Agathe Reingruber - Timelines in The Neolithic of Southwestern Anatolia

Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Nenad N. Tasić, Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Marcel Burić
1. Narratives of Space and Contemporary Archaeological Theory ........................................................................... 7

Kostas Kotsakis
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Cultural history and processualism............................................................................................................................... 7
Postprocessualism......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Phenomenology and meta-postprocessualism .............................................................................................................. 9
Theory in practice ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
Epilogue ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11
2. Timelines in the Neolithic of Southwestern Anatolia, the Circum-Aegean, the Balkans and
the Middle Danube Area .......................................................................................................................................... 17
Agathe Reingruber
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 17
General remarks regarding the quality of the dates .................................................................................................... 18
Timeline 1: 6600–6400 calBC .................................................................................................................................... 18
Case A: Mediterranean and southwestern Anatolia ............................................................................................... 18
Case B: The circum-Aegean .................................................................................................................................. 20
Case C: The northeastern Aegan and the Marmara region .................................................................................... 22
Timeline 2: 6200–6000 calBC .................................................................................................................................... 23
Case A: The northwestern and the northeastern Aegean ....................................................................................... 23
Case B: The central and eastern Balkans ............................................................................................................... 24
Timeline 3: 5500–5300 calBC .................................................................................................................................... 25
Case A: The middle and lower Danube river ......................................................................................................... 25
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................ 27
3. By the Rivers They Settled: Settlement Patterns and the Neolithic Landscape in Albania .............................. 33
Gazmend Elezi
4. Transformations of Settlement Space at Neolithic Avgi, NW Greece .................................................................. 43

Georgia Stratouli & Dimitris Kloukinas
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 43
The Neolithic settlement of Avgi ................................................................................................................................ 44
Settlement space through time: A short overview ...................................................................................................... 44
Avgi I (ca. 5700–5200/5100 calBC) ...................................................................................................................... 44
Avgi II (ca. 5200/5100–4900 calBC) ..................................................................................................................... 47
Avgi III (ca. 4900–4500/4300 calBC) ................................................................................................................... 47
Approaching spatial transformation ........................................................................................................................... 49
Discussion................................................................................................................................................................... 51
5. Outside the Residential Place at the Neolithic Settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas,
Northern Greece ....................................................................................................................................................... 53
Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 53
The site ....................................................................................................................................................................... 53
The finds ..................................................................................................................................................................... 54
The pits .................................................................................................................................................................. 54
The ditches ............................................................................................................................................................. 56
v
Making Spaces into Places
Burials......................................................................................................................................................................... 56
Cremations ............................................................................................................................................................. 56
Inhumations ........................................................................................................................................................... 57
Scattered human bones .......................................................................................................................................... 57
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................ 57
6. Identifying Ritual at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis Koiladas: Ceramic Assemblages of

Representative Contexts........................................................................................................................................... 73
Teresa Silva, Marianna Lymperaki, Areti Chondroyianni-Metoki & Dushka Urem-Kotsou
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 73
Ritual .......................................................................................................................................................................... 74
The settlement of Toumba Kremastis Koiladas .......................................................................................................... 75
Selected contexts ........................................................................................................................................................ 75
Cremation 7 ........................................................................................................................................................... 76
Pit 4 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 76
Pit 314 .................................................................................................................................................................... 80
Pits 175, 176, and 177............................................................................................................................................ 82
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................................ 84
7. Settling Neolithic Central Macedonia, Northern Greece ...................................................................................... 87

Dushka Urem-Kotsou & Stavros Kotsos
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 87
Settlements and landscape .......................................................................................................................................... 88
Settlement types.......................................................................................................................................................... 89
The architecture .......................................................................................................................................................... 89
Burials......................................................................................................................................................................... 91
Neolithic food and spatial organisation of the settlements ......................................................................................... 93
Networking in central Macedonia .............................................................................................................................. 94
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................................................................... 95
8. Settlements and Landscape in the Neolithic of the Southern and Central Balkans ......................................... 105
Stavros Kotsos
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 105
Geographical distribution of settlements in the Axios and Morava regions............................................................. 105
Settlement location and the wider landscape............................................................................................................ 106
Settlements and their local environmental setting .................................................................................................... 107
Intra-site organisation and architecture of Early and Middle Neolithic settlements ................................................ 108
Intra-site organisation and architecture of Late Neolithic settlements ..................................................................... 109
Discussion................................................................................................................................................................. 110
Concluding remarks.................................................................................................................................................. 112
9. Pelagonian Tells and Pile Dwellings of Lake Ohrid ............................................................................................ 123

Goce Naumov
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 123
Tells of Pelagonia ..................................................................................................................................................... 123
Pile dwellings of Lake Ohrid .................................................................................................................................... 125
Continuity and networks: In conclusion ................................................................................................................... 127
10. The Neolithic and Post-Neolithic Settlement Mounds of Western Serbia ......................................................... 141
Boban Tripković
The Mačva district of Western Serbia: An overview of geography and prehistory.................................................. 141
The small settlement mounds of Western Serbia: Previous research ....................................................................... 142
The current project.................................................................................................................................................... 143
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 145
11. Vinča-Belo Brdo Settlement Size ........................................................................................................................... 149

Kristina Penezić
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 149
vi
Contents
Vinča-Belo brdo settlement size ............................................................................................................................... 150

In place of a conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 154
12. Use of Space in a Late Neolithic/Early Eneolithic Building at the Site of Vinča-Belo Brdo in the
Central Balkans ...................................................................................................................................................... 157
Ksenija Borojević* (corresponding author), Dragana Antonović, Jasna Vuković, Vesna Dimitrijević, Dragana
Filipović, Miroslav Marić, Kristina Penezić, Boban Tripković, Vera Bogosavljević Petrović & Nenad Tasić
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 158
Late Neolithic buildings at Vinča-Belo brdo ............................................................................................................ 158
Building 01/06 .......................................................................................................................................................... 159
Contents of Room 1 (north room) ....................................................................................................................... 159
Contents of Room 2 (central room) ..................................................................................................................... 160
Contents of Room 3 (south room) ....................................................................................................................... 162
Absolute dating of Building 01/06 ........................................................................................................................... 164
The use of space in Building 01/06 .......................................................................................................................... 165
Room 1................................................................................................................................................................. 165
Room 2................................................................................................................................................................. 165
Room 3................................................................................................................................................................. 166
Rooms 2 and 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 166
Houses of the late Vinča culture ............................................................................................................................... 167
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................ 168
13. The Neolithic Settlement at Drenovac, Serbia: Settlement History and Spatial Organisation ....................... 181
Slaviša Perić, Olga Bajčev, Ivana Stojanović & Đurđa Obradović
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 181
The site ..................................................................................................................................................................... 181
Form of the site and formation processes ................................................................................................................. 183
Site size ..................................................................................................................................................................... 183
Early Neolithic settlement ........................................................................................................................................ 183
Late Neolithic settlement .......................................................................................................................................... 184
Early Vinča phase ..................................................................................................................................................... 184
Late Vinča phase ....................................................................................................................................................... 184
Settlement size and layout ................................................................................................................................... 184
Internal organisation of the settlement................................................................................................................. 185
Late Vinča houses ................................................................................................................................................ 185
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................ 186
14. Neolithic Settlements in the Central Balkans between 6200 and 5300 calBC: Issues of Duration and
Continuity of Occupation....................................................................................................................................... 191
Sofija Stefanović, Marko Porčić, Tamara Blagojević & Jelena Jovanović
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 191
Jaričiste ..................................................................................................................................................................... 192
Topole-Bač................................................................................................................................................................ 193
Dynamics of the Early Neolithic settlements in the central Balkans ....................................................................... 195
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 196
15. Off-settlement Ritual Practices in the Neolithic: Pit-Digging and Structured Deposition at Sarnevo in
Bulgarian Thrace .................................................................................................................................................... 201
Krum Bacvarov & John Gorczyk
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 201
The archaeological site of Sarnevo in Upper Thrace................................................................................................ 201
Relative and absolute chronology............................................................................................................................. 202
Feature types ............................................................................................................................................................. 202
Deposits .................................................................................................................................................................... 203
Composition of deposits ...................................................................................................................................... 203
Deliberate fragmentation, selectivity and diversity in the combination of items ................................................ 203
Clay plastering/sealing......................................................................................................................................... 204
vii
Making Spaces into Places
Firing/burning ...................................................................................................................................................... 204

Sealing with burnt house debris ........................................................................................................................... 204
Structured deposition at Sarnevo .............................................................................................................................. 204
Conclusion: The Late Neolithic ‘ritual package’...................................................................................................... 205
16. Contextualising the Neolithic House: A View from Aşağı Pınar in Eastern Thrace ..........................................211
Eylem Özdoğan & Heiner Schwarzberg
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 211
Aşağı Pınar ............................................................................................................................................................... 212
Architectural features of the site............................................................................................................................... 213
Discussion................................................................................................................................................................. 215
Houses.................................................................................................................................................................. 215
Settlement layout ................................................................................................................................................. 216
17. Living in an Enclosed Settlement: Settlement Pattern and Social Organisation at Aktopraklık ................... 225
Necmi Karul
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 225
The site ..................................................................................................................................................................... 225
Central houses and inner court ............................................................................................................................ 227
Graveyard ............................................................................................................................................................ 227
Discussion................................................................................................................................................................. 227
Houses and ditch .................................................................................................................................................. 227
Houses and open spaces....................................................................................................................................... 227
The consistency of the settlement and the houses ............................................................................................... 228
viii
This material has been published in Making Spaces into Places, BAR S3001 edited by Nenad N. Tasić, Dushka Urem-Kotsou and Marcel Burić,
published by BAR Publishing (Oxford, 2020). This version is free to view and download for personal use only. It cannot be reproduced in any form
without permission of the publisher. To order this book online please visit: www.barpublishing.com
Timelines in the Neolithic of Southwestern Anatolia,

the Circum-Aegean, the Balkans and the
Middle Danube Area
Agathe Reingruber
Freie Universität Berlin
Abstract: Chronological frameworks as we conceive of them today are the result of the investment
of many generations of prehistoric archaeologists. Each of these generations has optimised the
system by introducing new, partly revolutionary investigation methods such as radiocarbon
dating. Even 70 years after its introduction in 1949, our generation still benefits from its potential.
Before, comparative stratigraphy and relative chronological evaluation were used to search for
simultaneous changes in human behaviour over large areas, leading to the definition of so-called
horizons. Later, the first absolute dates both appalled and appealed to archaeologists, changing
their perception of the depth of time and synchronicity. Today, sequences of absolute dates suitable
for statistically tested models are essential for verifying the existence and duration of such horizons
and for making gaps and interruptions more visible. This chapter highlights three timelines that are
crucial in such a supra-regional context: the first at the beginning of the Neolithic in the Anatolian-
Aegean sphere, the second at the beginning of the Neolithic in the Aegean-Balkan sphere and the
third at the beginning of the Neolithic in the Central European-Danubian sphere.
Keywords: Neolithic, relative and absolute chronology, radiocarbon dates, modelled sequences,
southwestern Anatolia, the circum-Aegean, the Balkans, the Middle and Lower Danube area
Introduction approaches (e.g. Bayliss et al. 2007). Adjustments are ever-

ongoing and we are always in the midst of this process
Since the very beginning of Neolithic research, trans- (e.g. the re-appraisal of the start of the Vinča culture and of
regional comparisons have been fundamental for the earliest LBK: Whittle et al. 2016; Bánffy et al. 2018).
understanding and explaining human adaption to ever-
changing conditions (Childe 1929). The application of A widespread preconception regarding radiocarbon
modern scientific methods and interdisciplinary intellectual dates is that the dates were, as the method’s full name
discourses has broadened our horizons greatly: every indicates, indeed absolute, and had to be accepted as
generation of prehistoric archaeologists has been and still such: as irrevocable. Therefore, the oldest dates from sites
is seeking new approaches and perspectives, and arriving were readily recognised just as they were calculated by
at new interpretations. Our present interpretative models the laboratories – and furthermore, the upper (older) end
are grounded in and derive from the tremendous wealth of a date has almost always been used for chronological
of insights and explanations drawn from the ‘history of interpretations, regardless of standard deviation (which in
research’, although some new results and approaches were the beginning were huge). This outright and positivistic
only accepted decades after their first application, such as position calls for reservations – and indeed, with the
radiocarbon analysis. possibility of statistically modelling whole sequences of
dates, such extreme interpretations are open to review.
Using both ‘absolute’ and ‘relative’ dates, single events or
a sequence of events can be almost precisely dated, and Since the turn of the millennium, monthly, even weekly,
periods, phases and sub-phases can be better contoured. new and ever more precise radiocarbon dates are
As a most telling example, V. Milojčić’s 1944 and 1949 published, sharpening our view and our chronological
calendar-year appraisals using relative-chronological schemes. Online databases make them easily accessible
schemes were invalidated by C. Renfrew’s 1971 appraisals and some of them, like the database www.14SEA.org, also
using radiocarbon dating. Subsequently, early radiocarbon offer analyses of ‘places’ within ‘spaces’, supported by
dates have not only provided important knowledge but descriptions of the geographical settings. But even with
also led to misapprehensions (e.g. the early start of the all this new input, we still bear the burden of sometimes
Aegean Neolithic even before 7000 calBC versus a later misleading results, not only from the early days of the
start at 6600 calBC). Such and other contradictions were method’s application but even from more recent times. For
clarified only by new sets of data or new methodological example, we still sometimes put too much emphasis on the
17
Agathe Reingruber
single date rather than on dates belonging to a sequence, let 8 per cent of human bones involved). Only exceptionally
alone to a modelled sequence (as seen e.g. in the northern have the C/N-ratios been determined to exclude this
Aegean). And since there are not enough dates available possibility. These dates too can at best be used as TPQs.
from every region, in some cases we ‘borrow’ and transfer
the results from even further distant regions, creating the The dating of pottery fragments also creates results that
impression of simultaneous occurrences over vast areas cannot be taken at face value, but need to be discussed:
(e.g. in the case of Starčevo-Körös-Criş culture). more often than not the results are very high, exceeding
expectations. The reason for this may be the insufficient
Only slowly and only since recent times have we become amount of material for conventional dating methods and/
aware of such misapprehensions that may skew our or contamination with the geological fossil organic carbon
interpretations. For this reason, one of the most important included in the clay source (Kulkova 2014, 122). For 7 per
developments in recent years is a more thin-meshed cent of the total, the material dated has not been indicated,
coverage, with ever more precise dates from good contexts and 3 per cent were obtained from shells, peat and ashy
and reliable materials. In contrast to the situation a few sands – they are not included in this evaluation.
years ago, today we can limit much more precisely the
duration of certain Neolithic settlements or of single Due to the absence of well-constructed series of dates
occupation levels within tell-sites, so that we no longer obtained from articulated bones, special attention is given
speak in terms of centuries, but of decades. Besides, in this contribution to short-lived species like the various
absolute dates convincingly illustrate continuities on the kinds of grains and pulses (13 per cent of the total).
one hand and breaks on the other, which can be followed Nevertheless, their stratigraphic position is not beyond
up across larger regions. doubt, due to their tininess and liability to have intruded
from the levels above. It goes without saying that future
Three cases will be discussed here that have led (and will evaluations will be ever more precise, since more care is
lead) to the re-interpretation of trans-regional narratives: now paid to sampling and dating processes. In essence,
the Neolithisation of southwest Anatolia and the Aegean; this contribution is an interim report that will certainly be
the beginning of the Neolithic in the southern Balkans; and challenged by future datasets.
the transition from painted to dark polished pottery across
large parts of the middle and lower Danube catchment. Timeline 1: 6600–6400 calBC
General remarks regarding the quality of the dates Case A: Mediterranean and southwestern Anatolia
The evaluation of absolute dates used in this contribution Evidence and problems
relies largely on the database 14SEA, available online,
with 3025 entries (Reingruber and Thissen 2017). The In discussions concerning the Neolithisation processes
dates were gathered from various publications, and some of southwestern Anatolia and the circum-Aegean, much
have been added based on personal communications attention has been paid to influences from central and
with excavators.9 All information available regarding southeastern Anatolia, but not enough to Mediterranean
context and sample material has been included, but, as a Anatolia. The reason for this may be that the coastal
word of caution: the quality of both sample materials and plains around Adana in the east and Antalya in the west
information regarding find circumstances is very varied have not been systematically investigated yet. From the
and often even lacking. Generally, the majority of the dates Gulf of Antalya, we are confronted with mostly antiquated
were obtained from charcoal (ca. 50 per cent, of which research and accordingly outdated interpretations.
only 7 per cent was identified – mostly as Quercus). As
species and maturity are not known, these dates can only But also, from the areas farther inland, the Lake District,
be used as termini post quos (TPQs) for specific (undated) the quality of information is often ambiguous. This has to
events. The samples of charred structural elements (posts, do with the tendentious interpretation of the lowest levels
corner posts, beams) are additionally subject to a possible in Hacılar. As Mellaart himself stated in 1970, the ‘right’
old-wood effect. interpretation of Hacılar had not been possible without
the experience gained in Çatalhöyük (Mellaart 1967). The
The samples deriving from animal bones without ‘Aceramic’ level in Hacılar, though, had been discovered
articulation, and especially those from antler, could be in the last days of excavation, and was thus not subjected
curated or residual (ca. 19 per cent of the total). They also to detailed examination, as was the case in Çatalhöyük (see
provide a TPQ at best. In the case of bone samples, species the critical discussion of Aceramic Hacılar in Reingruber
are often not indicated, leaving doubts about whether the 2008, 420–32). Crucial for its interpretation was the single
animal in question ate fish (as a boar or pig might) and was high date from the earliest days of the radiocarbon method
therefore susceptible to the reservoir effect (like also the (BM-127: 8700±180 BP; 8170–7570 BC), fitting well with
the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPN B) of Central Anatolia.
9
No Aceramic levels have appeared in subsequent
For all the dates mentioned here, reference is made to their original
source of publication (unless otherwise indicated) at http://www.14sea. excavations directed by R. Duru (1989) at the periphery of
org/2_dates.html. the mound, and Duru clearly dismisses the existence of such
18
Timelines in the Neolithic
Figure 2.1. Map of the areas covered in the text (the Mediterranean and south-west Anatolia, the circum-Aegean, the
Marmara region, the Balkans, and the middle/lower Danube region) and some of the main sites discussed.
a phase at this site. Yet he does not question the relevance of coastal areas. Only three dates each from the Öküzini and
the high date BM-127, even though this date has not been Karain caves (Figure 2.1) date back to the 7th millennium
backed by any other dates, either from the site itself or from BC. However, two seeds without reliable context from the
the broader region, and should be dismissed as an outlier. Öküzini cave (Martinoli 2004) point towards a probably only
The date BM-125 from layer VII is derived from the same short occupation event anywhere between 7000 and 6800
dating event in the early days of the radiocarbon method: calBC, as previously indicated by a single date on charcoal.
it too stands in isolation and should not be included in any On the other hand, the dates from Cave B at Karain, all from
evaluation. unidentified charcoal, suggest three different events: the
oldest from ‘AH13’, around 6660–6440 calBC, followed
Proposals by a single date for ‘AH12’ at 6380–6230 calBC and 6050–
5900 calBC for ‘AH11.’ Nevertheless, these three events
The absence of sequences of dates from the Antalya coastal may be meaningful compared to the dates from the Lake
area is detrimental for the interpretation of the spread of District. There, exclusive of the dates BM-125 and BM-127
the Neolithic way of life from Mediterranean into Aegean from Hacılar, a total of 24 dates cover the period prior to the
19
Agathe Reingruber
6000 calBC-marge (Thissen 2017, Figure 1: www.14sea. Taurus. The Central and Eastern Taurus further separate the
org/3_Ie.html). One date on unidentified charoal from plateau of Central Anatolia towards the southeast from the
the first level of the Early Neolithic (henceforth EN) at PPN A koine of the ‘Fertile Crescent.’ Such geographical
Bademağacı (Hd-22340) falls into the first half of the 7th boundaries may be one of the reasons for the ‘arrhythmic’
millennium calBC and stands in isolation, not fitting into spread of Neolithic innovations (Guilaine 2007) or for
the sequence continuing after 6400 calBC with phase EN II ‘agricultural frontier zones’ (Zvelebil and Lillie 2000).
(compare Figure 2.2). This sequence, when modelled, is On the other hand, the sea itself obviously did not act as
of low agreement (Amodel: 35), pointing to the complex a barrier, since Cyprus had been inhabited since the 10th
stratigraphical situation at the site and the lack of precise millennium by seafaring communities: either the coastal
information regarding the samples. At the most, the start Anatolian areas north of the island need more systematic
of the boundary at 6450 calBC can serve as a TPQ. Again, investigation since such early places may have eluded our
there are only TPQ results from the animal bone (species attention, or the primary settlers arrived from the eastern,
not identified) from Höyücek’s Earliest Settlement Phase Levantine coast.
(ESP) around 6300 calBC. The subsequent Shrine Phase
(SP) is again insufficiently well dated by three unidentified The few and often ambiguous dates from the Antalya
charcoal samples (inclusive of the old-wood effect) that region and farther inland in the Lake District may be
may suggest an end of the phase around 6100 calBC. Three indicative of a declivity from south (Öküzini prior to
dates from animal bones from Kuruçay confirm that this 6700 calBC) to north (Bademağacı to Kuruçay after 6600
site was founded only at the end of the 7th millennium BC. calBC). Therefore, the spread of farming into the Lake
District may have come from the southwestern coastal
No satisfactory interpretation of the dates from Hacılar can area, and not from the inland, across the mountains. After
be offered unless new dates are added to the sequence. One 6700 calBC, also near the Aegean coasts, there do appear
interpretation among several is that the earliest possible the first elements indicative of a Neolithic way of life
time for the beginning of Level VI might be anywhere (domesticated animals and plants). The pivotal point for
between 6370–6220 calBC (Thissen 2017: www.14sea. the Neolithisation of both the Lake District and the Aegean
org/3_Ie.html) or, even later, between 6220–6070 calBC was probably the coastal area near Antalya.
(median 6140 calBC). The Hacılar IX date P-314 with a
median date at 6210 calBC is not compatible with the first Case B: The circum-Aegean
suggestion, but is in line with the second one.
Evidence and problems
General assessment
The plateau in the calibration curve during the first half of
The PPN B koine of Central Anatolia (with sites like the 7th millennium BC has created many misunderstandings
Çatalhöyük) is separated from the Pottery Neolithic (PN) of regarding the interpretation of 14C dates not only in
SW Anatolia by the steep mountain ranges of the Western Bademağacı but also throughout the Aegean. A brief
Figure 2.2. The modelled dates from the site of Bademağacı in the Lake District of south-west Anatolia.
20
explanation of this problem is therefore appropriate: has recently been revitalised by Çilingiroǧlu and Cakırlar
between ca. 7000 and 6600 calBC, due to the fluctuating 2013 and Erdoǧu 2017: although Duru cautioned that in
amount of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere, the curve Hacılar sherds were found not only on but even inside red-
does not form a steep or even an inclined line, since the plastered floors (Duru 1989, 101, Figure 1, Pl. 19.4–9), such
many wiggles result in a so-called ‘plateau.’ This situation floors from the sites of Ulucak and Uğurlu are connected by
has induced archaeologists always to regard the older and the cited authors to an Anatolian PPN tradition. However,
never the younger end of it as indicative of the start of the Aceramic in the secondary Neolithisation zone of the
the Neolithic. It has been argued that the Neolithic way of Lake District and the Aegean was clearly distinguished
life was implemented around 7000 calBC, for example in by J. Mellaart and J. D. Evans from the PPN farther east.
Knossos, Franchthi or Ulucak (Evans 1971, Perlès 2013, They regarded basal Hacılar and Knossos X as coeval with
Çilingiroǧlu and Cakırlar 2013). Yet dates obtained from the Anatolian PN (Mellaart 1970, 6) and considered that
short-lived samples even from the same sites have proven there was ‘some delay in organizing pottery production’
that in fact the younger part of the plateau provides the (Evans in Warren et. al. 1968, 271). Other than in Central
correct dating for this important transition from a food- Anatolia, it appears that Aceramic sites in the Aegean
gathering to a food-producing economy. catchment are the exception rather than the rule.
Even more grave is the case of the high dates from Argissa Proposals
Magoula in the western Aegean (Thessaly): there, in the
early 1970s dates were obtained from bones of around Çukuriçi Höyük and Ulucak
or even prior to 7000 calBC. Not only was the dating of
collagen problematic at that time, but these dates may All radiocarbon dates from the basal deposits at Çukuriçi
even have been faked (see below). Höyük, Levels XIII–VIII are from short-lived botanical
samples (cereals, wheat, legumes or grass) and animal
Another bias relates to the wrong view that the Preceramic/ bones (cattle, boar or goat). Modelling the sequence
Aceramic Period was coeval with at least the final part of from this site, Weninger was able to pinpoint the decades
the PPN B, around 7000 calBC. As was shown a decade around 6630 calBC as its starting point (Weninger et al.
ago, understanding of the Preceramic Period in Greece 2014, 17–18; Horejs et al. 2015).
was ill conceptualised and was not the result of detailed
observation but rather of subjective interpretations More complicated is the sequence from Ulucak, and
(compare Reingruber 2008). Especially the Thessalian simply sequencing the dates according to the phasing
sites, fundamental for the definition of this phase, were yields an unsatisfactory model with very low agreement
shown to have been founded centuries after pottery came (Thissen 2017, Figure 2: http://www.14sea.org/3_IIa.
into use in Central Anatolia. html#site2). A simple calibration of the dates from level
VI, separated according to the materials dated (charcoal
The discussion regarding the existence of an Aceramic or grains: Figure 2.3) shows the misapprehension to which
Period in the Aegean comparable to the PPN in Anatolia one is liable when putting too much emphasis on the
Figure 2.3. The calibrated dates from the site of Ulucak, in the eastern Aegean.
21
Agathe Reingruber
long-lived charcoal samples: those dates are artificially and Groningen date the beginning of the site to the mid-
extended to 7000 BC due to the plateau in the calibration 7th millennium BC. Thus, they fit well with the sequence
curve. On the other hand, short-lived samples on emmer from Sesklo, where new dates were obtained from old
from level VI possibly stem from the same event or from a samples (Y. Maniatis, personal communication Nov.
short sequence of events (Çilingiroğlu et al. 2012, 14). In 2016), corroborating the placement of the beginning of the
Ulucak, the lowest level without pottery can thus be dated Neolithic in Thessaly around or after 6500 BC (Reingruber
to around 6700–6500 calBC, well after the introduction of et al. 2017).
pottery production in Anatolia.
Mavropigi-Filotsairi and Paliambela-Kolindros
Knossos and Franchthi
From Mavropigi (in western Macedonia) and Paliambela-
The early dates from the eastern Aegean are promptly Kolindros (in central Macedonia) high dates between
followed by those from the southern Aegean, from 6600 and 6400 calBC have been obtained as well. As in
Knossos on Crete and from Franchthi in the Argolid. Argissa and Sesklo they derive from charcoal or animal
Whereas they were previously also placed by their highest bones of unknown species and can therefore serve also
possible values at 7000 calBC, more recent insights offer a only as TPQs. The dates from grains from Mavropigi, at
different conclusion, namely that the EN started there only 6300–6100 calBC, are much younger, while those from
after 6600 calBC (Reingruber and Thissen 2009; Douka human bones fall into two different groups, at 6400–6230
et al. 2017, 308). Even the charred grains from Franchthi and 6060–5910 calBC.
confirm this view, although more weight was given to the
older charcoal samples (Perlès et al. 2013). Pending their final publication, only a very general
appraisal of the two sites is possible: they antedate the
The dates from both sites confirm that, when one looks sequence from Nea Nikomedeia and coincide with the
especially at the grain samples, the Aceramic event can beginning of the Aegean EN. Yet, unlike the case in
probably be dated even to the post-6600 calBC period. the eastern Aegean, these dates cannot be statistically
After this initial short phase, the sequence in Franchthi is modelled yet. Therefore, it is methodologically
interrupted – a gap for the next 500–600 years is attestable problematic to compare single high dates deriving
(Reingruber 2017a, Figure 3: http://www.14sea.org/3_ from different materials (inclusive of human bone as in
IIa-d.html#site1). As no dates are to be expected in the Mavropigi) with modelled sequences of dates from grains
near future from the open-air sites of the Argolid, labelled like those from Ulucak or Çukuriçi Höyük.
‘Early Neolithic’ (like Franchthi Paralia, Korinth, Nemea
or Lerna), the nature of this gap – a gap in knowledge or Case C: The northeastern Aegan and the Marmara
in occupation? – will not be easily understood. From a region
circum-Aegean perspective these sites can be related to
the Middle Neolithic (MN). Evidence and problems
Argissa and Sesklo As has been shown elsewhere (Reingruber 2016a),

the tongue of land surrounded by the three seas of the
Four (or five?) bone samples from Argissa Magoula , run Northern Aegean, the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea
at the University of Los Angeles, fostered the discussion was possibly more affected by the changes in sea levels
on indigenous domestication of animals (cattle, sheep and than the southern Aegean. The area around the Sea of
dogs) as early as 7000 calBC. In the documentation of the Marmara, with its own catchment, is in our understanding
site no references to the provenance and context of these not part of the circum-Aegean sphere, but is treated as a
bones can be found. Two dates gave results between 7300 neighbouring area.
and 6700 calBC (UCLA-1657A, UCLA-1657D), and one
to around 5600 calBC (UCLA-1657E), whilst the sample Proposals
UCLA-1657B failed (Protsch and Berger 1973, 236).
These dates must be considered highly doubtful, not only Barcın and Uǧurlu
because of the later career of the main author of the article:
R. Protsch, when director of the Frankfurt radiocarbon Barcın is for the moment the oldest settlement in the
laboratory, demonstrably made up or even faked results Marmara area; the sequence, with 16 dates, starts around
and was expelled from the University in 2005 (Reingruber or after 6640 calBC (Gerritsen et al. 2013). A bit younger
2017a: http://www.14sea.org/3_IIc.html#). Also, the wide are the dates from Menteşe and Aktopraklık. But note that
variety of the results obtained from these bone samples all these early sites are situated at some distance from the
throws some doubts on their quality: the dating of collagen coast and only around 6000 BC were new sites established
especially necessitates complicated pre-treatments, and close by (Ilıpınar) or near (Fikirtepe, Pendik, Yenikapı) the
only after the introduction of the AMS-method in 1977 shores (Reingruber 2016a, Figure 1).
and the application of ultra-filtration in 1988 (Brown et
al. 1988) could such results be regarded as reliable. On Of almost the same age as Barcın are the dates from
the other hand, the charcoal samples run in Heidelberg Uǧurlu on the island of Gökçeada/Imbros: three dates
22
from charred material and two from bone collagen fall in been put on dating the lowest levels and not much attention
the period between 6650 and 6470 calBC (Erdoǧu 2017). paid in this respect to the upper levels. The dates seemingly
Unlike the case of the new dates from Barcın and the cover 500 years of occupation – in contradiction to the
Southern Aegean, in Uǧurlu a precise beginning for the site relative-chronological appraisal of the three house phases
cannot be established yet: it may have occurred anywhere with an estimated duration of between 50 and 150 years
between 6780 and 6470 calBC. Its closest neighbouring (Pyke 1996, 47–48; Yiouni 1996, 184).
sites are those in the Marmara region to the east and Hoca
Çeşme to the north. The island of Gökçeada/Imbros may When looking at the northeastern part of the Aegean (Hoca
have functioned as a stepping-stone in navigating the open Çeşme and Uǧurlu) one must observe that the pottery
sea between the eastern and the northeastern Aegean, the sequences and the chronological schemes there have not
straits of the Dardanelles being avoided. been related to Aegean but rather to Anatolian systems
(Özdoǧan 1998; Erdoǧu 2017). Their relation with the
Since the salinity of the Black Sea stabilised possibly only circum-Aegean sphere must still be established in more
around 6000 calBC (Ryan et al. 1997; Reingruber 2016a, detail.
Tab. 2) transgressions and regressions may have affected
the Marmara catchment until well into the 7th millennium, Proposals
making navigation dangerous and, generally, the coastal
strips not attractive for early farmers. The Sea of Marmara Nea Nikomedeia and Hoca Çeşme
may not have acted as a bridge before 6000 calBC, but
rather as a barrier (Gatsov et al. 2017): near the southern Initially, the excavators conceived of Nea Nikomedeia as a
shores of the Sea of Marmara, close to the lakes that have two-layered site (Pyke 1996, 9 and Figure 2.1), the ca. 60–
formed there, the Neolithic way of life appeared much 70 cm deep deposits being excavated in up to three spits
earlier than on its northern shores. of ca. 20 cm each (Pyke 1996, 35, Tab. 2.1). At first sight,
the AMS-radiocarbon dates published only according
General assessment to age and not to context (Youni 1996, 195) support the
separation into three datable clusters (Reingruber and
All statistically modelled sequences and especially Thissen 2017, Figure 3: www.14sea.org/3_IId.html#site1):
the new dates obtained from short-lived samples from the oldest dates fall between 6350 and 6250 BC; a group
exactly those sites that previously supported the higher of five dates covers the 62nd century BC, and the youngest
chronology of 7000 BC (Knossos and Franchthi) have combined date is shortly after 6000 calBC (with a
shown that this appraisal needed revision: the beginning median value at 5900 calBC). The latter would point to a
of the Neolithic in the Aegean must be re-dated to after continuation of the habitation into the early MN, the site of
6700 calBC, well after pottery came into use (Reingruber Nea Nikomedeia not being an exclusively EN site without
and Thissen 2009; 2017: www.14sea.org/3_IIa-d.html). any evidence for the MN (Pyke 1996, 48). Here, another
Hence, the discussion around a possible Preceramic or disputed issue must be brought to mind: until recently, the
Aceramic period loses its subject matter. The impulse for EN was dated between 6500 and 5800 calBC. This view
the Neolithisation of the Aegean did not derive directly has now been modified, as the EN–MN transition can
from the Anatolian Plateau, but rather from the coastal be dated to 6000 calBC (Reingruber et al. 2017). In this
area where the Mediterranean and the Aegean Seas merge, respect the 14C dates, together with the small finds from
and where seafaring hunter-gatherer communities lived in Nea Nikomedeia (especially the stamps), should also be
close proximity to the ‘frontier zone.’ While the dates from published with more detailed information regarding their
coastal sites or from sites close to the coasts are the oldest exact stratigraphical position and their precise context,
in the series, the dates from the hinterland (e.g. Argissa and the topmost stratum itself should generally be more
Magoula) are even younger, dating to after 6500 calBC thoroughly described.
(Reingruber et al. 2017).
From Hoca Çeşme in the Evros/Maritsa/Meriç Delta a
Timeline 2: 6200–6000 calBC sequence of 14 dates obtained from unidentified charcoal
covers the periods of the EN and MN, roughly between
Case A: The northwestern and the northeastern Aegean 6500 and 5500 calBC (according to median values).10
Phase III has the most consistent series, the modelled dates
Evidence and problems clustering between 6000–5800 calBC at 1σ. But the dates
from Phase IV spread widely between 6500–6000 BC,
Outliers of the early 7th millennium and even of the late 8th implying a long duration of this phase that is not supported
millennium BC have been encountered across the whole by the pottery sequence (cf. Özdoğan 1999; Karul and
of the Aegean, including in its northwestern part the site of Bertram 2005).
Nea Nikomedeia. Here, not only can these early dates be
dismissed as untenable, but a more detailed consideration 10
In the boundary model (Thissen 2017, Figure 6: http://www.14sea.
also throws a better light on the dates at the end of the 7th org/3_IId.html#site3) three of the Groningen dates (GrN-19355, GrN-
19357 and GrN-19310) have not been included, since they present very
millennium. The sampling for dates in Nea Nikomedeia large standard deviations due to a low amount of carbon (pers. comm. J.
has not been well balanced, since too much emphasis has van der Plicht).
23
Agathe Reingruber
Case B: The central and eastern Balkans Strymon valley no early sites have been reported yet, but
farther upstream Kovačevo (near Sandanski) is known for
Evidence and problems two dates from seeds of around 6200–6000 calBC.
From sites farther north along the Aegean coast some single Whereas west of the river Nestos late 7th-millennium dates
high dates have significantly influenced our perception of were reported from drillings in Dikili Tash and from Orfeas
the spread of the Neolithic. From North Macedonia, from Alistratis, east of that river, the site of Hoca Çeşme still
the site of Porodin, two dates from grains were placed stands largely alone: the only other early site in the nearby
between 6200 and 6000 BC. North of the watershed, near mainland region, that of Makri, produced a date prior to
the Morava valley, from the site of Blagotin-Poljna (near 6000 BC, but has been interpreted by the excavator as an
the hill of Trestnik) three dates were obtained: one from outlier, since it yielded too little carbon. All other dates
a red deer antler, one from a human bone and one from a postdate the 6000 calBC-marge, the sequence starting with
perforator bone of an unspecified animal: none of the three Phase A after 5900 (Efstratiou et al. 1998).
materials is beyond doubt regarding their susceptibility
either to old materials being reused (antler) or to the Not only the density of sites but also the watercourses may
reservoir effect (human and animal bone). They can at best have been important factors for the interconnectedness
be used as TPQs. Farther north, again in the hilly areas of and the dynamism in a given region: following the courses
central Serbia, a single high date from Grivac-Barice of of the rivers upstream into the southern Balkans (still of
6200–6000 calBC was obtained from unspecified charcoal Aegean catchment), we encounter early sites especially in
and can serve only as a TPQ. their southern courses. But the higher upwards we move,
the younger the dates become, post-dating the 6000 calBC-
Even farther north, from the site of Starčevo-Grad, a date marge: On the Axios/Vardar, Amzabegovo and Vršnik; in
obtained from organic fractions of sherds resulted in a the Struma valley, Gălăbnik and, behind the water divide,
date range of 6500–6420 calBC (GrN-6628). Sherds from Sofia-Slatina; along the Nestos/Mesta, Elešnica.
Poljanica-platoto in the Bulgarian Ludogorie area were
also dated: the four dates fall between 6400 and 6000 BC. Yet, farther upstream from Hoca Çeşme, along the Evros/
These high results may be due to the insufficient amount Meriç/Maritsa, no other early sites have been documented,
of carbon needed for conventional dating and/or to the possibly because the living conditions were not favourable
geological carbon not being completely eliminated from (Reingruber 2017b). The closest site is that of Nova
the sample, as has been argued in the case of the results Nadežda (after 6000) and, ca. 30 km west of it, Yabalkovo
obtained from pottery from the Bug-Dnjestr culture (well after 6000 BC), suggesting a spread from east to
(Kulkova, 2014: 122; Thissen and Reingruber 2017). Also west (although, from an overall perspective, Nikolov 2017
Marinova and Krauß (2014: 181) explain the high values suggests a spread of farming from west to east).
as due to contamination with fossil organic material in the
clay that was used to produce the vessels. No other site General assessment
from this region has confirmed such an early start for the
Neolithic: the other sequences begin around or after 6000 Based on today’s knowledge it can thus be ascertained that
calBC, e.g. at Dzhulyunica-Smardesh. from the southernmost courses of rivers flowing into the
Aegean the oldest sites indeed antedate the 6000 calBC-
Proposals marge. However, an over-positivistic interpretation of
the few single dates from the higher courses of the same
It appears that the sites from the Northern Aegean are rivers, or even from beyond the watershed farther north,
dictating the rhythm of the spread of Neolithic innovations must be questioned. Certainly, an interplay between
into the central Balkans on the one hand and into the newcomers and the local Mesolithic population may have
eastern Balkans on the other hand. From the NW Aegean, existed that early, but the basis for such studies is still very
especially from the Aliakmon catchment, a number of sites thin (Borić and Price 2013). Interestingly, recent research
produced dates earlier than 6000 calBC: e.g. Mavropigi, points to Late Mesolithic traditions during the EN of the
Paliambela-Kolindros, Nea Nikomedeia, Lefkopetra, 6th millennium BC due to the continuation of the use of
Paliambela-Roditis and Varemenoi-Goulon (Thissen and aquatic resources (Cramp et al. 2019).
Reingruber 2017). Coeval with the dates from grains from
Mavropigi are those from Porodin (6200–6000 calBC) The connection between the coastal sites of the northern
– as the two sites are less than 80 km apart, these hilly Aegean and the sites farther inland is not yet well described,
areas of western Macedonia and the southern part of North but there seems to emerge a pattern of interplay between
Macedonia look especially promising for EN-related coastal sites situated close to the mouth of a large river,
research. Also, in the catchment of the Axios/Vardar the and new sites established on their upper courses. And there
sites of Axos/Pellas and Giannitsa B have long been known may be a connection between the way the coastal areas
for their early dates of 6200–6000 calBC. The farther east were used during the Aegean EN in the western part of
we proceed, the fewer are the early sites – this may be Northern Aegean and in its eastern part: in the western
the result of poorer investigations, or indeed may reflect a part a higher dynamism may be attested, with many sites
decrease in the available evidence: from the mouth of the discovered both from the start of the EN and throughout the
24
Neolithic; the eastern part is much poorer in sites during Whereas it seemed until recently that 5500 BC could be
the EN, with possibly less dynamic networks at play. considered a safe starting point for the Vinča culture, two
comprehensive articles have challenged this view (Borić
Timeline 3: 5500–5300 calBC 2015; Whittle et al. 2016): obviously, the Vinča culture
cannot be dated prior to 5350 calBC. This finding certainly
Case A: The middle and lower Danube river has far-reaching consequences, because the dates from
the neighbouring areas east of the Vinča culture are now
Evidence and problems obviously older than those from the middle of the culture.
The two centuries between 5500 and 5300 BC are Proposals

unfortunately not well documented in most parts of
Southeast and Central Europe (except for the eastern Lepenski Vir and Starčevo-Grad
Balkans). Whereas until recently the MN in Greece was
dated from 5800 to 5300 calBC, it has been shown that Lepenski Vir has stirred the interest not only of
the MN had ended already by around 5500 calBC, and no archaeologists but also of the interested larger community
later (Reingruber et al. 2017). But from exactly these two – the publications are copious and the 14C chronology
centuries at the beginning of the Late Neolithic (LN) in the is relatively well constructed, although the assignment
Aegean terminology we are left with very few dates, not of the single samples to phases is still a challenge, with
only from Thessaly but also from other regions. two competing relative-chronological systems at its base
(Bonsall et al. 2008; Borić 2011, Borić 2016, 13–20). As
In the Balkans the transition from the EN to the MN is the contextual information on the samples obtained from
conventionally dated to around 5500 BC. Supportive of animal bones and charcoal is incomplete, we refrain from
this view are the dates from sites in present-day Bulgaria modelling the dates statistically, yet a simple calibration
(Karanovo III-horizon). But on the northern shores of the shows that the duration of the EN at the site spans the
Danube river, in southern Romania, the EN was related to period 6000–5500 calBC (Figure 2.4). For a probability
the Starčevo culture, and the rhythm of change in terms of distribution based on human bones and antlers, compare
pottery production has been described accordingly. Such Borić 2016, 22, Figure 1.16.
general adjustments over vast areas, inclusive of important
geographical boundaries, may – but must not necessarily – Farther upstream, in Starčevo-Grad, we may be faced with
be pertinent. The latter is the case for the final stage of the a different situation: a total of 18 radiocarbon dates can
Starčevo culture in Romania: Milojčić defined the fourth be grouped according to the materials dated, and possibly
and final phase of the Starčevo culture as a phase in decline, also according to the pits they derive from (Figure 2.5).
the latter being attestable only in northern Serbia (Milojčić When the dates are sorted according to pits, they are
1949, 71). Whereas the first three phases of the Starčevo- suggestive of a horizontal shift in the settlement (Figure
Criş culture were located in the Banat, Transylvania 2.6). The youngest among them, Pit 5a, dates well into
and Oltenia, with phase IV the Starčevo-Criş culture the 55th century. Between the end of Starčevo and the
presumably expanded also to Moldova. It was determined beginning of Vinča A one has to acknowledge a hiatus of
that phase IV was encountered both in the Carpathian up to 200 years between 5500/5400 and 5350/5300 calBC
basin and beyond the Carpathian Arc (Lazarovici 1979, (Tasić et al. 2015, Tab. 4). This later start for the Vinča
53–55), covering, according to the dominant nationalistic culture would coincide with the beginning of the earliest
discourse favoured by the communistic regime, the whole LBK around 5350 calBC, as it has recently been dated
country uniformly (compare Reingruber 2016b). based on bone samples from different Central European
sites. These results have been doubted by Strien (2017) but
However, Lazarovici preferred to describe this phase as a were reinforced by Bánffy et al. 2018.
phenomenon, and to put it in quotation marks in order to
differentiate it from the chronological phase IV (Lazarovici Măgura-Boldul lui Moş Ivănuş, Măgura-Buduiasca and
1979, 55–56). The ‘phenomenon’ was not considered Cârcea-Viaduct
by him to be part of the proper Starčevo-Criş culture,
but allegedly there was no other name needed, although Downstream, along the lower course of the river Danube,
the pottery of the outer Carpathian area, decorated with the situation is different. Especially relevant are the new
incisions in zigzags, ripples and channelling, is strikingly dates obtained from Măgura at two sites in direct proximity,
different. Therefore, the ‘Starčevo IV phenomenon’ is a Boldul lui Moş Ivănuş and Buduiasca (Mirea 2005). The
poorly defined phase, contemporaneous with or pre-dating finds from the former were assigned to the phase Criş I, and
Vinča A (Reingruber 2016b, 169). A fresh and unbiased those from the latter to Criş III, without any interruption
description of this ‘phenomenon’ is a real desideratum in in the 14C sequence ending around 5600 calBC (note that
the discussion of Neolithisation processes in the contact no phase II has been acknowledged here: Figure 2.7). A
zone between the lower Danube and Prut rivers: what was 100-year-long break, at least in the dates if not also in
the relationship with the steppe farther east? And what was occupation, is followed by another unbroken sequence
its impact on the transformations in the middle Danube of dates from around 5500 onwards, ending around 5150
area? calBC. In addition to the impracticality of defining a Criş
25
Agathe Reingruber
Figure 2.4. Calibrated dates from Lepenski Vir in the middle Danube area, sorted according to their age.
Figure 2.5. Calibrated dates from Starčevo-Grad in the middle Danube area, sorted according to materials.
26
Figure 2.6. Modelled dates from Starčevo-Grad in the middle Danube area, sorted by the pits to which they belonged.
II phase based on the pottery, no elements of the Criş IV within national borders and to research fostered under
phase have been detected here, let alone the ‘Starčevo authoritative regimes or even dictatorships, no neutral
IV phenomenon’ described. Instead, the materials were and state-independent interpretations were desired. It
assigned to the Dudeşti and Vădastra cultures. is a truism that places and spaces should be interpreted
according to the geographical and not the political setting;
A different nomenclature has been applied to the materials thus, it is about time to look into the final phases of the
from Cârcea-Viaduct, halfway between Lepenski Vir EN in the outer Carpathian area free of doctrines and
and Măgura. Here, the sequence starts with the phase ideologies. Instead of establishing a forced uniformity
‘Starčevo-Criş IV’ at ca. 5500 calBC, continuing with over a whole country, it makes sense instead to take a
phase Dudeşti-Vinča B after 5350 calBC and Dudeşti- closer look at the specific dates and materials and describe
Vinča C after 5000 calBC (Figure 2.8). These dates were them anew. Especially desirable is the unravelling of the
not included in the study by Whittle et al. 2016, 15, since ‘Starčevo IV phenomenon.’
the samples could not be associated with Vinča pottery ‘at
all’, but the authors give no explanation as to what they It appears that the sites closer to the steppe region of the Prut
then could be related to. They acknowledge, though, ‘the and lower Danube area underwent transformations earlier
lack of rigorous, quantitative typo-chronological studies than those west of the mountainous bow that connects the
on statistically viable samples of Vinča ceramics, and Carpathians with the Stara Planina and separates the lower
the lack of representative analysis and full publication from the middle courses of the Danube (the Iron Gates/
of excavated assemblages’ (Whittle et al. 2016, 7). The Đerdap-gorges). Within the Carpathian Basin, major
solution, however, is not the exclusion of sites downstream changes were occurring possibly only 200 years later. As
of the Iron Gates/Đerdap-gorges from discussions of the Whittle et al. 2016, 41 have put it: ‘What we can stress
formation of the Vinča culture (Whittle et al. 2016, Tab. 1 here is the apparent synchronicity of the appearance of
and Figure 26), since both ‘Starčevo-Criş IV’ at Cârcea- Vinča ceramics and the earliest LBK diaspora’ – as we now
Viaduct and ‘Dudeşti’ at Măgura-Buduiasca are coeval know, around 5350 calBC. Not to forget that E. Bánffy
with the final phase in Starčevo-Grad and older than argued already a dozen years ago that the Neolithisation of
Vinča A. Instead, a closer look at the western Pontic area Central Europe was much more complex than previously
and even into the steppe region may provide additional thought, and Starčevo influences played a major role in the
information and more insight than the perpetual search for emergence of Linear Pottery (Bánffy 2006, 132).
influences from Greece.
Conclusions
General assessment
New and precise 14C dates on short-lived samples
The legacy of research history is nowhere more evident than have opened new paths towards explaining prehistoric
on the middle/lower Danube: owing to strict confinements processes. The absolute dates have added enormously
27
Agathe Reingruber
Figure 2.7. Modelled dates from Măgura-Boldul lui Moş Ivănuş and Măgura-Buduiasca.
to our understanding of the nature and duration of think of different trajectories and routes of contact. Last
relationships and exchange among people living in but not least, interruptions and gaps in sequences also
different areas. As a control mechanism to the previously become more evident (compare Bánffy et al. 2018, 127).
elaborated relative chronological frameworks, we are
today in the advantageous position of being able either to A delay of several hundred years for the spread of
cement or to challenge the unsteady grounds of subjective innovations can be acknowledged between Central
appraisals. But let’s face it: 14C dates are also sometimes Anatolia and the Aegean: a possible explanation has been
subject to interpretations and adjustments. Therefore, all given by Zvelebil and Lillie 2000 for a different part
chronological frameworks need continuous updates. Yet, of Europe: geographical spaces can also be described
compared even to the last decades of the 20th century, 14C as social spaces separated from each other by frontier
dates today allow us to put forward new models and to zones (zones of interaction between different groups).
28
Figure 2.8. Modelled dates from Cârcea-Viaduct.
It may not have been the decision of inland Anatolian area even at the beginning of the Neolithic. The use of the
farmers or migrants from farther east to cross these zones area by Mesolithic communities remains elusive, except
and ‘colonise’ their neighbouring coastal areas. Rather, for single coastal sites (e.g. Yarımburgaz near the Sea
more attention should be paid to coastal, mobile groups of Marmara or a few sites in the Dobrogea: Özdoğan et
of ‘hunter-gatherers in transition’, especially to those of al. 1991; Păunescu 1990). Certainly more of them await
the Anatolian Mediterranean coast (around Antalya) and discovery.
the southern Aegean coast. Their exchange networks, in
place since earlier phases of the Mesolithic, may have The interplay between the two catchments – that of the
been the basis for a continuous cultural, social, economic Aegean on the one hand and of the Black Sea on the other
and genetic exchange well into the Neolithic (Reingruber – is most interesting to observe around 5500 calBC when
2018). Based on the almost simultaneous appearance of major transformations in both areas can be followed up.
Neolithic elements in coastal areas, we can conclude that But now the evidence is much better from the eastern
the contacts between the different coasts of the circum- Balkans (Karanovo III culture), whereas upwards and
Aegean koine were intensive and fruitful, with innovations downwards from the Iron Gates the centuries between
and raw materials (obisidian) spreading throughout the 5500 and 5300 calBC need more targeted research.
Aegean not only from east to west but in other directions.
Acknowledgements
Although in the Northern Aegean some early dates point
to a mid-7th-millennium spread of farming into this region The author would like to thank Laurens Thissen for
too, and especially so in its western areas, it is only after reading and commenting on the manuscript. Numerous
6200 calBC that the Neolithic way of life prevailed and ideas in this article arose from the joint work on the 14SEA
many new sites were founded. Again owing to probably database and fruitful discussions (not only) on the topics
Mesolithic contacts, innovators and innovations spread of chronology and chorology.
fast along the lower courses of rivers debouching into the
Aegean. References cited
Bánffy, Eszter. 2006. ‘Eastern, Central and Western
A different picture emerges in the catchment of the Black
Hungary – variations of Neolithisation models.’
Sea that is dominated by the river-system of the Danube.
Documenta Praehistorica 33: 125–42.
The comparatively late appearance of Neolithic sites in
this area may be connected to the transgression of the Bánffy, Eszter, Alex Bayliss, Anthony Denaire, Bisserka
Black Sea and the saturation of its salinity only around Gaydarska, Daniela Hofmann, Philippe Lefranc, János
6000 calBC. Comparing this situation to that of the central Jakucs, Miroslav Marić, Krisztián Oross, Nenad Tasić,
Balkans, one may assume much less dynamism in this Alasdair Whittle. 2018. ‘Seeking the Holy Grail: robust
29
Agathe Reingruber
chronologies from archaeology and radiocarbon dating residues.’ Proceedings of the Royal Society B 286
combined.’ Documenta Praehistorica 45: 120–36. (1894): 1-9 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2018.2347.
Bayliss, Alex, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Johannes Douka, Katerina, Nikos Efstratiou, Mette M. Hald, Peter
van der Plicht, Alasdair Whittle. 2007. ‘Bradshaw S. Henriksen, Alexandra Karetsou. 2017. ‘Dating
and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic.’ Knossos and the arrival of the earliest Neolithic in the
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17, suppl.: 1–28. southern Aegean.’ Antiquity 91(356): 304–21.
Bonsall, Clive. 2008. ‘The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates.’ In Duru, Refik. 1989. ‘Were the Earliest Cultures at Hacılar
Mesolithic Europe, edited by Geoff Bailey and Penny really Aceramic?’ In Anatolia and the Ancient Near
Spikins, 238–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University East: Tahsin Özgüç’e armağan; Studies in Honor of
Press. Tahsin Özgüç, edited by Kutlu Emre and Tahsin Özgüç,
99–104. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi
Borić, Dušan. 2011. ‘Adaptations and transformations
of the Danube Gorges foragers (c. 13,000–5500 BC): Efstratiou, Nikos, Maria P. Fumanal, Carlos Ferrer, Dushka
An overview.’ In Beginnings – New research in the Urem-Kotsou, Antonio Curci, Antonio Tagliacozzo,
appearance of the Neolithic between Northwest Georgia Stratouli, Sultana M. Valamoti, Maria
Anatolia and the Carpathian Basin, edited by Raiko Ntinou, Ernestina Badal, Marko Madella, Katerina
Krauß, 157–203. Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Skourtopoulou. 1998. ‘Excavations at the Neolithic
Leidorf. settlement of Makri, Thrace, Greece (1988–1996) – a
preliminary report.’ Saguntum 31: 11−62.
Borić, Dušan. 2015. ‘The end of the Vinča world:
modelling the Neolithic to Copper Age transition and Erdoǧu, Burçin. 2017. ‘A preliminary report on the earliest
the notion of archaeological culture.’ In Neolithic and Neolithic levels at Uǧurlu on the island of Gökçeada.’
Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Anatolica 43: 1–11.
Sea. Chronologies and Technologies from the 6th and
Evans, John D. 1994. ‘The Early Millennia: Continuity
4th Millennium BCE, International Workshop Budapest
and Change in a Farming Settlement.’ In Knossos, A
2012. edited by Svend Hansen, Pál Raczky, Alexandra
Labyrinth of History. Papers presented in Honour of
Anders and Agathe Reingruber, 157–217. Archäologie
Sinclair Hood, edited by Don Evely, Helen Hughes-
in Eurasien 31. Bonn: Habelt
Brock and Nicoletta Momigliano, 1–20. Oxford and
Borić, Dušan. 2016. Posmrtni obredi na Lepenskom Viru: Northampton: British School at Athens.
Obrasci pogrebne prakse; Iskopavanja Dragoslava
Gatsov, Ivan, Petranka Nedelcheva, Malgorzata
Srejovića. Belgrade: Srpsko arheološko društvo.
Kaczanowska, Janusz K. Kozłowski. 2017. ‘Lithic
Borić, Dušan and Douglas T. Price. 2013. ‘Strontium Industries and their Role in Neolithisation Models in
isotopes document greater human mobility at the start Southeast Europe.’ In Going West? The dissemination
of the Balkan Neolithic.’ Proceedings of the National of Neolithic innovations between the Bosporus and
Academy of Sciences USA 110(9): 3298–3303. the Carpathians, Proceedings of the EAA Conference,
Istanbul 2014, edited by Agathe Reingruber, Zoï
Brown, Tom A., Earl D. Nelson, John S. Vogel, John R.
Tsirtsoni and Petranka Nedelcheva, 57–71. Themes
Southon. 1988. ‘Improved collagen extraction by
in Contemporary Archaeology vol. 3. European
modified Longin method.’ Radiocarbon 30(2): 171–77.
Association of Archaeology. London, New York:
Childe, Vere Gordon. 1929. The Danube in prehistory. Routledge.
Oxford: The Clarendon Press,.
Gerritsen, Fokke, Rana Özbal, and Laurens Thissen.
Çilingiroğlu, Altan, Özlem Çevik, and Çiler Çilingiroğlu. 2013. ‘The earliest Neolithic levels at Barcın Höyük,
2012. ‘Towards understanding the early farming Northwestern Turkey.’ Anatolica 39: 53–92.
communities of central-western Anatolia: contribution
Guilaine, Jean. 2007. ‘Die Ausbreitung der neolithischen
of Ulucak.’ In Neolithic in Turkey, New excavations and
Lebensweise im Mittelmeerraum.’ In Vor 12.000
new research. Western Turkey Vol. 4, edited by Mehmet
Jahren in Anatolien. Die ältesten Monumente der
Özdoğan, Nezih Bașgelen and Peter Kuniholm, 139–
Menschheit, edited by Clemens Lichter, 166–76.
75. Istanbul, Ege Yayınları.
Stuttgart: Badisches Landesmuseum Karlsruhe.
Çilingiroǧlu, Çiler and Cakırlar Canan. 2013. ‘Towards
Horejs, Barbara, Bogdana Milić, Felix Ostmann, Ursula
configuring the neolithisation of Aegean Turkey.’
Thanheiser, Bernhard Weninger, Alfred Galik. 2015.
Documenta Praehistorica 40: 21–29.
‘The Aegean in the early 7th millennium BC: maritime
Cramp, Lucy J. E., Jonathan Ethier, Dushka Urem-Kotsou, networks and colonization.’ Journal of World Prehistory
Clive Bonsall, Dušan Borić, Adina Boroneanţ, Richard 28: 289–330.
P. Evershed, Slaviša Perić, Mélanie Roffet-Salque,
Karul, Necmi and Jan-K. Bertram. 2005. ‘From Anatolia
Helen L. Whelton, Maria Ivanova. 2019. ‘Regional
to Europe: The Ceramic Sequence of Hoca Çeşme in
diversity in subsistence among early farmers in
Turkish Thrace.’ In How Did Farming Reach Europe?
Southeast Europe revealed by archaeological organic
Anatolian-European relations from the second half
30
of the 7th through the first half of the 6th millennium Păunescu, Alexandru. 1990. ‘Scurtă privire asupra
calBC, edited by Clemens Lichter, 117–30. BYZAS 2. paleoliticului şi mezoliticului din Dobrogea.’ Studii şi
İstanbul: Ege Yayınları. Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie 41, nos. 3–4:
215−34.
Kulkova, Mariana. A. 2014. ‘Radiocarbon dating of
ancient pottery.’ Samarskij naučnyj vestnik 3(8): 122. Perlès, Catherine, Anita Quiles, and Hélène Valladas.
2013. ‘Early seventh-millennium AMS dates from
Lazarovic, Gheorghe. 1979. Neoliticul Banatului.
domestic seeds in the Initial Neolithic at Franchthi
Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, IV. Cluj-Napoca:
Cave (Argolid, Greece).’ Antiquity 87: 1001–15.
Comitetul pentru cultură şi educaţie socialistăal
judeţului Cluj. Protsch, Reiner and Rainer Berger. 1973. ‘Earliest
Radiocarbon Dates for Domesticated Animals.’ Science
Marinova, Elena and Raiko Krauß. 2014. ‘Archaeobotanical
179: 235–39.
evidence on the Neolithisation of Northeast Bulgaria
in the Balkan-Anatolian context: chronological Pyke, Gillian. 1996. ‘Stratigraphy. Structures and
framework, plant economy and land use.’ Bulgarian Architecture.’ In Nea Nikomedeia I: The Excavation
e-Journal of Archaeology 4(2): 179–94. of an Early Neolithic Village in Northern Greece
1961–1964, edited by Kenneth A. Wardle, 9–53. The
Martinoli, Danièle. 2004. ‘Food plant use, temporal
British School of Archaeology at Athens, Suppl. Vol.
changes and site seasonality at Epipalaeolithic Öküzini
25. London: The British School at Athens.
and Karain B caves, southwest Anatolia, Turkey.’
Paléorient 30(2): 61–80. Reingruber, Agathe. 2008. Die Argissa Magula. Das
frühe und das beginnende mittlere Neolithikum im
Mellaart, James. 1967. Çatal Hüyük: a Neolithic town in
Lichte transägäischer Beziehungen. Die deutschen
Anatolia. London: Thames & Hudson.
Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa Magula II. Beiträge
Mellaart, James. 1970. Excavations at Hacılar. Edinburgh: zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie des
Edinburgh University Press. Mittelmeer-Kulturraumes 35. Bonn: Habelt.
Milojčić, Vladimir. 1944. Das ältere Neolithikum in Reingruber, Agathe. 2016. ‘Coastal and riverine
Serbien. PhD diss., Philosophische Fakultät der Thrace during the Mesolithic and the Neolithic.’ In
Universität Wien. Southeast Europe and Anatolia in prehistory. Essays
in honor of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th anniversary,
Milojčić, Vladimir. 1949. Chronologie der jüngeren
edited by Krum Bacvarov and Ralf Gleser, 93–
Steinzeit Mittel- und Südosteuropas. Berlin: Mann.
103. Universitätsforschungen zur Prähistorischen
Mirea, Pavel. 2005. ‘Consideraţii asupra locuirii Starčevo- Archäologie 293. Bonn: Habelt.
Criş din sud-vestul Munteniei.’ In Honorem Silvia
Reingruber, Agathe. 2016. ‘A network of the steppe
Marinescu-Bîlcu, 70 de ani. Cultură şi Civilizaţie la
and forest steppe along the Prut and Lower Danube
Dunărea de Jos 22: 37–52.
rivers during the 6th millennium BC.’ Documenta
Nikolov, Vassil. 2017. ‘Thrace, post-6000 BC.’ In Going Praehistorica 43: 167–81.
West? The dissemination of Neolithic innovations
Reingruber, Agathe. 2018. ‘Assessing chronological
between the Bosporus and the Carpathians, Proceedings
trajectories per subregion based on selected key
of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014, edited by Agathe
sites.’ In The 14SEA Project. A 14C database for
Reingruber, Zoï Tsirtsoni and Petranka Nedelcheva,
Southeast Europe and Anatolia (10,000–3000 calBC),
73–78. Themes in Contemporary Archaeology vol. 3.
by Agathe Reingruber and Laurens Thissen. Online
European Association of Archaeology. London, New
publication, http://www.14sea.org/3_analysis.html
York: Routledge.
(last accessed June 1, 2018).
Özdoğan, Mehmet. 1998. ‘Hoca Çeşme: An Early Neolithic
Reingruber, Agathe. 2017. ‘The Beginning of the
Anatolian Colony in the Balkans?’ In Man and the
Neolithic Way of Life in the Eastern Lower Danube
Animal World. Studies in Archaeozoology in Honour
Area: A View from the North.’ In Going West? The
of Sándor Bökönyi, edited by Peter Anreiter, 435–51.
dissemination of Neolithic innovations between the
Archaeolingua 8. Budapest: Alpitvány Akaprint.
Bosporus and the Carpathians, Proceedings of the
Özdoğan, Mehmet. 1999. ‘Northwestern Turkey: Neolithic EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014, edited by Agathe
Cultures in between the Balkans and Anatolia.’ In Reingruber, Zoï Tsirtsoni, and Petranka Nedelcheva,
Neolithic in Turkey. The cradle of civilisation, edited 91–111. Themes in Contemporary Archaeology vol. 3.
by Mehmet Özdoğan and Nezih Başgelen, 203–24. European Association of Archaeology. London, New
Istanbul: Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yayınları. York: Routledge.
Özdoğan, Mehmet, Yutaka Miyake, and Nilgün Özbaşaran Reingruber, Agathe. 2018. ‘Geographical mobility and
Dede. 1991. ‘An Interim Report on Excavations at social motility in the Aegean before and after 6600 BC.’
Yarımburgaz and Toptepe in Eastern Thrace.’ Anatolica Praehistorische Zeitschrift 93, no. 1: 1–24.
17: 59–121.
31
Agathe Reingruber
Reingruber, Agathe and Laurens Thissen. 2009. Weninger, Bernhard, Lee Clare, Fokke Gerritsen,
‘Depending on 14C Data: Chronological Frameworks in Barbara Horejs, Raiko Krauß, Jörg Linstädter, Rana
the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Southeastern Europe.’ Özbal, Eelco J. Rohling. 2014. ‘Neolithisation of the
Radiocarbon 51: 751–70. Aegean and Southeast Europe during the 6600–6000
calBC period of Rapid Climate Change.’ Documenta
Reingruber, Agathe and Laurens Thissen. 2018. The
Praehistorica 41: 1–31.
14SEA Project. A 14C database for Southeast Europe
and Anatolia (10,000–3000 calBC). Online publication, Whittle, Alasdair, Alex Bayliss, Alistair Barclay, Bisserka
www.14sea.org (last accessed June 1, 2018). Gaydarska, Eszter Bánffy, Dušan Borić, Florin
Draşovean, János Jakucs, Miroslav Marić, David
Reingruber, Agathe, Giorgos Toufexis, Nina Kyparissi-
Orton, Ivana Pantović, Wolfram Schier, Nenad Tasić,
Apostolika, Mihalis Anetakis, Yannis Maniatis, Yorgos
Marc Vander Linden. 2016. ‘A Vinča potscape: formal
Facorellis. 2017. ‘Neolithic Thessaly: Radiocarbon
chronological models for the use and development
dated periods and phases.’ Documenta Praehistorica
of Vinča ceramics in south-east Europe.’ Documenta
44: 34–53.
Praehistorica 43: 1–60.
Renfrew, Colin, 1971. ‘Sitagroi, Radiocarbon and the
Yiouni, Parakevi., 1996. ‘The Early Neolithic Pottery:
Prehistory of South-East Europe.’ Antiquity 45: 275–82.
Technology, Typology, Functional Analyses.’ In Nea
Ryan, William B. F., Walter C. Pitman III, Candace O. Nikomedeia I: The Excavation of an Early Neolithic
Major, Kazimieras Shimkus, Vladamir Moskalenko, Village in Northern Greece 1961–1964, edited by
Glenn A. Jones, Petko Dimitrov, Naci Gorür, Mehmet Kenneth A. Wardle, 55–196. The British School of
Sakinç, Hüseyin Yüce. 1997. ‘An abrupt drowning of Archaeology at Athens, Suppl. Vol. 25. London: The
the Black Sea shelf.’ Marine Geology 138: 119−26. British School at Athens.
Strien, Hans-Christoph. 2017. ‘Discrepancies between Zvelebil, Marek and Malcolm Lillie. 2000. ‘Transition
archaeological and 14C-based chronologies: Problems to agriculture in eastern Europe.’ In Europe’s First
and possible solutions.’ Documenta Praehistorica 44: Farmers, edited by Douglas T. Price, 57–92. Cambridge:
272−80. Cambridge University Press.
Tasić, Nenad, Miroslav Marić, Christopher Bronk
Ramsey, Bernd Kromer, Alistair Barclay, Alex Bayliss,
Nancy Beavan, Bisserka Gaydarska, Alasdair Whittle.
2015. ‘Vinča-Belo Brdo, Serbia: The times of a tell.’
Germania 93: 1–75.
Thissen, Laurens. 2000. Early Farming Communities in
Anatolia and the Balkans, 6500–5500 calBC. Leiden:
PhD diss.
Thissen, Laurens. 2018. ‘Assessing chronological
trajectories per subregion based on selected key sites.’
In The 14SEA Project. A 14C database for Southeast
Europe and Anatolia (10,000–3000 calBC), by Agathe
Reingruber and Laurens Thissen. Online publication,
http://www.14sea.org/3_analysis.html (last accessed
June 1, 2018).
Thissen, Laurens and Agathe Reingruber. 2017. ‘14C
database for Southeast Europe between the Northern
Aegean and the Northern Carpathians (6600–5000
calBC).’ In Going West? The dissemination of Neolithic
innovations between the Bosporus and the Carpathians,
Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Istanbul 2014.
edited by Agathe Reingruber, Zoï Tsirtsoni and Petranka
Nedelcheva, 123–77. Themes in Contemporary
Archaeology vol. 3. European Association of
Archaeology. London, New York: Routledge.
Warren, Peter, Michael R. Jarman, Heather N. Jarman,
Nick J. Shackleton, John D. Evans. 1968. ‘Knossos
Neolithic, Part II.’ Annual of the British School at
Athens 63: 239–76.
32

Agathe Reingruber - Timelines in The Neolithic of Southwestern Anatolia

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

Agathe Reingruber - Timelines in The Neolithic of Southwestern Anatolia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

1. Narratives of Space and Contemporary Archaeological Theory ........................................................................... 7

4. Transformations of Settlement Space at Neolithic Avgi, NW Greece .................................................................. 43

6. Identifying Ritual at Late Neolithic Toumba Kremastis Koiladas: Ceramic Assemblages of

7. Settling Neolithic Central Macedonia, Northern Greece ...................................................................................... 87

9. Pelagonian Tells and Pile Dwellings of Lake Ohrid ............................................................................................ 123

11. Vinča-Belo Brdo Settlement Size ........................................................................................................................... 149

Vinča-Belo brdo settlement size ............................................................................................................................... 150

Firing/burning ...................................................................................................................................................... 204

Timelines in the Neolithic of Southwestern Anatolia,

Introduction approaches (e.g. Bayliss et al. 2007). Adjustments are ever-

Timelines in the Neolithic

Timelines in the Neolithic

Argissa and Sesklo As has been shown elsewhere (Reingruber 2016a),

Timelines in the Neolithic

Timelines in the Neolithic

The two centuries between 5500 and 5300 BC are Proposals

Timelines in the Neolithic

Timelines in the Neolithic

Figure 2.8. Modelled dates from Cârcea-Viaduct.

Timelines in the Neolithic

You might also like