sign in sign up
<<
Home , Linear Pottery culture, Neolithic Greece, Tell Sabi Abyad

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Journals of Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana

Documenta Praehistorica XXXIX (2012)

Models and scenarios of the in Central

Ivan Pavlu˚ Institute of Archaeology CAS CR, Prague, CZ [email protected]

ABSTRACT – The Neolithic in can no longer be characterised as comprising a com- pact population of a single society in which organisations and subsistence strategies were homoge- neous. Despite the apparent uniformity of the , the period was characterised by a mosaic of small communities that differed in both economic and social organisation for almost two millennia. These genetically diverse communities inhabited geographical spaces of varying size, from regions to micro-regions to single settlements. The polymorphous modes of exploiting natural resources ensu- red successful long-term survival, even when the results of the emerging farming economy were un- certain and unreliable in some groups.

IZVLE∞EK – Srednjeevropskega neolitika ni ve≠ mogo≠e povezovati z enovito populacijo in homoge- no organizirano dru∫bo z enotno strategijo pre∫ivetja. Kljub navidezni uniformnosti lon≠arskih pro- dukcij, so se v ≠asu skoraj dveh tiso≠letji oblikovale majhne skupnostih, ki so se razlikovale tako v dru∫beni ureditvi kot gospodarskih strategijah. Genetsko razli≠ne skupine so bile naseljene v prosto- rih razli≠nih velikosti, od regije in mikro regije do posameznega naselja. Mnogoli≠na izraba narav- nih virov je zagotavljala dolgoro≠no pre∫ivetje, tudi takrat, ko so bili u≠inki razvijajo≠ega se kmeto- vanja negotovi.

KEY WORDS – Central Europe; Neolithisation; ; palaeoeconomy; settlement patterns

The cultural-historical model

In the latter half of the 20th century, synthetic work the central European uplands” (Kaczanowska, on the origin and development of the Neolithic in Kozłowski 2003.245). Central Europe was based on the idea that the spread of the Neolithic lifestyle was connected with the mi- In the 1980s, these basic theses were further sup- gration of people from regions which had already ported by anthropological research (Vencl 1982. undergone Neolithisation – the notion of demic diffu- 650), which confirmed a general trend of migra- sion – proceeding through several successive stages tions along the diagonal south-east–north-west axis from the to and the Aegean, and through Europe. As early as the 1970s, gradual im- then in two directions, north to the Carpathian Ba- provements in genetic studies of European popula- sin and west to the Mediterranean. Before 5500 tions led to the creation of a model known today as calBC, in northern Transdanubia, the early Star≠evo the wave-of-advance (Ammerman, Cavalli-Sforza Culture, perhaps under the influence of the emerg- 1984). The aim of this model was to provide an al- ing Vin≠a Culture, gradually transformed into the ternative to older theories that posited an autochtho- earliest , which then spread nous origin for the European Neolithic, which were further to north-western and eastern Europe: “From based on structural-anthropological concepts and lin- centres in Transdanubia and lower , the ked to the nationalism of the mid-20th century (Am- LBP began to expand into the territories of merman 2003.13). However, today’s palaeogenetic

DOI> 10.4312\dp.39.7 95 Ivan Pavlu˚ research can be seen from the distance as having its generation to another … and from one civilisation own problems that could affect the archaeological to another” (Delage 2004.106). It then becomes quite theories derived from it (Cavalli-Sforza 2003.302– ineffective to explore and describe Neolithic society 306). either in ethnographic terms used for pre-state rural societies, or contemporary terms such as trade, con- Most cultural-historical concepts explicitly or impli- tacts, mobility and hierarchy. It is more desirable to citly included the idea that Neolithic cultures are explore the socio-economic conditions of group iden- identifiable with certain population groups with di- tities, which would lead to the reconstruction of Neo- stinctive pottery who moved through Europe, car- lithic communities identifiable by house or gender rying the Neolithic with them. Because archaeologi- particularities, or by local and regional strategies for cal evidence of older settlements is scarce, it was as- creating social groups (Asouti 2006.106). In this re- sumed that these Neolithic groups expanded into spect, the mobilisation and intensification of the en- territories abandoned by the previous populations, tire network of relations between individual ele- where they laid the foundations of, for example, a ments of Neolithic society play an important role. new cultural landscape. These theories of Neolithi- Temporal and spatial changes in social conditions, sation had their own inner logic, did not contradict together with their local manifestations, could have modern ideas of prehistoric society, and were in ac- become the basis for a complete reconstruction of cord with the prevalent concept of a progressive li- social organisation in the Neolithic, although little of near development that led directly to later historical the research on Neolithic settlements seems useful entities in Europe. so far.

The cultural-historical model of the origin and deve- In the separate spheres model of the aceramic Neo- lopment of Central European Neolithic society can lithic (Fig. 1), which shows a division of the be compared with the geographical-cultural model into regions of farmers, herders and hunters (Bar- of development in the Levant, which Yosef 2002), the cultural-historical concept meets led to the emergence of a Neolithic society in the Na- the socially-defined division of territory. It proves tufian period. This model was developed over a long impossible to abandon entirely the archaeological period by the Lyon School (Aurenche et al. 1981) classification of regions based on morphological com- and can be divided into four steps: (i) the discovery parisons of different artefact types, and replace this and geographical location of prehistoric cultures in with a purely socio-economic classification, because a given period, (ii) a finer categorisation of cultural the archaeological method does not permit this. On groups, (iii) the drawing out proposal of a hierarchy the one hand, contemporary anthropological models of these groups by comparing their content and de- offer no guidance for studying the Neolithic (Perlés termining centres of evolution, and (iv) observing 2001.305). On the other hand, all reflections on the the changing geographical location of these centres social organisation of the Neolithic, as opposed to over a given period (Delage 2004.105). This model later hierarchical societies, are essentially based on has been debated, and its historical core is believed interpretations of the available cultural-geographical to be rooted in the philosophical tradition of the Eu- classifications of and rituals ropean Enlightenment. The evolutionary progress- (Kuijt 2000.315). based view of included the idea that history is an unequivocal process heading towards the im- Reflections of this kind must necessarily rely on vi- provement of the condition, which is measu- sible archaeological artefacts, as is documented rable by intellectual and political maturity and tech- by the elaborate interpretations of long-distance nical progress. trade in, and barter with, and other raw materials needed in the chipped stone . This Applied to archaeology, the criticism of such a con- is true of the Near East (Asouti 2006.102–104), the cept of history consists of rejecting all notions of hi- Aegean (Perlés 2001; Tangri 1989; Runnels 1989; story as a gradual and linear development towards Halstead 1999) and the Carpathian Basin (Matei- a predictable future. Therefore, today’s archaeologi- ciucová, Małecka-Kukawka 2007; Whittle 1996). cal work questions interpretations that state that The generalising of archaeological finds – “traits (architecture, pottery, domesticated animals first the chipped stone industry, then pottery – does and plants, life in etc.) once invented and not permit the identification of real social groups. found valuable in reference to modern Western Ci- Rather, it creates an illusory classification of space vilization will always be kept and passed from one and creates an impression of uniformity, thus con-

96 Models and scenarios of the Neolithic in Central Europe

lowlands until the 3rd millennium BC (Nowak 2009.451–461). The sync- hronous density of settlements at the beginning of the earliest Linear Pot- tery phase was substantially lower than a complete map of the Neoli- thic population shows. The relatively rapid occupation of the main areas suitable for farming used to be con- sidered as evidence of rapid and massive colonisation. However, the low density of the initial settlements might also have reflected the low density of the previous population (Pavlů, Květina 2008). Pre-farming populations were much more scatte- red than settled populations. How- ever, because of their greater mobi- Fig. 1. Near East. Pre-pottery spheres model (after Bar-Yosef 2002; lity, hunter-gatherers, populations Asouti 2006). used larger areas. Therefore, at the cealing the subtleties of the social identities of the time when the first groups started to settle in perma- populations. nent houses, only a few locations within a large area were settled. The Bohemian scenarion in the context of Cen- tral Europe It is my opinion that the original population partly transformed into a new population of farmers and Let us assume that the original population of Bohe- partly moved into areas less suitable for farming. mia did not disappear, as has been thought previ- The border between the and the Neoli- ously, but that Neolithisation was the result of long- thic is not a clear-cut line in a region, but rather a term contacts between the original population and mosaic of regions with different kinds of popula- inhabitants of regions already Neolithicised, such as tions. This is because different groups of the original the Carpathian Basin. Anthropologists distinguish population reacted differently to contact with the between at least two stages of such contact. The neighbouring Neolithicised populations of first stage is mere exchange in the social sphere; the and the Carpathian Basin. Comparing the scope of second is a change of system for economic reasons the earliest Linear Pottery localities with that of all (Verhart, Wansleeben 1997.66). Applying this view, the Mesolithic localities reveals a clear geographical the earliest Linear Pottery occurred in the second division of Bohemia into groups of localities that stage of contact. In Bohemia, this dates to around can be interpreted as settlements of newly arrived 5700/5500 calBC, which means that the first stage farmers, or of mobile hunter-gatherers, or possibly must have occurred before that time, although so even of the first herders (see Vencl 2007.80 for a far this has been undetectable and indiscernible by different interpretation). Around 5500 calBC, farm- archaeological means. If this is the case, the original ing groups occupied territories in eastern and north- Mesolithic society must have become differentiated western Bohemia and smaller regions in central and between 6000 and 5500 calBC, creating socio-econo- south-western Bohemia. The hunter-gatherer groups mically distinct spheres among the original popula- were remnants of the domestic population who had tions (Fig. 2). The original hunter-gatherer society not adopted the settled lifestyle and retained their then survived only in regions unsuitable for farm- subsistence strategies in areas unsuitable for the first ing, which the cultural-historical model also conce- farmers. The herder groups can be interpreted as ded (Vencl 1982.654). that portion of the original population of northern (πída 2007) and eastern Bohemia who adopted only The first Neolithic population did not carry out a breeding from the Neolithic lifestyle, thus cre- large-scale and continuous colonisation of a new type ating the first herder communities, of a sort. This in- of landscape, but rather seized a small number of iso- terpretation offers a wider socio-economic picture of lated optimal locations, as is evident in the Polish the 6th millennium BC.

97 Ivan Pavlu˚

It is also my opinion that a scenario of scattered population groups with different economic structures is more acceptable for the Czech area than the hitherto prevalent idea of cultural and economic uniformity. The co-existence of social groups with different modes of production is accepted today in the Near East, from the Epipalaeolithic until the be- ginning of the ceramic Neolithic. Even with reference to European re- gions, this model is probably the most acceptable, although it is still difficult to prove by archaeological means. Throughout the entire Cen- tral European Neolithic, the ratio of the original population to the Neoli- thicised newcomers changed con- stantly. It is impossible to rule out Fig. 2. The reconstruction of Bohemian spheres at 6000–5500 calBC (after Pavlů 2011). that small groups, comprising one or two families, were arriving from distant territories ence of women from the original population who not as colonists or ambassadors of a new means of lived in Neolithicised groups. subsistence, but as part of the general mobility of that time. The demographic processes are mirrored I think it is most likely that the intensity of the ori- indirectly in the development of active decorative ginal influence varied throughout the Neolithic. Du- styles of Linear Pottery, and later Stroked Pottery, ring the development of the Linear Pottery Culture, which are observable both qualitatively and quan- its social significance in the new system was weak, titatively. However, throughout the entire Neolithic until it gained strength towards the end in the πár- period of approximately 1400 years (5700/5500– ka type. The ensuing cultural change, giving rise to 4300 calBC), it is also impossible to rule out a resur- Stroked Pottery Culture, brought a new stylistic con- gence for some reason of the social influence of the cept of pottery decoration that abandoned the richly original population (Pavlů, Květina 2008). These structured ornamentation of Linear Pottery. This, changes might have been the background to further in a sense, was a return to the older, pre-Neolithic, stages in the development of Central European so- stylistic concept of a passive style of ornament. The ciety, both in its beginnings and later. same can be said about settlement changes. A good example is the now classic find of a Neolithic house It is generally assumed that the demographic com- in Stvolínky (Zápotocká 1999), which was first position of the newly emerging Neolithic population thought to indicate a late colonisation of a territory incorporated some parts of the original population, which had not undergone Neolithisation. However, especially women, as evidenced by analyses of late assuming that groups of hunters or herders had been Linear sites (Price, Bentley 2005.211). Wo- using the territory for a long period before, the Stvo- men, being important agents and participants in so- línky house can be explained as the first archaeolo- cial activities, which undoubtedly included pottery gically visible evidence of such a group founding a making, inevitably carried their cultural characteris- settlement. tics into the Neolithicised society. Pottery decoration in general might have been one of these characteris- Types of settlement tics. Because in many regions and many develop- mental stages Neolithic symbolism was a continua- The overall situation of the Neolithic in Central Eu- tion of an older symbolism, it is still hard to tell , represented by the earliest Linear Pottery which elements of the decorative symbolism in Li- around 5700/5500 calBC and its continuation until near Pottery are pre-Neolithic. Therefore, a disrup- around 4000 calBC, can no longer be viewed as be- ted style in pottery decoration might reveal not only ing characterised by a compact population of a sin- chronology (∞i∫mář 1998.135) but also the influ- gle society in which organisations and subsistence

98 Models and scenarios of the Neolithic in Central Europe strategies were homogeneous. A more detailed ex- ally high number of houses, could have served as ploration of its archaeological content shows clearly, the short-term residence of the leading family who despite the apparent uniformity of the pottery, that organised the co-operation of the many inhabitants. it consisted of a mosaic of small communities with This house might have hosted various social events differences in both economic and social organisation and ceremonies that otherwise took place outdoors, for almost two millennia. These genetically diverse if at all. This leads us to the conclusion that, through- communities inhabited geographical spaces of vary- out the development of a larger settlement area, ing size, from regions to micro-regions to single set- such as Bylany in the Linear Pottery era, no long- tlements. Even their interrelations were necessarily term stable social structures were created to per- diverse, from mutual independence to various de- form functions at a level higher than that of houses grees of co-operation, to cope with local hostility, and families. This brings us back to the idea of the competition and enmity. An eclectic approach to relative social self-sufficiency and independence of using natural resources ensured successful long-term basic family units. Of course, these primary social survival even when the results of the emerging far- units would have engaged in necessary economic ming economy were uncertain and unreliable in co-operation, probably based on kinship ties, either some groups. real or mythical.

The basic unit of Neolithic society remained the The existence of an even higher level of social orga- house, or household, inhabited by one or two fami- nisation is sometimes inferred from the configura- lies, as confirmed by the fact that the central areas tion of settlements within an entire region. There of houses in Bylany are either single or double (Mod- are two extreme variants of such a configuration. derman 1986). According to Pieter Van de Velde The first is a row in which settlements of varying (1979; 1990; 2007.238), houses could be grouped size and importance form a string along a water- into yards or wards, which are larger economic units course (Modderman 1986), with settlements usually within a settlement. It is generally agreed that the 1km apart, or more widely spaced, with settlements layout of Neolithic settlements was determined by approximately 5km apart (Coudart 1998. 25). The the principles of a social order, whether or not the watercourse serves as a natural communication form and details of the order are known to us. A route. The second is a network where settlements yard organisation is believed to have existed at the are distributed throughout the entire region across settlements of the Aldenhoven Plateau (Lüning the natural network of watercourses. Among other 2005), where this model serves as a basis for a de- things, this network can provide a basis for explor- tailed chronology of the settlements (Stehli 1988; ing multilateral social relations (Classen 2005.122). Stäuble 2005). The theoretical division of houses is In both variants, there is a hierarchy of large settle- demonstrated by the example of the Geelen JKV site ments, small settlements and solitary houses, al- in the . Here, the chronology relies less though these are chronologically diverse. The net- on pottery and more on the developmental typology work model gives rise to the idea of a socio-econo- of the interior structure of the central areas within mic hierarchy that is bound to a certain centralised houses (Van de Velde 2007). In Bylany, no such grou- activity, usually the acquisition and distribution of ping into higher units has been observed, which is an important raw material or goods (Zimmermann why its chronology is based exclusively on pottery 1995; Kneipp 1998). In addition to these configura- analysis (Pavlů 2011). The assumed genealogy of tions, there is also the nuclear family arrangement houses, as demonstrated above regarding supple- (Petrasch 2003.512), for which there is evidence at mentary ornamentation, does not delineate any long- the large settlements of the Kutná Hora region (Pav- term housing space. lů, Rulf 1996; Pavlů 2005) (Fig. 3.). This might cor- respond to the idea of two exogamous groups of in- The existence of a single dominant person cannot be habitants related by moiety. Van de Velde (2007. assumed, since it is not supported by any evidence 237) interprets two parts of the Geelen-JKV site in a from the settlements and burial sites. It is more like- similar way. ly that there were many individuals, both men and women, who for various reasons enjoyed a higher The creation of parent and child settlements can be social status in a settlement formed by a co-opera- dated back to the first colonisation (Petrasch 2003), ting group of houses. In Bylany, large houses with provided that we apply the older model of a single special architecture (Soudský 1966), which have colonisation wave populating the whole of Central been observed only in periods with an exception- Europe with the Linear Pottery culture over a short

99 Ivan Pavlu˚ period (Frirdich 2005). Relations with the original inhabitants might have been mirrored, on the one hand, in the territorial distribution of the oldest Li- near Pottery settlements, and, on the other hand, in the methods of co-operation and limits of compe- tence of various subsistence strategies (Frirdich 2005.102). It is also necessary to take into account the varying degrees of mobility of individual com- munities and, above all, the varying degrees of their co-existence and integration. It could be assumed that the original inhabitants who did not adopt set- tled farming retreated to regions such as southern Bohemia that suited their own lifestyle, but were un- suitable for farmers. However, it is impossible to rule Fig. 3. Kutná Hora region. Interpretation of the out co-existence and close co-operation within a sin- different economic-social sub-regions (after Pavlů gle site. If that were the case, several distinct groups 2011). would have created their own autonomous neigh- bourhoods, distinguishable only by the types of ani- three-part houses were inhabited by farmers, two- mal bone, for example, but using the same kind of part houses by herders and single-part houses by pottery, as at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (Hachem 1994). hunters-gatherers, remains only a hypothesis for fu- It is uncertain whether the farming, herding and ture consideration. families were even more closely integrated at the level of houses within a settlement. An inter- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS pretation of different Linear Pottery house types, This paper was supported by fund GAAV IAA8000- analogous to that of circular and rectangular houses 20701. in the Levant (Verhoeven 1999.214), stating that

∴

References Ammerman A. J. 2003. Looking Back. In A. J. Ammerman, Bar-Yosef O. 2002. The Natufian culture and the early P. Biagi (eds.), The Widening Harvest. The Neolithic Neolithic: social and economic trends in Southwest Asia. Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward. In P. Bellwood, C. Renfrew (eds.), Examining the farm- Archaeological Institute of America, Boston: 3–23. ing/language dispersal hypothesis. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge: 113–126. Ammerman A. J. , Cavalli-Sforza L. L. 1984. The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe. Cavalli-Sforza L. L. 2003. Returning to the Neolithic Tran- Princeton University Press. Princeton. sition in Europe. In A. J. Ammerman, P. Biagi (eds.), The Widening Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Asouti E. 2006. Beyond the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B inter- Looking Back, Looking Forward. Archaeological Institute action sphere. Journal of World 20: 87–126. of America, Boston: 297–313.

Aurenche O., Cauvin J., Cauvin M.-C., Copeland L., Hours Classen E. 2005. Siedlungsstrukture der Bandkeramik im F. and Sanlaville P. 1981. Chronologie et organisation de Rheinland. In J. Lüning, Ch. Frirdich and A. Zimmermann l’espace dans le Proche Orient de 12000 a 5600 avant J. (eds.), Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhundert. Symposium C. In J. Cauvin, P. Sanlaville (eds.), Prehistoire du Le- in der Abtei Brauweiler bei Köln vom 16.9.–19.9.2002. vant: chronologie et organisation de l’espace depuis les Internationale Archäologie. Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Sympo- origines jusqu’au VIe millenaire. Lyon, Maison de l’Ori- sium, Tagung, Kongress. Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/ ent mediterraneen, 10–14 juin 1980. Colloques interna- Westf.: 113–124. tionaux du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, no 598. Editions du Centre national de la recherche scien- Coudart A. 1998. Architecture et société néolithique. tifique, Paris: 571–603. L’unité et la variance de la maison danubienne. Maison des sciences de l’Hommeś. Paris.

100 Models and scenarios of the Neolithic in Central Europe

∞i∫mář Z. 1998. Nástin relativní chronologie lineární ke- thic on the . Investigations of the ramiky na Moravě – Outline of the relative chronology of Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 3, County Békés. Varia the Linear Pottery at Moravia. Acta Musei Moraviae, Sci. Archaeologica Hungarica 21. Archaeological Institute of Soc. 83: 105–139. the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest: 677–726.

Delage C. 2004. Beyond Past Cultural Geography: Exam- Modderman P. J. R. 1986. On the typology of the house- ple of the Levantine Late Palaleolithic. In C. Delage (ed.), plans and their European setting. Památky archeologické The Last Hunters-Gatherer Societies in the Near East. 77: 383–394. John and Erica Hedges, BAR IS 1320. Archaeopress, Ox- ford: 95–117. Nowak M. 2009. Hunter-Gatherers and Early Ceramics in . In Jordan P., M. Zvelebil (ed.), Ceramics before Frirdich Ch. 2005. Struktur und Dynamik der bandkera- Farming. The Dispersal of Pottery Among Prehistoric mischen Landnahme. In J. Lüning (ed.), Die Bandkerami- Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers. Left Coast Press, Walnut ker. Erste Steinzeitbauern in Deutschland. Bilder einer Creek: 449–476. Ausstellung beim Hessentag in Heppenheim/Bergstraße im Juni 2004. Verein Bandkeramisches Aktionsmuseum Pavlů I. 2005. Po≠átky antropogenní ≠innosti v Podou- e.V.. Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/Westf.: 81–109. braví. The beginnings of antropogenic activities in the re- ver Doubrava flood plain. In Pavlů I. (ed.), Bylany Varia Hachem L. 1994. Structuration spatiale d’un du ru- 3. Archeologický ústav Akademie věd ∞eské republiky, banée récent, Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (Aisne). Analyse d’un Praha: 55–92. catégorie de rejets domestiques: la faune. In S. Auxiette, L. Hachem and B. Robert (ed.), Espaces physiques espa- 2011. Spole≠nost na neolitickém sídli∏ti Bylany. Sta- ces sociaux dans l’analyse interne des sites du Néoli- tus a role artefaktů. Society on a Neolithic Site of By- thique a l’Age du Fer. 119e congrés CTHS. Éditions du lany. Status and Role of Artefacts. Archeologický ústav CTHS, Amiens: 245–261. Akademie věd ∞eské republiky. Praha: electronic edi- tion (CD). Halstead P. 1999. Neighbours from Hell? The Households in Neolithic . In P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Society Pavlů I., Květina P. 2008. Die kulturelle Entwicklung in in Greece. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield: 77–95. Böhmen am Ende des 6. Jahrtausends v. Chr. In A. Zeeb- Lanz (ed.), Krisen – Kulturwandel – Kontinuitäten. Zum Kaczanowska M., Kozłowski J. K. 2003. Origins of the Li- Ende der Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Internationale near Pottery Complex and the Neolithic Transition in Cen- Archäologie. Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, tral Europe. In A. J. Ammerman, P. Biagi (eds.), The Wide- Kongress 10. M. Leidorf, Rahden/Westf.: 275–302. ning Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Lo- oking Back, Looking Forward. Archaeological Institute of Pavlů I., Rulf J. 1996. Nejstar∏í zemědělci na Kutnohorsku America, Boston: 227–248. a ∞áslavsku. Archeologické rozhledy 48: 643–673.

Kneipp J. 1998. Bandkeramik zwischen Rhein, Weser Perlés C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece. Cambridge und Main. Studien zu Stil und Chronologie der Kera- University Press. Cambridge. mik. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archä- ologie 47. Rudolf Habelt. Bonn. Petrasch J. 2003. Zentrale Orte in der Bandkeramik. In J. Eckert, U. Eisenhauer and A. Zimmermann (eds.), Archäo- Kuijt I. 2000. Near Eastern Neolithic Research: Directions logische Perspektiven: Analysen und Interpretationen and Trends. In I. Kuijt (ed.), Life in Neolithic Farming im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens Lüning zum 65. Geburt- Communities. Social Organization, Identity, and Diffe- stag. Internationale Archäologie. Studia Honoraria 20. rentiation. Kluwer/Plenum, New York at al.: 311–322. Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/Westf.: 505– 514.

Lüning J. 2005. Bandkeramische Hofplätze und absolute Price T. D., Bentley R. A. 2005. Human Mobility in the Li- Chronologie der Bandkeramik. In J. Lüning, Ch. Frirdich nearbandkeramik: An Archaeometric Approach. In J. Lü- and A. Zimmermann (eds.), Die Bandkeramik im 21. ning (ed.), Die Bandkeramiker. Erste Steinzeitbauern in Jahrhundert. Symposium in der Abtei Brauweiler bei Deutschland. Verein Bandkeramisches Aktionsmuseum Köln vom 16.9.–19.9.2002. Internationale Archäologie. e.V. Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/Westf.: 203– 216. Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress. Ma- rie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden/Westf.: 49–74. Runnels C. 1989. Trade Model in the Study of Agricultu- ral Origins and Dispersals. Journal of Mediterranean Ar- Mateiciucová I., Małecka-Kukawka J. 2007. Worked Stone: chaeology 2(1): 149–156. Obsidian and . In A. Whittle (ed.), The Early Neoli-

101 Ivan Pavlu˚

Stehli P. 1988. Zeitliche Gliederung der Verzierten Ke- Vencl S. 1982. K otázce zániku sběra≠sko-loveckých kul- ramik. In U. Boelicke, D. v. Brandt, J. Lüning, P. Stehli and tur. Problematika vztahů mesolitu vů≠i neolitu a postme- A. Zimmermann (eds.), Der bandkeramische Siedlungs- solitických kořistníků vů≠i mlad∏ím pravěkým kulturám. platz Langweiler 8, Gemeinde Aldenhoven, Kreis Düren. To the question of the end of gathering-hunting cutures. 2 Bände. Rheinische Ausgrabungen, Bd. 28. Beiträge zur Archeologické rozhledy 34: 648–694. neolithischen Besiedlung der Aldenhovener Platte, 3. Rheinland-Verlag, Köln: 441–482. 2007. Mladý paleolit. Later . In S. Vencl (ed.), J. Fridrich. Archeologie pravěkých ∞ech 2. Paleolit a Stäuble H. 2005. Häuser und absolute Datierung der Äl- mezolit. Archeologický ústav Akademie věd, Praha: 50– testen Bandkeramik. Universitätsforschungen zur prähi- 103. storischen Archäologie 117. Rudolf Habelt. Bonn. Verhart L. B. M., Wansleeben M. 1997. Waste and pres- Soudský B. 1966. Bylany, osada nejstar∏ích zemědělců tige; The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Netherlands mlad∏í doby kamenné. Academia. Praha. from a social perspective. Analecta Prehistoria Leidensia 29: 65–73. πída P. 2007. Vyu∫ívání kamenné suroviny v mlad∏í a pozdní době kamenné. Dílenské areály v oblasti horní- Verhoeven M. 1999. An archaeological Ethnography of ho Pojizeří. The use of stone raw materials in the Neo- a Neolithic Community. Space, Place and Social Rela- lithic and Eneolithic. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Bru- tions in the Burnt Village at , . Ne- nenses/Pragensesque. Praha-Brno. derlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Instanbul. Leiden, Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Istan- Tangri D. 1989. On Trade and Assimilation in European bul. Agricultural Origins. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeo- logy 2(1): 139–148. Whittle A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. The creation of new worlds. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Van de Velde P. 1979. On Bandkeramik social structure: an analysis of pot decoration and distribution from Zápotocká M. 1999. Stvolínky u ∞eské Lípy. První dům the Central European Neolithic communities of Elsloo kultury s vypíchanou keramikou v ∞echách. The first and Hienheim. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 12. Uni- house of the Stroked Pottery culture in Bohemia. Sborník versity Press Leiden. prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské university 4: 61–71.

1990. Bandkeramik social inequality – a case study. Zimmermann A. 1995. Austauschsysteme von Silexarte- Germania 68: 19–38. fakten in der Bandkeramik Mitteleuropas. Universitäts- forschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 26. Habelt. 2007. The Bandkeramik settlement. Analecta Praehi- Bonn. storica Leidensia 39: 223–244.

102