Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

NEST-028192

FEPRE

The Formation of Europe: Prehistoric Population Dynamics and the Roots of Socio-Cultural Diversity

SPECIFIC TARGETED RESEARCH PROJECT

Deliverable D15 “Draft of the monograph”

Due date of deliverable: 31 August 2010 Actual submission date: 10 October 2010

Start date of the project: 1 September 2006 Duration: 48 months

Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: ULEIC

Revision: final

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002–2006) Dissemination Level PU Public (after Month 32 of the Project) PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

CHAPTER 1 In constant motion? Recent advances in mathematical modelling and radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithisation of Europe Marc Vander Linden

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Past rhythms

Andrew Sherratt was the architect of grand narratives which moved across and beyond traditional archaeological divisions of time and space, a man who defined rhythms which gave a vibrant resonance to the past. For all its grandeur and brilliance, the forging of this oeuvre remained strongly dependent of robust absolute chronologies. As Childe's vision of the past was intimately linked to a compressed chronology, Sherratt's longue durée was the offspring of the radiocarbon revolution, which provided the needed time-depth for his interpretive imagination to expand and pulsate.

This intricacy of time and conceptual creativity is, amongst many examples, salient in one of his papers on climatic cycles (Sherratt 1997). In this wide-reaching contribution, Sherratt revisits the themes of climatic change and punctuation, and their significance for the advent of early farming and modern humans. He first stresses the necessity to date with precision and accuracy the climatic changes which could have led to episodes of punctuation. Then, true to his well-deserved reputation of being the master of synthesis, Sherratt went on to explore the structural properties of these punctuations in order to parallel evolutionary sequences for the development of sedentary life and farming in various independent centres of invention, especially the Near East and Mesoamerica. While resorting to climate as a kind of deus ex machina may sound simplistic, for Sherratt climate only but initiates the properties of a system:

Farming thus began, metaphorically, with a distinct 'click': it was an event-like phenomenon. Although this major locational and demographic shift was essentially a scaling-up of existing practices, rather than the appearance of completely new forms of behaviour, it nevertheless led to emergent properties not manifested with previous levels of activity. The demographically explosive potential of farming now began to become apparent, accompanied by a marked increase in the pace of cultural change, as populations became 'locked in' to cereal cultivation with its reciprocating cycle of population growth and agricultural intensification (Sherratt 1997, 278).

In his view, the new foraging practices which will lead to agriculture per se are initially a response triggered by a climatic pressure (in this case the Younger Dryas), which are then allowed to expand when climatic conditions become more favourable. This notion of the cycle is not only central from a temporal point of view, but also because it incorporates the sources of its own growing complexity and geographic extension. Once the cycle is initiated, it has a dynamic of its own and is, according to Sherratt, virtually ineluctable. In the first sentence of his conclusion, Sherratt also reminds us that “spatial centricity is the counterpart of temporal punctuation: unusual events take place in unusual settings” (Sherratt 1997, 284). Time and space work in unison: climatic change only had a Promethean impact in the Levant because of its geographical specifics (Sherratt 1997, 284), while the distances between various potential independent centres of innovation highly influence the shape and success of the spreads of competing new systems (Sherratt 1997, fig. 2).

While this particular paper focuses on early farming, it encompasses Sherratt's unique ability to combine elegantly and effortlessly non-deterministic small scale changes and wider, near abstract, historical dynamics. More prosaically, it also provides the seeds for revisiting some long-standing themes in the debate of the Neolithisation of Europe: is the spread of early farming a homogeneous process or a suite of local events? Is there some overarching principle which gives it its historicity or is it a sum of random events arbitrarily unified by archaeological theory? I do not have the pretension to match in any way Andrew Sherratt's visionary take on prehistory. In a more humble way, I wish here to reinvestigate the links between the timing,

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 geography and nature of the introduction of early farming in Europe by comparing some recent mathematical approaches of its chronology. These approaches explicitly work within the same premises of Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza's “wave-of-advance” (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1971), which arguably remain the sole unified model for the spread of the Neolithic in Europe. Through the comparison of these quantitative approaches, I explore the relevance of the notions of cycles, punctuation and centricity, not so much for answering the above questions than to attempt rephrase them in other, more formal, terms.

Hunters, farmers and numbers

Hypotheses on the Neolithisation of Europe heavily rely upon the interpretation of its chronology. Proponents of this long-standing debate tend to position themselves, in a very structuralist way (Sherratt 1997, 274-5), into two opposing camps which adopt diverging views on the pace and nature of the spread of farming and associated practices. The first side would comprise so-called 'externalist' scholars, who defend a continuous spread of farming practices and farmers, of which Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza's 'wave-of-advance' model remains the iconic formulation (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1971, 1984). Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza proceeded by measuring the rate of the spread of early farming in Europe on basis of a selection of radiocarbon dates. Their results showed that the rate of the diffusion from an original point located in Jericho was “remarkably constant over a wide range of time and space, in spite of local variations which regional analysis may reveal” (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1971, 681). In this sense, whether the spread was continuous at the local level or instead proceeded by leap- frogging (van Andels & Runnels 1995) is of secondary interest when compared to the continental impact of the wave. It must however be noted that their selection of data prevented to some extent the identification of potential spatio-temporal variation as, for instance, they explicitly avoided dates from Switzerland because of highly possible delays related to geographical and ecological factors (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1971, 679). For them, this constant and marked rate of diffusion resulted from a demographic explosion causally related to the new productive techniques: “there is some reason for thinking that early farming permitted population growth based on increased food production” as “the possession of domesticated cereals and animals may have encouraged changes in reproductive behaviour leading to an increased net reproductive rate, lasting for some generations until a new plateau of population density consonant with the carrying capacity of the land was reached” (Ammerman & Cavalli- Sforza 1971: 686, 687). The core of this argument can be sketched in the form of a triangle of correspondence linking time, space and scale where the spread of the Neolithic is a continuous/fast phenomenon, occurring on a global scale, and dependent upon the introduction of exogenous (ultimately of Near Eastern origins) elements (figure 1). This triangle eventually delineates a definition of the Neolithic as a homogeneous process, a position somewhat unclear in Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza's initial work (Ammermann & Cavalli-Sforza 1971, 684) and overemphasised in a perverse way by some of their followers (Renfrew 1987, Bellwood 2005). Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza later correlated their archaeological constant rate of diffusion to the inversely decreasing proportion of certain genes in modern-day Near Eastern and European populations (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1984). They opened so many avenues for everlasting controversies on the composition of the European genetic pool that are still not resolved and that will not be discussed further here (e.g. Richards 2003, Crubézy et al . 2005).

Members of the second group ― the 'indigenist' scholars (Ammerman 1989) ― would question all the previous points, challenging the image of farmers seemingly expanding with their fields across the European continent: "The trouble is, however, that it is impossible to offer an alternative model anywhere near as neat and tidy as one that still has at its heart the image of the march of Snow White's Seven Dwarves hey-ho!ing (in proto-Indo-European?) across 25

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Europe” (Barker 1988, 448). One of the key arguments rests in the existence of marked temporal delays in the diffusion of the Neolithic from one region to the next (e.g. Scandinavia, British Isles and the Low Countries: Rowley-Conwy 2004, Louwe Kooijmans 2005), which constitute the most substantial departures from Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza's constant rate of diffusion. 'Indigenist' scholars do not deny either the exogenous character of both domesticated cereals and animals, nor that the earliest Neolithic was accompanied by the movement of few new farmers. But this restricted migration is, in their view, a mere epiphenomenon within a larger process otherwise dominated by local hunter-gatherer communities incorporating, appropriating and diffusing the new productive techniques (Alexander 1978, Zvelebil & Rowley-Conwy 1986). Another triangle of correspondence, opposed point by point to the former one, thus defines this vision of the Neolithisation of Europe. This process, more than an event, is a slow uneven suite of local situations rooted in the indigenous populations. As a result, the triangle this time delineates an heterogeneous phenomenon (figure 2).

The apparent ease and widespread application of the externalist vs. indigenist distinction is only matched its illusory explanatory power. These contrasted caricatures of two camps do not adequately mirror the original writings of each of the proponents, but rather reflect the views that each camp has of the other one. Since the discussion involves some of the heavy-weights of our discipline, these untruthful external views now tend to dominate much of the literature, leading to an even more oppositional and counter-productive status quo (see however Zvelebil & Lillie's attempt to show how both visions can co-exist in a single framework: Zvelebil & Lillie 2000). More than ever, the time has now come to leave behind us these oppositional views and the absurd ideal-type mobile hunters-foragers vs . sedentary farmers perspective that they convey (Miracle & Robb 2007, Pluciennik 2008; see also from a German point of view Gronenborn 2007a).

An alternative model has recently been put forward by the French archaeologist Jean Guilaine (Guilaine 2003, Guilaine & Manen 2007, Berger & Guilaine in press; see also Mazurié de Kéroualin 2003, Rasse 2008). While Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza's wave of advance covers the entire European sub-continent, and the 'indigenist' most compelling versions stress peripheral situations, Guilaine's modèle arythmique ('arrhythmic model') is geographically limited to the Mediterranean (Greek sequence, Impressed Ware and Cardial complexes) and central European evidence (Star čevo-Körös-Cri ş and LBK cultures). Guilaine contrasts the chronological and spatial unevenness of the spread of early farming in these two areas and recognises several zones where the Neolithic front stopped for several centuries. He suggests that each of these stops was accompanied by profound mutations, so that when the spread resumed, its structure was profoundly altered. Despite evident proximity with the 'indigenist' standpoint, this model contrasts with the latter. As only local-scale explanations are sought (but see Berger & Guilaine in press), Guilaine does not rely on any overarching principle ( i.e. the wave of advance or its denial). At the global scale, the modèle arythmique provides an empirically informed attempt at describing the spatio-temporal structure of the spread. Guilaine's proposition however does not go without difficulty. It is noteworthy that the same interval of 4 to 5 centuries sometimes leads to the recognition of a stop ( e.g. Greece vs . Adriatic Sea; Körös vs . LBK), and sometimes not ( e.g. Greece vs . central Balkans;. French Mediterranean coastline vs . inland area). Consequently, the various passages of Neolithisation from one area of mutation to the next incorporates different speeds, as well as surfaces (Rasse 2008). Obviously, Guilaine's model lies in an impressive knowledge of the culture-history of the early Neolithic, but falls short from a more quantitative point of view. Notwithstanding this last limitation, the modèle arythmique constitutes a radical departure and, to date, the most potent alternative to the externalist vs . indigenist opposition.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Too precise?

The former section illustrated how much interpretative models of the spread of the Neolithic are tributary to readings of its temporal structure. Before further examination of this last point, let us briefly consider a recent development in the field of radiocarbon chronology.

The assessment of any radiocarbon chronology rests upon the precision and accuracy of the dates (Taylor 1997). While accuracy is mostly dealt with through the selection of appropriate samples, especially short-lived ones, it is fair to say that, for later prehistoric periods, precision has attracted much of the attention over the last few years. This quest for precision has recently gained a promising new tool in the form of Bayesian statistics. As the methodology of this technique has been discussed in depth in several papers ( e.g. Bayliss et al . 2007; see also Whittle this volume), I will only note here that its core principle is to introduce an external source of information ('prior information') in the evaluation of the chronology as a means to constrain the probabilistic calculation. In the case of radiocarbon calibration, this 'prior information' most often corresponds to stratigraphic relationships between the samples selected for 14C dating, thus coupling relative and absolute chronologies. The selection of this prior information is therefore crucial as it will predetermine the probabilistic results.

As with any new technique, the application of Bayesian statistics to radiocarbon dating has proved to be as exciting as it is open to criticisms. One of the difficulties associated with this technique lies in the impact of the calibration curve. As stressed by Alex Bayliss and colleagues: “it is a detailed knowledge of the calibration curve, rather than the precision of the measurements on which it is based, which is of practical importance for archaeological implications” (Bayliss et al . 2007a: 18). One of the objectives of the introduction of Bayesian statistics in radiocarbon dating is to provide a quantitative alternative to the visual inspection of the curve (Whittle et al . 2008). Yet, as subjective as the last technique indeed is, wiggles on the curve remain a fundamental feature of the radiocarbon method. For instance, in a recent paper, Bayliss and colleagues discuss the new excavation and 14C dates for the monumental mound of Silbury Hill, and put forward a Bayesian-informed treatment of this evidence (Bayliss et al . 2007b). Their favoured model suggests a date for the primary mound of 2335-2235 BC (1 sigma) or 2415-2190 BC (2 sigmas). The interval at one sigma actually closely corresponds to a wiggle in the calibration curve, which is difficult for this particular period, with this relationship being less evident at two intervals. This partial coincidence suggests that the precise results of the Bayesian approach could, in areas where the calibration curve is notoriously difficult, be to some extent related to the fact that technique incidentally targets specific wiggles, so that precision could be gained at the expense of accuracy (see also Whittle et al . 2008, 69 note 2). It must be noted that this limit is not intrinsic to the use of Bayesian statistics but relates also to the radiocarbon method. Therefore, it is likely to affect any other statistical treatment of radiocarbon dates (see below).

Because of the importance of the prior information, this kind of Bayesian approach does not seem well suited beyond intra-site approach (see also Sheridan 2008, 62). Unless one compares the results of different sites where Bayesian statistics has been carried out, it remains difficult to see how to deal, in this particular methodological framework, with large-scale processes such as the Neolithisation of Europe. Since it relies on stratigraphy and high-quality information, Bayesian statistics can, so far, only be applied to a restricted number of sites at the continental European scale. Lots of attention has been dedicated to the relationship between the sample and the event to be dated and many scholars have rightly insisted that preference be given to short-lived samples (for the LBK case: Whittle 1990, Jadin 2003). However, when working on the Neolithisation of Europe, such dates are unfortunately somewhat scarce and 27

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 unevenly distributed in time and space (Gkiasta et al . 2003, Bocquet-Appel et al . 2009). While recent and ongoing research programmes help to improve this state of affairs (e.g. Whittle et al . 2002, 2005), one has, for the time being hopefully, to rely upon a mass of older and difficult data in order to try to get a coherent pan-European vision.

Lastly, some advocates of the Bayesian technique stress that it allows the building of chronologies at the so-called generational level, thus closer to time as experienced by past actors (Whittle et al . 2008). Two points should be stressed in response to this. First, the use of the term generation is misleading, as it substitutes a subjective statement to a quantitative value (e.g. 25- 100 years), in obvious contrast to the declared goal of abolishing subjectivity in the evaluation of the radiocarbon calibration curve. Second, if short chronologies are fundamental for the elucidation of events and local sequences, the influence of some factors (e.g. climate, demography, genetics etc) is only perceptible over longer stretches of time. Beyond the quasi obligatory and pedantic reference to Braudel's longue durée , long-term perspectives, and the methods to unravel them, remain more than ever necessary.

The objective of these two points is not to invalidate Bayesian approaches to radiocarbon dating. On the contrary, it is obviously a major breakthrough. However, because of its specific requirements, Bayesian approaches to radiocarbon must co-exist alongside other quantitative methods, such as the ones discussed in the next section.

Models vs. data

If the estimation of the speed and pace of the Neolithisation process are key components of several explanatory models for the spread of the Neolithic in Europe such as reference above, yet the problems are that we do not possess adequate methods and tools to to proceed with these estimations. At what point does the rate of diffusion become slow or fast? How do you differentiate in numerical terms between a continuous and a discontinuous spread? In order to go beyond such subjective evaluations, a quantitative comparative template is required.

Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza's model is based upon the equation of the English statistician and evolutionary biologist Ronald Fisher, who originally coined the expression “wave of advance” (Fisher 1937). In this seminal work, the front of the wave is fuelled by a constant demographic pressure ('logistic growth') and progresses in a completely abstract open environment with no particular direction. From a spatial point of view, the expansion is random. Although this assumption is sound from a formal, theoretical and practical point of view, its limits are evident when dealing with human actors moving in a real landscape. Several recent modelling projects have attempted to bypass these limits by taking into consideration elements of the landscape into their equations (e.g. Davison et al . 2006, Fedotov et al . 2008; see also the review of front propagations by Fort & Pujol 2008). I will here only focus on the mathematical model put forward by Davison and colleagues as it addresses some of these issues while explicitly acknowledging Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza's legacy, in particular the driving role of demography (Davison et al . 2006). Davison and colleagues added three spatial components to Fisher's equation: latitude, altitude and riverways. There is indeed a potential relationship between agriculture and latitude as adaptations are required for plants and animals to cope with colder environments increasing with latitude (see below). Zones higher than 1000m are considered as barriers and/or of no interest. Although recent research suggests that areas of higher altitude were sometimes used at an earlier date than generally acknowledged (e.g. for activities such as grazing, quarrying and: Galop 2005, Martin et al . 2008), they still remain at the margins of the Neolithisation process, as demonstrated by the delay of the introduction of farming practices in the Alpine forelands ( e.g . Andri č 2001, Thiébault 2005). In the

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 mathematical model, mountains thus constitute constraints for the propagation of the wave and have a decelerating effect. Conversely, the new equation also incorporates the potential acceleration related to the use of waterways, being rivers or shorelines. The role of waterways is indeed well-known, be it sea travel in the case of the distribution of both Impressed and Cardial ceramics (e.g. Zilhão 2001, Forenbaher & Miracle 2005, Guilaine & Manen 2007), or very early Neolithic settlement along major rivers in the Hungarian Plain (Whittle et al . 2002, 2005), not to mention Childe's Danube in prehistory (Childe 1929).

Figure 3 represents in the form of isochrones how an ideal spread determined by these limited factors would look. The point of departure (or point 0) is placed in Jericho in order to reproduce Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza's initial simulations. The selection of another spatially close point, more in tune with recent data on the Neolithisation of the Near East (e.g. Verhoeven 2004), could have been chosen but it has been shown that this would have a statistically insignificant\ impact on the general trend (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1971, 680; Pinhasi et al . 2005). It must be recognised that no absolute date is assigned to point 0. This mathematical model does not provide absolute dates for each point along the spread, but well isochrones. These represent the theoretical chronological distance (in this case every 250 years) between different locations. Although the model may seem rather basic, the inclusion of spatial components has a dramatic impact. The separation of the spread in two distinct fronts engulfing both sides of the Alpine Range is well visible, before they merge together westwards. Likewise, the Carpathian Arc acts as a bottleneck, with a fast spread in the corridor along the western shorelines of the Black Sea. The acceleration related to the use of waterways is clearly represented by the inflexion of the isochrones across the Mediterranean Sea and especially along the Rhine-Danube axis. While no other rivers are included here, there are no theoretical reasons not to consider this in subsequent more refined versions of the modelling (Shukurov pers. comm. March 2009). Despite the restricted range of parameters, this work provides a not unrealistic vision of how a spread purely generated by demography would look and thus constitutes a robust model which can be tested against chronometric data.

Having a baseline is a step forward, but this raises the question of what kind of data it can be compared with. The number of 14C dates for the introduction of the Neolithic in Europe has increased in a quasi exponential way over the past three decades. While Clark (1964), Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1971) only had a limited number of dates at their disposal, recent compilations exploit several thousand of dates for hundred of sites more or less evenly distributed across the European sub-continent (Gkiasta et al . 2003, Russell 2004, Pinhasi et al . 2005, Bocquet-Appel et al . 2009). Because of the geographical and chronological range covered and the generalisation of radiocarbon dating, it has become increasingly challenging to assemble a coherent and comprehensive set of 14C dates for the Neolithisation of Europe (see Gkiasta et al . 2003, and the critical comments in Crombé & Van Strydonck 2004), a situation which is not eased by the dearth of systematic published repositories of 14C dates. From this point of view, the Oxford Laboratory and Radiocarbon online portals are welcome exceptions, as are some regional-oriented databases (e.g. Instituto Portuguese de Arqueologia, IPCTE, RADON,..: see references in Bocquet-Appel et al . 2009) and publications (e.g. western Mediterranean basin: Zilhão 2001, Manen & Sabatier 2003; Adriatic basin: Forenbaher & Miracle 2005; north-eastern Europe: Dolukhanov & Shukurov 2004; British Isles: Brown 2007, Sheridan 2007). More crucially, there is the problem of how to deal with such extensive datasets, not the least because of the considerably variable quality of the information from one region to the next. The combination of a global pan-European scale with an approach country by country as suggested by Gkiasta et al . (2003) constituted a first attempt, although perhaps was not sensitive enough to ecological differences (Crombé & Van Strydonck 2004).

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

The most recent attempt to date was conducted by Bocquet-Appel and colleagues on basis of 3027 dates from 940 sites (Bocquet-Appel et al . 2009). Using the oldest available dates for each site, Bocquet-Appel and colleagues applied a geostatistical technique called kriging in order to evaluate the speed and pace of the Neolithisation of Europe (figure 4). To briefly sum up the main aspects of the technique , the entire European continent is subdivided into grid squares, with all dates within each square forming a distribution regardless of the number of sites and dates in the square. The average of the two oldest dates is taken as an estimate for the earliest occurrence of farming in this particular square (for further precision see Bocquet-Appel et al . 2009). In addition, the number of dated sites – considered as a random uniform sample of the real number of sites and hence accurate at the European scale – is taken into consideration in order to evaluate potential regional variation. The advantages of this formal geostatistical method are thus two-fold: not only are the resulting isochrones based on both speed and surface (see Rasse 2008), but it also allows 'centres of renewed expansion' to be determined. These centres “cover the surface area of the continuum of 14C dates [and] appear as isolated mounts or plateaux of dates that are earlier then those surrounding them, but connected to one or two earlier source dates” (Bocquet-Appel et al . 2009, 811). The resulting figures show the chronology of the spread across Europe and the structure of this spread, with an alternation of rapid spreads and periods of stasis (figure 5).

Before comparing these results with the baseline provided by the previously discussed mathematical modelling, it is necessary to consider briefly the potential blurring effects of the radiocarbon calibration curve. In related research, Aurenche and collaborators have highlighted several crucial uncertainties in the chronological framework for the Neolithisation of the Near East (Aurenche et al. 2001). For instance, the plateau covering the timespan between 8200 and 7600 BC corresponds to the full expansion of the Neolithic way of life in the Middle East, so that the exact chronology remains out of reach. Likewise, the presence of two other plateaus – respectively between 7400 and 7200 BC, and 7000 and 6700 BC – partly explains the difficulties in pinpointing with precision the early history of the first ceramic styles in the same region (Aurenche et al . 2001). In the European case as considered by Bocquet-Appel et al. , one may wonder if some of the aforementioned centres of expansion are actually the by-product of artificial concentrations associated with plateaus in the radiocarbon calibration curve. The presence of a small plateau corresponding to the last two centuries of the 6 th millennium BC indeed partially coincides with the isochrones associated with centres 3 and 4 (the western extension of the LBK in central Europe), and centres 5 and 6 (the Cardial complex contexts in the western Mediterranean basin). The geographical distance separating these two couples of centres and the fact that they constitute areas of higher density than the neighbouring areas assures their general validity. Because of the chronological uncertainty and of their cultural proximity, it is perhaps more cautious to join in two larger groups both centres 3 and 4 on one side, and centres 4 and 5 on the other side. Nevertheless, these limited modifications do not amend the general vision of the spread of the Neolithic in Europe as a non-regular process.

The results of the kriging interpolation present both similarities and differences with the expectations of the mathematical modelling devised by Davison and colleagues (2006; figure 4). On the continental scale, the East-West gradient can be observed, as is the acceleration along the Danube-Rhine axis. This last process corresponds in archaeological terms to the LBK culture. The similarity of its chronology with the mathematical modelling suggests that the speed of the LBK progress is perhaps not as impressive as it may look at first sight. Indeed, it seems to be a partially natural phenomenon which merely results of the privileged use of the Danube-Rhine corridor. Conversely, the accelerating effect of sea travel was underestimated by Davison et al ., as shown by the arrival of early farming in the Western Mediterranean basin earlier than expected, whilst their estimate across the northern European plain appears completely 30

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 unrealistic. Davison and colleagues' mathematical modelling was also linear by definition and therefore could not have predicted the unevenness of the spread as revealed by the kriging technique.

These first elements of comparison could be extended in details, or be widened by considering results from other interpolation techniques of the radiocarbon record. Most importantly, it is noteworthy that the kriging interpolation provides a formal and independent confirmation and geographical generalisation of Guilaine's modèle arythmique (Guilaine 2003). What remains to be evaluated therefore now are the factors which could explain the existence of these centres. The next section will briefly discuss a few potential factors – climate, ecology of farming and demography – which could have acted on a global scale, although evidently their effects could differ quite substantially from one region to the next.

Punctuation, centricity and cycle

These findings recall Sherratt's terminology in the introduction, as we are faced here with various centres which are the spatial correlates of as many punctuated events (each advance of the Neolithic front), hence defining a series of cycles. The relationships between the geographical location of these centres and the structure of the associated punctuations and cycles will now be very briefly explored.

In the same vein as Sherratt's paper quoted in the introduction (Sherratt 1997), the first potential factor which comes to mind in order to explain these spatio-temporal patterns is climate (see also Berger 2005, Berger & Guilaine in press). Although in a less dramatic way than during the course of the Pleistocene, the Holocene climate is indeed somewhat variable (Mayewski et al. 2004). Far from any deterministic scenario causally relating any climate change to dramatic social and/or cultural upheaval, the role of climate should not however be under-evaluated, especially given the growing anthropic pressure on ecological niches (e.g. for a later period see Pétrequin et al . 1998).

A major climatic oscillation occurred at 6200 BC (the so-called 8.2 Kyr cal BP event), and is identified as a short cold and arid period leading to changes in hydrological regimes (Alley et al . 1997, Magny et al . 2003, Alley & Agustsdottir 2005). The impact of this arid episode on the archaeological record, especially in the Mediterranean zone, has been explored in several papers (most recently Weninger et al . 2006, González-Sampériz et al . 2009, Berger & Guilaine in press). It has been suggested that the recurrent lack of Mesolithic sites across several Mediterranean areas at this time could be related to this climatic degradation. For instance, González-Sampériz and collaborators suggested that human Mesolithic groups were forced to leave the central Ebro Basin because of the environmental crisis generated by the growing aridity and thus retreated to more favourable zones, with the consequence that the Mesolithic archaeological record is continuous. In their scenario, the recolonisation of this area is linked to the later Neolithisation process (González-Sampériz et al . 2009). Likewise, the 6200 BC event could have a larger impact on the Mesolithic settlement pattern across the Mediterranean basin, although the general absence of sites could be mitigated by taphonomic factors (see discussion in Berger and Guilaine in press). This climatic event could also have had a direct influence on the progress of Neolithisation in south-eastern Europe. Weninger and colleagues correlated the depletion of Neolithic sites in the Levant and Anatolia with this climatic degradation, suggesting that the growing aridity triggered the movement of farmers towards southeastern Europe (Weninger et al . 2006). Indeed, this area constituted indeed a buffer zone between, on one hand, the hyper-aridity of the Near East and, on the other hand, the wetter climate of northernly latitudes (Berger & Guilaine in press). While Weninger and collaborators unrealistically deny the

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 existence of a pre-6200 BC Neolithic in south-eastern Europe by stressing the importance of the “old wood” effect for all old 14C dates, the available evidence rather suggests that the Neolithisation process was already well established in this area before the climatic pejoration (see discussion and references in Berger & Guilaine in press). It is perhaps possible to suggest an alternative hypothetical scenario, wherein the influx of Near Eastern migrants, mixing with the already present farmers, would increase the demographic pressure into this limited buffer zone, thus setting the causes for the subsequent expansion further north as soon as the climatic conditions were more favourable.

Other less marked – and thus less studied – climatic oscillations occur throughout the Holocene and present a range of potential effects, both on the taphonomy and the cycles of expansion of the Neolithic. Berger (2005) has pointed out for instance that the relative climatic instability during the second half of the 6 th mill BC and could be a major factor for explaining the geographic patterning of both Cardial (centres 5 and 6) and LBK (centres 3 and 4; see also Gronenborn 2007b). Likewise, Bonsall et al . (2002) have suggested that a dryer climate towards the very end of the 5 th mill. BC led to a change in the pedological map of the British Isles, providing new zones of potential interest for early farming, especially in Scotland. However, their scenario only points out the conditions of possibilities for the expansion of farming to the British Isles, but does not say anything about the underlying human motivations of this process.

Similarly, several scholars have suggested that the spread of the Neolithic in Europe could have been affected by the ecological conditions of early farming. In this hypothesis, the differential rates for the spread of agriculture in Europe would be function of the need for domesticates to adapt to the new environments encountered in Europe (e.g. cold tolerance, photoperiod, vernalization: Halstead 1989, Bogucki 1996). Over the past few years, the publication of an extensive database of the palaeobotanical record throughout Europe (Conolly & Shennan 2008) and the associated papers have placed crop assemblages at the core of the discussion on the modalities of the spread of the Neolithic from the Near East to Europe (Colledge et al . 2004, 2005, Coward et al . 2008, Conolly et al . 2008). This remarkably coherent set of studies has, in my opinion, led to two major advances. Firstly, not only have they demonstrated the existence of crop variability within the earliest European Neolithic, but also that this variability presents a given spatial structure as the largest drop in crop variability occurred between the Near East and south-eastern Europe (Colledge et al . 2004, 2005; see also the phylogenetic analysis on the continental vs. Mediterranean differences by Coward et al . 2008). For Colledge and collaborators, this pattern mostly results of the transport of crop packages from one area to the other as part of different migratory trajectories (Colledge et al . 2004, 2005). Secondly, their work tends to minimise the potential explanatory role of environmental pressure. For instance, the preference for glume wheats over free-threshing species within the LBK could be well explained by the fact that these are more suited for storage in wetter conditions, although they are less tolerant to temperate climate (see discussion in Colledge et al . 2005, 149-50). Their success rather seems to be related to their inclusion in the conservative transmission system of the LBK culture, well exemplified by the rest of material culture (Colledge et al . 2005, Conolly et al . 2008).

Another recent study exemplifies the difficulties and dangers of assuming a direct relationship between crop variability and environment. Genetic analysis undertaken on historical landraces of barley shows the differential distribution of mutant allele related to photoperiod (Lister et al . 2009). This allele has an impact on the regulation of flowering, which is a key adaptive trait for plants in relation to the length of the growing season. The map provided by Lister et al . (2009, figure 2) shows a straightforward north-south difference in the distribution of this gene. Although it is tempting to link this geographical patterning to an adaptive process 32

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 occurring in the course of the spread of the European Neolithic, Lister and collaborators alternatively point out that this difference is most likely the by-product of more recent events affecting the sampled landraces ( e.g . the introduction of new crops at beginning of 20 th century and the parallel extension of modern transport and communication networks: Lister et al . 2009). To my knowledge, there is no equivalent pan-European review of the archaeozoological record. In this context, the work done by Balasse and Tresset on sheep and cattle in northern Britain, which also points out the difficulty to disentangle ecological and cultural constraints in the management of herds, should be mentioned (Balasse & Tresset 2007).

The last global factor to be discussed here is demography. The augmentation of the demographic pressure related to the change of subsistence economy was, after all, central to Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza's early work on radiocarbon evidence and subsequent research on the distribution of modern-day genes (Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1971, 1984). The crux of the argument is whether or not this demographic pressure can be identified in the archaeological, and in particular bioanthropological, record. During the 1980's and 1990's, palaeodemography gradually fell out of fashion because of several methodological reasons, related among others to the systematic and uncontrolled bias in the selection of the dead buried in graves (Bocquet-Appel & Masset 1982, 1996). Yet, one of the architects of these methodological cautionary tales has recently reopened the palaeodemographic file. In several recent contributions, Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel has identified a recurrent signal in the proportion of immature individuals (augmentation of 20-30%) in cemeteries on both European and American continents (Bocquet- Appel 2002, 2005, Bocquet-Appel & Dubouloz 2004, Bocquet-Appel & Naji 2006; see also Bocquet-Appel 2008 and contributions in Bocquet-Appel & Bar-Yosef 2008). This change in proportion reveals an increase of the birth rate and is considered as the expression of a Neolithic Demographic Transition, or NDT. The statistical tour de force of this study resides in the fact that it collates several sites according to their relative chronological distance with the introduction of farming. While the size of known archaeological cemeteries prevents testing the hypothesis of a demographic transition on a local scale, this procedure allows not only the testing of the demographic hypothesis on secure statistical grounds, but also independently of the geography, thus eventually reinforcing the validity of the result. Most importantly, this work stresses the fact that demography is not a sudden catastrophic event but a process with a given tempo - the NDT is proposed to have occurred within a timespan of 500 to 700 years after the introduction of farming. This last point is of crucial importance as it then becomes possible to re- evaluate the global impact of the NDT on a more regional basis: there was no global demographic pump, but, in accordance with the radiocarbon dates as discussed above, a series of centres of (demographic) expansion, subject to the same dynamics at different absolute points in time. In this scenario, the NDT sets the possibilities for a geographically more restricted spread, likely to stop either when the effects of the NDT are over or – in a non-exclusive way – when the front is subject to some disruptive factors, such as the climatic oscillations previously mentioned. Once the phase of expansion is over and before the NDT resumes at the new frontier, countless social and cultural mechanisms are likely to intervene (including interaction with the remaining foraging populations), which will shape the local 'Neolithic cultures'. What remains to be explored therefore is the influence of these changes on the shape and historical dynamics of the next phase of spread. Unsurprisingly, we have now made a full circle, not only into the cycle of expansion of the Neolithic spread, but also from an interpretative point of view as this scenario shares several key elements with Guilaine's modèle arythmique (Guilaine 2003).

In constant motion?

The heavy reliance on Ammermann & Cavalli-Sforza's work will not appeal to many scholars as it is indeed fortunately not anymore at the cutting-edge of theoretical fashion. This emphasis is 33

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 not related to any personal favour but to the mere fact that it remains not only a key component of the current – somewhat flawed – two-sided debate on Neolithisation, but also one of the very few models which could be tested through mathematical approaches. In a way, despite the evident differences in theoretical and methodological agendas, this quantitative bias in favour of the 'wave-of-advance' model echoes the call for robust chronologies made by advocates for the widespread application of Bayesian approach to radiocarbon. There is indeed a common policy in creating robust chronological frameworks which then provide more secure ground for interpretation.

In this perspective, recent mathematical modellings and geostatistical interpolation of the 14C dates allow to demonstrate the old suggestion that the spread of the Neolithic in Europe is not a monolithic process. However, this result does not constitute either the final blow to the indigenist point of view, nor the triumph of the externalist scholars. There is a definitive global spatio-temporal structure to the spread which cannot be denied. None of the three factors considered here (climate, ecology of farming, demography) can account for this entire coherence. However, the occasional correlation between major climatic degradations and the timing of some episodes of the European Neolithisation suggests a complex non-deterministic interplay between human and climatic cycles. The latter acted either as a slowing or accelerating factor and, alongside the cyclicity inherent to the Neolithic Demographic Transition, thus influenced the speed and pace of the introduction of the Neolithic across Europe.

The Neolithisation of Europe is thus by definition a fragmented AND a coherent process, endlessly oscillating between the global and the local . Surely, in the course of this contribution, the pendulum has tended here too much towards the first end of the spectrum, somewhat neglecting the examination of local case-studies. But, besides more local research, what is truly needed now are ways and attempts at integrating various scales of evidence. Not despite but because of the over-growing amount of archaeological data, we more than ever need to think the fragmented in a coherent way, this is the extremely challenging intellectual exercise that Andrew Sherratt was, and will remain for a long time, one of the indisputable masters.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the “Formation of Europe – prehistoric population dynamics and the roots of socio-cultural diversity” program of the European Commission (NEST). Comments and constant support by members of this project (especially P. Dolukhanov, A. Shukurov, J. Fort and J.-P. Bocquet-Appel) made the realisation of this paper possible. Many thanks to Ben Roberts for editing and improving the language and the general argument. I remain responsible of course for all mistakes and/or omissions.

References Alexander, J. 1978. Frontier studies and the earliest farmers in Europe. In D. Green, C. Haselgrove, & M. Spriggs (eds) Social organisation and settlement , 13-29. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports International Series 47. Alley, R. B. & Agustsdottir, A. M. 2005. The 8k event: cause and consequences of a major Holocene abrupt climate change. Quaternary Science Reviews 24, 1123-1149. Alley, R. B., Mayewsky, P. A., Sowers, T., Stuiver, M., Taylor, K. C. & Clark, P. U., 1997. Holocene climatic instability: a prominent widespread event 8200 yr ago. Geology 25, 483-486. Ammerman, A. J. 1989. On the Neolithic transition in Europe: a comment on Zvelebil & Zvelebil (1988). Antiquity 62, 162-165. 34

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Ammerman, A. J. & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. 1971. Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in Europe. Man N.S. 6 (4), 674, 688. Ammerman, A. J. & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. 1984. The Neolithic transition and the genetics of population in Europe. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Andri č, M. 2001. The Holocene vegetation dynamics and the formation of the Neolithic and present-day Slovenian landscape. Documenta Praehistorica XXVIII, 133-175. Balasse M. & Tresset A., 2007. Environmental constraints on the reproductive activity of domestic sheep and cattle: what latitude for the herder? Anthropozoologica 42 (2), 71-88. Barker, G. 1988. CA review of Colin Renfrew's Archaeology and Language. Current Anthropology 29 (3), 448-449. Bayliss, A., Bronk Ramsey C., van der Plicht, J. & Whittle, A. 2007a. Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17 (1, suppl.), 1-28. Bayliss, A., McAvoy, F. & Whittle, A. 2007b. The world recreated: redating Silbury Hill and its monumental context. Antiquity 81, 26-53. Bellwood, P. 2005. First farmers. The origins of agricultural societies. Oxford, Blackwell. Berger, J.-F. 2005. Sédiments, dynamique du peuplement et climat au Néolithiquen ancien. In J. Guilaine (dir.) Populations néolithiques et environnements. Séminaire du Collège de France , 155-212. Paris, Errance. Berger, J.-F. & Guilaine, J. in press. The 8200 calBP abrupt environmental change and the Neolithic transition: a Mediterranean perspective. Quaternary International Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. 2002. Paleoanthropological traces of a Neolithic demographic transition. Current Anthropology 43, 638-650. Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. 2005. La transition démographique néolithique. In J. Guilaine (dir.) Populations néolithiques et environnements. Séminaire du Collège de France , 11-20. Paris, Errance. Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. 2008. La paléodémographie. 99,99 % de l'histoire démographique des hommes ou la démographie de la Préhistoire. Paris, Errance. Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. & Bar-Yosef, O. (eds) The Neolithic demographic transition and its consequences. New-York, Springer. Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. & Dubouloz, J. 2004. Expected palaeoanthropological and archaeological signal from a Neolithic demographic transition om a worldwide scale. Documenta Praehistorica XXXI, 25-33. Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. & Masset, C. 1982. Farewell to paleodemography. Journal of Human Evolution 11, 321-333. Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. & Masset, C. 1996. Paleodemography: expectancy and false hope. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 99, 571-583. Bocquet-Appel, J.-P. & Naji, S. 2006. Testing the hypothesis of a worldwide neolithic demographic transition. Corroboration from American cemeteries (with comments). Current Anthropology 47 (2), 341-365. Bocquet-Appel, J.-P., Naji, S., Vander Linden, M. & Kozlowski, J. 2009. Detection of diffusion and contact zones of early farming in Europe from the space-time distribution of 14C dates. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 807-820. Bogucki, P. 1996. The spread of early farming in Europe. American Scientist , 84, 242-253. Bonsall, C., Macklin, M. G., Anderson, D. E. & Payton, R. W. 2002. Climate change and the adoption of agriculture in north-west Europe. European Journal of Archaeology 5 (1), 9- 23. Brown, A. 2007. Dating the onset of cereal cultivation in Britain and Ireland: the evidence from charred cereal grains. Antiquity 81, 1042-1052. Childe, V. G. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Clark, J. G. D. 1965. Radiocarbon dating and the spread of farming economy. Antiquity 39, 45- 48. Colledge, S., Conolly, J. & Shennan, S. 2004. Archaeobotanical evidence for the spread of farming in the Eastern Mediterranean (with comments). Current Anthropology 45 (supplement), 35-58. Colledge, S., Conolly, J. & Shennan, S. 2005. The evolution of Neolithic farming from SW Asian origins to NW European limits. European Journal of Archaeology 8 (2), 137-156. Conolly, J., Colledge, S. & Shennan, S. 2008. Founder effect, drift, and adaptive change in domestic crop use in early Neolithic Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2797-2804. Coward, F., Shennan, S., Colledge, S., Conolly, J. & Collard, M. 2008. The spread of Neolithic plant economies from the Near East to northwest Europe: a phylogenetic analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 42-56. Crombé, P. & Van Strydonck, M. 2004. The Neolithic transition and European population history. Antiquity 78, 708-710. Crubézy, E., Ludes, B. & Guilaine, J. 2005. Génétique et peuplements néolithiques. In J. Guilaine (dir.) Populations néolithiques et environnements. Séminaire du Collège de France , 43-60. Paris, Errance. Davison, K., Dolukhanov, P., Sarson, G. R. & Shukurov, A. 2006. The role of waterways in the spread of the Neolithic. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 641-652. Dolukhanov, P. & Shukurov, A. 2004. Modelling the Neolithic dispersal in northern Eurasia. Documenta Praehistorica XXXI, 35-47. Fedotov, S., Moss, D. & Campos, D. 2008. Stochastic model for population migration and the growth of human settlements during the Neolithic transition. Physical Review E 78, 026107. Fisher, R. A. 1937. The wave of advance of advantageous genes. Annals of Eugenics 7: 355-69. Forenbaher, S. & Miracle, P. 2005. The spread of farming in the Eastern Adriatic. Antiquity 79, 514-528. Fort, J. & Pujol, T. 2008. Progress in front propagation research. Reports on progress in physics 71 086001 Galop, D. 2005. La conquête de la montagne pyrénéenne au Néolithique. Chronologie, rythmes et transformations des paysages à partir des données polliniques. n J. Guilaine (dir.) Populations néolithiques et environnements. Séminaire du Collège de France , 279-295. Paris, Errance. Gkiasta, M., Russell, T., Shennan, S. & Steele, J. 2003. Neolithic transition in Europe: the radiocarbon record revisited. Antiquity 77, 45-62. Gonzálz-Sampériz, P., Utrilla, P., Mazo, C., Valero-Garcés, B., Sopena, M. C., Morellón, M., Sebastián, M., Moreno, A. & Martínez-Bea, M. 2009. Patterns of human occupation during the early Holocene in the central Ebro basin (NE Spain) in response to the 8.2 ka climatic event. Quaternary Research 71, 121-132. Gronenborn, D. 2007a. Beyond the models: 'Neolithization' in central Europe. In A. Whittle & V. Cummings (eds). Going over: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in north-western Europe , 73-98. London, British Academy. Gronenborn, D. 2007b. Climate change and socio-political crises: some cases from Neolithic Central Europe. In T. Pollard & I. Banks (eds.) War and sacrifice. Studies in the archaeology of conflict , 13-32. Leiden, Brill. Guilaine, J. 2003. De la vague à la tombe. La conquête néolithitique de la Méditerranée. Paris, Seuil. Guilaine, J. & Manen, C. From Mesolithic to Early Neolithic in the western Mediterranean. In A. Whittle & V. Cummings (eds). Going over: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in north-western Europe , 21-51. London, British Academy 36

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Halstead, P. 1989. Like rising damp? An ecological approach to the spread of farming in south east and central Europe. In A. Milles, D. Williams, & N. Gardner (eds) The beginnings of agriculture , 23-53. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports International Series 496. Jadin, I. 2003. Trois petits tours et puis s'en vont... La fin de la présence danubienne en Moyenne Belgique. Liège, E.R.A.U.L. 109. Lister, D. L., Thaw, S., Bower, M. A., Jones, H., Charles, M. P., Jones, G., Smith, L. M. J., Howe, C. J., Brown, T. A. & Jones M. K. 2009. Latitudinal variation in a photoperiod response gene in European barley: insight into the dynamics of agricultural spread from 'historic' specimens. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 1092-1098. Louwe Kooijmans, L. P. 2005. Hunters become farmers. Early Neolithic B and Middle Neolithic A. In L. P. Louwe Kooijmans, P. W. van den Broeke, H. Fokkens & A. L. van Gijn (eds) The prehistory of the Netherlands volume 1 , 249-271. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press. Magny, M., Begeot, C., Guiot, J. & Peyron, O. 2003. Contrasting patterns of hydrological changes in Europe in response to Holocene climate colling phases. Quaternary Science Reviews 22, 1589-1596. Manen, C. & Sabatier, P. 2003. Chronique de la néolithisation en Méditerranée nord-occidentale. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 100 (3), 479-504. Martin, L., Jacomet, S. & Thiébault, S. 2008. Plant economy during the Neolithic in a mountain context: the case of “Le Chenet des Pierres” in the French Alps (Bozel-Savoie, France). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17 (supplement 1), 113-122. Mayewski, P. E., Rohling, J., Stager, W., Karlén, K., Maasch, L., Meeker, E., Meyerson, F., gasse, S., van Kreveld, K., Holmgren, J., Lee-Thorp, G., Rosqvist, F., Rack, M., Staubwasser, R., Schneider, R. & Steig, E. 2004. Holocene climate variability. Quaternary Research 62, 243-255. Mazurié de Keroualin, K. 2003. Genèse et diffusion de l'agriculture en Europe: agriculteurs, chasseurs, pasteurs . Paris, Errance. Miracle, P. T. & Robb J. E. 2007. Beyond 'migration' versus 'acculturation': new models for the spread of agriculture. In A. Whittle & V. Cummings (eds) Going over: the Mesolithic- Neolithic transition in western Europe , 90-113. London, British Academy. Pétrequin, P., Arbogast, R.-M., Bourquin-Mignot, C., Lavieer, C. & Viellet, A. 1998. Demographic growth, environmental changes and technical adaptations: responses of an agricultural community from the 32nd to the 30th centuries BC. World Archaeology 30, 181-192. Pinhasi, R., Fort, J. & Ammerman, A. J. 2005. Tracing the origin and spread of agriculture in Europe. PloS Biology 3, 2220-2228. Pluciennik, M. 2008. Hunter-gatherers to farmers? In A. Jones (ed.) Prehistoric Europe. Theory and practice , 16-34. Oxford, Blackwell. Rasse, M. 2008. La diffusion du Néolithique en Europe (7000-5000 av. J.-C.) et sa représentation cartographique. M@appemonde 90 (2) (available at http://mappemonde. mgm.fr/num18/articles/art08205.pdf accessed 11-03-09) Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and language . London, Jonathan Cape. Richards, M. 2003. The Neolithic invasion of Europe. Annual Review of Anthropology 32, 135- 162. Rowley-Conwy, P. 2004. How the west was lost. A reconsideration of agricultural origins in Britain, Ireland and southern Scandinavia (with comments). Current Anthropology 45 (supplement), 83-113. Russell, T. M. 2004. The spatial analysis of radiocarbon databases. The spread of first farmers in Europe and of the fat-tailed sheep in southern Africa. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports International Series 1294.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Sheridan, A. 2007. From Picardie to Pickering and Pencraig Hill? New information on 'Carinated Bowl Neolithic' in northern Britain. In A. Whittle & . Cummings (eds.). Going over: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in north-western Europe , 441-492. London, British Academy. Sheridan, A. 2008. Towards a fuller, more nuanced narrative of Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain 2500-1500 BC. Bronze Age Review 1, 79-96 (available at www.british museum.org/pdf/BAR1_2008_6_Sheridan_c.pdf accessed 24-03-09) Sherratt, A. 1997. Climatic cycles and behavioural revolutions: the emergence of modern humans and the beginning of farming. Antiquity 71, 271-287. Taylor, R. E. 1997. Radiocarbon dating. In R. E. Taylor & M. J. Aitken (eds.) Chronometric dating in archaeology . 65-96. New-York, Plenum Press. Thiébault, S. 2005. L'homme, la végétation et la montagne au Néolithique. In J. Guilaine (dir.) Populations néolithiques et environnements. Séminaire du Collège de France , 243-257. Paris, Errance. van Andel, T. H. & Runnels, C. N. 1995. The earliest farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69, 481-500. Verhoeven, M. 2004. Beyond boundaries: nature, culture and a holistic approach to domestication in the Levant. Journal of World Prehistory 18 (3), 179-282. Weninger, B., Alram-Stern, E., Bauer, E., Clare, L., Danzeglocke, U., Jöris, C., Kubatzki, C., Rollefson, G., Todorova, H. & van Andel, T. 2006. Climate forcing due to the 8200 cal BP event observed at Early Neolithic sites in the eastern Mediterranean. Quaternary Research 66, 401-420. Whittle, A. 1990. Radiocarbon dating of the Linear pottery culture: the contribution of cerela and bone samples. Antiquity 64, 297-302. Whittle, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Bori ć, D., Pettitt, P., Richards, M.P. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus 25, 63-118. Whittle, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Bori ć, D., Pettitt, P., Richards, M.P. 205. New radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary: omissions and corrections. Antaeus 28, 347-355. Whittle, A., Bayliss, A. & Healy, F. 2008. The timing and tempo of change: examples from the fourth millennium cal. BC in southern England. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18 (1), 65-70. Zilhão. J. 2001. Radiocarbon evidence for maritime pioneer colonization at the origins of farming in west Mediterranean Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98, 14180-14185. Zvelebil, M. & Lillie, M. 2000. Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.) Europe's first farmers , 57-92. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Zvelebil, M. & Rowley-Conwy, P. 1986. Foragers and farmers in Atlantic Europe. In M. Zvelebil (ed.) Hunters in transition. Mesolithic societies of temperate Eurasia and their transition to farming, 67-93. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Figure Captions Figure 1: schematic representation of the 'externalist' vision on the Neolithisation of Europe Figure 2: schematic representation of the 'indigenist' vision on the Neolithisation of Europe Figure 3: mathematical modelling of the spread of the Neolithic in Europe taking into consideration latitude, altitude and acceleration related to the use of waterways. Reprinted from Davison et al. 2006, figure 4, with permission from Elsevier. Figure 4: geostatistical (kriging) interpolation of the radiocarbon evidence for the introduction of early farming in Europe. Reprinted from Bocquet-Appel et al. 2009, figure 5, with permission from Elsevier.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Figure 5: vector map and centres of expansion of the introduction of early farming in Europe. Reprinted from Bocquet-Appel et al. 2009, figure 8, with permission from Elsevier.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

CHAPTER 2 Absolute Chronology of the Neolithic of the Eastern Europe (7000 – 4000BP, 6500–3000 BC)

P. M. Dolukhanov and G. I. Zaitseva

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

INTRODUCTION The radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic of Southern, Central , Western Europe and Scandinavia was created at first time in 1960-s and the main stages of the Neolithisation of this area were defined (J.G.D Clark, 1965, Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, R.Ehrich, ed., Chicago, 1965 and others). The detailed review of the data was published in Russian – one of the authors is the participant of our project (Dolukhanov & Timofeev. 1972). In the last special review (Breunig, 1987) about 1500 dates were used and now their amount enlarged significantly. The data for the Eastern Europe began to appear much later. In 1972, there were published about 40.datings only, in 1996 the authors of the current project had about 390 dates (V.Timofeev and G.Zaitzeva in “Neolithic of Northern Eurasia” (ed. S.Oshibkina, Moscow,1996). Now more than 700 dates of Neolithic sites are collected by the authors in frames of the current project. Even in the mid-1990s, the chronology of Eastern Europe Neolithic was hardly comparable with the well-developed Western one. It depends also on the very special character of the Eastern European Neolithic; at this area the original way of the Neolithisation is retraced. At the Pleistocene period and at the very beginning of Holocene the Europe was settled by the rare population of Upper and Final Paleolithic cultures and then the Early Mesolithic cultures. The populations of this period had been at the comparable stages of the development in cultural and economical spheres all over the European continent. The large cultural provinces were characteristic for this period and many similar elements existed in the material culture in frames of the all area of the continent. The Radiocarbon chronology of the Paleolithic reflects a number of the parallel and partly synchronous changes in the cultural developments, depended on climatic changes and followed them the changes of the natural conditions surrounded the populations of this period. During the Mesolithic period, when the amount of population increased significantly, appeared some changes in the structure of the European cultural space. The formation of the local cultures populated in relatively restricted territories began to be characteristic. At the same time many of numerous peculiarities depended from natural resources which ones very influenced on the industries and economical activities. There are many archeological evidences that the local Mesolithic populations were integrated to a far greater degree than is suggested by the typology of their industries and some other elements of the material culture. The Radiocarbon datings of the concrete Mesolithic sites are of great importance for the creation of the detailed chronology of the period. In the frame of the current Project at first time was summarized the data for the Mesolithic sites of the Eastern Europe. The traits which are characteristic for the new, Neolithic epoch appeared at the boundary of Pleistocene and Holocene climatic periods in the different parts of Eurasia. The process is well studied for the territories of the Near East, from which area the Neolithic innovations had spread to the Southern, Central, Western Europe. From the Near East to the Europe came a number of domesticated plants and some of domesticated animals (first of all – sheep/goat ) and a number of cultural innovations (first of all dwelling structures made on clay and stone and some types of the flat-bottomed Neolithic pottery which are characteristic for a agricultural Neolithic). In the Near East at the first time about 11,000–10,000 BP had formation the style of life and culture which is characteristic for a country life, for a peasants culture. The radiocarbon chronology of the spread of these Neolithic elements to the North and West and the stages of the Neolithisation was retraced by a number of Western scholars (Clark, 1965, and others). Other models of Neolithisation were characteristic for the huge area of the Forest zone of the Eastern Europe and for the great belt of the Eastern European Steppe zone. The archaeological entities of this epoch known at these territories are very different from the Neolithic of the other, more Western parts of the Europe.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

The natural conditions of the Forest zone were unfavourable for the spread of the early farming and stock-breeding but optimal for hunters, fishers and gatherers. During the Neolithic here had formation the developed food-gathering economy different from the foraging economies known from the previous periods. At the basement of this economy laid fishing (in the coastal areas also sea-hunting) specialized hunting on forest animals and birds and specialized gathering. The complicated systems of trade-exchange relations between areas with different natural row-sources were characteristic for this period also.

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEOLITHIC OF THE SOUTHERN EASTERN EUROPE

Here we will consider the chronology of the Southern Eastern European Neolithic. The Neolithic assemblages in the Steppe and Forest/Steppe zones of Russia were discovered through the field research of T. D. Belanovskaya, L. Ya.Krizhevskaya, V. Ya. Kiyashko and others in the Azov Sea area and in the lower Don basin, by A. T. Sinyuk in the Middle Don basin, and by I. B. Vasilyev, A. A. Vybornov and others in the Lower Volga basin. An important review of these materials is published by D. Ya. Telegin in the chapters of the newly published volume "The Neolithic of Northern Eurasia" (ed. S. V. Oshibkina). The dating of the Neolithic in the area has become a topic of prime importance. In this connection must the ideas of the outstanding researcher of the Stone Age in the Steppe zone the late Prof.V. N. Danilenko (1969) be mentioned. He considered the Neolithic of the area as very ancient and proposed also, that pottery dispersed from this area to the Early Neolithic cultures situated immediately to the West and to the North. The last years a number of Radiocarbon datings of importance for the understanding of the Neolithisation in the area have been obtained from the Forest-Steppe area of the Volga basin. The Early Neolithic sites were discovered there in the 1970s (Vasilyev & Penin, 1977). These sites of the so-called Yelshanian type (or of Yelshanian culture) are mainly excavated in the Samara and Orenburg regions (Vasylyev & Penin, 1977; Vasylyev & Vybornov, 1988; Morgunova, 1980; Mamonov, 1995). The sites yield a flint industry with some Mesolithic traits (including tanged arrowpoints made on blades, of the so-called Epi-Swiderian type) and archaic pointed-bottomed pottery with poor ornamentation. Some authors compare the shape of the Elshan vessels with the early vessels of the Central Asian Neolithic hunters and gatherers (Vasylyev & Vybornov, 1988, p. 40). During the last years the Lab of the Institute of the History of Material culture, St Petersburg, has dated samples from the multilayered site Chekalino IV, excavated by A. E. Mamonov (1995) on the Sok River, in the Sergiev District of the Samara Region. The Yelshian materials were discovered in the lower culture layer of the site. Concentrations of Unio fresh-water shells were found in this layer. Four samples of shells were dated by 14 C Laboratory of the Institute of the History of Material Culture (Le-index). Three of them produced radiocarbon datings about 8000 BP, uncalibrated, and one was even older. A similar dating was obtained by Le on a sample of bones from the other site of Yelshian-type: the lower layer of the Ivanovskaya site in the Orenburg Region, excavated by N. G. Morgunova (1980, 1988). Similar datings were also produced by the Lab of Geological Institute (GIN, Moscow) on samples from Chekalino IV and from one more site with materials of Yelshanian type: Lebyazhinka IV in the Samara region. The main part of the Yelshanian datings are about 8000 BP or some older. The Yelshian sites seem to be the earliest manifestations of Neolithic pottery in Eastern Europe. Information about the economy of this culture is almost absent and evidence of food- production is absent. The stone industry and the topography of the sites indicate that the economy was based on hunting, fishing and gathering. The opinion has been expressed that 43

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 many traits of the Yelshanian Neolithic excluding the vessels shapes, distinguish it from the southern or south-eastern cultures (Mamonov, op.cit., p. 22–23). It most be mentioned, that the 14 C datings from the Central Asian sites of hunters and food-gatherers (Jebel cave, Uchaschi 131) as well as those from the early food- producers (Jeitun culture of Turkmenistan) are later, than the datings of the Yelshanian-type materials. An independent, local origin of the early pottery in the South-Eastern Forest-Steppe zone should be considered. Further important evidence concerning chronology of the Southern Russia Neolithic has now been obtained for the multilayered settlement Rakushechnyi Yar situated in the lower Don basin (Rostov-on-Don region). The site was excavated in the period 1960-1980's by Dr. T. D. Belanovskaya. More than one thousand square metres was investigated. Detailed stratigraphical studies revealed a succession of 23 separate culture layers and horizons (Belanovskaya, 1995). The lowest layers of the site yielded the material from the local Rakushechnyi Yar culture. The assemblage consist of the Neolithic pottery, flat- and pointed-bottomed, with rather simple ornamentation, the flint industry contain some geometric microliths (trapezes) and tools of bone and antler. The material includes some distinctive elements of food-production. Bones of domesticated animals (cattle and sheep) were found together with bones of the wilds ones (red deer dominating). The datings of layer XX, one of the lowest, on pottery with preserved food crust, yields an age about 8000–7600 BP, and the samples from the upper layers of Rakushechnyi Yar culture (XV, XIV-XV) are about 7000–6800 BP. The datings of the superimposed layers of the Late Rakushechnyi Yar culture and those of the local Eneolithic coincide with the stratigraphical evidence. The datings of the Rakushechnyi Yar site can serve as a preliminary basis for the development of a more detailed chronology of the Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures of a large part of the Eastern European Steppe zone. Additional evidence exists from another site from the Steppe zone, Matveev Kurgan I in Rostov in the Don region, excavated by L. Ya. Krizhevskaya (1992). There were found traits of food production (including bones of cattle and sheep/goat) and some pieces of badly preserved pottery. The site is dated to 7505 ±210, 7180 ±70 (GrN-7199, Le- 1217). The 14 C datings of the Rakushechnyi Yar's lowest layers, as well as these of Matveev Kurgan I confirm the early appearance of Neolithic culture in the Southern Russian Steppe zone. It should be mentioned, that in the Rakushechnyi Yar under the dated layer XX are three more thin layers, yet undated. The pottery of these layers looks rather developed. It does not look like the first manifestation of ceramic production. The Rakushechnyi Yar culture is the original occurence in the Eastern European Neolithic. It has specific traits which are characteristic for the Steppe zone only. The other one Steppe Neolithic culture, the Surskaya culture, is investigated in Ukraine mainly in Dnieper rapids area (V. N. Danilenko, D. Ya.Telegin). The pointed-bottomed clay vessels are characteristic and a number of stone vessels of different shape are found. The original bone industry is known and flint industry of microlithic character with some rare geometrical forms (the trapezes). The fishing and hunting were in the basement of the economy of this culture (Telegin, 1986). The radiocarbon dates are reached recently for Surskoi island site. They are about 7200– 7000 BP. The sites of the other Neolithic culture, the Bug-Dniester culture are known in the South-West of the Ukraine and in Moldavia. The sites were investigated mainly by V. N. Danilenko in Ukraine and V. I. Markevich in Moldavia. The culture was developed through all the Neolithic period (from the appearance of the first pottery until the spread in the area of the culture the populations of the first Eneolithic entity – the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture). The roots of the microlithic flint industry in the Local Mesolithic are well retraced. The Bug-Dniester culture is the westernmost entity of the Southern circle of the Eastern European Neolithic cultures. The inventory of the culture includes pointed-bottomed pottery of local character and flat-bottomed pots, which reflect in shape and ornamentation some influences from the Balkans 44

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Neolithic cultures. In some respects the Bug-Dniester culture could be considered as the eastern periphery of the Balkanian Neolithic. In the economy of the Bug-Dniester population prevail activities connected with hunting (mainly for red deer, roe deer, wild pig), fishing and food- gathering, but some elements of food-producing are represented also (seeds of wheat are found and some bones of cattle and pig, most probably domesticated). The earliest Radiocarbon dates for the early stages of the culture are about 7600–7500 BP (Skibintzy, Sokolzty 2) and several sites of the later stages of the culture are dated also (Savran, Bazkov Island, Gard and others in Ukraine and Soroki in Moldavia).The datings of the first ceramic assemblages are in accordance with the ones known for pre-pottery layer of multilayered site Soroki II in Moldavia. The other large Neolithic entity of Ukraine Steppe- and Forest-Steppe zone is so-called Dnieper-Donetz culture or group of the related cultures. The series of Radiocarbon dates are known for the large cemeteries of this entity (among them Maryevskyi, Nikolskyi, Osipovka, Yasinovatka, Vasilyevskyi 5, Dereivka0. These dates show, that the Neolithic cemeteries of this type existed from the early stage of the Neolithic period to the Early Eneolithic time (from 7700–7600 to 6200–6100 BP). The radiocarbon chronologies of the Bug-Dniester and Dnieper-Donetz areas show that the appearance of the first pottery and the formation of the Early Neolithic cultures had been later there if to compare with the more eastern territories of the Eastern Europe Steppe- and Forest-Steppe zones. There are also a number of datings for Late Neolithic - Eneolithic of the area (Timofeev & Zaitseva, 1997). According to these and to the datings of the Rakushechnyi Yar's upper layers, as well as to the new data for the Ukrainian cemeteries of Mariupol-type (Lillie, 1998), the appearance of the “Eneolithic” elements in the Steppe zone happened not later than 6000 BP, uncal. The typological peculiarity of the early pottery in the Steppe and Forest-Steppe zone and the chronological evidence point to an origin of the pottery production that is independent of the more Western centres for Early Neolithic dispersion. The data which we now have for Eastern Europe allow us to refine the understanding of the Neolithisation in a large area of Eastern Europe. It seems as if the 14 C datings of the Eastern European Early Neolithic supports an interpretation of the dispersion of pottery in the Forest zone as a result of diffusion. The stone and the bone and antler industries of the Early Neolithic in the Forest zone display many similarities with the local Late Mesolithic materials where as the first pottery has prototypes in the southern cultures. This was demonstrated in many lectures at the last conference devoted the introduction of the Neolithic in the area of the former USSR (St Petersburg, 1990). The archaeological and chronological data from the Southern areas and the typological differences between the earliest dated pottery point to the existence of several centres for the first archaic pottery production in Eastern Europe. The time of the existence and the duration of the Neolithic in the different territory of the Eastern Europe is presented in Fig. from which one can see the direction of the moving the Neolithic cultures from the South to the North. The Neolithic cultures in the southern regions of the Eastern Europe co-existed with the Mesolithic cultures in the North. In its turn, the Southern Eneolithic cultures co-existed with the Neolithic of the Forest zone at last two millennia. The particular model of the Neolithization was the same for the wide territory of the forest zone of the Eastern Europe. The spreading one of the most element of material culture – the pottery production, occurred here not later than 7000 BP. The beginning of this process was connected with the earliest Neolithic cultures of the Southern East European steppes and the forest-steppes of the Far South-East of the Europe.

REFERENCES

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Belanovskaya, T.D., 1995. From the Ancient Past of the Lower basin of Don river. St- Petersburg. (In Russian). 200 pp. Breunig, P. 1987. 14 C Chronologie des Vorderasiatischen, Sudost- und Mitteleuropaischen Neolithikums. Fundamenta, Bd. 13. 316 pp. Clark, J.G.D. 1965. Radiocarbon dating and the expansion of farming culture. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, v. 31, pp. 58–73. Danilenko, V.N. 1969. The Neolithic of Ukraine. Kiev. 260 pp. (in Russian). Dolukhanov, P.M., Timofeev, V.I. 1972. The Absolute Chronology of the Neolithic of Eurasia (on the data of Radiocarbon evidence). The problems of the absolute dating in archaeology. Moscow. (in Russian), pp.25–72. Krizhevskaya, L.Ya. 1992. The Beginning of Neolithic in the Steppes to the North of the Black Sea area. St Petersburg. 177 pp. (In Russian). Lillie, M.C. 1998. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Ukraine: new radiocarbon determinations for the cemeteries of the Dnieper Rapids Region. Antiquity, vol.72, N 275, March 1998, pp. 184–188. Mamonov, A.E. 1995. The Elshan-type assemblage of Chekalino IV site. The Ancient cultures of the Forest-Steppe area of Volga Basin. Samara. pp. 3–25 (in Russian) Morgunova, N.G. 1980. The Ivanovskaya site of Neolithic-Eneolithic in the Orenburg region. The Eneolithic of the Eastern Europe. Kuibyshev. pp. 105–107. (In Russian) Morgunova, N.G. 1988. The Ivanovskaya site in the Orenburg region. The Archaeological cultures of the Northern Caspian area. Kuibyshev. pp. 106–122 (in Russian) Timofeev, V.I., Zaitseva, G.I. 1996. The list of the Radiocarbon datings of Neolithic sites. The Neolithic of Northern Eurasia (ed.S.V.Oshibkina). Moscow. pp.337-348 (in Russian) Timofeev, V.I., Zaitseva, G.I. 1997a. Some aspects on the Radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic cultures in the Forest zone of the European part of Russia// ISKOS, v.11, 15– 22. Timofeev, V.I., Zaitseva, G.I. 1997.On the problem of Radiocarbon chronology for the Neolithic of Steppe- and southern part of Forest zone in European Russia and Siberia (the review of factual sources)// Radiocarbon and Archaeology, v.2. (Eds. G.Zaitseva, V.Dergachev, V.Masson). St Petersburg. pp.98–109. (In Russian) Vasilyev, I.B., Penin, G.G. 1977. The Elshan sites on the river Samara in the Orenburg region// Neolithic and Bronze Age in Volga basin and area close to Ural. Kuibyshev. (In Russian). Vasilyev, I.B., Vybornov, A.A. 1988. The Neolithic of Volga basin: the Steppe- and Forest- Steppe zone. Kuibyshev (In Russian). Zaitseva G.I., Timofeev V.I. 1997. Radiocarbon dates of the Mesolithic-Eneolithic sites for the Southern European Russia and Siberia.// Radiocarbon and Archaeology, v.2. St Petersburg. pp.109–117. (In Russian).

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

CHAPTER 3 THE PARTICULARITIES OF THE NEOLITHIC CULTURES IN THE FOREST ZONE OF THE EASTERN EUROPE AND THEIR CHRONOLOGY P. M. Dolukhanov and G. I. Zaitseva

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

For Russian archaeological literature the tradition is to connect the beginning of the Neolithic with the pottery appearance. Among the three elements defined by Lebbok as characteristic for the Neolithic – the pottery, the productive economy and the polished stone tools – exactly the pottery is for the prime importance for the definition of the Forest Neolithic beginning. Polished stone axes are well-known in some Northern areas in Mesolithic already and the elements of the productive economy had appearance in the main part of the Forest zone in the Bronze Age only, and in the northern areas even in the Iron Age. The appearance of the pottery in the different forest zone regions could be linked, first of all, with the process of diffusion. The first pottery was quite developed and appeared "suddenly". The stages of working with clay preceding the pottery appearance, similar known at the Near East (Schmandt-Besserat 1974), and, also, at the North Pontic–Azov sea areas (Krizhevskaya 1992) are unknown in the materials of the Forest zone Stone Age. The earliest vessels of the neighbouring early-pottery cultures often are similar. The situation could have explanation by the spread of the pottery-making idea among the Mesolithic populations of different origin. Such character has similarity of the earliest vessels in the Western and Eastern parts of the Belorussian Polesje (Isaenko 1976). Very similar shapes of the pointed-bottomed pots are characteristic for the different early pottery cultures in the large part of the Baltic region. The early Neolithic Upper Volgian pottery is similar with the pottery of more southern Middle Don culture, and with the pottery of some groups of Volga-Kama culture, and at the western part of it's large area has a lot of similarities with the pottery of the Early Neolithic stage of Valdai culture. The sources of the diffusion of the pottery making most probably were connected with the Early Neolithic cultures of the Forest-Steppe area (such as Strumel-Gastjatin culture at the Dnieper bassin and Middle Don culture at the eastern part of the European Forest-steppe). To the Forest-steppe zone the first pottery obviously came from the archaic Neolithic cultures of the South of Eastern Europe (Bug-Dniestr, Sursk and not so well known the Early Neolithic of the eastern part of the Steppe zone). Most be mentioned that no eastern (Uralian), neither western influences are recognisable in the early pottery cultures of the Forest zone of the Eastern Europe. The initial centres, from where the idea of pottery-making had spread, were located to the south of the Forest zone (see above the chapter “Radiocarbon chronology of the Neolithic of Steppe- and Forest-Steppe zone). The Early Neolithic period in the Forest zone does not designate the spread of the new population from outside, as it had been in the Central Europe, where the Neolithization was connected with the movement of the Linear-Band pottery culture from the South-East. The formation of the "Forest" Early Neolithic entities as a rule was based on the local Mesolithic substratum, definable by the continuity in the development of stone and bone/antler industries. It was obvious, in particular, during the discussion on Neolithization problem on the conference "The Early Neolithic in the Forest and Forest Steppe zones and it's genesis", which took place in the Institute of the History of Material Culture, 1990. The Neolithic sites of the Forest zone, as those of the preceded Mesolithic period, were connected with the lakes and rivers mouths, where they fall into the large river or lake, or close to places, from where small rivers flow out. The changes in the subsistence, if to compare with the Mesolithic, were connected, first of all, with the increase of fishing-activity importance. The author agrees with the opinion of N.N.Gurina concerning the transformation of fishing into the most important branch of the Forest Neolithic economy (Gurina 1973:11). Manly fishing tenanced, in certain degree, the stability of the Neolithic populations. The numerous data about the fishing and sea-hunting at the area in question are collected in a special volume (Gurina (ed.) 1991). The same time many data shows the complexity of fishermen-hunters-gatherers economy (for example, Vereschagin, Doluchanov, Miklyaev 1979) and, also at some northern areas the hunting activity probably prevailed (Khlobystin 1972:29). Altogether with obvious continuity of the Neolithic industries from the Late Mesolithic, some innovations took place also. Among 48

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 them technics of bone and antler sowing appeared in the Early Neolithic Narva culture (Gurina 1967), the technics of entire surface retouch for the preparation of flint arrow- and spear-heads and polishing of the stone axes and some other tools became the most common. The tools connected with the wood-work are more numerous and specialized, than in the Mesolithic. Probably, it is connected with the more stabile life and the increased role of the fishing in the economy. At the huge territory of the Forest zone in the flint-knapping is observable quite gradual transition from blade to flake industry. Some studies devoted to the comparative analyses of the settlements character (based on the materials of the sites where the dwellings remains were found) show that in the Forest zone Neolithic three types of sites existed: small ones, with 1–2 dwellings; large sites and sites with one very large dwelling, where probably the population of the whole site had habitation (Kozyreva 1983). Taking into consideration the differences in the size of the cultural layer area and the thickness of the layer, most probably we can talk also about the main base settlements and the short-time camps for hunting or fishing groups. The over-whelming majority of the Forest zone Neolithic dwellings fixed during the excavations had been deepen into the virgin soil, the shapes in the plan are round or close to rectangular. The dwelling had one or several hearths or fireplaces. Quite often the dwellings had notable, the corridor-form entrance. The passages between the dwellings, probably covered by the roof, were fixed several times. Timber constructions of the dwellings, rectangular shaped, had been found especially at the Karelian pit and comb ware Neolithic settlements. It must be mentioned, that rectangular dwellings are characteristic for the Neolithic sites of the different areas – Karelia, Kama and Middle Volga river basins, and the central part of the Forest zone. At the last region especially the rectangular dwellings occurs at the sites of pit-and comb pottery culture together with the round ones, and the differences in the dwelling shapes are not connected with the chronological position or local peculiarities (Buzin 1988). Remarkable had been the discovery of rectangular dwellings at the sites of Ljalovo culture (Krainov 1984). Probably the shape of the Forest Neolithic deepen dwellings is of restricted significance for the cultural attributions definition (the opposite opinion – Tretjakov V. 1972). Most dwellings were excavated at the sites of the different local groups of pit-and-comb pottery entity and also at the sites of Volga-Kama Neolithic culture. At the sites of some Neolithic cultures of the Forest zone swellings remains are not found, probably it indicates the use of slight surface constructions. For example at the numerous sites of sperrings-culture in Karelia only at once were found remains of, possibly, dwelling, rectangular and slightly deepen into the virgin soil (Zhuravlev 1994). At some peat – bog sites (Modlona, sites of Usvjaty culture) the wooden construction are known, defined as the pile-swellings (Brjusov 1951; Oshibkina 1978; Mikljaev 1992). Judging by some data at Modlona site the remains of the timber construction were found also (Oshibkina 1978: 112–114). Must be mentioned the complete eabcence at the Neolithic sites any traces connected with the fortification activity. The burials are situated in the most cases inside the site area, sometimes close to the dwellings or inside the dwellings (Narva 1, Andozero 2 and some others). Grave-concentrations are occasionally encountered – cemeteries situated at the site, at the periphery of the site or outside, close to the site (Karavaiha, Santysh II, IIa, Mys Brevennoj, etc.). Judging from the Karelian data, where a group of Neolithic cemeteries is known, the cemetery could contain hundreds of the Neolithic graves. The data of Sandermocha cemetery are especially remarkable (Pankrushev 1978). The presence of the certain order, the structure of cemetery's planning indicates the existence of any outward signs of graves. At Zveinieki (Latvia, Zagorskis 1987) the Neolithic graves belonged Narva and comb-and-pit ware cultures were done at the same cemetery, and the beginning of the cemetery is dated back to Middle Mesolithic. The most characteristic for the Forest Neolithic are single, extended, supine positioned inhumations (rare a body was placed on stomach or in contract position), quite often with the red ochre powdering. The orientations are different, but more often, with a head to the East, South-East or North-East. Until the Volosovo time (Late Neolithic/Early Metal Age) the graves often had no or few grave 49

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 goods. Also when the burial was done at the site area, not each time the grave inventory could be defined precisely. Some more goods had usually the Neolithic graves in the Eastern Baltic area, contemporaneous with the Early Volosovo. Around some burials especially in the North of the Forest zone were found some concentrations of stones and the traces of the fireplaces, include some done on the grave surface, and the ritual pits remains. It should be mentioned that burial customs of the different Forest zone Neolithic cultures has many mutual traits. Also quite often the populations of different Neolithic cultures used for the burials in sequence the same cemetery. The number of such examples we have especially in Karelia and in the Eastern Baltic area, where the Sperrings and pit-and-comb pottery cultures are widespread. Narva-and comb- and pit pottery cultures used the same burial places. The similarities of the settlement pattern, burial rites, economic structures of the fishermen-hunters-gatherers societies and the common traits connected with them in the material culture show the existence in the Neolithic of the Forest zone the common "regional type of culture", follow the definitions of culturology (Masson 1990). The same time by the systematisation of the Neolithic materials, especially the pottery ornamentation, the number of the local cultures had been distinguished (Fig. 1) and their development and chronology defined. The border between the areas the agricultural Neolithic of the Central Europe and the world of the Forest Neolithic cultures lied at the eastern part of modern Poland. In the western part of the Forest zone the sites of Nieman, Narva and Zedmar Neolithic cultures are known. The westernmost among the "Forest" cultures, the Nieman one, is known in Bjelorussia, S-E Lithuania and Poland, where it has been defined the first time during the 1920s under the uncorrect name of "pit-and-comb pottery culture". Most probably the earliest sites of Nieman culture coexisted with Linear-band pottery culture settlements; the border between the cultures lied at the Eastern Poland. The influences of the Nieman culture could be found in the ornamentation and the shape of some pots of the Ertebolle-Ellerbek type pottery in southern and south-western parts of the Baltic area. The earliest pots of the Nieman culture, their shape, ornamentation by the narrow comb imprints, the temper of plant matter and sometimes crushed-shells are similar to the Early Neolithic vessels of Narva culture. Between the Nieman and Narva areas are known the Early Neolithic sites of Zatzenje type with the pottery combines the traits typical for Narva, Nieman and some more southern Early Neolithic pottery types, especially Strumel-Gastjatin and the Early Dnieper-Donetz (Telegin 1971). The origin of the pottery-making in the areas of Nieman and Narva cultures most probably is connected with the southern influences from the archaic Neolithic cultures of the Dnieper area. Probably the traces of the early southern impulses are fixed in the stratigraphy of the multilayered site Rudnja in Smolensk region (Dolukhanov, Gay, Mikljaev, Mazurkiewicz 1989; Mikljaev 1992). There under the Narvian layer (Rudnya-culture's assemblage, according to definition of Mikljaev, 1992) with C-14 datings 6200–6300 BP was found the pottery assemblage of the other cultural attribution, similar to southern, in particular Strumel-Gastjatin type, pottery. The territory occupied by the Nieman culture was rich on the sources of high quality flint. The flint artefacts are numerous, and include series of axes, often coreaxes with bifacial retouch, scrapers, burins, arrow-points. Some "postsviderian" points made on blades occurred in Early Neolithic assemblages. The Nieman culture existed, according common opinion, through all Neolithic period. During the Middle – Late Neolithic Nieman culture population could use the flint mines excavated in the area of the culture by N.N.Gurina (1976). Judging by C14 datings (Krasnoye Selo) the earliest mines could be in use in the Middle Neolithic. In the Middle Neolithic materials are retraced the interconnections between Nieman and Funnelbeaker cultures; as a result of the process in the Eastern Poland appeared "hybrid" type of pottery assemblages ("Linin vype" after E.Kempisty 1986). The influences from the territory of

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Funnelbeaker culture are defined in the Middle Neolithic in all the area of Nieman culture (Chernjavskij 1979)7 The Narva culture sites were situated in the Neolithic at the territory of Baltic states, also at the North of Bjelorussia and in Russia, at Leningrad region, including it's southern part and the southern coast of Ladoga lake, and at the country between rivers Duna and Lovatj in Pskov and Smolensk regions (Jaanits 1959; Gurina 1967; Rimantiene 1984; Loze 1988; Girininkas 1985 a.o.). The last group was defined by A.M.Mikljaev (1992) as the separate Rudnja culture, but the main traits of the assemblage are typical Narvian. The radiocarbon chronology of the Narva culture is now more detailed than any other in the Eastern Baltic Neolithic. The formation of the culture took place about 6500 BP, according, first of all, the series of datings from the multilayered sites in Lubana lowland, Osa and Zvidze (Zagorskis et al. 1984; Loze 1988). At these sites the Early Narvian layers are bedded immediately above the Late Mesolithic ones. In the area of Narva culture three local groups are defined, and the chronology of the groups varies Absolute chronology of the Narva culture is valid also for the related Nieman culture (which one has not the dates for its early stage). Radiocarbon datings of Osa, Zvidze and also of sites Zveisals (Latvia), Kyaapa, Kypu 1 (Estonia), Zemaitishke 1 layer 3 (Lithuania), Zatzenye (Byelorussia), Rudnya Serteyskaya (Russia, Smolensk district) show that the Early Neolithic in the Eastern Baltic area existed in the period 6500–4900 BP. The earliest assemblages are connected with the southern part of Narvian area. Stone artefacts are not numerous, because the flint sources are absent at the Narvian area, but bone and antler tools appeared in large numbers. Narvian pottery was poorly ornamented, the slight small pit-like depressions and imprints of the narrow comb stamp prevailed. Two shapes of vessles are characteristic – the pointed-bottomed pot and elongated "lamp", usually with rounded bottom. During the Middle Neolithic the main part of the Narva culture area had been overlapped by the sites of comb-and-pit pottery culture, came from East-North-East. There are C14 datings for number of sites of this culture in the Eastern Baltic area (Sulka, Zvidze-Middle Neolithic layer, Pietinya, Zvejnieki gravefield and others). Most part of the dates fall in the period 5300– 4400 BP.The initial area of comb-and-pit ware most probably had been in Finnland and at Karelian Isthmus. This expansion destroyed the northern and the part of southern groups of Narva culture, but not the Western Narvian groups, occupied the littoral zone of Western Latvia and Lithuenia. The sites of the littoral zone are dated mainly to 5000–4200 BP. The development of the western group of the Narvian culture, according L.Vankina (1970) the "Sarnate culture" continued until the spread of the corded-ware culture about 4000 BP. The development of Narva traditions took place also at the part of the area of southern Narvian group (Eastern Lithuenia, Northern Belorussia, adjacent parts of Smolensk and Pskov regions), where expansion of comb- and-pit ware culture did not reach. Some groups of Narva culture there include in the assemblages elements of other origin – in the Eastern Lithuenia appeared some flint tools characteristic for Nieman culture (Girininkas 1990). The related Usvjaty culture has in ornamentation of the vessels a number of the motifs connected obviously with Funnelbeaker culture. At Usvjaty sites are discovered the pile-dwellings uncharacteristic as a hole for the Eastern European Forest zone Neolithic (Mikljaev 1992). Between the large areas of Nieman and Narva cultures at the territory of modern Kaliningrad region of the Radiocarbon dates for the sites Usvyaty-4, Naumovo, Serteya group, Dubokrai 5 and also for Byelotussian assemblage Krivina 1 show that these sites existed at the same time as comb-and-pit ware culture. Between the large areas of Nieman and Narva cultttures in the territory of the modern Kaliningrad region of Russia and adjacent part of North-East Poland were excavated several peat-bog sites of the local Zedmar Neolithic culture (Timofeev 1991). Zedmar culture has some traits common with Narva and Nieman Neolithic. For the pottery temper are characteristic as organic matter or crushed shells so mineral additions. Probably, this fact reflects the geographical position of Zedmar Neolithic sites between the Eastern European "forest" cultures 51

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 and the Central European "Agricultural" Neolithic. For the temper of the early Eastern Baltic types of the pottery organic matter and crushed shells were characteristic, and for more western Neolithic sites the mineral temper (crushed stone or sand) was. The large amount of bone and horn tools is known at Zedmar sites and in some cases, especially Zedmar D site, the industry is more close to the Neolithic assemblages of the Central Europe and Scandinavia. For the Zedmar culture pottery the flat-bottomed vessels are characteristic. This is the oldest flat-bottomed type of pottery in the Eastern Baltic area.Numerous C-14 determinations of Zedmar culture sites (Zedmar A, Zedmar D, Utinoye Boloto 1 ) are in frames of 5500–4700 B.P. The Zedmar cultture assemblages existed at the same time as some agricultural Neolithic groups in Polish Kujavia (late Lengyel – Early Funnelbeaker culture). The central part of Russian Forest zone in the early Neolithic was occupied by the population used specific pottery ornamented by stich-and-comb impressions. At the Valdai Hills, close to the source of Volga, the numerous sites of local Valdai Neolithic culture were found mainly by N.N.Gurina field research (Gurina 1958, 1973, Vereschagina et al. 1996, 1998). At the territory are situated abundant sources of high-quality flint. The flint inventory of the Valdai Neolithic is very rich, include series of original large tools (axes, scrapers etc.). Arrow-points of "postsviderian" type are characteristic for the Valdai Early pottery assemblages. The enormous amount of materials reached for Valdai Neolithic is published in a small degree only. Development of Valdai culture probably passed through all the neolithic peiod. With the beginning of Valdai Neolithic C-14 datings from sites Zalesje (6530+_50 B.P., Le-1144), Nizhnie Kotitzy (6860+_100 B.P., Le-1333) could be connected. . Some later are Neolithic sites at Lanino (Sinitzina, Levkovskaja, Zaitzeva 1991). Area of Valdai Neolithic culture was bordered with the territory occupied in the Early Neolithic by the vast Upper-Volgian culture. The discovery during the beginning of the 1970-s in the central region of Russia (Ivanovo, Kalinin, Jaroslavl, Moscow regions) the large group of Upper-Volgian culture sites significantly changed the schemes of the Neolithic development in the centre of Forest zone (Krainov, Khotinskyi, Urban, Molodzova 1973; Krainov, Khotinskyi 1977). The known territory of the culture spread from the very sources of Volga to its Middle basin. At several peat-bog sites (Ivanovskaya III, Santysh I, Jazykovo and others) the layers of Upper Volga Neolithic were superimposed by the sites of Ljalovo culture with pit-and-comb pottery. Before the discovery of the Upper-Volgian Early Neolithic culture the Ljalovo was considered as the earliest Neolithic in the Central Russia. For the assemblages of the Upper-Volgian Early Neolithic culture the series of C-14 datings are obtained (multilayered site Ivanoovskoye 3, Yazykovo, Zabki, Nikolskaya and others) . The data defines the appearance of the earliest Upper-Volgian pottery not later than 7000–7200 BP. Judge by these data the Upper-Volgian pottery is the oldest in the European Forest zone. The flint inventory of Upper-Volgian sites with the characteristic blade industry include "postsviderian" arrow-points (Krainov, Khotinskyi 1977:54) shows the genetical links with the Late Mesolithic assemblages of Butovo culture (Krainov, Koltzov 1983). Following the results of the special studies of the Upper-Volgian Neolithic pottery (Kostyleva 1987, 1994) the most ancient vessels of the Central Russia were relatively small, with the diameter from 14-16 to 30 sm., and had as pointed or round, so also flat bottoms. After E.L.Kostyleva (1994:53) at least in the central, the main part of the Upper-Volgian culture area the flat bottoms occured more often, than pointed or round ones. For the temper chamotte is characteristic. The earliest vessels were ornamented by rare stich imprints, and somewhat later appeared the incised lines, "wickelschnur", comb imprints (from the beginning – the short ones). The motiffs often were geometrical, including, the rows of triangles, sometimes the ornamentation consist of diagonal rows of different imprints. As additional elements often the deep pits had been in use. The pieces of vessels with traces of the red ochre colouring of the surface were found. In the later Upper-Volgian assemblages all the vessels had pointed or round bottoms and the flat bottoms disappeared. From the middle stage of the culture development occurred small round-bottomed cups, the mineral tempering became more often and prevailed at 52

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 the final stage of the culture. For the ornamentations of the late Upper-Volgian vessels different comb imprints are most typical. At the sites of the eastern part of Upper-Volgian culture the part of vessels are similar to the pottery of neighbouring Volgo-Kama Neolithic culture and to make a demarcation between cultures here is quite complicated. The pottery of the western part of Upper-Volgian culture is very similar to the early ware of Valdai culture ("Kotchische-type") in technology and ornamentation. Probably the similarity could be explained by the same roots of the pottery-making. In the southern part of the area Upper-Volgian sites bordered with the Middle-Don Early Neolithic culture, occupied the large territory of forest-steppe in Don River basin. The common traits in pottery ornamentation of the Middle Don and the earliest Upper-Volgian vessels had been noticed (Sinjuk 1986; Kostyleva 1994), probably the traits could be explained by south-south-eastern roots of the earliest Upper- Volgian pottery. The sites with the pottery resembling the Early Neolithic Upper-Volgian, Middle-Don and also Dnieper-Donetz are known also at Upper-Middle bassin of Desna river (Smirnov 1991:19–40). Some population groups from the area of Upper Volgian and Valdai cultures probably did long-distance routs to the North-North-East. After the discovery by V.Luzgin the Chernoborskaya-III site at the bassin of the Middle Pechora (Luzgin 1973:97–98) at the North Dvina was investigated some sites with the archaic pottery ornamented by small, surface pits and the Mesolithic elements in the flint industry. The origin of the assemblages is connected probably with the Upper-Volgian area (Vereschagina 1989:16–17). The C14 dating for the site Prilukskaya are about 6700–6400 BP. To the East from Upper-Volgian area was situated the vast region occupied by the Volgo- Kama Neolithic culture (Khalikov 1969). For the early pottery assemblages of Volgo-Kama are characteristic the egg-shaped vessels ornamented mainly by the imprints of comb-stamp, more often the imprints are long. In the ornamentation, covering usually the whole surface of the vessels, quite often appear the ornament resembling the wicker-design. At the sites together with the combed pottery the stich-ornamented ware occurs in the steady order. It looks like this situation took place during the all period of the culture existence. Several researchers (V. P. Tretjakov, R. S. Gabjashev, A. A. Vybornov and others) expressed the opinion for the necessarily of the division of pottery assemblages and the definition of the separate (combed-and stich ornamented complexes). I.V.Kalinina (1993) on the basis of the special study of the pottery materials, including formalised description, gave arguments for the coexistence at the sites bearers of different cultural traditions (the "Forest Kama" and the other one, linked by the origin with the Forest-Steppe cultures where the stich ornament is common). For the Early assemblages of Volgo-Kama culture the blade industry is characteristic, the arrow points made on blades occurs and later the flake-technique in the flint-industry prevailed. Until now the Radiocarbon chronology of this Neolithic culture is unworked yet. It is a largest “white spot” in the chronological system of the Eastern European Forest zone Neolithic. The vast area at North-West during the Early neolithic period was settled by the Sperring culture. The numerous sites of Sperrings are known in Finland.. The first time Sperrings type of pottery was defined as the earliest part of the Finnish Neolithic by the prominent researcher of the Northern Europe antiquities, Aarne Europeus – Ayrapaa (1930). The definition "sperrings culture" is common in Russian archaeological literature. In Finnish literature is in use the terms "Early comb pottery" or "style I", with the division on style I;1 (early) and Style I;2 (late). In Russia the assemblages of Sperrings type were defined by N.N.Gurina (1951) and the area of the culture covered the large part of the North-Western Russia. The large number of sites were excavated in Karelia (Pankrushev 1978; Pesonen 1988), some sites are known at Karelian Isthmus, at the Southern coast of Ladoga-lake and in the North-Eastern part of the Leningrad region (Timofeev 1993:Fig. 3, map 2), the single sites with the sperrings materials are known in Vologda region (Ivanischeva 1990) and at the South of Arkhangelsk region (Kozyreva 1975). 53

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

The stone inventory of sperrings culture consists of the quartz and slate tools, artefacts of flint are rare. Polished slate tools connected with the woodwork, are numerous. Arrowpoints occur rare and those found mainly are done on blades. The stone inventory shows apparently the continuation from the local Mesolithic culture industry. For the Sperrings-type pottery the mineral temper is common. The tall, elongated vessels (Fig. 2:8-9) had diameter 30-50 sm, the bottom was some pointed or round, the ornament covered the whole surface. For the Sperrings-type pottery from the Karelian sites is especially characteristic the use of fish vertebrae as a stamp for the ornamentation. First time the recognition of this type of stamp was done by Ju.V.Titov (1970:224-226). In Karelia about 40% of Sperrings-type pottery was ornamented by "fish vertebrae" imprints (Pankrushev 1978:27) and for the earliest assemblages this type of ornamentation is especially characteristic. The problem of the origin of the sperrings-type pottery has a long history. A.Europeus first time paid attention for some southern parallels in the ornamentation (Europeus–Aurapaa 1955), found some similar tarts at the sites situated close to Dnieper rapids and some common elements at the area between Ukraine and Finland. The other opinion was expressed by N.N.Gurina (1961:62-63) and P.N.Tretjakov (1966:25) looked for common traits in the Eastern direction, at Uralian region. The idea of Uralian origin of sperrings-type pottery now has a few arguments for (the critical review – Pankrushev 1978:40-41 a.o.). G.Pankrushev suggested the idea close to A.Europeus opinion, compared the sperrings and the developed Dnieper-Donetz Neolithic culture pottery ornamentation (Pancrushev 1978:39). On our mind, some similarities between sperrings and the Dnieper-Donetz pottery ornamentation could be explained by the ementry of the both of these cultures together with the Upper Volgian, Valdai and some others to the large entity characterised by the stich-and-comb ornamentation of the pottery. Much more comparable with the Sperrings-type pottery are ornamental motifs of developed Upper Volgian pottery. The Radiocarbon chronology is in the agreement with this idea. The C14 dates of Sperrings culture sites (Shettima 1, Pegrema 9, Erpin Pudas, Sheltozero, and Hepo-Jarvi) are about 6700–6000 BP. The similarities of Sperrings and Upper Volgian wares ornamentation include the number of complicated motifs: compositions consists of triangles, different combinations of diagonal and horizontal rows of imprints combined with rare deep pits and others also the colouring of vessels surface by red ochre. Could be mentioned a number of parallels in the ornamentation of archaic Middle-Don Early Neolithic culture pottery (Sinjuk 1986:Fig. 11:4,11; Fig. 20:1,7; Fig. 25:1-5, 8 etc.). To the period about 6500 BP the pottery was known in the main areas of the Forest zone. The Far North was probably the only area where pottery was introduced later then in the more southern areas. In any case the Radiocarbon dates of the Early Neolithic sites of the Kola peninsuka are about 5800-5500 BP (Chavanga, Ustye Drozdovki, Tsaga 1, Mayak 2 sites). The large-scale movements of the Neolithic population in the Forest zone were active about 6000 BP (“uncalibrated” radiocarbon time-scale) and were connected with the appearance of the pit-and comb pottery entity. The problem of the pit-and-comb pottery entity origin is of the prime importance. Before the 1970s, the formation of the earliest pit-and-comb pottery culture (Ljalovo culture) by the common opinion was connected with the local Mesolithic of the territory between Volga–Oka Rivers (Raushenbah 1964; Tretjakov V. 1972). The situation changed radically after the excavation of the stratified peat-bog sites contained the Upper-Volgian assemblages bedded below the Ljalovian (Krainov, Hotynskij 1977). In the sistem of the periodisation of Upper Volga and Volga–Oka areas Neolithic the Ljalovo culture is now defined as Developed (Middle) Neolithic. The characteristic Ljalovian type vessels have half-egg shape and the mineral temper is characteristic. The all or the main part of the vessel's surface is ornamented by deep pits placed in the "chess" manner. Between the zones of pit ornamentation the "belts" of comb or other stamps imprints are placed. At the sites of the Volga--Oka region the Ljalovo type of pottery is accompanied by the flint industry includes different types of tools made on flakes: scrapers, knifes, combined tools, arrow- and 54

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 spear-points with bifacial retouch, more often rhomboididal or leaf-shaped and, also, the polished tools made on different kinds of the stone raw materials. From the peat-bog sites are known bone and antler tools, mainly the arrowheads and harpoons. The pottery is very similar to that of the Ljalovo type known at the sites of the Northern Russia, in Karelia, Kargopol areas and to the White sea coast. Long time in our literature the appearance of the early pit-and-comb pottery in the North was connected with the Southern migration from the Volga--Oka area (Pancrushev 1978:93; Tretjakov V. 1972:41–42 and others). Today more common became the hypothesis of D.A.Krajnov (1991). According his suggestion the early pit-and-comb pottery culture is aboriginal for the North Russia and appeared there based on the local Mesolithic. To the Central Russia the population of the culture came from the North. In the Northern area of the pit-and-comb pottery sites two large groups are defined; the Karelian and the Kargopolian ones, attributed to the two cultures of the pit-and-comb pottery entity. The materials of the large part of the Karelian pit-and-comb pottery sites reflect, especially in the ornamentation of vessels, the interaction with the sperrings culture. Very characteristic "pure" assemblages of the Early Neolithic pit-and-comb pottery were discovered by the excavations of N. Lobanova (1984, 1986, 1988) Chernaja rechka group of sites at the Eastern coast of Onega lake. The stone industry of the early pit-and-comb pottery sites in Karelia has some Mesolithic elements, especially the group of tools made on blades (Pancrushev 1978:52–53; Lobanova 1988), in the accordance with Krainov's ideas. The homogenous assemblages of the pit-and-comb pottery are represented at the sites of Kargopolian culture in the area to the east from Onega Lake, include the groups of sites around the lakes Vozhe, Lache, Beloye (Oshibkina 1978). The elements of Sperrings culture could be distinguished only in the materials of the nothernmost group of Kargopolian sites close to Lache Lake (Oshibkina 1978:67). For the early pit-and-comb ornamentation of the Kargopolian pottery the closest parallels are in the Karelian materials (Lobanova 1988:57; 1991:93). In the southern direction the sites with the Ljalovo-type pottery occupied not only the whole country between Volga and Oka rivers, but at the same time the similar assemblages with the pit-and-comb pottery appeared at the Upper-Middle Don bassin (Rjazan-Dolgovo culture – Levenok 1973; Sinjuk 1986) and at the north of Ukraine (Neprina 1986). During the long period at the vast area of the Forest zone continued the development of the cultures of pit-and-comb pottery entity. The process includes also the southern part of the Forest zone and partly the Forest-Steppe area. At the last region the sites with the pit-and-comb pottery dated to the second half of the Neolithic period are known include Rybnoe ozero culture distinguished by V.Levenok (1973) in Upper-Middle Don bassin, the group of sites in the Upper- Middle Desna bassin (Smirnov 1991) and sites of the Northern Ukraine (Neprina 1976). In the ornamentation of the vessels quite often had been in use the rhomboidal shape pits. These ones are especially characteristic for the Desna Neolithic culture defined by A.Smirnov (1991). The series of the Radiocarbon dates are reached for the Lyalovo sites in the Central Russia (Ivanovskoye 3, Sakhtysh grouupp, Yazykovo) and in Karelia (Chernaya Rechka 1). The earliest datings are about 6400–5900 BP. The evolution of the pit-and-comb pottery is recognisable at the Volga–Oka area. The traditional opinion is linking this evolution with the orientation of the ornament development from the prevalence of deep pits to the increasing of comb ornamentation and the imprints of different stamps. The other version, based on investigations of some stratified sites of Upper Volga area is connecting with the earliest period of Ljalovo culture the pottery with comb-and- pit ornamentation (Sidorov 1986:135, 1990:15). At the foundation of the development of pit- and-comb pottery during the second part of Neolithic we can find the Ljalovo culture elements and at different areas it was supplemented by the elements of the different origin. In the frames of this process at the Middle Oka bassin appeared probably with the participation of the southern elements, Rjazan culture or Rjazan variant of the pit-and-comb pottery culture and at the lower bassin of Oka and the nearest part of Volga bassihe – Balahna group or culture. In the stone 55

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 industry of this group the northern elements are recognisable (the slate axes of so called "Russian-Karelian" type and others). Some peculiarities are characteristic for the assemblages of some other areas (Tretjakov V. 1972, 1980). At the same time, the development of pit-and-comb pottery continued in the Kargopolian area (Oshibkina 1978:135 ff.). In the materials of the Karelian sites the evolution, especially in ornamentation, is recognisable. At this region the ornamentation with the prevalence of deep-pits was gradually replaced by pit-and-comb ornament, and some geometrical designes appeared (Lobanova 1991:90 ff.). Probably during the period of development of the pit-and-comb pottery culture some groups did appear at Far North-Eastern Europe areas, settled this scarce-populated territory. At this vast area according the conclusion of I. Vereshagina (1989), summarised the scattered materials known in the region, the peculiar Pechora-Duina neolithic culture had formated as a result of the interaction of the population groups came from the Eastern part of Volga–Oka area, the Middle Volga bassin and the Volga–Kama culture groups from Kama basin. The Radiocarbon chronology of the later groups of the pit-aand-comb ware is not worked out enough yet. The upper limit of the maain groups could be connected with the period of the spread of Volosovo cultture, about 4900–4700 BP (see below). The entity characterised by the pit-and-comb pottery include also the comb-and-pit pottery culture (the Baltic culture after N.Gurina, 1967, or the style II of the Finnish Neolithic pottery after A.Europeus--Aurapaa, 1930). For the ornamentation of vessels the prevailence of comb imprints is common and the deep pits used mainly for dividing lines between the ornamental zones. The geometrical motifs are typical, including rhomboidal figures, triangles, etc. The sites of the comb-and-pit pottery culture are known at very vast territory include Central and Southern Finland, Karelia, some parts of the Novgorod and Leningrad regions, the Northern part of Bjelorussia and the large area in the Eastern Baltic region. During the last years some sites were discovered in the Northern Sweden (Halen, 1994). At the Eastern Baltic the compact massif of the sites of the culture reach the right bank of Daugava River and then rare sites with comb-and-pit pottery are known along the Baltic littoral up to the Northern Poland (Timofeev 1993: Fig. 3; map 3). In the western side the area of the comb-and-pit culture is surrounding the territories where the Narva culture development in the Middle Neolithic had continuation. At the part of the area (South-Eastern Latvia, probably Estonia) the comb-and-pit pottery culture did assimilate the remained groups of Narva culture. It could be the only explanation for the appearance of the "hybrid" types of ware, combined the typical traits of the both cultures pottery. The most studied this kind of ware is in South-Eastern Latvia, where it was defined by F.Zagorskis (1967) as separate "Piestinja type". The formation of the characteristic "comb-and-pit" style of the ornamentation took place most probably at the territory of Finland and Karelian Isthmus, at the area where comb-and-pit ware was preceded by the Sperrings assemblages of the Early Neolithic. In the late assemblages of sperring (type I:2 after A.Europeus) the vessels are represented with the ornamentation close to comb-and-pit ware simplest motifs, but without the geometrical designs (Europeus–Ayrapaa 1930: Abb. 26, 33–35), and at the Karelian sites of the II stage of pit-and-comb pottery (follow the division of N.Lobanova 1991) some geometrical motifs appeared. Probably as the result of these two components interaction the typical comb-and-pit ware (A. Europeus's "style II") was formed. The vessels with the typical comb-and-pit ornament occurred at many Karelian sites, but represented the small part of the whole pottery assemblages. The characteristic "pure" assemblages of comb-and-pit ware are known in Karelia at several sites only (Lakshozero II, Chernaja Guba III and few others – Vitenkova 1986, 1991). The problem of the possible links between the comb-and-pit ware, known in some amount in the Ljalovian assemblages of the Central Russia and the Eastern Baltic pottery exists also. Some vessels with the ornamentation very similar to the typical comb-and-pit are known in the assemblages of the local Msta culture, defined by M.Zimina in the region to the east from Ilmen Lake (Zimina 1981: Tab. 2:29, Tab. 10:10, 27). 56

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

With the comb-and-pit pottery culture in the Eastern Baltic area and, in some less degree, in Finland appeared the finds of amber ornaments, unknown in the Early Neolithic. The amber artefacts are represented by pendants, trapeze-form or asymmetrical, rare finds of "flattened- oval" buttons with V-shape boring, amber rings and several types of beads (Loze 1988). The Radiocarbon datings of comb-and-pit ware assemblages are about 5300-4400 BP (see also above). The amber ornaments of the Eastern-Baltic types (Fig. 4:29-30) are found at the sites situated far from the Baltic – in Karelia, Leningrad region, and Vologda region. The largest collections of the Neolithic amber ornaments were found by excavations of M.Zimina in the Msta river basin, Novgorod region (Zimina, 1984, 1992:112-13 0). The amber finds from the area east from the Ilmen Lake, are more numerous than the whole number of amber objects known at the Neolithic sites of the Eastern Baltic region. This “amber route” began to function (judging from the typological correlations with the C-14 chronology of the Eastern Baltic, at about 5200–4900 BP. The large series of the amber artefacts were discovered at the territory of the Volosovo culture, especially in the graves from the main territory of culture in Central Russia (Sahtysh-I, II, IIa, Jazykovo, Ilovets, Volodary and others – Krainov 1987:23 ff.; 1992:108 ff.; Krainov, Kostyleva, Utkin 1994) and up to the Middle Volga basin (Maidan site – Halikov 1969:139). The Volosovo culture sites and assemblages related to this culture had spread at the vast area about 5000–4700 BP (Radiocarbon datings of the sites Ivanovskaya 3, Sakhtysh 2,8, Modlona, Berendeevo 1, Vladychino-Beregovaya, Volosovo and some others) and occupied the territory, where during the preceded period existed pit-and-comb pottery groups and the part of Volga–Kama culture. The investigation of V.V.Nikitin (1996) proved Volosovo entity formation as the result of Pit-and-Comb ware populations’ interaction with Kama culture population in the East and with Upper Volga area population in the Central Russia. The topography of the Volosovo sites is the same, as the topography of the preceded period occupation, but the structure of the sites is more complicated. Probably it could be designated for the whole "Volosovo period" in the vast part of the Forest zone. The settlements of quite long period of habitation, are characteristic, with the groups of dwellings, quite often 4– 7 and, sometimes more. The he pit-dwellings had mainly rectangular shape and the post-holes and other traces of post constructions are found. At several settlements two parallel rows of dwellings were fixed and the passages between the dwellings were recovered. Probably these passages were covered by roofs also. In rare cases the round pit-dwellings were found and the traces of slight surface dwellings also. The number of inhabitants of such settlement seems to be much more, than could be suggested for the sites of the previous period. At some sites the burials were found, lied stretched, rare contract, the orientations are unstable. At several cases the whole cemeteries were found at the sites, or immediately close to the sites. The burials had usually the rich inventory. From some graves came to light the numerous amber artefacts, show that clothes of the buried persons had the rich ornamentation. The collective graves are known, include the cases where the buried persons were placed in several levels. The ritual rites had traits similar to preceded period (the ochre colouring, the fire-places connected with the graves, several graves were accompanied by "hoards"). At Volosovo cemeteries were discovered the remains of the special ritual constructions, "sanctuaries", where were found pits with some unordinary finds in the filling. Above the pits were constructed the special rostrums judging to some observations at sites Sahtysh-IIa, Vladychenskaya-Beregovaja and some others. In the "sanctuary"-1 at the cemetery, discovered site Sahtysh-IIa was found the human mask, made of the elch's antler, the using it by "priest" or "shaman" during any ceremonies is supposed (Krainov, Kostyleva, Utkin 1993, 1994). Inside the very vast area of the Volosovo culture some peculiarities of the local groups of the sites could be observed (Tretjacov V. 1979). In the northern part of the area the materials of the famous Modlona pile dwelling (Brjusov 1951) are now defining by S.Oshibkina (1978:21– 57

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

22) as the manifestation of the separate culture. Also the western sites have a number of local traits together with the typical Volosovo elements (Zimina 1992:119). The peculiarities are inherent for the sites of the South-Eastern part of the area, at the country between the rivers Sura and Moksha, investigated by V.Tretjakov and A.Vybornov (Tretjakov 1990:53 ff.). The spread of Volosovo elements in the Forest zone is corresponding, in a certain degree, with the beginning of the new regional type of culture formation, dated back to the Late Neolithic-Early Metal age. The elements of the metal-working appeared at latest Volosovo sites (the 4th stage of Volosovo culture after D.Krainov 1987:14-15). These sites existed synchronously with the Fatjanovo culture of the Early Bronze Age – not before 4000 B.P. At some areas of the forest zone the copper objects appeared even in more early time. It is well argumented for Karelia' North- Eastern part of Onega area. Here the copper-working began not later, than 4200 B.P. (Zhuravlev 1991; 1994), more probably, some centuries before this time (C14 dates of sites of Pegrema group). It could be defined as a local phenomenon, stimulated by the conditions, favourable for the using of the copper raw-sources. The sites at which the first, small copper artefacts were found, had been surrounded by the large areas settled by "pure" Neolithic cultures not acquainted with the Metalworking yet. The real Early Bronze Age began in the Forest zone with the spread of Fatyanovo culture in the Central Russia and Corded ware culture groups in the western parts of the Forest zone. This hasppened at about 4000 BP.

REFERENCES

Cherniavskyi M.M.1979. Neolithic of Byelorussian Nieman basin area. Minsk (In Byelorussian). Girininkas A.1985. Narvos kulturos raida.// Lietuvos Archeologija. V.4. Vilnius. Gurina N.N. 1961. The ancient history of the North-West of USSR. Moscow-Leningrad . 584 pp. (In Russian). Gurina N.N.1997. The history of the culture of the Kola peninsula ancient population. S- Petersburg. 232 pp. (In Russian). Dolukhanov P.M., Mikljaev A.M. 1986. Prehistoric lacustrine pile dwellings in the north- western part of the USSR// Fennoscandia Archaeologica, v.3. Dolukhanov P.M., Gay N.A., Miklyaev A.M. 1989. Rudnya-Serteya, a stratified dwelling-site in the Upper Duna basin (a multidisciplinary research).// Fennoscandia Archaeologica, v.5. Europeus-Ayrapaa A. 1930. Die relative chronologie der steinzeitlichen keramik in Finnland I. Acta Archaeologica, v.1., f.2. Europeus-Ayrapaa A.1955. Den yngre stenalderns kronologi i Finland och Sverige// Finskt Museum, v.LXII. Halen O. 1994. Sedentariness during the Stone Age of Northern Sweden. Lund. Halikov A.H. 1969. The ancient history ofg Middle Volga basin. Moscow (In Russian). Isaenko V.F.1976.The Neolithic of Pripyat Polesye. Minsk. (In Russian). Kalinina I.V. 1993. The Neolithic pottery of the Uralian region Forest zone. Ph.D. Thesis. S- Petersburg (In Russian). Kempisty E. 1986. Neolithic cultures of the forest zone in Northern Poland// Problems of the Stone Age in Pomerania. Archaeologia Interregionalis. Warszawa. Kozyreva R.V. 1983. The types of settlements of Neolithic-Early Metal Age in the forest zone of European USSR// KSIA, v.173. (In Russian). Kostyleva E.L. 1987. The chronology, division into periods and local groups of Upper Volgian Early Neolithic culture. PhD Thesis. Moscow (In Russian). Kostyleva E.L. 1994. The Early Neolithic pottery of Upper Volga area// Tver Archaeological symposium collection of articles, v. 1. (In Russian). 58

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Krainov D.A. 1987. The Volosovo culture// The Bronze Age of the forest zone of USSR Archaeiology of USSR). Moscow. (In Russian). Krainnov D.A. 1991. On the problem of the origin of the cultures with pit-and-comb pottery// Archaeology of Upper Volga area. Niznyi Novgorod. (In Russian). Krainov D.A., Khotinskyi N.A. 1977. The Upper Volgian Early Neolithic culture// Herald of USSR Acad. of Sci. , Moscow, v. 5. (In Russian). Krainov D.A., Zaitseva G.I., Utkin A.V. 1993. The stratigrafy and absolute chronology of Ivanovskaya III site (Pereyaslavl district of Yaroslavl oblast)// SA,.N 3. (In Russian). Krainov D.A., Kostyleva E.L., Utkin A.V. 1993. Graves and rituel complexes at Sakhtysh IIa site // AV, v.2. (In Russian). Krainov D.A., Kostyleva E.L., Utkin A.V. 1994. The gravefield and “sanctuary” at Sakhtysh Iia site// RA, N 2. (In Russian). Krizhevskaya L.Ya.. 1992. The beginning of Neolithic in Steppes to the North of the Black Sea. S-Petersburg. Lobanova N.V. 1991. The cultural-territorial division and the division into periods of the Neolithic sites with pit-and-comb ornamentation of pottery. Chronology and periodization of the archaeological sites of Karelia, Petrozavodsk (in Russian). Loze I.A. 1988. The Stone age sites of the Lubana lowland. Mesolithic, Early and developed Neolithic. Riga. (In Russian). Luzgin V.E. 1972. The ancient cultures of Izhma basin. Moscow (In Russian). Miklayev A.M. 1992. From the Stone Age to Iron Age in the area between Western Duna and Lovat basins. PhD Thesis. S-Petersburg. (In Russian). Neprina V.I. 1976. The Neolithic with pit-and-comb ware in the Ukraine. Kiev. (In Russian). Nikitin V.V. 1996. Stone age of Mary area. Ioshkar-Ola. (In Russian). Oshibkina S.V.1978. The Neolithic of Eastern Onega area. Moscow (In Russian) Oshibkina S.V. (ed.) 1996. The Neolithic of Northern Eurasia. Moscow (In Russian). Pankrushev G.A. 1978. Mesolithic and Neiolithic of Karelia. T.2. Neolithic.Leningrad. (In Russian). Pesonen P.E. 1988. The settlements of sperrings culture// The settlements of ancient Karelia.Petrozavodsk (In Russian). Rimantiene R.K. 1984. Akmens Amzius Lietuvoje. Vilnius. Schmandt-Besserat D. 1974. The use oof clay before pottery in the Zagros. Expedition,v.16, N 4. Sinyuk A.T. 1986. The population of Don basin in Neolithic.Voronezh. (In Russian). Shumkin V.Ya. 1984. Stone and bone industry of Mesolithic-Early Metal Age of Kola peninsula. PhD Thesis. Leningrad (In Russian). Smirnov A.S. 1991. Neolithic of Upper and Middle Desna basin. Moscow. (In Russian). Timofeev V.I. 1991. Neolithic sites of the Zedmaar type in the South-East Baltic area// Regions and Reflections.In Honour of Marta Stromberg. Lund. Timofeev V.I. 1992. Problems of the chronology of Neolithic in the Eastern Baltic area// Cultural Heritage of the Finno-Ugrians and Slavs. Tallinn. Timofeev V.I. 1993. Sites of Mesolithic and Neolithic of Petersburg region and their’s position in the system of Stone age cultures of Baltic region // Antiquities of North-West. S- Petersburg (In Russian). Timofeev V.I., Zaitzeva G.I. 1996. The List of Neolithic Radiocarbon datings// The Neolithic of Northern Eurasia. Ed.S.V.Oshibkina. Moscow (In Russian). Tretjakov V.P. 1972. The pit-and- comb ware culture in the Forest zone of the European USSR. Leningrad. (In Russian). Tretjakov V.P.1972a. The Early Neolithic sites of middle Volga basin. KSIA, v.131. Tretjakov V.P. 1990. The Volosovo tribes in the European part of the USSR in III - II mil. B.C. Leningrad. (In Russian)/ Zagorskis F. 1987. Zvejnieki Akmens Laikmeta Kapulauks. Riga. 59

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

ABBREVIATIONS

AV – Arheologicheskie Vesti (Archaeological News), St Petersburg. KSIA – Kratkie soobscheniya Instituta Arheologii (Short reports of the Institute of Archaeology, Russ. Acad. Sci.). RA – Rossyiskaya Arheologiya (Russian Archaeology), Moscow. SA – Sovetskaya Arheologiya (Soviet Archaeology), Moscow.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

CHAPTER 4 The Körös and the early Eastern Linear Culture in the northern part of the Carpathian basin: a view from the perspective of lithic industries

Małgorzata Kaczanowska and Janusz K.Kozłowski

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Introduction The classical works on the Early Neolithic in the Middle Tisa Basin assumed a sudden breakdown of the expansion of the Körös culture, which only slightly extending to the north- beyond the region of Szolnok became replaced, further north, by the early Eastern Linear Culture (ELC – Kalicz, Makkay 1977). This boundary was referred to as the „Kunghegyés- Berettyoujfalu” line; the abrupt check of the expansion of the Körös culture on this line was ascribed to the presence of a fairly dense Mesolithic settlement in the northern part of the Carpathian Basin (Kalicz, Makkay 1966). On this basis it was assumed that – on the one hand – the Mesolithic substratum impeded the expansion of the Körös culture, but – on the other hand – when adopting economic and cultural innovations the Mesolithic substratum played a dominant role in the genesis of the ELC (Kalicz, Makkay 1972). Moreover, the fact that the distribution ranges of the Linear Complex and of the Körös culture do not overlap was claimed to be another argument in support of the above understanding of the genesis of the ELC Complex (Kalicz, Koos 2002). These views were, later, criticized in the light of a number of new facts namely: 1. In the 1980s the discovery by P. Raczky (1983) of the site of Kötelek-Huszársarok on the Tisza, north of Szolnok, where pit 1 provided Körös culture materials, whereas pit 8 yielded materials of the early ELC described as Szatmar II group. In this way, for the first time, the overlapping range of these two culture complexes on the middle Tisza was demonstrated. At the same time, as P. Raczky noted, the process of emergence of the Early Linear Pottery of Szatmar II type could have been contemporaneous with later phases of the Körös culture in the Hungarian Plain, especially with the materials ascribed by J. Makkay to the Proto-Vin ča group (horizon) (Makkay 1982). P. Raczky (1989), too, drew attention to the possibility that the Early Neolithic impulse on the middle and upper Tisza basin arrived from two directions: from the south via the Tisza basin (Alföld variant of the Körös Culture) and from the east, via the Cri ş culture in north-east Rumania (Partium variant). The two variants differed not only in terms of material culture but also in terms of economy. This aspect in the interpretation of the Körös-Cri ş influences was also emphasized by A. Sheratt (1982) and J. Korek (1983). 2. The investigations into the reconstruction of the palaeogeography of the Tisza basin conducted by P. Sümegi and R. Kertesz (Kertesz, Sumegi 2001) established that the expansion of the Körös culture in the northern pat of the Carpathian basin was checked not so much by the existence of a hypothetical zone of dense Mesolithic settlement, but by the ecological boundary zone, which was also the northern boundary line of the Körös culture. It is described as the “agroecological” barrier or CEB AEB (the Central European-Balkan Agro- Ecological Barrier). Another important result of Sümegi’s palaeogeographical investigations (2006) was establishing the mosaic nature of the environment in the middle Tisza basin in the Atlantic period. 3. The discovery of a complex of Mesolithic sites in the region of Jaszag by R. Kertesz (Kertesz et al . 1994) was claimed to confirm the hypothetical presence of dense Mesolithic settlement in the Hungarian Plain beyond the boundaries of the Körös culture. Thus, the models that assumed an essential role of Mesolithic populations in the process of neolithization were to be validated. However, the discoveries in the region of Jaszag cannot be regarded as a proof that Mesolithic settlement persisted until the appearance of the Körös culture: the Mesolithic sites near Jaszag represent only the early, at most the middle phase of the Mesolithic. This leaves a large hiatus between the Mesolithic and the Neolithic in the Tisza/Danube interfluves. Only very few sites in the north-east part of the Carpathian basin can be ascribed to the Late Mesolithic (e.g. Ciume şti – Păunescu 1970, possibly also the site of Tarnaörs recently investigated by P. Kertesz. These sites do not provide evidence of contacts with the Early Neolithic, on the other hand, the isolation of Mesolithic population from the main routes of raw materials procurement is obvious (Kozłowski 2005). The investigations by P. 62

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Sümegi and R. Kertesz (1994) in the Hungarian Plain did not confirm assumptions about the existence of Mesolithic sites deeply buried underneath Holocene alluvia (Chapman 1989, Bartosiewicz 1999). The demographic crisis in the Carpathian Basin in the Late Mesolithic, just as the similar crisis in the eastern Balkans, calls for explanations. 4. Investigations into the economy of the Star čevo-Körös-Cri ş complex suggest that the population that had reached the Danube and the Carpathian Basin was able to adapt their subsistence economy to local conditions (Lazi ć 1988). An example are sites in northern Voivodina e.g. Nosa-Biserna Obala (Bökönyi 1974) where as much as 75.4% of faunal remains are wild mammals, birds and fish, while live – stock is only 24.5%. At the Star čevo culture sites in the region of the Iron Gate the faunal composition is similar, for example in phase III of Lepenski Vir (74.5% as compared to 25.5% – Bökönyi 1970), and at Padina B (Clason 1980) this contrast is even greater. At the same time, most Star čevo culture sites are characterized by the domination of domesticated fauna, typical of the FTN (e.g. Divostin: 91.5% of live-stock to 8.4% of wild animals – Bökönyi 1988). The adaptations in the sphere of subsistence economy must have had counterparts in other spheres of material, social and spiritual culture. The process of adaptation can also be seen in the northernmost Körös culture sites in the Tisza basin, but its manifestations are different. At the site of Nagykörü-Cooperative Orchard the fauna retained the Balkan domination of bred and herded stock, mainly goat and sheep (75% NISP), but – simultaneously – wild mammals, birds and fish increase in species variety, indicating ad hoc hunting, fowling and fishing (Raczky et al . in press). In recent years sites discovered in the middle Tisza basin north of Szolnok such as Tiszaszölös-Domaháza (Domboroczki 2005) provided a sequence of Körös culture and early ELC (Szatmar II), settlements,. These investigations have confirmed Raczky’s previous observations (1983) at Kötelek and documented the continuity between the Körös culture and the ELC. An increasing number of radiometric dates from sites in the north-east part of the Carpathian Basin confirm that the succession of the Körös and the ELC was chronologically close, and that the spread of the FTN settlement in the Tisza basin (Domboroczki 2003) as well as in Transilvania (Biagi et al . 2005, Lazarovici 2006) was relatively fast. The FTN sites with white-painted ceramics (e.g. Donja Branjevina) considered oldest, are dated at 7080±55 to 6775±60 BP )6100–5500 cal BC), and the south Hungarian sites are dated within a similar time-spars (e.g. Endröd 119 – 6915±45 to 6720±45 BP, Pitvaros – 7060±45 to 6885±50 i.e. in the interval from 6000 to 5700 cal. BC – Whittle et al . 2002). The northernmost sites in the Tisza basin provided, basically, similar dates. The Körös culture features from Tisaszölös-Domaháza were dated at between 7065±40 to 6751±35 BP (i.e. in the interval from 5990 to 5620 cal. BC – Domboroczki 2005). In turn, the dates for Szatmar I group from Mehtelek on the upper Tisza are in the interval from 6835±60 to 6625±60 BP (i, e. 5730–5480 cal. BP), which almost corresponds to the dates for the early Linear Ceramics (Szatmar II) at the northern edge of the Körös culture (Kötelek – 6780±35 and 6630±60 BP i.e. between 5720 to 5530 cal. BC). The transformation of the Körös culture into the ELC can, thus, be described by the following hypothesis: 1. This process took place in the northern peripheries of the Körös culture, which overlapped with the European-Balkan agro-ecological boundary zone in the north-east part of the Carpathian basin. For this reason the process involved a greater flexibility on the part of the Körös culture people to enable their adaptation to new environmental conditions. 2. Another important determinant of the Körös-Eastern Linear transformation was the fact that in the territory of the formation of the ELC crossed the influences from the south via the Tisza basin and from the east – from the Partium, territory from the Cri ş culture province. The best evidence of eastern influences are the sites of Szatmar I group such as Méhtelek on the upper Tisza (Kalicz, Makkay 1972, 1977). Their chronology is earlier than the beginnings of the ELC 63

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 on the middle Tisza and they show similarities with the sites in north-west Romania such as Homorodul de Sus, Suplacu de Barcau or Zauan (Raczky et al . in print). Moreover, the sites such as Tiszabezed (Kalicz, Makkay 1977) or Ibrany (Domboroczki 2005) indicate that Szatmar I population moved along the upper Tisza to the west. 3. The continuity between the Körös and the ELC cultures is manifested in a number of spheres of material culture (e.g. ceramics), also in economy, settlement (location of sites in the Heves district – Domboroczki 1997, 2003), in architecture (Kalicz, Koos 1997, Kalicz, Raczky 1981, Domboroczki 2003), and symbolic culture (Kalicz, Makkay 1976, Kalicz, Raczky 1981, Domboroczki 2003). 4. In contrast to the Körös-ELC continuity we cannot point to any links whatsoever of the Early ELC and the Mesolithic (Kozłowski 2001), even less so to any evidence of hypothetical existence of a Late Mesolithic settlement network in the northern part of the Carpathian basin. 5. The innovations in the various cultural subsystems of the ELC are, therefore, the result of adaptational processes leading to internal transformations. Balkan tradition in flint industries of the FTN The most typical feature of lithic industries of the pre-linear painted FTN is the use of extralocal raw materials distributed over a large territory. Of special importance was yellow, spotted flint, described as “Banat” or “Balkan” flint. Artefacts from this flint – whose deposit areas are, probably, located in the pre-Balkan platform – are known at sites with the amplitude of distance between them of up to 700 km, across the territory from the Thrace Plain to the Upper Tisza Basin. Both at sites located closer to deposits and at distant sites “Balkan” flint is present in the form of blades or complete tools. The occurrence of artefacts from “Banat” or “Balkan” flint across such an extensive territory documents the existence of a network of contacts and information exchange between the various taxonomic units. A separate problem is the presence of single obsidian artefacts at numerous sites of the FTN. This obsidian comes – in all likelihood – exclusively from deposits in the Tokaj-Zemplin Range i.e. from the territories outside the range of settlement of the Early Neolithic cultures with Painted Ware (Star čevo-Cri ş complex). Obsidian artefacts are found at the sites ascribed to the Early Phase (with white-painted ceramics e.g. Donja Branjevina – Karmanski 2005 and Gura Bacului – Lazarovici 2006) or the Late Phase (e.g. Golokut – Kaczanowska, Kozłowski 1984). Obsidian is recorded at sites up to 400 km to the south of deposits, but no relation has been noticed between its proportion and the distance from its outcrops. The distribution of obsidian south of the deposits, indicating the functioning of a network of contacts and various types of exchange, covers similar distances to those of the distribution range of “Banat” or “Balkan” flint. As far as obsidian procurement system is concerned two hypotheses can be considered: 1. the diffusion of obsidian is claimed to have been the effect of exchange with other groups that inhabited areas in the vicinity of deposits. In this case only alleged local Mesolithic groups can be taken into consideration. As we have shown, so far no traces have been found of the existence of Late Mesolithic groups in the Upper Tisza basin that would exploit obsidian. Thus, this hypothesis should be rejected, 2. Körös culture groups obtained obsidian directly at deposit areas despite the fact that these areas were not occupied by Körös Culture. The small number of obsidian artefacts discovered at sites, also the lack of noticeable correlation between obsidian frequency and the distance to its deposits indicate that procurement of this raw material was sporadic and random, during the penetration of new territories before the main advance of the FTN. The Tokaj Mts obsidian which occurs as small nodules was unsuitable for macroblade production. Lithic industries of the Early Neolithic cultures with painted ware show characteristic low proportion, or even absence, of cores at settlements, the presence of a small number of flakes, but 64

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

– on the other hand – a high index of blades and tools. Such an inventory structure is repeated at sites in western Bulgaria (Galabnik, Slatina IV, Gradeshnitza A – Gatsov 1993), Serbia (Golokut, Star čevo) and in the Hungarian Plain. The on-site processing of local raw materials was registered only at the site of Donja Branjevina (cores – 5.7%, flakes – 32.7%), but even at this site blades (34.3) and tools (22.1) dominate (Šari č 2005). The domination of tools and blades over cores and debitage, established at sites of painted ware cultures (Star čevo-Körös), is the effect of a specific system of raw material procurement namely: prepared cores were brought to the settlement and a series of – at the most – several blades were detached in several episodes when needed. The preliminary working of raw material nodules (decortication, platform preparation, crest formation) was carried out outside the settlement area. Sporadically cores prepared for processing may have been traded, although first of all completed blades were exchanged, which were later reworked into tools on-site. This procurement system imposed “thrifty” raw materials economy where even fine flakes from core rejuvenation were collected and stored in depots as, for example, in the case of a depot from Endröd 39 with about 100 flakes stored in a vessel (Kaczanowska et al.1981). It seems highly likely that such core reduction was carried out by skilled knappers. This is evidenced by straight edges and interscar ridges of blades, large size and slender proportions. To produce blanks like this required considerable skill. Blades were detached by means of a punch, but it is also possible that pressure technique may have been used. It is difficult to determine the dimensions of blade blanks as specimens are mostly broken or reworked into tools. It seems, however, that as a rule blades measured between 10 to 12 cm, although larger specimens are also known e.g. from the site of Szarvas (Starnini, Szakmany 1998 fig. 30) or Battonya (Bacskay, Siman 1987). Among retouched tools blades with lateral retouch are most common. They were registered both at eastern and central Balkan sites e.g. in the Vardar valley (Anzabegovo II–III 40% of tools – E. Elster 1976), in the Thrace Plain (Karanovo II), and in western Bulgaria (Galabnik, Slatina I, Balgarcevo – from 16 to 71% – Gatsov 1993) and Serbia (Divostin, Golokut, Star čevo). However, in the Iron Gate region some differences in comparison with the Balkan model can be seen. At the site of Cuina Turcului-Dubova three layers contained a specific industry with distinctly local elements. In the literature this industry is interpreted as a local variant of the Star čevo culture (phase IIB, IIA and IIIB) with a microlithic component, allegedly derived from the local Mesolithic (Paunescu 1970, 1987). But typological analysis of lithics from Cuina Turcului-Dubova has shown that – just as at other Star čevo culture sites – this industry is dominated by blades with lateral retouch. Next in size is the group of trapezes and other geometrical forms but made on broad blades. The high proportion of trapezes could be the effect of the adaptation of Neolithic economy to specific ecological conditions in the Danube Gorge rather than a manifestation of persistence of Mesolithic traditions. Just like at Cuina Turcului the lithic industry from Lepenski Vir III is also specific: with a greater role of on-site working of – mainly – “Balkan” flint. This is confirmed by the presence of cores (including a core depot in a vessel – Srejovic 1969) and a fairly high proportion of flakes (69.7%) in comparison with blades (19.8%). Nevertheless, among retouched tools (9.1%) in the entire inventory almost half are retouched blades (Kozłowski, Kozłowski 1982). Several sites, investigated in recent years, on the middle Tisza at the northern edge of the Körös culture, yielded small series of chipped stones (Tiszaszölös, Nagykörü). Alongside the continuation of Balkan traditions such as: tools with lateral retouch and artefacts made from “Banat” or “Balkan” flint (waxy, spotted) new traits appear at those sites. This is, for example, an attempt at exploitation of raw materials from the Upper Tisza basin e.g. limnoquartzites. Fissibility of this rock is much worse. The deterioration of the technological standard of blade production may have been caused by the use of poor quality raw materials as well as by decline of specialization in lithic production and transfer of this production to the level of individual household clusters.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

The Proto-Linear Phase (Szatmar I) The developmental tendencies in the lithic industry of the Iron Gate variant of the Star čevo culture and in the northern variant of the Körös culture – that make these units different from the Balkan tradition – intensified as the ELC was gradually shaping. These were: 1. gradual vanishing of specialization and transfer of production to the level of individual household clusters, 2. exploitation of meso-local and local raw materials of much poorer quality, such as obsidian and limnoquartzites which occurred as smaller concretions, 3. general deterioration in the technological standards and transfer from macroblade (also pressure) to “mediolithic” technique, and moreover, relinquishment of careful preparation of core flaking surfaces from postero-lateral crests, 4. less economic core exploitation which is carried out in a single production episode, and replaced exploitation in several reduction episodes, 5. less intensive tool curation replaced by the use of expedient tools. On the basis of ceramics we can assume that the crucial moment in the transition from Star čevo-Körös-Cri ş to Eastern Linear complex Szatmar I phase in the Upper Tisza and Samos basin. Its most important site so far is Méhtelek-Nadas (Kalicz, Makkay 1977). The lithic industry from this site displays, well expressed, all the features we have enumerated (Starnini 1994, Kozłowski 2001): 1. On-site lithic production is of considerable importance, documented by the large number of artefacts (1710), many times higher than the frequency of artefacts at the sites of the Star čevo-Körös complex. Among artefacts cores are relatively numerous (6.1%), but flakes are most frequent (59%). 2. At Méhtelek-Nadas there are occasional specimens (0.5%) made from „Balkan” flint, but the most important raw materials are obsidian (60%) and limnoquartzites. 3. Besides ocassional macrolithic blades (and one blade core), mainly from „Balkan” flint, „mediolithic” blades are most frequent, about 4 cm long, split off by direct percussion, possibly with a soft hammer. 4. The dominant group in the structure of retouched tools continue to be bilaterally retouched blades – just like at Balkan sites – although their frequency is smaller than in Körös – ca 26–30%; retouched blades are replaced by retouched truncations (18.6%), retouched flakes (24.1%) and by microliths (16.6%). In the past the sites such as Michalovce and Lu čky used to be assigned to the Proto-Linear phase (Lichardus 1972); today we know that they represent the early phase of the ELC (Šiška 1989). The position of the site of Košice-Červeny Rak (Šiška 1989) is still controversial: it may represent either the northernmost outpost of the Körös culture or a transitional phase between the Körös culture and the ELC. Lithis artefacts from this site have not been described as yet. The Early Phase of the Eastern Slovakian Linear Ceramics Complex At settlements of the Early Phase of the ELC the basic raw material for tool production was obsidian. At sites situated in the Eastern Slovakian Plain it usually accounts for more than 80% of raw materials (Moravany – 88.8% and 95.4%; Slavkovce – 95.4%, Zalužice – 81.5% and 89.5%; Zbudza – 90.6% and 91.9% – Kozłowski ed. 1997). These sites are fairly close to obsidian deposits, no more than 20 km away. Unworked obsidian concretions were brought to settlements. In all likelihood they were collected from the ground surface as there are no traces of mining. A depot of 34 such concretions, weighing from 2.9 kg to 0.10 kg, was discovered in pit E/88 at Slavkovce. The total weight of stored raw materials was 13.5 kg (Kozłowski ed. 1997). Assuming

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 that the calculations done by A. Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa and J.Lech (1976) of potential ability of groups that penetrated deposit areas to carry raw materials are correct, we could estimate that this quantity of obsidian was brought by only 1–2 people. Unworked obsidian nodules were also found at other settlements e.g. at Moravany. The inhabitants of settlements in the Košice Basin, from the early phase of ELC situated at a distance of 40 to 50 km from obsidian deposits ( Čečejovice, Barca III, possibly Košice- Červeny Rak – Kozłowski 1989) favoured limnoquartzites and hornstones for tool production. These materials were brought to settlements as cores in early phases of reduction. Generally, obsidian transport in the ELC followed certain rules: to settlements situated in the East Slovakian Plain obsidian was supplied from a distance of a little more than 20 km. To the east and north-east of deposits parties in search of raw materials set off from a zone further away (i.e. a procurement zone acc. to the classical definition by C. Renfrew et al.1968). To the south of deposit areas obsidian was the basic raw material at settlements about 80 km from deposits (Füzesabony-Biro 2002). Analysis of obsidian diffusion shows the vital importance of communication routes along rivers, notably along the Tisza basin where some settlements are situated at a distance of 150 km from deposits and where the proportion of obsidian is more than 90% (Szárvas – Starnini, Szakmany 1998). The nodules of raw material brought to settlements were exploited near dwellings for the needs of a single household. The inventory structure is characterized by a fairly high proportion of cores (less than 10%), the domination of flakes, chips and waste (as much as more than 60%). These specimens were not an intended outcome of processing but are the side-products from core preparation and rejuvenation. Blades are about 20% and tools up to 20%. Local processing is also evidenced by a high proportion of cortical and partially cortical flakes accounting for up to 30% of all flakes (e.g. at Moravany). In early phases (decortication, platform shaping) cores were exploited with a hard hammer, and blades were detached by means of a soft hammer or a punch. Sometimes detachment of blades was undertaken without prior flaking surface preparation – fully cortical blades was detached starting blade reduction of the core, then the flaking surface was extended by detaching blades with lateral cortex (Moravany – about 12% of all blades). Blade blanks are “mediolithic” measuring up to 4.0 cm. Specimens longer than 4.5 cm account at Moravany for only 12%. Although raw material was worked, basically, near each household, yet there were areas within a settlement where core preparation was carried out on a larger scale. These are features (pits) with a large concentration of artefacts, mainly from initial phases of processing. Blade production proper was done elsewhere – possibly in the immediate vicinity of dwellings, probably in the same areas where also hafts of combined tools with obsidian inserts were made (Zbudza, feature 1/85 and 2/92 – Kaczanowska, Kozłowski 1997, Moravany feature 2/99). The appearance of features related, to a greater degree, to the preliminary phase of processing indicate a two-episode cycle of blank production. This could have initiated the process of setting up specialized workshops for the needs of the entire settlement. Workshops like this are known in the youngest phases of the ELP. Retouched tools account for up to 20% of all artefacts. In the assemblages that are associated with the formation phase of the ELC, tool groups frequently contain retouched flakes (Slavkovce – Kaczanowska, Kozłowski 1997), whereas at somewhat later sites blades with lateral retouch predominate. A higher proportion of end-scrapers than retouched blades and the occurrence of a fairly numerous groups of denticulated tools were recorded only in the Košice Basin (e.g. Čečejovce – Kozłowski 1989). At all sites occur trapezes which in the older literature used to be associated with the influence of local Mesolithic substratum. At present there are no doubts that these are forms that are found in the whole Neolithic: from the Star čevo-Körös complex to the Early Eneolithic, they can hardly function as diagnostic for Mesolithic tradition.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

The Late Phase of the evolution of the Linear Complex In the northern part of the Great Hungarian Plain, in the Košice Basin, in the Eastern Slovakian Plain and in the Prešov Basin the Bükk Culture developed, which N. Kalicz and J. Makkay (1977) believe to have been a local group of the ELP. The exploitation and trade in obsidian used to be linked with the Bükk Culture. Analysis of chipped stone industries of the Bükk Culture has shown that obsidian played a major role at settlements at the distance of as far as 55 km north of obsidian deposits i.e. in comparison with the early phase of the ELP trips to obtain obsidian were undertaken from more distant areas. This was caused by the gradual expansion of the Bükk culture to the north. Moreover, the isolation of the Košice Basin where a greater influx of obsidian is registered had ended. To the south the route along the Bodrog and the Tisza continues to play an important role in obsidian diffusion. However, deposits of local raw materials began to gain in importance, especially those located in the immediate vicinity of settlements such as e.g. limnoquartzites at Boldogköváralja or Arka, or Carpathian radiolarites at the sites in the Prešov Basin. On the one hand, the presence of obsidian at all Bükk culture sites confirms inter-site contacts and a network of exchange within this culture, on the other hand, advancing process of adaptation to local conditions and natural resources can be seen. Preliminary working and partially also blade blanks exploitation took place in specialized on-site workshops. At Kašov a long pit (probably associated with a posthouse) yielded remains of at least 4 workshops producing blades (Banesz 1991). Similar features are known as well from Mala Trna and Humenne (Kaczanowska, Kozłowski 2002). Cores from these workshops are conical or cylindrical, with a carefully prepared platform and a flaking surface round the entire circumference. Prior to exploitation crests were shaped. Blades were detached using punch technique, in some cases pressure technique. The size of obtained specimens and regular, straight edges allow to assume that blank production in workshops was carried out by specialized knappers. The longest blades, more than 10 cm long, were taken away from workshops. Majority of specimens that remained was broken pieces. Possibly, they were damaged accidentally in the course of production process, but it is also likely that blade breaking was used to achieve straight profiles when as a rule the thickest, proximal part was broken off. The presence of workshops that focused on blank production is related to the problem of blade depots at Bükk culture settlements. The literature of the subject connects them with exchange with remote areas and the exceptional role of this culture in obsidian trade. In view of the above we would like to draw attention to several facts, namely: 1. To assign all the obsidian depots to the Bükk culture can be regarded as – to say the least – questionable. 2. At Bükk culture settlements depots of blades made of raw materials other than obsidian were also discovered (Boldogköváralja – limnoquartzites, Sarišskie Michalany – radiolarites – Kaczanowska et al . 1993). 3. Use-wear analysis of these depots has established that these were depots of tools which were used for specific functions e.g. wood working. Thus, we can define them as craftsmen’s kits. The Bükk culture inventories exhibit high variability of frequencies of the various retouched tool types. For example, at Humenne blades with lateral retouches dominate and the burin index is high (Kaczanowska, Kozłowski 1998); at the settlement at Šarišskie Michalany the majority are truncations followed by end-scrapers (Kaczanowska et al . 1993); at Boldogköváralja truncations and end-scrapers dominate, whereas at Čierne Pole end-scrapers are most frequent. Thus, the tool inventory depends on functional specificity or differing stylistic traditions. At other settlements, wherever larger areas were explored, the increasing role of end-scrapers and truncations, in comparison to older phases, is noticeable. The growing importance of tools with lateral retouch could have been the effect of influence from two centers: the unifying influence of the Vin ča culture on the Linear complex (Kaczanowska 1982) or contacts between the western 68

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 and the eastern Linear units. It is also possible that changes in tool structure were caused by the changes in subsistence economy. Conclusions The presented model of technological development of lithic production in the VIth millenium BC bases on the premise that in a general model of cultural evolution the technological subsystem is determined by other cultural subsystems, first of all by subsistence economy and social relations; the interactions of these subsystems are determined by and part of mutual interrelations with natural environment. The proposed model of technological evolution differs from the linear model characteristic for the neo-evolutionistic and neo-Marxist orientations. In place of the linear evolution, both of social structures and the technology that determined them, we propose an oscillatory model where the initial phase of the FTN – in the first half of the VIth millennium – continues to maintain the high level of technology adopted from the Pre-ceramic Neolithic of the Near East, the corresponding social structure based on specialization and a more advanced task assignment, and possibly – incipients of hierarchical society. About the middle of the VIth millenium BC – when Linear complexes emerged – the inter-group specialization and long- distance exchange vanish, and – in the consequence – the standard of technology deteriorates. It is only at the end of the VIth millenium BC, in the late phase of the ELC, that a revival of elements of specialization can be seen. However, specialization does not occur between regional groups, but only at the level of particular settlements. Nevertheless the revival of specialization is apparent in development of technologies which reach a standard similar to the initial phase of the FTN. This new leap in the evolution of social structures and technologies in the Bükk culture took place only in the north-east part of the Carpathian Basin. This evolutional leap was not registered in the later phases of the LBK in Central Europe. The Bükk culture, notably its northern variant in the territory of eastern Slovakia, in turn, vanishes suddenly at the turn of the VIth and Vth millennia. S. Šiška (1995) related this phenomenon to hypothetical immigration of Bükk population to the north of the Carpathians – but there is no evidence in support of this hypothesis. It is more likely that the northern variant of the Bükk culture disappeared as a result of a demographic crisis. Consequently, the latest Bükk culture sites on the middle Tisza exhibit isolation which is seen in the use of local raw materials and the gradual deterioration and disappearance of specialization (e.g. Polgar 31). References Bacskay, E., Siman, K. 1987 . Some remarks on chipped stone industries of the earliest Neolithic populations in present Hungary. In: J.K. Kozłowski, S.K.Kozłowski (eds) Chipped stone industries of the early farming cultures in Europe. Archaeologia Interregionalis, Warszawa-Kraków, 107-130.

Bánes, L., 1991. Neolitická diel ňa na výrobu obsidiánovej industrie v Kašove. Východoslovenský Pravek III, 39 – 68.

Bartosiewicz, L., 1999 . The emergence of holocene faunas in the Carpathian basin: a review. In: N.Benecke (ed.) The Holocne History of the European Vertebrate Fauna. Archaeologie in Eurasien, 6, Rhaden/Westfalen, 73-90.

Biagi, P. , Shennan S., Spataro M.,

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

2005. Rapid rivers and slow seas? New data for the radiocarbon cronology of the Balkan Peninsula.In: L.Nikolova, J.Higgins, Prehistoric Archaeology and Anthrpological Theory and Education, RPRP, 6-7, 43-51.

Biró, K., 2002 . Advances in the study of Early Neolithic lithic materials in Hungary. Antaeus 25, 25 – 168.

Bökönyi, S., 1970. Animal remains from Lepenski Vir. Science, 167, 3926, 1702-1704.

1974. History of domestic mammals in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest.

1988. The Neolithic fauna of Divostin. In: A.McPherron, D.Srejovi ć (ed.) Divosin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia. Pittsbourgh, 419-445.

Chapman, J., 1989. Demographic trend in Neothermal South-East Europe. In: C.Bonsall (ed.) The Mesolithic in Europe, Symposium Edinbourgh, 505-515.

Clason, A., 1980. Padina and Starcevo: Game,fish and cattle. Palaeohistoria, 22, 142-173.

Domboroczky, L., 1997. Fuzesabony-Gubakut. Neolithic village from the 6 th millenium B.C. In: P.Raczky, T.Kovacs, A.Anders (ed.) Paths into the past. Budapest, 19-27.

2003. Radiocarbon data from neolithic archaeological sites in Heves County (Notrth-Eastern Hungary). Agria XXXIX, 5 - 71

2005. A Körös – kultúra északi elterjedési határának problematikája a Tiszaszölös-Domaháza- Pusztán végzett ásatás eredményeinek fényében. Archeometriai Mühely, 5 – 15.

Dzieduszycka-Machnikowa, A., Lech, J., 1976. Neolityczne zespoły pracowniane z kopalni krzemienia w S ąspowie . Wrocław- Warszawa-Kraków-Gda ńsk.

Elster, E., 1977. Neolithic Technology: a case study in lithic analysis for Old Europe, 6500-4000 B. C. University of California, Los Angeles.

Gatsov, I., 1993. Neolithic chipped stone industries i Western Bulgaria. Kraków.

Kaczanowska, M., 1982 . Aus den Forschungen über die Steinindustrien des Linienbandkeramikkreises ( in) Siedlungen der Kultur mit Linearkeramik in Europa, Nitra, pp 63 - 68

1985. Rohstoffe, Technik und Typologie der neolithischen Feuersteinindustrien im Nordteil des Flussgebietes der Mitteldonau, Warszawa.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Kaczanowska et al. 2002 Kaczanowska, M., Kaminská, L., Kozłowski, J. K., Nowak, M., Vizdal, M. Badania wykopaliskowe na wczesnoneolitycznej osadzie w miejscowo ści Moravany we wschodniej Słowacji w latach 1998-2001. Materiały i Sprawozdania Rzeszowskiego Ośrodka naukowego XXIII, 173-197.

Kaczanowska, M., Kozłowski, J. K., 1984-1985 . Chipped stone Industry from Golokut. Rad Vojvodanskih Muzeja 29, 27-31.

1997 . Lithic industries. In: Kozłowski, J. K., (ed) 1997. The Early Linear Pottery Culture in Eastern Slovakia. Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat, I, Kraków, 177-219.

2002. Bükk Culture lithic assemblage from Humenné, Eastern Slovakia. Študijné Zvesti Archeologického Ústavu SAV, 34, 65 – 90.

Kaczanowska, M., Kozłowski, J. K., Makkay, J. 1981. Flint hoard from Endr őd, site 39 ( Körös Culture). Acta Archaeologica Carpathica XXI, 105 – 118.

Kaczanowska, M., Kozłowski, J. K., Šiška, S., 1993. Neolithic and Eneolithic chipped stone industries from Šarišské Michal’any, Eastern Slovakia. Linear Pottery, Bükk and Baden Cultures. Kraków.

Kalicz, N., Koós J., 1997 . Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithishen Hausresten und Gräbern in Nordostungarn. (in) ANTI PON Dragoslavo Srejovi ć , Belgrad, 123-136.

2002. Eine Siedlung mit ältestneolithishen Gräbern in Nordostungarn. Preistoria Alpina 37, 45 - 79

Kalicz, N., Makkay, J., 1966. Die Probleme der Linearkeramik im Alföld. Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica, 10, 35-47.

1972 . Probleme des frühen Neolithikums der nördlichen Tiefebene. Aktuelle Fragen der Bandkeramik. Székesfehévár , 77 – 92.

1976 . Frühneolithische Siedlung in Méhtelek-Nádas ( Vorbericht). Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Institutes der UAW 6, 13 – 24.

1977. Die Linienbandkeramik in der Grossen Ungarischen Tiefebene. Budapest.

Kalicz, N., Raczky, P., 1981. Siedlung der Körös-Kultur in Szolnok-Szanda (Vorbericht) Mitteilungen des Archäologischen Institutes der UAW 10-11,13 -34

Karmanski, S. 2005. Donja Branjevina: A neolithic settlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). Biaggi, P. (ed) Societa per la Preistoria e Protoistoria delle Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, 10.

Kertész et al 1994

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Kertész, R., Sümegi, P., Kozák, M., Braun, M., Félegyházi, E., Hertelendi, E., Archaeological and Palaeoecological study of an Early Holocene settlement in the Jászság Area. Acta Geographica, Geologica et Meteorologica Debrecina 32 pp 5 – 49.

Kertész, R., Sümegi, P., 2001. Theories, critiques and a model: Why did the expansion of the Körös-Star čevo culture stop in the center of the Carpathian Basin? In: R. Kertész, J. Makkay (eds) From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Budapest, Archaeolingua, pp 225 – 246.

Korek., J., 1983. Adatok a Tiszahát neolitikumához. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve XVIII-XX, pp. 8 – 60.

Kozłowski, J. K., 1989. The lithic industry of the Eastern Linear Pottery Culture in Slovakia. Slovenská Archeológia XXXVII-2, pp 377- 406.

1997. (ed). The Early Linear Pottery Culture in Eastern Slovakia. Prace Komisji Prehistorii Karpat, I, Kraków.

2001. Evolution of the lithic industries of the Eastern LinearPottery Culture. In: R.Kertesz, J.Makkay (ed.), From the Msolithic to the Neolithic. Budapest, Archaeolingua, 247-260.

2005. Remarks on the Mesolithic in the Northern part of the Carpathian Basin.In: E,Gal I.Juhasz, P.Sumegi (eds), Environmental Archaeology in North-Eastern Hungary, Budapest, Archaeolingua, 175-186.

Kozłowski, J. K., Kozłowski, S. K., 1982. Chipped stone industries from Lepenski Vir. Prehistoria Alpina,19, 259-294.

Lazarovici, G. 2006. The Anzbegovo-Gura Bacului axis and the first stage of the Neolithization process in southern-central Europe and the Balkans. In: N.Tasić, C.Grozdanov (eds), Homage to MilutinGarasanin, Belgrade, 111-158.

Lazi ć M. 1988. Fauna of mammals from the Neolithic settlements in Serbia. In: D.Srejovi ć (ed.) The Neolithic in Serbia, Belgrade:The University, 24-38.

Lichardus, J., 1972 . Beitrag zur chronologischen Stellung der östlichen Linearbandkeramik Aktuelle Fragen der Bandkeramik. Székesfehévár , pp 107 - 121.

Makkay, J., 1982 . A magyarországi neolitikum kutatásának új eredményei. Budapest.

Păunescu, A. 1970. Evolu ţia uneltelor şi armelor de piatr ă cioplit ă descoperite pe teritoriul României, Bucure şti.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

1987. Les industries lithiques du Néolithique ancien de la Roumuanie et quelques considérations sur l’inventaire lithique des cultures du Néolithique moyen de cette contrée. (in) J.K.Kozłowski, S.K.Kozłowski (ed) Chipped stone industries of the early farming cultures in Europe. . Archaeologia Interregionalis Warszawa-Kraków pp 75 – 94.

Raczky, P., 1983 . A kora neolitikumból a középs ő neolitikumba való átmenet kérdései a Közép-és Felső Tiszavidéken. Archeologiai Érteszit őö 110, pp. 161 – 194.

1989 . Chronological Framework of the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Tisza Region ( in ) S. Bökönyi (ed) Neolithic of Southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern Connections, Budapest, pp 233 – 251.

Raczky, P., Sumegi P., Bartosiewicz L., Gal E., Kaczanowska M., Kozłowski J.K., Anders A., In print. Ecological barrier versus mental marginal zone? Problems of the northernmost Ķőrős Culture settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain.

Renfrew, C., Dixon, J., E., Cann, I., R. 1968. Further analysis of Near Easter Obsidians. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, NS XXXIV, pp 319 -331.

Sheratt, A., 1982. The development of Neolithic and Copper Age settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain. Part I: The regional setting. Oxford Journal of Archaeology I, pp 287 -316

Srejovi ć, D., 1969 . Lepenski Vir – Nova praistorijska kultura u Podunavlju. Beograd

Starnini, E., 1994. Typological and technological analyses of the Körös culture chipped, polished and ground stone assemblages of Méhtelek-Nádas ( North-Eastern Hungary). Atti della Societa per la Preistoria e Protoistria della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 8, pp 29- 95.

Starnini, E., Szakmány G., 1998. The lithic industry of the Neolithic sites of Szarvas and Endr őd ( South-Eastern Hungary): Techno-typological and archaeometrical aspects. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae L-4, pp 279 – 342.

Sümegi, P., 2005. Pre-Neolithic development in North-Eastern Hungary. (in) E. Gál I.Juhász, P. Sümegi (eds) Enviromental archaeology in North - Eastern Hungary, Budapest, Archaeoligua, 15-24.

Šari ć, J., 2005 . The chipped stone assemblage. In: S. Karmanski, Donja Branjevina: A neolithic settlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). Biaggi, P. (ed) Societa per la Preistoria e Protoistoria delle Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, 10. pp 57- 64

Šiška, S., 1989. Kultúra s východnou lineárnou keramikou na Slovensku, Bratislava. 73

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

1995. Zur Problematik des Untergangs der Bükker Kultur. Slovenská Archeológia XLIII-1, pp5- 26.

Whittle et al 2002. Whittle, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Bori ć, D., Pettitt, P., and Richards, M., In the beginnig: radiocarbon dates from the Early Neolithic in northen Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus 25, pp. 63-117.

Figures Fig.1. Mesolithic and alleged Mesolithic sites in North-Eastern part of the Carpathian Basin: 1- Ciume şti (Romania); 2-Kamenitsa 2 (Ukraina); 3 – Kamenitsa 1 (Ukraina); 4 – Uzhgorod 1 ((Ukraina), 5-Tisza őrs (Hungary); 6 – Hugyaj (Hungary); 7 – Tarpa (Hungary); 8 – Jásztelek (? ) (Hungary), 9 – Barca (Slovakia), 10 – Streda nad Bodrogom (Slovakia) . Ryc. 2. North-Eastern part of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent territories in the Early Neolithic. Fig. 3. Animal bone structure in selected Star čevo-Körös sites. Fig. 4. Radiometric chronology (calibrated BC) of the main Star čevo – Kőrős Culture, Szátmar Group and Early and Middle Phase of the Eastern Linear Culture sites. Fig. 5. FTN sites in the Northern Balkans and in the Carpathian Basin with blades made from “Balkan” (yellow, white spotted) flint. Fig. 6. FTN sites in the Carpathian Basin with artefacts made from the obsidian of Tokaj-Prešov Upland. Fig. 7. Ratouched blades from Karanovo-Kremikovci Culture (1,3-Galabnik 1 , 2- Galabnik 3 - Bulgaria), and Star čevo Culture (4-6 - Velesnitsa, Serbia; 7,8 – Golokut, Serbia). Acc.to I.Gatsov and J.Šari č). Fig. 8. Cuina Turcului, Romania.1- Burin, 2 – retouched blade, 3 – end-scraper, 4 – perforator, 5-10 - trapezes (wg A Paunescu) Fig. 9. 1-3 Cores from Nagyk őrű, Hungary; 4-7 Tiszasz őlős-Domahaza, Hungary (4-6 – cores, 7 – retouched blade from „Balkan” flint) Fig. 10. Mehtélek 1,4,5 – cores, 2 – blade from Balkan flint, 3 – perforator, 6-12 – trapezes, 13- 16 – blades with traces of use, 17 – retouched truncation ( acc.to E. Starnini) Fig..11. Obsidian nodules from the early Eastern Linear Culture site of Moravany ( Eastern Slovakia) Fig. 12. Number of artefacts in lithic assemblages of the FTN sites in the Northern Balkans and in the Carpathian Basin. Fig. 13. Slavkovce (Eastern Slovakia). 1-9 cores from Early Eastern Linear Culture assemblage Fig.. 14. Obsidian and limnoquartzite tools from Eastern Linear Culture: Slavkovce (Eastern Slovakia): 1-6 – retouched blades, 7-12 – trapezes, 13- fragment of trapeze or truncation; Zalužice (Eastern Slovakia): 14-19 – retouched blades, 20 – end-scraper Fig.15.. Raw material structure of selected Western Linear (LBK) and B űkk Culture sites: 1 - obsidian, 2 –limnoquartzites, 3- radiolarites, 4- Jurassic flint, 5- Cretaceous flint from Dnester basin, 8- others. Fig. 16. Obsidian cores from the B űkk Culture workshop in Kašov (Eastern Slovakia). Acc.to L. Banesz Fig. 17. Radiolarite blade depot of B űkk Culture from Šarišske Michal’any (Eastern Slovakia) Fig. 18. Radiolarite blade depot of B űkk Culture from Šarišske Michal’any (Eastern Slovakia) Fig. 19. Raw material procurement systems, technology, tool morphology and the relation between lithic production and social structures in the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Northern Balkans and the Eastern part of the Carpathian Basin. 74

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Fig.20. Oscillating changes in lithic production techniques (red) and their relation to social organization (green) in the Early and Middle Neolithic in the northern Balkans and eastern part of the Carpathian basin.

Figure 1

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Figure 2

Figure 3

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Figure 4

Figure 5

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Figure 6

Figure 7

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Figure 12

Figure 13 80

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Figure 14

Figure 15

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18 82

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Figure 20

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

CHAPTER 5 Spread of the First Temperate Neolithic across the Balkans as seen from the perspective of macroblade technology

Małgorzata Kaczanowska and Janusz K.Kozłowski

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Introduction The appearance of the first groups of Neolithic population in the Balkans has been the object of controversies revolving around the relations between the immigrants and local groups of hunter-gatherers. These controversies also concern models of the evolution of material culture which accompanied the introduction of farming-breeding economy. Among the disputed issues belong: 1. the hypothetical existence of the Pre-ceramic (Aceramic) phase in the Balkans and its relation to the Pre-ceramic Neolithic in the Near East, 2. the first appearance of ceramics in the Balkans, first of all the question of the Monochrome phase that preceded the phase with the white-painted pottery, 3. the origin and diffusion of the Neolithic with white-painted ceramics, which is the first uniform FTN horizon in the Balkans. These questions cannot be resolved unless we take into account lithic industries that – besides painted ceramics – constitute one of the markers of the FTN in the territories from Greece as far as the Danube, between the second half of the VIIIth and the second half of the VIth millenium B.C. The problem of the Pre-ceramic Neolithic in Greece was critically reviewed by C. Perles (1989, 2001) who pointed out that the arguments in support of the existence of Pre-ceramic (aceramic) layers in the tells of Thessaly (Argissa, Gediki, Sesklo, Soufli Magoula) are questionable: these layers, indeed, contained sherds, but the small areas explored in them caused that in comparison with the upper settlement levels the quantity of ceramics seemed small ( Fig. 1) . There are arguments, on the other hand, to confirm the appearance, mainly on the Aegean Sea islands, of elements of Neolithic economy (semi-domesticated suids and caprids, intensive plant processing by grinding stone equipment) or even a full package of Neolithic innovations in the Pre-ceramic context in the period between the middle of IXth and the first half of VIIth millenium (Fig.2). The lithic industries that accompanied those innovations were derived from local Mesolithic traditions. This is the case of, for example, the Cyclope Cave on the island of Gioura (Sampson, Kozłowski 1999), the site of Maroulas on the island of Kythnos (Sampson, et al . 2002), layer X from Knossos – trenches A and X (Evans 1964, 1971), and mainland sites such as phase X (Initial Neolithic) in the Franchthi Cave (Perlès 1990, Hansen 1991). In the case of Maroulas a large settlement was identified with about 30 round dwelling structures with stone foundations and pavements has been identified accompanied by about 15 complete and partial graves ( Fig.3) At none of the sites, either in the Balkans or in the Aegean Sea basin, is the evidence of contacts with the Pre-ceramic Neolithic of the Near East registered in the technologies or typology of lithic industries (evidence such as: naviform cores, blade points shaped by surface retouches etc.). The problem of the Monochrome phase The problem of the phase with Monochrome ceramics was reported, first of all, from Bulgaria where two sites yielded stratigraphical sequences with Monochrome ceramics below the White-painted pottery phase. These are the sites of Koprivets in north-east Bulgaria (Popov 1994) and Krainitsi in south-west Bulgaria (Stefanova 1996). One-layer sites in northern Bulgaria such as Polyanitsa Palato and Ohoden have also been assigned to the Monochrome phase. H. Todorova (2003) believes them to represent the earliest Balkan Neolithic that embraced only some parts of the eastern Balkans, without Thrace and Dobrudza. However, in practical terms, to isolate the Monochrome phase is problematic: only fairly small areas of those sites have been explored; the presence of monochrome sherds (just as the hypothetical lack of ceramics in the lower layers of tells in Thessaly) could be the effect of special activities carried out in the various sectors of a site and specific discard patterns. Nonetheless, there is one argument in favour of existence of the Monochrome phase, as a discrete stage namely: this is the specific character of lithic industries 85

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 that occur in monochrome layers described by I. Gatsov (2000, 2001). At Koprivets these were flakes and flake tools exclusively, mainly notched tools from local, poor quality raw materials, whereas at Krainitsi these were only “few pieces of flakes”. These assemblages are different from macroblade industries co-occuring with white painted ceramics. The hypothetical Monochrome phase at the beginning of the Neolithic in Bulgaria is believed to have been related to the Early Neolithic of north-west Turkey, notably to the archaic Fikirtepe phase (Özdögan, Basgelen 1999). Similarly the flake industry from Bulgarian Monochrome sites is considered to be similar to the industry from Hoça Ce şme in Turkish Thrace, the industry that was based also on local raw materials (Gatsov 2001). At Hoça Ce şme macroblade artefacts from yellow flint imported from Bulgaria appear only in the penultimate phase (phase II). The hypothetical migration of Monochrome ceramics population groups from Turkish Thrace and, possibly, from north-western Anatolia (associated with the archaic phase of the Fikirtepe culture) to the territory of eastern Bulgaria could not have played an important role in the neolithization of the Balkans: there is no evidence whatsoever of evolution in material culture (ceramics, stone industry) in the interval between the Monochrome phase and the Neolithic with white (or white-on-red) pottery. It is believed that a monochromous phase, preceding the Protosesklo culture with white- painted ceramics, could have existed in Greece, too. This hypothesis is based on the assumption that the pre-ceramic layers in the tells of Thessaly contained few unpainted sherds. For example at Argissa a total of 122 sherds were discovered (in spit XXXI and in the pits underneath the tell) that V. Milojcic (1962) believed to be intrusive. Also at Sesklo Teocharis (1963) distinguished “Early Neolithic I” horizon that contained “primitive” crude, unfired or poorly fired sherds. If this assumption should be true – which is questioned by some researchers (e.g. Wijnen 1981), then this would mean that in the initial phase of the Neolithic in Greece we have to do with experiments leading to the discovery of ceramic ware. The introduction of pottery would then, however, have taken place in the context of macroblade industry – known both from the “Pre- ceramic” levels and from the initial Neolithic in Thessalian tells (Perlès 1986), in the period between 7760±100 (the earliest date on charcoals from Argissa, apart from two earlier dates of 8100/7900 on bone) and 7755±97 and 7483±72 B.P. (for the end of the “pre-ceramic” phase at Sesklo – Perlès 2001). Recently, the investigations in the Sarakenos Cave in Beotia have shed new light on the question of the Monochrome phase in central-eastern Greece (Fig.4). The Early Neolithic layers in this cave, starting from spit 17 to 27, in trench A revealed the occurrence of red-on- White/cream painted ceramics; lower down, in the layers dated at between 7560±50 (spit 31, trench A) and 7460±50 (spit 29) there is Monochrome ceramics exclusively ( Fig.5). This is, however, a fairly thin-walled ceramics with smooth, brown or red surfaces, co-occurring with some few macroblade artefacts from extralocal yellow flint or obsidian. The quality of this ceramics, unlike the ceramics in the Thessalian tells, does not show crude craftmanship despite the fact that chronologically the layers in spits 29–30 are almost contemporaneous with the end of the “Pre-ceramic” phase at Thessaly. The comparison of chipped stone industries assigned to the hypothetical Monochrome phase in Greece and in Bulgaria reveals an essential difference between them: in Greece there is macroblade technique and imported raw materials – just like in the Neolithic with white-painted ceramics (Protosesklo), in Bulgaria – on the other hand – there is flake technique and local raw materials. The question of the origins of macroblade technology in Greece is still a puzzle. In the few indisputably Late Mesolithic sites this technology is unknown; lithic production at Late Mesolithic sites of the mainland (Klisoura Cave 1, layers 3-5 – Koumouzelis et al.2003, Franchthi phase IX – Perles 1990, Sarakenos Cave spits 29-3 in trench A) and on Aegean islands (Gioura, Cyclope Cave, Late Mesolithic – Sampson et al.2003) is based essentially on flake 86

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 debitage, rarely on bladelets production, nearly exclusively on local raw materials. It is only in the “Initial Neolithic more regular blades appear ” in the Franchthi Cave (phase X) (Perles 1990, Fig.24:1-9), associated with trapezes and “fleches tranchantes”. This could be the effect of the connections with the central and the western Mediterranean Castelnovian cultural zone ( Fig. 6). This tradition of regular blades and trapezes could have played a role in the origin of macroblade technology in the “Aceramic” Phase ( which is, in fact, equal to the Monochrome Phase) in Thessaly, such as Argissa Magula (pit β) (Tellenbach 1983, Perlès 1987) ( Fig.7). White-painted pottery horizon The wide diffusion of the Neolithic in the Balkans is related to the White-painted ceramics horizon, represented in Greece by the “Protosesklo phase”. This phase spread in the central and eastern Balkans along the Vardar and the Morava rivers, and along the Styrmen- Struma valleys reached the southern part of the Great Hungarian Plain, Banat and central Transilvania. The process of diffusion of the white-painted ceramics was very fast. The oldest sites of this phase in Greece are dated at 7400–7200 B.P., the sites in Bulgaria and Serbia – on the other hand – are dated at between 7200–7000 B.P., whereas those in Rumania and southern Hungary at 7100–6900 B.P. ( Whittle et al. 2002, Domboroczky 2003) The spread of white-painted ceramics was associated with the simultaneous spread of techniques of stone working that are diagnostic for this horizon, namely: a) macroblade technique using single-platform cores with prepared flaking surfaces, b) advanced technique of blade detachment: by pressure or with a punch, c) production based on extralocal raw materials, d) import of yellow flint mostly from the Pre-Balkan platform. Unfortunately Early Neolithic workshops have not been recorded in these regions, e) limited discard of cores and debitage products, f) specific style of tools shaping by means of lateral retouch. The production of long blades with parallel lateral edges was determined by two factors: 1. the knapper’s skill 2. selection of suitable raw material. Blade detachment was preceded by a number of operations that aimed to give the raw material nodule its appropriate shape and to obtain the appropriate coring angle. Long blades with parallel lateral edges were detached from single-platform cores with a carefully prepared platform which was, subsequently, rejuvenated by detaching a series of fine flakes. The pra-flaking face of single-platform cores was shaped by means of a crest. Blades were split off with the use of a soft hammer or by means of pressure technique. Both these techniques produced regular, standardized blanks. The use of such advanced technologies required that a knapper should be highly skilled. This leads to the conclusions that lithic production belonged to a narrow group of skilled workers. This hypothesis has been confirmed by the fact that a full cycle of lithic production on-site is absent at FTN settlements. Usually, long blades or their fragments and blade tools are recorded in the settlements. In the Eastern Balkans blades were made, as a rule, from light yellow, weakly transparent raw material referred in literature as “silex blond”. So far, the presence of outcrops of this type of flint in Greece as not been confirmed until now. Similar flint recorded in the Therma- Nigrita region in Macedonia (Kambouroglou, Peristeri 2004) appear in only small nodules, unsuitable for macroblades production. At sites of the northern part of the Balkans and in the Great Hungarian Plain there occur artefacts made from similar flint with precipitations in the form of spots, which is described in literature as “Balkan” or “Banat” flint. It is likely that this is a variant of the same raw material whose deposits are situated in the territory of the Pre-Balkan Platform. Blades made from these raw materials are known from Early Neolithic sites in the Peloponese (Lerna – Kozłowski et al . 1996, and Dendra (Protontariou-Deilaki 1992), from 87

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Thessaly (Argissa – Perlès 1987), and from the Neolithic layer in the Cyclope Cave on the island of Gioura, Northern Sporades (Kozłowski, Kaczanowska in press), from the sites in the Struma valley (Kovachevo, Galabnik, Slatina – Gatsov 1993), in the Thrace Basin (Karanovo – Gatsov, Kur čatov 1997). Yellow flint is known from Köros and Star čevo culture sites in the northern Balkans [among others: Divostin, Golokut (Kaczanowska, Kozłowski 1984-1985)], Starcevo, Donja Branjevina (Šari ć 2005) and from the Great Hungarian Plain. The northernmost sites that yielded macroblades from yellow flint, are Mehtelk (Starnini 1994) and Tiszaszölös-Domahaza in the Tisza basin. In all likelihood, most of the blades were produced outside settlement areas, possibly in specialized workshops in the vicinity of extraction points - unidentified so far – and, subsequently, were traded as finished products. A small number of flakes from settlements indicates that occassionally cores were exploited on-site, probably in several episodes. Debitage from rejuvenation stored in a vessel was discovered at the site of Endröd 39 (Kaczanowska et al. 1986). Core exploitation in several episodes consisted in detaching only several blades as need arose. Then, blades were shaped into tools mostly with marginal retouch. In the territories further away from the deposits of “silex blond” or the so-called “Banat flint”, where raw materials obtained by barter did not satisfy the demand for stone artefacts some tools were made from, easily accessible in the vicinity of settlements, deposits of siliceous rocks. Sometimes local production used a technique similar to that used in the production of blades from exotic rocks (Szolnok Szanda-Tenyósziget). When the quality of raw material was poor or when the skill of knappers was inadequate the standard of produced blades was low. When the system of distribution of raw materials is analysed two hypotheses should be taken into consideration: 1. that artefacts from “Banat” flint or “silex blond” were made by groups that inhabited areas in the immediate vicinity of deposits areas and that through barter they reached wider territories; 2. these raw materials were accessible to many groups inhabiting territories further away from deposits areas. Flint was obtained by parties during trips in search-of-raw materials. The first model assumes the existence of some kind of property rights to specific areas and rudiments of group specialization in the production of bartered goods. The second model holds that each community had its own specialists-knappers. Among the various communities would have operated a system of information transmission as to the location of raw materials deposits, while a common technological tradition would have existed. So far, investigations into lithic raw materials distribution in the Early Neolithic support the former of the two models of raw materials procurement. Regional variants of the White-painted Pottery Horizon Within the fairly homogeneous horizon of white-painted pottery several techno- typological variants can be distinguished: The Thrace Plain – the Karanovo Culture (Fig.8) The largest series of lithic artefacts comes from the tell at Karanovo. The oldest layer, Karanovo I, yielded a series of only 338 artefacts (Gatsov, Kur čatov 1997). It should be born in mind, however, that at this site the uncovered area was large, about 625 sq m. Three horizons with architectural remains, viz seven dwellings, correspond to Karanovo I. Thus, the number of artefacts made from sliliceous rocks in proportion to the investigated area (0.6 artefacts per sq m.) is not important. It should be stressed – however – that in the younger layers of the tell, associated with the phases Karanovo II, and especially with Karanovo II–III and Karanovo III the number of artefacts drops markedly. We can, thus, tentatively put forward a hypothesis that the settlement was set up by a group that brought with it a small store of a few cores and blanks and/or that this group maintained close contacts with other communities which supplied the newcomers with completed products. In time, ties gradually loosened which is documented by 88

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10 the drop in the number of artefacts and more intensive exploitation of tools in Karanovo II. The supply of raw materials breaks down after Karanovo II phase (i.e. after 5700–5500 B.C.). The lithic industry from the site at Karanovo is consistent with the characteristic features of the White-Painted Pottery horizon: 1. the main body of blanks, possibly also of tools, was made off-site, 2. the inventory is dominated by blades (31.9%) with parallel edges and a straight or weakly convex profile and a single-blow platform. Most specimens are broken. The proportions of whole, relatively small, specimens indicate that their length could have been from 6.2 to 10.0 cm. 3. The proportion of retouched tools is high (31.7%); predominantly one and two- sided, sometimes convergent specimens. 4. Other tools such as perforators, end-scrapers are, often, too with retouched sides, or were made on retouched blades.

The North-Central Balkans – the Star čevo Culture (Fig. 9) At the sites of the Star čevo Culture the presence of a relatively small number of chipped stone artefacts was recorded. Most of them were made from yellow flint – probably from the Pre- Balkan Platform. It seems, besides, that the number of artefacts decreases at settlements of later phases of the Star čevo culture. For example: while at Donja Branjevina the proportions are 0.6 artefact per 1 sq m of the explored area (Šari ć 2005), at Golokut, on the other hand, this index is merely 0.02 (Kaczanowska, Kozłowski 1984-1985). Providing these data are confirmed by a larger series of sites, then we can assume that, just as in the case of Karanovo, at Star čevo, too, we are dealing with a break-down of lithic production that took place in the younger developmental phases of this culture. This collapse was probably related to the gradual decline of workshops situated close to outcrops and shifting production to the household cluster and conducting to the desintegration of the distribution network of yellow flint existing up till then. All the Star čevo culture sites, even those with traces of additional on-site production from local raw materials (Donja Branjevina in Voivodina - Šari ć 2005), exhibit distinctive inventory structure with the domination of blades over flakes and with a high tool index. In tool groups long blades with lateral retouch are most frequent, although other tools begin to appear more frequently. Of particular interest is the occurrence of geometric microliths (trapezes) at a number of sites such as Donja Branjevina, Star čevo and at Cuina Turcului where there are most numerous (P ǎunescu 1970). It is likely, that the presence of trapezes is related to hunting and fishing activities rather than manifests the perseverance of Mesolithic tradition.

The Tisza basin – the Körös-Cri ş Culture (Fig.10) The sites of the Körös culture are distributed mainly in the Great Hungarian Plain i.e. the territory without natural deposits of flint siliceous rocks.Among finds from settlements there were small series of several up to a dozen or so discarded lithic artefacts; of particular interest is the presence, among them, of long blades and retouched blades from “Balkan” or “Banat” flint (Starnini, Szakmany 1998). The Körös culture population found and exploited, as well, obsidian deposits at the northern boundaries of Alföld. It was only the Szatmar group people who settled the areas of obsidian outcrops. In recent years a number of sites discovered on the Middle Tisza at the northern outskirts of the Körös cultures, yielded small series of chipped artefacts (Raczky et al.in press). It seems that besides the continuation of Balkan traditions, seen in the presence of tools with lateral retouch and artefacts made from “Banat” or “Balkan” flint, there appear new tendencies that were probably inspired by transformations in economy adapting the Balkan model to local conditions.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Moreover, attempts were made at exploitation of other raw materials from the deposits in the upper Tisza basin such as limnoquartzites of much poorer quality. A similar process of departure from the Balkan tradition can also be seen at the site of Szarvas situated south of the lower Körös river where the inventory contained some elements related to the Vin ča culture and the LBK (Kaczanowska, Kozłowski 2007). Conclusions The macroblade technology described in this work (Fig.11), that constituted an attribute of the FTN from the Peloponese as far as the Carpathian Basin, is part of the full Neolithic package with no roots in local, pre-Neolithic technologies. Lithic industries of the Monochrome horizon – providing such a horizon did exist – did not provide a substratum for the development of the industries of the White-Painted phase, possibly with the exception of some sites in Greece. The phenomenon of macroblade technologies spread across an extensive territory (just like the White-Painted Ceramics) in a relatively short time-interval. Despite some local variations this phenomenon is fairly uniform. At sites at the northern outskirts of the FTN there occur certain deviations from these standards of raw materials and Balkan technologies. Diachronically, a break-down in production and distribution is registered at about the middle of the VIth millenium BC cal. FTN populations are characterized by highly advanced technologies that contrast both with the Mesolithic as well as the Middle Neolithic. This advancement can also be seen in social organization namely: in group specialization and a stable network of long-distance exchange. Exchange could include various taxonomic units, but as the traded goods were a specific group of products made from specific raw materials this exchange could have been in its nature an exchange of prestigeous goods or be related to a ceremonial sphere. An analogy offers itself with the ritual exchange in the Triobrand Islands described by B. Malinowski: “this is, thus, an extensive, inter-tribal social network, a huge institution embracing thousands of people bound by a great common passion which is the Kula exchange and by many minor links and interests” (Malinowski 1967, p. 125). Bibliography Domboroczky, L., 2003. Radiocarbon data from neolithic archaeological sites in Heves County (Notrth-Eastern Hungary). Agria XXXIX, pp 5 - 71

Evans, J., 1964 . Excavations in the Neolithic settlement of Knossos 1957-1964. Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens 59 132-240.

Evans, J., 1971 . Neolithic Knossos; the growth of a settlement. Proceeding of the Prehistoric Society 37, 95-117

Gatsov, I., 1993. Neolithic chipped stone industries i Western Bulgaria. Kraków.

Gatsov, I., 2000. Chipped Stone Assemblages from South Bulgaria and North-West – Turkey ( Epipaleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic) in L. Nikolova (ed) Technology, Style and Society. Contributions to the Innovations between the Alps and the Black Sea in Prehistory, BAR International Series Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 1-28.

Gatsov, I., 2001 Epipaleolithic/ Mesolithic Neolithic Periods chipped stone assemblages from Southeastern Bulgaria and North- West Turkey: Similarities and differences, Tüba-Ar 101-112.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Gatsov, I., Kur čatov V. 1997 . Neolithische Feuersteinartefakte. In S. Hiller, V. Nikolov (eds) Karanovo. Die Ausgrabungen im Südsektor 1984-1992, Verlag Ferdinand Berger&Söhne, Horn/Wien. Salzburg-Sofia 1997, 213-228

Hansen, J. M., 1991 . The Paleoethnobotany of Franchthi Cave. (in) Excavations in Franchthi Cave, Greece, fascile 7. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Kaczanowska, M., Kozłowski, J. K., 1984-1985 . Chipped stone Industry from Golokut. Rad Vojvodanskih Muzeja 29, pp 27-31.

Kaczanowska, M., Kozłowski, J. K. 2007. The lithic assemblages of Szarvas 8/23, pits 3/3 1988 and 4/2 1988 (in) J.Makkay, The Excavations of the Early Neolithic Sites of the Koros Culture in the Koros Valley, Hungary. The Final Report. Societa per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Fiuli-Venezia Giulia, pp.237-246.

Kambouroglou E., Peristeri K., 2004. Carrieres prehistoriques et sites de silex en Macedoine (in) To archaiologiko ergo sti Makedonia kai sti Traki. Vol.18, 17-24.

Kozłowski, J. K. Kaczanowska, M., ( in press) Lithic assemblages (in) A.Sampson ed., Cave of Cyclope at the Island od Gioura, Academic Press

Kaczanowska et al 1986. Kaczanowska, M., Kozłowski, J. K., Makkay, J. 1981. Flint hoard from Endr őd, site 39 ( Körös Culture). Acta Archaeologica Carpathica XXI, pp105 – 118.

Koumouzelis et al. 2003 Koumouzelis, M., Kozłowski, J. K., Ginter, B. Mesolithic finds from Cave I in the Klisoura Gorge, Argolid (in) ) N Galanidou and C. Perlés (ed) The Greek Mesolithic Problems and Perspectives, Brithish School at Athens, Studies 10, pp.113-123..

Kozłowski et al 1996. Kozłowski, J. K. Kaczanowska, M., Pawlikowski, M., Chipped Stone Industries from Neolithic Levels at Lerna. Hesperia 65, pp. 295-372.

Malinowski, B., 1967. Argonauci Zachodniego Pacyfiku (Argonauts of the Western Pacific). Warszawa.

Miloj čić, V.,1962 . Die präkeramische neolithische Siedlung von Argissa in Thessalien. In V. Miloj čić( ed) Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa-Magula in Thessalien I. Beiträge zur ur – und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologiedes Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 2, Bonn, pp. 1-25.

Özdögan, M., Ba şgelen N. 1999 ( eds) Neolithic in Turkey- the cradle of civilisation. New discoveries. Istanbul.

Păunescu, A.1970. Evolu ţia uneltelor şi armelor de piatr ă cioplit ă descoperite pe teritoriul României, Bucure şti.

Perlès, C., 1987. Les industries du Neolithiqe “preceramique” de Grece: Nouvelles etudes, nouvelles interpretations (in) J.K.Kozlowski, S.K.Kozlowski ed. Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farimng Cultures in Europe. Archaeologia Interregionalis, Warsaw, pp.19-39. 91

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Perlès, C., 1988. New ways with an Old Problem: Chipped stone assemblages as an index of cultural discontinuity in Early Greek Prehistory (in) E.B.French, K.A.Wardle, Problems in Greek Prehistory, Bristol, pp.477-487.

Perlès, C., 1988 . New ways with an old problem: chipped stone assemblages as an index of cultural discontuity in the early Greek Prehistory in E.B. French and K. A. Wardle (eds) Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers presented at the Centenary Conference of British School of Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986. 477-188. Bristol Classical Press

Perlès, C., 1989 . La néolithisation de la Grèce in O Aurenche and J Cauvin ( eds) Néolithisations: Proche et Moyen Orient, Méditerranée orientale, Nord de l’Afrique, Europe méridionale, Chine, Amérique du Sud: 109-127. BAR Intenational Series 516. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Perlès, C., 1990 . Les industries lithiques taillées de Franchthi ( Argolide, Gréce). Tome II: Les industries du Mésolithique et du Néolithique initial. Excavations at Franchthi Cave, fascicle 5. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Perlès, C., 2001 . The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Popov V., 1994. Proutchvanie na rannoneolitnoto selischtche Koprivets, obchtina Bjala. Archeologitcheski Odkritia I Razkopki prez 1992. Sofia.

Protontariou-Delaki E., 1992. Paratiriseis stin prokerameki (apo ti Thessalia sta Dendra tis Argolis (in) Diethnes Synedrio gia tin Archaia Thessalia sti Mnimi tou Dimitri P.Theocharis. Athens, pp. 97-111.

Raczky P., Sumegi P., Bartosiewicz L., Gal E., Kaczanowska M., Kozłowski J.K., Anders A., in press., Ecological barrier versus mental marginal zone? Problems of northernmost Koros Culture settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain.

Sampson, A., Kozłowski, J. K., 1999. The Cave of Cyclope in the Northern Aegean: a specialized fishing shelter of the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. Neo-Lithics, 3/99, 5- 7.

Sampson et al. 2002: Sampson, A., Kozłowski , J. K., Kaczanowska, M., Gianouli, B., The Mesolithic settlement at Maroulas, Kythnos. Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry 2, 45-68.

Sampson et al. 2003. Sampson, A., Kozłowski , J. K., Kaczanowska, M. Mesolithic chipped stone industries from the Cave of Cyclope on the island of Youra (Northern Sporades). (in) N Galanidou and C. Perlès (ed) The Greek Mesolithic Problems and Perspectives, British School at Athens, Studies 10, 123-130

Starnini, E.,1994. Typological and technological analyses of the Körös culture chipped, polished and ground stone assemblages of Méhtelek-Nádas ( North-Eastern Hungary). Atti della Societa per la Preistoria e Protoistria della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 8, pp 29- 95.

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Starnini E., Szakmany G., 1998. The lithic industry of the Neolithic sites of Szarvas and Endrod (souther-eastern Hungary): techno-typological and archaeometrical aspects. Acta Archaeologica ASH, 50, pp. 279-342.

Stefanova T., 1996. A comparative analysis of pottery from Monochrome Early Neolithic Horizon and Karanovo I horizon and problems of the Neolithization of Bulgaria. Porocilo, 23, pp.15-38.

Šari ć, J.,2005 . The chipped stone assemblage ( in) Karmanski, S. Donja Branjevina: A neolithic settlement near Deronje in the Vojvodina (Serbia). Biaggi, P. (ed) Societa per la Preistoria e Protoistoria delle Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia, 10. pp 57- 64

Tellenbach, M.,1983. Materialien zum Präkeramischen Neolithikum in Süd –Ost Europa. Bericht der Römisch – Germanischen Kommision 64, pp. 23-137.

Teocharis D.,1973. Neolithic Greece. National Bank of Greece, Athens.

Todorova H., 2003. Das Fruhneolithikum Nordbulgariens im Kontext des Ostbalkanisches Neolithikums. Tell Karanovo und dans Balkan-Neolithikum. Internazionalen Kolloquium in Salzburg, pp. 9-25.

Whittle et al 2002. Whittle, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Bori ć, D., Pettitt, P., and Richards, M., In the beginning: radiocarbon dates from the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south- east Hungary. Antaeus 25, pp. 63-117.

Wijnen, M. H. J. M. N. 1981 . The Early Neolithic settlement at Sesklo; an early farming community in Thessaly, Greece. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 14.

Figures Fig.1. Map of the Mesolithic (with inicipient food producing economy) and Early Neolithic sites (Monochrome and White Painted Phase) in the Balkans and middle Danube Basin. Fig.2. Table showing the elements of incipient food producing economy in pre-Neolithic sites of Greece. Fig.3. Map of the excavations at Maroulas (Kythnos) with stone structures (C1-27), graves (G1- 11). Trenches are marked by “T”. According to A.Sampson. Fig.4. Profile of Sarakenos Cave (Beotia, Greece), trench A, with radiocarbon dates. Stratigraphic units: 1-3 – Early Neolithic with painted pottery, 4 – Early Neolithic with monochrome pottery, 5 – latest Mesolithic layer, 6-8 – Mesolithic layers, 9-10 – Final Palaeolithic layers. Fig.5. Sarakenos (Beotia, Greece). Early Neolithic Macroblade industry and monochrome pottery. Fig.6. Franchthi Cave (Argolid, Greece). Lithic find from phase X: 1-5 regular blades, 6,7 – fleches tranchantes, 88-11 – trapezes (and fragments) on regular blades, 12-16 notches implements on flakes (according to C.Perles). Fig.7. Argissa-Magula, Thessaly, Greece. Lithic finds from pit β: 1-6 macroblades, 7-10 – trapezes, 11 – arched backed bladelet (according to M.Tellenbach). Fig.8. Karanovo (Thrace, Bulgaria). Lithic finds from phase I: 1-3 – blade cores, 4,6-10 – retouched macroblades, 5 – double end-scraper (according to I.Gatsov).

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Fig.9. Donja Branjevina (Voivodina, Serbia). 1-3 – cores, 4 – utilized flake, 5-11 – blades, 12,13 – retouched blades, 14 – double truncation, 15-18 – trapezes (according to S. Karmanski). Fig.10. Lithic industries from FTN sites on the Great Hungarian Plain: 1-6 ; Endröd 119; 7,8 – Endröd 35, 9 – Szarvas 105; 10 – Szarvas 158 (according to E. Starnini and G. Szakmany). Fig.11. Map of the most important FTN Macroblade industries in the eastern Balkans and in the Middle Danube Basin.

Figure 5

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

Figure 611

STREP project NEST -028192 FEPRE: Deliverables 200 6/ 20 10

CHAPTER 6 Modelling the Neolithic transition in the Near East and Europes

J. Fort, T. Pujol and M. Vander Linden

/= $ 0EE30$+$+$'$"$"4! / 3 /9$

0 6..E3 !"$"/4($ 06..E3!,"$ 4( !"$

$! !&$)$7$$,$(!4$H24$$(0 4(("'4$

%$!"(,!$ ()($!" !,,( 0$04$((%44$H

24$$( "+$$! ,$( /)$"($ , 4( 4! )$$ 4$ "($ 4$ 2$$"

"%(,)4%% ((4 !)$( 30 4$$,$!$"!,,(!$ (

($$ $"$((' , %%$ !$("% , 4$ $ 4" (%$! 4$ $ ( !

%$0(4(,$$("%$!$ 4$%$!"(,!$"!$ (74

"4$ 2" !0,",''$(27( $!'$!44$$,(%$!

,4$ $ 4"(+$(()( '(%"$/$! + H,D

E-) $630 4(%4()$$ (($(($!$"$'$(/$6..>%0

6; "$ 6..> %0 6I.30 7$+$ !$ $! +$ "%(( , 4$ $2

$!( )($+$! 4($ %$!"$! !$ !,,$$ !$" !$ ( $ ( ("$ /($$

47$+$+($ 06..G6..-,+$'$$(2"%(($&" !24$ $

(30

$ ! + H,D /E-> EIC3 7$$ 4$ ,( %% '

4$" !$ 4$(%$!,,2,4$ $ ( ! "(( %$0

4$!$ ()($!(4$K($

= 6 /3

74$$ (4$(%$$!,4$%% ,,,$(04($ (" $!4$

274$,,$(!($($,4$$%!"+$(""$((/ ("$(2

,",4$)$,(++2"4 !$%$2$$($$ ! + H

,D 6..C30 4$ 4$ 4! ( 4$ !,,( "$,,"$ , ,$( ! (

$($ , 47 , 7' 4$' +$ %$ 2$$0 4$$,$ 4$ (%$$! , 4$

%% ,"$($(744$$$%!"/%$$ 3(7$ (744$

< !(%$((%"$/%$$ 3,4$%% 0 4(7()$$&%$"$!+$ '

) $ /3 2$( )$'! )' 2+2 +$ %$!" , 4$($

!$%$!$"$(0 !$$!$() $+ $(,4$ %$$( ! ")$$($!

,$42%4"!/$! + H,DEIC%0<<;! !$D

EEE30 (2 ("4 + $( $ /3 '$ !( (%$$! , ) =:' 74"4 (

"(($744$(%$$!)$!)' 'D24$ "4$ 2" ! /$

! + H,DE-EIC;4($ 06..<30$$,$!!$ ('$ !(

$( (/($$$$ $6..E!6..E,7$"$$+$7(30

(% $$("4(/3!$(")$ , 4$ $ $+ !$ ( , 4$

(% %%2,("4"% $&(" %"$(((4$(,274"4

=% "$+$("442$!H42$$( !("%$("4(4$ $(!

%$MF$(4 !$&%$"0(%$$!$(("4(/3$($, (,(

%%&0 4$' " ' '$ ! 42$$( +$2$ !$("% , 4$

$ 4" , %%20 4( ("4 !$ ( $ ( ,( ($% )$ +$'

%%$ 2$/)$"($,(4$" (% "'30 4$'"!$(")$' "

$,,$"( /$020 ($ +$ 30 4( $( H42$$( !$ ( /0$0 =2

""($+$ )$($"034+$)$$$"$ '!$+$ %$!/+($ 0

6..G304$%$($%%$7$!$+$ %4( $,$($"4,4$)'"%24$

("4$( %$!"$! )' 4$" !$ ( 4($ )$! )' $% 2 4$

"4$ 2" !0 F$ (4 ($$ 4 4( %"$!$ $+$ ( "(($"'

)$7$$ 4$ "4$ 2" ! ! 4$ !$ (0 4( %) $ 4! )$$ $!

%$+( '!($( ',42$$(!$ (/$020$/33) (

, H42$$( !$ ( /$020 =2 "" ($ +$ !:

)$(309($!"4$ 2" 2$(7$(4 %%($$() $( 0

% !$,'2 ! ( +2 4( %) $ ( ' $$(2 %

G ($ , ) ( $"$((' !$+$ % ,$ !$ ( , 4$ (%$! , 4$ $ 4"

( "(( 4$ $ ( ! %$0 F$ (4 ( ,! 4 72 , ($

+$ (%<.= $!(4$)$("4)$7$$4$!$ %$!"(!4$!

!4)$$,,$"(")$$2 $"$!/(4$'4+$+$'( $,,$"

4$2 ) (" $30

F$7 ! =$($((44$!$"+$ "%( , ("4$

%()$!)'$% 2"4$ 2" !4($%$!"$!)'"%

!$ (($$(%$ ',, %%"40 4244$$7$,"(4$ $ 4"

( 4$ $ ( ! %$ /)$"($ , 4( %4$$ 4$$ $ '

! + ) $3 $4!( " ! )$ %$ ' %% $!4$,$'4$

(% (%$! %4$$ 74 "4$ 2" $$( , $&% $ 4$ +(

" D , 4$ $" / ! 9"4 6..-3 ( %(() $

% "( $2, (( $&"( / ' 6..3 ! 4$ $

$("$$4$"/$$ $$ 0EEI;!$(! 6...; $)$ $

0 6..I3; 4$ $H2 " $" D , 4$ %$ / $ 0 6..C3; 4$

($( $ 4"2$$&%(/6..>3;%$"$"!(%$( (,D$!

"%(/"=$ 06..-3;4$!,,(,D$4$(47$($

$!$(/$ $ 06..E3;$"0

- 4$,(($%,7=7(4$$ (,!)($,C !$(,4$

$ ' $ 4"%$!4$ $(0 4$(2%,!" $",

%$7(4$!)($" $!4$+$(' $2$, ! /4$!

$$ $ 6...3 (%% $$$! 74 4$ $ !)($ , $ %$

/4 $ 0 6..63 4$ !)($ , ($ %$

/4%8::4$ 2$0 )()0:!"):!7 !043 4$ $ +$' ,

2 %+!$! )' 4$ ( 2( !$ $ 2 /4%8::7770%0H

" 0%:3 !$ (( )' !") )$(

/4%8::"C0"40&0"0=:!)($:!)0%4% O($+ ! $2"4$+ 6..E3 ! +(

%) (4$!!(+$'(/!6..>4$!6..-2!+!$ "46...

$!)$6..>$)4$!" $6..<"4 2!"4!(6..6

F4 $$ 06..6304$ $(7$($!4$ P !)($/4%8::"$&H

!)($0H=$ 0!$:30F$("$$$! 4$!$&" !$!4($$ $+"$"

=$%4$ !$(!$,$+$'($("444!(!!!$+ $((4)

<.'/4$7($7$($!4$($ ) $!$+ ) $3!" )$!4$(2

4$ )<0.0(,7$/+$$ 06..E30 4('$ !$! ,E.>%$($(

!I- P $H($($(0

%% $$' $ , 4( %%$ ( + ) $

4%8::"%$"0!20$!:Q:,040 4$ $&"$ , $ %%2 "(

4$EE($(!!$(($!, '((/E.>%$($(!G P

$($ 9: ($(($$4$$( (($")$ 730 4$$&"$ , $%%2

6"(4$"% $$ (,I- P ($(!!$(,4$ $(0

I !$"+$ 2!$! !$ $( "!$( !

+"$ +$( 7$ ($! $"2 2! )$( "" $ H$ % $"0 4$

$"2 2! ( !$ % , ($( 74 (!$ = <. = 74"4 ( 4$ + $

"$(%!24$"4"$(") '%$2$$)$!,$($!!

,%$H!( %% (/$! + H,DEIC;$ 06..-30

F$!$&$"42!!$( 74 ≤ ≤ I. ! ≤ ≤ .6 0

4$ 42$$( !$ ( 7$ %% ' 4$ , 72 $"+$ !H7 =

"%("4$$74"44()$$ (,$!%$+( '/$ 06..-3

$%/$%!"38$+$'!$ ,4$2!!$ /$($!

2$$(3 7$ "%$ 4$ $7 )$ , $ 4" ,$( K / 3 ,$

$%!",4)$,$$%!" / 3 4$($!$( /$ 0

6..-3

K / 3= / 3, / 3 < & : . . /63 & & K / 3= , / 3 ≥ : .

74$$ . (4$$$%!"+$$/,$"!'3%$2$$0 4$($"! $

0 /63 ( $"$((' , 4$ %% !$(' "$($ )+$ 4$ (

& & 6 & !$(' , ,$( ! = ( 4$ & )$ , ,$( %$

& !$0( (7$($, 4$($+ $(4%% $!)' !

& &",,$ 4$ 2$$" ( ( , 4$ $ 4" ( $ ' =06I

,$(:= 6 74"4 ( 2$$$ 74 4% 2" ! / ! &",,$

& 6..<30 7$+$4$+ $, (%(4($,,$"4$,(%$$!

& /4( 7$ $&%$" 4 $( ( 7 ! "42$ "($ 7$ 7$! ,

!$%$!4$(% %(30 ((2 2(","($!,0/637 !

"42$4$,(%$$!)7 !'$ !$2+$+ $(,4$%% !$('

E /4( ( 7$ H=7 ,$$ , !("$$H$ $( 74"4 =$( ) 2"

($($($$$ 06..-30

$%6/!(%$( 38 4$$7%% !$(',$!(%$( ("%$!(

")!$4$%% 4('(4$!$ "(!$$!% (4$$

!$4$%% +2,4$,$$(H$24)!$(

(− ) /+= 3 K/3 + ( K/ −+++ 3 K/ 3 K/ −+ 3 K/ + 3 ) />3 C

74$$ (4$%$(($"$/0$04$,",4$%% 4!$(!(%$($30

4( )$$ (47 4 ()( ' $ "% "$! !$ ( (2 %)) '

!(),4$!(%$( !("$'$ !( ,(%$$!(/($$ 06..I30"4

"'" $/($%(!63"$(%!($$+ ,2$$ '$(

4$ %$$ 2$( 4+$ )$$ $($! , )($+( , %$H!(

,$ %% ( ( .0E≤ ≤ .0<':2$ /%%0

$& > 4( $ 0 6..<3 ! 60≤. ≤ 60> /, 4$ 274 $ 2$

H .0->< < .0I< 2$ ! !$DEEE!4$$ (4% = / . 3 : /($$

$ R6GS $ 0 6..-330 "4 424 + $( , 4$ 274 $

/ .0.6'H< < .0.6E' H 60T< < 60ET 3 4+$ )$$ $($! , !

"$%' %% ( 74"4 ($ $! $%' (%"$ /9!($ E<-3 ! $ (

"(($ 74 $(( )($! "$$$' ! 4$ ($ , 4$ $ 4"

(/$0209"$H%%$ 6..I%0G-HGE)( = 60CT 30$( (($((4

4$2$$$ !$("$(%!4$2$,%$()4,4$ !$(

"4 !)4+$2$!+$ "4 !$(%%%$!$ %% 2$

$&%((/$ 06..C30 ( %(/($$)$ 737$4+$($!4$$

+ $( . = 606 = >6' ! = .0>I /4$ $ ( 4$ $ , 4$ )($+$!

+ $(, 2+$$ 06..-30 7$+$(24$+ $(744$2$(

. )+$7 !"42$$( (!"" (( 60F$"4$"=$!44$,

(%$$! , 4$ ( ( 2$$! 74 4$ '" %$!" + ) $ , 4$

42$$( !$ )($! (0 /63H/>3 /4( ( $,$$ , (4$K(

$/3($$$ 06..-(%$" '0/-330

4$ H42$$( !$ ( 7$ %% ' 4$ ($ 7H($% %"$!$ (

)+$)=2""($+$ (!)$(/($$%%$!&30

!$ %$+$ ($ ($( )$2 ( $! 4$ ( 2! 7$ "(!$$!

(()$( !$(424$4-<.)+$($ $+$ 0 $+$4$ $((

"" (( 7 ! )$ 4$ ($ , ' 4$ + $ , 4( 4$(4 ! ! $+$

$2 $"24$$,,$",)$( 2$4$/($$%%$!&930

4$+ $,4$ $ 4"$"4($7($($!(4,74"44$

!$ "(!$$!%$!"(%% !$('$ E.T,4$(!$('

/47$+$"4224$+ $,4(%$"$2$4($2 2) $$,,$"4$$( (30

4$( %2(! !, $($"$(('4$$+ ) $

4%8::"%$"0!20$!:Q:,040

F$($!4$ $24)%4$% '($&$(,4$

(,7$)4$$% %()4,4$"4$ 2" !$(!,4$

+ !$(,4$ $ 4",(%$!"$!)'!$ (4$($($(0

F$,("%$!4$2$H"" $!("$$ +$$"4,$"4,4$E.>

%$!I- $H($($(0$,2 $ $2$((( , 4$($ !("$(

+$((4$" )$!!$(!+"$+$(7$)$!,4$(%$!$ = .0

=:'/E

+ $($"(($74%$+($( (/4($ 06..<3!4(424+ $,

!"$( 4 "( (%$! $ ( 2! !$("% , 4$ %"$(( 4$

"$ (" $/7$($!$"4(2)$"($4$($(4$ $(2+$

( 7$+ $(, 30

4$$( ,$% 24$($EE.!$(((472074$$4$$

2"$(%!(4$!$,$"4/47$+$ (2 4$ $ ($ ($( (

2'$ !$!( %(30 4$, 727%($)($+$!200

0 4$(%$!(,($F$(7!(4 47!( ,$$ 4 " )$

""$! , )' 42$$( !$ ( ("4 ( (4$K( /0 /33 ) 4 " )$

!$(")$!)'H42$$(!$ ( 72,($+$ /($$)$ 730

60$% '""!2204$$$ %($!,4$ !$( $H

($($(4$+ ,4$ $ 4", $$"$7 !4+$)$$)6.

2$$(0(4(2$$$74"% !$ (M4$$&()($"7$

%$($($!$ 2$( ("= $4($(0

2$6(47(4""!242$$(!$ /(0 /63H/>33 4$

,$"4$( $$"$ $((4G.2$$(0$0 $((44 ,4$$($$$!

,"$$/20302$>(47(44("" (!$("42$,H

42$$(!$ (0$074$($+$ (!)$($" !$!/)$"($

6 4$$,,$",($+$ (( ("$($4$,(%$$!4$$!$$$2

! 4$ $,,$" , ( 4$ , (%$$! ( +$' ( ($$ %%$!& 930

4$$,$4$$( "(($"')$7$$"4$ 2" !/203!4$

"% !$ (/2(06H>309$ 77$%%($( 4(%) $0

4$!("$%"')$7$$4$+ $,4$ $ 4" $$"$""!2

4$ "4$ 2" ! /20 3 ! 4$ !$ ( /2(0 6H>3 " )$ $%$$!

"4$ 2" '(, 7(0 4$)$22,4$ $ 4"4$ $(!$(

$ '"$(%!4$%%2,,)$"($($+(%%$$!

+$' $ ' !$ 4$( $ ,$ !,,$$% "$(!=($$,

$ 42$$( %"=2$ !$+$ % /O$!$ 6..I30 ," ("4 2!

!$+$ %$ ' )$ $ 2$$ )$"($ ( %"$(( = % "$ 4$ 00

47$(/54 $$ 06..I30'"($4((+$'!,,$$(474

7$ ($$ %$ 74$$ 4$$ ( 7$ H$() (4$! ($ , ,2 %""$( 74"4

(%$!0 4$ $ ( 4$ 9: " $( "$(%! 4$ , $

42$$( ($ , ,2 %""$( , 74"4 4$ (%$! %$ %"$$!$!

/5 ! 2H( 6..63 0 4( ($$( $() $ !$,' 4$ 74 4$

"!(,74"44$(%$!%$=% "$0 4$$,$4$$(,

4(%%$,4$ $(7$7 ($ '!(("$!744$ 9: " $(0

(2 '4$G 9: ($(,4$ $(/,4$2 I-($(3

7( %%"4$($%(() $0 4$,($((($(2 $2$020

4$ !$( ($ / $30 4$ ($"! $ ( ($ 4$ $2 "$(%!2 4$

9: " $ /0$0 $2 "2 4$ G ($(3 74 (2 $ !$ 74"4 (

"4"$(",4$($($(094%%"4$(($$$() $ ,"4$ 2"

%,+$70F$, 7$!4$ $$)$"($'$ !( 7$$(/ ) $ (

730 4$$,$4$$(,( (4(%%$7$($4$$2(20C

> , ,,$(E..." '974"4(24 '4$+$2$!$"%$!+$4$

G 9: ($(0

4$$(74'4$!$ (74(2 $2, ,$( $"4 2+$ (

2$$(/ ) $($"!73")$" $ '($$20<8("4!$ (/) $!(3

(($ ! $,4$%%2,4$ $ 4",/$ '4$!$

,$"474"4(IG>" '930 $(($&$4$($%) $4%%$(,

!$ (74(2 $2 $/4$ !$( 9: ($374"4(!$!.CI

" '9/ ) $4!7H(4720<30 4$!$ (4($4$ 9:

$, ,,$(E..." '9/ (7) $!$!!(20<32$$

"4)$$744$"4$ 2" !/) "=!(20<30

4$ $$2$(((,4$,4$E.>%$!G 9: $H($

($(/) "="" $(20<3'$ !( = .0=:',4$(%$$!,4$ $ 4",

(%(2 4 ( ($74 ,($ ! 7$ 4 , EE. $( )$"($

()( ' !$!$(/%)C..." '937$$" !$!,EE.($( 0

4$%$+(($"7$4+$$&% $!4(2 ' 9: ($(4$

$(("4$ 2" '$() $09!$(4(=$4$+ $ $$"$

% $!)'4$!"(($744%$!"$!)'!$ (M 4$(7$(,,+$

( " )$ ($$ )' "%2 20 G /$% , 4$ EE !$(3 20 -

/42$$( !$ 30 4( $+$( 4$ "(($"' $&% $! 4$ %$+(

C ($"0 4( $( 7$ 4= ,$ 7+$H,H!+"$ !$ ( , 4$ $ 4"

(((4 !" !$ '($(,4$ $((("$! 9:

" $(0 +2( +$!4$"(($"', '7$7 !("((4$$ $+,$$(

,4$ $ 4"(%$!!"%$4$($+$ ( !$ (0

4$ 42$$( !$ /20 -3 '$ !( $ (" +$ (%$! $ /0.

=:'3)4$( $!%% 7+$,!+"$+$( $4$!"

! )$ %$( ( ( "%$! 4$ )($+$! , /20 G30 4$$,$ $ (

"(!$H42$(!$ (0

4$$($&% $!4$$!,4$$ (!$4!(($"7$

"(!$(744$24()+$-<.()$(0 7$+$4(+ $4(

$2 2) $$,,$"4$%%2,4$ $ 4",4$"$ (" $/($$

%%$!&9304$4$4!($(")$"(!$$!()$(%%

+$$)$"($4$ $ 4"+$!( !(("4( '%(/)')I<.."

'930 4(% $(4$$&($"$,($+$ (% $(..=0 !

2$ !("$( 4+$ )$$ ( $%$! )' ($+$ $42%4" (!$( , %$H

!( ,$(4$$2(,4$7 !/6..>30 4$$,$($() $

!$+$ %!$ (4" !$($+$ (/($$%%$!&30!$ 74($+$ (

%..=%$!"(44$,7 !$$ ',4$ 4/20I3)4(

("(($744$!/20G30F$ ("%$!4$$$%$($4$

+ $,4$ $ 4",,($+$ + $(,4$&($+$ !("$

/($$ ) $30 4$$7()$!,($+$ (%<.=/20I)3

74"4 $! , "($ ,($ $ 4" (%$! 2 4$ $!$$ 4 ($

+$ (%..=/20I30 ',($+$ (%6..=/20I"34$,(

,( $!2 $(($,4$+ $4$)$%$( )"4$

$4$9(4( !(! $$"$/"%$2(0I"!I)20G30!$! '

< 4$" !$ (""%$4$, "% $&',4$%$()($+$!4$

!/20G30 7$+$(%$,(""$% (% "'4$!$ 20I)!$(

%$,()( ')$$44$42$$(!$ 20-8/34$%+$$

4$9(4( !(()+(,4$,2$(; /3 4$ , +$( 4$ )$

%$( (6...' $20-)4(+ $!$"$($()'<.T20I);

/34$%+$$(((" '" $,4$ $( ( , 4$ $ $ %$ ($

+$ ,%$/($$4$"%20I30

F$4+$"%$!4$("4$()$!)'$% 24$"4$ 2"

!$(,4$$ $( $ 4"/2034($%$!"$!)'4$" !$ (/2(0

6H>304(7'7$4+$,! "(($"')$7$$4$%$!"(,4$

!$ (!4$"4$ 2" !8""!24$!$ (4$ $ 4",7 !

4+$ +$! $$"$ $(( 4 4 , 4$ $ $+ % $! )' 4$ !0 4(

"(($"'")$( +$!)'" !2 ' 9: ($( 4$ $ ( 74"4

"$(%!4$2$$ D,,2%""$(4 $(%$!"((%$0

F$4+$ (,!44$!$ 4 '$ !(4$ 7$( $ $ %$ ($ 4$

+ $,4$ $ 4""((4$ $(!%$()$!)' 72,

($+$ (%!("$(,<.=0$+$""!24$( !$ (

)$(4+$$2 2) $$,,$"4$(%$!$,4$ $ 4",

4$2 ) "$ (" $0 7$+$($ " ,$$(!($4$( (

!$$,,$"($0204$ %(/"%$20 96 20 930 $ 7=

G ,"(2 " H(" $ ,$$( , 4$ $ 4" (%$! " ! ' "%$ ("4

$,,$"($!$ $!"4$ 2" !0 '7 !)$,$$(

'D$ +$ ' 4$ " $,,$"( %$! 4$ $$ $020 4$

( 7$((,4$(%$!)$7$$ '%(! $$"$/4($ 06..<374"4($$(

(%(2("$'74($,2"%) '0

4$+$"%(,("4$%(%$!"$! )' !$ ( 4($

)$! )' $% 2 4$ "4$ 2" ! 4( )$$ )($! 4$$ 4$

"% , 4$ $ $ %$ ($0 ,$ 7= 7 ! )$ $$(2

%$,,4$ '($()($!$0204$ &%(,)4=!(,%(!$

2$ " $ !(% ' , $( , 2$$$ ! !(2$$$ )$7$$ !$ ( !

)($+(0

4(%%$(!$!"$!4$$',%,$((+$ =4+07=

7(% '(%%$!)'4$%$ ((4244$% $"!(,

%$H$4("(,%$/H6IE630 4$7=)'! 7( (

(%%$!)'4$4$ H/% $"H6..EH>.<.3!)'4$ $$

!$ '/ %"( !6..EH H>-C30

42$$(!$ (," ,4$%% ('(4$2

!$!," /− 3 : C 2$($"4,4$C$$($24)(/($$0/>330

4( ( !$%"$! 20 0 "( , H42$$( !$ ( 7$ 4+$

!(2(4)$7$$!$( !/) "="" $(2063(/74$"" $(3

!($(/) $"" $(30($"(!$$!()$(%% ($ $$

!+$ 0$!$($ (+ ) $,($ $$),+$ 0 %4(

"((4$($)74!$( !$"(!$$!( 2(4$(24H $

!("$ , 4$ 2 /$! "" $3 ( $(( 4 4$ & ($H+$ !("$

%$(")$!)'4$!$ /6..=20630 '4$42$$(!$ /20

3 20 6 ," ,4$%% ('(4$2 !$,"

/− 3 : > %(4$24," /− 3 : > 4$ $,!," /− 3 : >

($ '!()$!4$!$(!$(, %(() $($H+$ %4(0

,"($4$!$ (,($H"((2 24" !)$"42$!($+$

7'( $020 )' 72 , 2$ ($ +$ ( 2 "( $( 4 ( !( /4(

7 !$, $"$ $!+2 "%) ' ",!$"$30 7$+$ +$ (

( !(%..= $((4 !)$ 7$!/!$,4$ $ 4",

$"4 '%((% $!)'4$"4$ 2" !30 4(!("$(( 4

)$(!$ 74"4 7(,($+$ (%<.=)4 2"( $(!

( !(/($$) $30 4(7$!$&%$"4("4$"% "$!!$ (7 !

"42$$( (%%$") '0

F$($!$ $+!,4$ >.$H2 ) !2 $ $+!$

/,%8::$.(%.0$"(0(02+:30 4( !$ "%($( ! , 4$ 4 $ !

%2%4' (( 74 >. & >. (% (% 2 ! 4$ 00 $ 2"

+$'K( >.!($0,,4$ >.!($(4()$$$&"$!

(2 / $2%4"$("$( '((%%'($30 (%$H

("$ ,$$ 'H!()$! / $2%4" , '($3 (,7$

/4%8::2((0"0:30

F$$+ $!4$$ $+,($()'$(,4$ >.!)($!4(

'$ !$! !$()+$...,6G($(0!!6,4($6G($($ "$!

74 , (!2 !$( 74 !$( )+$ ... 4$ 2! ( 4$

%% "$"44$,4$)$($($ !$()+$...

4$( (0 4$$,$7$4+$"(!$$! )$( ' !$(

)+$-<.4$( (%$($$!%%$0F$7 7($$47$+$4

4$ "" (( 7 ! "42$ )$"($ 4$ ( %( $ +$' ( )'

(2'4$+ $$+$$2 $"2$,,$"( 2$4$0

2$9(( " !2($+$ ()$2 $"2)$(0

(($$4(+$'( 20I)74"4" !$()$(, !$(

)+$-<.04$4$4!2096 )$( 7$$ ($ !$(

)+$ ... 0 $ ' )$( 4+$ $2 2) $ $,,$" 4$ +$

%%2,4$,/$&"$%($ " $2(2096$020!$4$ %(

!4$$,,$",( 4$$2)$7$$4$9 "=! (%

E ($(30 4$$,$4$"" ((,%%$7 !)$4$($,4$+ $(($!

,-<.7$$($!(4$4$(4 !,4$ !$,)$(

/20963,4$$,,$",(7$$$2 $"$! 2$4$/209302(09

!967$4+$(($!4($+$ (%(() $%<.=/(20I)3)4$

($"" (($"4$!,'4$+ $(,4(%$$0

6.. (%$"$( +$= ( , 4$ $!H% $("$$ $2, ((

$&"0 6E68IE>HIEG0

$00

6..> =2 )"=0 ! " #

$ % &%$ % ' $!$!)'00$!092%%0>H6G0

"4$ 2" ($,$"9(0

$00!00 + H,D

E-$(24$$,(%$!,$ ',2%$0 ( GG-CHGII0

$00!00 + H,D

E-> %% !$ , 4$ !,,( , $ ' ,2 %$0

' $!$! )' 0 $,$7 %%0 >C>H><-0 "=74

$00!00 + H,D

EIC 4$ ' " "$

+$('$(("$0

!$(0 0!0 0

6 6... $!" D(,4$$"(8% "(,$&,

%4'(2%4'!$2%4'!,"!()0 ) G<8C>HGG0

9 $($0 0097!$00!( 0$2 0052O0 0(($0

!7 0 ( 0 "4! 0 7! 0 0 $$ 0 9) 0

$+!$$00F ( 0 ' $H4!00) 2

6..%$! ' $ 4"2,%$%$ $2$(0 $ * IH

9!($ 00

E<-$%% %) $(+ +2 $("$$0 + ,&

-* 66C-HGE(%$" '200

9 90 0 0 4( F0 = 0 $ $!$ 0 $( 50 )$( 0

(H")(0 0 ! $0=(=( 0H05!0$4 0 $)$2$0

$0(0($!092$

6..E $$" !("' )$7$$ " 4$H24$$( ! "$ %$K( ,(

,$(0 >6G>-HC.0

4=40 0$(H9( 09$$ $#0(" ! 09)

EEI $( , " $ =$( (22$( 2$ ' $ 4" "$(' , 4$

%$2$$% 0 E<E.<>HE.

0!0&",,$

66 6..< 4$$,,$",4$ $ 4"$&%(%$ $" !+$('0

* 6-6G-EHGII0

+(500 =4+ 00(!04=+

6..G 4$ $,7$7'(4$(%$!,4$ $ 4"0 . >>GCH

G<60

+(500 =4+ 00(04=+! 00O($+

6..-%H%$!$ ,4$ $ 4"0 >CH-0

"=000$$!0 0 =$

6..-"42$+!$"$,4$%$"$"!(%$( (,D$!"%(

%" !'!4!,$((0 .C>GG

!(00

EG $ 4"!,,($(0 + 6-H.60

$)4$0!0" $

6..< 4$(%$!,,24$($!"0) -E

6..> % $&%( 4$ 7$($ "," /($(38 7+$ , !+"$

!$ 0 ) --<6.H<>.0

6> 6..E4$" !$ (,4$ $ 4"(8$+$7,H4$"(0

"" "! ' $!$!)'0 =4+ 0

( ! 0 4=+ %%0 6H6G0 9 $ $$( EGC0 9(4

"4$ 2" $%(&,!0

00!00 $

6..C0 !$ '$!!7 =(84$'!%% "4$ $ 4"(

%$0 !" -..>E>HG(%$" '$R6CS0

0!#0 !$D

EEE $H!$ '$!4$' ,4$ $ 4"( %$0 ! $ I6

IG-HI-.0

00 $DH(!! 0($

6..-(,$2!,,$$"$$(!%$(($"$$,,$"(4$ $ 4"

(0 !" -G.>E>H.0

0 0 !00 + H,D

6..C $ 4"%% (!7+$(,!+"$0+& . C<>HG0

4 00 $0$D$ H) 0$! 0H0FD=

6..6 /0%& &% 23+0 '

% ' * 5 5 4%8::7770 2($($0H

=$ 0!$:!:!040

6C $)$ 000F$(!0 0K=$

6..I 4$ $ $("$$!(%$( ,!$4(4$$"(0 >E

CE-H<.60

00!909"4

6..-% 2!$( +(H2$!")!$( "(( 4 $" (22$(

%!" D,4$40 .C.0

($ 00!0 $DH(!

6..I$ ("!(%$(=$$ (%% $!"4)$"H!(%$($(0

.( 6" ..6H-$(%$" ') $60

6..> 7 ! $' & (

* ) 00000.E0+$( !$ 2$ 2$0

54 $ 0000 !$0H09"$H%%$ !9005$%

6..I 4$ $ 4"!$2%4"(4$0047$( )

->GC

5 0! 0 2H(

6..622,2!(" "% $&'4$%$H%$',4$ $ 4",4$

(4$$+8$+$7!('4$(( .9 G >GHCC.0

20 0!0+!$ "4

6< EEE $ C H"4 2$ + !$ $!$ !($ %$H$ %4($0 8 $ 4"0

C.:CH0

$ 0!0)$

6..> 4$!$ 4($ !$ $ !H""!$ $0 *

) : ..C-EH<.C0

$DD00DD!00 + H,D

E-I'4$"%(,42$$,$$"$(%$(0 6. -GIH-E60

$ F0000 !090)' 00D500!(00$'00!

0 0"F (

6..E 4$!,,(,D$4$(47$($$!$(!(%"0

.G6.EH6.6G0

D!20!9(2$ $ 0

EEE % '! 5 # ! =$ +$

J' () 0

4(000!00$

6..< "24$2!(%$!, 2" $ %$0 $ * > 666.H

666I0

4(0! 0+ H )!$

6G 6..E $"! (%%(!$"!,,(!$ , 4$ (%$! , 2" $

%$0 $ / C $G-C-HI0

"$ 00

6..> 4$ + , 2" $ %$ ( ($$ , 4$ 40

! " #$ % &%$ % ' $!$!

)'00$!092%%06->H6EG0"4$ 2" ($,$"

9(0

$,$7 0

EI- $ 55 ' < 0" )!2$

+0$(( $7J="4%$-0

"4 200!00"4!(

6..6!24$"( $( 4"(47$(98!$(!() $(%$

$( ( 4 $( , !$' ( !( (4 F $(0 ) -G .H

.6<0

4$0!0$$ $

6... ' "

4%8::!(04!(0"0=:" 2$:0

4$!0

6..-"!$"=$2!$"2 M $7,4$K $!

97 $ 4"K 4$ 90 = ! ( 0

6- 0 " $!$!)'0F4 $!#0 2(%%0CCH

CE60 4$9(4"!$'&,!0

= 00 00!$! 0F (

EE $$" $+!$"$ , 4$ (%$! , 2" $ %$ )' !$" !,,(0

>< C>HCC0

$$ $0

6..E !(%$( (8 4$" !$ ( ! 4$ "4$ 2" $"!0 ,

* I6HC.0

$$ $00!(! 0 "=

EEI!$ 2% $!!(%$( (0 9 >.6IGH>.<0

+$000$$!0$$

6..E +$<* & & ! >?2 4%8::" )0)0"0=:" ):

F4 $0

EEG " )!2$+$('$(( )!2$0

F4 $009($7"D0940$!00"4!(

6..64$)$228$7!")!$(,4$ ' $ 4"4$$)

!(4H$( 2'0 6<G>HI0

F "& 009&!0 $+$&

6I 6..E$ $("$$!$ '4 "$$" $!4$)$22(," +

4$'0 , E

O($+ 00!#00$2"4$+

6..E!")"4 2',4$ $ 4"($(,4$9$ D$,%$

((0 - < 6.>EH6C0

O$!$00

6..I$("!$ '2" $4$$!$$)(82(!,,(

%"0 .<

0 4$, 72(% $4'%4$" $&% $")$ +$' ($, !$(! 4(

!$"$($ 4$ "$ 0 4$ !($ /.3 /3 />63 /C63 /<>3 /G>3 4$

"$ ( = .0E ) !$"$($( = .0- (4$,(7%(,+ $($

$!0 4( ( ( 2 ()( ' !$ "4$ 2" !$( 74$

%$,2!("$H+$((H$$2$((0 '4$( %$/74"4"$(%!(

4$(%$$!3($74"$($(/,.0>-.0C.3 (4(4'%4$" $&% $0

60 9$"($ , 4$ 7!$ %$(($"$ 2$ 7$ %$,$! ($ !! ( (

74 . = 606 ! = >6' )"4224$+ $,4$%$(($"$0(7$($!

EE.($(!,!4,(2 $2$"4!42$$(2$2%4'

4$ , ( $"4$( $$"$ $(( 4 G. 2$$( /( 20 63 (2 $4$

= .0I0$"!7$($!EE($(!,!4

, G 9: ($(, ,,$(E..." '94$)$(!$ "$(%!(

($+$ %6..=, = .0

+ $,<.=,!, = .0>I/ (7 ) $30$+$)4"($(4$

$$%$($(+$'" ($4$$$%$($,($+$ %

<.=/<<<'+$((

$(%$"+$ '30 4$$,$4$"" ((,4(%%$!"42$0

! " %2 , 4$ $ 4" , )$! )' $% , 4$

"4$ 2" ! /E.> %$ ! I- $H($ ($(30 4$ $ 2

"$(%!(4$!$,$"4/IG>" '930 $4=$(4$,)

6. 2$$( $"4 $$"$0 %$ 4$ !$ (2(06!>74$$4$

, $"4$( $$"$ $(( 4 G. 2$$(0 $ 2$$ "$(%!( >6

'$(/$ 06..C3)4("" (!$("42$,4$$() $+ $(

,4$2$$$0

!# 2$$(!$ /0$0($(!($2$!30%2,

4$ $ 4",,(2 $2 "$!$"40 $44$,$"4$(

$$"$ $(( 4 G. 2$$( 0$0 $(( 4 4 , 4$ $ ""!2 4$

"4$ 2" !/2030$"44()$$($!4$$(2)$"($""!2

4$"4$ 2" !'$ !(4$424$(+ $,4$"$ "$,,"$4$

$2$(( , !("$( +$(( !$( / = .0I 30 7$+$ 4$ ($ "" ( 4 !(

(2',4$4$ $($($((20

! $ H42$$(!$ /0$0($+$ (! )$( $ =$

""30 $44$,$"4$( $$"$($42060 4((!$4$

,"4($+$ ( $!,($,$!$$$204($&% $($

+$ (%6..=!)$()+$-<.4+$)$$%% $!)4$

($"" (($"4$!,'4$$() $+ $(,4$($7%$$(0

> !% "!(($!4$( ($%$!4$ (7) $

!2(0-HI0 4$%% !$(',,$((($(!$('E..."

'94$$!$(74"4" ,4$G 9: ($(0

!& "4%"$(%!($4$($4$ $(/ 7$%,4$% 3

%$($0((2(2 $2,,2%% ($"4'$ !(

$ (" '$ '+ !$( ($(/) $"" $(74!("$("%$!,

$"43"%$!4$!")!/) "="" $(30$2 9: ($(,

,,$(E...'9/$!"" $(74!("$(, $3'$ !("4)$$

2$$$ 74 4$ ! /) "= "" $( ( 74 !("$( , $30 $( ( $

(47,(2 $!$ /($+$ 7$!%<.=!)$(($

)+$-<.3)4$($"" (($4$($, 4$!$ (0

! ' $% , 4$ $ $( $ 4" !$( 4$ E.> %$ ! G

9: ($(04(,2$(7$ (2(0-HI$"4" "$(%!(<..H'

$+ 0

! ( (%$! ( %$!"$! )' 42$$( !$ 0 $ !

$,,$"( $ $2 $"$!0 $$ 4$ "( $ $&" ' "" )$"($ 4$

%% ,,$(( "$!(2 $%)4$$2"$(%!2

4$ 9: ($( /($$ 4$ $( ( ($" ! 20 C30 $% 4( )$$

%$,$!+$4$+ $(4$EE($(/!$($4$($%%"4(

20G30

>6 !) *$+$ %..=0 4(,

( +$' ( 4$ 42$$( $ 20 - /4$ $ $ %$ ($ 4$

%$!",4$+ $,4$ $ 4"(,(GI.'4$$+$((GI<

' 20 -30 * $+$ %<.=/4( !$ '$ !(4$ 7$( $ $

$ '

$ 'GCG')$"($"%220I(($$%$!"$ '+ $(

9! $$"$(%$,%$,2)$$4$)$%$( 30

!" 2$$(!$ 0 4$%% ' %,'!$/$!"" $3

4$+$" :4D !$"(!$"4(C$$($24)(0 %$20

!# H42$$(!$ 09 "="" $((!, !) $"" $(,($

!74$"" $(,(0( (4$%% ($!()$!)'

=2"")$(!$( %(4$4D !+$" !$"(/(20

3 ( %("((4$($/74&!("$,6..=4($&% $30

! " %2 , 4$ $ 4" , ""!2 !$ 4 7( ($

+$ )!$(=$(""0 4$$$%$($/!$,$!(

) $3(<

$ '

! # %2 , 4$ $ 4" , ""!2 !$ 4 "(!$(

(744$24()+$...(!(%$ )$(!() $,,20

>> %22(09/)$(3!I)/)$()+$-<.3(($$44$

$,,$"(2$2 2) $/$$%$($<6E'30

>C 20

206

20>

20C

20<

5000

FEPRE + CONTEXT (PPNB-C) data 4000 Simulation with PPNB-C CONTEXT sites at 9000 yr cal BP Simulation with origin 3000 at Jericho (site at 11863 yr cal BP)

Mountain barriers at 1750 m 2000 150 km sea travel Distance originfrom (km)

1000

0 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 Cal BP (yr)

20G

20-

>- 20I

>I 20

206

>E 209

2096

) $0$$%$($4$+ $,4$ $ 4",

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