A Network of the Steppe and Forest Steppe Along the Prut and Lower Danube Rivers During the 6Th Millennium BC
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Documenta Praehistorica XLIII (2016) A network of the steppe and forest steppe along the Prut and Lower Danube rivers during the 6th millennium BC Agathe Reingruber Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, DE [email protected] ABSTRACT – The transition from a (predominantly) mobile way of life relying on hunting, fishing and gathering to a (predominantly) sedentary life-style based on farming and animal husbandry is considered in the western Pontic archaeological tradition almost exclusively from a southern, Aegean- Anatolian perspective. Contacts between the steppe and forest steppe of the north-eastern Balkans and the north-western Pontic were seen as linear and unidirectional; ‘cultures’ were defined almost exclusively on the basis of pottery styles. Not only such traditional viewpoints, but also the political conditions of the 20th century further biased prehistoric research. However, the outer Carpathian region should not be treated as a periphery of the inner Carpathian Cris culture, but as a region of multidirectional exchange networks. Moreover, certain traditions are obviously rooted in the Meso- lithic of that area. IZVLE∞EK – Prehod od (prete∫no) mobilnega na≠ina ∫ivljenja, ki je temeljil na lovu, ribolovu in na- biralni∏tvu, na (prete∫no) sedentaren na≠in ∫ivljenja, ki je temeljil na poljedelstvu in ∫ivinoreji, se obravnava v arheolo∏kih tradicijah na obmo≠ju zahodnega ∞rnega morja predvsem iz ju∫ne, torej egejsko-anatolske perspektive. Kontakti med obmo≠jema stepe in gozdne stepe na severovzhodnem Balkanu in severozahodnem ∞rnem morju naj bi potekali linearno in enosmerno; ‘kulture’ so defi- nirane skoraj izklju≠no na podlagi zna≠ilnosti okrasa na lon≠enini. Poleg tradicionalnih pogledov v stroki so tovrstno pristranskost do prazgodovinskega raziskovanja podkrepile tudi politi≠ne razmere v 20. stoletju. Ne glede na to, obmo≠je zunanjih Karpatov ne bi smeli obravnavati lo≠eno od notra- nje karpatske kulture Cris, saj gre za regijo, kjer so potekale mre∫e izmenjav v razli≠nih smereh. Poleg tega imajo nekatere tradicije o≠iten izvor v obdobju mezolitika na tem obmo≠ju. KEY WORDS – Eastern Lower Danube area; Prut valley; steppe; forest steppe; Cris culture; ‘Star≠evo- Cris IV phenomenon’; exchange networks History of research Traditionally, Neolithic cultures of the forest and ranovo or Star≠evo cultures). This distinct approach coastal steppes of the northern and north-western might be explained by the fact that in the forest and Pontic regions are known by the names of rivers coastal steppes no metre-high tell-sites with a verti- (Dnepr, Bug, Dniestr), outlining concurrently the cal stratigraphy and only sites with a horizontal stra- geographical area of the respective archaeological tigraphy developed during the Neolithic, whereas in culture. This naming was also used for the western- Southeast Europe it is precisely such sites that have most exclave of the steppe belt, the Alföld, along the served as chronological backbones for the whole re- Tisza and Lower Körös rivers. In contrast, in the gion and beyond, and all subsequently excavated ma- western Pontic area, and the Balkans in general, terials, even from distant areas, were related to such those sites that were excavated early in the 20th cen- sites. tury gave names to cultures covering geographically diverse entities, extending on both sides not only of Additionally, modern history shaped the different broad rivers, but also of steep mountains (e.g., Ka- terminological systems: the vastness of the north- DOI> 10.4312\dp.43.8 167 Agathe Reingruber ern Pontic area was not divided into several coun- 1930s (Fewkes et al. 1933). Vladimir Miloj≠i≤ (1918– tries during the 20th century, but was covered by the 1978) included some of the materials in the PhD that Soviet Union (USSR). In contrast, the Balkans and he submitted in Vienna (Miloj≠i≤ 1944). Deriving the Carpathian Basin were divided by many nation- from this study, he published in his influential book al borders that additionally shifted during the world on chronology in 1949, in which he established four wars and had to be renegotiated throughout the major phases of Star≠evo culture. According to the 20th century. For example, Romania was submitted evolutionist understanding of archaeological cultures to many transformations that are also reflected in of his time, the culture started with a monochrome archaeological approaches. Therefore, some post-war phase I, evolved through the simple white and later interpretations need re-appraisal, especially when sophisticated polychrome painted phases II–III and they touch upon the problematic political relation- ended with phase IV, a phase in decline (the latter ship between Romania and two of its neighbours being attestable only in northern Serbia (Miloj≠i≤ during the 20th century. On the one hand, the King- 1949.71)). Draga Arandjelovi≤-Gara∏anin in 1954 dom of Romania (1881–1947) and with it Greater and Stojan Dimitrijevi≤ in 1974 adopted this system Romania (1918–1940) as well as the Socialist Repub- with some changes. lic of Romania (1947–1989) were in strong compe- tition with its neighbour to the west, the Kingdom of Yet, it was not until 1979 that the EN chronology for Hungary under the regime of Admiral Horthy (1920– western Romania was developed in detail by Ghe- 1944; Fig. 1), followed by the Hungarian People’s orghe Lazarovici (*1941). He extended the territory Republic until 1989. On the other hand, the tense re- of Star≠evo culture from Serbia into western Roma- lationship with the dominant Soviet Union (1922– nia and expanded the periodisation by adding new 1991) and, as part of it, the Moldavian SSR (1944– sub-phases. Although in his view the Körös culture 1991) also did not favour cooperative scientific pro- cannot be seen as a group in its own right (Lazaro- jects (Fig. 2). vici 1979.60), he adopted the same name (Cris is the Romanian name for the river Körös – compare 1944–1989 in West Romania Figures 1 and 2) for the EN culture in western Roma- Historical events influenced archaeological interpre- nia. Whereas the first three phases of the Star≠evo- tations during the 20th century essentially. For exam- Cris culture were located in the Banat, Transylvania ple, until 1918 Transylvania was part of the Austrian- and Oltenia, in phase IV Star≠evo-Cris also expand- Hungarian Empire, and afterwards part of Romania; ed to Moldova (Lazarovici 1979.53–55). Interest- between 1940 and 1944 its northern part was under ingly, he chose to label with ‘Star≠evo-Cris IV’ (writ- Hungarian rule, and since 1945 it has again been un- ten by him in quotation marks in order to differen- der Romanian administration (Figs. 1, 2). A child of tiate it from the chronological phase IV) a ‘phenome- that period, János Banner (1888–1971), received his non’ (Lazarovici 1979.55–56) that is not part of the PhD in 1911 from the University of Kolozsvár (nowadays Cluj). Du- ring connection of northern Tran- sylvania with Hungary, he publi- shed his basic book on the Tisza- Maros-Körös area (Banner 1942) and led excavations in Hódmező- vásárhely until 1944. In the same year, there appeared what is still a fundamental book on the Körös cul- ture by Ida Bognár-Kutzian (1919– 2001) (Bognár-Kutzian 1944). Thus, the Early Neolithic (hence- forth, EN) of eastern Hungary was defined when Transylvania was under Hungarian rule. The EN Star≠evo culture was named after a site near Pan≠evo (southeast Fig. 1. Territories under Romanian administration between 1941 of Belgrade) excavated in the early and 1944. 168 A network of the steppe and forest steppe along the Prut and Lower Danube rivers during the 6th millennium BC Star≠evo-Cris culture, but for which no other name bon dating was narrowed down to a comparison of would be necessary, although the pottery of the out- specific pottery traits, stressing single, exceptional er Carpathian area, decorated with incisions in zig- elements (the occurrence or absence of paint) rather zags, ripples and channelling, is strikingly different than working out and elaborating the basic rules. (see below). Even Miloj≠i≤s strong rejection for 14C dates seems to have persisted in some recent publications. In addition to the impediment imposed by national borders, another shortcoming throughout the 20th As a result, the definition of Star≠evo culture, and century was the perpetuation of methodologically with it of Cris culture, is not grounded on precise outdated approaches. Namely, the uncritical appli- stratigraphic observations; on the contrary, the chro- cation of Miloj≠i≤s’ sophisticated, but, without any nological system is based on subjective interpreta- adjustments (e.g., absolute data) highly problematic tions and assumptions. Even less helpful was the system based exclusively on relative chronology led transplantation of concepts and results from the to partial interpretations. Miloj≠i≤ was very clear Aegean to the Balkans, such as the issue of the ‘Mo- about the requirements the method of comparative nochrome Horizon’. Furthermore, the evolutionist stratigraphy based on typological comparability in- approach, characteristic of that time, led to the inter- volved: not only pottery shapes, but also figurines, pretation of Star≠evo IV as a phase in decline, there- ornaments, burial customs, tools, construction tech- by neglecting its importance. Whereas doubts con- niques, and settlement patterns must be analysed cerning the ‘Monochrome Horizon’ have lately been before establishing a temporal relationship between advanced (Stojanovski 2014; Krauß et al. 2014; two sites (Miloj≠i≤ 1949.4–5). These requirements Reingruber in print a), the poorly defined phase IV were not always met, either by himself or the gene- (contemporaneous with Vin≠a A) has never been a ration following him. Instead of describing Star≠e- topic for in-depth analysis. vo culture based on a detailed analysis of all the ele- ments mentioned above that are essential for the 1944–1991 in East Romania definition of a ‘culture’, Miloj≠i≤ used only one of It was not until 1983 that materials of the EN in the these elements: pottery styles.