You are on page 1of 40

1

Römisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts

Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission Band 89 2008

Schriftleitung Frankfurt a. M. PalmengartenstraSSe 10–12

Philipp von Zabern ·  2011

2 Mit 242 Textabbildungen, 19 Tabellen und 4 Tafeln

Die wissenschaftlichen Beiträge im Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission unterliegen dem peer-review-Verfahren durch auswärtige Gutachter.

Der Abonnementpreis beträgt 30,80 € pro Jahrgang. Bestellungen sind direkt an den Verlag zu richten. Mitglieder des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts und Studierende der Altertumswissenschaften können die Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission zum Vorzugspreis von 15,40 € abonnieren. Studierende werden gebeten, ihre Bestellung mit einer Studienbescheinigung an die Redaktion zu richten. Wir bitten weiterhin, die Beendigung des Studiums und Adressänderungen unverzüglich sowohl dem Verlag (vertrieb@zabern.de) als auch der Redaktion (redaktion@rgk.dainst.de) mitzuteilen, damit die fristgerechte Lieferung gewährleistet werden kann.

ISBN 978-3-8053-4357-2 ISSN 0341-9312 © 2011 Römisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Frankfurt a. M. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Darmstadt  /  Mainz Redaktion: Knut Rassmann (verantwortlich), Manuela Gallenmüller, Römisch-Germanische Kommission Grafische Betreuung: Kirstine Ruppel, Römisch-Germanische Kommission Satz: www.wisa-print.de Die Schlagworte werden nach der Dyabola-Systematik vergeben Druck: druckhaus köthen GmbH, D 06366 Köthen Printed in Germany

3

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Frühe Keramik im Ostseeraum – Datierung und Sozialer Kontext. Internationaler Workshop in Schleswig vom 20. bis 21. Oktober 2006 Herausgegeben von Sönke Hartz, Friedrich Lüth and Thomas Terberger . . . . . Bericht über die Tätigkeit der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission in der Zeit vom 1. Januar bis 31. Dezember 2008 Von Friedrich Lüth und Susanne Sievers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 7

Hinweise für Publikationen der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission . . . . . . . 569

4

Table of Contents

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context. International Workshop at Schleswig from 20th to 21st October 2006 Edited by Sönke Hartz, Friedrich Lüth and Thomas Terberger . . . . . . . . . . 7 Report of the activities of the Römisch-Germanische Kommission in the period from 1st January to 31st December 2008 By Friedrich Lüth and Susanne Sievers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 Guidelines for Publications of the Römisch-Germanische Kommission . . . . . . 569

5

Table des matières

Céramique précoce en région baltique – Datation et contexte social. Atelier international de Schleswig du 20 au 21 octobre 2006 Sous la direction de Sönke Hartz, Friedrich Lüth et Thomas Terberger . . . . . . .  7 Rapport sur les activités de la Römisch-Germanische Kommission du 1er janvier au 31 décembre 2008 Par Friedrich Lüth et Susanne Sievers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 Recommandations aux auteurs publiant à la Römisch-Germanische Kommission . . 569

6

7

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context
International Workshop at Schleswig from 20th to 21st October 2006
Frühe Keramik im Ostseeraum – Datierung und Sozialer Kontext. Internationaler Workshop in Schleswig vom 20. bis 21. Oktober 2006 Céramique précoce en région baltique - Datation et contexte social. Atelier international de Schleswig du 20 au 21 octobre 2006 Edited by Sönke Hartz, Friedrich Lüth and Thomas Terberger

Inhaltsverzeichnis
Pottery use among late foragers and early farmers in the Baltic: New molecular and isotopic investigations Keramikgebrauch zwischen Wildbeutern und frühen Bauern im Ostseeraum. Neue Molekular- und Isotopenforschungen L’utilisation de la céramique par les chasseurs-cueilleurs et les premiers paysans en région balte. Nouvelles recherches moléculaires et isotopiques By Carl Heron and Oliver E. Craig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Zur pollenanalytischen Datierung archäologischer Funde in ufernahen Sedimenten – zwei Beispiele zur Keramik der frühen Trichterbecher-Kultur aus Ostholstein On the pollen-based dating of archaeological finds in sediments near shores – two examples on the pottery of the early Funnel Beaker culture in East Holstein Concernant la datation palynologique d’objets archéologiques issus de sédiments proches du rivage – deux exemples pour la céramique du début de la culture des Gobelets en entonnoir dans l’Ostholstein Von Jutta Meurers-Balke und Arie J. Kalis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 NoNeK – ein Aufnahmesystem für steinzeitliche Keramik Nordmitteleuropas NoNeK – A system for recording Stone Age pottery in northern central Europe NoNeK – Un système d’enregistrement pour la céramique néolithique du nord de l’Europe centrale Von Doris Mischka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

8 Early pottery in Afroeurasia – Origins and possible routes of dispersal Frühe Keramik in Afroeurasien – Ursprung und mögliche Verbreitungswege Céramique précoce en Afro-Eurasie – Origine et voies de diffusion possibles By Detlef Gronenborn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Ertebølle pottery in southern Sweden – a question of handicraft, networks, and creolisation in a period of neolithisation Ertebølle-Keramik im südlichen Schweden – Eine Frage von Handwerk, Netzwerken und der „creolisation“ im Neolithikum La céramique de l’Ertebølle en Suède méridionale – une question d’artisanat, de réseaux et de métissage dans la phase de néolithisation By Kristina Jennbert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 The early ‘Trichterbecher’ of Mälardalen, eastern Central Sweden Die frühen „Trichterbecher“ aus Mälardalen im östlichen Zentralschweden Les «  Trichterbecher » précoces du Mälardalen, dans l’est de la Suède centrale By Fredrik Hallgren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 The Early Neolithic Volling site of Kildevang – its chronology and intra-spatial organisation Der frühneolithische Volling-Fundplatz von Kildevang – seine Chronologie und innere räumliche Gliederung Le site Volling du Néolithique précoce à Kildevang – sa chronologie et son organisation spatiale By Mads Ravn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Early pottery in northern Fennoscandia Frühe Keramik im nördlichen Fennoskandinavien Céramique précoce en Fennoscandie septentrionale By Marianne Skandfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 The Adoption of pottery in Mesolithic Finland – Sources of impulses, when and why? Die Übernahme der Keramik im Mesolithikum Finnlands – Ursprungsgebiet, Zeitpunkt und Ursachen L’adoption de la poterie dans le Mésolithique finlandais – origines des influences, quand et pourquoi? By Heikki Matiskainen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Kitchen middens and the early pottery of Denmark Køkkenmøddinger und die frühe Keramik in Dänemark Les déchets de cuisine et la céramique précoce du Danemark By Søren H. Andersen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Hundred and fifty years of Ertebølle ceramics in the western Baltic Einhundertfünfzig Jahre Forschungen zur Ertebølle-Keramik im westlichen Ostseeraum Cent cinquante ans de recherches sur la céramique Ertebølle dans la région baltique ­occidentale By Erik Brinch Petersen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217

9 From pointed bottom to round and flat bottom – tracking early pottery from SchleswigHolstein Vom Spitzboden zum Rund- und Flachboden – auf den Spuren früher Keramik aus Schleswig-Holstein Du fond pointu au fond bombé et plat – Examen de la céramique précoce du SchleswigHolstein By Sönke Hartz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Neustadt LA 156: a submarine site from the Late Mesolithic-Ertebølle and earliest Neolithic-Funnel Beaker in northern Germany – first results of the typological and technological analysis of the ceramics Neustadt LA 156: Ein submariner Fundplatz der spätmesolithischen Ertebølle- und der frühesten Trichterbecher-Kultur im nördlichen Deutschland – Erste Ergebnisse der typologischen und technologischen Keramikanalyse Neustadt LA 156: Un site sous-marin de l’Ertebølle mésolithique tardif et du début de la culture des Gobelets en entonnoir en Allemagne du Nord – Premiers résultats de l’analyse typologique et technologique de la céramique By Aikaterini Glykou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Early pottery in the North – a southern perspective Die früheste Keramik im Norden – eine südliche Perspektive La plus ancienne céramique dans le Nord – une perspective méridionale By Johannes Müller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 The earliest pottery east of the Baltic Sea Die früheste Keramik im östlichen Ostseeraum La plus ancienne céramique dans la région balte orientale By Henny Piezonka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 Linear Pottery farmers and the introduction of pottery in the southern Baltic Linienbandkeramische Bauern und die Einführung der Keramik im südlichen Ost­ see­ raum Les paysans rubanés et l’introduction de la céramique dans la région balte méridionale By Lech Czerniak and Joanna Pyzel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 Pots and pikes at Dąbki 9, Koszalin district (Poland) – the early pottery on the Pomeranian coast Töpfe und Hechte in Dąbki 9, Woj. Koszalin (Polen) – Die frühe Keramik an der Pommerschen Küste Pots et brochet à Dąbki 9, Woj. Koszalin (Pologne) ­ – La céramique précoce de la côte poméranienne By Jacek Kabaciński and Thomas Terberger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 Early pottery from the coastal site Rzucewo, Gulf of Gdańsk (Poland) Die Frühe Keramik des Küstenfundplatzes von Rzucewo, Danziger Bucht (Polen) La céramique précoce du site côtier de Rzucewo, baie de Gdańsk (Pologne) By Jacek Kabaciński, Danuta Król and Thomas Terberger . . . . . . . . . . . . 393

10 A dialogue across the Baltic on Narva and Ertebølle pottery Ein Dialog über die Ostsee zur Narva- und Ertebølle-Keramik Dialogue à travers la Baltique sur la céramique de Narva et d’Ertebølle By Baiba Dumpe, Valdis Bērziņš and Ole Stilborg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

409

The earliest pottery in the western part of the North German Plain and its inspirations Die früheste Keramik im westlichen Teil des norddeutschen Flachlandes und ihre Vorbilder La plus ancienne céramique et ses modèles dans les basses plaines occidentales de l’Allemagne du Nord By Leendert P. Louwe Kooijmans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 Swifterbant pottery in the Scheldt Basin and the emergence of the earliest indigenous pottery in the sandy lowlands of Belgium Swifterbant-Keramik in der Schelde-Niederung und die Entstehung der frühesten indigenen Keramik im Flachland Belgiens La céramique Swifterbant du bassin de l’Escaut et la naissance de la première céramique indigène en basse Belgique By Philippe Crombé, Mathieu Boudin and Mark Van Strydonck . . . . . . . . . 465 Early Swifterbant pottery (5000  –  4600 cal BC): Research history, age, characteristics and the introduction of pottery Frühe Swifterbant-Keramik (5000  –  4600 v.  Chr.): Forschungsgeschichte, Alter, Charakteristik und die Einführung der Keramik La céramique Swifterbant précoce (5000 – 4600 av. J.-C.): histoire de la recherche, âge, caractéristiques et introduction de la céramique By Daan C. M. Raemaekers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia

59

Early pottery in Afroeurasia – Origins and possible routes of dispersal
By Detlef Gronenborn
Dedicated to the memory of Vladimir Ivanovich Timofeev

Schlagwörter: Afrika – Europa – Asien – Mesolithikum – Neolithikum – Keramikgefäße – Kulturentwicklung – Linearbandkeramik Keywords: Africa – Europe – Asia – Mesolithic – Neolithic – ceramic vessels – development of culture – Linear Pottery culture Mots-clés: Afrique – Europe – Asie – Mésolithique – Néolithique – vases en céramique – développement de culture – céramique linéaire du Rubané

Introduction
Methodologically and theoretically the approach presented in the following is influenced by work on the spread of Iron technology and farming into South Africa: After AD 1 South Africa witnesses a technological and sociocultural shift from hunter-gatherers to a combination of hunters, pastoralists, and farmers (agro-pastoralists) who all co-existed until the advent of Europeans at the end of the 15th century AD. This very circumstance brought one advantage for those working in South Africa: the complex interaction between these different economies is documented historically – by written1 and graphical sources2. While southern Africa is currently also under discussion as a possible centre of pottery invention3 it is furthermore of particular interest for the research historian as some aspects of archaeological theorising have persisted continuously, aspects which had disappeared in Europe, namely the concept of migrations connected to grand scale historical trajectories: human groups moved with their technology over long periods and long distances4. These trajectories were baptised “streams”5 in southern African archaeology: Figure 1 shows the Bantu expansion “streams” and the migrations of pastoralists (historically appearing as the Khoekhoe6). Following the southern African methodology it seemed appealing to classify the current pottery spectrum in western Eurasia equally into three streams which are understood to have
1

2 3

Hall 1990; Barnard 1992; Fauvelle-Aymar 2002; Mitchell 2002. E. g. Daniell 1820. Sadr  /  Sampson 2006.

4 5 6

Richards et al. 2004; Gronenborn 2004. Huffmann 1989. Fauvelle-Aymar 2002.

60

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context

Fig. 1.  Bantu and Khoekhoe expansion in southern Africa (after Huffman 1989).

served as cultural veins for technological innovation: farming, pastoralism and pottery, all of which compose what we call the process of neolithisation (Fig. 2). The application of possible analogies from southern Africa is not new in northern European archaeology, as G. Clark – referring to Ertebølle pottery – stated in his 1936 classic “… it is hard to think that pottery was invented separately and independently by the strand-loopers of the Litorina coast”7. This term is clearly borrowed from Afrikaans where it refers to a particular group of Cape Town Bay groups8 which, at the arrival of the Dutch settlers, had carved out a living through harvesting shells and hunting small game. Possibly, this group had lost its herds and had reverted back to a simple opportunistic forager strategy. Within the socioeconomic ranking of indigenous South African ethnic groups they scored lowest and soon disappeared as slaves and bondsmen in the European-African community of early Cape Town. But in the literature, they survived as the most impoverished group of the region. As methodologi 7

Clark 1977, 156.

8

Barnard 1992, 157; Mountain 2003, 50.

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia

61

cally and theoretically problematic as Clark’s equation may be from a modern perspective, his conclusion about the technological incentive of the inhabitants of the Litorina coast might still be very valid. Hence, it may indeed be rewarding to test the validity of the concept of a distant origin of the various pottery horizons in Early Neolithic Europe on a hemispherical scale. It appears to have been G. Childe who had firstly discussed possible origins of southern Scandinavian early pottery in Spain and the Crimea9. He was followed by Günter Smolla who had suggested finds from the Russian pottery tradition10 of Zedmar as the closest resemblances11. Behind the Iron curtain long-distance connections of pottery traditions had been proposed by scholars such as V. Danilenko who saw resemblances between Ukrainian and Baltic wares12. V. Timofeev returned to these ideas and developed them further: pottery spread from Ukraine and southeastern Russia to the Baltic coast13. But Timofeev  /  Zaitseva also suggested an independent emergence of pottery in the southeastern Russian steppe zones because the Elshan tradition in the Samara Valley appeared to be earlier than surrounding traditions in western Central Asia14. In the West another non-traditionally Neolithic, i. e. non-Danubian, tradition has emerged in the 1980s: La Hoguette15. In this case it has been argued convincingly that the origins lie in southern France and the western Mediterranean Early Neolithic16. This western “stream” is furthermore composed of other pottery traditions which had been distinguished from the Linear Pottery culture (Germ. Linienbandkeramik – LBK), namely Limburg ware17 and the so-called ‘Accompanying Ceramics’ (Germ. Begleitkeramik)18. Hence, Central Europe becomes the focal point of three different cultural streams which together form what we coarsely term ‘neolithisation’ (Fig. 2). Later van Berg broadened the perspective and contrasted the pottery traditions of Euroasian hunter-gatherers, horticulturalists and pastoralists with those of the Neolithic farmers19. He used the term “subnéolithique” and set them apart from the “Neolithique céréalier”, the Danubian traditions of southern Central Europe.

Regions of origin
While currently we begin to have a relatively robust model for the interactions between the three different streams within temperate Europe, the question remains: is there something beyond these suggested regions of origin? For the Danubian the picture appears to be relatively clear and will not be discussed here. Its source region is the Near Eastern Neolithic and the reader is referred to the newer literature20. Equally left out are Upper Palaeolithic non-container (animal and human figurines) forms of pottery, Rice’s “software horizon”. Of interest for the question dealt with in this volume, are the possible origins of the sub-Neolithic wares of western Europe, the northern Lowlands and the Baltic21.
9 10

11 12

Childe 1927; Id. 1950. The concept of “pottery traditions” evolved in North American theoretical archaeology during the midtwentieth century and has been defined by Willey (1945, 53): “A pottery tradition comprises a line, or a number of lines, of pottery development through time within the confines of a certain technique or decorative constant. In successive time periods through which the history of ceramic development can be traced, certain styles arose within the tradition.” Smolla 1960, 30. Danilenko 1969.

13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20

21

Timofeev 1998. Timofeev  /  Zaitseva 1999. Jeunesse 1987; Id. 1998; Lüning et al. 1989. Jeunesse 2000. Modderman 1974. Jeunesse 1994, 15 f.; Brounen 1999; Amkreutz in press. van Berg 1997. Garfinkel 1999; Aurenche  /  Kozlowski 1999, 97 f.; Perlès 2001; Lichter 2005. Rice 1999, 37 ff.

62

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context

Rice discusses a variety of hypotheses on the origins of pottery and concludes that on a world-wide basis no association exists between pottery manufacture and the emergence of farming22. Early pottery containers exist “most commonly in rich, diverse, tropical  /  subtropical, and riverine  /  coastal locations among complex (or transegalitarian, storing, accumulating) hunter-gatherers.” Indeed, the current picture of container pottery origins seems to support this hypothesis largely for Africa – and also the Americas23 – but not for Eurasia (Fig. 2) where pottery had evolved in Late Pleistocene environments before the abrupt warming and cooling events of the Late Glacial24. Also Rice’s postulate that container pottery technology would preferably emerge among semi-sedentary foragers and collectors moving between riparian and interior environments needs to be modified25, as many of the early pottery-using societies in Afroeurasia appear to have been sedentary and lived far inland, for instance in the central Sahara. Referring to the theoretical apparatus of Hayden, Rice sees the socio-political role of early container pottery as a “prestige technology” where the display effect in serving would have been more important than any cooking and storage function26. Less political arguments have been formulated by Haaland who draws a connection between sedentism, aquatic adaptations, pottery for cooking, and population growth through shorter birth spacing27. According to her study pottery serves as an amplifier of already existing socio-economic trajectories. Similarly Pearson sees no evidence of prestige-related functions of early pottery in South China28. Also, Keally et al. mention simple functions such as cooking and storing for early eastern Asian wares29; moreover the earliest vessels from this region are minimally decorated – if at all. Only with later phases do artful ornaments appear. The origins of pottery thus seem to have been attached to more earthly functions such as improvements in food preparation or technically more effective alternatives to already existing technologies, the classic so-called culinary hypothesis30. With time and technological as well as artistic sophistication, however, pottery will certainly have adopted more complex functions within human social and political interaction. It is by now also quite evident, that there is no immediate correlation between domestication and container pottery. The Near East serves as the best example: while cereals had been domesticated and used on a broader basis as from 8500 cal BC onwards31, ceramic containers, which would have been useful for food preparation, appear only several centuries later32. Contrary to the Near East, pottery in various regions of Africa appeared centuries, if not millennia, before local domestication33 and the same holds true for Asia and eastern Europe. Nevertheless, container pottery is still closely connected to the preparation and consumption of food and Haaland has shown how different culinary traditions may have influenced the speed of adoption of pottery34. However, despite her broad comparative approach Haaland was unable to formulate a robust and explanatory sound theoretical framework which would explain the invention and early use of container pottery and how it became embedded in subsistence technologies and socio-political behaviour35. It seems indeed, that up to today neither theoretical perspective – whether functional or culture materialist in the wider sense – may provide any conclusive solution to the questions around this marked technological breakthrough. Despite these theoretical uncertainties our rate of information about the Afroeurasian regions of origins for this technology has increased considerably.
22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Ibid, 44ff. Sassaman 1993. Keally et al. 2003. Rice 1999, 21. Hayden 1998; Rice 1999. Haaland 1992, 47 ff.; Id. 2007, 172. Pearson 2005.

29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Keally et al. 2003. Pearson 2005, 820. Willcox 2005. Aurenche  /  Kozlowski 1999, 97 f. Garcea 2004; Id. 2006. Haaland 2007. Ibid.

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia

63

Fig. 2.  “Streams” of neolithisation in western Eurasia (modified after Bramanti et al. 2009; Gronenborn 2009).

Africa
For Africa, Rice, following Close and others, concluded that pottery would have been invented “along the southern edge of the Sahara and   /   or the Middle Nile valley”36. This concept is supported by the most recent data on early pottery in Africa (Fig. 3) 37. The presently earliest dates were recently produced from the site of Ounjougou in Mali: Huysecom et al. were able to establish a geoarchaeological sequence based on erosion channel deposits. The early Holocene formation (HA 1) is composed of coarse gravel and sand which indicate massive and intensive floods. The archaeological assemblage consists of bifacially worked arrowheads and three ceramic sherds of which one shows a decoration by unidentifiable impressions. Following the sequence of 14C-dates for the formations above (HA 2  –  4) HA 1 would date before 9400 cal BC38. Considering the date and the sediments Huysecom et al. argue that pottery was in use at Ounjougou during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition when the West African monsoon front moved northwards and drastically changed the rainfall patterns in the hitherto desiccated environment. With these changes panicoid grasses became widely available to the inhabitants of the region. Ceramic containers were then used to boil these edible grasses. It is, however, uncertain whether the pottery had been invented in the region or whether it had moved with the environmental changes from the south 39. The earliest certain dates in the Sahara, albeit with high standard deviations, stem from the open-air and rockshelter site of Tagalagal in the Aïr in Niger, from Adrar Bous 10 equally
36 37

Rice 1999, 17; Close 1995. Jesse 2003; Mohammed-Ali  /  Khabir 2003; Huyse­ com et al. 2009.

38 39

Huysecom et al. 2004; Huysecom et al. 2009, 910 f. Haaland 2007; Huysecom et al. 2009, 911 ff.

64

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context

in Niger and Sorouab 2 in the Nile Valley40. Of these sites Tagalagal has produced the earliest measurement. Calibrated dates fall to the second half of the ninth millennium. Tagalagal is an open air site with parts protected by a rockshelter where the charcoal samples were collected41. The pottery is quite diverse with dotted wavy-line decoration and impressions. Forms can be classified as closed bowls with round bottom and small rims (Plate 1). Wavy Line pottery continues to be manufactured in the Sahara and West Africa for several millennia until the 4th millennium when Wavy Line pottery shifts towards the West. The latest appearance of Wavy Line pottery is attested for Senegal for the 1st millennium cal BC42. Wavy Line pottery manufacturers were hunter-gatherers adapted to a lacustrine environment of the early and Middle Holocene Sahara. Continuous research in the eastern Sahara has shown that humid conditions appeared rapidly around 8500  cal  BC with a shift in monsoonal patterns43. The hyperarid environment of the Pleistocene changed to an open savannah with lakes and temporary water-courses. Equally the Central and western Sahara shows an abrupt increase in humid conditions between 12 000 and 8000 cal BC, the transitional period being limited to only a few centuries44. Once Early Holocene humid conditions were established humans moved into the previously hostile environment and formed what has been termed the African “aquatic civilization”45 with its peculiar adaptation to lacustrine environments with their high biomass and high-protein food supplies. These conditions favoured sedentism and more complex sociopolitical structures46. Microlithic industries, grinding implements and bone harpoons show that people practised a hunting-gathering-fishing economy. Under such conditions pottery offers a clear advantage as it permits more effective food preparation as far as digestibility and storing is concerned. Moreover, food which – because of toxins – cannot be eaten raw may be added to the spectrum. The fact that within the Sahara the earliest manifestations of the new way of life are limited to the Aïr and Ahaggar might indicate that these regions had become inhabitable first, as they had attracted more rainfall than the surrounding regions47; the Nile valley had already served as a refuge area during the hyper-arid periods48. Just like for the Far Eastern early pottery, notably in the Russian research tradition, the term ‘Neolithic’ has been suggested for these manifestations. However, in recent articles Garcea has underlined the difficulties in applying Near Eastern conceptions of historical trajectories to North Africa where the ‘Neolithic package’ has never been bundled but rather sedentism is associated with foraging-fishing economies and an increase in social (and perhaps political) complexity49. Only much later do we see the emergence of a producing subsistence strategy – not farming but pastoralism50. These problems with the western European interpretation of the term ‘Neolithic’ have led to a re-acceptance of Hays’ term ‘Khartoum Horizon Style’51 or ‘Keramikum’ with ‘Early Khartoum’ as the designation for the earliest ware52. While container pottery apparently emerged at a relatively early stage in West Africa, the Sahara and the Nile Valley, the new technology appears comparatively late along the Mediterranean coastline. Currently it seems that this technology is not of Saharan origin, rather pottery had spread via the Mediterranean. This becomes particularly clear from the stratigraphy from the
40 41 42 43 44

45 46

Ibid. Tab. 61; 226 f. Roset 1987. Jesse 2003. Kuper  /  Kröpelin 2006. Cremaschi  /  Di Lernia 1999; Gasse 2000; deMenocal et al. 2000. Sutton 1974. Garcea 2006.

47 48 49 50 51 52

Id. 1998. Kuper  /  Kröpelin 2006. Garcea 2004; Id. 2006. Smith 2005. Mohammed-Ali  /  Khabir 2003. Hays 1974; Mohammed-Ali  /  Khabir 2003; Jesse 2003, 41.

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia

65

rockshelter of Hassi Ouenzga in the Moroccan eastern Rif, recently published by Linstädter, where the interplay between Saharan and Mediterranean influences has been recorded53. At Hassi Ouenzga the first potty appears around 5600 cal BC54 and is influenced by the western Mediterranean Cardium horizon but shows a considerable amount of local decoration types. Linstädter interprets the Hassi Ouenzga data as representing a situation where a local huntergatherer population has adopted externally introduced pottery technology and also animal husbandry55. The latter were apparently introduced from the more easterly Tanger tradition. Pottery is stylistically related to Portuguese sites which, however, date slightly later56. Nevertheless it is fairly well established that early pottery traditions in the Northwest African coastal regions are related to the western Mediterranean. At Hassi Ouenzga Saharan influenced wares appear only around 3500  cal  BC57. These should be seen in connection with the rapid shift in the monsoonal patterns and the subsequent rapid desiccation of the Central Sahara after 3500 cal BC58. Summing up, container pottery emerged in inland West and North Africa independently from other regions in Afroeurasia within sedentary or semi-sedentary forager-fisher communities shortly after the onset of post-glacial climatic and environmental conditions and is clearly disconnected to pastoralism59 or farming60 both of which appeared millennia later. Southern Africa may represent another independent centre for pottery invention but post-dates the North African data by several millennia. A thin-walled plain ware seems to have been produced on the Central Plateau of South Africa a few centuries before the advent of iron-using agro-pastoralists in the sub-continent; in absolute terms this would have been during the last centuries of the first millennium cal BC61.

East Asia, Siberia and the southeastern Russian Steppe zones
Another independent region of early pottery emergence is northeastern continental Asia and Japan. The exact dating of the earliest appearance of container pottery in this region had been a matter of debate: Kuzmin has reviewed the dates available for East Asia and has concluded that the new technology emerged towards the final stages of the last glacial, between 15 300 and 13 000 cal BC62; similar conclusions had previously been formulated by Keally et al.63. Presently it appears that the earliest Asian – but for that matter also Afroeurasian – container pottery emerged independently in three regions: southern China, the lower and middle Amur River Basin in the Russian Far East, and in Japan within societies that were either fully sedentary or semi-sedentary. Despite generally contemporaneous dates for the earliest appearance of pottery in eastern 64 Asia , dates in Japan appear to be slightly earlier than on the continent65. Pottery in Japan is generally subsumed under the generic term “Jomon”, meaning cord-decoration. Jomon is an archaeological “culture” which began during the Pleistocene and lasted until the first millennium cal BC when it was followed by the Yayoi Period66. The manufacturers of Jomon pottery were hunter-gatherers. Rice farming and iron technology was introduced to the Japanese
53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Linstädter 2004. Ibid. 138. Ibid. 173. Ibid. 169 ff. Ibid. 133. deMenocal et al. 2000; Foley et al. 2003. Smith 2005. Neumann 2005.

61 62 63 64 65

66

Sadr  /  Sampson 2006, 248. Kuzmin 2006a, 369. Keally et al. 2004. Kuzmin 2006a. Nakamura et al. 2001; Keally et al. 2004; Kudo 2004. Habu 2004.

66

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context

Islands during the Yayoi Period, maybe as early as 700  cal  BC67. The earliest pottery on the Japanese archipelago is subdivided into regional sequences, beginning with an Initial or Incipient Jomon and followed by an earliest Jomon phase. The preceding period is termed “Palaeolithic”, the difference from Jomon being the absence of ceramic vessels. However, as there is no clear temporal demarcation between these two entities the transition from the Palaeolithic to Incipient Jomon is fluid and takes place between 15 000 and 12 000 cal BC68. Pottery of a plain, undecorated style makes its appearance between 14 800 and 13 750 cal BC. The earliest appearance of this ware is documented at the site of Odai Yamamoto I in northern Honshu, where a plain ware dates to around 14 800 cal BC and is considered to demarcate a transitional stage between the Palaeolithic and Jomon69. This phase seems to be followed by the appearance of a linear-relief decoration and later a nail-impressed and cord-marked ware; both mark two successive stages of Incipient Jomon with linear-relief pottery dating from 13 800 to 12 400 cal BC and nail-impressed and cord-marked pottery dating between 11  500 and 9500  cal  BC. While vessel-forms of the transitional phase remain unidentified, Incipient Jomon vessels are of a conical shape with a rounded bottom and slightly incurving or everting rims (Plate 2). Flat bases do occur but are rare, some containers have fibre tempering. Vessels appear to have been used for boiling and   /   or cooking but also for storing liquid as well as solid materials70. Initial and earliest Jomon groups practiced an immediate-return hunter-gatherer subsistence strategy with hunting and fishing. However, acorns were stored in pits on Kyushu Island as early as the 10th millennium cal BC71 and during the Middle Jomon Period (3000 – 2000 cal BC) chestnut and horse chestnut stands seem to have been tended in northern Honshu72. Early container pottery in China appears in two regions, one is located in southern China the other one in northern China. Southern Chinese pottery appeared earlier, with the site of Yuchanyan (layer 3E) in Hunan province dating back as far as between 14 900 and 14 050 cal BC (BA-5058: 13680 ± 270  BP). Miaoyan (layer 4M) in Guangxi Province dates between 14  500 and 13 600 cal BC (BA-92034: 13320 ± 270 BP) and Xianrendong Cave (zone 3C1b) dates between 13  100 and 12  100  cal  BC (UCR-3561: 12430 ± 80 BP)73. Xianrendong Cave provides a stratified sequence for the appearance of pottery (Plate 3,1 – 4) and associated economic data: Deer, boar, rabbit, and fox seem to have been consumed as well as a variety of birds74. Remains of wild rice were found at Yuchanyan and other sites along the Middle and Lower Yangtze River as from 13  000  cal  BC and a pre-domesticated form of rice was gathered in the region as from 8000 cal BC onwards75. Communities appear to have been sedentary at that time with permanent buildings as at the open-air site of Shangshan. Ground and polished stone axes and adzes are part of the material culture76, as are grinding slabs together with plain and corddecorated pottery77. Shangshan is the earliest open-air site with evidence of rice utilisation and early pottery. The earliest indication of actual rice cultivation in China currently comes from the site of Kuahuqiao, equally in the Lower Yangtze region and dates to around 5500 cal BC. Rice was grown in slightly brackish coastal swamps but already at this early stage required considerable preparation and clearance of this peculiar environment78. A third, and possibly equally independent centre of pottery origin, is the Russian Far East, a diversified environment along the Pacific coastline with rivers, the major one being the Amur, draining towards the Northeast into the Pacific79. Here several multi-component sites
67 68 69

70 71 72

Harunari et al. 2003. Keally et al. 2003; Kudo 2004; Id. 2006. Habu 2004, 31 f.; Keally et al. 2004, 347 f.; Kudo 2004. Keally et al. 2003, 5 ff. Kawagushi 1982. Kitagawa  /  Yasuda 2004.

73 74 75 76 77 78 79

Keally et al. 2004; Kuzmin 2006a. Chi 2002. Liu et al. 2007. Zhao et al. 2004. Jiang  /  Liu 2006. Zong et al. 2007. Kuzmin 2006b.

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia

67

in the Amur River Basin have yielded early ceramics which are subsumed under the term Osi000 to 9000  cal  BC. povka culture80. Dates for the Osipovka ceramic tradition range from 14  Measurements of charcoal have been supplemented by TL dates from pottery of the site of Gasya which fall in the same range81. Osipovka pottery varies between the sites, while Gasya and Khummi containers have flat bottoms with thick walls (up to 1.7 cm) and a grass-tempered matrix and vertical grooves (Plate 3,5), Goncharka ceramics are decorated with cord and comb impressions and lighter in make without organic tempering82. Containers may have been used for cooking but also for extracting fish oils83. The lithic industry is based on a blade technology but also on bifaces with points categorised as arrow-heads but also dart heads84, heavier tools are chipped adze-like implements and at Gasya a part of a rectangular ground adze with a slightly convex working edge was discovered in situ 85. Another complex of sites is that of Ust’ Karenga in the Transbaikal in eastern Siberia86. The sites are located along the lower Karenga River at its confluence with the Vitim which in turn empties into the Lena River, the Lena then draining into the Arctic Ocean. The sites are at 600 m a.s.l. Mountain tops in the region reach up to 1700 m a.s.l. The climate in eastern Siberia is continental with hot summers and severely cold winters and thus different from that of the Russian Far East. The sites have been subdivided into several cultural layers of which layer 7 contains the earliest pottery. Vessels have pointed bottoms, straight walls and straight to slightly incurving rims (Plate 3,6 – 10). They are decorated with comb, zigzag, and chevron motives, the clay is plant-fibre tempered. The lithic industry is blade-based, local river pebbles were used. Radiocarbon measurements from layer 7 of the Ust’ Karenga complex range from 12 200 to 10 200 cal BC. However, it is not impossible that older ceramics may eventually be discovered in earlier layers of the Ust’ Karenga complex87. According to palaeobotanical reconstructions of the environment of the Ust’ Karenga layer 7 period a cold grass steppe dominated; it interchanged with pine-larch forests, composed also of dwarf birch, apparently the typical vegetation for the transition from the Late Pleistocene to the Early Holocene in eastern Siberia88. Ust’ Karenga layer 7 has produced the earliest ceramics in eastern Siberia. Their relationship to the east Asian ceramics is only of a very general nature in that organic tempering is equally documented from the Osipovka Complex and from Incipient Jomon where pointed bases also exist. However, these similarities do not allow any far-reaching conclusions about possible contacts between these distant regions and thus, at least for now, no hypothesis about a common ancestor or a core region from where the technology could have spread to the other regions in eastern Asia may be phrased. Currently, Siberia, the Russian Far East, Japan and China are all seen as independent centres of origins for container ceramics89. The question is, however, whether these wares influenced those of western Siberia and possibly also the eastern Russian steppe zones in Europe. Unfortunately, the data set available is not too satisfactory and the possibility of contacts from eastern Siberia towards the West need to be investigated further: Kuzmin   /   Veterov mention the Sumpanya-type pottery from western Siberian Ob Basin90 – 3000 km west of the Karenga-Vitim confluence – where a series of sites was excavated during the 1960s and which hitherto has been considered as a local and independent invention91. While a number of 14C dates fall into the sixth millennium cal  BC,
Id. 2002; Derevianko  /  Medvedev 2006. Keally et al. 2004, 348. Kuzmin 2002, 39 f. Keally et al. 2003, 11. Derevianko  /  Medvedev 2006, 126. Ibid. 127, 128, Fig. 7,4  –  5. Kuzmin 2002; Kuzmin  /  Vetrov 2007. Ibid. Krivonogov et al. 2004. Kuzmin 2006a; Kuzmin  /  Veterov 2007. Ibid. Kuzmin  /  Orlova 2000, 361.

80 81 82 83 84 85

86 87 88 89 90 91

68

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context

older dates reach as far back as the 10th and 11th millennium cal BC, yet these are considered problematic92; Sumpanya-type remains uncertain as far as dating and stylistic associations are concerned. The earliest pottery in Europe so far appears to be that of the Elshan tradition in the wider Samara valley from between 7200 and 6800  cal  BC, based on dates taken from river mussel shells93. The sites are shallow campsites along rivers with an economy based on hunting and fishing. Remarkable are the pointed base vessels with everted rims. Flat bases are also present, decorations are incisions, punctuations outside or inside the vessel rims and motifs are rhomboids, triangles or chevrons94 (plate 4). The lithic industry is characterised by so-called EpiSwidry points; trapezes and segments appear only during the evolved Elshan tradition which would underline the dating of the earlier phases to the Late Boreal. Elshan marks the earliest pottery in Europe and currently is without any immediate regional predecessors95; it has been considered as an independent innovation96.

“Streams” of neolithisation
Pottery, always in a hunter-gatherer context, appears to have spread from the Russian steppe zone towards the Northwest into the forest zone and further into the Baltic as far as into northern Fennoscandia and ultimately to the western Baltic, the Netherlands and the Belgian lowlands where early Ertebølle and Swifterbant pottery appear around 5000 cal BC or slightly earlier97. It thus forms an independent ‘Neolithic’ tradition across eastern Europe which is not connected to farming but to technological innovations such as pottery and ground stone and emerging socio-political complexity. This conservative definition of the term ‘Neolithic’ has prevailed in the Russian archaeological tradition98 and differs from the definition favoured in the West where economic aspects have been highlighted. Stylistic and technological similarities of these hunter-gatherer pottery traditions of eastern Europe may permit us to subsume these under the overlying concept of a “stream”, much in the way as it has been conceived for southern Africa (Fig. 1). In a similar way the ‘classic’ Neolithic of the southeastern European and ultimately Near Eastern tradition may be conceived as another ‘stream’, and lastly the western passage of Neolithic technologies such as pottery and pastoralism in southern France and the Iberian peninsula can be subsumed as a third ‘stream’. However, unlike the situation in southern Africa, it is yet unclear how these streams came into existence. Actual movement of larger groups across long distances, as with the Bantu migrations across Africa, have for al long time been viewed as unlikely for Europe99. It seemed more probable that the Eurasian streams were formed by cultural borrowing and only to a much lesser and still not fully understood degree by actual migrations. However, recent archaeogenetic studies e.  g. by Haak et al. (2010) indicate more considerable migration movements in the course of the erarly neolithisation process. In any case, these streams, which do have conceptional similarities with the currently still infamous ‘Kulturkreise’, have been termed “Hyperborean”, “Danubian” and “Occidental”100, the latter two have also been

92 93 94 95 96 97

Kuzim  /  Veterov 2007. Mamonov 2000; Vybornov 2008. Ibid. Kuzmin  /  Orlova 2000. Timofeev /Zaitseva 1999, 190. Timofeev 1998; Piezonka 2008; Skandfer 2005; 2008; Klassen 2000; Hartz 2000; Id. 2008; Doluk­-

ha­nov 2005; Gronenborn in press; Crombé et al. 2008; Raemakers 2008. 98 Dolukhanov 1995; Kuzmin 2006a; Parzinger 2006, 41. 99 E. g. Richards et al. 2004; Gronenborn 2007; Zvelebil et al. in press. 100 Gronenborn 2003.

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia

69

Fig.  3.  Regions of origin for early container pottery in Afroeurasia (after Haaland 2007, 172 Fig.  2; Aurenche  /  Kolowski 1999, 98 Fig.  14; Kuzmin  /  Orlova 2000, 357 Fig. 1; Kuzmin 2006, 363 Fig. 1). Climate proxy: GRIP/NGRIP *18O-curve after Greenland Ice Core Chronology 2005 (S. O. Rasmussen; K. K. Andersen; A. M. Svensson; J. P. Steffensen;

B.  M. Vinther; H.  B. Clausen; M.-L. Siggaard-Andersen; S.  J. Johnsen; L.  B. Larsen; D. Dahl-Jensen; M. Bigler; R. Röthlisberger; H. Fischer; K. GotoAzuma; M. E. Hansson; U. Ruth, A new Greenland ice core chronology for the last glacial termination. Journal of Geophysical Research 111, 2006, D06102, doi:10.1029/2005JD006079.)

70

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context

termed the “Danubian” and “Mediterranean sphere” by Jeunesse   /   van Willigen, indicating a more static concept without directional dynamics101. Each of these streams appear to have their origins in regions outside of Europe: the Danubian ultimately going back to the Near Eastern core zone of the agricultural Neolithic, the occidental stream has its origins in the western Mediterranean, possibly with an African component, and the hyperborean stream has its origins in the Russian steppe zone and possibly further east in Siberia and Northeast Asia. This is indicated by the data presented in Bramanti et al. (2009) and Haak et. al (2010). The Danubian and Occidental stream may also have been constituted largely by immigrants, a process which may have started already during the seventh millenium cal BC (Gronenborn 2007; in press). These three grand streams of neolithisation merge in western Central Europe, a region which has for long been recognised as a ‘melting pot’ of different European Early Neolithic traditions102. Occasionally these three traditions are manifested in the archaeological material of one single site, this is the case for instance at the site of Bruchenbrücken, an earliest Linear Pottery site in the Wetterau region north of Frankfurt a. M.103 where western, eastern and classic Danubian elements have been preserved in the archaeological record: the lithic industry has technological affiliations to the Late Mesolithic of eastern Central Europe but equally to the Late Mesolithic of western Europe104. Raw materials come from the Maas Valley, but also from the northern erratic sources, microlithic points have eastern, western, and northern stylistic affiliations (Fig. 4). The pottery is typical for earliest Linear Pottery. Fragments of La Hoguette ware indicate that people who manufactured this occidental tradition style lived on the site105. A microlith typical for Southwest Germany and adjacent regions and associated to La Hoguette, a pointe de Bavans106, was found at the nearby earliest Linear Pottery site of Goddelau in the Upper Rhine Valley107. The situation in the Netherlands and in the Belgian lowlands is similar: here, too, the traditions mixed and the pottery shows stylistic influences from both the Occidental as well as the Hyperborean stream108.

Dating fault lines
While the evidence from the site itself seems well integrated, problems arise when regarded in a broad context. According to varying age models Bruchenbrücken would date between before 5400 and around 5300 cal BC109 or 5320 and 5140 cal BC110. According to the age-model favoured by Strien and Gronenborn, House 2 with the characteristic microliths reflecting the distant connections should date around 5400 cal BC. All chronologies, regardless of whether “long” or “short” would arrange the site – together with the La Hoguette pottery – contemporaneous to or slightly after the current estimations for the beginning of the southern French Cardial, with which La Hoguette pottery does share stylistic similarities111. While the age model for the advent of La Hoguette pottery, and likely also the pastoral economy of occidental tradition, is relatively robust for western Central Europe – with a possible early beginning at Bavans rockshelter around 5600 cal BC112 – its chronological and thus culture historical ties to southern France are much less well understood113. The earliest Neolithic along the western
101 102 103 104 105 106 107

Jeunesse  /  van Willigen in press. E. g. Buttler 1938. Lüning 1997. Gronenborn 1990; Id. 1997. Lüning et al. 1989; Kloos 1997; Eisenhauer 2003. Mauvilly 1997. Gronenborn 1997.

108 109

110 111 112 113

See Crombé et al. 2008; Raemaekers 2008. Cladders  /  Stäuble 2003, 499; Strien  /  Gronenborn 2005. Lüning 2005, 68 ff. Lüning et al. 1989; Jeunesse  /  Van Willigen 2010. Aimé 1995. Jeunesse  /  Van Willigen in press.

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia

71

Mediterranean coastlines is currently considered to be the Impressa wares and according to newer studies of other southern French colleagues the Cardial and Épicardial should not have made their appearance before 5400  cal  BC114. This would mean that the stylistic innovations leading to La Hoguette pottery would have reached western Central Europe before Cardial emerged in southern France – an impossible scenario. Of a more general nature are the uncertainties with regard to an African contribution to the Early Neolithic societies of the western Mediterranean. While continuously discussed in the literature over many decades115, actual archaeological evidence of such interactions during the time of the advent of the Neolithic is still sparse. Recently, however, Manen et al. were able to work out a contact-horizon in the early southern Iberian Neolithic which is characterised by innovations of a possible Northwest African origin: ceramics with rounded bases (“formes ‘en sac’”), impression decoration techniques, the use of red colourant and pressure technique in lithics and microlithic segments116. These innovations, possibly originating from Morocco, would have arrived on the Iberian peninsula after 5500 cal BC – before or contemporaneous with the Cardial tradition117. A similar situation of co-existance has recently been suggested for the occupation of the site of Hassi Ouenzga, where the ceramics of the Oran tradition, characterised by incised lines, and Cardial-influenced ware of the local Hassi Ouenzga tradition occur contemporaneously from maybe as early as 5600  cal  BC onwards, certainly from 5400 cal BC onwards118. It is interesting to note, that at Hassi Ouenzga Cardium or Cardiumlike decorations pre-date their presumed appearance on the European continent by more than a century or are at least contemporaneous119. The situation in western Europe is thus confusing: Cardial-related ware appears to be older at the northern and southern margins of the style horizon than in the centre, or at least contemporaneous. This contradiction is one of the important problems in European Early Neolithic research which needs to be solved in the nearer future. When turning to eastern Europe, another dating fault line becomes apparent. With its early age measurements the Elshan tradition antedates any other ceramic tradition in the wider region, also those from immediately beyond the Ural mountain chain120. This, again, makes the reconstruction of pan-regional communication and contacts quite difficult. And indeed, concerns have been phrased about a broad-scale integration of eastern European pottery traditions into a grand westward stream121. Also, while a number of authors follow the idea of a general southeastern influence on Baltic Sea and northwestern European lowland pottery traditions122 others are still reluctant in accepting the idea of a “hyperborean” stream because of local and regional stylistic dissimilarities and dating uncertainties123. Moreover, some authors still adhere to Mid-Holocene dates for early pottery in eastern Eurasia124. Taking these disagreements into account, it is of absolute necessity to refine chronological schemes also for eastern Europe and further beyond for Siberia by providing new AMS dates as a basis for understanding the nature of possible far-reaching networks during the earlier to Mid Holocene. While, admittedly, not all problems in reconstructing the proposed streams have been solved on every possible level of resolution, a general tendency of geographical and chronological trajectories across western Eurasia is visible in the present archaeological and archaeogenetic
114

115

116 117 118

Zilhão 2001; Manen  /  Sabatier 2003; van Willigen 2004; 2006. See Linstädter 2004, 156 ff.; Manen et al. 2007, 143 f. Manen et al. 2007. Ibid. 148. Linstädter 2004, 133 ff., 136.

119 120 121 122

123 124

Ibid. 136, 169 f. Kuzmin  /  Orlova 2000. Kuzmin  /  Veterov 2007. E. g. Hartz 2000; Klassen 2000; Gronenborn 2003; 2009; Jordan  /  Zvelebil 2009.. Crombé in press. E. g. Parzinger 2006.

72

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context

Fig. 4.  Bruchenbrücken, Wetteraukreis. Stylistic, technological and economic influences (modified after Gronenborn 2005).

data. These pan-regional contacts between the Atlantic and the Ural followed contact networks established many millennia before the advent of the Neolithic. The recently presented mtDNA-data by Bramanti et al. (Fig. 2) shows that the European northern lowlands must have been populated by a genetically different population – characterized by the predominance of haplotype U – at the period of the neolithisation of western Eurasia125. Apparently this population had also lived in southern Central Europe during the Late Pleistocene and earlier Holocene and it seems to have been largely replaced by incoming groups – characterized by mtDNA haplotypes K, T, J, V, H, HV, N1a – in the course of the neolithisation126. Possibly, this replacement began with the Late Mesolithic during the seventh millennium cal BC, when considerable changes can be observed in the material record across western Eurasia; this replacement process continued for several millennia127. Western Europe, the Occidental stream,
125 126

Bramanti et al. 2009. Haak et al. 2005; 2010.

127

Gronenborn in press.

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia

73

Fig. 5.  “Streams” of Neolithization in western Eurasia (modified after McDonald 2005; Gronenborn 2009).

– today the Benelux, France, and the Iberian Peninsula – may have had a genetically composed population. Clearly, contacts and exchanges similar to that of the Danubian stream (Haak et al. 2010) were much more intense in the West, between the Rhine and the Seine, beginning with Bruchenbrücken and Goddelau128. As far as the YDNA evidence is concerned, the streams of neolithisation are still faintly preserved in the present-day distribution (Fig. 5). Haplotypes R1a and R1b are seen as the genetic signature of the western and eastern repopulation of Temperate Europe after the Late Glacial Maximum129, but it may be particularly the distribution of YDNA haplotype N (Fig. 5) which may be linked to the contacts and migrations established in the course of the spread of pottery through the Hyperborean stream130. Just as the distribution of YDNA and mtDNA across modern western Eurasia has to be understood as a palimpsest of migrations and smallscale movements, the three streams of neolithisation have to be seen as grand-scale low-resolution trajectories which in detail and over time were formed by countless inter-group contacts, smaller group movements and only very occasionally by actual long-distance migrations.
128 129

Gronenborn 2007. Torroni et al. 1998; Simoni et al. 2000; Richards  /  Macauley 2000; Richards et al. 2002; King  /  Underhill 2002; Richards 2003; Sykes

130

2003; Achilli et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004; Zvelebil et al in press. Rootsi et al. 2007; Derenko et al. 2007.

74

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context

In conclusion, it may be postulated that the process of neolithisation in northwestern Afroeurasia is a reflection of population movements and contact networks going back to the initial colonisation of Europe by modern humans and the re-population after the Glacial Maximum. The networks thus established served as cultural conveyor belts, also for the spread of early pottery traditions.

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia

75

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Plate 1.  1 – 3 Reconstructed Wavy-Line ceramics from Tagalagal, Niger (from Roset 1987, 221 Fig. 11,3); 4  –  12 ceramic fragments from Hassi Ouenzga, Morokko, Hassi Ouenzga Group I (from Linstädter 2004, 130 Fig. 60).

76

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context

1 6

2

3 7

4

5

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Plate 2.  Initial or Incipient Jomon Pottery in Japan. 1  –  5 earliest plain ware; 6  –  13 linear relief decorated ware; 14  –  22 punctate marked, nail-impressed and cord-marked ware (from Keally 2003, 4 Fig. 1).

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia

77

1

2

3

4

6

5 7 5

8

9 10
Plate  3.  1  –  4 Stripe-marked, plain-marked and cord-marked pottery from Xianrendong, China (from Chi 2002, 32 – 33 Fig. 6 – 9); 5 Osipovka ceramics from the site of Gasya, Primorye, Russian Far East; 6 – 10 vessels from Ust’-Karenga, Siberia, Russia (from Kuzmin 2002).

78

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context

1

2

3

4

5
Plate 4.  Ceramics from the Elshan culture, Samara Valley, Russia, various sites (from Mamonov 2000, 164 Fig. 2).

6

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia

79

Zusammenfassung · Abstract · Résumé

abstract  Written from a Central European perspective, this chapter will present a coarse overview of recent developments in studies on early container pottery emergence in Afroeurasia. In order to understand the wider implications of the technological innovation and its spread to Europe, it is necessary to take a broad view and to investigate the current status of knowledge for the various centres of origin for pottery. It appears that early container pottery emerged independently in two broad zones, eastern Asia and West- and northern Africa, towards the end of the Pleistocene and during the earlier Holocene. Such container pottery was manufactured by small bands of sedentary or semi-sedentary hunter-gatherer-fishers. The new technology spread from these centres, but it is at present unclear whether pottery reached Europe from these distant source areas, as chronological and spatial gaps rupture the proposed routes of diffusion. A third centre of origin is the northern “Fertile Crescent”, where container pottery emerges in the course of the 6th millennium cal BC among farming societies, possibly independently of the other regions. The spread of pottery into Europe itself appears to follow long-term communication routes across western Afroeurasia which are also reflected in the three different neolithisation streams.

zusammenfassung 

Aus einer europäischen Perspektive geschrieben, bietet der Beitrag einen Überblick über jüngere Entwicklungen in den Studien zur Entstehung von Gefäßkeramik in Afroeurasien. Um die weiteren Konsequenzen dieser technologischen Innovation und ihrer Ausbreitung nach Europa zu verstehen ist es notwendig, ein breites Blickfeld zu eröffnen und den gegenwärtigen Stand der Erkenntnis zu den jeweiligen entfernten Entstehungszentren mit einzubeziehen. Derzeit scheint es, dass Gefäßkeramik unabhängig voneinander in zwei Großregionen entstanden ist, einmal im östlichen Asien, dann aber auch im westlichen und nördlichen Afrika. Dies geschah gegen Ende der Eiszeit und mit Beginn der Wiedererwärmung. Gefäßkeramik wurde von sesshaften oder halbsesshaften Sammler-Jägern und Fischern hergestellt. Diese neue Technologie breitete sich von diesen Zentren aus, aber es ist derzeit unklar, ob auch nach Europa direkt Keramik aus diesen weit entfernten Kerngebieten gelangt ist, da sowohl räumliche wie auch chronologische Lücken in den Ausbreitungsrichtungen bestehen. Ein drittes Zentrum der Keramikentstehung ist der nördliche „Fruchtbare Halbmond“, wo Gefäßkeramik während des 6. Jahrtausends cal BC von bäuerlichen Gemeinschaften entwickelt wird. Die Ausbreitung von Keramik nach Europa folgt langfristig existierenden Kommunikationsrouten über das westliche Afroeurasien und sie wird auch in den drei Neolithisierungsströmungen reflektiert.

résumé 

Cet article, rédigé dans une perspective européenne, présente un aperçu des derniers acquis réalisés dans la recherche sur l’origine de la céramique en Afro-Eurasie. En vue de mieux saisir les retombées de cette innovation technologique et de sa diffusion vers l’Europe, il faut élargir l’horizon et prendre en compte l’état actuel de la recherche sur les épicentres respectifs, fort éloignés. Il semble en ce moment que la poterie se soit développée dans deux grandes régions indépendantes : en Asie orientale et en Afrique de l’Ouest et du Nord. Cette innovation eut lieu vers la fin de la dernière glaciation et au début du réchauffement. La première poterie fut fabriquée par des chasseurs-cueilleurs et pêcheurs sédentaires ou semi-séden-

80

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context

taires. Cette nouvelle technologie se répandit alors à partir de ces centres, mais, vu les lacunes spatiales et chronologiques constatées sur les axes de pénétration, l’incertitude subsiste quant à une diffusion directe vers l’Europe. Un troisième épicentre correspond au nord du « Croissant fertile », où des communautés paysannes ont développé une poterie au 6e millénaire cal BC. La diffusion de la céramique vers l’Europe suit des voies de communication établies de longue date à travers l’Afro-Eurasie occidentale et se reflète dans les trois courants de néolithisation.

Acknowledgements
I am indebted to a number of colleagues for providing me with unpublished or distantly published information on the various regions dealt with in this article: J. Habu, Berkeley – E. Garcea, Cassino – R. Haaland, Bergen – K. Sadr, Johannesburg – Y. V. Kuzmin, Vladivostok – Ch. T. Keally, Tokyo – G. Marchand, Rennes – Y. Kudo, Nagoya and W. Haak, Adelaide. Lastly I am certainly also indebted to S. Hartz, Schleswig – Th. Terberger, Greifswald – F. Lüth and K. Rassmann, Frankfurt a. M., for patiently waiting until I completed this manuscript.

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia

81

Bibliography
Achilli et al. 2004 A. Achilli  /  C. Rengo  /  C. Magri  /  V. Battaglia  /  A. Olivieri  /  R. Scozzari  /  F. Crucia­ ni  /  M. Zeviani  /  E. Briem  /  V. Carelli  /  P. Mo­ ral  /  J.-M. Dugoujon  /  U. Roostalu  /  E.-L. Loogväli  /  T. Kivisild  /  H.-J. Bandelt  /  M. Richards  /  R. Villems  /  A. S. SantachiaraBenerecetti  /  O. Semino  /  A. Torroni, The molecular dissection of mtDNA Haplogroup H confirms that the Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge was a major source for the European gene pool. Am. Journal Human Genetics 75, 2004, 910 – 918. Aimé 1995 G. Aimé, Les abris sous roche de Bavans: un Mésolithique évolutif. In: A. Richard  /  C. Munier (dir.), Éclats d’Histoire. 10 ans d’archéologie en Franche-Comté. 25 000 ans d’héritages – 100 ans d’archéologie (Besançon 1995) 118  –  120. Amkreutz 2010 L. Amkreutz, ‘All Quiet on the Northwestern Front?’ An Overview and Preliminary Analysis of the Past Decade of LBK-Research in the Netherlands. In: D. Gronenborn  /  J. Petrasch (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas – The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe. Internationale Tagung Mainz, 24.  –  26. Juni 2005. RGZM-Tagungen (Mainz 2010) 535  –  550. Aurenche  /  Kozlowski 1999 O. Aurenche  /  S. K. Kozlowski, La naissance du Néolithique au Proche Orient (Paris 1999). Barnard 1992 A. Barnard, Hunters and Herders of Southern Africa. A Comparative Ethnography of the Khoisan Peoples (Cambridge 1992). Bramanti et al. 2009 B. Bramanti  /  M. G. Thomas  /  W. Haak  /  M. Un­terlaender  /  P. Jores  /  K. Tambets  /  I. Antanaitis-Jacobs  /  M. N. Haidle  /  R. Jankauskas   /   C.-J. Kind  /   F. Lueth   /   T. Terberger  /   J. Hiller  /  S. Matsumura  /  P. Forster  /  J. Bur­ ger, Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter-Gatherers and Central Europe’s First Farmers. Science 326, 2009, 137  –  140 Brounen 1999 F. T. S. Brounen, Vroegneolithische Begleitkeramiek uit Limburg en Noord-Brabant. Arch. Limburg 82, 1999, 59  –  64. Buttler 1938 W. Buttler, Der donauländische und der westische Kulturkreis der jüngeren Steinzeit. Handb. Urgesch. Deutschland 2 (Berlin, Leipzig 1938). Chi 2002 Zh. Chi, The discovery of early pottery in China. In: M. Budja (ed.), 9th Neolithic Seminar. Documenta Praehist. 29 (Ljubljana 2002) 21 – 28. Childe 1927 V. G. Childe, The Dawn of European Civilization2 (London 1927). Childe 1950 V. G. Childe, Prehistoric Migrations in Europe. Inst. Sammenlignende Kulturforsk. Ser A 20 (Oslo 1950). Clark 1977 J. G. D. Clark, The Mesolithic settlement of Northern Europe. A Study of the Food-Gathering Peoples of Northern Europe during the Early Post-Glacial Period2 (New York 1977) . Cladders  /  Stäuble 2003 M. Cladders  /  H. Stäuble, Das 53. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Aufbruch und Wandel. In: J. Eckert  /  U. Eisenhauer  /  A. Zimmermann (eds.), Archäologische Perspektiven. Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens Lüning zum 65. Geburtstag. Internat. Arch., Stud. Honoraria 20 (Rahden  /  Westf. 2003) 491 – 505. Close 1995 A. E. Close, Few and far between: Early ceramics in North Africa. In: W. K. Barnett  /  J. W. Hoopes (eds.), The Emergence of Pottery. Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies (Washington, London 1995) 23  –  38. Cornelissen 2003 E. Cornelissen, On Microlithic quartz industries at the end of the Pleistocene in Central Africa: The evidence from Shum Laka (NW Cameroon). African Arch. Rev. 20, 1, 2003, 1  –  24. Cremaschi  /  Di Lernia 1999 M. Cremaschi  /  S. Di Lernia , Holocene climatic changes and cultural dynamics in the Libyan Sahara. African Arch. Rev. 16, 4, 1999, 211 – 238. Crombé 2010 P. Crombé, Contact and Interaction between Early Farmers and late Hunter-Gatherers in

82

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context seva, The chronology of Neolithic dispersal in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal Arch. Scien. 32, 10, 2005, 1441  –  1458. Eisenhauer 2003 U. Eisenhauer, Matrilokalität in der Bandkeramik? Ein ethnologisches Modell und seine Implikationen. Arch. Inf. 26, 2, 2003, 321  –  331. Fauvelle-Aymar 2002 F.-X. Fauvelle-Aymar, I’invention du Hottentot. Histoire du regard occidental sur les Khoisan (XVe  –  XIXe siècle). Publ. Sorbonne, Byzantina Sorbonensia (Paris 2002). Foley et al. 2003 J. A. Foley  /  M. T. Coe  /  M. Scheffer  /  G. Wang, Regime Shifts in the Sahara and Sahel: Interactions between Ecological and Climatic Systems in Northern Africa. Ecosystems 6, 6, 2003, 1435  –  0629 (online) [doi: 10.1007/s10021-0020227-0]. Garcea 1998 E. Garcea, From Early Khartoum to the Sahara Neolithic: Ceramics in comparison. In: Actes de la VIIIe Conférence Internationale d’Études Nubiennes, Lille 1994. Cahiers Recherches Inst. Papyrologie Egyptologie Lille 17, 3 (Lille 1998) 91  –  104. Garcea 2004 E. Garcea, An alternative way towards food production: the perspective from the Libyan Sahara. Journal World Prehist. 18, 2, 2004, 107 – 154. Garcea 2006 E. Garcea, Semi-permanent foragers in semiarid environments of North Africa. World Arch. 38, 2, 2006, 197  –  219. Garfinkel 1999 Y. Garfinkel, Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery of the Southern Levant. Quedem 39 (Jerusalem 1999). Gasse 2000 F. Gasse, Hydrological changes in the African tropics since the Last Glacial Maximum. Quaternary Scien. Rev. 19, 2000, 189  –  211. Gronenborn 1990 D. Gronenborn, Eine Pfeilspitze vom ältestbandkeramischen Fundplatz FriedbergBruchenbrücken in der Wetterau. Germania 68, 1, 1990, 223 – 231. Gronenborn 1997 D. Gronenborn, Silexartefakte der ältest-

Belgium during the 6th and 5th millennium cal  BC. In: D. Gronenborn   /   J. Petrasch (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas – The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe. Internationale Tagung Mainz, 24.  –  26. Juni 2005. RGZM-Tagungen (Mainz 2010) 551  –  568. Crombé et al. 2008 Ph. Crombé   /   M. Boudin   /   M. Van Stry­ donck, Swifterbant pottery in the Scheldt Basin and the emergence of the earliest indigenous pottery in the sandy lowlands of Belgium. In: S. Hartz  /  F. Lüth  /  Th. Terberger (eds.), Early Pottery in the Baltic. International Workshop at Schleswig from 20th to 21st October 2006. Ber. RGK 89, 2008 (2011) 465  –  483. Daniell 1820 S. Daniell, Sketches representing the Native Tribes, Animals, and Scenery of Southern Africa (London 1820). Danilenko 1969 V. N. Danilenko, Neolit Ukrainy. Glavy drevnej istorii Jugo-Vostoãnoj evropy (Kiev 1969). deMenocal et al. 2000 P. B. deMenocal  /  J. Ortiz  /  T. Guilderson  /   J. Adkins  /  M. Sarnthein  /  L. Baker  /  M. Ya­ rusinsky, Abrupt onset and termination of the African Humid Period: rapid climate responses to gradual insolation forcing. Quaternary Scien. Rev. 19, 2000, 347  ­ –  361. Derenko et al. 2007 M. Derenko  /  B. Malyarchuk  /  G. Denisova  /  M. Wozniak  /  T. Grzybowski  /  I. Dambueva  I. Zakharov, Y-chromosome haplogroup N dispersals from south Siberia to Europe. Journal Human Genetics 52, 9, 2007, 763  –  770. Derevianko  /  Medvedev 2006 A. A. Derevianko  /  V. E. Medvedev, Neolithic of the Nizhnee Priamurye (Lower Amur River Basin). In: S. M. Nelson  /  A. P. Derevianko  /  Y. V. Kuzmin  /  R. L. Bland (eds.), Archaeology of the Russian Far East: Essays in Stone Age Prehistory. BAR Internat. Ser. 1540 (Oxford 2006) 123 – 150. Dolukhanov 1995 P. M. Dolukhanov, Archaeology in Russia and its impact on archaeological theory. In: P. Ucko (ed.), Theory in Archaeology: a World Perspective (London 1995) 327  –  342. Dolukhanov et al. 2005 P. Dolukhanov  /  A. Shukurov  /  D. Gronenborn  /  D. Sokoloff  /  V. Timofeev  /  G. Zait-

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia bandkeramischen Kultur. Mit einem Beitrag von Jean-Paul Caspar. Univforsch. Prähist. Arch. 37 (Bonn 1997). Gronenborn 2003 D. Gronenborn, Migration, acculturation, and culture change in Western Temperate Eurasia, 6500  –  5000  cal  BC. In: Mihael Budja (ed.), 10th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehist. 30 (Ljubljana 2003) 79 – 91. Gronenborn 2004 D. Gronenborn, Comparing contact period archaeologies: The expansion of farming and pastoralist societies to continental Temperate Europe and to Southern Africa. Before Farming (online version www.waspress.co.uk/journals/ beforefarming bitte Zugriffsdatum ergänzen) 4, 2004, 3, 1 – 35. Gronenborn 2005 D. Gronenborn, Eine Pfeilschneide aus Süd­ skandinavien vom ältestbandkeramischen Fundplatz Friedberg-Bruchenbrücken in der Wetterau. Arch. Korrbl. 35, 2, 2005, 159  –  168. Gronenborn 2007 D. Gronenborn, Beyond the Models: ‘Neolithization’ in Central Europe. In: A. Whittle   /   V. Cummings (eds.), Going Over: the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in North – West Europe. Proc.British Acad. 144 (Oxford 2007) 73  –  98. Gronenborn 2009 D. Gronenborn, Transregional culture contacts and the Neolithization process in Northern Central Europe. In: P. Jordan   /   M. Zvelebil (eds.), Ceramics Before Farming: The Dispersal of Pottery Among Prehistoric Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers (Walnut Creek 2009) 527  –  550. Gronenborn in press D. Gronenborn, In: V. Cummings  /  P. Jordan  /   M. Zvelebil (eds.), Neolithic western Temperate and Central Europe. Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of HunterGatherers. Haak et al. 2005 W. Haak  /  P. Forster  /  B. Bramanti  /  S. Matsumura  /  G. Brandt  /  M. Tänzer  /  R. Villems  /   C. Renfrew  /  D. Gronenborn  /  K. W. Alt  /   J. Burger, Ancient DNA from the first European farmers in 7500-year-old Neolithic sites. Science 310, 2005, 1016  –  1018. Haak et al. 2010 W. Haak / O. Balanovsky / J. J. Sanchez /  S. Koshel / V. Zaporozhchenko / C. J. Adler / C. S. I. Der Sarkissian / G. Brandt / 

83

C. Schwarz / N. Nicklisch / V. Dreseley /  B. Fritsch / E. Balanovska / R. Villems /  H. Meller / K. W. Alt / A. Cooper / the Genographic Consortium, Ancient DNA from European Early Neolithic Farmers Reveals Their Near Eastern Affinities. Public Library of Science Biology 8/11: e1000536. doi:10.1371/ journal.pbio.1000536. Haaland 1992 R. Haaland, Fish, pots and grain: Early and Middle Holocene adaptations in the central Sudan. African Arch. Rev. 10, 1992, 43  –  64. Haaland 2007 R. Haaland, Porridge and Pot, Bread and Oven: Food Ways and Symbolism in Africa and the Near East from the Neolithic to the Present. Cambridge Arch. Journal 17, 2007, 165 – 182. Habu 2004 J. Habu, Ancient Jomon of Japan (Cambridge 2004). Hall 1990 M. Hall, Farmers, Kings, and Traders. The People of Southern Africa 200  –  1860 (Chicago 1990). Hartz 2000 S. Hartz, Austauschbeziehungen und Kulturkontakte während der Ertebøllekultur im südwestlichen Ostseegebiet. In: F. Lüth   /   U. Schoknecht (Hrsg.), Schutz des Kulturerbes unter Wasser. Veränderungen europäi­ scher Lebenskultur durch Fluß- und Seehandel. Internationaler Kongress für Unterwasserarchäologie (IKUWA ’99) 18. – 21. Februar 1999 in Sassnitz auf Rügen. Beitr. Ur- u. Frühgesch. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 35 (Lübstorf 2000) 35 – 42. Hartz et al. 2000 S. Hartz  /  D. Heinrich  /  H. Lübke, Frühe Bauern an der Küste. Neue 14C-Daten und aktuelle Aspekte zum Neolithisierungsprozess im norddeutschen Ostseeküstengebiet. Praehist. Zeitschr. 75, 2, 2000, 129  –  152. Hartz 2008 S. Hartz, From pointed bottom to round and flat bottom – tracking early pottery from Schleswig-Holstein. In: S. Hartz  /  F. Lüth  /   Th. Terberger (eds.), Early Pottery in the Baltic. International Workshop at Schleswig from 20th to 21st October 2006. Ber. RGK 89, 2008 (2011) 241 – 276. Harunari et al. 2003 H. Harunari  /  F. Shin’ichiro  /  Fujio  /  I. Mineo  /  S. Minoru, Yayoi jidai no kaisho nen-

84

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe. Internationale Tagung Mainz, 24.  –  26. Juni 2005. RGZM-Tagungen (Mainz 2010) 569  –  606. Jiang  /  Liu 2006 L. Jiang  /  L. Liu, New evidence for the origins of sedentism and rice domestication in the Lower Yangzi River, China. Antiquity 80, 308, 2006, 355 – 361. Jordan  /  Zvelebil 2009 P. Jordan  /  M. Zvelebil, Ex Oriente Lux: The Prehistory of Hunter-Gatherer Ceramic Dispersals. In: P. Jordan   /   M. Zvelebil (eds.), Ceramics Before Farming: The Dispersal of Pottery Among Prehistoric Eurasian HunterGatherers (Walnut Creek 2009) 33  –  90. Kawagushi 1982 S. Kawaguchi, Jomon sousouki-no chozoketsu: Kagoshima ken Higashi-Kurotsuchida iseki [Storage pit of Incipient Jomon: HigashiKurotsuchida site, Kagoshima prefecture]. Quart. Arch. 1, 1982, 65. Keally et al. 2003 C. T. Keally  /  Y. Taniguchi  /  Y. V. Kuzmin, Understanding the beginnings of pottery technology in Japan and neighboring East Asia. Rev. Arch. 24, 2, 2003, 3  –  14. Keally et al. 2004 C. T. Keally  /  Y. Taniguchi  /  Y. V. Kuzmin  /   I. Y. Shewkomud, Chronology of the beginning of pottery manufacture in East Asia. Radiocarbon 46, 2004, 345  –  351. Kitagawa  /  Yasuda 2004 J. Kitagawa  /  Y. Yasuda, The influence of climatic change on chestnut and horse chestnut preservation around Jomon sites in Northeastern Japan with special reference to the SannaiMaruyama and Kamegaoka sites. Quaternary Internat. 123 – 125, 2004, 89 – 103. King  /  Underhill 2002 R. King  /  P. A. Underhill, Congruent distribution of Neolithic painted pottery and ceramic figurines with Y-chromosome lineages. Antiquity 76, 293, 2002, 707  –  714. Klassen 2000 L. Klassen, Waterborne exchange and late Ertebølle social structure. In: F. Lüth  /   U. Scho­ knecht (Hrsg.), Schutz des Kulturerbes unter Wasser. Veränderungen europäischer Lebens­ kultur durch Fluß- und Seehandel. Internationaler Kongress für Unterwasserarchäologie (IKUWA ’99) 18.  –  21. Februar 1999 in Sassnitz auf Rügen. Beitr. Ur- u. Frühgesch. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 35 (Lübstorf 2000) 43  –  51.

dai (The date for the beginning of the Yayoi period). Nihon Kokogaku Kyokai dai-69-kai sokai, 2003, 65 – 68. Hayden 1998 B. Hayden, Practical and prestige technologies: The evolution of material systems. Journal Arch. Method and Theory 5, 1998, 1  –  55. Hays 1974 T. R. Hays, Wavy Line pottery: An element of Nilotic diffusion. South African Arch. Bull. 29, 1974, 27 – 32. Huffmann 1989 T. Huffman, Ceramics, settlements and late Iron Age migrations. African Arch. Rev. 7, 1989, 155 – 182. Huysecom et al. 2009 E. Huysecom  /  M. Rasse  /  L. Lespez  /  K. Neu­mann  /  A. Fahmy  /  A. Ballouche  /  S. Ozainne  /   M. Magetti  /  Chr. Tribolo  /  S. Soriano, The emergence of pottery in Africa during the tenth millennium cal BC: new evidence from Ounjougou (Mali). Antiquity 83, 2009, 905  –  917. Jesse 2003 F. Jesse, Rahib 80/87: Ein Wavy-Line-Fundplatz im Wadi Howar und die früheste Keramik in Nordafrika. Africa Praehist. 16 (Köln 2003). Jeunesse 1987 Ch. Jeunesse, La céramique da La Hoguette. Un nouvel “élement non-rubané” du Néoli­ thique ancien de l’Europe du Nord-Ouest. Cahiers Alsaciens Arch. 30, 1987, 5  –  33. Jeunesse 1994 Ch. Jeunesse, Le Néolithique du sud de la plaine du Rhin supérieur. Prähist. Zeitschr. 69, 1994, 1 – 31. Jeunesse 2000 Ch. Jeunesse, Les composantes autochtone et danubienne en Europe Centrale et occidentale entre 5500 et 4000  av.  J.-C.: contacts, transfers, acculturations. In: A. Richard  /  Ch. Cupillard  /  R. H. Christophe (eds.), Les derniers chasseurs-cueilleurs d’Europe occidentale (13  000  –  5500  av.  J.-C.). Actes du colloque international de Besançon, 23  –  25 octobre 1998. Ann. Lit. Univ. Franche-Comte 699 (Besançon 2000) 361 – 378. Jeunesse  /  Van Willigen 2010 Ch. Jeunesse  /  S. van Willigen, Westmediterranes Frühneolithikum und westliche Linear­ bandkeramik: Impulse, Interaktionen, Mischkulturen. In: D. Gronenborn  /  J. Petrasch (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas – The

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia Kloos 1997 U. Kloos, Die Tonware. In: J. Lüning (Hrsg.), Ein Siedlungsplatz der Ältesten Bandkeramik in Bruchenbrücken, Stadt Friedberg  /  Hessen. Univforsch. Prähist. Arch. 39 (Bonn 1997) 151 – 255. Kozlowski  /  Aurenche 2005 S. K. Kozlowski  /  O. Aurenche, Territories, boundaries and cultures in the Neolithic Near East. BAR Internat. Ser. 1362 (Oxford 2005). Krivonogov et al. 2004 S. K. Krivonogov  /  H. Takahara  /  Y. V. Kuzmin  /  L. A. Orlova  /  A. J. T. Jull  /  T. Nakamura  /  N. Miyoshi  /  K. Kawamuro  /  E. V. Bezrukowa, Radiocarbon chronology of the late Pleistocene-Holocene paleogeographic events in Lake Baikal Region (Siberia). Radiocarbon 46, 2004, 745 – 754. Kudo 2004 Y. Kudo, Reconsidering the geochronological and archaeological framework of the late Pleistocene – early Holocene transition on the Japanese Islands. In: Th. Terberger  /  B. V. Eriksen (eds.), Hunters in a changing world. Environment and Archaeology of the Pleistocene – Holocene Transition (ca. 11  000  –  9000  BC) in Northern Central Europe. Workshop of the U.I.S.P.P.-Commission 32 at Greifswald in September 2002 (Rahden  /  Westf. 2004) 253 – 268. Kudo 2006 Y. Kudo, The temporal correspondance between archaeological chronology and environmental changes 28,000  –  11,000  CALYBP in eastern Honshu. Current Research Pleistocene 23, 2006, 11 – 14. Kuper  /  Kröpelin 2006 R. Kuper  /  S. Kröpelin, Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa’s Evolution. Science 313/5788, 2006, 803 – 807. Kuzmin 2002 Y. V. Kuzmin, The earliest centres of pottery origin in the Russian Far East and Siberia: review of chronology for the oldest Neolithic cultures. In: M. Budja (ed.), 9th Neolithic Seminar. Documenta Praehist. 29 (Ljubljana 2002) 37 – 46. Kuzmin 2006a Y. V. Kuzmin, Chronology of the earliest pottery in East Asia: progress and pitfalls. Anti­ quity 80, 308, 2006, 362  –  371. Kuzmin 2006b Y. V. Kuzmin, Palaeoenvironment and chronol-

85

ogy. In: S. M. Nelson  /  A. P. Derevianko  /  Y. V. Kuzmin  /  R. L. Bland (eds.), Archaeology of the Russian Far East: Essays in Stone Age Prehistory. BAR Internat. Ser. 1540 (Oxford 2006) 13 – 40. Kuzmin  /  Orlova 2000 Y. V. Kuzmin  /  L. A. Orlova, The Neolithization of Siberia and the Russian Far East: radiocarbon evidence. Antiquity 74, 284, 2000, 356 – 365. Kuzmin  /  Veterov 2007 Y. V. Kuzmin  /  V. M. Vetrov, The earliest Neolithic complex in Siberia: the Ust-Karenga 12 site and its significance for the Neolithisation process in Eurasia. Documenta Praehist. 34, 2007, 9 – 20. Lichter 2005 C. Lichter (ed.), How did Farming reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the first Half of cal  BC. Proceedings of the the 6th Millennium  International Workshop Istanbul, 20  –  22 may 2004. Byzas 2 (Istanbul 2005). Linstädter 2004 J. Linstädter, Zum Frühneolithikum des westlichen Mittelmeerraums – Die Keramik der Fundstelle Hassi Ouenzga. AVA-Forsch. 9 (Aachen 2004). Liu et al. 2007 L. Liu  /  L. Gyoung-Ah  /  L. Jiang  /  J. Zhang, The earliest rice domestication in China. Antiquity 81, 313, 2007. Lüning 1997 J. Lüning (ed.), Ein Siedlungsplatz der Ältesten Bandkeramik in Bruchenbrücken, Stadt Friedberg  /  Hessen. Univforsch. Prähist. Arch. 39 (Bonn 1997). Lüning 2005 J. Lüning, Bandkeramische Hofplätze und die absolute Chronologie der Bandkeramik. In: J. Lüning  /  Ch. Fridrich  /  A. Zimmermann, Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhundert. Symposium in der Abtei Brauweiler bei Köln vom 16.9.  –  19.9.2002. Internat. Arch., Arbeitsgemeinschaft 7 (Rahden  /  Westf. 2005) 49 – 74. Lüning et al. 1989 J. Lüning  /  U. Kloos  /  S. Albert, Westliche Nachbarn der bandkeramischen Kultur: Die Keramikgruppen La Hoguette und Limburg. Mit Beiträgen von J. Eckert und Chr. Strien. Germania 67, 2, 1989, 355  –  393.

86

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context H. Oda, Radiocarbon dating of charred residues on the earliest pottery. Radiocarbon 43, 2001, 1129 – 1138. Neumann 2005 K. Neumann, The romance of farming: plant cultivation and domestication in Africa. In: A. B. Stahl (ed.), African Archaeology: A Critical Introduction. Blackwell Stud. Global Arch. 3 (Oxford 2005) 249  –  275. Parzinger 2006 H. Parzinger, Die frühen Völker Eura­ siens: Vom Neolithikum bis zum Mittelalter (München 2006). Pearson 2005 R. Pearson, The social context of early pottery in the Lingnan region of south China. Anti­ quity 79, 306, 2005, 819  –  828. Perlès 2001 C. Perlès, The Early Neolithic in Greece. The First Farming Communities in Europe (Cambridge 2001). Piezonka 2008 H. Piezonka, The earliest pottery east of the Baltic Sea. In: S. Hartz  /  F. Lüth  /  Th. Terberger (eds.), Early Pottery in the Baltic. International Workshop at Schleswig from 20th to 21st October 2006. Ber. RGK 89, 2008 (2011) 301  –  346. Raemaekers 2008 D. Raemakers, Early Swifterbant pottery (5000  –  4600  cal  BC): Research history, age, characteristics and the introduction of pottery. In: S. Hartz  /  F. Lüth  /  Th. Terberger (eds.), Early Pottery in the Baltic. International Workshop at Schleswig from 20th to 21st October 2006. Ber. RGK 89, 2008 (2011) 485  –  500. Rice 1999 P. M. Rice, On the origins of pottery. Journal Arch. Method and Theory 6, 1, 1999, 1  –  54. Richards 2003 M. Richards, The Neolithic Invasion of Europe. Annu. Rev. Anthr. 32, 2003, 135  –  162. Richards  /  Macauley 2000 M. Richards  /  V. Macauley, Genetic data and the colonization of Europe: Genealogies and founders. In: C. Renfrew   /   K. Boyle (eds.), Archaeogenetics: DNA and the population prehistory of Europe. Biennial Euroconf. Europ. Human Genome Diversity Project 3 (Cambridge 2000) 139 – 151. Richards et al. 2002 M. Richards  /  V. Macaulay  /  A. Torroni  /  H.J. Bandelt, In search of geographical patterns

Mamonov 2000 A. E. Mamonov, Rannij Neolit. Elshanskaja Kultura. In: P.S. Kabetov  /  I. B. Vasil’eb  /  Z. L. Dubman  /  J. H. Smirnov  /  L. B. Chramkov (Red.), Istorija Samarskogo Powolsch’ja. S drebnejschich vremen do natschich dnej. Kemennej vek. Rossijckaja Akademija Nauk. Samarskij Nauchiej Zentr. Zentr “Integrazija“ (Samara 2000) 147 – 176. Manen  /  Sabatier 2003 C. Manen  /  P. Sabatier, Chronique radiocarbone de la néolithisation en Méditerranée nordoccidentale. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Française 100, 3, 2003, 479 – 504. Manen et al. 2007 C. Manen  /  G. Marchand  /  A. F. Carvalho, Le Néolithique ancien de la péninsule Ibérique: vers une nouvelle évaluation du mirage africain? In: J. Évin (dir.), XXVIe Congrès préhistorique de France, Congrès du centenaire de la Société préhistorique française, Avignon 21  –  25 septembre 2004. Vol. 3 “Aux conceptions d’aujourd’hui” (Paris 2007) 133  –  151. Mauvilly 1997 M. Mauvilly, L’industrie lithique de La Culture à Ceramique linéaire de Haute et Basse Alsace: état des recherches et bilan provisoire. In: Ch. Jeunesse (ed.), Le Néolithique Danubien et ses marges entre Rhin et Seine. Actes du XXIIe Colloque Interrégional sur le Néolithique, Strasbourg 27  –  29 octobre 1995. Cahiers Assoc. Promotion Rech. Arch. Alsace, Suppl.3 (Zimmersheim 1997) 327 – 358. McDonald 2005 J. D. McDonald, World HaplogroupsMaps. pdf.http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/ Mitchell 2002 P. Mitchell, The Archaeology of Southern Africa (Cambridge 2002). Modderman 1974 P. Modderman, Die Limburger Keramik von Kesseleyk. Arch. Korrbl. 4, 1974, 4  –  11. Mohammed-Ali  /  Khabir 2003 A. S. Mohammed-Ali  /  A. M. Khabir, The Wavy Line and the Dotted Wavy Line Pottery in the Prehistory of the Central Nile and the Sahara-Sahel Belt. African Arch. Rev. 20, 1, 2003, 25 – 58. Mountain 2003 A. Mountain, The First People of the Cape (Claremont 2003). Nakamura et al. 2001 T. Y. Nakamura    /    S. Taniguchi    /    S. Tsuji    /  

Detlef Gronenborn  ·  Early pottery in Afroeurasia in European mitochondrial DNA. Am. Journal Human Genetics 71, 2002, 1168  –  1174. Richards et al. 2004 M. Richards  /  V. Macaulay  /  A. Carracedo  /  A. Salas, The archaeogenetics of the Bantu dispersals. In: M. Jones (ed), Traces of Ancestry: Studies in honour of Colin Renfrew. McDonald Instit. Monogr. (Oxford 2004) 75  –  88. Roset 1987 J.-P. Roset, Paleoclimatic and cultural conditions of Neolithic development in the Early Holocene of Northern Niger (Aïr and Ténéré). In: A. E. Close (ed.), Prehistory of Arid North Africa. Essays in Honor of Fred Wendorf (Dallas 1987) 211 – 234. Rootsi et al. 2007 S. Rootsi  /  L. A. Zhivotovsky  /  M. Baldovic  /   M. Kayser   /   I. Kutuev   /   R. Khusainova   /   M. Bermisheva  /  M. Gubina  /  S. Federova  /   A.-M. Ilumäe  /  E. K. Khusnutdinova  /  M. I. Voevoda  /  L. P. Osipova  /  M. Stoneking  /  A. A. Lin  /  V. Ferak  /  J. Parik  /  T. Kivisild  /  P. A. Underhill  /  R. Villems, A counter-clockwise northern route of the Y-chromosome haplogroup N from Southeast Asia towards Europe. European Journal Human Genetics 15, 2007, 204 – 211. Sadr  /  Sampson 2006 K. Sadr  /  G. Sampson, Through thick and thin: early pottery in Southern Africa. Journal African Arch. 4, 2, 2006, 235  –  252. Sassaman 1993 K. E. Sassaman, Early Pottery in the Southeast. Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology (Tuscaloosa  /  London 1993). Semino et al. 2004 O. Semino  /  C. Magri  /  G. Benuzzi  /  A. A. Lin  /  N. Al-Zahery  /  V. Battaglia  /  L. Maccioni  /  C. Triantaphyllidis  /  P. Shen  /  P. J. Oef­ner  /  L. A. Zhivotovsky  /  R. King  /  A. Torro­ ni  /  L. L. Cavalli-Sforza  /  P. A. Underhill  /   A. S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, Origin, diffusion and differentiation of Y-chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and later migratory events in the Mediterranean area. Am. Journal Human Genetics 74, 2004, 1023  –  1034. Simoni et al. 2000 L. Simoni  /  F. Calafell  /  D. Pettener  /  J. Bertranpetit  /  G. Barbujani, Geographic Patterns of mtDNA Diversity in Europe. Am. Journal Human Genetics 66, 2000, 262  –  278.

87

Skandfer 2005 M. Skandfer, Early Northern Comb Ware in Finnmark: The concept of Säräsniemi 1 reconsidered. Fennoscandia Arch. 22, 2005, 3  –  27. Skandfer 2008 M. Skandfer, Early Pottery in northern Fennoscandia. In: S. Hartz  /  F. Lüth  /  Th. Terberger (eds.), Early Pottery in the Baltic. International Workshop at Schlewig from 20th to 21st October 2006. Ber. RGK 89, 2008 (2011) 165  –  180. Smith 2005 A. B. Smith, African Herders: Emergence of Pastoral Traditions. African Arch. Ser. 8 (Walnut Creek et al. 2005). Smolla 1960 G. Smolla, Neolithische Kulturerscheinungen. Studien zur Frage ihrer Herausbildung (Bonn 1960). Sutton 1974 J. E. G. Sutton, The aquatic civilization of Middle Africa. Journal African Hist. 15, 1974, 527 – 554. Sykes 2003 B. Sykes, European ancestry: The mitochondrial landscape. In: A. J. Ammerman  /  P. Biagi (eds.), The Widening Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Coll. And Conference Papers 6 (Boston 2003) 315 – 326. Strien  /  Gronenborn 2005 H.-C. Strien  /  D. Gronenborn, Klima- und Kulturwandel während des mitteleuropäi­ schen Altneolithikums (58./57.  –  51./50. Jahr­ hundert  v.  Chr.). In: D. Gronenborn (ed.), Klimaveränderung und Kulturwandel in neolithischen Gesellschaften Mitteleuropas, 6700  –  2200  v.  Chr. RGZM-Tagungen 1 (Mainz 2005) 131 – 150. Timofeev 1998 V. I. Timofeev, The east  –  west relations in the Late Mesolithic and Neolithic in the Baltic Region. In: L. Domañska  /  K. Jacobs (ed.), Beyond Balkanization. Baltic-Pontic Stud. 5 (Poznañ 1998) 44 – 58. Timofeev  /  Zaitseva 1999 V. I. Timofeev  /  G. Zaitseva, On the problem of the Neolithisation of Eastern Europe and the position of the South Russian Area in this process. In: J. Évin   /   C. Oberlin (eds.), C14 Archéologie. 3ème Congrès International, Lyon, 6  –  10 avril 1998. Mém. Soc. Préhist. Française 26 (Paris 1999) 189  –  192.

88

Early Pottery in the Baltic – Dating, Origin and Social Context Willey 1945 G. R. Willey, Horizon style and pottery traditions in Peruvian archaeology. Am. Ant. 11, 1, 1945, 73 – 94. Yasuda 2002 Y. Yasuda, Origins of pottery and agriculture in East Asia. In: Y. Yasuda (ed.), The Origins of Pottery and Agriculture (New Dehli 2002). Zhao et al. 2004 C. Zhao  /  X. Wu  /  T. Wang  /  X. Yuan, Early polished stone tools in South China: evidence of the transition from Palaeolithic to Neolithic. Documenta Praehist. 31, 2004, 131  –  139. Zilhão 2001 J. Zilhão, Radiocarbon evidence for maritime pioneer colonization at the origins of farming in west Mediterranean Europe. Proc. Nat. Acad. Scien. United States of America 98, 24, 2001, 1480 – 1485. Zong et al. 2007 Y. Zong  /  Z. Chen  /  J. B. Innes  /  C. Chen  /   Z. Wang  /  H. Wang, Fire and flood management of coastal swamp enabled first rice paddy cultivation in east China. Nature 449, 2007, 459 – 462. Zvelebil 1998 M. Zvelebil, Genetic and cultural diversity of Europe: a comment on Cavalli-Sforza. Journal Anthr. Research 54, 1998, 411  –  417. Zvelebil et al. in press M. Zvelebil  /  A. Lukes  /  P. Pettitt, The emergence of the LBK Culture: Search for the Ancestors. In: D. Gronenborn   /   J. Petrasch (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas – The Spread of the Neolithic to Central Europe. Internationale Tagung Mainz, 24.  –  26. Juni 2005. RGZM-Tagungen.

Torroni et al. 1998 A. Torroni  /  H.-J. Bandelt  /  L. D’urbano  /   P. Lahermo  /  P. Moral  /  D. Sellitto  /  C. Rengo  /  P. Forster  /  M.-L. Savountas  /  B. BonnéTamir  /  R. Scozzari, MtDNA analysis reveals a major Late Paleolithic population expansion from Southwestern to Northeastern Europe. Am. Journal Human Genetics 62, 1998, 1137 – 1152. Vybornov 2008 A. A. Vybornov, Neolit Volgo-Kam’ja (Samara 2008). van Berg 1997 P.-L. van Berg, La céramique et son décor en Eurasie. In: Ch. Jeunesse (ed.), Le Néolithique Danubien et ses marges entre Rhin et Seine. Actes du XXIIe Colloque Interrégional sur le Néolithique, Strasbourg 27  –  29 octobre 1995. Cahiers Assoc. Promotion Rech. Arch. Alsace, Suppl. 3 (Zimmersheim 1997) 223  –  264. van Willigen 2004 S. van Willigen, Aspects culturels de la néolithisation en Méditerranée occidentale: le Cardial et l’Épicardial. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Française 101, 3, 2004, 463  –  495. Van Willigen 2006 S. van Willigen, Die Neolithisierung im nord­ westlichen Mittelmeerraum. Iberia Arch. 7 (Mainz 2006). Willcox 2005 G. Willcox, The distribution, natural habitats and availability of wild cereals in relation to their domestication in the Near East: multiple events, multiple centres. Vegetation Hist. and Archaeobotany 14, 4, 2005, 534  –  541.

Contact details of the author Detlef Gronenborn Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Ernst-Ludwig-Platz 2 55166 Mainz gronenborn@rgzm.de University of the Witwatersrand School of Geography Archaeology and Environmental Studies Johannesburg South Africa