The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe

by Chris Fowler

  Parkinson, W.A. 2002. Integration, interaction, and tribal ‘cycling’: the transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. In W.A. Parkinson (ed.), The archaeology of tribal societies, 391–438. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.

  Parkinson, W.A. 2006. The social organization of early Copper Age tribes on the Great Hungarian Plain. Oxford: Archaeopress.

  Peltenburg, E., Colledge, S., Croft, P., McCartney, C., and Murray, M.A. 2000. Agro-pastoralist colonization of Cyprus in the 10th millennium BP: initial assessments. Antiquity 74, 844–853.

  Peltenburg, E.J. and Wasse, A. (eds) 2004. Neolithic revolution: new perspectives on southwest Asia in light of recent discoveries on Cyprus. Oxford: Oxbow.

  Peric, S. 1995. Butmirska Kultura. Geneza i Razvoj. Butmir culture. Origin and development. Posebna Izdanja Arheološki institut 29. Belgrade: Arheološki institut.

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

  Pernicka, E., Begemann, F., Schmitt-Strecker, S., Todorova, H., and Kuleff, I. 1997. Prehistoric copper in Bulgaria. Its composition and provenance. Eurasia Antiqua 3, 41–180.

  Price, T.D. (ed.) 2000. Europe’s first farmers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Raczky, P., Meier-Arendt, W., Anders, A., Hajdú, Z., Nagy, E., Kurucz, K., Domboróczki, L., Sebök, K., Sümegi, P., Magyari, K.T., Szantos, Z., Gulyás, S., Dobo, K., Bacskay, E., Birco, K.T., and Schwarrt, C. 2002. Polgár-Csőszhalom (1989–2000). In R. Aslan (ed.), Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann, 833–860. Remshalden-Grumsbach: Greiner.

  Raczky, P., Meier-Arendt, W., Hajdú, Z., Kurucz, K., and Nagy, E. 1996. Two unique assemblages from the Late Neolithic tell settlement at Polgár-Czőszhalom. In T. Kovács (ed.), Studien zur Metallindustrie im Karpatenbecken und den benachbarten Regionen. Festschrift für Amália Mozsolics zum 85. Geburtstag, 17–30. Budapest: Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum.

  Reingruber, A. 2008. Die Argissa-Magula. Das frühe und das beginnende mittlere Neolithikum im Lichte transägäischer Beziehungen. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 35. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.

  Renfrew, J.M. 1974. Report on carbonized grains and seeds from Obre I, Kakanj and Obre II. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des Bosnisch-Herzegowinischen Landesmuseums 4A, 47–53.

  Schubert, H. 1999. Die bemalte Keramik des Frühneolithikums in Südosteuropa, Italien und Westanatolien. Internationale Archäologie 47. Rahden/Westfalen: Marie Leidorf.

  Schwartz, C. 1988. The Neolithic animal husbandry of Smilcic and Nin. In J. Chapman, J. Bintliff, V. Gaffney, and B. Slasak (eds), Recent developments in Yugoslav archaeology, 45–75. Oxford: Archaeopress.

  Spataro, M. 2002. The first farming communities of the Adriatic: pottery production and circulation in the early and middle Neolithic. Trieste: Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia.

  Spataro, M. and Biagi, P. (eds) 2007. A short walk through the Balkans: the first farmers of the Carpathian Basin and adjacent regions (Conference London 2005). Trieste: Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia.

  Strahm, C. 1994. Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in Mitteleuropa. Helvetia Archaeologica 25, 2–39.

  Todorova, H. 1982. Kupferzeitliche Siedlungen in Nordostbulgarien. Materialhefte zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 13. München: C.H. Beck.

  Todorova, H. 2002. Durankulak. Die prähistorischen Gräberfelder. Sofia: Publishing House Anubis Ltd.

  Whittle, A. (ed.) 2004. The early Neolithic on the Great Hungarian Plain. Investigations of the Körös culture site of Ecsegfalva 23, County Békés. Budapest: Archaeological Institute of the HAS.

  Zimmermann, A. 2002. Landesarchäologie I. Die Bandkeramik auf der Aldenhovener Platte. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 83, 17–38.

  CHAPTER 4

  THE NEOLITHIZATION OF MEDITERRANEAN EUROPE MOBILITY AND INTERACTIONS FROM THE NEAR EAST TO THE IBERIAN PENINSULA

  JEAN GUILAINE

  THE spread of a Neolithic lifestyle throughout the Mediterranean basin was highly dependent on the same processes which permitted its emergence in the Near East. In the latter area, four chronological stages are evident in its establishment:

  •Epipalaeolithic (12,000–10,000 BC): In Palestine and on the middle Euphrates, Natufians hunted gazelles and other types of game (boar, goat, deer, cattle), harvested wild cereals, and in some localities (e.g. Mallaha) experienced sedentism. They built partially subterranean circular houses with stone walls and with probably light superstructures. The dead were buried within the settlement or next to it. One animal was domesticated: the dog. A similar evolution is presumed farther east in Upper Mesopotamia (the Nemrikian) (Aurenche and Kozlowski 1999).

  •Proto-Neolithic (10,000–8700 BC), Khiamian, and PPNA (Pre-Pottery Neolithic A): After the deterioration in climate in the Younger Dryas period, the development of permanent settlements continued. Houses remained circular and were often subterranean. Public buildings of probable ritual function occur next to individual habitations (the tower of Jericho, the subterranean buildings of Jerf el Ahmar, the monuments with megalithic steles at Göbekli Tepe) (Schmidt 2006). Crop cultivation emerged, although seeds had not yet undergone morphological changes (incipient agriculture). Hunting was still practised.

  •Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (8700–7000 BC): During its early phase (early PPNB, 8700–8200 BC) wheat and barley assumed a morphologically cultivated form while the control of ungulates was reinforced in the northern Levant (pig, sheep, goat, cattle). From that time on, houses exhibit rectangular, sometimes elongated, multicellular plans (e.g. Çayönü). During the middle PPNB (8200–7500 BC) and late PPNB (7500–7000 BC), animal domestication was finalized, although hunting remains an important subsistence strategy. Site variability was emphasized and very large major settlements exceeding 10ha in size occur (Abu Hureyra, Syria; Aïn Ghazal, Jordan). Anthropomorphic representations became increasingly frequent and ranged from small figurines to real statues (Yeni Mahalle at Urfa, Turkey; Aïn Ghazal, Jordan). Complex ceremonies were practised, indicating the social and religious organization of these communities (e.g. removal and plastering of skulls). Important distribution networks (obsidian from Cappadocia and eastern Anatolia, stone vessels and armrings, shells) are affirmed within this ‘PPNB koine’ (Bar Yosef 2006).

  •Pottery Neolithic/PPNC (7000–6500 BC): The collapse of the PPNB koine is characterized by the dislocation of distribution networks and the emergence of regional cultural units. Various pottery styles appeared c. 7000 BC—Dark Faced Burnished Ware with impressed decorations from Cilicia to Lebanon, smoothed pottery in Anatolia (e.g. Çatal Höyük) or in the Balikh-Euphrates sector (Le Mière and Picon 1999)—whilst the Pre-Pottery evolution continued in other regions, like the southern Levant, before breaking up and being replaced in the latter area by the Yarmoukian ceramic culture c. 6500–6200 BC (Garfinkel 1999).

  THE EMERGENCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEOLITHIC IN CYPRUS

  Epipalaeolithic groups established themselves on the island by 10,000 BC. On the only site dated to this period (Aetokremnos, on the peninsula of Akrotiri), their economy is based on catching birds, batrachians, and reptiles, on collecting shells, and perhaps on hunting wild boar. People’s role in endemic fauna extinction (pygmy hippopotami and dwarf elephants) has been discussed (Simmons 1999 versus Binford 2000).

  During what is the PPNA phase on the Near-Eastern mainland (10,000–8500 BC), poorly known human groups were present in Cyprus. Lithic evidence from Asprokremmos at Agia Varvara and Thrombovounos at Ayios Tychonas is similar to contemporary Near-Eastern assemblages of burins, obliquely truncated blades, blades with sickle gloss, and leaf-shaped projectile points (McCartney et al. 2007). The economic status of this population is not yet clear, but was possibly characterized by incipient agriculture and the hunting of some local species (e.g. boar).

  Population growth seems to occur during the early PPNB (8500�
��8000 BC), as shown at Shillourokambos (early phase A), Kalavasos-Tenta (phase 5), and well 116 at Mylouthkia (Guilaine and Le Brun 2003). Architectural structures were built with wood and daub, as with the circular shelters and fenced enclosures at Shillourokambos (Guilaine and Briois 2006) (Fig. 4.1, 1 and 2). From now on, agriculture was based on domestic wheat (Triticum dicoccum, Triticum monococcum) and barley (Peltenburg 2003). Sickle blades have close counterparts on the mainland. Obsidian imports from the volcanic region in Cappadocia (Gollü dağ) became regular. Pig, goat, and cattle were herded, whilst hunting focused on wild boar. Wells were dug to exploit the ground water resources.

  FIG. 4.1. Reconstruction of Parekklisha-Shillourokambos, PPN, Cyprus: 1. wood and daub shelter (c. 8400–8300 BC); 2. large fenced enclosure (c. 8200–8000 BC); 3. stone and clay house (Khirokitia culture, c. 7000 BC).

  (Drawings by A. Jesionka).

  By 8000 BC, and during the middle and late PPNB, dwellings were built with resistant materials (limestone, hard rocks, mudbricks, clay), and floors were plastered (e.g. Ais Yorkis). Unlike in the Near East, house structures remained circular (Fig. 4.1, 3). Chipped stone industries made of high-quality translucent chert were inspired by PPNB traditions: bidirectional blade production is evident on naviform cores, composite sickles, and tanged projectile points (Byblos points). Stone vessels were made of limestone or volcanic rocks. Obsidian imports reached their peak (several thousand pieces at Akanthou on the northern coast). There is clear evidence for cereal cultivation. Sheep were introduced and exploited for milk, meat, and fur. The Mesopotamian fallow deer (Dama mesopotamica) was transferred to the island and became the main hunting resource. The cat was already tamed. The dead were sometimes grouped together, as in pit 23 at Shillourokambos, but before long individual burials became the standard.

  Changes occured from 7500 BC. Obsidian imports became scarce and opaque cherts from Lefkaran sources were henceforth used to produce robust toolkits (picks, scrapers, and large blades used as sickles). This heralds the last stage of the Cypriot PPN or Khirokitia culture which reached its acme in the seventh millennium (Le Brun 1984, 1989, 1994). The eponymous site, located on a hillock, is enclosed by defensive walls. Stone vessels remained in use whilst pottery, which is widespread on the continent, was still ignored. Agriculture was based on einkorn, emmer, lentils, and to a lesser extent barley. Figs and olives were gathered. Goats, sheep, and pigs were the main meat sources, whilst cattle have more or less disappeared. Some sites (e.g. Cap Andreas Kastros) specialized in fishing for coastal (grouper, porgies) or seasonally migratory species (tuna).

  The Khirokitia culture disappeared at the beginning of the sixth millennium or even from as early as the second half of the seventh millennium. This may be related to environmental crises at around 6200 BC, leading to subsequent aridification in the Near East. Population decreased markedly, not recovering until the fifth millennium with the development of the ceramic Neolithic Sotira culture.

  THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEOLITHIC DIFFUSION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN: SOME THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

  Whereas the Neolithic colonization of Cyprus was early, the spread into the Aegean basin did not begin until the seventh millennium BC. This expansion raises the more general question as to why the Neolithic spread out of the Levantine region in the first place. There have been various hypotheses, none of which are totally satisfactory:

  •The demographic pressure hypothesis—the strong increase in birth rates ensuing from village-based life and the adoption of agriculture resulted in too many mouths to feed and evacuation to neighbouring regions. The slowness of this initial spread (there are 2,000 years between the early PPNB, the main phase of domestication, and the appearance of the Neolithic in Thessaly) leaves this proposal unconvincing.

  •The social stress hypothesis—the PPNB would have created differences in social status amongst Levantine communities. In order to avoid an overly rigid hierarchical society, the Neolithic colonizers escaped to a more egalitarian social system. It is impossible to verify this although there is hardly any evidence for very large Levantine settlements in the earliest Mediterranean Neolithic. It is also difficult to consider its ideological implications, although early farmers, strong in their new economic system and its attached values, could have spread it in a kind of religious proselytism (Cauvin 1994).

  •The environmental hypothesis—climatic deterioration c. 6200 BC would have destabilized Near-Eastern PPNB populations and favoured a return to earlier mobility patterns and the practice of pastoralism (cf. Ain Ghazal during the PPNC/Yarmoukian transition). Some authors (Weninger et al. 2006) consider that the climatic crises would have forced populations to emigrate to Anatolia and Europe, but this is problematic. The radiocarbon dates seem to indicate that Neolithic communities were already established in south-east Europe by 6200 BC; therefore the climatic reversal is more likely to have disturbed a migration process which had already begun than to be the cause of it. On the other hand, it is attested that this event considerably weakened the last hunter-gatherer populations in the central and western Mediterranean. From Greece to the Iberian peninsula, evidence from stratified cave and rock shelter sites show a lack of deposits between the levels of the final Mesolithic and those of the first Neolithic (Biagi and Spataro 2000; Berger and Guilaine 2006). These gaps occur regularly over the last centuries of the seventh millennium, at the moment when Neolithic groups arrive in western mainland Greece and begin the colonization of the western Mediterranean. Could this deterioration in climate have forced autochthonous populations in the western Mediterranean to return to increased mobility or to split into very small groups? Or did erosion destroy a number of final Mesolithic sites? That these layers are not found in southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and from Catalonia and Andalusia, renders the analysis of possible acculturation processes of the local populations and the possible Mesolithic heritage of first village communities very difficult.

  Further discussion is concerned with the characteristics of this diffusion. By contrast to the process of regular advance at 1 km/year proposed by A. Ammerman and L. Cavalli Sforza, there is the model of ‘arrhythmic’ propagation, characterized by sudden diffusions and marked by breaks activating further rapid expansions (Guilaine 2003) (Fig. 4.2). The breaks correspond to areas where a culture reaches the limits of its capacity for expansion and declines. Evolutionary processes and the establishment of new cultural units then follow. Once the new culture is established, a rapid spread of characteristic features and production technologies to new areas occurs. Several cultural boundaries corresponding to this process of cultural transformation can be observed: in central-western Anatolia (the expansion limit of the PPNB), in the Danube region (Starčevo/Linear Pottery culture transition), in western Greece (Initial Neolithic/Impressed Ware groups), and across the North European Plain (between the Linear Pottery culture/successor Linear cultures/Funnel Beaker culture). In the Mediterranean, maritime colonization may complicate the model, as it can be discontinuous, selective, or leapfrog areas (Zeder 2008). From south Italy to central Portugal, the speed of propagation seems to exceed 4km/year (2800km of coastline in the 600–700 years between 6000 and 5400 BC).

  FIG. 4.2. Map showing the ‘arrhythmic’ diffusion of agriculture throughout Europe. The dates indicate the first appearance of agro-pastoralism in a given region. The black lines show the main cultural boundaries, corresponding to temporary breaks during propagation and the re-foundation of new cultures.

  FROM ASIA TO EUROPE

  The emergence of the Neolithic in Greece is highly determined by the nature of its landscape. The geographical pattern of the Aegean—important mountain ranges and small plains, indented coasts, scattered islands—is predisposed for maritime contact and cultural diversification. During the early Neolithic (6500–5800 BC), Thessaly was the most densely populated region. A full agro-pastoral economy based on the cultivation of wheat, barley, peas, and lentils and on the herding of ungulates was established in this area
. All these species are foreign to the local environment and must have been introduced from areas farther east. The hypothesis of an aceramic Neolithic (Theocharis 1973) is no longer relevant (Reingruber 2008).

  Diffusion routes are a problem. Some cultural features seem to be related to Anatolia: the monochrome/painted ware sequence observed at Çatal Höyük and in the lake district of the Anatolian plateau is reformulated in Greece, and repetition is indicated by the presence of some stone vessels, bone hooks, pintaderas, and seated figurines. However, evidence for early Neolithic occupation is lacking in Greek Thrace and Macedonia, areas situated on the way between Anatolia and Thessaly. The only site with early Neolithic layers is Hoca Çesme in the European part of Turkey (Özdoğan and Başgelen 1999). One has to suspect maritime influx, probably promoted by previous diffusion networks. Some authors emphasize direct Levantine parallels; for instance, connections have been established between the Greek figurines with ‘coffee bean’ eyes and those of the Yarmoukian in Palestine, a culture dated to the second half of the seventh millennium (Perlès 2003). Archaeobotanists also mention sub-Levantine influences regarding the diffusion of crop cultivation to Cyprus and the Aegean (Colledge 2001; Colledge in Peltenburg and Wasse 2004).

  Nevertheless, a number of characteristic cultural features in the Aegean region differed from Anatolia and the Near East. Thus, the PPNB projectile points were replaced by arrowheads of Mesolithic tradition as shown by the Franchthi cave sequence. The origin of the blade industry typical of the first Greek Neolithic is unknown. Settlements of clustered houses (observed in the Anatolian villages of Asikli and Çatal Höyük) were now replaced by villages with free-standing houses (e.g. Nea Nikomedia). Large Near-Eastern style villages or ceremonial buildings did not exist in Greece. Cremation burials (e.g. Soufli Magoula) appeared. Even if Anatolian and Levantine impulses are obvious, they remain selective, diversified, and clearly set apart from the parent area on the basis of local heritages, cultural re-foundations, and processes of regionalization.