970); Piggott, S. (1965), 40,44; Trogmayer, O. (1967); Titov, v. S., Neolit Grecii, Moscow (1969), 195-210. 4. Lepenski Vir: Srejovic, D. (1966); id. (1969); Nandris, J. (1968). Possibly Padina:Jovanovic,B., 'Padina'in Trifunovic L., et aI., AnciennesCultures du Djerdap, Belgrade(1969),45-6. Schela Cladoveiand Ostrovul Banului: Boronean!, V. (in press). 5. CrvenaStijena,S.W. Yugoslavia: Benac,A., & Brodar, M., 'CrvenaStijena1956', Glasnik Z.M. Sar., XIII (1958), 26-61. Soroki, Moldavia, SSR: Markyevic, V. I., 'Issledovaniyaneolita na SrednemDnestre',KSIA, 105 (1956),85-90;id., Neolit Moldavii, unpublishedthesisfor KandidatIstoriceskikh Nauk degreein the Inst. of Archaeology,ANSSSR, Moscow (1968). Cremenea,C. Rumania:Nicolaescu-Plop~or,Rumania: C. S., & Pop, I., 'Cercetarile sapaturilepaleoliticede la Cremenea~i imprejurimi', Materiale VI (1960), 463-4; 50-6. Dirlu-Ceahlau, C. Rumania: Vlassa, N., 'In legatura cu neoliticul timpuriu de la Dirtu-Ceahlau', Acta Musei Napocensis,I, Cluj (1964), 463-4; Paunescu,AI., 'Locuirea neolitica de la Dirtu-Ceahlau',SCIV, IX: 2 (1958), 269.

Nicolaescu-Plop~or.

Hunters,

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

~i

6. Necrasov, 0., 'Considera!ii asupra populatiilor din virsta pietrei de la inceptul virstei metalelor pe tedtoriul RPR', Omagiu lui C. Daicovicill, Bucharest(1960), 415-26. 7. Renfrew,J. (1969). 8. Ucko, P., & Dimbleby, G., Eds. (1969); Higgs, E., & Jarman,M. (1969). 9. Piggott, S. (1965),44-5. 10. Childe, V. G. (1929); id. (1957). For generaldiscussionof chronologicaland cultural connectionsbetweenthe two areas:MilojCic, V. (1949a);id. (1952); Quitta, H. (1964). 11. Detev,P., 'Opit za razlicavanena neolitnitebradvi ot dletata,teslite, motikite, i polesnisite', God. Nar. Arkh. Muz" IV (1960), 61-74; Sonnenfeld, J. (1962-3); Semenov, S. A. (1964), 126-34; Vencl, SI. (1960); id., 'K otazce interpretacefunkce pravekych pi'edmetu', Arch. Rozh., XIII: 5 (1961), 678-93. 12. Tringham,R. (1968). 13. Prehistoric Europeansickle blades: Behm-Blancke,G. (1962-3); Bibikov, S. N., 'Iz istorii kamennikhserpovna yugo-vostokEvropi', SA, 3 (1962), 3-24; Berciu, D. (1967), 40, p1.8 (Valea Riiii); Georgiev,G. I., 'Za nyakoi orudiya za proizvodstvoot neolita i eneolitav Bulgarija', Studia in honorem D. Deeev,Sofia (1958), 369-87; Semenov,S. A. (1964), 115-22; Piggott, S. (1965), fig. 11. 14. e.g. Gyalaretand Ludvar: unpublishedmaterialin SzegedMuseum. 15. Georgiev,G. (1961), 57-63. 16. Petkov, N., 'Predistoriceskabojadisanakeramika ot Sofiskata Kotlovina', God. Plovdiv Nar. Bib!. i Muz. (1928-9), 185-98; id., 'Le decor peint a l'epoque du Neolithique dans la region de Sofia', Arkheologiya, IV: 3, Sofia (1962), 43; Nikolov, B., 'Sites prehistoriquesde l'arrondissementde Vraca', Arkheologiya,IV: 4, Sofia (1962), 65. 17. Garasanin,D. (1954); Makkay, J., & Trogmayer, O. (1966); Jovanovic, B., 'Keramicki tipovi Balkanskogneolita i eneolita', Starinar, XIII-XIV (1962-5), 14-18. 18. Ucko, P. (1968). 19. Hackmann,O. (1968); Kalicz, N. (1970); Mikov, V., 'Plasticfigurines of the neolithic in Bulgaria', lAl, VIII (1934-5); Renfrew,C. (1969a);Srejovic, D. (1964-5); id., 'Neolitska plastika Centralnobalkanskogporucja', Neolit CentralnagBa/kana,Belgrade(1968), 177·-240;Galovic, R. (1966). 20. Nea Nikomedea: Rodden, R. (1966), 11; Ludvar: unpublishedin Szeged Museum. 21. e.g. Porodin,S.Yugoslavia:Grbic, M. (Ed)., Porodin,Bitola (1960),fig. XXIX; Karanovo,S. Bulgaria: Georgiev,G. (1961), fig.3:l. 22. Gorzsa:Gazdapusztai,Gy., 'A Karas kultura lak6telepeHodmezavasarhelyGorzsa',Arch. Ert., 84 (1957), 3-12; Bogojevo (Ocsad):Kutzian, I. (1947), fig.XII:lO. 23. Selmeczi, L., 'Das Wohnhaus der Karas-Gruppevon Tiszajen6: neuere Haustypendes Frtihneolithikums',A Mora F. Muz. Evk., 2, Szeged(1969), 20. 24. e.g. Let, C. Rumania:Zaharia,E., 'Considerationssur la civilisation de a la lumiere des sondagesde Lef, Dacia NS, VI (1962), 5-51; Verbita, S.W. Rumania:Berciu, D. (1961a),29-32, 25. Early neolithic housesin S.E. Europe: Trogmayer, O. (1966); Stalio, B., 'Naselje i stan neolitskog perioda', NeoUt Centralnog Balkana, Belgrade (1968), 83. 26. Selmeczi,L., op. cit. (1969), 20-2. 27. Georgiev,G. (1965).

Cri~

The earliestfood-producers

139

28. Rapoport,A. (1969). 29. e.g. Ludas (Budfuk), N.E. Yugoslavia: unpublishedprivate communication from Szekeres,L., Subotica Museum; Nosa (Biserna Obala), N.E. Yugoslavia: Garasanin,D., 'Die Siedlungder Stareevokulturin Nosabei Subotica und das Problem der neolithischen Lehmschermen',Bericht V Kongress fSPP, Hamburg 1956 (1961), 303-7; Grbic, M., op. cit. (1959). 30. Georgiev,G. (1961), 62. 31. Benac,A. (1961), 31. 32. e.g. Kisajaksor, S.B. Hungary: Trogmayer, O. (1966), 14; Lepenski Vir: Srejovic, D. (1966); id. (1969). 33. e.g. Nagyjaksor,S.E. Hungary: Trogmayer,O. (1966), 14. 34. Srejovic,E., 'Contributiecu privire la riturile funeraredin epocaNeoliticii de pe teritoriul liirii noastre', Omagiu lui C. Daicoviciu,Daicoviciu, (1960), 84-6; Galovic, R., 'Sakhranivanjeu Stareevackojkulturi', Starinar, XVIII (1968), 168-74; Garasanin,M. (1956); Trogmayer,O. (1969). 35. General discussion of the economic basis of neolithic settlementsof the Balkans: Glisic, J., 'Ekonomika i sozialno-ekonomskiodnosi u neolitu Podunavsko-Pomoravskog baseina',Neolil Centralog Balkana, Belgrade (1968),21-62. 36. e.g. Argissa, Arapi and Otzaki: Boessneck,J., 'Zu den Tierknochen aus neolithischen siedlungen Thessaliens',in Milojcic, V., op. cit. (1962); Nea Nikomedea:Rodden,R. (1965). 37. Hopf, M., in MilojCic, V., op. cit. (1962); Renfrew,J. (1969), 160. 38. Gaul, J. (1948); Georgiev,G. (1961). 39. Krudy, K., 'Settlementtypes of the Early Neolithic Karanovo-Starcevo'Settlement cultures in S.E. Europe', unpublishedthesis for M.A. Hons. degreein the Dept. of Archaeology,Univ. of Edinburgh (1968); Piggot, s. (1965),41,44. 40. Azmak: Georgiev,G., 'Glavni rezultati ot razkopkitena Azmaskataselistna mogila 1961', fAf, XXVI (1963), 157-76; id. (1965); id. (1969). Kapitan Dimitrievo: Detev, P., 'Selistnatamogila Banjatapri Kapitan Dimitrijevo', God. Nar. Arkh, Mus. Plovdiv, II (1950),and 1-25; summarisedin Berciu,D., 'Arkheologieeskiyeotkritiya v Banjatamogile v sveterumunskikhissledovanii', Dacia NS, III (1959), 553-9. Kazanlak: unpublishedexcavationsby Katinearov,R. (1967-70), Instit. of Archaeology,BAN, Sofia. Karanovo: Mikov, V. (1939); id. (1958); Georgiev, G. (1961). The numbering of the cuiturallayersby Mikov is rather different from that of Georgiev, whose systemis generally now accepted.For a generaldiscussionof the relative chronologyof the Bulgarian'tells' andthe neolithic culturesof S.E. Europe: Berciu, D., op. cit. (1959); Garasanin,M. (1961a); id., op. cit. (1966); id., 'Polozaj centralnoi Balkana i khronologija neolita jugoistocne Evrope', Neolit Centralnog Balkana, Belgrade(1968), 301-38; Georgiev, G. (1961); Piggott, s. (1960). 41. Neustupny,E. (1968); id. (1969); Quitta, H. (1967); Renfrew, C. (1970b). 42. Renfrew, J. (1969), 161. 43. Devetaki cave: Mikov, V., & Dzambazov,N., Devetaikalapeitera, Sofia (1960); Loveecaves:Dzambazov,N., 'Loveskitepesteri',fAf, XXVI (1963), 195-241. 44. Petkov,N., 'SelistnataGinova mogila do s. CelopeC',God. Nar. Arkh. Muz. Plovdiv, I (1948), 159-71; id., op. cit. (1928-9); id., op. cit. (1962). 45. e.g. Slatina, W. Bulgaria: Petkov, N., 'Neolitno seliste pri selo Slatina', Arkhe%giya, I, 1-2, Sofia (1959), 100-5: Vrsnik, S.W. Yugoslavia: GaraSanin,M. & D., 'L'habitat neolithique de Vrsnik pres de Tarinci', Zbornik na StipskogNaroden Muzej, II, Stip (1960-1), 7-40; Anzabegovo,

140

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

S.E. Yugoslavia: unpublished excavations(1969-70) by Gimbutas, M., for UCLA, Garasanin,M., and Stip Museum.Seealso: Nandris, S. (1970), 206--7. 46. Hopf, M., in GaraSanin,M. & D., op. cit. (1960-1). 47. General discussion of the settlementsof thesettlements culture: Benac, A. (1961); id., 'Neolitski telovi u Bosni i neki problemi bosanskog neolita', Glasnik, Z.M. Sar., XV-XVI (1961), 39-78; Galovic, R. (1964); Garasanin,D. (1954); Garasanin,M. (1958); Grbic, M. (1957); id., 'Nalazista Starcevacskogi Garasanin, neolita u Srbiji i Makedoniji', Neolit CentralnogBalkana, Belgrade(1968), 63-76; Jovanovic,B., 'Istoriat keramikeindustrije u neolitu i ranom cneolitu CentralnogBalkana',Neolit CentralnogBalkana,Belgrade(1968),107-76;MilojCic, V. (1949a);id. (1950). 48.Glasnik B., 'Rezultati sondiranjana preistoriskomnaseljuu Gornjoj Tuzli', Glasnik Z.M. Sar., 16 (1961), 79-139; Garasanin,M. (1958), 8, n. 36. 49. General discussion of theGarasanin,culture of N. Yugoslavia and S.W. Rumania and the Karas culture: Brukner, B., 'Einige Fragen liber die Verh1iltnisseder Starcevound Karas Guppe',Acta Ant. et Arch., X (1966), 7-10; id. (1968); Banner, J. (1942); id. (1961); Gazdapusztai,G. (1962); Kalicz, N., 'Siedlungsgeschichtliche Problemeder Karas- und der TheissKultur', Acta Ant. et Arch., VIII, Szeged(1965),27-35;id. (1970); Kutzian, I. (1947); id. (1966); Dimitrijevic, S., 'StareevackaKultura in SlavonskoSrijemskom',Neolit i Eneolit u Slavonii, Vukovar (1969),1-96;Milleker, F., 'VorgeschichtedesBanats',Starinar. XIII (1938),102-66;Makkay, J. (1969); Makkay, J., & Trogmayer, O. (1966); Milojcic, V. (1949a); id. (1950); Garasanin,D. (1954); Trogmayer,O. (1967); id., 'Remarksto the Relative Chronology of Karas group', Arch. Ert .• 91 (1964), 67-86; Schmidt, H. (1945). 50. B6k6nyi, S., 'Die friihalluviale WirbeltierfaunaUngarns',Acta Arch. Hung., XI (1959), 39-97; id., 'The vertebratefauna of the neolithic settlementat Maroslele-Pana',Arch. Ert .• 91 (1964),87-93;id. (1971); id. (forthcoming); id. (1969). 51. Private communicationfrom Bokonyi, S., and Trogmayer,O. 52. The site of Nosa (Biserna Obala), however, had three habitaton levels: Garasanin,D., op. cit. (1961). 53. Bokonyi, S. (1970); Bokonyi,E., 'Das Banater Neolithikum im Lichte der nemenForschungen',A Mora F. Muz. Evk.• 2 (1969), 29-38; id., 'Materiale de tip Stareevodescoperitela Liubcova', SCIV, XVII: 2 (1966), 355-61; Nandris,J. (1968); C. S., et aI., 'Cercetiirilearheologice de la Cazane',SCIV, XVI: 2 (1965),407-11;Srejovic,D. (1966); id. (1969). 54. Singlebonefish-hooksalsooccurat Azmak, S. Bulgaria,andNeaNikomedea, N. Greece. 55. Generaldiscussionof thediscussion culture of Rumania: Berciu, D. (1961a); id. (1961b); id. (1967), 39-43; culture E. (1959); Piiunescu,AI. (1970), 35-8. 56. Vlassa,N., 'Cultura 'Culturain Transilvania',Acta Musei Napocensis.III, Cluj (1966), 9-48; Zaharia,E., op. cit. (1962). 57. e.g. Cremenea: C. S., & Pop, I., op. cit. (1960); DirtuCeahliiu: Piiunescu,AL, op. cit. (1958); Vlassa, N., op. cit. (1964). 58. Berciu, D., 'Siipaturilede la Verbita', Materiale, VI (1960),85-7;Teodorescu, V., 'Cultura Cri~ in Centrul Munteniei', SCIV, XIV: 2 (1963), 251-74. 59. Petrescu-Dimbovita,M. (1959). 60. Danilenko,V. N. (1969); Markevic, V. I., op. cit. (1965); id., op. cit. (1968); Passek,T. s. (1962); Sulimirski, T. (1970), 64-6; Passek,T. S., & Cernys, E. K., 'Neolit severnovoPrieernomorya',Kamenni Vek na territorii SSSR. Moscow (1970),122-6.

'Neolitski

Neolithikum

Nicolaescu-Plop~or,

The earliestfood-producers

141

61. Quitta, H., & Kohl, G., 'Neue Radiocarbondatenzum Neolithikum und zu fruhen Bronzezeit Sudosteuropasund der Sowjetunion', Zeitschr. fur Arch. 3, Berlin (1969): Soroki II, layer 1-4875±150B.C. (Bin 586). 62. Childe, V. G., 'The antiquity and functions of antler axes and adzes', Antiquity, 16 (1942). 63. e.g. Surskii island and KamennayaMogila: Danilenko, V. N. (1969), 9-13, 24-7, 179, figs. 1,3; Pidoplicko, I. G., Materiale do Vivceniya minulikh faun URSR,Kiev (1956), 54-5, Sulimirski, T. (1970), 80-4; Tringham,R. (1969), 384,387. 64. Danilenko, V. N. (1969), 30-7; Sulimirski, T. (1970), 113-16; Telegin, D. Ja. (1968). 65. Linear Pottery sherdsoccur at Basikov ostrov: Passek,T., & Cernys,E. K. (1963),13;Soroki 5: Markevic, V. I., op. cit. (1965). SamtCinsherdsoccur at Novi Rusesti: Markevic, V. I., 'MnogosloyinoyeposelenieNovi Rusesti 1', KSIA, 123 (1970), 69-76; private communicationfrom Markevic, V. I., Kisinev. 66. Benac,A. (1961). 67. Batovic, S. (1966); Benac,A., & Brodar, M., op. cit (1958); Miroslavljevic, V., 'Jamina Sredi',Arh. Rad.i Raspr.I (1959),131-69;id., 'Impresso-cardium keramika na otocima Cresa,Losina i Krka', Arh. Rad. i Raspr.,II (1962), 175-212. 68. Benac,A., 'ZelenaPeCina',Glasnik Z.M. Sar, XII (1957), 61-92. 69. e.g. ObreI: unpublished;excavatedjointly in 1967-8by Benac,A., Sarajevo, and Gimbutas, M., UCLA, it comprised several habitation levels, the lowest of which (Stratum I) contained a pure Starcevo assemblage,cf. Serbia,and has been dated 4845±150 B.C., Bin 636 (Quitta, H., & Kohl, G., op. cit., 1969, 235). The upperlayers have beentermed'Kakanj culture' by Benac(1961), 44, but Gimbutas, M. (private communication)tends to regardthe 'Kakanj culture' as the local late variant of the Starcevoculture in Bosnia with Danilo elementsin the assemblage.Theseupper layers of Obre I have been dated 4280±80 B.C., Bin 659 (Quitta, H., & Kohl, G., op. cit., 1969, 236). Also see:Batovic, S. (1966), 111-22. 70. Rodden,R. (1968) Ch. 5; Batovic, S. (1966), 125-42. 71. Benac,A. (1961); BatoviC, S. (1966), 157-65;Korosec,J., Danilo in Danilska Kultura, Ljubljiana (1964). 72. Cranstone,B., 'Animal Husbandry: The Evidence from Ethnography'in Ucko, P., and Dimbleby, G. (eds.),op. cit. (1969), 247-64. 73. Holmberg, E., 'The Appearanceof Neolithic Black Burnished Ware in Mainland Greece',AlA, 68 (1964),343-8. 74. This theory was first put forward by Childe, V. G. (1929), and was supported by: Garasanin,M., op. cit. (1966); id. (1961a);id., op. cit. (1960); id., 'Zur Zeitbestimmungdes Beginns der Vinca-Kultur', Arch. lug., I (1954), 1-6; id. (1961b); id., op. cit. (1968); id. (1958); Grbic, M. (1957),143-4;Jovanovic, B., op. cit. (1962-3);Mellaart,J. (1960); MilojCic, V. (1949a);id. (1949b); id. (1950). 75. Georgiev,G. (1961), 53. 76. Personalcommunicationfrom Katincarov, R., Sofia, September1967. 77. Garasanin,M. (1951); Srejovic, D., 'Versucheiner historischenWertungder Vinca-Gruppe',Arch. lug., IV (1960),5-19. 78. e.g. Vrsnik: Garasanin,M. & D., op. cit (1960-1); Anzabegovo (see n. 45 above). 79. Vassic, M. (1930-6); MilojCic, V. (1949a); Jovanovic, B., 'Stratigrafska podelaVincanskognasel',Starinar, XI (1960),9-19.

142

Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of EasternEurope

80. Benac,A. (1961); Garasanin,M. (1951); id. (1958); Grbic, M., op. cit. (1968); Benac, E., op. cit. (1969). 81. Berciu, D. (1961a); id. (1961b); id. (1967), 46-9; Carpali',E., 'Rezultatele sondajelorde 1a probleme ~i unele probleme ale neoliticului de la sud de Carpali', seIV, VII: 1-2 (1956), 41-53; id., 'Sapaturile de la Carpali', Materiale, V (1959), 96-7; Paunescu,AI. (1970), 40-2. 82. e.g.(Tordos(Tordosin Hungarian):Roska,M., 'La Stratigraphiedu Neolithique en Transilvanie',DolgozatekSzeged,XII (1936), 26-51; Lumea Noua: Berciu, D. & I., 'Sapaturi~i CercetariArheologicein Anii 1944-7',Apulum, III, Alba Iulia (1948), 1-18; Tartaria: Vlassa, N. (1963). For a general description of the neolithic in Transilvania, see also: Schroller, H. (1933). 83. Srejovic, D., & Jovanovic,B., 'Pregledkamennojorudja i oruzja iz Vince', Arch. Vestnik, 8 (1957), 256-96; id., '{)rudje i oruzje od kosti i nakit iz Vince', Starinar, IX-X (1958-9), 181-90. 84. Renfrew, C. (1969a); Srejovic, D. (1964--5); id., op. cit (1968); Galovic, R. (1966). 85. Detev, P., 'Materiali za praistoriatana Plovdiv', God. Nar. Arkh. Muz., III (1959),3-80;id., 'Razkopki na selistnatamogila Yasa-tepev Plovdiv 1959 g.', God. Nar. Arkh. Muz., IV (1960),5-55;Georgiev,G. (1961), 69-70. 86. Stalio, B., op. cit. (1968), 84-5; Georgiev,G. (1961), 67. 87. Faunalremainsfrom sites in S.E. Rumania(Cernica, (Cernica, and Draghiceanu)and the Danubegorges(Liubcova) have beenanalysed. 88. TheTartariatabletswereusedasevidenceof the invalidity of Carbon14 dates. This was a constantthemein MilojciC's studies(e.g. MilojCic, V., 1958-9)and with the evidencefrom Tartaria this was stressedafresh by MilojCic and others: Falkenstein,A., 'Zu den Tontafeln aus Tartaria', Germania, 43: 3-4 (1965),269-73;Hood, S. (1967); Makkay,J., 'Die in Tiirtiiria gefundenen pictographischenTafeln und die jlingere SteinzeitSUdosteuropas', A Mora F. Muz. Evk. (1967), 21-4; Milojcic, V. (1965); Vlassa, N. (1963); id., 'Einige Bemerkungenzu Fragen des Neolithikums in SiebenbUrgen',Stud. Zvesti, 17 (1969), 513-40.This view of the dating of the Tiirtiiria tabletshas beenrefuted by: Neustupny,E. (1968b); Dumitrescu,V. (1969), 99-100 & 588 of the samejournal. In generalthey believe that the tablets should be datednot to theculture, culture at all, but much later, even to the BadenCotofeniculture,c. 2900-2500B.C. (seeFig.40).A smallclay plaque,inscribed with signswhich havebeeninterpretedas primitive writing, hasrecentlybeen discoveredat the late neolithic site of Gradesnitsa,N.W. Bulgaria,synchronous with the Maritsa culture: Nikolov, S., & Georgiev, V., 'Nacenky na pismennostprez khalkolitnata epokha v nasite zemi', Arkheologiya,XII: 3 (1970), 1-9. 89. Piggott, S. (1965), 50-2; Childe, V. G. (1929); id. (1957); Sangmeister,E. (1943-50);Soudsky,B. (1962); id. (1966); Tringham,R. (1968), fig. 7. 90. For a discussionof vegetationon loessdepositsseeChapter1, n. 7. 91. Soudsky,B., has beenthe main exponentof distinguishinghabitationphases in Linear Pottery settlements,mainly on the basisof his excavationsat the site of Bylany: Soudsky,B. (1962); id. (1966); id. (1968a); id. (1968b); id. (1969): Soudsky,B., & Pavlu, I. (1971). 92. MUller, H.-H., Die Haustiereder MitteldeutschenBandkeramiker,Deutschen Akad der Wissenschaft,E. Berlin (1964). 93. Bylany: Soudsky,B. (1966),63;Soudsky,B., & Pavlu,I. (1971); Clason,A., Biologisch-ArchaeologischInstituut, Groningen, private communication; Gyor (PapaiYam), N.W. Hungary: Bokollyi, S. (1959). 94. Tringham,R. (1971b). The authorhasundertakenthe analysisof the chipped

The earliestfood-producers

143

stoneindustry of Bylany, and thesefigures are basedon the first part of this analysis. 95. Generaldiscussionof housesof the Linear Pottery culture: Childe, V. G. (1949); Felgenhauer,F., 'BandkeramischeGrossbautenauf Mannsworth bei Wien, Arch. Aust., 27 (1960), 1-10; Waterbolk, H., & Modderman,P. (1958-9); Modderman,P. (1971); Sangmeister,E. (1943-50); Soudsky,B. (1969); Soudsky, B., & Pavlu, I. (1971); Stieren,A. (1943-50); Tringham, R. (1966), Pt. II, ch. 1; Vencl, SI., 'K otazceinterpretacepravekychstaveb', Arch. Rozh.,XX: 4 (1968), 490-510. 96. In the reportsof early excavationsof Linear Potterysettlements(Buttler, W., 'Das bandkeramischeDorf bei Koln-Lindenthal', Germania, XV, 1931, 244-52; Buttler, W., & Haberey, W., Die BandkeramischeAnsiedlungbei Koln-Lindenthal, Berlin and Leipzig, 1936; Paret, 0., 'Vorgeschichtliche Wohngruben?,Germania,26, 1942, 84-103),the pits were interpretedas the dwellings since, with the absenceof any culture layer, they containedmost of the occupationdebris. 97. Cernys, E. K., 'K istorii naseleniyaeneoliticeskovovremeni v srednem Pridnestrovye',MIA, 102 (1962), 13, figs.4&8; Passek,T. S., & Cernys, E. K. (1963), 14-16. 98. For a discussion of Early Linear Pottery-Koros culture connections: Kalicz, N., & Makkay, J. (1966); Kalicz, N. (1970); Quitta, H. (1960); id., 'Zur altestenBandkeramikin Mitteleuropa',Aus Ur- undFruhgeschichte, E. Berlin (1962), 87-107; id. (1964); Soudsky, B. (1966), 18-19; id., 'K relativni chronologii volutove keramiky', Arch. Rozh., VIII: 3 (1956), 408-12, 462-3; Tichy, R., 'K nejstarsi volutove keramice na Morave', Pam. Arch., 51 (1960), 415-42; Trogmayer,0., 'Ein Beitrag zur relativen Zeitstellung der alteren Linearkeramik',Studienzur europaischenVor- und Fruhgeschichte,Neumiinster(1968), 5-9; id., 'Koros-Gruppe-Linearkera(in press). mik', Alba Regia, Szekesfehervar 99. Sikulova, V., 'K otazcerybolovu v mladsi dobekamenne',GasopisSlezskeho Muzea, X, Opava(1961), 1-16. 100. Discussionof Linear Potteryburials: Fischer,G., Die Graber der Steinzeit im Saalegebiet,E. Berlin (1956), 24-9; Kahlke, H. (1954); Skutil, J., 'LinearkeramischeGraber in Mahren', WPZ., 28 (1941); Stekla, M., 'Pohrby lidu s volutovou a vypichanou keramikou', Arch. Rozh., VIII: 5 (1956),697-723;Pavuk,J. (in press).Discussionofthe diffusion of Spondylus shellsin neolithic C. Europe:Vencl, S\., 'Spondylovesperky vPodunajskem Neolitu', Arch. Rozh.,XI: 6 (1959),699-742;Clark, J. G. D. (1952), 241-3; Shackleton,N., & Renfrew,c., 'Neolithic trade-routesre-alignedby oxygenisotype analyses',Nature, 228: 5270 (1970), 1062-4. 101. e.g. Sondershausen:Kahlke, H. 'Ein Graberfeld mit Bandkeramik von Sondershausen in Thuringen', Neue Ausgrabungenin Deutschland,Berlin (1958),45-53. 102. Pavuk, J., 'NeolithischesGraberfeld in Nitra', Acta VIle Congres ISPP, Prague(1966),1-11. 103. Chronologicalclassificationsof the Linear Pottery culture have generally beenbasedon researchin one particularregion. W. Czechoslovakia(Bohemia): Neustupny,E., 'K relativni chronologii volutove keramiky', Arch. Rozh., VIII: 3 (1956), 386-407,461-2; Soudsky,B., 'K methodicetrident volutove keramiky', Pam. Arch., XLV (1954), 75-105; id., op. cit. (1956); id. (1965); Stocky, A., Pravlk Zeml Geske,I, Prague(1926). C. Czechoslovakia (Moravia): Tichy, R. (1961); id., 'Osidleni s volutovou keramikouna Morave', Pam. Arch., LIII (1962), 245-302.S.W. Slovakia/N.W.Hungary: Pavuk, J., 'Gliederungder Volutenkeramikin der Siowakei', Stud. Zvesti,

144

Hunters, Fishersand Farmersof EasternEurope

9, Nitra (1962), 5-20; id. (1969). S.E. Slovakia/N.E.Hungary: Lichardus. J. (1964); id., '0 periodyzacji i chronologii kultury bukowogorskiej',Acta Arch. Carp., V (1963), 5-25; id. (1969); id. (in press).E. Hungary: Kalicz, N., & Makkay, J. (1966); Kalicz, N. (1970); Korek, J., 'Verbreitung der LinearkeramischenKuItur auf dem Alf01d', A Mora F. Muz. Evk. (1960), 19-52. S.E. Germany (Saxony/Thuringia): Hoffman, E. Die Kultur der Bandkeramikin Sachsen,Berlin (1963); Quitta, H., 'Die Bandkeramische KuItur', Ausgrabungenund Funde, I1I: 4-5 (1958), 173-7; id. (1960). W. Germany/Netherlands: Modderman,P., & Waterbolk,H. (1958-9),173-83. Thesevarious chronologicalschemeshave been summarisedin Tringham, R. (1966), Pt. III. 104. Pavuk, J. (1969); Tichy, R., op. cit. (1962); Novotny, B., Slovenskov Mladsej DoM Kamennej,Bratislava(1958); Draveczky,B., 'NeureAngaben zur Verbreitungder Linearbandkeramikin Ungarn', Acta Ant. et Arch., X (1966),27-33;Felgenhauer,F., op. cit. (1960); Kutzian, I. (1966a);Dimitrijevic, S. (1969). 105. Stekla, M., 'Ti'ideni vypichane keramiky', Arch. Rozh., XI: 2 (1959), 207-57. 106. Venc\, S\., 'Studie 0 Sareckemtypu', Sbornik N.M. Praha, XV: 3 (1961), 93-140. 107. Bohm, J., Domica,jeskynlneolitickehoClovlka, Prague(1933); Lichardus,J., op. cit. (1963); id. (1964); id. (1969); id., JaskynaDomica, Bratislava(1968); Tompa, F. (1929). 108. Generaldiscussionof obsidianasan indicatorof tradeandexchange:Dixon, J., Cann, J., & Renfrew, C. (1968); Renfrew, C. (1970c). More specifically C. Europeanobsidian: Barta, J., 'Zur Problematik der Hohlensiedlungen in der SlowakischenKarpaten',Acta Arch. Carp., II (1960),1-39;Gabori, N., 'Quelquesproblemesdu Commercede l'obsidienneal'ageprehistorique', Arch. Ert., 77 (1950),50-3; Kostrzewski,J., 'Obsidianimplementsin Poland', Man, XXX (1939); Ku\czycka, A., & Kozlowski, J., 'Pierwszematerialy kultury Bukowogorskiej na Polnoc od Karpat', Acta Arch. Carp., II, 1-2 (1960),41-54. 109. e.g. Michalovce,S.E. Slovakia: Lichardus,J. (1971); Siska,S., & Vizdal, J., 'Zachrannyvyskum na neolitickom sidlisku v Michalovciach',Arch. Rozh., XIII: 6 (1961), 871-4. neolitickom (Beria), N.W. Rumania: Rumania: E., 'K voprosu 0 periodizatsii neoliticeskikh kulturna severo-zapadeRumunskoi Narodnoi Republiki', Dacia, VII (1963),477-83;PaunescuAI., 'PereZitki Tardenuazkoikulturi v drevnei neolite v Paunescu Dacia, VII (1963), 467-75. For N. E. Hungarian sites: Kalicz, N., & Makkay, J. (1966); Kalicz, N. (1970). 110. Lichardus,J. (1964); id. (1971). 111. e.g. Barca III: Hajek, L., 'Nova skupinapaskovekeramiky na vychodnim Slovensku',Arch. Rozh.,IX: 1 (1957),3-6,33-6. 112. Kalicz, N., & Makkay,J. (1966); Kalicz, N. (1970);Korek, J., op. cit. (1960); Tompa, F. (1929). 113. e.g. Michalovce: Siska, S., & Vizdal, J., op. cit. (1961); Satoraljaujhely: Tompa, F., op. cit. (1929); Lichardus,J. (1971). 114. Banner,J. (1942); id., 'La troisiemeperiodedes fouilles au Kokenydomb', Arch. Ert., 78 (1951), 27-36; id. (1960); Banner, J., & Balint, A., 'Die prahistorischeAnsiedlung in SzakalhAt', Dolgozatok Szeged,XI (1935), 76-96; Gazdapusztai,G. (1962); Kalicz, N., & Makkay, J. (1966); Kalicz, N. (1970); Korek, J., op. cit. (1960); Kutzian, I. (1966); Trogmayer, 0., 'Ausgrabungauf Tape-Lebo',A Mora F. Muz. Evk., II (1957),19-57. 115. e.g. Oszentivanand Csoka:Kutzian, I. (1966).

The earliestfood-producers

I4S

116. e.g. at Vinca: Garasanin,M., 'Potiskakultura u Banatu',Starinar, I (1950), 19-25. 117. Bakker, J., Vogel, J., & Wislanski, T., 'TRB and other C14 dates from Poland', Helinium, IX (1969), 210; Wislanski, T., 'Sprawozdaniez prac w Strzelcach,pow. Mogilno', Spraw. Arch., V (1959), 31-40; Kulczycka, A., 'Materialy kultury starszejceramikiwzt

-BOIAN

T

SA

MARITSA

-BOIAN

MARITSA

RI

—

A-

P-

rW

AR

F

' S E A

S L AK C

'Novi> tpSNAMENTB

M

MARITSA

MA

VADASTRAT - B O I A N -

ATt

V

P-r W N V-\ A R FrRIPOLYE tzvoaro_ .PRE-CUCUTENI

A

P Lukavrubla-X; - r W ; ONIES- » TEB r KORttS

' E A R L Y BUG] DNIESTER H

10 STARCEVO

~,,~

TORDOS

IIVINCA-

~

22 K E. HUNGARY t LATEST LINEAR POTT

""'LIlA*OLDAiVlAWS-51 /1AM SSRl

Bug-Dniesterneolithic

~

u=

LENGYELI

16 sopor

^13 b BUTMIR

~~

YYUGOSLAVIA U G O S L A V I A

Early neolithic: S.E. Europe(paintedpottery)

UTCJ GRSCS * EARLY . MACEDONIA NEOLIEARLY NEOLITHIC 6000 THIC \N~A N'I\UM~LltAl (NEA NIKOME0EA) 6000-

55~011 500

t5:l B

EL

BBULGARIA U L G A R I A

13 12 SITAGROI I VESELINOVO cfVESFUNOvq

5000 +

5000

4

Y U G O S LA V I A

BADEN-KOSTOLAC 33 OCHRE GRAVES PRE-YAMNO "Mi 35 (MIKHAILOVKAI) 32 BADEN-PECEL

MOLOA • VIAU SSR

LATESTl TRIPOLYEl

MAN M A N II AA

Late neolithic: S.E. and C. Europe(excisedand encrustedware)

4~Ot~--------------------------------------~~~-------------~~~--------~~~~-J

4500i

2 • » * MARIT5A/ ? ™ « ° < KARANOVOY LATERJI

k'~';:YfY

f'1

I A

LATE EZERO kj OCHRE IKABANOVOH!) UoCHRE GRAVES 28 CERNAVOOA GRAVES 28 n 27 28

U L G A R

BffE 3

B

SITASROl SITASROl SITASROl

4 0 0 0 - 1 4 ~r

040001

3500+

3000*

3000I j;1

SITASROl! LAYER I E 24

Z2500+~:i 500 +

BC

NORTH D A T E S , 3BEJCEI

Lab No. and SONe!!

BM 574 (unpublished)

Bin 349 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) GrN 1974 (Re. V (1963) 183)

BIn 777,776(Renfrew,C. (1970c) 302) (Re. VIII (1966) BIn 136,151,142,148,143,137,150,147 34) BIn 335,336,598,334,333,602,599 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) GrN 1986 (Re. V (1963) 184) BIn 639,657,638,656,637 (Re. XII:2 (1970» BIn 346 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) Bin 436 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) GrN 1537 (Re. V (1963) 184) Bin 348 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) GrN 1542(Re. V (1963) 185)

Le 7 (unpublished)

Bin 774 (Renfrew,C. (l970c) 302) Bin 149,154,131,139,135,138,141,144,134,145,146 (Re. VIII (1966) 35) Bin 337 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) Bin 425 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) BIn 125 (Re. VIII (1966) 38) BIn 332,605,344,603,604,607,624,345,606,343,608 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) GrN 3025,3028(Re. VI (1964) 355) GrN 1987 (Re. V (1963) 185) GrN 1990,1989(Re. V (1963) 185) Mo 417 (Re. X:2 (1968) 454) GrN 1985 (Re. V (1963) 85) Bin 590 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400)

17. Unterpullendorf Lang Enzersdorf 18. Horne Lefantovce(latest Zeliezovcegroup) 19. Bylany 20. Hienheim 21. Zwenkau-Harth

16. Tiszapolgar-Csiiszhalom

Bin 304 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) GrN 4751 (Re. IX (1967) 131) GrN 4832 (Re. IX (1967) 131) H 224-223BIn 66 (Re. VI (1964) 313); K 555 (Re. II (1960) 22)

BIn 513,510,512,509(Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) GrN 1993 (Kutzian I (1963) ) Vri 104a,42(Re. XII:2 (1970) 311) Kn 7 (Neustupny,E. (1969»

c. Late neolithic (c. Europe)

Gumelnita Gumelnita 11. Salcuta Gumelnita 12. Gumelnita 13. Gumelnita 14. NoviyeNoviye 15. PolivanovYar, 3490± 70 B.C.

Bikovo Ezero-Dipsiscamogila Chotnica 10. Cascioarele

8. Sitagroi, layer III 9. Azmak

B. Eneolithic cultures(S.E. Europe)

Divostin (late D 7) 3297± 144 B.C.

3. CascioareIe 4. Harnangia 5. Obre II 6. Bapska 7. VaIal: (phaseD) Vinca (phaseC-D) Bapska(phaseDI) Banjica (phaseC-D) Gornja Tuzla (phase early C)

1. Sitagroi, layer II 2. Azmak

A . Late neolithic cultures(S.E. Europe)

Lab No. and Source Bin 607 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) Bin 585 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) Bin 502 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400)

47. Aspenstedt

39. Homolka 40. Podolie 41. Wahlitz 42. DolauerHeide 43. KmehIen 44. Sarnowo 45. Zlotniki 46. Radziejow Cmiel6w

Ehrenstein

32. Mikhailovka I 33. Hissar 34. Keszthely-Fenekpuszta (Balatongroup) 35. OszentivanVIn 36. Ketegyhaza 37. Postoloprty(late Lengyel-Baalberg) 38. Lautereck Riedschachen

26. Ezero-Dipsiscamogila, layer IV 27. Cernavoda 28. Hamangia 29. Valea Lupului 30. Soroki-Ozero,2990± 105 B.C.; 2842± 116 B.C. Capayevka 31. Mayaki

24. Sitagroi, layer IV 25. Ezero-Dipsiscamogila, layers IX-V

Bin 482 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) GrN 4666 (Re. IX (1967) 130) KN 27 (Re. VIII (1966) 244); Hv 354,353(Re. VI (1964) 251) KN 191,2,BIn 167, H 1749-1201(Re. VIII (1966) 244) Bin 54,70,71(Re. VI (1964) 310) H 125-107,61-148(Science126 (1957) 194) GrN 4065 (Re. IX (1967) 133) BIn 556 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) GrN 433 (Science127 (1958) 135) BIn 64,53, H 209-579(Re. VI (1964) 310) BIn 231 (Re. VIII (1966) 29) GrN 5035 (Helinium IX (1969) 210) M 1847 (Re. XII:l (1970) 178) M 1846,1845(Re. XII:I (1970) 177) GrN 5087,5090,5036,5088, H 566-592(Helinium IX (1969) 210) H 210-271 (Behrehs.Jahressehrift46 Halle (1962) 42)

BIn 609 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400)

Bin 500,50I (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) BIn 476 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400)

BM 495,494(unpublished) Bin 631 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) Bin 629 (Re. XII:2 (1970); Le 645, 2390±65 B.C. (unpublished) BIn 630 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) BIn 350,351 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400)

BIn 427,428,429(Re. XII:2 (1970) 400) Bin 61,62(Re. VI (1964) 314) GrN 1995(Re. V (1963) 185 GrN 1982 (Re. V (1963) 185)

Bin 424,423,524,522,528,523,527,529,724,421,727,422, 726,722,525,526,725 (Re. XII:2 (1970) 400)

BIn 773,782(Renfrew,C. (l970c) 302)

D. Early BronzeAge(S.E. Europe)

22. Aszod-Papaifiildek 23. Letenye Zalavar-Mekenye

This pageintentionally left blank

K AC BL

BLACK

BL

AC

K

25

BL

BL

25

AC

K

25

AT

IC

SE

A

AC

25

BL 25 AC K AC

25

25 25 25 25

BL 25 AC K

BL

K25

25

25

25 25 25

CK

25

25 BLA

25 25 25

25

25

BLACK SEA

25 BLACK SEA

Early neolithic (paintedpottery) cultures of S.E. Europe VIACEDONIAL Early neolithic (early Linear Pottery) cultures of C. Europe: ,EARLY-i east'Hungarian plain NEOLITHIC

5500-1neolithic (early Linear Pottery) cultures of C. Europe: Early Nikomedec). central part Early neolithic (early Linear Pottery) cultures of C. Europe westernpart Middle and late neolithic (black burnishedpottery) cultures of S.E. Europe Late neolithic (excisedware) culturesof S.E. Europe Eneolithic (graphite painted)cultures of S.E. Europe Eneolithic (undecorated)cultures of C. Europe and W. Balkans Eneolithic (black on buff) cultures of E. Balkans Middle neolithic (middle and late Linear Pottery) cultures of C. Europe: transitional.eastHungarianplain Middle neolithic (middle and late Linear Pottery) cultures of C. Europe: Biikk mts Middle neolithic (middle and late Linear P.Jttery)cultures of C. Europe: Pannonianplain (central zone) Middle neolithic (middle and late Linear Pottery) cultures of C. Europe: W. part (Bohemia/Elbe-Saale)

111I11

K

25

CK BLA

BLACK

25 25 RI

25

25

25

AD

25

25

25

25

25

Late neolithic (encrustedpainted ware) cultures of C. Europe

I