Neolithization in the Caput Adriae Region MIHAEL BUDJA ‘This paper is concemed with the explanation of archaeological records at different levels and evaluates the applicability of models, concepts and analytical approaches in relation to them. This makes it essential at the outset to draw attention to the restrictions, which will certainly influence the success of this work. The establishment of the formal legitimacy of archacological explanations requires that one draws attention to certain key restrictions, in spite of the fact that one may refer on an epistemological level to the constructive empiricism of Van Frassen. The first restriction states that a scientific work deals largely with model formation and less with research into that, which cannot be directly observed. The second restricts the empirical importance of scientific explanations from actual ideological contexts (VAN FRASSEN 1980: VIL, 5). Mention has already been made on several aceasions of the loop, which Klejn described as the “double discontinuity”, the discontinuity between the past and present and between the material world and the world of ideas (KLEIN 1987: 90, 160). In other words, as Binford says, we can research the archaeological record, but we cannot study the processes, which created them (BINFORD 1977: 6~10, 1983: 95-108). Between Herodotus and Cavalli-Sforza The explanation of the neolithization processes of Europe in the contexts, defined by the concepts of demic diffusion, the agricultural frontier and the series of genetic zones, once again actualizes Herodotus’ developmental and ethnic zones and his divisions into the civilized and barbarian world ‘The frontier between them, according to Herodotus, corresponded to the agricultural frontier in the Sth century BC (Fig. !). The barbarian zone on the edge of the Oikos was inhabited by the Aithiopi and Padai gatherers to the south and east and by the Thyssageti, Iyrki and Anthropophagi hunters to the north and west. There was an intervening zone of nomadic pastoralists, the Libyan, Massageti and ‘nomadic Scythians”. These were followed in their turn by the “agricultural Scythians”, Garamanti, Maxyi, Callipidi, Alizoni, and Geloni, who already belonged to the civilized part of the Oikos (MOLLER 1972; 101-131; VENCL 1982: 666-670). Unfortunately, the surviving records for the relations between “barbarian” hunters and gatherers and “civilized” farmers are at odds with the hypothetical constructive examples of knowledge in the agricultural frontier zone (ZVELEBIL 1994 (1995): 114-116, 134-136). Herodotus, Strabo and Diodorus describe hatred and destruction, The case of the Aithiopi and Garamanti is instructive. The former, hunters and gatherers, living in caves, were hunted and killed in their territory by the latter, who were farmers (VENCL 1982: 66-670). Itis worth noting in the context of the humanistic evaluation of the development of European civilization, which was based on the records of ancient authors in the 18th century, that Rousseau was skeptical about the appearance of agriculture. He namely assessed that agriculture and metallurgy were discoveries that caused the first revolution, the civilization of man, but destroyed humanity (HARRIS 1981: 3), On the other hand, 19th century was dominated by paradigms that envisaged linear development and a succession of periods, which linked mobile hunter-gatherer groups with the Mesolithic and sedentary farmers with the Neolithic (Westropp, Brown). The concept of interruptions began to function (de Mortillet). This led to the introduction of the hypothesis of developmental and settlement discontinuity in the Early Holocene in South-Eastern Europe into archaeological interpretation (HOIKA 1993: 6-8). ‘We meet Herodotus’ developmental and ethnic zones again in the third edition of The Dawn of European Civilization (CHILDE 1939), in which he presented zonal phases of cultural development. He divided Europe into six developmental zones, which were bounded by the literate townsfolk in Greece and the self-sufficient Neolithic groups in Northen Germany and Southem Scandinavia and126 Mihael Budja the Arctic Hunters in the far north. He reestablished the degree of cultural diffusion in the context of the Neolithic colonization of Europe with the aid of the concept of the archaeological culture and the spatial distribution of characteristic artefact sets. However, his concept of the Neolithic Revolution brought into force the “oriental view” of European cultural development, which also included an evaluation of European Prehistory “as a story of imitation” or “at best an adaptation of Middle Eastern achievements” and hypotheses that “Mesolithic microliths in Europe are an expression of the stagnation of groups, which were incapable of coming to terms with the difficulties of the natural environment” (TRIGGER 1980: 66-67). The diminution of the role played by Mesolithic groups in the Neolithization processes in Europe is still current. It is particularly evident in authors, who only formulate an holistic image of European Prehistory with the aid of period paradigms and the typological determination of artefact sets, including stone tools and ceramics. This paradigm still maintains that Mesolithic and Neolithic artefact sets are culturally and spatially mutually exclusive. ‘Thus Miiller-Karpe considers Mesolithic groups as “a microlithic cultural phenomenon”, which sup- posedly indicates a retardation in cultural development (MULLER-KARPE 1976: 19). Neolithization can still be linked with “the earliest Neolithic layers with ceramics” (PARZINGER 1993: 12-15, 123). Fig. 1. Herodotus’ developmental and ethnic zones (after K. E. MOLLER 1972, Abb. 10). ‘Ammerman, Cavalli-Sforza and Cavalli-Sforza explain the process of the neolithization of Europe with the aid of the concepts of demic diffusion and the agricultural frontier. They link this series of genetic zones, documented by the analyses of independent alels, the factor analyses of main components and an evaluation of the frequency of primary genetic components with the Neolithic demic diffusion of farmers from South-East Asia at 7500 BP (AMMERMAN ~ CAVALLI-SFORZA 1984; CAVALLI-SFORZA — CAVALLI-SFORZA 1995: 147-153, fig. 6.10; CAVALLI-SFORZA 1996: 57-65, fig. 4.la). They support this connection with the evaluation that the distribution map of primary genetic components and !C dates for “the initial arrival of agriculture”, connected with early Neolithic sites in Europe, are identical on a continental level (CAVALLI-SFORZA 1996: 53). However, it is worth noting that the distribution zone of primary genetic components matches that of the quaternary genetic component zone in the Apennine Peninsula, the Balkans and the Carpathian Basin (Fig. 2), which isNeolithization in the Caput Adriae Region 127 supposedly connected with Greek colonization in the Mediterranean between 1000 and 500 BC (CAVALLI-SFORZA — CAVALLI-SFORZA 1995: 156, fig. 6.13: CAVALLI-SFORZA. 1996: 60-63. fig 4.1d), Itis possible, therefore, to identify two spatially identical main genetic component distributions in the genetic palimpsest and to link them on the archaeological interpretive level with Neolithic demic diffusion and Greek colonization. In spite of the unavoidable fact that Herodotus and ‘Ammermann and Cavalli-Sforza are separated by two and a half millennia, ideological contexts and research approaches, the comparison is also interesting, because of the evaluation that the spatial distribution of the quaternary genetic components are related to the 5th century BC, the period which gave birth to Herodotus’ record of the geocultural and ethnic division of the world. Although this paper does not evaluate the applicability of genetic maps and the geographically structured genetic palimpsest or the spatial distribution of the quaternary genetic components, it is worth noting that DNA analyses have not confirmed a greater population movement in Europe that can be directly linked to demic diffusion of agriculturists from South-Eastern Asia (SYKES et al, 1996; POWLEDGE — ROSE 1996: 42-44). ig. 2. Synthetic maps of Europe, using the first five principal components from gene frequencies, correspond to spread of agriculture in Europe (a, b) and Greek colonization in the Mediterranean region (¢) (After CAVALLI-SFORZA ~ CAVALLI-SFORZA 1995: Fig. 6.5; CAVALLI-SFORZA 1996: Fig. 4.1.a,d.) The remainder of this article will remain within the interpretative contexts, defined by the concepts of demic diffusion and the agricultural frontier, but on the level of the interpretation of archaeological records. This section will draw attention to the results of arbitrary definition of artefact sets, which are frequently linked to interpretative hypotheses. These are still connected in some cas: with the period paradigm and the chronological exclusivity of individual parts of the artefact set and the typological definition of cultural contexts ‘Attention will be directed on the regional level towards the mesolithic-neolithic palimpsest in the Caput Adriae region, which was supposedly divided into two parts in 6500 BP by the agricultural frontier or the “isochronic line of agricultural expansion in Europe” according to Ammerman and