UDK 903.2(398)"633\634">575.1.291.

37
Documenta Praehistorica XXXVI (2009)

Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic diffusion in Southeastern Europe
Mihael Budja
Department of Archaeology, Ljubljana University, SI miha.budja@ff.uni-lj.si ABSTRACT – The 14C gradient of pottery dispersal suggests that the sites in the southern Balkans are not significantly older than those in the northern and eastern Balkans. A gradual demic diffusion model from south to north and a millennium time span vector thus find no confirmation in the set of AMS 14C dates and associated contexts that mark pottery dispersal within Southeastern Europe. The first ‘demic event’ that was hypothesised to reshape significantly European population structure and generate a uniform process of neolithisation of southestern Europe has no confirmation in frequency of Y-chromosome subhaplogroups J2b and E3b1 distribution within modern population in Southeastern Europe. IZVLE∞EK – 14C datumi prve keramike ka∫ejo, da zgodnje neolitska najdi∏≠a na jugu Balkana niso starej∏a od onih na severu. AMS 14C datumi ne potrjujejo modela postopne demske difuzije od juga proti severu in tiso≠letni ≠asovni zamik pri ∏iritvi keramike. Prvi ‘demski dogodek’, ki naj bi domnevno preoblikoval evropsko populacijsko sestavo, v jugovzhodni Evropi pa povzro≠il proces enovite neolitizacije, ni potrjen s pogostostjo pojavljanja Y-kromosomskih haploskupin J2b in E3b1 pri sedanjih populacijah v jugovzhodni Evropi. KEY WORDS – Southeastern Europe; Early Neolithic; pottery; AMS 14C dates; Y-chromosome haplogroups

Introduction Pottery has become archaeologically conceptualized by an interpretative triad suggesting that in the context of human social evolution, ‘lower barbarism’ (Neolithic) can be distinguished from ‘upper savagery’ (Mesolithic) by the presence of vessels (Morgan 1878), that territorial distributions of pottery types reflect ‘sharply defined archaeological cultural provinces’ (Kossina 1911.3), and that the invention of ceramic technology and pottery making was ‘the earliest conscious utilization by man of a chemical change... in the quality of the material… the conversion of mud or dust into stone’ in the Neolithic (Childe 1951.76–77). It is worth remembering that pottery distributions became highly ideologized and politicised after Lex Kossinae formalized the ‘cultural province’, an entity defined not from regional geography, but an inDOI: 10.4312/dp.36.7

ductive category deriving from regional distributions of ‘Linear’ and ‘Corded’ pottery that ‘correspond, unquestionably, with the areas of particular people or tribes’. These people were hypothesised Proto-IndoEuropeans of ‘Neolithic Germany’ who migrated from the area between the North Sea and Baltic Sea and colonized the rest of Europe (Kossina 1911; 1936). Childe agreed that Neolithic pottery was a universal indicator of both, ‘cultural identities’ and ‘distributions of ethnic groups’ (Childe 1929.v–iv). But he strongly disagreed that its invention and primary distribution can be found within the Europe. He actualized an old Montelius’ ‘normative principle to prehistorians in Western Europe’ that postulates European prehistory as ‘a pale reflexion of Oriental culture’ (Childe 1939.10). There was no room either for technological innovations, or for structural changes in economy and ideology that could have occurred
117

Mihael Budja

in Europe autonomously and that could have been linked to the Mesolithic-Neolithic cultural transformations at the ‘Dawn of European Civilization’ (Childe 1925; 1928). Childe (1939.25–26) postulated a Neolithic zonal model in which, along with ‘true cities and little townships in the Orient’, in “Thessaly, Macedonia and the Morava-Maros region beyond the Balkans, Neolithic villages are permanently occupied by experienced farmers who are content to do without metal… North of the Maros Körös, herdsmen and Bükkian troglodytes are grazing and tilling patches of löss and then moving on; still farther north, Danubian I hoe-cultivators are shifting their hamlets of twenty-odd huts every few years to fresh fields till they reach the confines of the löss… Beyond these, on the North European plain are only scattered bands of food-gatherers hunting, fowling and fishing and collecting nuts or shell-fish...”. Because of interrelated assumptions that all cultural innovations must have originated in those areas where civilizations flourished at the earliest date (Orient), and that they were diffused in the area where cultural continuity was attested (Europe), he denoted this model diffusionist. However, in the same year (1939) Coon introduced the migration model. He postulated the gradual invasion of the ‘Danubian agriculturalists of the Early Neolithic’ that brought a ‘food-producing economy

into central Europe from the East’. These people were ‘Mediterranean’, a new population in Europe that originated in western Asia in a Natufian cultural context. The model was grounded on the metrical and morphological characteristics of skeletal remains of Neolithic ‘Danubian immigrants’ and on the distribution of ‘Danubian painted pottery’, that shows ‘definite Asiatic similarities’. Both, the invasion of farmers and pottery dispersal were supposed to have occurred from Eastern Mediterranean ‘up the Danube Valley’ into the Carpathian basin, Central Europe and further to the west, to the Paris basin. One of his basic interpretative premises relates to interaction between essentially different populations on the agricultural frontier. He relates it to a continuous blending of populations, suggesting that, “When the food producers entered the territory formerly occupied by Upper Palaeolithic hunters, the former were much more numerous than the latter, who either retired to environmental pockets economically unfavorable to the food producers, or were absorbed into the ethnic corpus of the latter. The adjustment of the earlier population element to the new conditions and their re-emergence through the Mediterranean group made a combination of the two basic racial elements in a genetic sense necessary.” (Coon 1939.647) (Fig. 1a). It is worth remembering the frontier thesis had been entertained since Herodotus identified it as the agri-

a

b

Fig. 1. The map of frequency distribution of morphological and anthropometric characteristics and associated physical types (a) that was hypothesised to corresponds with the Neolithic invasion of Mediterraneans in Europe and with the process of ‘Dinaricization’ (Coon 1972.Map 8; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, Piazza 1994.Fig. 5.4.1), and the map of genetic landscape (b) of the first principal components that was hypothesised to corresponds with Neolithic ‘demic diffusion’ (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, Piazza 1994.Map 4).

118

2). and the appearance of new burial practices in the gorges.Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic diffusion in Southeastern Europe cultural boundary and the meeting point of the civilized and barbarian worlds. for comments. Turner (1893) introduced a similar notion. not with earlier Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic populations (Pinhasi 2003. The ‘Mediterraneans’ survived on the Iberian Peninsula. no strong support for a significant admixture of contemporaneous Mesolithic and Neolithic populations in Europe. the adult man’s skeleton in the burial pit was recognized as gracile and has been attributed to a Neolithic population (for a discussion. arid deserts. Menk and Nemeskeri 1989. where ‘small and gracile male individuals’ were buried together with the ‘robust indigenous foragers’ (Miki≤ 1980.24). barren oceans of rolling plains. above the skull. was believed to be determined by a ‘dinaricization’ process in which the ‘Mediterranean type seems to be a brachycephalized by some non-Mediterranean agency’. Apart from the extended inhumation inside the burial pit cut through the floor. Pinhasi indeed suggests morphological affinities between the Balkan and Anatolian Çatal Höyük populations. desolate. and the ‘Alpines’ in northern Scandinavia (Coon 1939. it was sugge- sted. however. but. Özdogan 2008). The interaction between the populations of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (the Alpines) and Neolithic newcomers (the Mediterraneans). 2006. While the isotopic signature of the ‘robust’ one indicates a diet heavily based on riverine resources. 308. Pinhasi and von Cramon-Taubadel (2009) suggest that crania metric data support the continuous dispersal of people from Southwest Asia to Europe. The colonist’s physical remains were suggested to be found in marginal areas of the Danube Gorges. These differences.271).647– 648). mountainous ramparts interposed. Vast forests blocked the way. see Bori≤ 2005. The repeated waves of migrations from Asia Minor and the establishment of Neolithic diaspora and colonial centres of Neolithization have been hypothesised in rich catchments in the Balkans and central Europe (Weinberg 1965. aurochs and deer skulls with antlers were placed. from agricultural communities (Chapman 1993). The process was completed by the end of the Neolithic and. however. Zvelebil 2000). While the disarticulated skull is decidedly robust and has been traditionally attributed to a very robust Mesolithic population. there was a disarticulated human skull placed on the left shoulder and facing the deceased. all had to be met and defeated. A sculpted boulder had been placed on the building floor.81. and the cultural and populational frontiers have remained focal points in interpreting the European Neolithic. the ‘gracile’ one shows a mixed diet based on terrestrial and riverine resources. grass-clad prairies. A comparison of human skull morphology reveals that they are very different in terms of size and robustness. Bogucki 1996. and that the indigenous Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Europe played almost no role in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Europe. Fort.” (cfr. Klein 1997. Pinhasi and Pluciennik 2004. The interpretative spiral Coon’s biologically determinate migration model was never recognized in archaeology. The Mediterraneans were hypothesised as having married in to the Danube Gorges from ‘outside’. the nasal bridge that become prominent’. contrary to Coon. Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza 1984. Next to the right side. see also Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy 1986. there were remained no other populations than the ‘Dinaric’ in most of Europe. They found. ’can only be explained in terms of either acculturation or immigration’ (Bonsall 2008. cannot be easily interpreted as 119 . They suggest that their results ‘best fit a model of continuous demic diffusion’ into Europe from the south-western Asian. It was his task to fight with nature for the chance to exist. see Roksandi≤ 2000). In a recent interpretation based on a ’null evolutionary model of isolation-by-geographic and temporal distance’ and on the correlation of Mesolithic and Neolithic craniometric data with the classic genetic marker dispersal within modern European populations. van Andel and Runnels 1995. Both the skeleton and the disarticulated human skull are dated – after a correction for the freshwater reservoir effect – to an overlapping age range from 6216–5884 and 6080–5728 calBC at 2σ – (Bori≤ and Dimitrijevi≤ 2009).. Ammerman 2005). referring to the American frontier and colonial conquest of America’s Great West thus “The first ideal of the pioneer was that of conquest. An excellent illustration. although the migration of Mediterraneans. surprisingly. and a fierce race of savages. of the mixing of ‘crania metric characteristics’ in a funerary context is shown in the trapezoidal structure 21 at Lepenski Vir (Fig. the concept of blending populations. A new phenotype appeared that can be recognized in modern populations in Europe by its modified craniofacial morphological characteristics: the ’occipital flattening and. Stable isotope σ15N values indicate that the skulls show differences in dietary practices. Pinhasi..

It was recognized as ‘a pure scientific approach in the chronological determination of the expansion of farming culture’. ‘Kremikovci’. Southeastern Europe was recognized as a ‘western province of the Near Eastern peasant cultures’.Figs. and ‘Karanovo’ in neighbouring areas (Nandris 1970. right) was placed on shoulder of the deceased. Bori≤ 2005. ‘Cris’. 2. The materiality of this Lepenski Vir burial context suggests that both ‘cranial phenotypes’ participated in a funeral rite. based on the ‘radiocarbon dating of materials from the actual settlements of the prehistoric 1 The last reprint of his book ‘The Races of Europe’ was published by Greenwood Publisher. and also as ‘the most obvious diagnostic element’ for tracing ‘waves of migrations’ from Asia Minor (Schachermeyr 1976. Bori≤ 2005).Fig. An extended inhumation of an adult man. A wave of migrations along the Vardar and Morava rivers. The pottery was recognized ‘as the most accessible manifestation of the material culture available. for the comparative study of development’ (Theocharis 1973. and farming communities were established in the Balkans and Carpathian basin. Aurochs and deer skulls with antlers were placed next to his right side. 21. in which farming ‘oriental’ communities dispersed across the Peloponnese and Thessaly on the southern tip of the Balkan Peninsula. A sculpted boulder had been placed on the building floor. In this context. Lepenski Vir.Fig. This assertion was grounded on the identification of ‘common traditions in pottery styles’ between the regions and in the distribution of ‘oriental stamp-seals’ and female figurines. Nandris (1970.3. which may relate to religious cults’. and ‘sometimes of animals. 120 . Both achieved paradigmatic status as cultural and ethnic markers of the Neolithic diaspora. created by the processes of colonisation and acculturation’ (Piggot 1965. 202) suggested that this dispersal marks Early Neolithic ‘cultural unity’.43–46). which was ‘greater than was ever subsequently achieved in this area of southeast Europe. see also Roden 1965). 2004. 58). ‘Körös’.Mihael Budja Fig. Babovi≤ 2006. The reconstruction of colonizing and acculturating logic was reduced to identifying the geographical distribution of ‘monochrome’ and painted pottery. was hypothesied. 313. The disarticulated human skull (‘robust’ skull. Radovanovi≤ 1996. In the most influential interpretation in the sixties. the diaspora was hypothesised as having spread to northern regions. 69. By the end of the Aegean Early Neolithic. Parallel to Coon’s1 racial taxonomy and human phenotype dispersals. 314). down to the present day’.49–50. 4. The rate of diffusion was first calculated from the small series of 14C dates available at the time. placed in a burial pit cut through the floor (‘gracile’ skull.3. left). the distribution of pottery types and ornaments has been discussed in archaeology in the context of the colonization of southeast Europe in the Early Neolithic. and that ancestral principle may have played a key role. without any breaks. Greece was suggested as being the location of the ‘foundation’ and ‘construction of the main features of Neolithic culture’ in Europe (Theocharis 1973. Differences in decorative motifs and ornamental composition constituted clusters of cultures ‘Anzabegovo-Vr∏nik’ ‘Star≠evo’. above the skull (after Srejovi≤ 1969.193. 3. Gara∏anin 1979). Connecticut in 1972.39). marking a clear break between Mesolithic and Neolithic subsistence (Bori≤ et al. marked by the spread of white and red painted pottery. trapezoidal structure No.Fig.

It is noteworthy that phenotype replacement with genotype. A similar ‘southeast-northwest gradient or cline’ of geographical distribution was suggested to support the spread of early farming in Europe. however. with serious implications for physical anthropology. a sequence of three ‘major demic events’. Research into human genetics has highlighted that 121 . Clark allocated dates to three temporal zones running from Near East to Atlantic Europe: (i) earlier than 5200 BC. similar to Coone. The second zone. The new synthetic map of the first principal component in classic genetic markers of 95 gene frequency dispersals across Europe and the Near East appeared in 1993.Fig. and that the sequential settlement distribution reflects ‘the gradual spread of farming culture and the Neolithic way of life from the Near East over Europe’. Menozzi and Piazza 1994).786). see also Gkiasta et al. the first was linked to the Near East. and the concept of race with the concept of population. without substantial contact with local Mesolithic populations. 7. and with the ‘expansion of Indo-European speaking people from the north of the Black Sea’. ‘can perhaps also be interpreted in terms of population movements other than the spread of early farming’. At the same time. population genetics and archaeology. Piazza and Cavalli-Sforza shifted the focus from phenotype to genotype. A more sophisticated interpretation of this synthetic map became available a year later in the monumental volume The History and Geography of Human Genes (Cavalli-Sforza. Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1971. has been an increasingly significant issue. in combination with local migratory activity. The elimination of the European hunter-gatherer population was assumed. The model. borrowed from the population biology. He suggested that decreasing values of these dates be arranged in a southeast-northwest gradient. despite only a 27% total variation in classical marker frequencies attributed to Neolithic populations across Europe. they hypothesised. The demic ‘wave-of-advance’ model was first introduced in 1978. which was recognized as an ancestral homeland for the current population in Europe. The second and third. The authors hypothesised that the transition to farming in Europe correlates with a massive movement of population from the Near East. and can be associated with migrations ‘of groups of pastoral nomads’ in the third millennium BC from central Asia. they were the first to emphasize the role of demic diffusion and to point out the strong agreement between the calculated average rate of spread of the Neolithic and that predicted by the demic wave-of-advance model. and the question ‘Who are the Europeans?’ that Alberto Piazza (1993) addressed in this context was not at all rhetorical. (ii) between 5200 and 4000 BC. Piazza and CavalliSforza 1978. White and red painted pottery has retained an axiomatic interpretative position (Renfrew 1987. proposed that active population growth at the farming frontier. from cranial characteristic to classic genetic markers. they guessed. Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1984. They linked the first to the migration of Neolithic farmers from Near East. In a palimpsest of seven principal components and associated genetic landscapes. and that it was ‘a demic spread rather than a cultural diffusion of farming technology’ (Menozzi. the tissue antigen HLA system. The first ‘demic event’ has become legitimized archaeologically by the definition of the catalogue of artefacts recognized as being brought into Europe by migrating farmers. 137) postulated. Different clines of contour maps of three principal components distributions show.9. In Europe. They linked the first principal component of 38 gene frequencies of ‘classic’. ‘the Neolithic transition forms the backbone of the geographic distribution of genes’. Only some clear outliers. non-DNA marker dispersal (allele frequencies for blood groups. 1973. from races to populations. was associated with the ‘expansion of Neolithic culture north of the Mediterranean’ (Clark 1965b. such as Basques and Lapps were shown to have emerged from this homogeneous Neolithic entity as relic Palaeolithic hunter-gathers. and some enzymes) in modern European populations with the distribution of Early Neolithic farming settlements in south-western Asia and Europe. The geneticists Menozzi. Genetic gradients A few years later.Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic diffusion in Southeastern Europe cultivators themselves’ (Clark 1965a). see Budja 2005).xv. 2003) gave an average speed of diffusion of about 1 km/y. Six years later. They also postulated the mixing of Neolithic and Mesolithic populations on the agricultural frontier that may have led to genetic gradients with extreme gene frequencies in those areas with the oldest Neolithic sites. It has perpetuated the legitimacy of the Neolithic ancestry of modern Europeans. they continue.66). that ‘cultural events in the remote past played a major role in shaping the genetic structure of human populations’. would have produced a population expansion that moved outwards in all directions and advanced at a relatively steady rate. and (iii) 4000 and 2800 BC.

Phys. it becomes evident that the history of the European population was certainly more complex – and the expansions from the Middle East toward Europe – regardless of whether the coalescence dating calculated for a generation time of 25 or 30 years ‘most likely occurred during and after the Neolithic’ 2 American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Since the revolution in the study of the human genome. Eu9. In human genetics a haplogroup is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor with a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation. because of the southeast-northwest cline of frequencies of the haplogroups Eu4. Coon’s approach was labelled as ‘scientific’ racism and the last gasp of an outdated scientific methodology (Cavalli-Sforza. do not exist in the human species today. These special mutations are extremely rare. 56% for the Mediterranean subset. Because they are non-recombinant and highly polymorphic. as the Neolithic lineages comprise only ~22% of the variation. over a period of tens of thousands of years. (2000) hypothesised that. where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic. population history. Am. Li et al. that the magnitude of the relative regional proportion of human phenotypic variance in crania correlates with the magnitude of regional molecular genetic variance (Rosseman and Weaver 2007). see also Dupanloup 2004). The contour maps of classic human genetic marker distribution have replaced the frequency map of the distribution of morphological and anthropometric characteristics. The phylogenies of the human Y-chromosome as defined by unique event polymorphisms and the geographic distribution of haplogroups have ultimately replaced the classic genetic markers and associated contour maps of principal component distributions. For revised phylogenetic relationships and nomenclature see Sengupta et al. For the most recent version of haplogroup tree Karafet et al. the debate has shifted from the classic markers of certain genes to the loci in humans – the mitochondrial DNA present in both sexes. Thus different human nuclear DNA polymorphic markers of modern populations have been used to study genomic diversity and to define maternal and paternal lineage clusters – haplogroups – and to trace their (pre)historic genealogical trees. The SNP markers allow the construction of intact haplotypes and thus male-mediated migration can be readily recognized. 101: 569–570 (1996). as noted above. 2005. but inherited only in the maternal line. they represent the male contribution of a demic diffusion of Levantine farmers to European Neolithic. Statement of biological aspects of race.267. and the Y-chromosome present only in males and inherited exclusively through males. Semino et al. 2002. see also Barbujani 2002). Anthropol. and chronological and spatial trajectories. nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past”2. and 44% in non-Mediterranean samples (Chikhi et al. 3 The haplogroup’s nomenclature was changed after the introduction of the Y-chromosomal binary haplogroup nomenclature system (Hammer 2002). Eu10 and Eu11 (J2. differentiation and diffusion of the Y-chromosomal Neolithic haplogroups E3b and J.Mihael Budja more genetic variation exists within than between populations. Lewontin 1972. J. they are seen as ideal for reconstructing human evolution. however. (2000) and Rosser et al. In 1996. and calculated expansion time. in the sense of genetically homogenous populations. claimed an average Neolithic contribution of 50% across all samples. Menozzi and Piazza 1994. The analyses of uniparentally inherited marker systems allow population geneticists to study the genetic diversity of maternal and paternal lineages in various Eurasian populations. and cultural boundaries (Wierciński and Bielicki 1962. and ancestral migration patterns. For the human Y chromosome haplogroup tree. and identify a group of people – all the male descendants of the single person who first showed a particular mutation. E3b1 and G)3 within the modern populations in south-western Asia and Europe. The authors suggest that the European gene pool was of Palaeolithic origin. Rosenberg et al. This led Pinhasi and von Cramon-Taubadel (2009). the American Association of Physical Anthropologists issued the political statement that “Pure races. as well as the environmental and cul- tural processes that might have been involved in the shaping of this variety. nomenclature and phylogeography see also Hammer and Zegura (2002). (2008). A reanalysis of the data two years later by the maximum-likelihood admixture estimation method. 122 . 2002. to build a ‘hypothetical’ interpretative model to update demic diffusion and waves of advance by correlating the Mesolithic and Neolithic craniometric data with the gradient of the first principal component of classic genetic markers within modern European populations. It was suggested recently. After the abolition of the concept of race and in the context of a political and scientific battle between the new physical anthropology and genetics to classifying humans. 2008). geographic. Serre and Pääbo 2004. In later studies of the origin. (2006).

Later pottery assemblages on the Japanese archipelago and in southern Siberia are dated to the fourteenth and thirteenth millennia calBP (Kuzmin 2006. although many of the pellets and balls which comprise a large quantity of the ceramic inventory were found intact (Soffer et al. The consensus on the proportion of these lineages in Europe is at around 20% (Di Giacomo et al. Knowledge of ceramic technology had been an element of Eurasian hunter-gatherer cultures for many millennia before the appearance of food-producing agricultural societies. Cauvin postulated an interlinked economic and religious transformation.25) suggested. Accordingly. King and Underhill (2002. The findings of the many biallelic markers which subdivide the haplogroups J and E suggest that the large-scale clinal patterns cannot be read as markers of a uniform and time limited spread of people from a single parental Near Eastern population. as Cauvin (2000. where it has been dated to as early as 18 300 to 17 500 calBP (Boaretto et al. Budja 2005). was widespread. that the making of ceramic figurines predates the making of pottery. Cinnioglu et al. If we look more closely at the contexts in which early hunter-gatherer ceramics were produced. 2006. The haplogroup J become archaeologically instrumentalized by correlating the frequency distribution of its genetic marker (M172) within the modern European and Asian populations. other ceramic finds had been deposited near a single male burial. and subsequent expansions overlying previous ranges. Europe could not have become Neolithic until the ‘wave of advance’ and ceramic female figurines had reached the Balkans. and then across the Russian Plain into southern Siberia. Early pottery first occurred in Eastern Eurasia in the context of small-scale sedentary or semi-sedentary communities. 2009). the invention of ceramic and the introduction of ceramic female statuettes and animal figurines was certainly not within the cultural domain of earlier Levantine hunter-gatherer societies. 36. as of Neolithic farmers (Semino et al. Kuzmin and Vetrov 2007). Einwögerer and Simon 2008). and the Early Neolithic distribution of painted pottery and ceramic female figurines within the same area.133–135. around a triple burial. and in the vicinity of a large hearth. a total of sixteen thousand ceramic objects – over nine hundred figural ceramics – have been found in Gravettian and Pavlovian hunter-gatherer camps. Peri≠i≤ et al. replacements. However. 2000. but a multi-period process of numerous small-scale. 128). Novelletto 2007). and second. We must also note two other facts: first.714) postulated that “The Eu9 haplogroup is the best genetic predictor of the appearance of Neolithic painted pottery and figurines at various European sites”. 2000.56.Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic diffusion in Southeastern Europe (Semino at al. 2005. At Dolní Věstonice there was an oven-like hearth in the centre of a hut-like structure in which ‘two thousand pieces of ceramics. Luca et al. 2004. we may assume that they were of social significance. It is now clear that the clay-figurine-tradition was deeply embedded in pre-existing Eurasian hunter-gatherer social and symbolic contexts and that the dates of these figures begin as early as 26 000 years BP (Verpoorte 2001. which indicates that ceramic production. The postulate that the geographically overlapping distribution of Early Neolithic artefacts and allele fre123 . more regional population movements. in southeast China (Yuchanyan Cave). 2007. which explains why hunter-gatherers in villages outside the Levant did not develop subsistence production for themselves: their failure to ‘humanise’ their art and adopt new deities would have prevented them from making the transition to a new type of economy. The tradition of making ceramic figurines can be traced back to the Central European Pavlovian cultural context. We may postulate that the ceramic female figurines are thus as much ‘predictors’. that pot- tery was not necessarily associated with the emergence of farming. ceramic female figurines have been noted as specific markers of an oriental ‘expansionist’ religion that became a powerful social force in the Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic (Cauvin 2000). as ceramic vessels had been made before early agriculture appeared in East Asia. Parallel to this interpretative postulate.1032). among which about one hundred and seventy-five with traces of modelling’ were dispersed. of Palaeolithic Gravettian hunter-gatherers’ haplogroups. to paraphrase King and Underhill. 2004. nor did they only appear on the ‘eve of the appearance of an agricultural economy’. The available statistics indicate that almost all the figurines and statuettes were deliberately fragmented. In Central Europe. In addition. and ultimately back to the Levant and North Africa. Verpoorte 2001. 2004.

and a gene flow from the Balkans to Anatolia has also been suggested (Semino et al. Geneticists suggest that the peopling of Europe was a complex process. 2004. Its frequency in south-east European populations ranges from 2% to 20%.7% clade frequency is significantly lower than those in the Balkans. with frequency peaks of reached in two distinct regions – in the Nordic populations of Scandinavia. Peri≠i≤ et al. E3b1a and E3b1a2. The Neolithic and post Neolithic component in the gene pool is most clearly marked by the presence of the J (M241) lineage and its expansion signals associated with Balkan micro-satellite variation.Mihael Budja quency clines reflects an individual and time limited demic diffusion of farmers that resulted in the colonization of Europe and the replacement of populations has lost its interpretative. 2008. J1 (M267) and J2 (M172). Neolithic and post-Neolithic gene flows within southeast Europe. 2004. Interestingly. and in the Balkan populations of Southern Europe. The J2 subclade frequencies in southeast Europe show two distinct clusters.209). Cruciani et al. the low frequency and variance associated with I (M423) and E (V13) in Anatolia and the Middle East support the European Mesolithic origin of these two clades.211). the 4. Pottery distribution gradients Since Childe (1929. While the J2a (M410) subclades are frequent in the Peloponnese.5%). chronological. 2005. The expansion time for the J2b (M12) subhaplogroup and associated migration from the southern Balkans toward the Carpathian basin is consistent with the Late Neolithic (King et al. Recent studies of the Neolithic paternal haplogroups E (M78) and J1 (M267) and J2 (M172) strongly suggest continuous Mesolithic. Crete and Anatolia. and between Europe and the Near East in both directions. 2009). 2000. although it shows a trend of decreasing frequency from the Bal124 kans (7–9%) to Anatolia (1. Haplogroup I is the only haplogroup almost entirely restricted to the European continent. Bara≠ et al. conversely. and R. and that the view of the spread of the Neolithic in Europe as a result of a single. 2006. or any other.9%) from neighbouring populations of the Vardar-Morava river system in the eastern Balkans (21. was calculated at 8600 calBP (King et al. the Adriatic (52%–64%). from the Peloponnese to Thessaly and Greek Macedonia. the most frequent in the Balkans and in the Mediterranean (King et al. Thus the first demographic expansion within Europe. The haplogroup J is subdivided into two major subhaplogroups. (2008) and King et al. post-date the transition to farming in the region. (2005. pottery has remained a multifunctional. Battaglia et al. 2008. and not demic diffusion into Europe. 2008). All of the demographic expansion within the Balkans of the later haplogroups. 2005) with a frequency distribution that reaches a maximum in the western Balkans. Battaglia 2009). Rootsi et al. The remaining genetic variations are associated with pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherer haplogroups E. Göbekli Tepe and Hallan Çemi are located. I. the J2b (M12) subclades are. This haplogroup reached the southern Balkans after 17 000 calBP and its phylogeny reveals signatures of several demographic population expansions within Europe. Bara≤ et al. It became clear recently that it mainly constitutes the signatures of several post Neolithic expansions within Europe. power. Pompei et al. 2006) recently observed that a lower frequency of subhaplogroups J2b and E3b1 significantly distinguishes the populations of the western Balkans and the Adriatic (7. The paternal heritage of Southeastern Europe reveals that the region was both an important source and recipient of continuous gene flow.6%) to west Europe (2. (2008) agree that the earliest expansion was linked to Mesolithic demographic expansion from western Asia into Europe. It appeared in Europe. (2007). (2003) and Peri≠i≤ et al. 2003. It constitutes about 85% of the European E–M78 chromosomes. cultural and ethnic vector in interpretations of the . but rare in the Balkans. and that the later series of Neolithic and Bronze Age expansions were restricted regionally within southeast Europe. with a clinal pattern of frequency distribution from the southern Balkan Peninsula (19. in the region where the PPNA–C sites at Çayönü. 2008. Cinnioglu et al. probably before the Last Glacial Maximum. The Neolithic haplogroup E (M78) is represented in Europe by its internal lineages E3b1a and E3b1a2 (E–V13 polymorphism). This corresponds with the recently identified pre-Neolithic I haplogroup and its subclade I1b* (I2a2 –M423 after Underhill et al. In addition. The geographical origin of the J2b subclade remains unknown.7%) (King et al. 2006. The latter was hypothesised as representing an important signature of Neolithic demic diffusion and to have been associated with the appearance of painted pottery and figurines. unique and homogeneous process is too simplistic. 1939) introduced a ceramics diffusion gradient from the Middle East to Europe. Subhaplogroup I1b* expanded from a refuge in southeast Europe before the Neolithic. and the central Balkans (<70%).9%).

Gara∏anin. Star≠evo and Körös cultures in the Balkans and the southern Carpathian Basin are recognized as forming a homogenous Neolithic cultural complex.32). different regional patterns in the use of cereals within these areas. cfr.163). they remained highly schematised. A similar migratory event was hypothesised in a ‘leapfrog’ or ‘salutatory’ demographic model that suggests migrations from one suitable environment to another. It is worth remembering that the beginning of the Neolithic in Southeastern Europe was marked neither by ceramic female figurine nor painted pottery dispersal. and postulating a frontier between indigenous Mesolithic societies and the incoming farmers from surrounding areas. it was suggested that white painted pottery marked ‘a breakthrough’ by Anatolian ‘ethnic components’ and Early Neolithic culture from Thessaly to the Northern Balkans and the Carpathian Basin (Gara∏anin 1979.Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic diffusion in Southeastern Europe European Neolithic.200). Both models maintain a perception of an allochthonous Anatolian population in association with a well-developed farming economy and pottery technology. which they had settled first. 173. Bori≤ and Miracle 2004. see Hansen 2007).121–122). It was calculated that farmers needed 1500 years to reach saturation point and to migrate to the northern Balkans. Miloj≠i≤. Since coloured ornaments were attached to the pots in northern Balkans and Carpathians at 125 . Van Andel and Runnels (1995) hypothesised that Anatolian farmers had moved towards the Danube and Carpathian basin after reaching demographic saturation in Thessaly. coarse pottery was perceived as something so local to the Balkans that “we do not believe that this primitive pottery was introduced from Asia Minor” (Theocharis 1967.. sometimes to the extent that their identification as anthropomorphic is debatable (Vajsov 1998. anthropomorphic. which indeed connect south-east Europe and west Anatolia.34. Coward et al. however. Thissen 2000. this pottery was linked to an interruption in the ‘painted ware tradition’ (Nandris 1970. sometimes exaggerated in form. 2008). Lichardus-Itten and Lichardus 2003. Parzinger 1993) or standard 14C dating (Breunig 1987) – cultural and ethnic distinctions were suggested. and ‘barbotine’ pottery with the application of a slip in the form of thick patches or trails that comprise the most popular types of pottery in the Balkans were explained simply as showing ‘a clear regression in pottery production’ (Miloj≠i≤ 1960. Kreuz et al. 2005. von Zumbusch and Miloj≠i≤ (1971. Gara∏anin & Radovanovi≤ 2001. Parallel to the gradual spread of pottery from the Near East to Europe – whether based on ‘typological comparability and comparative stratigraphy’ (Miloj≠i≤ 1949. We cannot ignore. Colledge et al. Perlès 2001. Boroneant and Dinu 2006). Pottery assemblages with ‘impresso’ decoration made with the fingernail and shell impressions. Zvelebil and Lillie 2000. Peri≤ 2002. and an autochthonous Balkan population able to produce only simple and coarse pottery that selectively adopts crop production and animal husbandry (Benac. The Karanovo. and marked by ‘burnt layers’ and settlement destruction in northern Thessaly at the end of the Early Neolithic. but the composition of the plant suites found in the Balkan regions could hardly be more different (Perlès 2001. 151) have suggested the interruption was associated with ‘barbarian local production’ brought into the region by a migrating population from the ‘north’. Tringham 2000. stamp seals. for a general overview. Pavlu 1989. The Larissa plain in Thessaly was believed to be the only region in the southern Balkans that provided a reasonably assured and large enough harvest for the significant population growth that led to the next migratory move north. Sanev 2004. zoomorphic and polypod vessels. The differences between the varieties of Neolithic wheat compositions recovered on mainland Greece and those on Crete are well known. such as female figurines. The distributions of material items. While red and white painted pottery was believed to indicate an Anatolian population and culture. Todorova 1998. Srejovi≤ 1979. When the figurines appeared in the Balkans. Unpainted vessels were clearly the first to appear in Europe. 2004. Özdogan 2008). Meanwhile.62. Gara∏anin & Radovanovi≤ 2001. Cyprus is believed to relate culturally to the Levant. It was embedded in both interpretative models – the ‘Balkan-Anatolian cultural complex’ and the ‘frontier model’ – determining differences between European and Oriental materiality and potential. In Thessaly. or by pinching clay between finger and thumb. The interpretative paradigm constructed around the dichotomy ‘civilized/barbarian’ continued to be highly significant in the context of academic controversy over the Neolithisation process in southeast Europe. but their archaeobotanical assemblages have much less in common. continue to support the perception of migrating farmers and the gradual distribution of the Near Eastern Neolithic package (Lichter 2005.

4%) probability.10). Sesklo. respectively. 1 and 2). The later pottery assemblage at Lepenski Vir continues to be associated with funeral practices and symbolic behaviour.66). and at Lepenski Vir. a dichotomy of colour and motif perception in the European Early Neolithic becomes evident. and painted pottery. A globular vessel with a pair of plastic spirals on opposite sides was deposited in the ‘ash-place’ in a centrally positioned trapezoidal built structure No. Budja 2001). the secondary burial of the mandible of a mature woman within the rectangular hearth. Whittle et al. The earliest pottery assemblages from the northern Balkans “… differ in important aspects from these NW Anatolian potteries. At Grivac. 6200 calBC.2% (95. it was recognized as Early Neolithic (Bori≤ and Dimitrijevi≤ 2009). Thissen 2009). In a contemporary context at Poljna (Blagotin) settlement in the West Morava valley in Serbia. with monochrome pottery ranging from 6441–5989 (6462–5923) calBC at 68.2% (95. 54 (Gara∏anin and Radovanovi≤ 2001. The earliest pottery in Thessaly is chronologically contextualized within a 1σ range of 6500–6200 calBC. and suggests an interval of a millennium between the initial pottery distributions in the Aegean and Danube regions. 2006.6. The pottery is associated with ‘typical trapezes’ and only two (einkorn and lentil) of the ten crop species cultivated in Neolithic Bulgaria (Todorova 1989. Tasi≤ 2003. there is now abundant evidence from AMS 14C dating to show that pottery distribution in the northern Balkans and south-western Carpathian basin can be traced from c. were founded at about 6400–6300 calBC (Perlès 2001. Suciu 2008.4%) probability (Tabs. and to a new born infant skeleton buried in an ashy layer within the same building context (Nikoli≤ and Ze≠evi≤ 2001. and 17 at Padina are dated within 6213–6093 (6226– 6068). 2005. Reingruber and Thissen 2009). and foremost in their categorical structure. Red and brown geometric and floral motifs were limited to the Peloponnese and the southern Balkans. 2005. 119). Bori≤ and Dimitrijevi≤ 2009. The trapezoidal structures 4. Müller 1994. Bonsall 2008.2% (Vukovi≤ 2004). and one slightly less high at c. 2002. is the well known Poljanica-Platoto Early Neolithic settlement in north-eastern Bulgaria. Reingruber and Thissen 2005.415). The assemblage is chronologically embedded in time span 6400–6030 (6430–6018) calBC at 68.243. Pottery from Lepenski Vir and Padina in the northern Balkans was contextualized within trapezoidal 126 structures having lime-plastered floors. As already pointed out by several authors.4%) probability. marked by a red deer skull deposited in the pit.2% (95. the Early Neolithic (EN I) settlements and associated pottery assemblages with monochrome pottery. at 43% of all decorated pieces. nor are the large dishes with roughened exteriors. and associated with hunter-gatherers’ symbolic behavioural and funeral practices. as well as in essential details. Luca. It was associated with newborn and infant burials at the rear of the structure. 24 and 36. We mentioned above that the standard 14C dating model postulates a gradual spread of farmers and pottery. 2008. None of them appeared in the Early Neolithic on the eastern Adriatic (Schubert 1999. Biagi and Spataro 2005. part of the Anatolian repertoire…” (Thissen 2009. Of the remaining 9% of the decorated pottery. An even earlier context. Kreuz et al. Bori≤ and Miracle 2004. and ‘a very limited use of painting’ at Argissa. with a mortar and a pair of colou- .Mihael Budja approximately 6000 calBC at 1σ. 2005. 6394–6072 (6411– 6022) and 6228–6099 (6353– 6054) calBC at 68. Weninger et al. 2003.4%) probability. Achilleion and Nea Nikemedeia. signifying differences in manipulation and positioning of the vessels.2% (95. The dates relate to ritual contexts. with a high peak at about 6400. 6200 calBC at the latest (Whittle et al. Barbotine ornaments comprise 5%. In general terms. NW Anatolian features such as flat bases and two differing handle sets do not occur in the Danube sites. The context is traditionally interpreted as Late Mesolithic.11–12. 2002. Biagi et al. pottery analysis shows that 91% of the total quantity of ceramics is undecorated. white painted dots and spiral motifs were distributed across the northern and eastern Balkans and southern Carpathians. the impressed ware is predominant. 0. so typical for the SE European sites. 2005). a well stratified Early Neolithic settlement in central Serbia. Thissen 2005. 2009. 6213–6092 (6231–6060). A similar time span vector has been integrated into the demographic model of the Neolithic transition and population dynamics (Pinhasi et al. while some were associated with pairs of stone sculptures and neonatal and infant burials. The pottery assemblages consist of ‘monochrome’ and impressed pottery. Recently. the monochrome pottery was contextualized in a pit dwelling dated to 6219–6031 (6368–5979) calBC at 68. Luca et al.

127 .Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic diffusion in Southeastern Europe red stone sculptures behind it.3 (Bronk Ramsey 2009). All calculations are carried out with OxCal v4. Within this chronological horizon. and at Gura Baciului in the Southern Carpathians (6054– 5988 [6084–5911]) calBC at 68. at Donja Branjevina (6062– 5635 [6100–5571]) and Magare≤i Mlin (6060–5926 [6203–5880]) in the southern Pannonain Plain. The context is dated to 6015–5811 (6085–5720) calBC at 68.4%] probabi- Tab. the southern Pannonian Plain. 1.2% (95. All available 14C-ages for the initial Neolithic in the northern and north-eastern Balkans.2% [95. and Carpathians.1.4%) probability. white painted pottery was embedded for the first time in settle- ment contexts at Divostin (6090–5809 [6241–5713]) in the northern Balkans.

Europe. 5987–5847 (6017–5772) groups by farmers in an interaction which took place in Grap≠eva spila and at Vi∫ula 5877–4960 (6050– through culture contact and emulation between two 4851) calBC at 68. the onset of the Neolithic – remain speculative. pearance at Anzabegovo (Anza) in Macedonia sarily coincide with the adoption of farming.4%) probability (calculagroups – are unrealistic.Tab. gested time span vector believed to mark migration 6004–5232 (6203–4844) at Tinj. While white Neolithic wheat and plant compositions within the floral motifs and stepped triangles comprise the region. for data set see Forenbaher and Miracle 2006. contemporary dictory results. Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods. main ornamental motifs in the south. 6076–5741 (6208–5728) in Gudnja Cave. Thus the phylogeographic analysis of adoption and adaptation of pottery manufacturing the Iberian Peninsula suggests a long period of getechniques by local populations which not necesnetic continuity between the Neolithic population 128 . Budja 2001) (Fig. A critical reflection on the demic diffusion model and It is worth remembering that there is no evidence of hypothesised population replacement during the inipainted ware on the Eastern Adriatic before 5539– tial European Neolithic in population genetics and 5480 calBC. This continuous gene flow and deThe 14C gradient of pottery dispersal suggests that mographic expansion have been calculated for the the sites in the southern Balkans are not signifiMesolithic. In this in the southern Balkans. The hydates range between 6228–5811 (6391–5716) in pothesis of gradual pottery distribution and the sugVela Spila.4%] probability (Tab. we have to examine the various ornamental 5322) calBC at 68.3).3. The appearance of white painted pottery in the northern Balkans and the southern Pannonian Fig. Early Neolithic pottery from Anzabegovo (Anza) Plain chronologically corresponds with its ap.1. 2005. The 14C series embedded the Anzabegovo assemblage within 6097–5561 (6453– context.and Donja Branjevina. and between Europe and western Asia in both directions. Y-chrowere not distributed throughout the eastern Adriamosomal paternal lineages reveal the signatures of tic catchment in the Early Neolithic remains to be several demographic population expansions within answered. and cantly older than those in the northern and eastern seem to be more visible in the frequency of Y-chroBalkans (Tabs. 13. 3.2% [95. The ornaGeneticists suggest that the peopling of Europe is a mental system is based exclusively on incised.2% (95. We may postulate a widespread.Mihael Budja lity. 1 and 2). The old the Neolithic in Europe being the result of a unique question of why painted pottery and female figurines and homogeneous process is too simplistic.2 and 13.4%) and civilization and population replacement at the probability.4%) probability. 2). In the Eastern Adriatic catchment. and Pitvaros in the Tisza River catchment (5994–5901 [6019– 5845]) calBC at 68. A gradual demic diffusion mosome markers in modern populations in the Balmodel from south to north and a millennium time kans and Mediterranean than in other regions. imcomplex process and that the view of the spread of pressed and cardium-impressed ornaments. patterns of white dots and grids predominate in the north (see Concluding remarks Schubert 1999. This age range set is followed by later ranges at Seusa (6009–5897 [6061–5811]) and Petris-Miercurea Sibiului (5984–5848 [6020– 5778]) in Transylvania.2% (95. 3). 5988–5808 (6046– and acculturation – the absorption of hunter-gather 5726) in Gospodska pe≤ina. inherited mitochondrial DNA have yielded contra4). However. span vector thus find no confirmation in the set of AMS 14C dates and associated contexts that mark Recent phylogenetic analyses of ancient maternally pottery dispersal within Southeastern Europe (Fig. the dates of the earliest potarchaeology shows that two basic assumptions – the tery production in northern Ionia (Sidari) sum at continuously moving boundary between savagery 6641–6119 (6801–5897) calBC at 68. We have patterns and techniques and colour application as already mentioned that the white-painted motifs difmuch as the above-mentioned heterogeneity of Early fer significantly between these regions. ted with OxCal v4. 1 and Tab.2% (95.

data from Argissa.2). but assume ‘continuity between early farmers and modern Europeans’. 2007). The characteristic mtDNA type N1a with a frequency distribution of 25% among Neolithic LBK farmers in Central Europe shows in contrast low frequency of 0. and between hunter gatherers and modern Europeans.1. 2004). but not with the Middle East group (Sampietro et al. Anzabegovov (Anza) and Hoca Çesme (Reingruber and Thissen 2005). Reimer et al.3 (Bronk Ramsey 2009. Sesklo.46–47. Luca et al. Fig. 11). 2002.3) to reject a direct continuity between hunter-gatherers and early farmers. This pottery predates artefact assemblage consist129 Tab.Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic diffusion in Southeastern Europe and modern populations in Spain. Initial pottery distribution in southeast Europe shows the wide-spread and contemporary appearance of pottery making techniques. 2005. Nea Nikomes deia.497). an alternative scenario in which the lost of N1a type relates to ‘a population crash of enormous magnitude’ after 5000 BC. Donja Branjevina. The N1a type was not observed in hunter-gatherer samples from western and northern Europe and this led Bramanti et al. The comparison of the ancient mitochondrial DNA sequences from late hunter-gatherer skeletons with those from Neolithic farmers and with modern populations in Central and North Europe show that modern European sample are ‘significantly different from the early farmer and from the hunter-gatherer’ (Bramanti et al. 2008. 2009. Tissen 2009. 2. Magare≤i Mlin and Pitvaros (Bori≤ and Dimitrijevi≤ 2009. Sum probability distributions plot of initial Neolithic pottery distribution based on available 14C. Lepenski Vir. Divostin. 2005). 4. Gura Baciului. They suggest a ‘substantial influx of people’ from the Pannonian Plain in Central and North Europe who did not mix significantly with the resident female hunter-gatherers. 9). 19). Poljna.Tab. 115. . however. All calculations are carried out with OxCal v4. They recognized the latter in a marked decrease in occupation intensity at the end of the LBK by applying the analysis of summed probability distributions of radiocarbon dates of settlement contexts in the region (Shennan and Edinborough 2007. The various structures. Poljanica (Weninger et al. 2006. Seusa and Petris (Biagi et al. (2009.44. Fig. Shennan 2007).Tab. The assumption is supported by coalescent simulations which were performed to test if the genetic differences between the population samples could be explained by the null-hypothesis of genetic drift over time in a continuous population.328.Tab. Achilleion. Whittle et al. Shennan and Edinborough proposed. 1.2% in modern mtDNA samples in the same area (Haak et al. ornamental patterns and differences in colour application reflect Balkan cultural complexity and local knowledge and not the hypothesized axial transfer of the Near Eastern artefact and nutrition package along the gradual Neolithic frontier displacements across the Balkans. Grivac (Bogdanovi≤ 2004. Padina. Luca and Sicu 2008.

2009. SANTACHIARA- 130 . KING R. and CAVALLI-SFORZA L..1971. AL-ZAHERY N. A population model for the diffusion of early farming in Europe.. We suggest that interpretations of the transformation process and transition to farming cannot be marginalized neither to contacts in frontier zones nor to the gradual axial dispersal of Early Neolithic material culture and Y-chromosome markers and associated paternal lineages from western Asia to Southeastern Europe. Princeton University Press. MARJANOVIC D. Neolithic and post-Neolithic gene flows within southeastern Europe. Arheological Monographies17. Duckworth. ∴ REFERENCES AMMERMAN A.. J. National Museum Belgrade. The paternal heritage of Southeastern Europe reveals continuous Mesolithic. the Balkans and Anatolia.. and the sites with pottery assemblages and 14C ranges and sum probability distributions listed on Table 1 and Table 2. Race: Genetic aspects.. anthropomorphic and zoomorphic vessels... VILLEMS R. Renfrew (ed. N. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. FORNARINO S. 1973. 2002. BARA≥ L. HADZISELIMOVIC R. DROBNIC K. Smelser.. BABOVI≥ L. The Neolithic Transition and the Genetics of Populations in Europe. Oxford: 12694–12700.. The earliest pottery assemblages differ morphologically and ornamentally between the Anatolia and the Balkans and between southern and northern Balkan regions. The 14C gradient of pottery dispersal suggests that the sites in the southern Balkans are not significantly older than those in the northern and eastern Balkans.. JANI∞IJEVI≥ B. MYRES M. Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates. 19. ROOTSI S.. PERI∞I≥ M. European Journal of Human Genetics 11: 535–542... 2003. 4. with distribution in both regions. KIVISILD T. MARTINOVI≥ KLARI≥ I. Baltes (eds. J. BARBUJANI G.. P. Publikum. PRIMORAC D... 1984.). The Explanation of Culture Change. E (V13) and J (M241) (after Battaglia et al. VIDOVIC S... Frequency distributions of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Y-chromosome haplogroups I (M423). The first ‘demic event’ that was hypothesised to reshape significantly European population structure and generate a uniform process of neolithisation of Southestern Europe has no confirmation in frequency of Y-chromosome subhaplogroups J2b and E3b1 distribution and in initial Neolithic pottery dispersal. J.). stamp seals. and was traditionally assumed to be associated with either demic diffusion or the leap-frog colonization of Europe. ROOTSI S. 4).. Beograd. TORRONI A. Measuring the rate of spread of early farming in Europe. Man 6: 674–688. PALA M. Sanctuaries of Lepenski Vir. ing of female figurines. It is worth remembering that neither this assemblage nor painted pottery was distributed in the Dinaric region or the eastern Adriatic coast. Princeton. New Jersey... OLIVIERI A.Fig. L..Mihael Budja Fig. In C. and between Europe and the Near East in both directions.. In N. and polypod vessels and tripods. Vol. RUDAN I. BATTAGLIA V. B. London: 343–357. PARIK J. DURMISHI N. and RUDAN P. Pergamon Press.

(Un)settling the Neolithic.. 2005. A. YUAN J.. 1979.. CHIKHI L.. GRUPE G. Budja (ed.-J. Absolute chronology and stratigraphy of Lepenski Vir. SREJOVI≥ D. SEMINO O. and MIRACLE P... TERBERGER T. Trench. UNDERHILL P. doi: 10. KIND C. 2004.. A. Worldwide archaeology series 6. European Journal of Archaeology 7(3): 221–248. Fundamenta. N. Deconstructing essentialism: unsettling frontiers of the Meso-Neolithic Balkans. Kragujevac. A. GU H. 2000. The process of Neolithisation in South-eastern Europe: from ceramic female figurines and cereal grains to entoptics and human nuclear DNA polymorphic markers. Centar za nau≠na istra∫ivanja Srpske akademije nauka I umjetnosti i Univerziteta u Kragujevcu I Narodni muzej u Kragujevcu. PETERS J. 1994. 2004. China. Dolukhanov (eds. BIAGI P.. Prehistoric archaeology & anthropological theory and education. MIKI≥ Ω. L. BAR-YOSEF O. A case study: the Iron Gate.. MATSUMURA S.. 2005. 12th Neolithic Studies. CAUVIN J. New observations on the radiocarbon chronology of the Star≠evo-Cris and Körös cultures. LIU K. Grivac. Bailey. Princeton University Press. BENAC A. 2002. Aldershot. Science 326 (5949): 137–140..). 2009. 1987. 2005.. ANTANAITIS-JACOBS I. LUETH F.. Praistorija jugoslovanskih zemalja II. In J. Spikins (eds.). JANKAUSKAS R. London.. The spread of early farming in Europe. 2008..... and DINU A. Sarajevo: 11–31.). Neolitsko doba. and DIMITRIJEVI≥ V. The Dawn of European Civilization. HAAK W. In G... BARBUJANI G. Y-chromosomal evidence of the cultural diffusion of agriculture in southeast Europe..). Cultural Transformations and Interactions in Eastern Europe. Cambridge: 238–279. The transition to farming in Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery. G. 2009.). 8th Neolithic Studies. 1928. G. Mesolithic Europe. Naselja protostar≠eva≠ke i vin≠anske kulture. European Journal of Human Genetics 17(6): 820–830. BORONEANT A.. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 6–7: 35–40. DOI: 10.. 1996. S. HAIDLE M. BORI≥ D. Chapman and P. BUDJA M. Studii de Preistorie 3: 41–76... BOGUCKI P. The History and Geography of Hu-man Genes. JORES P. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23(4): 341–71. BORI≥ D. Whitlle. CHAPMAN J. and V. 2001. London. Centre for the Archaeology of Central and Eastern Europe monograph 1 Avebury. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 99(17): 11008–11013. 2005. JIAO T.. Kegan Paul. The Romanian Mesolithic and the transition to farming. Hunan Province.1126/science. The Most Ancient East: the Oriental Prelude to European Prehistory. BONSALL C. Radiocarbon dating of charcoal and bone collagen associated with early pottery at Yuchanyan Cave.). C14-chronologie des vorderasiatischen. Nikolova and J. Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter-Gatherers and Central Europe’s First Farmers. Higgins (eds. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Oxford: 16–31. Cummings (eds. The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. GOLDBERG P. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106(24): 9595–9600. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 6–7: 41–50. 2009.. CHILDE V. and SPATARO M. GARAπANIN M. The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates. 5. UNTERLAENDER M. PIAZZA A.. 1925. In L.. 2009. THOMAS M.1176869 BREUNIG B. Higgins (eds. BORI≥ D.. 2009. Documenta Praehistorica 32: 53–72. BRAMANTI B. Documenta Praehistorica 28: 27–48. Akademija Nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic diffusion in Southeastern Europe BENERECETTI A. NICHOLS R.. Uvod. and SPATARO M. American Scientist 84(3): 242–253. MENOZZI P. In D.. Kegan Paul. Trubner. Centar za Balkanolo∏ka ispitivanja.0900539106 BOGDANOVI≥ M.. BIAGI P.1073/pnas. 2004.. BURGER J. Bailey and P. 2006. Rapid rivers and slow seas? New data for the radiocarbon chronology of the Balkan peninsula. Princeton. In M. Cambridge University Press.. 131 . Y genetic data support the Neolithic demic diffusion model. HILLER J. LI S. Budja (ed. BRONK RAMSEY C.. CHU V. Monographien zur Urgescichte A13.. BEAUMONT M. Brookfield: 71–121. WU X. A. Cambridge CAVALLI-SFORZA L. sudost-und mitteleuropaischen Neolithikums. Starinar LVII: 9–55. TAMBETS K. FORSTER P. In M. Oxbow Books. Radiocarbon 51(1): 337–360.. SHENNAN S. and WEINER S. New York.).. 1993. Mesolithic and Neolithic (dis)continuities in the Danube Gorges: new AMS dates from Padina and Hajdu≠ka Vodenica (Serbia). BOARETTO E. BORI≥ D. In L. PAN Y. Is the Mesolithic-Neolithic subsistence dichotomy real? New stable isotope evidence from the Danube Gorges. Social Power in the Iron GatesGorge. Cambridge University Press. COHEN D. Nikolova and J. Prehistoric archaeology & anthropological theory and education..

COPPA A. F.. Centar za Balkanolo∏ka ispitivanja. 2004. I. CUCCI F.. Untersuchungen zur anthropomorphen Plastik der Jungsteinzeit und Kupferzeit in Südosteuropa. D.. Radiocarbon dating and the expansion of farming culture from the Near East over Europe. A. and UNDERHILL P... S. LIN A. G.. Y chromosomal haplogroup J as a signature of the post-Neolithic colonization of Europe.. 2004. CIAVARELLA G. O.. FUSELLI G. BRAMANTI B... 2008.. N.. FORSTER P. ASSUM G. BRANDT G.. L. MAMMI’ C. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 303–321.. Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-YearOld Neolithic Sites. SEMINO O. KERIMOVA M.-M. Man Makes Himself. Prehistoric herders of Northern Istria: the archaeology of Pupi≤ina Cave. S... STEELE J. OEFNER P.. New binary polymorphisms reshape and increase resolution of the human Y chromosomal haplogroup tree. New York COWARD F.. A pot in house 54 at Lepenski Vir I. Current Anthropology 45. Watts & Co. Antiquity 76(293): 707– 714. BARBUJANI G. 1939. American Journal of Archaeology 43(1): 10–26. and SIMON U. PASCONE R. ZEGURA S. POPA L.. L. KING R. L. Die Gravettienfundstrllr Krems-Wachtberg. Philipp von Zabern. 1965a. BERTORELLE G. KIVISILD T.. The Orient and Europe. LOUTRADIS A.. A. CLARK J. CRUCIANI F. RENFREW C.. PAPPA K. KOVATCHEV D. TERRENATO L.. MORAL P. 2002. DI STASI L. 1951. SHEN P... COLLEDGE S. Genome Research 12: 339–348. KARAFET T.. Akademija Nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine..... PAOLI G... CONOLLY J. WERNER ALT K. The Danube in Prehistory. SANTOLAMAZZA P. BRDICKA R. Genome Research 18: 830–838. KING R... 2004. A.. PAPOLA F. Neolitsko doba. Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 42– 56. 2007.. CRIVELLARO F. The Macmillan Company. KALFOGLU E. ZEGURA S. VONA G. Archaeobotanical Evidence for the Spread of Farming in the Eastern Mediterranean.. Neolithic transition in Europe: the radiocarbon record revisted.... BARBUJANI G. GARAπANIN M. Antiquity 77(295): 45–62. Radiocarbon dating and the spread of farming economy.. B.. ZAGRADISNIK B.... CAVALLI-SFORZA L. ATASOY S. Pula: 483– 523. MATSUMURA S.).. 1965b. KOZLOV A. Pupi≤ina Cave and the Spread of Farming in the Estern Adriatic. CINNIOGLU C. Antiquity 39: 45–48. GARAπANIN M. M... HAMMER M. HAAK W. Human Genetics 115: 357–371. BERAUD COLOMB E. Clarendon Press. SELLITTO D. N. 2002. 2001. TROMBETTA B... HAMMER M. London. MICHALODIMITRAKIS E.. MEILERMAN M. NOVELLETTO A. Sarajevo: 79–212. LUCA F. CAVALLERI G. L. Molecular Biology and Evolution 24(6): 1300– 1311. 2002. I. J.Mihael Budja 1929.. Science 310 (5750): 1016–1018.. LA FRATTA R. DUPANLOUP I... Centralnobalkanska zona. UNDERHILL P. COON C. Praistorija jugoslovenskih zemalja II. PEDICINI G. MELEGH B. 2004. AKAR N. W. GKIASTA M. WATSON E. 1979.. In Miracle P. DUGOUJON J.. ANAGNOU N. S. The spread of Neolithic plant economies from the Near East to northwest Europe: a phylogenetic analysis. GRONENBORN D. Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E–M78 and J–M12. and MIRACLE P.. COLLEDGE S. G. LILLIE A. ROSEMAN C. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21(7): 1361–1372... HANSEN S. L.. & RADOVANOVI≥ I. MENDEZ F... KOZLOV A.. Antiquity 75(287): 118–125.. Human Genetics 114: 127–148. The Races of Europe. 1939.. D. EFREMOV G.. BENINCASA T. 2005.. BANYKO J.. SHENNAN S. Arheolo∏ki muzej Istre. 2003.. F. UNDERHILL P. EINWÖGERER T. SHERMAN S. 132 . Vol. BARBUJANI.. and Forenbaher S. NOVELLETTO A. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 1. CHIKHI L. CONOLLY J. GAVRILA L. Monografije i katalozi 14. Bilder vom Menschen der Steinzeit. DI GIACOMO F. SHENNAN S. Congruent distribution of Neolithic painted pottery and ceramic figurines with Y-chromosome lineages.. Excavating Ychromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia... Oxford. MALASPINA P. F. I. COLLARD M. Archäologie Österreichs 19(1): 38–42. S. 2008... The Human Y Chromosome Haplogroup Tree: Nomenclature and Phylogeography of Its Major Divisions. Supplement: 35–58. Mainz.. A Nomenclature System for the Tree of Human Y-Chromosomal Binary Haplogroups.. PRINCE K... 2008.... HAMMER M. RUSSELL T. Archäologie in Eurasien 20.. 2006. TOFANELLI S. VILLEMS R. FORENBAHER S. BURGER J... MANDARINO V.. TÄNZER M. Estimating the impact of prehistoric admixture on the genome of Europeans.. and SCOZZARI R. C.. A. 31: 58–73. BRDICKA R. (eds. 2007.

Zur Methode der Siedlungsarchäologie. M. DIACONESCU D. Die Deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Otzaki-Magula in Thessalien I.). 2007. S. S.. Cambridge: 81–88. MILOJ∞I≥ V.. 20–22 May 2004. Raczky (eds. 15th Neolithic Studies. 1971. LUCA S. In S. LICHTER C. Leipzig. SCHÄFER E. 1890–1990.Tor)-Serie... 2006. Polska Akademia Nauk – Oddizial w Krakowie. LUCA S.. 2000. Geburstag. 14th Neolithic Studies.. L. 2008.. Die Deutsche Vorgeschichte – eine hervorragend nationale Wissenschaft.. M. 2008. M. Synthetic maps of human gene frequencies in Europeans. Machnik (eds. Archaeolingua. Budja (ed. 1989. Antiquity 80(308): 362– 371. Evolutionary Biology 6: 381–398.). 1997. KOSSINNA G. LIN A.. 2008. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75. MENK R.). A.. A comparison of early Neolithic crop and weed assemblages from the Linearbandkeramik and the Bulgarian Neolithic cultures: differences and similarities. SOUTHWICK A. TANG H. A. M. Proceedings of the International Colloquium: The Carpathian Basin and its Role in the Neolithisation of the Balkan Peninsula. Budja (ed.. 2003. T. Morgenrot der Kulturen. and LICHARDUS J.Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic diffusion in Southeastern Europe KING R. KUZMIN Y. The transition from Mesolithic to Erly Neolithic in southeastern and eastern Europe: an anthropological outline.. I. A. and SUCIU C. 1936. and UNDERHILL P. KOSSINNA G. The earliest Neolithic complex in Siberia: the Ust-Karenga 12 site and its significance for the Neolithisation process in Eurasia. How Did Farming Reach Europe. 1978. Kozłowski and J. Science 319 (1100): 1100– 1104. Documenta Praehistorica 35: 325–343.... Rudolf Habelt Verlag GMBH. Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC. In C. SUCIU C. MICHALODIMITRAKIS M. Mesolithic and Neolithic populations of Europe and the Mediterranean Basin. Documenta Praehistorica 34: 9–20. In M. Die Herkunft der Germanen. In E. Renfrew & K. PIAZZA A. Bonn. M. LICHARDUS-ITTEN M.und Südosteuropa. 1949 Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzet Steinzeit Mittel. Boyle (eds.und Südosteuropas. MIKI≥ Ω... Germania 38(3/4): 320–335.).). Frontiers of historical imagination. Oxford: 531–540. LUCA F. British Archeological Reports. In I. 2005. Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian Influences on the Greek and Cretan Neolithic. C. The apportionment of human diversity. KLEIN K. 1980.. LAHR M. Praekeramisches Neolithikum auf der Balkanhalbinsel. Das frühe Neolithikum. V. CARTER T. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132(1): 132–139. BENINCASA T. 2008.). BANYKO J. Strukturelle Grundlagen zum Verständnis der Neolithisierungsprozesse in Südostund Mitteleuropa. Krakow: 151–162. Expected regional patterns of Mesolithic-Neolithic human population admixture in Europe based on archaeological evidence. BYZAS 2. 1960. Chronology of the earliest pottery in East Asia: progress and pitfalls.. CANN H. Istanbul: 59–74. Lichter (ed. Berkeley. and NEMESKÉRI J. In J. A. J. MENOZZI P. DI GIACOMO F. LEWONTIN R. Z. BARSH G. Annals of Human Genetics 72: 205–214. ZHIVOTOVSKY L. A. University of California Press. Berlin. KRACMAROVA A.. Mannus-Bibliothek. A.. Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul. and CAVALLI-SFORZA L. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel.. and BRDICKA R. CAVALLI-SFORZA L. Y-Chromosomal Variation in the Czech Republic. ABSHER D. MILOJCIC-VON ZUMBUSCH J. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. CASTO A... I. MALASPINA P. Science 201: 786–792.. Band 6. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14: 237–258. Worldwide human relationships inferred from genome wide patterns of variation. In M. Narrating the European conquest of Native America. RAMACHANDRAN S. POPA L. KALFOGLU E.. WIETHOLD J. V. ATASOY S. ÖZCAN S. Mann. Archaeological research in Miercurea Sibiului – Petris (Sibiu County. Jerem and P. International Series S508. KOUVATSI A. Migrations and local evolution in the Early Neolithic of Transylvania. MARINOVA E. A. In C. KREUZ A. 2005. Western Anatolia in the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic: the actual state of research. und MILOJCIC V. People and culture in change: Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Upper Palaeolithic. 133 . 1972.)... NOVELLETTO A. O.. Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis VII: 39–56.).. LI J. CHOW C-E.. 2007. V.. K. 1911. Hershkovitz (ed. M. FOLEY R.. Anthropologische Typen der Djerdap (Eisernen. Molecular Genetics and Early Europe: Papers in Population Prehistory. Problemes de la neolithisation dans certaines regionsde l’Europe. The typological-stylistic analysis and the radiocarbon data. FELDMAN M. and VETROV V. KUZMIN Y. & PINHASI R. Luca (ed. Würzburg. TRIANTAPHYLLIDIS C.. Beiträge zur Ur.und Früfgeschidhtlichen Archäologie des Mittlemeer-Kulturraumes 10. L. Romania) The Star≠evo-Cris level during 1997– 2005. M. MYERS R. Budapest: 61–81..

In M. Craniometric Data Supports Demic Diffusion Model for the Spread of Agriculture into Europe. Blagotin. Edinburgh University Press. 2005. BURR G.. BARA≥ LAUC L.. In M. and THISSEN L. PERI≥ S. THISSEN L. STUIVER M.. D. STEFANOVI≥ B. Radiocarbon 51(2): 751– 770. Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes. The first farming communities in Europe. KVESI≥ A. The Neolithic Demographic Transition and its Consequences. BRONK RAMSEY C..Mihael Budja MÜLLER J. PIAZZA A. RADOVANOVI≥ I. ∞OLAK I. RömischGermanische Forschungen 52.. Cambridge University Press.0006747 POMPEI F. 1970. PLoS (Public Library of Science) One 4(8). High-Resolution Phylogenetic Analysis of Southeastern Europe Traces Major Episodes of Paternal Gene Flow among Slavic Populations. Beograd. New York: 139–178. S. and ZE∞EVI≥ J. 10th Neolithic Studies. 1993. Molecular Biology and Evolution 22(10): 1964–1975. (E. Frankfurt a. In J. Michigan. TAYLOR F. RENFREW C. An Alternative Approach in Tracing Changes in Demographic Composition The Westward Expansion of the Neolithic Way of Life. RAJI≥ πIKANJI≥ P.. 1965.html] REINGRUBER A. Greece. 2005. Documenta Praehistorica 35: 55–64... Starinar LI: 9–40. 2008.C. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica II: 217–222. 2009. 0– 26 cal Kyr BP’. BUCK C.... 2005.). South-Eastern Europe. The Iron Gates Mesolithic.. 2008. EDWARDS R. 2001.. 2006. DAMON P. MARTINOVI≥ KLARI≥ I. doi:10. POPOVI≥ D.. CANeW 14C databases and 14C charts. 2002. D. Wissenschaftsverlag Volker Spiess.). S. PERI∞I≥ M. and WEYHENMEYER C. GUILDERSON T. An Early Neolithic village in Greece. TERZI≥ R.. SOUTHON J. HUGHEN K. and PLUCIENNIK M. MANNING S.. Balkans and W...pone. BARA≥ LAUC L. REINGRUBER A. Budja (ed. A regional biological approach to the spread of farming in Europe: Anatolia. PERLÈS C. VON CRAMON-TAUBADEL N. ∑OR∑EVI≥ D. Das ostadriatische Frühneolithikum. International Monographs in Prehistory. Studien zur Chronologie und Kulturgeschichte der Jungstein-. REIMER P.. J. 1987. Penguin Books. Documenta Praehistorica 33: 11–16.. FAIRBANKS R. A new model for the spread of the first farmers in Europe In M.. Neolithic skull shapes and demic diffusion: a bioarchaeological investigation into the nature of the Neolithic transition. 2009.. BLACKWELL P. CUTLER K. RUDAN P. 2004. Scientific American 212(4): 82–92. FORT J. NOVELLETTO A. 2006. MARTINOVI≥ KLARI≥ I.... TALAMO S.. ROOTSI S.).. org/data. BAILLIE M..1371/journal. Springer. 13th Neolithic Studies.). PINHASI R. Berlin. KROMER B. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Phylogeography of Y chromosomal haplogroups as reporters of Neolithic and post-Neolithic population processes in the Mediterranean area. 2003.. Current Anthropology 45: 59–82. SCOZZARI R... Documenta Praehistorica 30: 1–47. 1989. NANDRIS J... Budja (ed. Documenta Praehistorica 33: 61–70. 134 . Y chromosome variation in Europe: Continental and local processes in the formation of the extant gene pool. Cambridge. PAVLU I. M. van der PLICHT J. The early Neolithic in Greece. Budja (ed..canew. The development and relationships of the earlier Greek Neolithic. London. RUDAN I. Aegean Catchment.. EFREMOVSKA L. In M.. Radiocarbon 46: 1029–58.. PIGGOTT S... and the Mediterranean. Cambridge World Archaeology. BARD E.. PINHASI R. Istra∫ivanja (Excavation and Research) 1989–1999. FRIEDRICH M.. Bar-Yosef (eds. AMMERMAN A. BECK J. Ann Arbor. PINHASI R. PLoS (Public Library of Science) Biology 3(12): 2220–2228. PINHASI R. JANI∞IJEVI≥ B. and RUDAN P. the Levant.. 15th Neolithic Studies... The role of Southeastern Europe (SEE) in origins and diffusion of major paternal lineages. πIJA∞KI A.). BAJEC ∑.. Tracing the Origin and Spread of Agriculture in Europe. Ancient Europe from the Beginnings of Agriculture to Classical Antiquity.. BERTRAND C. PARZINGER H. 13th Neolithic Studies. Budja (ed. Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa 9. Der kulturelle Charakter die Chronologie der Star≠evo-Elemente im Neolithikum der westlichen Balkanregionen. 1965. JANI∞IJEVI≥ B. Kupfer.. 2001. 2004.und Frühbronzezeit zwischen Karpaten und Mittlerem Taurus. NIKOLI≥ D. BEHLULI I.. J. HOGG A.. RODDEN R. VILLEMS R..-P. Edinburgh. ÖZDOGAN M. Depending on 14C data: chronological frameworks in the neolithic and chalcolithic of southeastern Europe.. REIMER R. 1996. BAYLISS A. Annals of Human Biology 34(2): 139–72... 5: 192–213. Who are the Europeans? Science 260 (5115): 1767–1769.. Early Neolithic white painted pottery in SE Europe. CRUCIANI F. 1994. Bocquet-Appel and O. 1993. Turkey) 10000–5500 cal B. Archaeological Series 11. 2007. REMMELE S.. Man N. MCCORMAC F. NOVELLETTO A. ‘IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration. PERI∞I≥ M. e6747. Archaeology and Language. [http://www.

.. L. A. T. KING R. MAJUMDER P. SCHUBERT H.. Budja (ed... BATTAGLIA V. CHAVENTRE A. Sitzungsberichte 303..). BECKMAN L. The American Journal of Human Genetics 67: 1526–1543. LARI M. SIL S.). Origin.. A. E. CANN H.... LIN A. Band.. Die bemalte Keramik des Frühneolithikums in Südosteuropa.. L. ROOTSI S. A..Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic diffusion in Southeastern Europe ROKSANDI≥ M. GROBEI M. SEMINO O. FERAK V. M. GILISSEN A.. A. SCHEFFRAHN W. BÉRES J. VILLEMS R. E. In M.. OEFNER P. RUDAN P. LAO O.. U.. FÜREDI S. NAFA K. A. MOISAN J.. BALANOVSKA E. EDMONDS C.. 2004.. Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH... Diffusion.... 2007. K... MEHDI S. A.. CAVALLISFORZA L. Peri≤ (ed. AL-ZAHERY N...). 13th Neolithic Studies. AMORIM A.. Internationale Archäologie 47. A... Clines.. ROSSER Z...TOLUN A... SIMONESCU M... PARIK J.. GÖLGE M.. 1999. ARROYO E. ZHIVOTOVSKY L.. and WEAVER T.. BREDE G.. A. BECKMAN L. 2000. V. NØRBY S. ROSEMAN C.. FRANCALACCI P. TERZI≥ R.. MAHAJAN S.... In S.. Wien. BRADLEY D.. MAGRI C... How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC (Byzas 2). Everyone’s black box – Where does the European ornamentation come from? In C. Clusters.. A. LIU A.. SHEN P. LIVSHITS L.. TYLER-SMITH C. KIVISILD T.. The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in extant Europeans: a Y-chromosome perspective... ZHAO C. A. MARTÍ M. KU∞INSKAS V... OEFNER P. M. Some characteristics of the AnzabegovoVr∏nik cultural group in Macedonia. PASSARINO G. MITCHELL R.. MIKEREZI I. ALAVANTIC D. J.. BioEssays 29: 1185–1188. Beograd: 35–48. SANTACHIARA-BENERECETTI A.. ROSENBERG N... ROOTSI S. 2000. PANDYA A. Q.. BECKMAN G. SYKES B... 7th Neolithic Studies. PREVIDERÉ C. SEMINO O. Radhen/Westf.. THAKUR C. SCHUBERT H. and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area... DECORTE R.. Between Foragers and Farmers in the Iron Gates Gorge: Physical Anthropology Perspective Djerdap Population in Transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic.. Y-Chromosome haplogroup I prehistoric gene flow in Europe. NICHOLSON J.. SANTACHIARA-BENERECETTI A. GLISIC S.. CÔRTE-REAL H. 1976... DE KNIJFF P. Molecules versus morphology? Not for the human cranium. Österreichiche Akademia der Wissenschaften. BERMISHEVA M. 2005. A. SANTACHIARA-BENERECETTI A. KALAYDJIEVA L.. D. LIN A. BREHM A. and LALUEZA-FOX C.. A. UNDERHILL P.. G. KAYSER M.. MEITINGER T. M. Budja (ed. SAILLARD J. PRITCHARD J.. Des griechichen festlandes und der Kykladen. SANTOS F. 2000. B. FELDMAN M. R. S. ARMENTEROS M. L. ADOJAAN M. 2006. MCELREAVEY K. DION D. BARBUJANI G. JOÃO PRATA M.. rather than by language... PRIMORAC D.-V... FELDMAN M. C. ROSENBERG N.. Lichter (ed. RUBINSZTEIN D.. PIELBERG G.. BERTRANPETIT J. KING R. COOPER G. In M.. S... MIKA A.. PASSARINO G... SCHACHERMEYER F. MALASPINA P. JEZIOROWSKA A. Palaeogenetic evidence supports a dual model of Neolith spreading into Europe...-P. CAMBON-THOMSEN A.. RAMESH A. K. PATSALIS P. Science 290 (5494): 1155–1159.. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. PETERLIN B.. Documenta Praehistorica 27: 1–1000. KRUMINA A. J. ACHILLI A. Proceedings of the Royal Society. BERTRANPETIT J. GONCALVES R. CAVALLI-SFORZA L.. AMOS W.. CZEIZEL A.. BECKMAN L. H. KIVISILD T.. RANI M..... Die Vormykenischen Periode. American Journal of Human Genetics 75: 128–137. ZHIVOTOVSKY L.. 2007. PERI∞I≥ M.. Y-chromosomal diversity in Europe is clinal and influenced primarily by geography.. ROEWER L.. W... 2004.. W. 2004. Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup I Reveals Distinct Domains of Prehistoric Gene Flow in Europe. ROOTSI S. VILLEMS R. W.. E. SENGUPTA S. PLoS(Public Library of Science) Genetics 1(6): 660–671. KRUMINA A. L.. MIKELSAAR A... RAMACHANDRAN S.. MARCIKI≥ M. and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure... HILL E. K... ZHIVOTOVSKY L. 2002.. Yayinlari...-E. DUBROVA Y. Documenta Praehistorica 33: 17–20.. A.. C. American Journal of Human Genetics 74: 1023–1034. SAMPIETRO M. EVGRAFOV O. ROSA A. TORRONI A. BARA≥ L. POU R. S.. P.. SANEV V. KIDD K..... UNDERHILL P. KUTUEV I. ZERJAL T. CINNIOGLU C.. QUINTANA-MURCI L.. J. PEREIRA L. Biology 274: 161–2167. Die Ägäische Frühzeit I. BOSCH E. Istanbul: 239–254. PRIMORAC D. C. KOUVATSI A. ARBUZOVA S. K.. BENUZZI G. HELP H.. UNDERHILL P.. LIMBORSKA S. MIKA B. Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influ- 135 . KRAVCHENKO S. STEFANESCU G. S. LAVINHA J. Genetic structure of human populations.. A. PSHENICHNOV A. Italien und Westanatolien... CHOW C.. WEBER J. MITRA M.. 2005.). Science 298 (5602): 2381–2385.... PRITCHARD J. PARIK J. KHUSNUTDINOVA E... and SEMINO O. HURLES M. BALANOVSKY O. The Neolithic in the Middle Morava Valley 1. C.. JOBLING M. A.... 2006. DE BENEDICTIS G. CARAMELLI D. Archaeological Institute SANU... MARIA S.

Vol. Todorova. R. Morgenrot der Kulturen. The earliest farmers in Europe.. Salzburg: 9–26. 2005. The Typology of the Anthropomorphic Figurines From Northeastern Bulgaria. A. Chicago: 265–320. The spread of farming into Central Europe and its consequences: evolutionary models. SHENNAN S. 20–22 Oktober 1988. CHOW C. Lepenski Vir..-E.).. M. Gesamte Beiträge zum Internationalen Kolloquim in Salzburg. D. and RUNNELS N. SE Europe – a synthesis of the radiocarbon evidence. In E. T. Early Village Communities in natoloia and the Balkans. Archaeolingua Alapítvány. VERPOORTE A. JÖRIS O. Peri≤ (ed.. Stringer. WENINGER B. A. 2000. 2000. T. buffer. The University of Chicago Press. In C. VUKOVI≥ J. Chronologies in Old World archaeology. C. L. M. THEOCHARIS R. O. Nikolova (ed. Seria Arheologie 1: 9–30. ADOVASIO J.. Sofia: 27–54. Tell Karanovo und das Balkan-Neolithikum. Festschrift für Nándor Kalicz zum 75.. Statistic and typological analyses of the Eraly Neolithic pottery excavated in the structure 03. 1995.). AMIRKHANOV H.).. 1965. Early Symbolic System for Communication in Southeast Europe I. Beograd: 83–156. Stefanovich. SREJOVI≥ D.. D.. CAVALLISFORZA L. PSHENICHNOV A. PRASLOV N. 2005. Prehistoric population history: from the Late Glacial to the Late Neolithic in Central and Northern Europe. Coming to grips with the Aregean in Prehistory: an outline of the temporal framework 10. Santa Fe: 141–156.. Studies in chronology and culture contact. Hauptman H.. Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents. Das Frühneolithikum Nordbulgariens im kontakte des ostbalkanischen Neolithikums. In P. ALRAM-STEM E. (eds. The White Painted Ornament of the Early and Middle Neolithic in the Central Balkans.. & STREET M. Der balkano-anatolische Kulturbereich vom Neolithikum bis zur Frühbronzezeit. H. Geburtstag.. Istanbul: 29– 40. THISSEN L. Kohler and S.. Climate forcing due to the 8200 cal yr BP event observed at Early 136 . ILLINGWORTH J. Bar-Yosef. DANZEGLOCKE U. Van ANDEL H..000–5500 calBC. The American Journal of Human Genetics 78: 202–221. Cambridge: 19–56. UNDERHILL P. Todorova H.). McDonald Institute for Archaeological. In T.).). In T. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 1339–1345.. Rethinking the human revolution: New behavioural and biological perspectives on the origin and dispersal of modern humans. Athens. LIN A. 2003. TRINHGAM R. CLARE L. In Stefanovich. 2007. 2007. 2009. Buletinul muzeului Judetean Teleorman. TODOROVA H.. E.. 1998. H. D.. ROOTSI S. Sofia: 107–142. In The Steps of James Harvey Gaul. KIVISILD T. WEINBERG S.. and PÄÄBO S. The Model-Based Archaeology of Socionatural Systems. van der Leeuw (eds. BAR International Series 1139. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic. EDINBOROUGH K. Neue Angaben zur Neolithisierung der Balkanhalbinsel. Raczky (eds. ZHIVOTOVSKY L. In R. Genome Research 14: 1679–1685. Archaeological Institute SANU. New Phylogenetic Relationships for Y-chromosome Haplogroup I: Reappraising its Phylogeography and Prehistory. 2004. Yayinlari. Places of Art. SERRE D. Oxford: 181–191. H. 2001.)... Srpska knji∫evna zadruga. Mellars. Faculty of Archaeology. Budapest: 83–88. Leiden. P.5000 calBC. traces of Fire. VAN ANDEL T. TODOROVA H. MYRES N.). RITCHIE K.. Cambridge: 33–42. C. SOFFER O. In S. VILLEMS R. BALANOVSKY O. Universitet Leiden. or mosaic.Mihael Budja ence of Central Asian Pastoralists. In L. BAUER E. 1989. Boyle (eds. University of Leiden & Institute of Archaeology. 1973.). The relative chronology of the Aegean in the stone and early bronze ages. A. In M. SAR Press. OTILLAR R.. Neolithic Greece. & WOODWARD S. 2003. Price (ed. Cambridge University Press. VAJSOV I.).. In the Steps of James Harvey Gaul Volume 1. Antiquity 74(286): 812–821. Archaeolingua 15. Beograd. First ceramic assemblages in the Danube catchment. Hauptmann (eds. Antiquity 69(264): 481–500. 1998. SHENNAN S. PhD Thessis. TASI≥ N.und Südosteuropa. Lichter (ed.. ROLLEFSON G. Brno. 2006. Europe’s First Farmers. The Neolithic in the Middle Morava Valley 1. Ehrich (ed. Jerem and P. National Bank of Greece. A. Archaeological Studies Leiden University 8 (Dolní Věstonice Studies 6). K. Leiden. In memoriam. KING R. 6500. James Harvey Gaul. Palaeolithic perishables made permanent. 2000. How Did Farming Reach Europe? Anatolian-European Relations from the Second Half of the 7th through the First Half of the 6th Millennium calBC (Byzas 2). S. Frühe Etappen der Menschheitsgeschichte in Mittel.. Southeastern Europe in the transition to agriculture in Europe: bridge. KUBATZKI C. 1. 1969.. 2004.

.Early Neolithic pottery dispersals and demic diffusion in Southeastern Europe Neolithic sites in the eastern Mediterranean. Europe’s first farmers. V. Price (ed. Quaternary Research 66: 401–420. In C. Current Anthropology 3(1): 2–46. Hunters in transition: Mesolithic societies of temperate Euroasia and their transition to farming. 2002. 1962. In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and southeast Hungary.. WIERCINSKI A.). Cambridge University Press. and ROWLEY-CONWY P. 2000. Prehistoric Studies in memoriam Ida Bognar-Kutzian. Cambridge University Press... ZVELEBIL M. ZVELEBIL M.). In M. and LILLIE M. ZVELEBIL M. Cambridge: 67–93. BORI≥ D. Cambridge: 57–92.). RICHARDS M. T. Molecular Genetics and Early Europe: Papers in Population Prehistory. WHITTLE A. 137 . PETTITT P. Cambridge: 57–80. Bánffy (ed. Zvelebil (ed. Renfrew & K. In E. 1986. Antaeus 25: 15–62. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. In D. The Social Context of the the Agricultural Transition in Europe. Boyle (eds.). The racial analysis of human populations in relation to their ethnogenesis. and BIELICKI T. Foragers and farmers in Atlantic Europe. Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe. BARTOSIEWICZ L.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful