Zvelebil, M & P, Dolukhanov. The Transition To Farming in Eastern and Northern Europe

The Transition to Farming in Eastern and Northern Europe
Author(s): Marek Zvelebil and Paul Dolukhanov

Source: Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 5, No. 3 (September 1991), pp. 233-278
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25800599
Accessed: 06-09-2016 20:13 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25800599?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of World
Prehistory
This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 20:13:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1991
The Transition to Farming in Eastern and Northern

Europe
Marek Zvelebil1'3 and Paul Dolukhanov2
This paper presents a general survey of the transition to farming in Eastern and
Northern Europe, approached within the framework of the availability model
and treated from the perspective of local (Mesolithic) hunting and gathering
communities. We argue that in Eastern and Northern Europe, the transition to
farming was a slow process, which occurred through the adoption of exogenous
cultigens and domesticates by the local hunter-gatherer populations, who may
have been already engaged in some form of husbandry of the local resources.
Contact and exchange with the Neolithic and later Bronze Age of Central Europe
had a profound and prolonged influence on the process of the adoption of farm
ing in Eastern and Northern Europe. During the slow process of transition,
mixed hunting-farming societies emerged, which could be regarded as having
a characteristic social and economic organization of their own (i. e., neither
"Mesolithic" nor "Neolithic"). In conclusion, we argue for continuity in pop
ulation and in social and economic traditions from the hunter-gatherer past
until recent antiquity and, in some areas, into the historical period.
KEY WORDS: Mesolithic; Neolithic; agricultural transition; agricultural frontier; Eastern Europe;
Northern Europe.
INTRODUCTION
The transition to farming was a revolutionary development that provides
the basis of civilization throughout the world. Initially, agriculture must have
1 Departmentof Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, England.
2Department of Archaeology, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1
7RU, England.
3To whom correspondence should be addressed.
233
0892-7537/91/0900-0233S06.50/0 ? 1991 Plenum Publishing Corporation
234 Zvelebil and Dolukhanov
been just one among a number of strategies designed to raise productivity or

reduce the risk of failure in the food supply. We propose to examine this tran
sition within the framework of the availability model, which is designed to
accommodate the role of hunter-gatherer societies within this development
(Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy, 1984).
This paper deals with the transition to farming in the forest zone of Eastern
and Northern Europe?an area that lies on the periphery, rather than in the
center, of the developments traditionally believed to have led to the "Neolithic
revolution." One may ask, Why study the agricultural transition in such periph
eral areas? Were they not mere recipients of more dynamic developments from
the Near Eastern core? To answer these questions, we have to begin with a
more general look at the transition to farming in Europe.
For historical reasons, most of our understanding of the transition to farm
ing in Europe is based on one area, the southeast and the Danubian corridor,
which has thus become a model for other areas. It is further based on a belief
in the existence of significant dichotomies, which provide a framework for the
transition to farming. These are an economic dichotomy between hunter-gath
erer and farmer societies and a geographical dichotomy between core areas,
where farming was invented, and peripheral areas, into which it spread. These
dichotomies are spatially expressed as an agricultural frontier, spreading out of
the core areas in ever-wider circles, representing the wave of advance of agri
cultural peoples.
The view adopted here departs from the traditional model of the Neolithic
colonization of Europe and from these traditional dichotomies. In our view, the
"Danubian" pattern of transition to farming was not a normal situation but an
exception; the core-periphery dichotomy, though real, has been exaggerated by
a Childean respect for Near Eastern civilizations, while the forager-farmer
dichotomy, where it actually existed, was of a much more complicated nature.
In Northern and Eastern Europe, the agricultural transition occurred slowly.
The process can be examined, therefore, at a finer level of resolution. In these
areas, the core-periphery dichotomy and the forager-farmer dichotomy are par
ticularly inappropriate. Northern and Eastern Europe are also, in our view, more
representative of the processes that marked the transition to farming than is the
Danubian corridor. Consequently, these areas present an alternative view of the
transition.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
The Contribution of Gordon Childe
Current views on the agricultural transition cannot be understood without
a brief summary of earlier approaches and, particularly, of the work of Gordon
Childe. For the most part, the theories of earlier scholars about the origin of
Transition to Farming in Eastern and Northern Europe 235
agriculture followed the prevailing philosophical thought of the time. Thus, the
nineteenth-century evolutionists, firmly convinced of the inevitability of human
progress and the superiority of farming, and guided by the experience of the
European colonial expansion, found the reasons for the adoption of farming to
be self-evident:
The savage inhabitants of each land, having found out by so many hard trials what plants
were useful . . . would, after a time, take the first step in cultivation by planting them
near their usual abodes. (Darwin, 1875, pp. 326-327)
One of the most active and influential scholars to analyze the agricultural
transition was Gordon Childe. He combined evolutionary and Marxist frame
works with an environmentalist explanation?the propinquity-oasis theory?to
build a powerful model for the origin and diffusion of farming (Childe, 1928,
1934, 1957). His model relied on the following convictions.
(1) The Mesolithic period in Europe was one of cultural decline among
groups unable to cope with the changing postglacial environment. Childe, in
fact, did not even acknowledge the existence of the Mesolithic as an indepen
dent period, preferring to see it as the degenerate end of the Paleolithic.
(2) All inventions of any significance were introduced into Europe from
the Near East at least until the Bronze Age, when an independent culture devel
oped. Before that, European prehistory was marked by the imitation, or at best
the adaptation, of Near Eastern achievements.
(3) The Neolithic revolution was a unique and revolutionary event, which
brought about a richer and more reliable supply of food.
Within this paradigm, it was quite natural that hunter-gatherer territories
would be colonized by the growing farming populations. In the case of Europe,
the colonists came from the Near East and progressively displaced, absorbed,
or annihilated those "disgusting savages" (Childe, 1928, p. 220), who inhab
ited postglacial Europe. Childe's view was reinforced by his early research in
southeastern and central Europe, where there was a clear dichotomy between
the Mesolithic and the Neolithic cultures and where the best case in Europe can
be made for a colonization by immigrant farmers (Zvelebil, 1986b). This led
him to adopt this part of Europe as a model for other areas.
These developments of a half-century ago need to be spelled out in some
detail because most subsequent research on the origins of farming in Europe
has been either an elaboration of or a reaction to Childe's diffusionist model.
Many later scholars have adopted the diffusionist perspective to a greater or
lesser degree (Clark, 1965; Piggott, 1965; Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza,
1984; Renfrew, 1987). Within such a perspective, local Mesolithic societies
played little or no role; they acted at best as passive recipients of innovations
emanating ultimately from the Near Eastern "core area," where local hunter
gatherers began farming as a response to social competition (Bender, 1975), a
decline in wild resources (Henry, 1985), or population growth (Cohen, 1977)
or as a result of a strategic adjustment to a combination of factors acting at a

regional level (Binford, 1968, 1983; Flannery, 1969; Henry 1985; Redding,
1988).
More recently, some scholars have tried to accord Mesolithic societies a
more active role (Clark, 1980; Clarke, 1976). Within the last 20 years, a new
school of thought has emerged, which considers the possibility of a local, indig
enous domestication within Europe itself and which acknowledges that Meso
lithic societies, rather than intrusive Neolithic populations, played a decisive
role in the development of the European Neolithic (Higgs, 1972, 1975; Jarman,
1972; Jarman etal, 1982; Dennell, 1983, 1985; Barker, 1985).
This debate remains unresolved (Zvelebil, 1986c; Renfrew, 1987; Zvelebil
and Zvelebil, 1988). We take the view here that progress can be made only by
reexamining existing conceptual frameworks, particularly the definition of
hunter-gatherer and farmer societies, the core-periphery framework, and the
frontier concept.
Hunter-Gatherer and Farmer Societies
On the face of it, the distinction between hunter-gatherer and farmer soci
eties seems simple: they are defined by their mode of production?hunting or
farming?and by the productive potential of their economies. In recent years,
however, it has been recognized that there are profound differences in social
organization and subsistence strategies among hunter-gatherers (Lee and
DeVore, 1968; Binford, 1983; Woodbum, 1982; Testart, 1982). Organiza
tional arrangements range from mobile societies with simple social organization
and expedient technologies to more complex hunter-gatherers with storage,
specialized procurement of resources, and curated technology, requiring a con
siderable labor investment and possibly nonegalitarian social organization. Tes
tart (1982), Rowley-Conwy (1983), and Zvelebil (1986d) have argued for the
presence of such complex hunter-gatherers in the Mesolithic of Europe, partic
ularly in Eastern and Northern Europe.
Such differences in hunter-gatherer resource use diminish the social and
economic differences between farming and foraging and force us to distinguish
between hunting and gathering, the husbandry of genetically wild resources,
and cultivation or herding of domesticated plants and animals. There are numer
ous examples of hunters practicing selective cull, altering the environment, or
removing other predators, to sustain and increase the productivity of their wild
resources (Higgs, 1972, 1975; Mithen, 1990). Equally, gatherers can manipu
late their plant resources through clearances, ground preparation, planting, and
harvesting (Rindos, 1984; Harris and Hillman, 1989). In such cases, we are
dealing with plant and animal husbandry within societies that remain reliant
primarily on hunting and gathering and that use genetically wild resources. The
productivity of such resources, however, will be higher than from other hunter
gatherer strategies.
Similar differences exist among farming systems. Agropastoral farming
involving cereals, pulses, bovines, and caprines is only one among many dif
ferent farming systems (Harris and Hillman, 1989). It is also a remarkably ver
satile, productive, and adaptable one (Harris, 1977; Zvelebil, 1986b). Other,
less productive systems are known to exist, however, and their use must have
been much wider before the spread of cereal-based farming into many parts of
the world. The North American example, where cultivation of indigenous root
and seed crops preceded the spread of maize agriculture (Brown, 1985), is per
tinent here. We should not assume that there were not such systems in pre
Neolithic Europe, even though the evidence is circumstantial (Clarke, 1976)
and controversial (Barker, 1985; Dennell, 1983; Harris and Hillman, 1989).
These observations serve to diminish the conceptual divide between hunt
ing-gathering and farming societies and to reduce the gap in productivity that
is thought by some to have existed between the two (Ammerman and Cavalli
Sforza, 1984; Renfrew, 1987). In the initial transition to farming, hunter-gath
erer societies did not necessarily have to cross the Rubicon. The adoption of
farming may have been a matter of the integration of new cultigens and domesti
cates into the existing patterns of resource use and of a gradual transition from
one type of economy to another.
Core-Periphery Relationships
In the traditional view, agropastoral farming was brought to Europe, partly

or wholly, by farmers emigrating from the core area of development, the Near
East, and colonizing hitherto unfarmed areas of Europe. Within this framework,
emphasis is placed almost entirely on the circumstances and the process of col
onization (Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1984). The condition and the
response of the resident hunter-gatherers are mostly ignored; indeed, some areas
are treated as if the farmer-colonists were moving into uninhabited areas.
There are archaeological and paleogeographic reasons for this attitude.
Archaeologically, the introduction of new cultigens and domesticates across
Europe and the cultural changes associated with this process form a distinct
horizon that often stands in sharp contrast to the earlier and, in some cases,
scant evidence for hunter-gatherer occupation. This horizon has been tradition
ally interpreted as the evidence for farmer colonization.
The geographical distribution of the wild progenitors of plants and animals
that form the basis of agropastoral farming is centered on the Near East, thus
defining the "core" area where the original development of agropastoral farm
ing took place in the tenth millennium B.P. The peripheral areas, such as
Europe, are seen as recipients of exogenous cultigens and domesticates and of

a new economy emanating from the Near Eastern core.
Both the archaeological and the geographic reasons for this core-periphery
dichotomy have been overemphasized. The paucity of settlement in Mesolithic
Europe is apparent rather than real (Clarke, 1976; Zvelebil, 1986c; Rowley
Conwy et aL, 1987), its interpretation obscured by the postglacial rise in sea
level, taphonomic factors, and paradigmatic indifference. From the geographic
perspective, potential cultigens and domesticates did exist in Europe, although
they may have not been identical to the range available in the Near East (Den
nell, 1983; Barker, 1985; Zvelebil, 1986c). Even though this narrower range
might have been the reason why agropastoral farming did not develop inde
pendently in Europe (Harris, 1977; Zvelebil 1986b), wild plant and animal
resources were manipulated in ways suggesting husbandry (Dennell, 1983;
Barker, 1985). We should allow, therefore, for the existence of dynamic and
evolving Mesolithic societies in most parts of Europe, which did not constitute
a mere periphery to the Near Eastern core but exerted their own influence on
subsequent socioeconomic Neolithic developments.
Even if farmers from the Near East actually did colonize Europe, neglect
of the existing European populations is bound to bias our interpretation of the
transition. In the context of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, core-periphery
relationships must have differed from region to region, depending on the dyna
mism of the resident hunter-gatherer societies and the viability of the young
farming communities.
The Agricultural Frontier

We have seen that the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Europe has usu
ally been treated from the perspective of Neolithic colonization. Both theoret
ical and methodological concepts have been developed to accommodate the
belief in the diffusion of farming to Europe either by human migration alone or
through both colonization and contact. One such concept is that of the agricul
tural frontier.
Traditionally, the concept of the agricultural frontier is inseparably con
nected with the diffusionist model of an advance of agricultural settlement in
areas hitherto occupied by hunters and gatherers (Ammerman and Cavalli
Sforza, 1984). A more sophisticated version sees selective "pioneer" coloni
zation occurring in stages, with frequent halts in the process of expansion. Col
onization was selective in that it moved first in the most fertile regions, with
secondary colonization of suboptimal areas at a later date (Piggott, 1965; Sher
ratt, 1972). This allows for hunter-gatherer survivals in regions not initially
colonized by the farmers and for the adoption of farming by local Mesolithic
groups. This more realistic approach has been supported by a number of regional
studies (Kruk, 1973; Kozlowski and Kozlowski, 1986; Bogucki, 1987). The
different rates of advance within the model led Alexander (1978) to distinguish
between "moving" and "stationary" frontiers. This was elaborated by Dennell
(1985) to incorporate various degrees of participation by the indigenous hunter
gatherers. DenneH's scheme shows how farming could have spread through
Europe by contact without actual colonization (Fig. 1).
Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy (1984) have developed the frontier concept
further. They redefine the frontier as a zone of interaction between foraging and
farming communities, irrespective of whether the farmers were colonists or local
inhabitants who adopted farming (Fig. 2). This interaction zone can extend over
several hundred kilometers, and its extent and duration can shed light on the
nature of the transition and the participation of the local groups in it.
The zone of forager-farmer interaction can undergo three phases of tran
sition: the availability phase, the substitution phase, and the consolidation phase
(Fig. 2). During the availability phase, farming is known to the foraging groups
and there is some exchange of materials and information between them and the
farming communities, but without the adoption of farming. Farmers and for
agers are developing contacts but the two societies still operate as culturally and
economically independent units. The availability phase ends with the adoption
of at least some elements of farming by the foragers or with the settlement of
farmers in the territory hitherto used by the foragers.
During the substitution phase farming practices replace hunting and gath
ering strategies, although agropastoral farming still remains embedded within
an overall foraging-farming strategy. This is the phase when the actual socio
economic transition from a hunting-gathering to a farming way of life takes
place.
Hunter-Gatherer/Agricultural Frontier
mobile static
l open closed
porous: contact leading to:
I
assimilation of
I parasitic
migration of resources symbiotic
hunter-gatherers into hunter-gatherer
into farming areas no contact
communities exchange of goods theft of
I across frontier agricultural
acquisition by goods/resources
hunter-gatherers ofcolonization by hunter-gatherers
farming resources
and techniques
hunter-gatherers displaced hunter-gatherer areas

by agriculturalists vacated by disease
and then colonized
Fig. 1. Different forms of forager-farmer interaction. (After Dennell, 1985.)

(Reproduced by permission of the author and the Academic Press).
(1)
&?j Availability W Substitution 111 Consolidation

Fig. 2. Spatial reach of the agricultural frontier. (1) Wave of advance model.
(2) Pioneer colonization model. (3) Availability model. (After Zvelebil, 1986.)
(Reproduced by permission of the Cambridge University Press).
In the consolidation phase, which begins when society becomes dependent

on agriculture, the social and economic structures of the old frontier mature to
hinterland conditions. Economically, this is the first stage of a predominantly
Neolithic economy, marked by both the extensive and the intensive growth of
food production: the secondary colonization of suboptimal farming habitats and
more intensive farming practices.
Unlike earlier models, the availability model permits us to monitor the

response of local hunter-gatherer communities to agropastoral farming. It does
not automatically assume that foragers would be assimilated into the new sys
tem, but allows for choice in their reaction to agriculture and to farming soci
eties. As a result, the duration of phases within the model can be used as
evidence for or against farmer colonization, although it cannot provide proof.
If there was colonization of new habitats by immigrant farmers and if the role
of the resident hunter-gatherers was minimal, we would expect that the avail
ability and substitution phases would be short, with immigrant farmers intro
ducing an already developed farming system into new areas. If, on the other
hand, local hunter-gatherers adopted farming through contact (trading, marriage
alliances, etc.), the availability and substitution phases should be long and there
should be evidence of integration between foraging and/or farming at economic,
social, and symbolic levels prior to the consolidation phase.
The presence of domesticates in faunal remains is often used as a signature
Time
Fig. 3. The availability model for the transition to fanning. The sigmoid
shape of the curve represents an idealized situation. In actual cases, the shape
of the curve will depend on the length of the individual phases. Availability
phase: foraging principal means of subsistence. Domesticates less than 10%
of the faunal sample. Substitution phase: farming strategies developed while
foraging strategies retained. Domesticates less than 50% of the faunal sam
ple. Consolidation phase: farming principal mode of subsistence. Domesti
cates more than 50% of the faunal sample. (After Zvelebil, 1986.) (Repro
duced by permission of the Cambridge University Press).
of the transition to farming. Figure 3 illustrates an attempt to identify from

faunal remains the three stages of the agricultural transition within the frame
work of the availability model. In adopting this scheme, we suggest a link
between faunal evidence and the socioeconomic organization of Stone Age soci
eties. Because of taphonomic factors and other biasing processes, variation in
the composition of faunal remains can be only a very general indicator of eco
nomic change. Nevertheless, our scheme is an advance on earlier approaches,
where the presence of domestic fauna, however restricted, was often taken to
indicate a farming economy.
In summary, the farmer colonization model suffers both from a "minimal
view" of Mesolithic societies and from a lack of archaeological evidence for
colonization. The exceptions are Central and Southeastern Europe (Fig. 4),
where the colonization model and the notion of colonization from the Near East
are, on the whole, supported by the archaeological data (for more detailed dis
cussion, see Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1984; Zvelebil, 1986a, b, 1989a;
Zvelebil and Zvelebil, 1988; Dennell, 1983; Barker, 1985; Ammerman, 1989).
Fig. 4. Earliest Neolithic cultures in Europe. (1) Early Greek Neolithic. (2) Starcevo/
Koros/Karanovo. (3) Linear Pottery culture. (4) Proto-Cucuteni and Tripolye I. (5) TRB
culture. (6) Impressed Ware culture: a, east Mediterranean; b, west Mediterranean. (7)
Iberian Neolithic. (8) Middle Neolithic in France. (9) Neolithic of Britain and northwest
European littoral. The dashed line denotes, in our view, the boundary between the "in
digenous" and the "immigrant" Europe: the early Neolithic cultures 2, 3, 4, and 6a arose
more likely as a result of farmer colonization ultimately from western Asia; cultures out
side this zone were more likely a result of the local adoption of farming by Mesolithic
groups. (After Renfrew, 1987; Zvelebil and Zvelebil, 1988.)
We suggest that farmer colonization is inappropriate as a model for the agri

cultural transition elsewhere in Europe, and we advance the availability model
as an alternative descriptive framework for the process of the transition. We
now apply this framework to key regions in Eastern and Northern Europe.
TRANSITION TO FARMING IN NORTHERN AND EASTERN

EUROPE
The key areas lie to the north and east of the Neolithic of Central Europe:
the early Balkan Neolithic, Linear Pottery, and Tripolye culture (Fig. 4). Most
of these cultures have a clearly defined boundary, representing a frontier between
predominantly farming communities and predominantly hunter-gatherer groups.
In some areas, this frontier remained stationary for over a millennium (Zvelebil
and Rowley-Conwy, 1984).
Ecology of the Area

Geographically, the greater part of this area corresponds to the North and
East European Plain, bounded by the Scandinavian mountains to the north, the
Carpathians to the west, and the Urals to the east. The area was directly affected
by Late Pleistocene glaciations and comprises low morainic uplands and
morainic plains in the north and loess-covered periglacial plains in the south.
There are rivers with large terraced valleys in both the south (Prut, Dniester,
Dnieper, and its tributaries) and the north [Neman and Duna (Zapadnaya
Dvina)]. In the coastal areas of the Black and Baltic Seas, there are numerous
offshore lagoons.
The area includes several vegetational zones: arctic steppe (tundra) in the
extreme north, coniferous forest (taiga), mixed coniferous/broadleaved forests
and forest-steppe in the temperate zone, and dry steppe along the northern shore
of the Black Sea (Fig. 5).
During the Holocene Climatic Optimum, temperature and precipitation rose
above their present values. Mixed coniferous forests extended farther north and
south than at present, and the dry steppe was restricted to the southernmost area
of the pontic lowland (Dolukhanov, 1986a). The river floodplains, offshore
lagoons, and residual ice-dammed lakes in the morainic zone were particularly
rich in biomass. The last two habitats contained mammalian and aquatic fauna
and plants with storage organs (roots, tubers, nuts) that could support large
groups of hunter-gatherers year-round (Dolukhanov, 1979; Vereshchagin etal.,
1979).
After 4600 B.P., temperature decline and a decrease in precipitation led
to the establishment of the present-day vegetational zones, marked by the reduc
tion in the mixed coniferous forest and the expansion of taiga in the north and
Fezrs
NN Fig. 5. The environmental zones in Northern and Eastern Europe.
L J.
Mixed coniferous and and semi -desertsteppe

7]Steppe, woodland steppe
Mountain vegetation - -
broadleaved forests
Deciduous forests
Coniferous taiga ~ oanvegetation
Tundra
of steppe in the south. This was associated with the disappearance of temperate
species, such as red deer, wild boar, wild cattle, and waterchestnut, from north
eastern Europe (Paaver, 1965; Vankina, 1970) and the development of an arid
climate in the south of the Russian plain.
These conditions must have affected the dispersal of farming in two major
ways: with the dispersal northward, farming was being introduced to progres
sively less favorable areas, and after about 4600 B.P., farming was adopted or
even maintained in increasingly deteriorating climatic conditions. These two
factors may have been responsible for the delayed adoption of farming in the
more northerly regions of the area.
Natural variation within the forest zone must have also influenced the
development of farming systems. Within the forest steppe and the temperate
forest, climate and soil conditions would permit a relatively rapid establishment
of permanent arable farming (Loomis, 1978; Gregg, 1988). Farther north, the
short growing season, low temperatures, high precipitation, poor soils, and
unpredictable fluctuations in climate increased the risks associated with the
introduction of farming (Stalfelt, 1972; Zvelebil, 1981). A certain amount of
risk was inherent in introducing cultigens and domesticates originally derived
from the Near East, before new, more adapted strains were developed (some
areas of the north were not cultivated until the introduction of rye, for instance),
while poor soils required large amounts of manure to produce a reliable crop.
Under such conditions, greater emphasis would be placed on slash-and-burn
agriculture and on animal husbandry than on permanent arable. After the initial
forest clearance, a variety of swiddening systems would be put into operation,
involving cultivation for several years and then either moving to another area
or using the field for stock until enough manure was produced to sustain per
manent arable. Thus, in the north, the cycle involved three phases: slash-and
burn, stock-keeping, and permanent arable. The role of stock-keeping in this
system was crucial.
Late Mesolithic Societies of Northern and Eastern Europe
While most of the modem steppe and forest-steppe has been continuously
occupied at least since the Upper Paleolithic, the temperate forest zone was first
settled only during the Late Glacial by nomadic groups of Epipaleolithic rein
deer hunters moving from the south and the west (Dolukhanov, 1979). The
subsequent Mesolithic hunter-gatherer communities are usually seen as cultural
descendants of these Epipaleolithic groups.
In the late Mesolithic, corresponding roughly to the early stage of the Cli
matic Optimum (ca. 8000-6000 B.P.), several cultural entities may be loosely
defined in Eastern and Northern Europe by their lithic and bone-antler inven
tories (Fig. 6).
N c7T
(14) Crimean Mesolithic. (15) West Georgian Mesolithic. (16) Lepenski Vir culture. (17) Castelnovian Mesolithic. (18) Epitardigravettian/Sauvetterian
Fig. 6. Late Mesolithic cultures in Northern and Eastern Europe in the eighth millennium B.P
(3) Suomusjarvi culture. (4) Upper Volga Mesolithic. (5) Cisuralian Mesolithic. (6) Volga-Kama Mesolithic. (7) Kunda culture. (8) Neman culture. (9)
Upper Dnieper/Janislawice culture. (10) Dniester Mesolithic. (11) Grebenikian culture. (12) Central Ukrainian
groups.Mesolithic.
(19) Beuronian
(13) Northculture.
Caspian Mesolithic.
(20) Pienki groups. (21) Chojnice groups. (22) Juhnsdorf groups. (23) Kongemose culture. (24) Mesolithic groups in
northwest Europe. (25) Scandinavian Mesolithic. (26) Epigravettian of peninsular Italy.
Early farmers
/^/j Hunter-gatherers
Most of the southern area (steppe and forest/steppe) may be seen as related
to the southeastern European microlithic zone marked by trapezes. Most sites
occur in river valleys and are usually interpreted as seasonal hunting camps
(Telegin, 1982, pp. 192-193). At least one site, Mirnoe in the offshore area of
southern Moldavia, has indications of a large base-camp settlement (Stanko,
1982). The economy was based primarily on the hunting of aurochs and tarpan
(Equus gmelini) and included some wild-plant processing, evidenced by both
microwear traces and pollen analysis.
Late Mesolithic sites in the temperate forests have high percentages of
narrow blades, axes, adzes, and mattocks, a rich bone and antler industry, and,
in Eastern Europe, few geometric microliths (Clark, 1976; Gurina, 1977). Since
the archaeological record relies heavily on surface or mixed subsurface assem
blages, only loose cultural groupings can be distinguished. These include Kunda,
Suomusjarvi, Upper Volga, Neman, and several others (Fig. 6). In southern
Scandinavia, both broad and narrow microliths occur, and better stratigraphic
control allows for sharper recognition of discrete cultural groups.
The sites are located in the floodplains of river valleys, within lacustrine
basins and offshore lagoons. As in the south, most Mesolithic sites are thought
to have been seasonal hunting camps. Although the evidence is far from con
clusive, the accumulation of cultural debris and the seasonal variety of faunal
remains on some sites, such as Kunda or Narva in Estonia, may suggest
increased residential permanence in the most favorable settings, such as off
shore lagoons or residual dammed lakes (Zvelebil, 1986d; Selirand and Ton
isson, 1984).
The trend toward sedentism increased with the introduction of ceramic
technology in the mid-seventh millennium B.P. Pottery-using hunter-gatherers,
known as the "Forest Neolithic," are among the best prehistoric examples of
"complex" or "affluent" foragers, despite some argument about the degree of
complexity attained (Price, 1985; Zvelebil, 1986b, c; Dolukhanov, 1986a, b;
Gurina, 1961, 1967). Traits characteristic of the pottery-using foragers, espe
cially in the temperate forest zone, include semipermanent occupation of base
camps; complex economic organization, including both diversified and spec
ialized food-procurement strategies; use of capture facilities and of specialized
technology; and possibly some form of social stratification (Price, 1985; Zvele
bil, 1986b, c, 1989b; Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil, 1989; Burov, 1988; Ander
sen, 1987). Such complex hunter-gatherer societies would have been more
productive and capable of supporting higher population densities than the more
mobile, dispersed communities of the continental interior of Central and West
ern Europe (cf. Clarke, 1976). Their economy was based on the exploitation of
a wide range of resources, arranged in seasonal schedules (Vereshchagin et al.,
1979; Zvelebil, 1989b) and included intensive use of seasonally available
resources such as waterfowl (Gurina, 1967), seal (Zvelebil, 1981), and water
chestnuts (Vankina, 1970).
The structure of this hunter-gatherer society influenced its relationship to

agropastoral farming as an alternative socioeconomic strategy. Investment in
the existing technology and economy would raise the cost of a structural change,
such as the adoption of agropastoral farming would require. At the same time,
the complex hunter-gatherer system was, through storage and higher productiv
ity, more prepared to cope with short-term and year-to-year fluctuations in
resources (Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil, 1989), reducing the advantages of the
adoption of farming. Thus, complex hunter-gatherers would be disinclined to
adopt farming (Akazawa, 1986). On the other hand, the system was vulnerable
to long-term resource variation and to socioeconomic pressures latent in the
society as a result of increased sedentism (which reduced mobility as a solution
to socioeconomic problems) and of increased capacity for social differentiation.
The Agricultural Frontier in Northern and Eastern Europe

The introduction of agropastoral farming in Northern and Eastern Europe
took place mostly within the context of the hunter-gatherer societies described
above. This process was broadly characterized by three features: it took a long
time to complete; the initial stages were characterized by contacts within the
frontier zone between the hunter-gatherers and the farmers; and in most cases,
the new farming societies show cultural continuity, especially in lithic tradi
tions, with the preceding hunter-gatherer communities (Tringham, 1968; Tre
tyakov, 1982; Sulimirski, 1970; Dolukhanov, 1979; Kozlowski and Kozlowski,
1986).
The spread of the farming economy across Northern and Eastern Europe
is illustrated in Figs. 7-16. The quality of information is uneven, which makes
it difficult to separate the availability phase from the period of substitution. The
availability phase is defined by contact with the farming societies. The adoption
of ceramics in the forest zone is seen as arising from such contact, so the "For
est Neolithic" in most areas would belong to the availability phase. In some
areas, notably in the western Ukraine, the northeastern Baltic, and southern
Scandinavia, the quality of information permits a more detailed analysis. It is
to these areas that we now turn.
Moldavia and the Ukraine
The first agricultural settlements attributed to the Starcevo-Cris (Koros)

culture appeared in Moldavia in the early eighth millennium B.P.; they corre
spond to stage III of the same culture in Romania, marked by a high proportion
of Mesolithic (Tardenoisian-like) trapezes and a considerable content of wild
species (mainly red deer) in the faunal remains (Comsa, 1974, 1978, 1987;
Dumitrescu et al., 1983; Urulescu, 1984; Necrasov and Stirbu, 1980).
At about the same time, in the densely forested valleys of the southern
H
__T^ _n
7"^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Early Dnieper/Donets; ^ (9) Nar
(6) Pripyati; (7) Ertebtflle; (8) Nieman;
ama; (13) Caspian; (14) Northeast Europe; (15) Kola; (16) Lihult; (17) Fosn
Fig. 7. Agricultural frontier in Eastern and Northern Europe 6000-6500 B.P. Cultures: (1) Bug-Dniester; (2) Crimean: (3) West Caucasian; (4) Sursk
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^//^ Availability ?^ ^
<
(4) Sredni Stog; (5) Mikhailovka; (6) Crimean; (7) Kuro-Araxes; (8) Maikop; (9) Early Pit-Grave culture (Khvalynsk); (10) Dnieper-Donets; (11) East = Fig. 8. Agricultural frontier in Eastern and Northern Europe ca. 5000 B.P. Cultures: (1) Funnel Beaker (TRB); (2) Tripolye-Cucuteni; (3) Gumelnitsa; ?
Baltic communities with distinctive local wares; (12) Zedmar; (13) Usvyaty; (14) Volosovo; (15) Volga-Kama; (16) Siekery; (17) Lihult; (18) N^stret; gf
m-?= ^ss^^^^^mr ' 'M
(19) Fosna; (20) Komsa; (21) West Caucasian. ?
H
Corded Ware (Battle Axe); (4) North Bielorussian; (5) Fatyanovo; (6) Middle Dnieprian; (7) Carpathian; (8) Cotofeni; (9) Cernavoda; (10) Ezero; (11)
9. Agricultural frontier in Eastern and Northern Europe ca. 4000 B.P. Cultures: (1) Co
Catacomb Graves; (12) Poltavkino; (13) Pitted Ware; (14) Inland Neolithic Wares; (15) Kargopolian.
Bug, the Dniester, and the Prut and its tributaries, comparatively small sites
appeared belonging to a culturally and economically distinct entity, the Bug
Dniester culture (Fig. 10). The Bug-Dniester sites show strong continuity with
local Mesolithic groups. Markevitch (1974), while noting both differences from
and continuities with the earlier Mesolithic assemblages, points to striking sim
ilarities between Bug-Dniester core and microlith production and at least two
Mesolithic assemblages, Ataki 6 and Osil'evka in northern Moldavia. Sulimir
ski (1970), Tringham (1968, 1969, 1971), and Telegin (1987) also note the
local, microlithic (Pontic Tardenoisian) nature of the early Bug-Dniester indus
try.
Markevitch (1974) divided the Bug-Dniester culture into three phases: an
early aceramic phase (7500-7000 B.P.), a middle phase characterized by the
presence of ceramics related to the Balkan Neolithic (ca. 7000-6500 B.P.), and
a late phase showing the influence of Linear Pottery ware (ca. 6500-6000 B.P.).
Stratigraphic problems mean that these divisions must be treated with caution;
Fig. 11. Contribution of domesticates, expressed as meat weight, to the diet of

the Bug-Dniester Neolithic settlements. The sites are arranged in an approximate
chronological sequence. The line indicates the percentage contribution of
domesticates, measured as meat weight, to the total sample of animal food
remains, estimated on the basis of MNI in the faunal sample. (After Markevitch,
1974.)
here we distinguish only between the earlier aceramic and the later ceramic
phases.
Contacts between the Bug-Dniester and the Starcevo-^ris communities are
attested by the similarity in pottery decoration: horizontal rows of shell and
fingernail impressions, essentially similar to the barbotine technique (Comsa,
1974, p. 6; Urulescu, 1984, p. 35; Markevitch, 1974, p. 102). Contacts between
the Bug-Dniester and the Linear Pottery groups are even more obvious. Imported
Notenkopf Linear pottery was found at the Bug-Dniester sites of Soroki 5 and
Baz'kov Ostrov, while Bug-Dniester pots were found at the Linear Pottery site
of Novye Rusesty. In the Reut valley, sites of both cultures coexisted only a
few kilometers apart (Fig. 10).
Economic evidence comes from some 11 sites located in the valleys of
Dniester and southern Bug (Fig. 17). During an early phase, domesticates form
<20% of the faunal assemblage (to be precise, seven domestic pigs and two
cattle). Most of the faunal remains are of wild species, notably wild pig, red
deer, and roe deer. Over 800 fish bones from the lower layers of Soroki 1 and
2 testify to the importance of fishing. The Bug-Dniester sites contain thousands
of shells of edible molluscs (notably Unio), an indicator of the importance of
gathering in the subsistence pattern. Grain impressions in the pottery sherds
64440=400
-SUD
ELSLO ITZ0
Agricultural frontier on the North European Plain and Southern Scandina

RUSTRUJ
0 100 200 KM
C.5500- 4500 b~p.
- S - N'.ODRTHERN 4970! 100 LNEJR
EARLIEST LK & DANISH NEOLITHIC
MICHELSBERG
zERTEBOLLE AREA GP!EN
Bl A ALBERG
ORADIOCAR13ON DATES
Voronezhian; (13) Middle Don; (14) "Agricultural" Scythian; (15) "Pastoral" Scythian; (16) Gaetian-Dacian; (17) Illyrian; (18) Thracian; (19) East n>
Fig. 13. Agricultural frontier in Northern and Eastern Europe ca. 2500 B.P. Cultures: (1) La Tene; (2) Justorf; (3) South Scandinavian; (4) Pomorian;
(5) West Baltic barrows; (6) Stroked Pottery; (7) Dnieper-Dvinian; (8) Milogradian; (9) Dyakovian Iron Age; (10) Yukhnovian; (11) Gorodtzovian; (12)
Avalab.hty ~^ ^ ^ ^
Baltic Late Bronze Age/Early Iron A
0
00
settlem ent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fig. 14.Agcultural frontier in Northern and Eastern Europe ca . 1500 B.P. (ca. 500 A..
Area of early
civilizations
NSlavonic
F7Availability
Farming Early
I2' I I '
;siOGz: ? ~\/// farming w

I g ? * CATACOMB
?oo. ra 2n^/^ ^^'-^vx lIP = z ? SRUBNAYA ? - SRUBNAYA 1 SRUBNAYA I o SRUBNAYA
y? ////^//// y^/^yyy//^/ ^yyyyy///^/, ^ ///^rr.' V2//X "^^y/^/^/, availability 5'

6000---t 1 " Vm' ////"<^/rZ Vl ^^X / substitution | J|: I Z XXX PIT-GRAVE , IPIT-GRAVE .
ML BALKANS CENTRAL^ SgBT DNIEPER DON STEPPE "<" CAUCASUS STEPPE FOREST STEPPE g
Fig. 15. Cultural chronology and the duration of agricultural transition in different regions of Eastern Europe when viewed in terms of the availability *s>
5600--Is i< - y///ZA--- ////^=-J_ ,_, a

I NORTHERN |CARPATH|AN I MOLDAVIA- I MIDDLE IlOWER DNIEPEr|D0N V?STEPPE VOLGA-URAL LlDDLE - VOLGaI ^ KAnn i I *- ? XX- ? ? ? ~ XX KHVALYNSK 2
model. ^
54??-_SjS* 8 X / . SRE0NI- | T /// (EARLY PIT-GRAVE) _ 3
66??" / LINEAR ' / / / / VHMtt- SUURSKO- / / " ' / / / / ^///A^^f ^ . _ _ CATACOMB | I~o "I
- A _\ / / / / / , X ? ' X X X X ? ^ c
< I s. ?J_ _i 111 ' X " / y _V X J~ X ' CASPIAN / . _ 6400-U POTTERY (LBK) // / / / DONETS /y DNIEPER / \ // / // O^fy _ ~ <|g C ///.- jT I /// g
5000- 5=s11 //' 1?I II r"V/ I

4800- hO <--XX/-p?i- . \ f / / | w PIT-GRAVE .MIDDLE. PIT-GRAVE I PIT-GRAVE
7000"/ /^^^^ ^BUG-DNIESTER W^^^k ^^^^ * //^ SEROGLAZOVO ' ^^^^ ^ o 1 - - -\ X /// -// y I g" 4200- ' X- DNIEPER (YAMNAYA) ? i_
3000-1-'-1-'-1-1-1-!-^
3600-- ?- i-1 O '_

3400- fcr T -i | | ? 1
5800- i-LXJ- LENGYEL TRIPOLYeV / / / / / - V A - 'X ? ' X / // ~~ * Z
4600- 2 8 | ? USAT0V0 // j ' |
?-|sttoer0?s- ^^^^^^gatherers -
4400- |_BADEN -. I X.j- _}_
4000- | ^ ? - < I
3200- I I )
N a 2. c ?
as
RUSSIA
UPPERI VOLGA
CENTRAL
Fig. 16. Cultural chronology and the duration of agricultural transition in different regions of Northern Europe when viewed in terms of the availability
model.
BOYARKA
MIKOLINA
Koros CERAMIC 932

ISLANO
MITKOV 95
95 | 815 SITES ON THE LOWER BUG

BAZKOV MIDQLE L.
ISLAND LBKCERAMIC 95 38
BAZKOV
ISLAND
LOWER L.KorosCERAMIC
97
L8K CERAMIC 52or26 48or 74 42 68 69 19 IMPRESSIONS)

GRAIN FEWFISH
74
477
26 BONES
(Linear p.)
CERAMIC 21 79 50 CEREALS
WILD DOM EINKORN
FISH
SPELT
EMMER
209 GRAIN BONES

49 66 34 35
FISH
IMPRESSIONS 1166
SOROKI I Layer 1A(Koros)
CERAMIC
Fig. 17. Faunal evidence from the Bug-Dniester Neolithic sites in Western Ukraine. (After Markevitch, 1974.)
SOROKI 1 (KorosICERAMIC
Loyer IB 34 66 23 77 159
26 WILD* OOM
(IMPRESSIONS
CEREAL
EINKORN
(Koros)CERAMIC 112 FEWFISH

1 19 79 WILD DOM EMMERSPELT)
( EINKORN
SITES ON THE DNIESTER
SOROKI II IKoros)CERAMIC
Layer tC 58
87 15
WILD DOM
IMPRESSIONSl
CEREALS
MANYFISH INCLUDES 28 DOG BONES BELONGING TO ONE INDIVIDUAL ** INCLUDES DOG
SOROKI' I BONES
21 79 84 19
8U
FISH
Layer 2
SOROKI II
Layer 2
92 19 227
22 MANYFISH
20
17 or 34*
8Cb BONES
SOROKI II Layer 1AC/3 83 or 63 1 80 156 20
FISH
BONES GRAIN REMAINS

MNI
?1 XL
DOMESTIC
DOMESTIC MNI
NAME CERAMICS
OATE PERIOD B0NES% |B0NES%
WILD ||N0IVI0UAL% |lNDIVlOUAL%
WILD llNOIVlOUALS
[IMPRESSIONS
FISH
reveal a variety of wild and some domesticated cereals (Markevitch, 1974).

Grinders and composite sickles, some with sickle gloss, supply further evidence
for the extensive use of grasses. Domesticated animals remain in a minority
the later sites, ranging from 3 to 50% (Fig. 17).
One of us (Dolukhanov) sees the Bug-Dniester sites as an example of th
availability phase: of foraging and farming groups living side by side and
engaged in multifaceted economic and cultural exchange. Agriculture was no
tenable in the densely forested, narrow floodplains of the Dniester, souther
Bug, and smaller rivers. The sites of the Dniester and of the southern Bug
represent a single economic and cultural entity and should not be separated.
The other (Zvelebil) sees this as plausible for the early part of the Bug
Dniester Neolithic (the "aceramic" phase, ca. 7500-7000 B.P.), and while no
doubt trade/exchange continued in the later phases as well, the evidence fo
agropastoral farming at Dniester sites of the seventh millennium B.P. is too
extensive to be explained solely by contact. Rather, we are dealing with a mixed
farming-foraging economy typical of the substitution phase: procuring foo
from a variety of sources, including hunting, fishing, gathering, and probably
some cultivation of domestic cereals. The availability zone had, by then, moved
farther east to the southern Bug region (Fig. 10), where, even during the sevent
millennium, domesticates form < 10% of the fauna.
The Bug-Dniester Neolithic illustrates a gradual transition to farming by a
local, hunting-gathering society: it was slow, selective, and brought about b
contact. The casual rate of transition is remarkable: after 1500 years of know
edge of farming practices, domesticates still may have contributed no more than
40-50% of the meat in the diet (Fig. 11) (Markevitch, 1974). Local selectivity
is shown by the absence of ovicaprids from Bug-Dniester sites (with one excep
tion?a few caprine bones from a late southern Bug site, Mikolina Boyarka).
The evidence for continuity with the local Mesolithic and for contact with agri
cultural groups in the Balkans and Central Europe completes the picture of a
local transition to farming.
The next stage in the northern advance of farming falls within the period
5600-4500 B.P. It is marked by a partly contemporaneous existence of severa
subsistence patterns, each corresponding to a distinct phase of the availabilit
model (Figs. 8 and 15).
The Tripolye-Cucuteni culture follows the Bug-Dniester Neolithic after an
interval of some 400 years for which there are no well-dated settlements. The
first settlements of this culture appear in Moldavia and southwestern Ukraine
at 6000-5800 B.P. (Monah, 1987; Telegin and Pothekina, 1987). Although
Tripolye was a typical farming culture of Southeast/Central European character,
it did absorb some local traits. Its origins, which have only recently been clar
ified, involve at least three elements: Linear Pottery, Boian, and the local Bug
Dniester groups (Dumitrescu et al., 1983, pp. 108-109). Local traditions can
be seen in the lithic industry (cores, scrapers, hoes, microliths) and in fingernail
impressions on the pottery (Markevitch, 1974, p. 165).
There are two clear phases in the economy of the Tripolye settlements. In
the early stage, the economy was mixed: the percentage of wild species ranged
from 67.7 to 28.6% (Zbenovich, 1989, Table 5) and fishing remained impor
tant. As with the Bug-Dniester sites, most early Tripolye sites were on flood
plains or low river terraces (Dolukhanov, 1979, 1986a). On this evidence, we
can attribute the early Tripolye sites to the substitution phase, that is, the actual
transition to farming.
Tripolye was fully food producing by its middle stages (5300-5200 B.P.).
Ethnobotanical finds include emmer, einkorn, spelt, club wheat, naked and
hulled six-row barley, millet, oats, fruits, and pulses. Domesticates, mainly
cattle, formed 60-80% of the fauna. Horses and caprovines were present, but
they remained minor elements of animal husbandry until the final (Usatovo)
stage of the culture. Most large sites were situated in the loess plains adjoining
the river valleys (Dolukhanov, 1979). The middle stage of the Tripolye culture
corresponds to the consolidation phase of the availability model.
By this time, the zone of farmer-forager contact (the availability phase)
had moved farther north, to the valleys of the Dnieper, the Severski Donets,
and their tributaries (Fig. 10). The economy and settlement pattern of the ear
liest pottery-using culture, the Dnieper-Donets (6500-4500 B.P.), were essen
tially the same as those of the Bug-Dniester groups (Dolukhanov, 1986a). The
economy was based primarily on hunting, fishing, and plant-gathering. The
occurrence of domesticated animals, predominantly cattle, as well as rare
impressions of grain on the potsherds seems to indicate exchange links with
agricultural communities rather than a local farming economy (Dolukhanov,
1986a). Dnieper-Donets pottery assemblages include imported Tripolye ware
(Telegin, 1968) and show similarities in ornament to the Funnel Beaker ware
of Central Europe (Dolukhanov, 1979).
To the southeast, on the lower Dnieper, the distinctive Srednii Stog cul
ture, dated to 5700-4700 B.P. (Telegin, 1986), played a key role in the initial
development of pastoral economies in the Ukraine. The local Ukrainian Meso
lithic, the Dnieper-Donets groups, and other elements are thought to have played
a role in the development of this culture (Telegin, 1986, 1987; Telegin and
Potekhina, 1987). Economically, Srednii Stog represents a transition from a
hunting-gathering society to one based on animal husbandry, where horse-hus
bandry was a major economic activity. At Dereivka (5400-4900 B.P.), > 80%
of the faunal remains are reported to be of domestic animals, of which horses
make up 74% (Telegin, 1986). Levine (1990), however, has questioned the
domesticated status of the Dereivka horses, suggesting that most of the bones
belong to wild horses, procured by hunting. Foraging remained important: at

Dereivka, 176 sinkers, fishing hooks, many fish bones, and scales all indicate
the importance of fishing (Telegin, 1986; Telegin and Potekhina, 1987).
There are indications that Srednii Stog represents a phenomenon widely
present in other areas of the steppeland. In the southern Urals and the surround
ing steppe, settlements dated from the early eighth through the sixth millennia
B.P. have yielded bones of domesticates, with horse as the principal species
(Matyushin, 1986; Telegin, 1986). Matyushin (1986) argues for the early center
of domestication in the southern Urals (from about 8000 B.P.), marked by the
gradual integration of domesticates?especially horse and cattle?into a local
hunting and gathering economy, a process that is not completed until the mid
fifth millennium B.P. [Fig. 15; see also Dergachev (1989) and Mallory (1989)
for excellent reviews]. If this is the case, then domesticated horses and the
associated pastoral economy spread from the southern Urals westward, reaching
the middle Dnieper by the about 6000 B.P., and then also influencing the farm
ing cultures of western Ukraine and southeastern Europe (Cucuteni-Tripolye,
Gumelnitsa, etc.) in the middle and late sixth millennium B.P. (Telegin, 1986).
A gradual decline in temperature and rainfall, marking the end of the Cli
matic Optimum, coincided with a disintegration of the Tripolye culture between
5000 and 4500 B.P. Initially, this took the form of regional specialization (e.g.,
Usatovo with its ovicaprine husbandry and copper metallurgy) and population
relocation. From the mid-fourth millennium B.P., a predominantly nomadic
pastoral economy was firmly established in the steppe/forest and steppe zones
by the Pit-Grave (Yamnaya) and the Middle Dnieper groups. The economy of
these cultures was based on nomadic stock-breeding, with some agriculture in
the river valleys (e.g., Mikhailovka) and with extensive hunting in the Middle
Dnieper region.
North European Plain and Southern Scandinavia
Southern Scandinavia and the adjacent coastal areas of the North European
Plain are key areas for the analysis of late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, forager
farmer interactions, and the adoption of farming. The backdrop to these studies
is provided by a stationary agricultural frontier, which did not advance for more
than 1000 years (Fig. 12).
After a rapid spread across Central Europe, where they gave rise to the
Linear Pottery culture, farming communities came to a halt in the North Euro
pean Plain, leaving the coastal areas of the North Sea occupied by hunter-gath
erers. Even with the transformation of the Linear Pottery culture to the more
localized Michelsberg, Baalberg, and Lengyel groups around 5900 B.P., the
frontier remained broadly stationary. It was not until about 5200 B.P. that farm
ing spread into the coastal zone of the North European Plain and southern Scan
dinavia, resulting in the formation of a new cultural group, the Funnel Beaker
culture. The contrast here could not be greater: while Linear Potteiy spread
across central Europe so rapidly that radiocarbon dates 1000 km apart are undis
tinguishable, farming then took 1300 radiocarbon years to travel another 250
km (Fig. 12).
This could not have been due to ecological conditions. The frontier extends
across a uniform geographical area, and the soils of southern Scandinavia are,
in many places, light, fertile, and favorable for cultivation (Stalfelt, 1972). The
reason for the delay must be sought in the late Mesolithic communities of the
region. Although regional differences exist (Madsen, 1986), hunter-gatherers
in the southern Baltic region are likely to have had a greater population density
than central European foragers (Paludan-Miiller, 1978; Price, 1985), larger and
more permanent settlements (Madsen, 1986; Bogucki, 1987; Price, 1985; Jenn
bert, 1985; Rowley-Conwy, 1983), and a complex economic pattern involving
specialized extraction camps, seasonal scheduling, and seasonally intensive use
of specific resources (Rowley-Conwy, 1983; Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy,
1984, 1986; Price, 1985; Wyszomirska, 1988). There is also extensive evi
dence for capture facilities and other forms of labor-intensive, curated technol
ogy [as at Tybrind Vig (Andersen, 1987)]. Larsson (1990) has provided a recent
review of these developments in the southern Scandinavian Mesolithic.
The existence of formal burial areas?cemeteries?also points to the
increased permanence of settlement and territorial definition in the late Meso
lithic (Chapman, 1981; Price and Petersen, 1987; Madsen, 1986; Larsson,
1990), as well as attesting to the existence of violent conflict within the society,
whose social structure was probably more complex than the "band level" of
social organization commonly associated with hunter-gatherers (Price, 1985;
Madsen, 1986).
The evidence for complex hunter-gatherers is less convincing in the North
European Plain, perhaps due partly to the drowning of coastal areas by the
postglacial rise in sea level. Even here, however, inland sites such as Friesack
(Gramsch and Kloss, 1989) reveal the density and permanence of late Meso
lithic settlement. In Poland, Kozlowski and Kozlowski (1986) and Bogucki
(1988) have both argued for an increase in population density, the progressive
regionalization, economic complexity, and stability of late Mesolithic groups
north of the Linear Pottery zone. Farming was not introduced until the middle
of the sixth millennium at the earliest and may, in fact, not have been adopted
until 5200 B.P. (Kozlowski and Kozlowski, 1986, p. 105; Bogucki, 1987, p.
9). There is evidence for contact between the farming and the foraging groups
(Bogucki, 1987; Cyrek et al., 1986) and for the adoption of pottery, but not of
farming, by the local Mesolithic (Cyrek et al.9 1986; Kempisty, 1986; Wyszo
mirska, 1987; Kozlowski and Kozlowski, 1986). To us, this shows that the late
Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were within the availability zone, extending across
northern Poland, for 1000-1200 years (Figs. 7, 12, and 16).
There are elements both of the local Mesolithic culture (Kozlowski and
Kozlowski, 1986; Bogucki, 1987) and of the Neolithic Linear Pottery/Lengyel
cultures (Kozlowski and Kozlowski, 1986; Neustupny, 1987) among the first
farming groups of the North European Plain, the Funnel Beaker culture. Com
plex and tenuous arguments have been put forward in favor of both local and
exogenous origins for the Funnel Beaker culture (i.e., Bogucki, 1987, vs. Neus
tupny, 1987; Vend, 1986; Lichardus, 1976; Wislanski, 1973; Gimbutas, 1970;
Hausler, 1985). For the moment, the evidence can best be explained in terms
of fusion between the local Mesolithic and the Neolithic groups, with Meso
lithic groups forming the principal component in most areas of the North Euro
pean Plain and in the coastal zone of the Baltic Sea. The role of hunting remained
considerable, wild animals frequently exceeding 50% of the sample [Bogucki,
1987; Kozlowski and Kozlowski (1986) note a range of 30-60% for the pro
portion of wild forms]. Among the domesticates, pig and cattle predominate
(Kozlowski and Kozlowski, 1986; Bogucki, 1987), and wheat and barley have
been found directly associated with early Funnel Beaker ceramics (Bogucki,
1987). In summarizing the evidence, Bogucki notes that "the adoption of food
production by the indigenous foragers of this area was not a "package deal"
but, rather, the selective integration of exogenous cultigens and animals into
the local economy" (1987, p. 2). This lends general support to our model for
the transition to farming; the duration of the substitution phase within the Fun
nel Beaker is difficult to assess on the present evidence, but it must have varied
from region to region, reflecting the heterogeneity of this cultural group.
In southern Scandinavia, contacts between the Erteb011e Mesolithic groups
and the Linear Pottery and later farming groups in the south are well attested
by the presence of shoe-last adzes of Linear Pottery origin in Denmark (Fischer,
1982) and on the Erteb^lle site of Rosenhof in Holstein (Larsson, 1988), pottery
of Baalberg and Michelsberg type at Rosenhof (Schwabedissen, 1979), deco
ration on Erteb^lle pots suggesting parallels with Rosen culture (Fischer, 1982),
and other elements of material culture suggesting links across the agricultural
frontier in northern Germany and Poland (Larsson, 1988; Jennbert, 1984; Price,
1985; Bogucki, 1987; Sherratt, 1990). Jennbert (1984, 1985) and Bogucki
(1987, 1988) suggested that these links may have involved the exchange of
foodstuffs between agricultural and foraging societies. In so doing, both soci
eties would reduce the cost of food procurement: agriculturists of protein, for
agers of carbohydrates (Bogucki, 1987, p. 8). Another commodity involved in
such trading links may have been pelts of fur-bearing animals. In this context,
the rise in the exploitation of fur-bearing animals in the late Erteb^lle, the exis
tence of specialized sites for their exploitation (Ringkloster), and the clear evi
dence indicating their use for pelts and not as food (Andersen, 1987) are all
highly suggestive of trade.
Detailed analyses (Rowley-Conwy, 1985) have failed to find clear evi
dence for agriculture in Denmark before 5200-5100 B.P., postulated by some

authors (Troels-Smith, 1982). The evidence for trade contacts, the use of pot
tery (itself probably a technological loan from the agricultural groups in the
south), and the lack of farming define the Erteb^lle as a culture in the avail
ability phase of the transition to farming, a phase that lasted some 1200 years
(Figs. 12 and 16).
When the actual transition took place, it was rapid?so much so, that some
workers regard it as archaeologically unrecognizable (Madsen, 1986). It is
marked by the abandonment, in some regions, of the large Erteb^lle base camps
at about 5200-5100 B.P., by the appearance of a full Neolithic economy as the
principal mode of subsistence, and by the shift from a marine-dominated diet
to a terrestrial one, a change attested by the carbon-13 isotope analysis of human
skeletal remains (Tauber, 1982; Rowley-Conwy, 1983; Zvelebil and Rowley
Conwy, 1986). New elements in pottery, lithic traditions, and architecture
(causewayed camps and megaliths by the end of the Early Neolithic) led some
to regard immigrant Funnel Beaker farmers as responsible for the introduction
of full Neolithic economy (Becker, 1973; Troels-Smith, 1982). However, more
recently, the evidence for continuity and a more gradual transition has begun
to emerge. Most researchers dealing with the problem within the last 15 years
agree that 4 it was the EBK (Erteb^lle) that through a shorter or longer period
of time, and with greater or minor influences from the south was transformed
into the TRB (Funnel Beaker culture)" (Madsen, 1986, p. 230, with refer
ences). Many coastal hunting stations continued in use in the Early Neolithic,
showing that hunting and gathering retained a role within the Funnel Beaker
economy. Their importance varied from region to region within southern Scan
dinavia (Nielssen, 1987; Jennbert, 1984; Wyszomirska, 1988). The continuity
between the Erteb^lle and the Early Neolithic has also been observed in lithic
technology, territorial and settlement continuity, and ceramic technology (Niel
sen, 1987), while Sherratt (1990) has argued that the genesis of megaliths in
northern Europe was an outcome of local communities adopting farming.
Finally, Jennbert (1984, 1985) and Wyszomirska (1988) have identified
Erteb011e-Funnel Beaker transitional layers at the Scanian settlements of Lod
desborg and Nymolla III, containing the ceramics of both cultures and a mixed
foraging-farming economy. Loddesborg has been radiocarbon-dated to 5210
B.P. + 80 years (LU-1842); the transitional period is thought to have lasted
about 100 years (Jennbert, 1985, p. 196).
This suggests that a substitution phase, even if a short one, must be rec
ognized. Its duration may range from as little as 100 years to 400-500 years,
corresponding to the Early Neolithic (Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy, 1986). This
is a reflection of the regional variation within southern Scandinavia (see also
Larsson, 1990).
The consolidation phase is marked by the appearance of causewayed
camps, megalithic tombs, and major sites supported by a fully Neolithic econ
omy. These developments occur in the Fuchsberg phase, which was transitional
between the Early and the Middle Neolithic and is radiocarbon dated to about
4650 B.P. (Larsson, 1985; Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy, 1986).
Thus the pattern of the transition to farming in southern Scandinavia is
marked by a long availability phase and a relatively short substitution phase.
The reasons for this are to be sought in the relative stability and complexity of
the Late Mesolithic in southern Scandinavia (Rowley-Conwy, 1983; Zvelebil
and Rowley-Conwy, 1986; Madsen, 1986), where coastal foraging offered a
viable alternative to farming. Its social and economic development was the main
cause for the delay in the introduction of farming, but it also provided a viable
base for its rapid adoption. The reasons why farming had to be ultimately
adopted by the Ertebjzflle foragers remain a subject of debate; both ecological
(Rowley-Conwy, 1983; Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy, 1984, 1986) and social
explanations have been advanced (Jennbert, 1984, 1985; Madsen, 1986).
Northeastern Baltic
The characteristic feature of this area was the longevity of the availability
phase. Its beginning was marked by the adoption of ceramics and by the inten
sification of contacts with the Neolithic farmers in the south and the west.
As recent work indicates (Khotinskii, 1978; Timofeev et al., 1978; Dolu
khanov et al., 1978; Timofeev, 1987; Dolukhanov et al., 1989), the initial
spread of ceramics took place in the mid-seventh millennium B.P. and coin
cided with a short-lived cool phase (Atlantic 2) within the Climatic Optimum.
At this stage, a number of early "Forest Neolithic" cultures, marked by dif
ferent pottery styles, coexisted in Eastern Europe (Fig. 7). The economy, set
tlement pattern, and lithic and bone/antler inventories are seen as a direct
development from the local Mesolithic (Sulimirski, 1970; Dolukhanov, 1979;
Tretyakov, 1982; Timofeev, 1987). In the eastern Baltic, Bielorussia, and the
northern Ukraine, the influence of the farming cultures of Central Europe is
reflected in the ceramic decoration (Dolukhanov, 1986b). The distributions of
amber products and flint artifacts also demonstrate the existence of contacts
(Vankina, 1970; Gurina, 1973; Dolukhanov, 1979; Rimantiene, 1979).
The remarkable florescence of the "Forest Neolithic" cultures occurred
during the late Climatic Optimum (Atlantic 3) and the subsequent early Sub
Boreal (ca. 5000-4000 B.P.). Large sites, often with evidence of year-round
occupation (Vankina, 1970; Vereshchagin et al., 1979), were located either
inside residual ice-dammed lakes in the morainic zone or by offshore lagoons.
Many of these settlements seem to have been permanent villages, some of them
built on stilts or wooden platforms extending into the lake shallows. Wooden
houses, 30-50 m2 in area, had floors covered with birch or pine bark, stone
lined hearths, and other internal features (Vankina, 1970; Dolukhanov and Mik
lyayev, 1986; Zvelebil, 1987). Elaborate tool kits of bone, stone, and wood,
ornaments of amber or bone, extensively decorated ceramics, and ritual objects
reflected an ideological system clearly oriented toward wild, rather than domes
tic, animals (Carpelan, 1976). Anthropomorphic deities are clearly distinct from
the mother goddesses and other fertility symbols of ancient agricultural Europe
(Gimbutas, 1974).
In addition to a wide range of hunted, terrestrial fauna (Paaver, 1965;
Zvelebil, 1989b), fish, fowl, and seals were important parts of the diet. The
reliance on seal hunting increased during the sixth and fifth millennia B.P.,
culminating in the existence of specialized seal-hunting sites, such as Naakamae
on the island of Saaremaa, where seal formed 92% of the mammalian bones
(Paaver, 1965).
The sites within residual ice-dammed lakes in the morainic zone are exam
ples of a particularly enduring hunter-gatherer existence (Vereshchagin et al.,
1979). In addition to hunting forest game for meat and fur, fowling for game
birds and waterfowl, and fishing, there is also evidence for the collection of
some 30 edible plant species, including water chestnut, acorns, sorrel, dande
lion, reedmace, and waterlily. Of these, water chestnut, Trapa natans, seems
to have been the most important. At Sarnate in Latvia, large lenses of Trapa
shells, covering several square meters and reaching 40 cm in thickness, were
deposited around hearths inside the dwellings. Burned remains of water chestnut
have been also found among the ashes. Some dwellings contained wooden mal
lets with Trapa shells embedded in their working surfaces. Water chestnut
remains, sometimes in large quantities, as well as mallets similar to those at
Sarnate, have been recovered from other sites in the eastern Baltic and northern
Russia, (Vankina, 1970; Dolukhanov, 1979, 1986; Rimantiene, 1979), in Fin
land (Auer, 1925; Zvelebil, 1981; Aalto etaL, 1985; Vuorela and Aalto, 1982),
and in Sweden (Gaillard, 1984; M. Larsson, 1983; L. Larsson, 1990; Gaillard
and Lemdahl, 1988). Although the deliberate cultivation of water chestnut can
not be demonstrated, its processing seems to have been a widespread activity,
requiring the development of a specialized tool kit. Water chestnuts may have
been processed into flour, a practice known from the historical period (Vankina,
1970), thereby fulfilling the role that cereals played in other areas.
Despite the presence of plant-processing and earth-working tools such as
mattocks, pounders, and grating/cutting boards at Sarnate, Sventoji, and other
sites, there are no cultivated plant remains with the exceptions of flax and of
pollen evidence for millet at Sventoji (Rimantiene, 1979). Remains of flax cord
found in one of the dwellings at Sventoji give us a clue as to why flax alone
should be chosen for cultivation: flax rope was used to produce nets and other
fishing gear. Rather than producing cereal staples, cultivation was in this case
employed to maintain the foraging economy.
Contacts with farmers intensified during the spread of the Corded Ware/
Battle Axe cultures in central and northern Europe around 4500-3800 B.P. (Fig.
9). In northeastern Europe, new forms of burial, ceramics, and polished stone
axes attest to this horizon, representing, in our view, cultural diffusion possibly
accompanied by small-scale migration. As a result, several new cultures arose
(East Baltic Corded Ware, North Bielorussian, etc.) showing the influence of
Corded Ware material culture. At the same time, isolated bones of domesticated
animals, mainly cattle and caprines, appear in the faunal assemblages. Domes
ticates usually make up < 10% of the sample (Paaver, 1965; Zvelebil, 1981),
except at Krivina and Usvyaty, where they amount to 15 and 17% in the Late
Neolithic and Bronze Age layers, respectively (Dolukhanov, 1979).
The substitution and consolidation phases in much of northeastern Europe
correspond to the Bronze and Iron Ages, dating to about 4000-1500 B.P. (Figs.
9, 13 and 14). The presence of cultigens and domesticates, although tenuous
and subject to regional variation (Zvelebil, 1981, 1985; Zvelebil and Rowley
Conwy, 1986; Dolukhanov, 1979, 1986b), is nevertheless widespread enough
to show that a gradual substitution of the traditional economy by agropastoral
farming was taking place (Fig. 16). This shift is associated with the abandon
ment of the old coastal and lacustrine settlements in favor of the sandy clays
and loams and other areas suitable for farming (Graudonis, 1967; Zvelebil,
1978, 1981). In the eastern Baltic, this process was not completed until the
emergence of hillforts in the Iron Age at about 2500 B.P., while in southern
Finland, the consolidation of farming did not occur until the fifth century A.D.
Iron Age settlements of the later third millennium B.P. in the eastern Baltic and
northwestern Russia (Stroked Pottery, Upper Duna, Milogradian, etc.) had a
predominantly stock-breeding economy, with substantial reliance on hunting,
fishing, and gathering (Graudonis, 1967; Dolukhanov, 1986b; Zvelebil, 1985).
One reason for the greater stability of forager-farmer adaptations in north
eastern Europe [as opposed to Denmark or Central Europe (see Rowley-Conwy,
1981)] may have been the greater role of slash-and-burn agriculture. Due to the
edaphic conditions and conifer-dominated forest ecology of northeastern Europe,
swidden farming presented a low-risk alternative to permanent arable (Zvelebil,
1981, 1987). Moreover, the social and ideological contexts of swidden farming
and foraging are more alike than either of them is to arable (Sheldon, 1952;
Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy, 1984). The adoption of swidden by foragers,
therefore, did not require the cognitive and social changes that usually accom
pany permanent agriculture. Both swiddening and permanent arable were part
of the economy during the medieval period, with swidden predominating in
pioneer locations at the margins of the agricultural zone, such as central Fin
land, Karelia, and northeastern Russia.
The very gradual shift from foraging to farming obscures the substitution
consolidation boundary. Faunal assemblages show that the decisive shift from
hunting to farming in the eastern Baltic and adjacent areas was completed by
about 2500 B.P., yet agricultural consolidation did not occur until the mid-first
millennium A.D. In southern Finland and the eastern Baltic, there is convincing
though indirect evidence of a major shift to permanent farming in the fifth to
ninth centuries A.D., including palynological indicators for permanent arable,
a shift in settlement location, the appearance of tools associated with arable,
and the adoption of horses for traction (Huttunen, 1980; Toionen et al., 1976;
Vuorela, 1975; Graudonis, 1967; Krasnov, 1971; Selirand and Tonisson, 1984;
Dolukhanov, 1986b; Zvelebil, 1987). This shift marks the completion of the
consolidation phase.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Inevitably, in dealing with an area as vast as Eastern and Northern Europe,
we have presented only a very general survey. Some areas, especially Northern
Scandinavia, have not been covered in this review, although good regional
syntheses do exist (Nygaard, 1987, 1989; Broadbent, 1979; Welinder, 1976).
In these areas, and on the northern and eastern fringes of Europe, foraging
remained an important source of food until the eighteenth or nineteenth century
and, to some extent, still does today (Broadbent, 1985; Hvafner, 1965; Smith,
1977; Jutikkala, 1949).
We have also been unable to do more than allude to many important aspects
of the transition, such as social correlates of the transition to farming, season
ally and settlement patterns, and taphonomic circumstances. The different pres
ervation conditions in coastal and wetland sites in Northern and Eastern Europe,
on one hand, and the poorly preserved sites in Central Europe, on the other,
and the varying quality of excavation over this vast area add to the inconsistency
of the archaeological record and accentuate perceived differences between com
plex hunter-gatherers in Northern and Eastern Europe and their counterparts in
the continental interior. Moreover, most of the important Mesolithic remains in
Western and Southern Europe may lie on the submerged Early Holocene shore
lines, thus aggravating the contrast between the impoverished western European
and the rich eastern European Mesolithic. Despite these problems and omis
sions, we believe that there are patterns common to the area as a whole and that
these patterns must change our traditional perception of the transition to farming
in Europe. In particular, we stress the following points.
(1) On present evidence, the late Mesolithic and "Forest Neolithic"
hunter-gatherers appear more sedentary, more numerous, and more complex in
their social and economic organization than their central and western European
counterparts. This is supported by evidence from southern Scandinavia, and the
coastal and interior regions of northern Germany, Poland, the eastern Baltic,
and northwestern Russia, regardless of any loss in the settlement pattern caused
by the flooding of the Early Holocene coastlines.
(2) We should not preclude the existence of a forest-zone husbandry of

local, genetically undomesticated, but culturally husbanded resources. The evi
dence for such a form of management is still tenuous, but mounting (Zvelebil,
1990; Van Zeist etaL, 1991; Dennell, 1983; Barker, 1985). In Eastern Europe,
water chestnut among the plants and pig, cattle, and horse among the animals
may have been locally domesticated (i.e., intensive collection, processing, and
planting or taming, close herding, and later, selective breeding). With some
plants and animals, horse and water chestnut among them, such practices will
not be rapidly expressed in the genotype. Instead of contributing to the devel
opment of a farming economy, these achievements contributed to the establish
ment and maintenance of societies with complex, but essentially hunting and
gathering economies, falling between our conventional concepts of Mesolithic
and Neolithic.
(3) The transition to farming occurred very slowly and took a long time
to complete, the whole process lasting 1500-4000 years. In the far north and
northeast of Europe, the process was never completed. In northeastern Europe,
we have both a long availability phase (ca. 6500-4000 B.P.) and a long sub
stitution phase (ca. 4000-2500 B.P.). In southern Scandinavia and the North
European Plain, we have a long availability phase (ca. 6400-5200 B.P.) and a
relatively short substitution phase (5200-4700 B.P. at most). In Moldavia and
Ukraine, the availability and substitution phases spanned the period from 7500
to 5000 B.P. Although these are only approximate estimates, the length of the
transition as a whole is certain, casting serious doubt on the notion that the
spread of farming across Europe was a rapid process (Figs. 15 and 16).
(4) Local hunter-gatherer societies played a significant role in the transi
tion. There is strong evidence for continuity in material culture in most regions
throughout the transition. Although this neither proves nor disproves the case
for population movement associated with the transition (small groups of people
could have migrated, leaving little or no trace in the archaeological record),
such evidence does not support the colonization model for the transition to farm
ing and it does indicate that local hunter-gatherer traditions were passed on from
generation to generation during the long period of the adoption of farming.
Local continuity in culture and population seems therefore a preferred expla
nation.
(5) For ecological reasons, it proved difficult to adjust the agropastoral
farming system to the northern regions. Adjustments included a greater empha
sis on the animal, rather than the cereal, component of farming, the selection
of cultigens best adapted to vigorous boreal conditions (such as rye), the prac
tice of slash-and-burn agriculture, and the development of a mixed economy,
in which foraging continued to play a significant role, not least as insurance
against failures in the agrarian system.
(6) The reasons for the eventual adoption of farming in the northern and
eastern regions of Europe are to be sought in ecological changes and the social
conditions affecting hunter-gatherer societies. The two explanations are not nec
essarily incompatible, although as Blankholm (1987) notes, they have often
been treated as such.
Complex hunter-gatherer systems are vulnerable to longer term, unpre
dictable change in resource availability (Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil, 1989).
Within such a system, a decline in a single, but seasonally crucial, resource can
render the adoption of farming an attractive alternative. The disappearance of
the oyster from Denmark (Rowley-Conwy, 1983), the decline in seals in south
ern Finland (Zvelebil, 1981), and the decline of various plant and animal spe
cies with the Sub-Boreal climatic deterioration in the eastern Baltic area
(Dolukhanov, 1979; Zvelebil, 1981) have all been advanced as explanations for
the adoption of farming economies.
At the same time, contacts and exchange with farming societies in Central
Europe may have stimulated the development toward social differentiation
among hunter-gatherer societies where some form of social stratification was
already in existence (O'Shea and Zvelebil, 1984; Price, 1985; Madsen, 1986).
The acquisition of prestige objects, symbols of status and of power, would
create a need for increased production and impose constraints on the homeo
static mechanisms usually found in hunter-gatherer societies (Bender, 1978),
leading to the adoption of a more productive system?agropastoral farming.
Madsen (1986) and Jennbert (1984, 1985) favor such social developments as
the explanation for the transition to farming in southern Scandinavia. There is
no reason why ecological and social conditions could not have acted together
to bring about the adoption of farming: in both cases, the range of solutions to
the problems caused by these conditions was set by the organization of the
hunter-gatherer society.
Much remains to be done to further our understanding of the origins and
development of farming by hunter-gatherer societies in Europe. If, through the
availability model, we have demonstrated that the causes of the agricultural
transition are to be sought in the internal dynamics of the hunter-gatherer soci
eties, and if we have restored the position of hunter-gatherers as active partic
ipants in this transition, then our paper has served its purpose.
REFERENCES
Aalto, M., Siiriainen, A., and Vuorela, I. (1985). Humppila Jarvensuo?a preinvestigation for an
archaeological and palaeobotanical project in SW Finland. Iskos 5: 165-177.
Akazawa, T. (1986). Hunter-gatherer adaptions and the transition to food production in Japan. In
Zvelebil, M. (ed.), Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and
Their Transition to Farming, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 151-165.
Alexander, J. (1978). Frontier studies and the earliest farmers in Europe. In Green, D., Hasel
grove, C, and Spriggs, M. (eds.), Social Organization and Settlement, British Archaeological
Reports International Series 47, Oxford, pp. 13-29.
Ammerman, A. J. (1989). On the Neolithic transition in Europe: A comment on Zvelebil and

Zvelebil (1988). Antiquity 63: 162-165.
Ammerman, A. J., and Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (1984). The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of
Population in Europe, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
Andersen, S. H. (1987). Tybrind Vig: A submerged Ertebplle settlement in Denmark. In Coles,
J. M., and Lawson, A. J. (eds.), European Wetlands in Prehistory, Clarendon Press, Oxford,
pp. 253-280.
Auer, V. (1925). Investigations of the ancient flora of Hame. Comm. inst. quaest. for. fin/, ed. 9.
Barker, G. W. (1985). Prehistoric Farming in Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Becker, C. J. (1973). Problemer omkring overgangen fra fangstkulturer til bondekulturer i Syd
skandinavien. In Simonsen, P., and Munch, G. S. (eds.), Bonde?Veidemann, Bofast?ikke
Bofast i Nordisk Forhistorie, Trams?7 Museums Skrifter Vol. XIV, Universitetsforlaget,
Troms<?, pp. 6-21.
Bender, B. (1975). Farming in Prehistory: From Hunter-Gatherer to Food-Producer, John Baker,
London.
Bender, B. (1978). Gather-hunter to farmer: A social perspective. World Archaeology 10: 204
222.
Binford, L. (1968). Post-Pleistocene adaptations. In Binford, S., and Binford, L. (eds.), New Per
spectives in Archaeology, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 313-341.
Binford, L. (1983). Working at Archaeology. Academic Press, London.
Blankholm, H. P. (1987). Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and the transition to farming in South
ern Scandinavia. In Rowley-Conwy, P., Zvelebil, M., and Blankholm, H. P. (eds.), Meso
lithic Northwest Europe: Recent Trends. Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, Sheffield,
pp. 155-163.
Bogucki, P. (1987). The establishment of agrarian communities on the North European Plain.
Current Anthropology 28: 1-24.
Bogucki, P. (1988). Forest Farmers and Stockherders: Early Agriculture and Its Consequences in
North-Central Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Broadbent, N. D. (1979). Coastal Resources and Settlement Stability: A Critical Study of Meso
lithic Site Complex in Northern Sweden, Uppsala University Institute of North European
Archaeology, Uppsala.
Broadbent, N. D. (1985). Comments on transition to farming in Northern Europe: Evidence from
Northern Sweden. Norwegian Archaeological Review 18: 115-117.
Brown, J. A. (1985). Long term trends to sedentism and the emergence of complexity in the Amer
ican Midwest. In Price, T. D., and Brown, J. A. (eds.). Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The
Emergence of Cultural Complexity, Academic Press, London, pp. 201-234.
Burov, G. M. (1988). Zapornyii lov ryby v epokhu neolita v Vostochnoii Evrope. (Weir fishing in
Eastern Europe in the Neolithic), (in Russian). Sovetskaya Archeologia 1988: 145-160.
Carpelan, C. (1976). Alg-och bjornhuvudforemal fran Europas nordliga delar. Finskt Museum 80:
5-67.
Chapman, R. (1981). The emergence of formal disposal areas and the "problem" of megalithic
tombs in prehistoric Europe. In Chapman, R., Kinnes, I., and Randsborg, K. (eds.), The
Archaeology of Death, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 71-81.
Childe, V. G. (1928). The Most Ancient East: The Oriental Prelude to European Prehistory, Kea
gan Paul, London.
Childe, V. G. (1934). New Light on the Most Ancient East: The Oriental Prelude to European
Prehistory, Keagan Paul, London.
Childe, V. G. (1957). The Dawn of European Civilisation, Chaucer Press, Bungay, Suffolk.
Clark, J. G. D. (1965). Radiocarbon dating and the expansion of farming culture from the Near
East over Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 31: 58-73.
Clark, J. G. D. (1976). The Earliest Stone Age Settlement of Scandinavia, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Clark, J. G. D. (1980). The Mesolithic Prelude. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Clarke, D. L. (1976). Mesolithic Europe: The economic basis. In Sieveking, G. de G., Longworth,
I. H., and Wilson, K. E. (eds.), Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology, Duckworth,
London, pp. 449-481.
Cohen, M. N. (1977). The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation and the Origins of Agricul
ture, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., and London.
Comsa, E. (1974). Die Entwickelung, Periodisierung und relative Chronologie der jungsteinzei
tlichen Kulturen Rumaniens. Zeitschrift fur Archaologie 8: 1-44.
Comsa, E. (1978). Contribution a l'etude de la culture Cris en Roumanie. Dacia 22: 9-28.
Comsa, E. (1987). Betrachtungen iiber die Entwicklung der neolithischen kulturen auf Rumanis
chem Gebiet. Slovenskd Archeologia XXXV-1: 65-106.
Cyrek, K., Grygiel, R., and Nowak, K. (1986). The basis for distinguishing the Ceramic Meso
lithic in the Polish Lowland. In Malinowski, T. (ed.), Problems of the Stone Age in Pomer
ania. Wydawnictwa Universytetu Warszawskiego, Warsaw, pp. 95-126.
Darwin, C. (1875). The Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication, London.
Dennell, R. (1983). European Economic Prehistory, Academic Press, London.
Dennell, R. (1985). The hunter-gather/agricultural frontier in Prehistoric Temperate Europe. In
Green, S., and Perlman, S. M. (eds.), The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries, Aca
demic Press, New York, pp. 113-140.
Dergachev, V. (1989). Neolithic and bronze age cultural communities of the steppe zone of the
USSR. Antiquity 63: 793-802.
Dolukhanov, P. M. (1979). Ecology and Economy in Neolithic Eastern Europe, Duckworth, Lon
don.
Dolukhanov, P. M. (1982). Upper Pleistocene and Holocene cultures of the Russian Plain and
Caucasus: Ecology, economy and settlement pattern. In Wendorf, F., and Close, A. E. (eds.),
Advances in World Archaeology, Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York, pp. 323-347.
Dolukhanov, P. M. (1986a). The Late Mesolithic and the transition to food production in Eastern
Europe. In Zvelebil, M. (ed.), Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eura
sia and Their Transition to Farming, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 109-120.
Dolukhanov, P. M. (1986b). Natural environment and the Holocene Settlement patterns in the
North-Western Part of the USSR. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 3: 3-16.
Dolukhanov, P. M., and Miklyayev, A. M. (1986). Prehistoric lacustrine pile dwellings in the
North-Western part of the USSR. Fennoscandia Archaeologica 3: 81-89.
Dolukhanov, P. M., Liiva, A. A., and Miklyayev, A. M. (1978). Problemy absolyutnoi khron
ologii kultur 5-2 tysyatcheletii do n.e. v basseine baltiiskogo morya (The problem of absolute
chronology of cultures dated to the 5th-2nd millennium b.c. in the basin of the Baltic Sea).
Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 153: 25-30 (in Russian).
Dolukhanov, P. M., Gey, N. A., Miklyayev, A. M., and Mazurkiewicz, A. N. (1989). Rudnya
Sertya, a stratified dwelling-site in the Upper Duna basin (a multidisciplinary research). Fen
noscandia Archaeologica VI: 23-28.
Dumitrecu, V., Bolomey, A., and Mogosanu, F. (1983). Esquisse d'une Prehistoire de la Rou
manie, Stiintifica si Enciclopedia, Bucuresti.
Fischer, A. (1982). Trade in Danubian shaft-hole axes and the introduction of Neolithic economy
in Denmark. Journal of Danish Archaeology 1: 7-12.
Flannery, K. V. (1969). Origins and ecological effects of early domestication in Iran and the Near
East. In Ucko, P. J., and Dimbleby, G. W. (eds.), The Domestication and exploitation of
Plants and Animals, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 73-100.
Gaillard, M.-J. (1984). A palaeohydrological study of Krageholmssjon (Scania, South Sweden).
Regional vegetation history and water-level changes. Lundqua Report 25, Lund University,
Lund.
Gaillard, M.-J., and Lemdahi, G. (1988). Plant-macrofossil analysis (seeds and fruits) at Skate
holm-Jaravallen, Southern Sweden. A lagoonal landscape during Atlantic and early Subboreal
Time. In Larsson, L. (ed.), The Skateholm Project. I. Man and Environment, Acta Regiae
Societatis Humaniorum Litterarum Lundensis 79.
Gimbutas, M. (1970). Proto-Indo-European culture: The Kurgan culture during the 5th to the 3rd
millenia B.C. In Cardona, G., Koenigsvald, H. M., and Senn, A. (eds.), Indo-European and
Indo-Europeans, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 155-198.
Gimbutas, M. (1974). The Gods and Godesses of Old Europe 7000-3500 B.C., Thames and Hud
son, London.
Goransson, H. (1986). Man and the Forests of Nemoral Broad-Leafed Trees During the Stone Age,
STRIAE Vol. 24, Uppsala.
Gramsch, B., and Kloss, K. (1989). An Early Mesolithic marshland site in the Northern Plain of
Central Europe, In Bonsall, C. (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe, John Donald, Edinburgh, pp.
313-324.
Graudonis, I. (1967). Latvia v Epokhu Pozdnei Bronzy i Rannego Zheleza (Latvia in the Late
Bronze Age and Early Iron Age), Zinatne, Riga (in Russian, German summary).
Gregg, S. (1988). Foragers and Farmers: Population Interaction and Agricultural Expansion in
Prehistoric Europe, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Gurina, N. N. (1961). Drevnaya Istoriya Severo?Zapada Evropeiskoi Chasti SSSR, (Ancient His
tory of North-West European USSR). Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 87,
Nauka, Moskva (in Russian).
Gurina, N. N. (1967). Iz istorii drevnykh piemen zapadnykh oblastei SSSR (From The History of
Ancient Peoples of Western Regions of the USSR). Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii
SSSR 144: 1-205, Nauka, Moskva (in Russian).
Gurina, N. N. (1973). K voprosu ob obmene v neoliticheskuyu epokhu. (On the question of
exchange in the Neolithic). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 138: 12-23
(in Russian).
Gurina, N. N. (1977). K voprosu o nekotorykh obshchikh i osobennykh chertakh Mezolita lesnoi
i lesostepnoii zon Evropeiskoii chasti SSSR. (On the question of general and specific features
of the Mesolithic in the forest and forest-steppe zones of the European USSR). Kratkie Soob
shcheniya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR 149: 20-30 (in Russian).
Harris, D. R. (1977). Alternative pathways toward agriculture. In Reed, C. A. (ed.), Origins of
Agriculture, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 179-243.
Harris, D. R., and Hi 11 man G. C. (1989). Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploi
tation, Unwin Hyman, London.
Hausler, A. (1985). Kulturbezienungen zwischen Ost und Mitteleuropa in Neolitikum? Jahres
schrift fur Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 68: 21-74.
Henry, D. O. (1985). Preagricultural sedentism: The Natufian example. In Price, D. T., and Brown,
J. A. (eds.). Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers, Academic Press, London, pp. 365-384.
Higgs, E. S. (1972). Prehistoric economies: A territorial approach. In Higgs, E. S. (ed.), Papers
in Economic Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 27-36.
Higgs, E. S. (1975). Palaeoeconomy, Cambridge University Press, London.
Huttunen, P. (1980). Early land use, especially the slash and burn cultivation in the commune of
Lammi, southern Finland, interpreted mainly using pollen and charcoal analysis. Acta Botan
ica Fennica 113: 1-45.
Hvarfner, H. (1965). Hunting and Fishing, Norrbottens Museum, Umea.
Jarman, M. R. (1972). European deer economies and the advent of the Neolithic. In Higgs, E. S.
(ed.), Papers in Economic Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 125-147.
Jarman, M. R., Jarman, H. N., and Bailey, G. N. (1982). Early European Agriculture, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Jennbert, K. (1984). Den Produktiva gavan. Tradition och innovation i Sydskandinavien fdromkr
ing 5300 ar sedan. Acta Archaeologia Ludensia. Series in 4 A. Nr. 16, Lund.
Jennbert, K. (1985). Neolithisation?a Scanian Perspective. The Journal of Danish Archaeology
4: 196-197.
Jutikkala, E. (1949). Suomen Historian Kartasto (Historical Atlas of Finland), Helsinki (in Fin
nish).
Kempisty, E. (1986). Neolithic cultures of the forest zone in northern Poland. In Malinowski, T.
(ed.), Problems of the Stone Age in Pomerania, Wydawnictwa Universytetu Warszawskiego,
Warsaw, pp. 187-214.
Khotinskii, H. A. (1978). Palaeograficheskie osnovy datirovki in periodizatsii neolita lesnoi zony
evropeiskoi chasti SSSR (Palaeogeographic context of dating and periodisation of the Neolithic
of the Forest zone of European USSR). Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii AN SSSR
153: 7-14 (in Russian).
Kozlowski, J. K., and Kozlowski, S. K. (1986). Foragers of Central Europe and their acculturation.
In Zvelebil, M. (ed.), Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and

Their Transition to Farming, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 95-108.
Krasnov, Y. A. (1971). Rannee Zemledelie i Zhivotovodstvo v Lesnoi Polose Vostochnoi Evropy
(Early agriculture and animal husbandry in the forest zone of Eastern Europe). Materialy i
Issledovanie po Arkheologii SSSR, 174, Nauka, Moskva (in Russian).
Kruk, J. (1973). Studio Osadnicze nad Neolitem Wyzyn Lessowych, Polska Academia Nauk, Insti
tut Historii Kultury Materyalnei, Warsaw.
Larsson, L. (1990). The Mesolithic of Southern Scandinavia. Journal of World Prehistory 4: 257
309.
Larsson, M. (1983). Agerod V: An Atlantic Bog Site in Central Scania. Acta Archaeologica Luden
sia Series 8, No. 12.
Larsson, M. (1985). The Early Neolithic Funnel-Beaker Culture in South-West Scania, Sweden,
Social and Economic Change 3000-2500 B. C., British Archaeological Reports International
Series 264, Oxford.
Larsson, M. (1988). Exchange and Society in the Early Neolithic in Scania. In Trade and Exchange
in Prehistory, Sweden.
Lee, R. B., and Devore, I. (1968). Problems in the study of hunter-gatherers. In Lee, R. B., and
DeVore, I. (eds.), Man the Hunter, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 3-12.
Levine, M. A. (1990). Dereivka and the problem of horse domestication. Antiquity 64: 727-740.
Lichardus, J. (1976). Rossen?Gatersleben?Baalberge. Ein Beitrag zur Chronologie des mittel
deutschen Neolitikums und zur Entstehung der Trichterbecherkultur, Saarbrucker Beitrage zur
Altertumskunde, Bonn.
Loomis, R. S. (1978). Ecological dimensions of medieval agrarian system. Agricultural History
52: 478-483.
Madsen, T. (1986). Where did all the hunters go? Journal of Danish Archaeology 5: 229-239.
Mallory, J. P. (1989). In Search of the Indo-Europeans, Thames and Hudson, London.
Markevitch, V. I. (1974). Bugo?Dnestrovskaya Kultura Na Territorii Moldavii (The Bug-Dniester
Culture in Moldavia). Shtiintsa, Kishinev (in Russian).
Matyushin, G. (1986). The Mesolithic and Neolithic in southern Urals and Central Asia. In Zvele
bil, M. (ed.), Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and Their
Transition to Farming, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 151-166.
Mithen, S. (1990). Thoughtful Foragers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Monah, D. (1987). La datation par C-14 du complexe culturel Cucuteni-Tripolie. In Petrescu
Dimbovita, M. (ed.), La Civilisation de Cucuteni en Contexte Europeen, Universite "A. I.
Cuza" Iasi, pp. 67-79.
Necrasov, O., and Stirbu, M. (1980). Contributii la studiul faunei din cultura Cris. Acta Moldaviae
Meridionalis 11: 20-27.
Neustupny, E. (1987). Comment on the establishment of agrarian communities on the North Euro
pean Plain. Current Anthropology 28: 14-16.
Nielsen, P. O. (1987). The beginning of the Neolithic?assimilation or complex change? Journal
of Danish Archaeology 5: 240-243.
Nygaard, S. E. (1987). Socio-economic developments along the southwestern coast of Norway
between 10000 and 4000 B.P. In Rowley-Conwy, P., Zvelebil, M., and Blankholm, H. P.
(eds.), Mesolithic Northwest Europe: Recent Trends, Department of Archaeology and Prehis
tory, Sheffield, pp. 147-154.
Nygaard, S. E. (1989). The Stone Age of northern Scandinavia: A review. Journal of World Pre
history 3: 71-116.
O'Shea, J., and Zvelebil, M. (1984). Oleneostrovski mogilnik: Reconstructing the social and eco
nomic organization of prehistoric foragers in northern Russia. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 3: 1-40.
Paaver, K. (1965). Formirovanie Teriofaunyi i Izmenchivost Mlekopytayushchikh Pribaltiki v Gol
otsene (The Composition of Terrestrial Fauna and the Reduction in Size of the Mammals in
the Holocene of the East Baltic), Akademia Nauk Estonskoi SSR, Tartu (in Russian, German
summary).
Paludan-Muller, C. (1978). High Atlantic food gathering in Northwestern Zealand, ecological con
ditions and spatial representation. In Kristiansen, K., and Paludan-Muller, C. (eds.), New
Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology, National Museum of Denmark, Odense, pp. 120

157.
Piggott, S. (1965). Ancient Europe, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Price, T. D. (1985). Affluent foragers of Mesolithic Southern Scandinavia. In Price, T. D., and
Brown, J. A. (eds.). Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity,
Academic Press, London, pp. 341-360.
Price, T. D., and Petersen, E. B. (1987). A Mesolithic camp in Denmark. Scientific American
256: 112-121.
Redding, R. (1988). General explanation of subsistence change: From hunting and gathering to
food production. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7: 56-97.
Renfrew, C. (1987). Archaeology and Language: the puzzle of Indo-European Origins, Jonathon
Cape, London.
Rimantiene, R. (1979). Sventoji, Mosklas, Vilnus.
Rindos, D. (1984). The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective, Academic Press,
New York.
Rowley-Conwy, P. (1981). Slash and burn in temperate European Neolithic. In Mercer, R. (ed.),
Farming Practice in British Prehistory, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 85-96.
Rowley-Conwy, P. (1983). Sedentary hunters: The Ertebolle example. In Bailey, G. (ed.), Hunter
Gatherer Economy in Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 111-126.
Rowley-Conwy, P. (1985). The origins of agriculture in Denmark: A review of some theories.
Journal of Danish Archaeology 4: 188-195.
Rowley-Conwy, P., and Zvelebil, M. (1989). Saving it for later: Storage by prehistoric hunter
gatherers. In Halstead, P., and O'Shea, J. (eds.), Bad Year Economics, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 40-56.
Rowley-Conwy, P., Zvelebil, M., and Blankholm, H. P. (eds.) (1987). Introduction. In Rowley
Conwy, P., Zvelebil, M., and Blankholm, H. P. (eds.), Mesolithic Northwest Europe: Recent
Trends, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, Sheffield, pp. 1-8.
Schwabedissen, H. (1979). Der Beginn des Neolithikums im Nordwestlischen Deutschland. In
Schirnig, H. (ed.), Grosteingarber in Niedersachsen, August Lay, Hildesheim, pp. 202-222.
Selirand, J., and Tonisson, E. (1984). Through Past Millennia: Archaeological Discoveries in
Estonia, Perioodika, Tallin.
Sheldon, R. C. (1952). Socio-Economic Development in a Karelian village, Ph.D. dissertation,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Sherratt, A. G. (1972). Socio-economic and demographic models for the Neolithic and Bronze
Ages of Europe. In Clarke, D. L. (ed.). Models in Archaeology, Methuen, London, pp. 477
542.
Sherratt, A. (1990). The genesis of megaliths: Monumentality, ethnicity and social complexity in
Neolithic north-west Europe. World Archaeology 111 147-167,
Smith, R. E. F. (1977). Peasant Farming in Muscovy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Stalfelt, M. G. (1972). Plant Ecology, Longmans Green, London.
Stanko, V. N. (1982). Mirnoe, Naukova Dumka, Kiev (in Ukrainian).
Sulimirski, T. (1970). Prehistoric Russia, John Baker Humanities Press, London.
Tauber, H. (1982). Carbon-13 evidence for the diet of prehistoric humans in Denmark. PACT 7:
235-237.
Telegin, D. J. (1968). Dniepro Donetska Kultura (The Dnieper-Donets Culture), Naukova Dumka,
Kiev (in Ukrainian).
Telegin, D. J. (1982). Mesolitichni Pamyatki Ukraini (9-6 tisyacholitta do n.e.) [Mesolithic Sites
in the Ukraine (9th-6th millennia B.C.)], Naukova Dumka, Kiev (in Ukrainian).
Telegin, D. Y. (1986). Dereivka: A Settlement and Cemetery of Copper Age Horse Keepers on the
Middle Dnieper, British Archaeological Reports International Series 287, Oxford.
Telegin, D. J. (1987). Neolithic cultures of the Ukraine and adjacent areas and their chronology.
Journal of World Prehistory 1: 307-331.
Telegin, D. J., and Pothekina, I. D. (1987). Neolithic Cemetaries and Populations in the Dnieper
Basin, British Archaeological Reports International Series 383, Oxford.
Testart, A. (1982). Les Chasseurs-Cueilleurs ouL'Origine des Inegalites, Societe D'Ethnographic
Paris.
Timofeev, V. I. (1987). On the problem of the Early Neolithic of the East Baltic Area. Acta
Arehaeologica 58: 207-212.
Timofeev, V. L, Romanova, E. N., Malanova, N. S., and Svezhentsev, Y. S. (1978). Radioy
glerodnye datirovki neoliticheskikh pamyatnikov SSSR (Radiocarbon dates from the Neolithic
sites in the USSR). Kratkie Soobshchenia Instituta Istorii i Materialnoi Kultury SSSR 153:
14-18 (in Russian).
Tolonen, K. A., Siiriainen, A., and Hirviluoto, A. (1976). Iron Age cultivation in southwest Fin
land. Finskt Museum 83: 5-66.
Tretyakov, V. P. (1982). K voprosu ob "archaeologicheskoi nepreryvnosti" (On the question of
*'archaeological continuity"). Sovetskaya Arkheologia 462: 14-30 (in Russian).
Tringham, R. (1968). A preliminary study of the early Neolithic and latest Mesolithic blade indus
tries in south-east and central Europe. In Coles, J., and Simpson, D. (eds.), Studies in Ancient
Europe, Leicester University Press, Leicester, pp. 45-70.
Tringham, R. (1969). Animal domestication in the Neolithic cultures of the south-west part of
European USSR. In Ucko, P., and Dimbleby, G. (eds.), The Domestication and Exploitation
of Plants and Animals, Duckworth, London, pp. 381-392.
Tringham, R. (1971). Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of Eastern Europe, Hutchinson, London.
Troels-Smith, J. (1982). Vegitationshistoriske vidnesbyrd om skovrydniner, planteavl og husdyr
hold i Europa, specielt Skandinavien. In Sj^vold, T. (ed.), Introduksjonen av jordbruk i Nor
den, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, pp. 39-62.
Ursulescu, N. (1984). Evolutia Culturii Starcevo-Qris Pe Teritoriul Moldovei, Museum Judetean,
Suceava.
Vankina, L. V. (1970). Torfyanikovaya Stoyanka Sarnate (The peat dwelling site of Sarnate).
Zinatne, Riga (in Russian).
Van Zeist, W., Wasylikowa, K., and Behre, K.-E. (eds.) (1991). Progress in Old World
Palaeoethnobotany, Brookfield, Rotterdam.
Vend, S. (1986). The role of hunting-gathering populations in the transition to farming: A Central
European perspective. In Zvelebil, M. (ed.), Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of
Temperate Eurasia and Their Transition to Farming, Cambridge University Press, Cam
bridge, pp. 43-52.
Vereshchagin, N. K., Dolukhanov, P. M., and Miklyayev, A. M. (1979). Khozyaistvo i ekologiya
svainogo poseleniya Naumovo u Pskovskoi oblasti. (Economy and ecology of the Naumovo
pile dwelling in the Pskov district). Izvestiya Vsesoyuznogo Geograficheskogo obschchestva
111: 363-368 (in Russian).
Vuorela, I. (1975). Pollen analysis as a means of tracing settlement history in southwest Finland.
Acta Botanica Fennica 104: 1-4.
Vuorela, I., and Aalto, M. (1982). Palaeobotanical investigations at a Neolithic dwelling site in
Southern Finland, with special reference to Trapa natans. Annales Botanici Fennici 19: 81
92.
Welinder, S. (1976). The economy of the Pitted Ware Culture in Eastern Sweden. In Meddelanden
fran Lunds Universitets Historiska Museum 1975-1976, Lund.
Wislanski, T. (1973). Ze studiow nad geneza kultury puchardw lejkowatych. Archeologoa Polski
18: 91-126.
Woodburn, J. (1982). Egalitarian societies. Man 17: 431-451.
Wyszomirska, B. (1987). New approaches in Polish Stone Age research. Norwegian Archaeolog
ical Review 20: 11-30.
Wyszomirska, B. (1988). Ekonomisk Stabilitet Vid Kusten, Acta Arehaeologica Ludensia Series
8, No. 17, Almqvist & Wiksell, Lund.
Zbenovich, V. G. (1989). Ranii Etap Tripolskoi Kultury Na Territorii Ukrainy (Early Stage of the
Tripolye Culture in the Ukraine). Naukova Dumka, Kiev (in Russian).
Zvelebil, M. (1978). Subsistence and settlement in the northeastern Baltic. In Mellars, P. (ed.),
The Early Postglacial Settlement of Northern Europe, Duckworth, London, pp. 204-241.
Zvelebil, M. (1981). From Forager to Farmer in the Boreal Zone: Reconstructing Economic Pat
terns Through Catchment Analysis in Prehistoric Finland. British Archaeological Reports
International Series 115, Oxford.
Zvelebil, M. (1985). Iron Age transformations in northern Russia and the northeast Baltic. In
Barker, G., and Gamble, C. (eds.), Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe, Academic
Press, London, pp. 147-180.
Zvelebil, M. (1986a). Mesolithic prelude and neolithic revolution. In Zvelebil, M. (ed.), Hunters
in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and Their Transition to Farming,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 5-16.
Zvelebil, M. (1986b). Mesolithic societies and the transition to farming: Problems of time, scale
and organization. In Zvelebil, M. (ed.), Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Tem
perate Eurasia and Their Transition to Farming, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 167-188.
Zvelebil, M. (ed.) (1986c). Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and
Their Transition to Farming, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Zvelebil, M. (1986d). Postglacial foraging in the forests of Europe. Scientific American 254: 104
115.
Zvelebil, M. (1987). Wetland settlements of eastern Europe. In Coles, J. M., and Lawson, A. J.
(eds.), European Wetlands in Prehistory, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 94-116.
Zvelebil, M. (1989a). On the transition to farming in Europe, or what was spreading with the
Neolithic: A reply to Ammerman. Antiquity 63: 379-383.
Zvelebil, M. (1989b). Economic intensification and Postglacial hunter-gatherers in North Temper
ate Europe. In Bonsall, C. (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe, John Donald, Edinburgh, pp. 80
88.
Zvelebil, M. (1990). Plant use in the Mesolithic. Paper presented at the 4th International Sympo
sium on the Mesolithic in Europe, Leuven 1990. (Unpublished manuscript, available from the
author.)
Zvelebil, M., and Rowley-Conwy, P. (1984). The transition to farming in northern Europe: A
hunter-gatherer perspective, Norwegian Archaeological Review 17(2): 104-127.
Zvelebil, M., and Rowley-Conwy, P. (1986). Foragers and farmers in Atlantic Europe. In Zvele
bil, M. (ed.), Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and Their
Transition to Farming, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 67-94.
Zvelebil, M., and Zvelebil, K. V. (1988). Agricultural transition and Indo-European dispersals.
Antiquity 62: 574-583.

Zvelebil, M & P, Dolukhanov. The Transition To Farming in Eastern and Northern Europe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zvelebil, M & P, Dolukhanov. The Transition To Farming in Eastern and Northern Europe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Transition to Farming in Eastern and Northern Europe

Author(s): Marek Zvelebil and Paul Dolukhanov

The Transition to Farming in Eastern and Northern

0892-7537/91/0900-0233S06.50/0 ? 1991 Plenum Publishing Corporation

been just one among a number of strategies designed to raise productivity or

or as a result of a strategic adjustment to a combination of factors acting at a

Hunter-Gatherer and Farmer Societies

In the traditional view, agropastoral farming was brought to Europe, partly

Europe, are seen as recipients of exogenous cultigens and domesticates and of

The Agricultural Frontier

hunter-gatherers displaced hunter-gatherer areas

Fig. 1. Different forms of forager-farmer interaction. (After Dennell, 1985.)

&?j Availability W Substitution 111 Consolidation

In the consolidation phase, which begins when society becomes dependent

Unlike earlier models, the availability model permits us to monitor the

of the transition to farming. Figure 3 illustrates an attempt to identify from

We suggest that farmer colonization is inappropriate as a model for the agri

TRANSITION TO FARMING IN NORTHERN AND EASTERN

Ecology of the Area

NN Fig. 5. The environmental zones in Northern and Eastern Europe.

Mixed coniferous and and semi -desertsteppe

Late Mesolithic Societies of Northern and Eastern Europe

northwest Europe. (25) Scandinavian Mesolithic. (26) Epigravettian of peninsular Italy.

The structure of this hunter-gatherer society influenced its relationship to

The Agricultural Frontier in Northern and Eastern Europe

Moldavia and the Ukraine

The first agricultural settlements attributed to the Starcevo-Cris (Koros)

m-?= ^ss^^^^^mr ' 'M

(19) Fosna; (20) Komsa; (21) West Caucasian. ?

Fig. 11. Contribution of domesticates, expressed as meat weight, to the diet of

Agricultural frontier on the North European Plain and Southern Scandina

EARLIEST LK & DANISH NEOLITHIC

Baltic Late Bronze Age/Early Iron A

;siOGz: ? ~\/// farming w

?oo. ra 2n^/^ ^^'-^vx lIP = z ? SRUBNAYA ? - SRUBNAYA 1 SRUBNAYA I o SRUBNAYA

y? ////^//// y^/^yyy//^/ ^yyyyy///^/, ^ ///^rr.' V2//X "^^y/^/^/, availability 5'

5600--Is i< - y///ZA--- ////^=-J_ ,_, a

5000- 5=s11 //' 1?I II r"V/ I

3600-- ?- i-1 O '_

5800- i-LXJ- LENGYEL TRIPOLYeV / / / / / - V A - 'X ? ' X / // ~~ * Z

4600- 2 8 | ? USAT0V0 // j ' |

Koros CERAMIC 932

95 | 815 SITES ON THE LOWER BUG

L8K CERAMIC 52or26 48or 74 42 68 69 19 IMPRESSIONS)

209 GRAIN BONES

(Koros)CERAMIC 112 FEWFISH

SITES ON THE DNIESTER

BONES GRAIN REMAINS

reveal a variety of wild and some domesticated cereals (Markevitch, 1974).

belong to wild horses, procured by hunting. Foraging remained important: at

dence for agriculture in Denmark before 5200-5100 B.P., postulated by some

(2) We should not preclude the existence of a forest-zone husbandry of

Ammerman, A. J. (1989). On the Neolithic transition in Europe: A comment on Zvelebil and

In Zvelebil, M. (ed.), Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and

Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology, National Museum of Denmark, Odense, pp. 120

You might also like