-- --- - -- - - - ------------

On Being First:
Cultural Innovation and Environmental
Consequences of First Peopling

Proceedings of the 31st Annual Chacmool Conference

Edited by
Jason Gillespie, Susan Tupakka and Christy de Mille

~
CHACMOOL CHACMOOL @) 2001
The Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary

----
pL:E:~S tS EXCu..s r= ~ "
? U 0L l ~ r-ftuc. f S ~ f2-0fc..S

rf.--OrYl ~ I A?J ¥ S E"I!?-{Zt ;17V

(f2 _C).
J PD~,A..:J; -s 11/4
,j ~ )
j) rJ-A-S 00EY1N
oS

Published by Chacmool, the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.

Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary AB T2N IN4.
Ist Printing September 200 I

ISBN 0-88953-245-1
Architectural Technolog~' and the Spread of Earl~' Agricultural Societies in Temperate Southeastern
Europel

Tina Jongsma and Haskel J. Greenfield

University of Manitoba
Department of Anthropology
Fletcher Argue 435
Winnipeg. MB R3T 5V5
email: Greenf@cc.umanitoba.ca

Abstract

This paper will examine the nature of Early Neolithic architecture in temperate southeastern Europe. A
contentious issue has been the nature and location of Early Neolithic domestic structures. Some researchers
have argued for the existence of surface structures. while others have proposed pit houses. Each has
implications for the nature of society involved in the colonization of the region by early agriculturalists from
the Mediterranean littoral. In order to solve the question of the nature of domestic architecture. a new
method of analysis for the architectural daub will be presented. This analysis will be used to demonstrate
that houses at the Early Neolithic Starcevo-Cri~ culture site ofFoeni-Sala~ in southwestern Romania
were semi-subterranean in nature and distributed in a semi-circle around a larger pit house and a central
open space. Pit houses are cross-culturally associated with mobile economies. This and the heavily
domesticated fauna. lack of storage facilities. and low frequencies of domestic flora from the site imply that
early agricultural societies in this region were fundamentally different from those of the Mediterranean
littoral (Greece and S. Bulgaria). This analysis is the first step towards a more systematic investigation of
Early Neolithic community patterning in the temperate southeastern Europe.

Introduction

The introduction of agriculture to Europe has commonly been assumed to be the result of an influx of new

peoples from the Near East (e.g. Bogucki 1988; Champion et al. 1984; Renfrew 1987; Whittle 1996). The

similarities in material culture and architecture between the two areas. and the rapid spread of early

agricultural (Early Neolithic) cultures along the Mediterranean littoral and into the interior of Europe. are

COnllllonly cited as support for a colonizing hypothesis. The speed and presumed relative ease at which

early agricultural societies spread is often explained as a result of the similarities in environment along the

eastern Mediterranean littoral of Europe. These environments are not dissimilar to those found in nearby

areas of the Near East. There is a unifonnity in the Early Neolithic material culture of the countries

bordering the eastern Mediterranean and southern Black Sea (Greece. southern Bulgaria. and Macedonia).

It has been taken for granted that these same people moved inland and over the mountains dividing the

Mediterranean from temperate southeast and central Europe (e.g. Garasanin 1973, 1983; Gimbutas 1976,

181

- -----
1991). A few scholars. however. have argued for a more indigenous development of the earliest Neolithic

societies in temperate southeast Europe (Barker 1985; Greenfield 1993: Srejovi_ 1988). One of the goals

of this essay is to shed some light on this issue Utilizing recent research on Early Neolithic architecture.

On the basis of archaeological features and clay model structures recovered from archaeological contexts.

researchers have described dwellings of the Early Neolithic cultures of the Mediterranean littoral (Greece.

Macedonia and S. Bulgaria) as rectilinear surface dwellings, often organized in rows (Chapman 1989:

Gimbutas 1976, 1991: Gimbutas et al. 1989). The evidence for surface rectilinear houses. such as those

found in the Mediterranean cultures. disappears as one moves inland across the mountainous divide into the

more temperate climate of northern Bulgaria, Serbia. southern Hungary. and southern Romania (Jongsma

1997). This is the area of the Early Neolithic Star-evo-Cri@ -Koros culture (Garasanin 1983; Tringham

1971). The environment becomes more temperate and takes on characteristics of a more central European

regime (Greenfield 1991; Pounds 1969). Instead of surface houses. an abundance of pits are found on

southeast European Early Neolithic sites.

Several alternative explanations have been offered as explanations for the presence of pits and absence of

obvious surface houses on these sites. Most prehistorians assume that these pits were domestic dwellings or

were semi-subterranean dwellings (pit houses - e.g. Basler et al. 1979; Garasanin 1983: Lazarovici 1979:

Srejovi_ 1988). A small but vocal minority of prehistorians advocate that occupation was in the fonn of

surface houses. The absence of surface houses is explained to be a function destruction by later ploughing

or erosion of sites. and that the many pits found on sites were used for a variety of non-habitation functions

(as refuse, storage, or borrow pits - e.g. Ehrich 1977: Horvath 1989: 85-86; Tringham 1971). The absence

of evidence for surface houses is also explained as a result of poor and unsystematic excavations that have

failed to uncover architectural evidence for either surface or pit occupation (Ehrich 1977). Until the nature

of the dwellings has been established. it is difficult to progress to more behavioral levels of analysis, such as

household and community pattern studies. and issues of colonization.

1Q.,
 -__ _u__. __'__

This paper will present a systematic methodology for the identification of potential house locations and

definition of pit features. This will involve the identification and analysis of the nature and distribution of

construction daub on sites. Theoretically, concentrations of construction daub should reflect the location of

houses. If only pits contain construction daub in a site, then houses were semi-subterranean in nature. If

construction daub is largely found outside of pits, then houses were probably built on the surface.

Construction daub was selected because it is an integral characteristic of Early Neolithic houses and when

burnt down, can yield an accurate representation of where the house was located and how it was

constructed. Daub was also selected because it is widely collected. Hence. the analytical model employed

here will be applicable to any site.

Problems with defining Early Neolithic architecture in southeastern Europe

Early Neolithic sitesin this area are difficult to excavate. The sites are generally poorly preserved, the

deposits are thin, and there is very little vertical stratification. To compound this problem, few excavations

have employed adequate excavation techniques to recover detailed data on posthole, hearth. artifact. and

other distributions to determine the location of Early Neolithic houses from such data. In addition, they do

not have architecturally obvious surface houses, as are found in the cultures of the Mediterranean littoral.

Hence, the controversy over what constitutes a house during the Early Neolithic of southeastern Europe.

In the absence of obvious surface houses, many archaeologists working in southeastern Europe simply

assume that the frequently found pits are semisubterranean dwellings even in the absence of any systematic

analysis of their data to support their statements (e.g. Bogdanovi~ 1988). As a result, pits are often labeled

without justification of function (i.e. pit houses). However, most of these pit features do not show the

architectural evidence associated with dwellings (e.g. presence and distribution of post holes). Other

archaeologists assume that the presence of pits on sites are simply for the deposit of refuse material. Once

again, little systematic evidence has been presented for this theory other than they are filled with debris

(whether it is from primary or secondary deposition is never considered). When a feature (pit or surface

structure) is defined, there must be a method of analysis that will allow the proper definition of its function.

Otherwise, misconceptions and confusion will occur lending to the general inability to decipher the function

183
of the various pit features on sites.

A model for interpreting the spatial distribution of daub architectural elements

Daub is the baked remains of clay walls, floors. ovens and hearths. Wattle and daub wall structures are

difficult to identify in sites unless they have been burnt down and the clay was fired. Wattle and daub

completely disintegrates over time if left unfired and will become archaeologically invisible (McIntosh

1974: 167).

In a typical wattle and daub construction, a framework of poles and twigs is lashed together using twigs.

vines or thin pliable bark strips. Wet earth is pounded on one or both sides by hand. Any easily available

soil may be used. An instrument is often run over the surface of the completed. but still wet wall to smooth

the surface. The structure is then roofed in thatch. The wattle and daub wall is quite thin and displays a

noticeable inward slant. a tactic possibly employed to counteract horizontal thrust. When the wall has

eroded enough to be considered unsafe, the entire wall either falls or is pulled down. Ethnographically. the

poles are often collected for reuse or as firewood. The remaining wall material is left to disintegrate by rain

and wind, and very quickly becomes a low featureless mound. New homes may be built on top after only

minor leveling (McIntosh 1974: 162-163).

Concentrations of daub are assumed to represent the collapsed remains of burnt structures. Baked daub

remains are commonly recovered in Early Neolithic sites implying that structures frequently burned down.

They can be useful for determining the location of structures. It is possible to locate the remains of houses

based on the distribution of the daub remains across the site. It is also necessary to look at several attributes

(e.g. size, quality, and amount of daub fragments in one deposit). to determine daub function (for

construction. artifacts) and context (i.e. was the daub found in a primary or secondary deposit) since there

are many types and uses for daub on sites.

Theoretically. there should be a difference in type. quality, quantity, and size of daub remains betWeen

surface and semi-subterranean dwellings, and between habitation pits and pits used for other functions. It is

--- --
possible to detennine feature function through the analysis of daub remains. For example. the reason we

would find burnt daub within a pit is because the pit was covered by an overlying superstructure. which had

burned down. After collapse. the collapsed superstructure fills in the pit. There should be high

concentrations of daub inside pits that were dwellings, with a rapid decrease in density of daub outside of

the pit. If the structure did not bum down, there will be little evidence of the superstructure. making the

interpretation of the pit's function more difficult. If there is no evidence of architectural daub in a pit (except

for tiny fragments). it is possible that the pit was used solely for refuse (or the structure was not burnt. in

which case there should be no evidence of daub at all). Daub is commonly found in refuse pits. but it is

often composed of small eroded fragments in a secondary position. There should be a difference in quantity

and size of daub remains between refuse and dwelling pits. By analyzing the architectural daub. it will be

possible to detennine if floors. walls and other dwelling features (e.g.. ovens) were found in all pits. some

pits or elsewhere on the site. In contrast, pits that do not have architectural daub. and no evidence of

systematic associations of artifacts (except for the odd broken weight or whorl), may be interpreted as

refuse depositories.

Foeni-Sala~: Results

The daub remains from the Early Neolithic site at Foeni-Sala~ \vas analyzed to test these propositions. The

site was excavated under the direction of Haskel Greenfield of the University of Manitoba (Winnipeg.

Canada) and Florin Dra~ovean of the Museum of the Banat (Timi~oara, Romania) during 1992-94. It is

situated in southwestern Romania on the border with Serbia (Figure I). It is the first systematically

excavated early food producing site and the first spatially extensive excavation of an Early Neolithic site in

southeastern Europe. There is only a single phase of Early Neolithic occupation at the site, and all

indications point to a very short occupation. The site has been dated to the Starcevo IIA sub-phase of the

local Starcevo-Cri~ culture (Greenfield and Dra~ovean 1994). The Star-evo culture from this area dates

from 5900-5100 B.C. (calibrated - Ehrich and Bankoff 1990; Manson 1990, 1995). The site is on the top of

a small natural rise in the steppes of the Pannonian plain.

185
. City
Mediterranean Sea
o
100km
I !
'20

Figure 3.. EarlyNeolithic Culture Groups of Southeastem Europe

186
Five large pits. one small pit and 2-3 surface activity areas were excavated in the Star-evo-Cri@ stratum

(Figure 2). The Early Neolithic features at Foeni-Sala@ are arranged so that they do not cut into each other.

and seem to have been abandoned relatively soon after construction (after the pits were filled with

occupational debris). There is no clear-cut architectural evidence for surface structures. Therefore. this site

becomes a good test case for distinguishing between surface and pit houses during the Early Neolithic

through the spatial analysis of the daub remains (Greenfield n.d.).

The five pit features were considered to be potential Early Neolithic semi-subterranean dwellings (loci 7.

10.

23. 24. and 41) on the basis of excavated size and associated architectural elements (ill situ post holes,

hearths. benches, shelves. and ovens). A sixth potential semi-subterranean dwelling was found through

-
coring of the site at the very end (last day) of the last season (locus 50 Figure 2). The major artifact

..c
t:
o
Z
~
en e

t I
,
...
I
0.;&'

o ~~~r;'-'

. ~ u........

Figure 2: Map of excavated area of Foeni-Salas showing

location of Early Neolithic features.

187
concentrations from the Early Neolithic ",.erefound within these pits. Few artifacts were found spread in the

intervening space across the site. Only one pit feature was interpreted to be a storage pit (locus 25) based

upon its small (I m diameter) and contents (large storage jar) (Greenfield n.d.).

Typological analysis of daub

Daub can be identified as to its typological function (floor, wall, etc. - Shaffer 1983; Tringham and

Ste\"anovi_ 1990). In order to identify the nature of the architectural daub at Foeni-Sala@, a variety of

attributes (temper, firing, shape, measurements, etc.) were considered. Ultimately, four major types of

architectural daub were identified during the analysis: I) House floor daub; 2) House wall daub; 3) Oven

floor daub; and 4) Oven dome daub. By identifying each daub fragment to one of these types, it was

possible to map out the distributions and identify concentrations of each type (Jongsma 1997).

Spatial analysis of individual architectural types

Only the data from the Early Neolithic deposits at the site are described here. The spatial distributions of

each architectural daub type will be separately discussed. The spatial distribution of each daub type across

the site was analyzed using SURFER to determine the association between pits and the architectural daub.

Daub weight was the analytical measure employed for identifying daub concentrations. The maps were

generated with a 50 gm per contour interval (unless otherwise noted). Less than 50 gm weight was

considered to be "background" noise and therefore was not considered in this analysis. The distribution of

daub concentrations will be compared with known feature distributions (surface and sub-surface) based on

excavation at the site. The concentrations of daub will help determine the function of the features (i.e. pit

house, storage pit, surface house, etc.).

The analysis is designed to test the following two hypotheses:

1. Star-evo-Cri@ houses were surface wattle and daub houses. If this were the case, there will be

a lack of correlation between architectural daub concentrations and large pits.

2. Star-evo-Cri@ houses were semi-subterranean dwellings (pit house). An association between

large quantities of architectural daub and large pits would support this hypothesis.

188
- --
Wall daub

Wherever an Early Neolithic feature was found. some wall daub was also found. However. there are

differences in the quantity of wall daub from one feature to another. Four concentrations of wall daub are

evident in the map (Figure 3). The concentrations found in loci 41 (a pit) and 53 (an exterior surface) are

North
180+ -,-,-

--------_.-

- " "_"_0' ~.".

160.., 1

¥---- --'----- i...

- -- - -

'."'~
'"'
;io"-
L23' L24 ".
.,
"},

L41 L53
-50

120+ ...-..--..----- __ m
160 180 200 220
South

Figure 3: Distribution of houose floor daub (50 gm/interval).

extremely small in size and spatially discrete «3 m wide). The other two concentrations found in pits (loci

23 and 24) are much larger and wide in size (8-9 m wide). Wall daub was found in insignificant quantities

« 59 gm) in the other Starcevo-Cri§ pit loci (loci 7 and 10), a storage pit (locus 25) and surface

feature/concentrations (loci 51 and 52-not apparent on the sufer map).

189

-----
Floor daub

Floor daub was found in a similar range of contexts as wall daub (Figure 4). The two largest concentrations

are associated with pit features (loci 23 and 24). The largest spatial concentration of floor daub was found

in loclls 23. Low frequencies (50 gm) were found associated with loci 41 (a pit feature) and 53 (an exterior

surface). Two isolated low intensity hot spots are visible in the map. Each of these is small and represents

intrusive remains from later features.

North
180-m .....

- - - -

~¥-~: - .- - -. -_. --- -- -- ..- 4,800

"'j
4,550
4,300
4,050
3,800
"0'" ","no ...,
3,550
3,300
~m___' 3,050
2,800
- - - - - --,- - - -- 2,550
2,300
...r<>~"" 2,050
L 24'10 1,800
140. . ~..~ 1,550
I
L.23 1,300
.(50 . 1,050
, 800
L41 550
~.. ,. mL53
300
50
...... + .... ...j...

120 "jn ..~.: .~.~... no......

160 180 200 220

South

Figure 4: Distribution of house wall daub (SOgm/interval).

Oven.floor

Oven floor fragments were found in two large (Figure 5 - loci 23 and 24) and one small concentration

(locus 41). All three of these correspond to Early Neolithic pit features. A very small quantity was also

found in the other pit locus (7). but it did not contain enough to be spatially plotted by the SURFER

------
program. It is interesting to observe that kiln daub is found in the same pit features where there are high

quantities of wall and floor daub.

Oven dome

Oven dome daub fragments were found in the most restricted spatial distribution (Figure 6). All of the oven

dome daub was found in locus 23. Inside of this locus, the oven daub was found in two clusters at opposite

ends of the pit. A second oven-like daub concentration was found in locus 7. However, it was found at the

outset of the first season and was not collected for later analysis. It is well documented in the notes and its

presence is clearly visible in the plan drawings of the pit house.

North
180-'

.""! "'1" 1150

I '1 I 1050
I I 950
160 Om .i..
t !
...j....

1
I..
...1....

i
I
850
1, 750
., ..
-". - - -- -,- .. ..
- - - I
I
I l~ 650
550
~

L23 i 450
140p ~J
I 350
..;..
T
.J l 250
..... 1" 150
L41
50
-f' ..., --. _. -

.....................

180 200 220

South

Figure 5: Distribution of oven floor daub (50gm/interval).

191
Unidentifiable daub

Daub was classified as unidentifiable for two reasons. First, the material excavated in the first season at the

site (1992) was not analyzed in the systematic fashion as described above. Since it had been discarded prior

to the implementation of the new typological scheme, the 1992 daub could not be re-analyzed. The absence

of concentrations of identified architectural daub in loci 7 and 10 is a function of the omission of this data.

Second, some of the later recovered (1993-94) daub fragments were not identifiable to a specific

architectural element. The distribution of unidentified daub (Figure 7) shows that all of the Early Neolithic

pit features (7, 10,23,24, and 41) contain varying, but substantial quantities of daub. Little daub is found in

the intervening spaces.

North
180-..

~-----

... - -_.- - - -:- - -----------

450
- ----
400
160+
350

-- - 300

-- 250
. . 200
140-j._~.-L-'-"'-"f L 23
150
.~ _ _ _ -: _ ..11:' - ,_ - ~ - ..,..- ..,..0.. ..... :-- - ;....
100
-.,..- - - -1- _~_
. _i_ _ _'.' _ _ _~. ._..
! 00
).... .,.. ...! .oj.. ...~

...~
160 180 200 220
South

Figure 6: Distribution of oven dome daub (SOgm/interval).

-- ---
Conclusion -Yes, they did live in pit houses!
When the distributions of daub concentrations are compared to the excavated Early Neolithic features. it is

possible to determine the location of dwellings. The combination of daub distributions and associated

excavated features supports the identification of loci 7, 10. 23. 24. and 41 as semi-subterranean dwellings

(pit houses). There is an abundance of indicators that these pit features were initially used for habitation

(e.g. hearths, post holes, shelves, benches, hearths, and wall, floor. and oven daub).

Based upon excavation data and the daub spatial analysis of daub remains, there is no evidence for surface

houses at Foeni-Sala@. A few surface deposits, loci 51-52, were recognized during excavation as loci of

activity on the surface, but not as features. The deposits were not sedimentologically distinct from the

surrounding open area, but could be identified as distinct activity areas only because of the associated

artifact concentrations. The near or complete absence of daub in these loci undennines the idea that they

may represent surface structures.

193

".::;~.~J..;..;;1."
----- ---
 100 . --- ~ ~ ~

- - _.- - - - - --

- - -

_! _.

J L 10
140 .

L7

'---' 0

120.
160 100 200
South

Figure 7: Distribution of unidentified daub (SOgm/interval).

Based upon our analysis. it appears that the Early Neolithic residents at Foeni-Sala§ lived in a cluster of

small pit houses (n=5 -loci 7, 10,24,41, and 50), arranged in a semi-circle around a larger pit house (locus

23). Oven and hearths are found in association with the smaller and larger pit houses. This may indicate that

each of the pit houses was economically independent and therefore represents a single household (or

household cluster). The size of each of the smaller pit houses (20-30 m2)implies that they were occupied by

a nuclear or small extended family (Naroll 1962; Wiessener 1974). The presence of a possible corral in the

centre of the arc of smaller pit houses (locus 52) may be an indication that certain activities may have been

of a more communal nature, such as stock keeping. The presence of a large centrally-placed pit house

(larger than the rest) may also be indicative of some integrating communal social function. Its nature, at this

point, remains indeterminate until the full analysis of the other artifacts from the site is completed.

194
- ---- - ---
Households. of course. do not usually stand in total social isolation. and they are usually grouped into larger

communities. This spatial pattern is \'ery different than that seen in \'illages of the surrounding cultures (e.g.

central Europe Bogucki 1988: Chapman 1989).

The appearance of pit houses in the Star-evo-Cri@-Koros cultUrearea (Bogdanovic 1988: Greentield and

Ora@ovean 1994: Lazarovici 1979: Makkay 1978. 1992) obviously is not related to the particulars of the

environment of this culture. The environment is essentially similar to that of the neighboring cultures where

there is abundant evidence for surface houses. The nature of deposits and. by implication. the nature of

occupation. at Star_evo-Cri@ sites is also different from that of the cultures to the south. Thin deposits.

the lack of overlapping features. and low frequencies of features (i.e. ovens. hearths. etc.) generally found at

Star-evo-Cri@ sites implies that occupation was short term in nature. This is in contrast to later Starcevo-

Cris and Koros settlements that generally have thick deposits \\'ith more evidence of storage pits. O\'ens.

hearths and surface houses (e.g. Bogdanovic 1988: Chapman 1989: Horvath 1989: Gimbutas 1991: Kosse

1979).

Now that we have identified the presence of pit houses. what can this tell us about the nature of occupation

in these sites? Cross-cultural research shows that there are social and environmental conditions associated

with the use of pit houses (Gilman 1987:538). Pit houses tend to be used seasonally. In non-tropical area.

the vast majority of pit structures are used as winter-only habitation dwellings. They are often abandoned in

the warm weather because they flood and become vermin infested. Surface houses are not as thermally

efficient as pit dwellings. Pit houses are. therefore. favored for winter occupation. Pit structures are present

only within a specific range of population densities. Generally. pit dwelling settlements have lower

population numbers than do other settlements with other types of houses. The average population of a

settlement that uses pit dwellings is approximately 100 people. Pit house communities with the densest

populations have access to large. rich. and fairly predicable food resources (Gilman 1987: 544). Absolute

population numbers do not themselves detennine the use of pit or surface houses. There is a range of

population numbers that corresponds to surface house use as compared to pit houses. The population

195
densities for surface houses are higher than the lowest population density per pit structure (Gilman 1987:

551 ).

Hunting and gathering. and rudimentary or casual agricultural economies accompany the majority of pit

dwelling use (Murdock 1967; Gilman 1987; Rocek 1995). Pit dwellings will be used. regardless of the

presence or absence of agriculture, if the three critical conditions of cold season use. a biseasonal settlement

pattern, and stored food reliance during season of use are met (Gilman 1987: 546, 551).

Pit houses are associated with increased settlement mobility - one usually involving a demonstrated seasonal

mobility strategy. Groups using pit houses generally move more often. and often more than once each year

(Gilman 1987: 550). More mobility means that people can be brought to the resource site and less storage

facilities are necessary.

What. then. are the archeological implications for the discovery of pit dwellings? If they are found on a site

they can indicate presence of a mobile society. The site may be used seasonally (usually in the winter

months), or for slightly longer. There should be minimal evidence for long-tenn food storage (either in the

forn1of storage pits, ceramic pots or granaries). The size of the settlement will be relatively small (usually

under 100 people). The subsistence strategies will be based on either hunting and gathering. or may include

some food production (Gilman 1987: 547).

The realization that pit houses are associated with more mobile societies is supported by the data from

Foeni-Sala~. Only one Early Neolithic storage pit (locus 25) was found on the site. Recent analysis of the

flora and fauna also support Gilman's (1987) cross-cultural research. The fauna is heavily biased toward

domestic animals (86.22% of total NISP). Also, most of the domestic fauna is mobile taxa (cattle, sheep,

and goats - 82% of total NISP of all taxa- Greenfield and Dra~ovean 1994). Crop agriculture, although a

component of the subsistence strategy, was not the dominant subsistence mode. The botanical remains

contained a mixture of wild and domestic seeds. It appears that subsistence was heavily supplemented with
gathered items. such as the Cornelian chcrry and a variety of weeds. although the weeds represented are

commonly found growing in fields of wheat or barley. More importantly. all domesticated remains were

"clean" in tenus of chaff or fused parts. such as rachis or stem fragments. Only one rachis fragment was

found (locus 2.t). This indicates that grain processing took place elsewhere and the remains in these sites

were either brought or traded to the residents ofFoeni-Sala~ by agriculturists living elsewhere (Jezik

1998). Finally. there were no artifacts. such as grinding stones. or storage areas typical of agricultural

settlements. The site yielded very small quantities of microlithics (with sickle sheen) indicating that

cultivation was not a primary focus of subsistence (Elizabeth Dinan personal communication: Kuijt 1994).

Therefore. based on the absence of botanically related features and implements. agriculture does not appear

to be of major importance to the economy. The presence of pit houses. the heavily domesticated animal

component to the subsistence regime. and the mixed wild and domestic botanical component to the diet, all

point to the presence of mobile economies. with a high reliance on domestic pastoralism in combination

with a lesser reliance upon mixture of wild and domestic plant use. For the first time, we can see that these

are mobile pastoral societies that are not heavily reliant upon domestic plant agriculture - contrary to the

typical image of early food producing societies in southeastern Europe.

Were these indigenous hunter-gatherers or intrusive colonizing food producers from the Mediterranean

littoral? The spatial organization of these sites is very similar to Mesolithic campsites known from across

Europe and very unlike that of the early food producers of the Mediterranean littoral. Given the low

emphasis upon plant agriculture (again contrary to the situation in the Mediterranean littoral sites), it is

likely that the indigenous Mesolithic inhabitants rapidly took on the characteristics of domestic lifestyles

(ceramics and domestic animals) that most easily fit into their mobile lifestyles (cf. Geddes 1982). For the

first time in southeastern Europe. we have a situation that may reflect the transition of indigenous

Mesolithic hunter-gatherers into early food producers without having to resort to the traditional explanation

of migration. Yet. the plethora similarities between southeastern European and Mediterranean littoral early

food producing communities (in terms of types of crops, animals, and material culture) argue strongly for

some kind colonization in at least isolated circumstances. These colonists, then, had to coexist with

197
indigenous groups. who more slowly adopted agricultural lifestyles. Therefore, the spread of agriculture

through Europe occurred by processes of both acculturation and limited colonization. The economic

processes at work on the Early Neolithic groups of the Mediterranean littoral are different than those in the

Temperate Zone of southeastern Europe and the differences between the two areas should not be glossed

over in our efforts to understand the origins of fam1ingin Europe.

Endnotes

I. The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge Valerie McKinley for her editorial help

198 ..
- - -
References Cited

BASLER. DJURO. ALOJZ BENAC. STANE GABROVEC, MILUTIN GARASANIN. NIKOLA TASIc
AND KSENIJA VINSKI-GASPARINI. eds. 1979. Praistor(ja lugoslm'ellskih Zemalja. \'VI.3. Neolit.
Sarajevo: Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine. Centar za balkanoloska ispitivanja.
BOGDANOVIC. MILENKO. 1988. Architecture and structural features at Divostin. In Divostin and the
Neolithic o(Central Serbia. Edited by Alan McPherron and Dragosla\' Srejovic, pp. 35-142. University
of
Pittsburgh. Department of Anthropology. Ethnology Monographs no. 10.
BOGUCKI. PETER. 1988. Forest Farmers and Stockherder. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CHAMPION. TIMOTHY. CLIVE GAMBLE. STEPHEN SHENNAN. and ALASDAIR WHITTLE. 1984.
Prehistoric Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CHAPMAN. JOHN C. 1989. The Early Balkan Village. Neolithic ofSolllheastem Europe and its Near
Eastem Connections. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica 2. pp. 33-53. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology.
Academy of Sciences.
EHRICH. ROBERT W. 1977. Starcevo revisited. In. Anciellt Europe alld the Mediterranean. Edited by
Vladimir Markotic, pp. 59-67. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.
EHRICH. ROBERT W. AND H. ARTHUR BANKOFF. 1990. Absolute chronology of the Neolithic in
southeastern Europe. In Chrollologies ill Old WorldArchaeology. Third edition. Edited by Robert Ehrich.
pp. 375-394. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
GARASANIN. MILUTIN. 1973. Praistor(ja na Tlu SR Srb(je Second Edition.. Belgrade: Srbska
Knju_evna Zadruga.
GARASANIN. MILUTIN .1983. The Stone Age in the Central Balkans. Cambridge Ancient History. vol.
3. part 1. pp. 75-135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
GEDDES. DAVID. 1982. Neolithic transhumance in the Mediterranean Pyrenees. World Archaeology
15:51-66.
GILMAN. PATRICIA. 1987. Architecture as artifact: pit structures and pueblos in the American Southwest.
Americall Antiquity 52 (3): 538-565.
GIMBUTAS. MARIJA. 1976. Neolithic Macedonia: as reflected by excavation at An=a.Southeast
Yugoslavia. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology. The University of California. Los Angeles.
GIMBUTAS. MARIJA. 1991. The Civili=atiollof the Goddess: The fVoridof Old Europe. pp. 70-71. New
York: Harper Collins.
GIMBUTAS. MARIJA. SHAN WINN and DANIEL SHIMABUKU. 1989. Achilleion: A Neolithic
Settlement ill Thessaly. Greece. 6400-5600 Be. Monumenta Archaeologica 14. Los Angeles: University of
California.
GREENFIELD. HASKEL. 1. 1991. Fauna from the Late Neolithic of the Central Balkans: Issues in
Subsistence and Land Use. loumal of Field Archaeology 18: 161-186.
GREENFIELD. HASKEL J. 1993. Zooarchaeology. Taphonomy. and the Origins of Food Production in
The Central Balkans. In Culwre and Ellvironment: A Fragile Co-Existellce. Proceedings of the 24'"
Chacmool COI!(erence. Edited by Ross W. Jamieson. Sylvia Abonyi and Neil A. Mirau. pp. 111-117.
Archaeological Association. University of Calgary. Alberta.
GREENFIELD. HASKEL J. n.d. Recent research at Foeni. Unpublished manuscript.
GREENFIELD. HASKEL J. and FLORIN DRA$OVEAN. 1994. An Early Neolithic Starcevo-Cri~
Settlement in the Romanian Banat: Preliminary Report on the 1992 Excavations at Foeni-Sala~. Annale
Banawlui: loumal of the Museum of the Banat (Timi~oara. Romania) 3: 45-85.
HORVATH. FERENC. 1989. A survey on the development of Neolithic settlement pattern and house types
in the Tisza region. Neolithic of Southeastem Europe alld its Near Eastern Connections. Varia
Archaeologica Hungarica 2, pp. 85-103. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology. Academy of Sciences.
JEZIK. SANDRA. 1998. The origills of agriculture ill temperate Europe: all exploratioll into the
subsistellce strategies o.{rwoEar~vNeolithic sites ill the celltral Balkans. Foeni-Sala~ and Blagotin.
Unpublished MA thesis, University of Manitoba. Dept. of Anthropology.
JONGSMA. TINA. 1997. DistillguishillgpitsFom pit houses: an alla~vsiso.{arcllitecwrefrom the Ear(v
Neolithic cel/tral Balkan Stracevo-Cri~ cullllre through the aI/alysis o.(daub distributiol/s. Unpublished
MA thesis. University of Manitoba, Dept. of Anthropology.
KOSSE. Krisztina. 1979. Settlemellt ecology of the ear(v alld middle Neolithic Koros alld Lillear Potten'
culwres ill HUllgary. British Archaeological Reports. International Series. no. 64. .
KUlJT. IAN. 1989. Refuse Patterning or Activity Areas: an examination of cultural material from the Jack
Harkey site I. New Mexico. In Households alld Commullities. Edited by Scott Macheachren. David J. W.
Archer and Richard D. Garvin pp. 209-217 Calgary: University of Calgary Archaeological Association.
LAZARROVICI. GEORGHE. 1979. Neoliticul Ballawlui. Cluj-Napoca: Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis.
MAKKAY.. 1978. Excavations at Bicske I. The Early Neolithic - The Earliest Linear Band Ceramic. Alba
Regia 16: 9-60 (Szekesferhevar. Hungary).
MAKKAY. JANOS. 1992. Excavations at the Koros culture settlement of Endrod-Oregszolok 119 in 1986-
1989 In Cultural alld Lalldscape Challges ill South-East HUllgary:Report 011the Gyomaelldrod Project.
Edited by Sandor Bokonyi. pp. 121-194. Budapest: Archaeolingua.
MA:\JSON.JONI L. 1990. A Realla(vsis ofStarcevo Culwre Ceramics: Implicatiolls.for the Neolithic
Developmellt ill the Balkalls. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
MANSON. JONI L. 1995. Starcevo pottery and Neolithic development in the central Balkans. In The
Emergellce of Pottery. Edited by William K.Barnett and John W. Hoops. pp. 65-77. Washington D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
MCINTOSH. ROD. 1974. Archaeology and mud wall decay in a West African village. WorldArchaeology
6(2): 155-167.
MURDOCK, GEORGE P. 1967. Ethllographic Atlas. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh
Press.
NAROLL, RAOUL 1962. Floor Area and Settlement Population. Americall Alltiquity 27 (4): 587-589.
POUNDS. NORMAN. 1969. Eastem Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
RENFREW. COLIN. 1987. Archaeology alld Lallguage: The Pu=='eof1E Origills. Cambridge University
Press: :\JewYork.
ROCEK, THOMAS R. 1995. Sedentarization and Agricultural Dependence: Perspectives from the
Pithouse- to-Pueblo Transition in the American Southwest. Americall Alltiquity 60 (2): 218-239.
SHAFFER. GARY D. 1983. Neolithic buildillg Techllology ill Calabria. Italy. Ph. D. Dissertation. State
University of New York at Binghamton. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
SREJOVIC, DRAGOSLA V. ed., 1988. The Neolithic o.l"Serbia:Archaeological Research 1948-1988.
University of Belgrade. Centre for Archaeological Research: Belgrade.
TRINGHAM, RUTH. 1971. HUllters.Fishers. alld Farmers of Eastem Europe. 6000-3000 Be. London:
Hutchinson University Library.
TRIGHMAN. RUTH and MIRJANA STEFANOVIC. 1990. The nonceramic uses of clay. In Selevac: A
Neolithic Village ill Yugoslavia. Edited by Ruth Tringham and Dusan Krstic, pp. 323-396. Los Angeles:
UCLA Institute of Archaeology.
WIESSNER. POLLY. 1974. A Functional Estimator of Population From Floor Area. Americall Alltiquit)'
39(2): 343-349.
WHITTLE. ALASDAIR. 1996. Europe ill the Neolithic: The Creatioll 0.1" New Worlds. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

- -- -- - - --