ch3_dušan borić

7/30/2019 Ch3_Duan Bori

1/16

Duan Bori16

3. Deconstructing essentialisms: unsettlingfrontiers of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Balkans

Duan Bori

The reputation, name, and appearance, the worth, the usualmeasure and weight of a thing originally almost alwayswrong and arbitrary, thrown over things like a dress andquite foreign to their nature and even to their skin has,through the belief in it and its growth from generation togeneration, slowly grown onto and into the thing and hasbecome its very body: what started as appearance in the endnearly always becomes essence and effectively acts as itsessence! (Nietzsche 2001, 6970; aphorism 58).

Existing models that consider foraging (Mesolithic)and first farming (Neolithic) societies, their interaction,and coexistence rarely reflect wider discursive problems,

such as Orientalism and its dichotomous structure thatreproduces binary classifications. Complex historicalprocesses are dichotomized, essentialized and, finally,colonized for the sake of proliferating familiar narrativesand hardening the progressive time-arrow. Vocabulariesused to describe, narrate, and represent these processesof culture change are unavoidably biased and summonedby (post)colonial analogies; there is little care about theterms we use. Issues about subsistence are still centraland many models of culture change rely on socialevolutionary stadial schemes. Though this chapter worksthrough these theoretical concerns by looking at the

Mesolithic-Neolithic evidence in the Balkans, thediscussion is applicable to other regions.

Introduction

It is time to shift the focus on subsistence that has longnaturalized Mesolithic-Neolithic identities. It is time toabandon the simplistic and reductionist models of socialinteraction and transformation that emerge from ethno-graphic analogies. Though the naturalization of pastidentities and the use of unproblematized analogies haveprovided safe havens for the archaeology of Mesolithic-Neolithic studies, in reality they have obstructed theoryand discussion. In their borrowings from ethnographyand socio-cultural anthropology (i.e. the two disciplines

which remain the main sources for intellectual inspirationin prehistoric archaeology), naturalization and analogyremain nave, uncritical and non-reflexive. If prehistoricarchaeologists intend to use ethnographic data effectivelyfor their prehistoric case studies, they need to go beyondtheoretical proxies, such as frontier interactions, culturalresistance, or acculturation. They need to update andnuance their theoretical foundations and embrace the fieldof postcolonial studies. In order to shape more originalapproaches, they must also become intellectual foragersthemselves.

In order to take account of the ambiguities of the

historical transformation that is conventionally desig-nated the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition, I intend to gobeyond demic diffusion and the frontier model for theNeolithisation of the Balkans. The argument will followa different conceptualization of identity construction andwill require a re-examination of the notions of localknowledge and continuity. First, I will outline thetheoretical concerns of Mesolithic and Neolithic labellingand the subsequent modelling of the culture change. ThenI will examine the so-called Neolithisation process in theBalkans and focus on an example from the DanubeGorges region.

Essentialist proxies: frontiers, acculturations,

resistances

Referring to the conventional labels Mesolithic andNeolithic, one of the editors of this book promised at aconference several years ago, I will try not to use M- andN-words. He promised to buy a drink for anyone whospotted a slip of his tongue. He almost succeeded.Towards the end of his paper the habit of using the termsoverwhelmed even his conscious decision to change thewell-rooted vocabulary of prehistorians.

Regardless of their provisional and arbitrary invention(cf. Lubbock 1865), the terms Mesolithic and Neolithichave become the theoretical currency for debates of


2/16

Deconstructing essentialisms: unsettling frontiers of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Balkans 17

Mesolithic-Neolithic archaeologists. Definitions forvarious uses of these terms have been offered (e.g. Bradley1998; Price 2000; Thomas 1999; Whittle 1996; Zvelebiland Lillie 2000, 59). Strong criticism of the vagueness ofthese terms has been voiced as well (e.g. Pluciennik 1998;

1999; 2001; 2002). However, even though we have verydifferent ideas about what the terms mean in differentparticular contexts, we continue to use these terms asshared proxies and heuristic aids. It would be a mistaketo expect to replace Mesolithic and Neolithic with a morenuanced terminology and this is not a goal of this paper.Rather, I will point out theoretical and empirical problemsthat arise from currently popular models of the culturechanges/transformations that occurred during theMesolithic-Neolithic. Throughout, I will use the termtransformation rather than transition as the latter ignoresthe dynamic nature of the process and suggests an

irreversible character for the phenomenon.The idea that Neolithic folk, migrating from theeastern Mediterranean across Europe, were the primarymovers of the Neolithisation process and the main causeof the contemporary culture change is well established inEuropean prehistory; it is prominent in the originalversion of the wave-of-advance model (Ammerman andCavalli-Sforza 1973; also Renfrew 1987). Migrationists(most recently Lichardus and Lichardus 2003; Perls2001; van Andel and Runnels 1995) see only the defeatand swift replacement of indigenous populations byadvancing waves of farmers. The rise in popularity ofhunter-gatherer studies (e.g. Lee and DeVore 1968)

challenged this group of models in the 1980s. A newMesolithic-oriented paradigm gave native Mesolithic/foraging populations a larger role in the Neolithisationprocess (e.g. Bogucki 1988; Gregg 1988; Whittle 1996;Zvelebil 1986; 1994; Zvelebil and Lillie 2000). Theseindigenists give an active role to local forager groups inthe process of Mesolithic-Neolithic transformations andthey model active interactions among foragers andfarmers. These are the availability models of a movingfrontier (Zvelebil 1986; Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy1986; cf. Dennell 1985).

There are important differences between the

migrationist and indigenist positions. Mark Pluciennik(1999, 6634; see also Rudebeck 1996) has identifieddistinct rhetorical tropes for each model: the first groupof models has progressive/romantic and modernistundertones while the second group embodies a nostalgicrhetoric trope which, though it downplays progress,retains a social evolutionary character. Envisioning aform of multiculturalism, a more nuanced version of theindigenists model suggests that coexisting Mesolithicand Neolithic communities mixed diverse culturalrepertoires to produce newly moulded, hybrid identities(Thomas 1996, 1239).

The frontier model is more attentive to the dynamicsof contact, interaction and exchanges between essentiallydifferent populations; it reconstructs local forager groups

in the progressive advance of farmers which the wave ofadvance model suggests. The model (e.g. Bogucki 1995,95) builds on the frontier thesis of Frederick JacksonTurner (1893) who referred to the American frontier (i.e.the colonial conquest of Americas Great West, a

narrative with overwhelming modernist overtones; cf.Klein 1997). One of Turners most exploited ideas is thatfrontier expansion and the frontiersmen of AmericasWest produced American democracy and shaped thecharacter of the American nation. For Turner, theultimate hero was white, middle class, and male. Turnersought to transfigure folk memory into historicalconsciousness (Klein 1997, 9). His tale is about anevolving historical consciousness (seen in the form ofHegelian spirit) that mastered nature. For Turner, naturerepresented wilderness, free land, abundance, barrier,nurturer, a spur of profligacy, the sphere in which the

morality develops (Klein 1997, 80). Most revealing isTurners assertion that the frontier is the meeting pointof savagery and civilization. In its original context, thefrontier thesis was a way to represent this meeting pointbetween nature (without history) and culture (withhistory). Also important is the frontier models notion ofthe emptiness of free land: free to occupy and exploit (i.e.free to be inscribed with meaning).

The first ideal of the pioneer was that of conquest. It washis task to fight with nature for the chance to exist. Not asin older countries did this contest take place in a mythicalpast, told in folk lore and epic. It has been continuous to ourown day. Facing each generation of colonists was the

unmastered continent. Vast forests blocked the way;mountainous ramparts interposed; desolate, grass-cladprairies, barren oceans of rolling plains, arid deserts, and afierce race of savages, all had to be met and defeated (F.Turner 1893, cited by Klein 1997, 81).

Though the coding is tacit rather than intentional,similar elements can be found in the frontier modelproposed for the Mesolithic-Neolithic transformation. Awider underlying discursive formation is at work here.

It is useful to examine the connection of the frontierthesis to Orientalism (cf. Said 1978; see also B. Turner1994; 2001). According to Said, Orientalism is a system

of classification that maintains the difference betweenthe West and the Orient (Said 1978; 1993). The Orient isseen as a negative Other: if Orientalism, as Saiddescribes it, has a structure, this resides in its tendency todichotomize the human continuum into we-they contrastsand to essentialize the resultant other (Clifford 1988,258). For Said, the cause of this polarization is a westerntextualization that brings authority and speaks for theOther. Here, in Foucaults sense, knowledge is power(i.e. a specific Western will to power). Polarities can bedynamic/stationary, modern/traditional, progressive/reactionary, or original/mimetic (B. Turner 2001, 65).To these originary dichotomies one can easily add thepolarity of savage hunters/civilized farmers (i.e. foragers/agriculturalists). Bryan Turner (2001) introduces the


3/16

Duan Bori18

notion of axial space in order to conceptualize thepolarities that map out these differences and boundaries.

The point of these decisive borders is to rule out what I willcall historical porosity, that is the ineluctable nature ofleaking boundaries between cultures. Archaeological

divisions of space constrain the irritant of leaky spaces, thediffusions of cultural porosity. Orientalism has been, inthese terms, a major account of axial space. Disputes aboutthe origins or places of a social movement or culture aredisputes about how to draw the boundaries and borders ofan axial space (B. Turner 2001, 66).

However, the main issue about the nature of represen-tation that Saids Orientalism provoked has much widertheoretical consequences.

The key theoretical issue raised by Orientalism concernsthe status of all forms of thought and representation fordealing with the alien. Can one ultimately escape proceduresof dichotomizing, restructuring, and textualizing in themaking of interpretative statements about foreign culturesand traditions? (Clifford 1988, 261 original emphasis)

Thus, the representation present in the frontier modelof the Mesolithic-Neolithic transformation has deep rootsin Western power relationships, where power, discourse,and representation of knowledge are inescapably en-meshed. By perpetuating this type of model, historicalprocesses and identities are dichotomized, naturalizedand essentialized, for the sake of providing acceptable,forcefully coherent and, most of all, recognizableaccounts. The use of these polarized categories and theirtaken-for-granted nature comes from the same discursivestratum as the colonial conceptualization of the en-countered Other which is present through the history ofcolonial expansion and imperialism. In this way, thedisruptive colonization of the past is invoked byarchaeological accounts that lack a self-reflective stanceover the issue of representation. This Orientalist theatreis a stage with a repeated performance (Clifford 1986:12); it produces static images (cf. Todorova 1997, 7),lacking temporalization and historization of specificity.

To model the dynamics of interaction within culturecontact, archaeological frontier models frequently relyon the notion of acculturation (e.g. Zvelebil and Lillie

2000). Acculturation assumes that one group is absorbedby another in the culture contact between two groups aswell as in the interaction which takes place throughemulations and borrowings. Similar to the genealogy ofthe frontier thesis, acculturation has frequently beenapplied in particular (post)colonial contexts, understoodas the westernisation of traditional cultures. Similar tothe conceptualization of the Orient as passive, accultur-ated groups are frequently seen as passive recipients ofexternally imposed cultural values through commodities.Yet what if the adoption of certain items or practicesand the abandonment of others may be part of a strategy

to maintain group cohesion and identity, rather than anattempt to emulate or become identified with anothergroup? (Moore 1987, 87). Another frequent element of

frontier models (which often has a tragic narrative) is thenotion of resistance and ultimate subjugation of localcultures. Yet, this uniform and cross-culturally universalinterpretation may have alternatives which would haveto challenge the taken-for-granted notion of monolithic

and unchanging identity.Stories of cultural contact and change have been structuredby a pervasive dichotomy: absorption by the other orresistance to the other. A fear of lost identity, a Puritantaboo on mixing beliefs and bodies, hangs over the process.Yet what if identity is conceived not as a boundary to bemaintained but as a nexus of relations and transactionsactively engaging a subject? The story or stories ofinteraction must then be more complex, less linear andteleological. What changes when the subject of history isno longer Western? How do stories of contact, resistance,and assimilation appear from the standpoint of groups inwhich exchange rather than identity is the fundamental value

to be sustained? (Clifford 1988, 344)For prehistorians to develop more nuanced scenarios

with regard to the Mesolithic-Neolithic transformations,it is important to consider alternatives to the constitutionof personal and collective identities, a topic widelydiscussed in the field of post-colonial studies (e.g. Clifford1986; 1988; Drummond 1981; Fischer 1986) and in-creasingly in archaeology (e.g. Brck 2001; Rothschild2003; Schrire 1980; 1984; 1995, 4970; Whittle 1998).Furthermore, for the period of the Mesolithic-Neolithictransformation, the construction of individual andcollective identities remains strongly linked to a specific

subsistence-base and economy. Recently, Pluciennikeffectively traced a particular genealogy in the con-stitution of evolutionary stadial schemes that rely onsubsistence as meaningful and useful societal categories(Pluciennik 2001, 742; 2002). Without denying therelevance of Marxist theory in relating the mode ofproduction to a specific social identity, one needs toacknowledge that ones identity may be constructed alongmultiple lines (Meskell 2001, 199), depending on aparticular social context and the values promoted in thatcontext in a particular historical situation. Thus, theunchallenged use of social categories, such as foragersand farmers, cannot do justice to the complexity andparticularism of studied historical processes.

So far I have outlined some theoretical problems withthe current modeling of the Mesolithic-Neolithic trans-formations. Now, I turn to the evidence of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transformations in the Balkans and I addresspressing, specific, empirical problems that arise from thehabit of applying either the wave-of-advance or thefrontier model to the evidence.

Mesolithic-Neolithic Balkans: changes and

continuities

The scarcity of a pre-Neolithic presence in the Balkans isfrequently rehearsed (e.g. Runnels 2001; van Andel andRunnels 1995) and is used as support for the argument


4/16


of an early Neolithic colonization of the region.Accordingly, sites/regions with evidence of Mesolithic-early Neolithic stratigraphies are seen primarily in termsof forager-farmer interactions (e.g. Budja 1999; Chapman1994; Tringham 2000; Zvelebil 1994). The best research-

ed case of Mesolithic-Neolithic stratigraphies in south-east Europe is the Danube Gorges where it is difficult todispute continuities in various aspects of material culturebetween the Mesolithic and Neolithic, particularly at sitessuch as Lepenski Vir and Padina. In this section I willsurvey the main trends of Mesolithic-Neolithic trans-formations across the Balkans (Fig. 3.1) lookingparticularly at the significance of local knowledge andradiometric dates as evidence for site/regional con-tinuities. The Danube Gorges example and the existinginterpretations of its continuities are then examined.

A number of factors affect the discovery and visibility

of pre-Neolithic sites across the Balkans. One of the mainhindrances is the paucity of detailed surveys that areaimed at locating sites of Mesolithic/Epi-Palaeolithic date.Such limitations result from a neglect of this period thatis rooted in the history of the regions archaeology;archaeologists frequently have preferred later periods andhave developed survey and research methodologies withthose periods in mind (e.g. Galanidou 1996). Further-more, during the Early Holocene some regions experiencedconsiderable environmental change and physical alterationof the landscape. This is especially true for the flood-plain networks of large rivers, such as the Danube, whereconditions caused intensive and massive alluvial and

erosive processes (e.g. the Pannonian Plains (Borsy 1990)and Dobrogea (Bolomey 1978)). Significant alterationsalso characterize submerged coastal regions of the Aegeanand the Adriatic Seas at the beginning of the Holocene.However, mapping the distribution of known Mesolithic/Epi-Palaeolithic sites across the Balkans (Fig. 3.1) showsthat the region was far from empty, and that the previouslypostulated low population densities during the Mesolithicmay be inaccurate. With a new research impetus in recentyears, more sites of the pre-Neolithic age and withMesolithic-Neolithic stratigraphies have become known;some of these have already been investigated or are

presently under investigation. From the distribution map,it is apparent that more sites are situated in coastal/riverinezones.

Lithics

Across the Balkans, Mesolithic lithic manufacturingbears strong elements of the Epi-Tardigrevettian techno-complex which are characterized by splintered pieces andspecific elements of core reduction (Kozowski andKozowski 1983). This general pattern is coupled withlocal adaptations and influences coming from othertechno-complexes: from Anatolia into the Aegean andfrom central Europe into the Pannonian Plains. Dis-tinction in relation to the use of particular techniques forlithic manufacturing and of specific tool forms can be

seen along the axis of coastal/inland Mesolithic sites. Forexample, in terms of the presence of geometric microliths,there is a difference between coastal Franchthi Cave(Perls 1999; 2001; 2003) and the more inland TheopetraCave (Adam 1999) in Greece. The use of the micro-burin

technique has been noted in the north Adriatic (GrottadellEdera: Biagi and Voytek 1994) and in the PannonianPlains (Jsztelek I and Jsberny), in the latter regionunder the influence of central European techno-complexes (Kertsz 1994; 1996a; 1996b). Geometricmicroliths are restricted to the Aegean and easternAdriatic coast but are absent along the Black Sea coastwhich, on the basis of the lithic material, seems closelyrelated to the Danube Gorges (Gatsov 1989).

With the start of the Neolithic in the Balkans, there isa general trend toward the laminarization of blades andthe use of a steep retouch, as well as a tendency to use

good quality raw material of attractive appearance, suchas the yellow-spotted flint from the pre-Balkan platformthat most likely originates in the region of Shumen innorth-east Bulgaria (Voytek 1987). However, even thoughthere was possibly discontinuous occupation of sites withMesolithic-Neolithic stratigraphies based on the availableradiometric evidence (see below), flint material at anumber of these sites from the Mesolithic and earlyNeolithic levels bears similarities (e.g. Cyclope Cave,early Neolithic sites in the Marmara region, TheopetraCave, Odmut, Pupiina Pe). Although importantchanges mark the start of the Neolithic (e.g. the need toacquire raw materials over long distances) people still

used locally available flint (Pupiina Pe: Miracle 1997)and showed a good knowledge of local sources. At someother sites the processes of manufacture were very similarto preceding methods (Cyclope Cave: Sampson 1998;Sampson et al. 1998).

Absolute dates

In terms of radiometric evidence, some sites werecontinuously occupied (Konispol Cave, Odmut, FranchthiCave); others had gaps in the Mesolithic-early Neolithicsequence (Theopetra, Cyclope Cave, Grotta dellEdera,Pupiina Pe: Bori 2002b). Thissen (2000) and Biagi

and Spataro (2001) have argued, for Greece and theMediterranean coastal zone, that this chronological gapis a consequence of the span of occupation in these regionsand that such a gap in occupation is evidence for amigration scenario for the start of the Balkan Neolithic.However, radiometric evidence is rather scarce, rarelyexceeding a dozen dates covering Mesolithic and earlyNeolithic strata at any one particular site; new dates fromthese sites may bridge the gaps between Mesolithic andearly Neolithic occupations. Furthermore, it is unclearwhy Biagi and Spataro (2001) exclude the dates fromsites such as Konispol (Harrold et al. 1999; Schuldenrein1998) or Odmut (see Table3.1 and Fig. 3.2), where theradiometric series indicate an unbroken continuity inoccupation between the two periods.


5/16

Duan Bori20

Figure 3.1 The Balkans sites with the Mesolithic and early Neolithic stratigraphies, Mesolithic sites and two earlyNeolithic sites with Mesolithic dates. Site/region sources:

Marmara Region:Gatsov and zdoan 1994; zdoan 1997;zdoan and Gatsov 1998.

Pobiti Kamani: Gatsov 1989.Cyclope Cave: Sampson 1996; 1998; Sampson et al. 1998; 2003;

Moundrea-Agrafioti 2003; Trantalidou 2003; Powell 2003.Theopetra Cave: KyparissiApostolika 1995; 1998; 2000;

2003; Adam 1999; Newton 2003.Franchthi Cave: Jacobsen 1969; 1976; Jacobsen and Farrand

1987; Perls 1990; 1999; 2001; 2003.Klisura 1: Koumouzelis et al. 1996; 2003.

Sidari: Sordinas 1969; 2003.Konispol: Schuldenrein 1998; Harrold et al. 1999; in press;Russell 1998.

Odmut Cave: Srejovi 1974; Markovi 1974a; 1974b; 1985;Kozowski et al. 1994.

Vrua Peina: Djurii 1997.Crvena Stijena: Benac and Brodar 1958; Benac 1975;

Mihailovi and Dimitirijevi 1999.Medena Stijena: Mihailovi 1996; 1998; 1999.Jsztelek I and Jsberny I: Kertsz 1994; 1996a; 1996b;

Kertsz et al. 1994.Dobrodgea: Bolomey 1978.Pupiina Pe and ebrn Abri: Miracle 1997; 2002; Miracle

et al. 2000.Grotta dellEdera: Biagi and Voytek 1994.Danube Gorges and Early Neolithic sites: see the text.


6/16


Mesolithic and early Neolithic inhabitants knowledgeof local landscapes, resources, and communications isimportant even at sites with discontinuous sequencesbetween the two periods. At Theopetra Cave, Kyparissi-Apostolika (2000, 138) notes that it is unlikely that new

colonists at the beginning of the Neolithic wouldrecognise or use the cave location unless they hadprevious memory and knowledge of the surroundinglandscape. Similarly, at Cyclope Cave, early Neolithicinhabitants had a good knowledge of local landscapesand resources, and were skilled in seafaring, similar toearlier Mesolithic inhabitants despite the discontinuousradiometric sequence and significant changes in sub-sistence (Sampson 1998; Sampson et al. 1998).

At face value, the available radiometric evidence andclaims for the significance of local knowledge oflandscapes, communications and resources suggest a

mixed character for the Mesolithic-Neolithic transform-ation; the appropriate metaphor would be a mosaic orpatchwork of processes of transformation (cf. Tringham2000; Whittle et al. 2002). One cannot over-emphasizethe fact that much can be gained by shifting ouranalytical sights from very broad and general scales (i.e.autochthonous vs. allochthonous models of the earlyNeolithic in Europe) to the smaller scales at which pasthuman decisions and strategies were conceived orimplemented (Miracle 1997, 57). Also important are thepossible reasons for re-occupying locales in the landscape

at the start of the Neolithic; this recurrent practice mayrelate to long-term memory and complex processes of theinvention of culture (cf. Bori 2002b; Wagner 1980).

These examples undermine previous arguments aboutthe wholesale introduction of the Neolithic package and

they illuminate the need to seek an alternative route toexamine the process. The evidence provides only indirectclues about the nature of the Mesolithic-Neolithictransformation. Examples from the Danube Gorgesprovide a finer insight into shared practices andmaterialities between the Mesolithic and Neolithicrealms.

Exception or clue? The Danube Gorges

regional group and beyond

The Danube Gorges region is the case of Mesolithic-

Neolithic continuities in the Balkanspar excellence (e.g.Bori 1999; 2002a; 2002b; Bori and Miracle 2004;Boronean 2001; Radovanovi 1996a; Srejovi 1969;1972). Site locations, radiometric dates, spatial recog-nition of older features, rectangular stone heartharchitecture, elements of portable material culture (e.g.bone, antler and boars tusk tools) as well as subsistencepractices underline strong continuities between chrono-logically distinct Mesolithic and early Neolithic periods(c. 10,0005500 cal BC). However, there is no consensusamong researchers over these continuities (or even of the

Stratum Context

description

Lab ID bp sd Cal BC 1 sd Cal BC 2 sd Attribution Primary

source

IIb SI-2223 6530 75 5610-5380 5620-5320 Early Neolithic?

IIb block V, layer 11 Z-412 6730 160 5750-5480 6000-5350 Early Neolithic? RC 19: 473

IIa SI-2222 6900 100 5890-5660 5990-5620 Early Neolithic



Ib block 1, layer 19 Z-457 7030 160 6020-5730 6250-5600 Mesolithic? RC 19 : 473

Ib SI-2227 7080 85 6020-5840 6160-5740 Mesolithic?

Ib SI-2220 7150 100 6160-5890 6230-5800 Mesolithic?Ia block 5, layer 21 Z-413 7350 160 6390-6030 6500-5800 Mesolithic RC 19 : 473

Ib block 5, layer 15 Z-411 7440 150 6440-6100 6600-5950 Mesolithic RC 19 : 473

Ib SI-2221 7720 85 6640-6460 6800-6350 Mesolithic

Ib SI-2226 7790 70 6690-6500 7000-6450 Mesolithic

Ia/Ib mixed dark andyellow sediment

SI-2224 8590 100 7750-7530 8000-7450 Mesolithic

Ib SI-2228 9135 80 8460-8260 8560-8210 Mesolithic

XD sector III 1, layer

17

SI-2225 10045 85 9750-9310 10200-9250 Mesolithic

Table 3.1 Radiometric dates from Odmut with their context, where applicable (Sources: Srejovi 1974, 5; RC 19[1977], 473; Markovi 1985; Chapman and Mller 1990, table 1; Gob 1990, 197; Kozowski et al. 1994, 5556).


7/16

Duan Bori22

Figure 3.2. Calibrated radiometric dates on charcoal from Odmut Cave. Solid bars show 1 s.d.; lines show 2 s.d.

Source: Table 1.

stratigraphy and dating of the type-site of Lepenski Vir).Much debate has focused on dating of particular featuresat these sites to the Mesolithic (i.e. early Neolithic) andon the cultural attribution, continuity and definition ofMesolithic and early Neolithic identities.

Regarding the absolute dating and material associa-tions of trapezoidal buildings at Lepenski Vir, a researchconsensus is being reached. Corrections to the previously

flawed understanding of the sites stratigraphy (Bori1999; 2002a) have been augmented by new radiometricdates (Whittle et al. 2002) and by photographs of earlyNeolithic pottery on the floors of trapezoidal buildings(Garaanin and Radovanovi 2001). Most of the struc-tures at Lepenski Vir, previously exclusively labelled asMesolithic were most likely very late in the sequence(possibly dated to c. 6300 cal BC) and their constructioncontinued throughout the early Neolithic occupation ofthe site (i.e. until 5500 cal BC).

However, there remain important differences in theinterpretations of the corrected chronology. For instance,Radovanovi defines the complete development of thisregional group as the Iron Gates Mesolithic according tothe type of economy (Garaanin and Radovanovi 2001;

Radovanovi 1996a). Economy was based on riverineresources and remained largely unchanged during thechronological span of the early Neolithic development(mainly due to the significant absence of domestic stockat least at some of the sites; cf. Dimitrijevi and Boriforthcoming). Many authors have adopted this per-spective, postulating a frontier between indigenousMesolithic societies and incoming farmers present in the

surrounding areas (Budja 1999; Chapman 1993; 2000;Tringham 2000; Voytek and Tringham 1989). In thiscontext, the abundant early Neolithic pottery and othermaterial culture characteristics for the period at sites suchas Lepenski Vir have been interpreted as the exchange ofprestige items and commodities (Radovanovi 1996b;Radovanovi and Voytek 1997) between two geneticallyand culturally unrelated communities (Chapman 1999;2000), differentiated primarily on the basis of subsistencestrategies. Chapman (1999) even argues that the signs ofviolence on some skeletons document violent encountersof the Danube Gorges forgers and the surroundingfarmers (even though such burials date to before theappearance of the early Neolithic pottery in the Balkansby several centuries, (cf. Cook et al. 2002, table 3).


8/16


According to this scenario, the forager population in theDanube Gorges was in the end acculturated after severalcenturies of resistance to the incoming farming lifestyle.

This position undermines the historical context oftrapezoidal buildings and the practices taking place in

these features, it relies on economy as the key definitionof a society, and it downplays the complexity of theprocess of identity construction (cf. Bori 1999; 2002a;in press). Postulations of such differences betweenforagers and farmers as ideal categories are built on thenotion of pure cultures and transplant the familiarnarrative of colonial encounters, especially evoking theideas of frontier, acculturation and resistance.

I suggest that Mesolithic identities cannot be clearlydistinguished from early Neolithic ones either in theforager context of the sites in the Danube Gorges or in thefarming context of early Neolithic settlements across the

central Balkans. It is not easy to distinguish the culturalcategories of purely Mesolithic from purely Neolithic.Lepenski Vir provides a case-study for examining this

issue, especially in the use of disarticulated human boneas a way of incorporating Mesolithic remains in earlyNeolithic contexts. This use of human bone also relates tothe problem of material social memory and might havebeen surrounded with various meanings, such as the

ancestral apotropaic potency of these remains which couldhave been understood as relics (cf. Bori 2003). However,I am primarily interested in the idea that material tracesfrom the (Mesolithic) past are part of the (early Neolithic)present at Lepenski Vir.

Burial 7, Lepenski Vir

The clearest examples of the complexity of mortuary ritesat Lepenski Vir are Burials 7/I-a and 7/II-b (Srejovi1967; 1972; Srejovi and Babovi 1983, 136; Stefanoviand Bori in press). Burial 7/I-a is an extendedinhumation of an adult man, placed in a burial pit cut

through the floor of House 21 (Fig.3.3). This building isthe last of four buildings that overlap and horizontallydisplace each other (see Bori 2003). The burial may

Figure 3.3 House 21 and Burials 7/I-a and 7/II-b, Lepenski Vir (after Stefanovi and Bori in press, fig. 15).


9/16

Duan Bori24

have signified the final abandonment of the location.Apart from the extended inhumation inside the burialpit, there was a disarticulated human skull labelled asBurial 7/II-b, placed on the left shoulder of Burial 7/I-a,and facing the deceased. Next to the right side of Burial

7/I-a, an aurochs skull was placed upside-down.Without radiometric dating, one can only speculate

about dates for the individuals represented by the twoskulls. However, comparison of their morphologicalfeatures and of their stable isotope values provide someevidence for their date. A comparison of skull morphologyreveals that they have very different degrees of robusticity.Thus, the disarticulated skull of Burial 7/II-b has verypronounced eyebrow ridges, which are absent on the skullof Burial 7/I-a (Fig. 3.4). While the 7/IIb skull resemblesa group of very robust individuals found at Lepenski Vir,the similarity is even stronger at the sites of Vlasac,

Padina and Hajduka Vodenica (e.g. Miki

1980;Nemeskri 1969; 1978; Roksandi 1999; 2000; ivanovi

1975a; 1975b; 1975c; 1976; 1979). Some of these robust-looking individuals have been dated to the Mesolithic,between c. 9700 and 7000 cal BC (Bonsall et al. 1997;Boriand Miracle 2004). On the other hand, more gracileskulls found at Lepenski Vir fall within thetransformational phase or into the early Neolithic (i.e.between around 64005500 cal BC). It is possible thatone could date the detached skull, Burial 7/II-b, to theMesolithic period and the articulated inhumation, Burial7/I-a, to the period after 6400 cal BC.

Stable isotope values provided dietary signatures for

the two burials and were used to further investigate thepossibility that the skulls were from different periods.The value of this method relies on Bonsall et al.sassumption (Bonsall et al. 1997; 2000; Cook et al. 2002)that one can assume that burials with higher d15N values

(above +13%) are Mesolithic in date, while those withlower d15N values (


10/16


al. 2003; contra Bonsall et al. 2000, 129). On the basisof this information at Lepenski Vir the incorporation ofindividual bones from older burials (possibly as relics)into burials of individuals during the early Neolithicrelates to the occupation of trapezoidal buildings.

This Lepenski Vir case suggests profound materiallinks between the two periods: the continuing relevanceof Mesolithic materialities during the early Neolithic, inthis case human bones. The proof of continuities is alsofound in the evidence for early Neolithic dwelling at theplaces of previous Mesolithic occupations or in the use ofthe same form of rectangular stone hearths (Bori 2003).Furthermore, one is intrigued by the position of theextended inhumation Burial 7/I-a. While the burial inquestion is most likely dated to the early Neolithic part ofthe sequence, this type of mortuary rite characterizes thepreceding Mesolithic period at this and other sites in the

Danube Gorges. In addition, several other burials atLepenski Vir cross the assigned Mesolithic/Neolithiccategories in a similar way (Bori in press).

This example from the Danube Gorges helps usexamine whether the mix of Mesolithic and Neolithic in

this region is an exception or whether it provides a clueto usually unclear continuities between the periods.Additional evidence from other human burials from twoearly Neolithic sites in the north Balkans (in thePannonian Plains, see Fig. 3.1) provides more infor-mation.

Pannonian Plains

Surprisingly, two recent radiometric analyses of humanbones from the early Neolithic sites of Topole-Ba inSerbia and Maroslele Pana in Hungary (Fig. 3.1)produced dates of Mesolithic age (Whittle et al. 2002).

Figure 3.5 d13C andd15N values for securely dated human individuals from different sites in the Danube Gorges. Datescorrected for the freshwater reservoir effect according to Method 2 as described by Cook et al. (2002, 82). Allcalibrated with OxCal v. 3.4.

LV (Lepenski Vir) = Bonsall et al. 1997, table 3; 2000, table 3; Cook et al. 2002, table 4.V (Vlasac) = Bonsall et al. 1997, table 5; 2000, table 3; Cook et al. 2002, table 5.

HV (Hajduka Vodenica) = Bori 2002b, table 4.4; Bori and Miracle 2004.P (Padina) = Bori 2002b, table 4.10; Bori and Miracle 2004.SC (Schela Cladovei) = Bonsall et al. 1997, table 4; 2000, table 3; Cook et al. 2002.


11/16

Duan Bori26

The first date is OxA-8504 (808555 bp) from thecontracted inhumation Burial 2 at Topole-Ba; itcalibrates to 73106820 cal BC (2 s.d.), almost 1000years older than a neighbouring dated skeleton found inthe same position (i.e. Burial 1 (OxA-8693: 717050 bp,

calibrated to 61705910 cal BC, 2.s.d.); see Bori 1999,fig. 28). The other Mesolithic date (OxA-X-922-30;768070 bp, for a disarticulated human skull, Burial 7,from Maroslele Pana (Whittle et al. in press) whichcalibrates to 66506410 cal BC (2 s.d.) replaces the lessprecise date of OxA-9403 (776555 bp). This date issignificantly older than those from four other burials atthe site (Fig. 3.6) all of which indicate an early Neolithicoccupation at around 59005500 cal BC.

On the one hand, the two burials of Mesolithic datefrom the early Neolithic contexts could be statisticaloutliers with a limited implication for the beginnings of

the Early Neolithic across the Balkans. On the other hand,if accepted, they provide new evidence for studying theMesolithic-Neolithic transformations. At present it isunclear whether Topole-Ba and Maroslele Pana wereoccupied during the Mesolithic period or whether thedated Mesolithic human bones were circulated and keptas relics or heirlooms, perhaps, of groups who broughtthem from some other place before depositing/burying

them at these sites. The latter possibility is more likelyfor Burial 7 from Maroslele Pana (a disarticulated humanskull) than for Burial 2 from Topole-Ba, a contractedarticulated inhumation. For Burial 2 at Topole-Ba, onecould also reconstruct mummifying or wrapping that

would have kept the bones articulated for a long period oftime and thus have enabled their circulation. There is aclear underlying principle that speaks about a strongrelevance of past materialities, significantly in the formof human remains (cf. Bori 2003), regardless of whetherthe two sites were occupied in the Mesolithic at the timewhen the two individuals died (and were possibly buriedhere and the sites then re-occupied at the outset of theearly Neolithic), or whether the bones of the old deadwere brought from some other place and deposited herein the early Neolithic.

The Lepenski Vir disarticulated remains of Mesolithic

date, present in an early Neolithic context, and similarevidence from the two other early Neolithic sites are clearexamples of Mesolithic-Neolithic transformations,through which identity and belonging are defined throughmaterial references to the preceding period. This is not topropose a wholesale transmission of meanings from the(Mesolithic) past into the (early Neolithic) present.Rather, they illuminate long continuities of locally

Figure 3.6. Early Neolithic features and the AMS dated burials at Maroslele Pana (adopted from Trogmayer 1964, fig.1; dates after Whittle et al. 2002).


12/16


grounded habitual practices that were not related to otheraxes of identity and belonging but which were limited toidentity as a practice of belonging and dwelling at theseplaces. Meanings associated with these places pastsmight have been transmitted, re-invented and/or sig-

nificantly altered over the long-term, regardless of variousconstitutive elements that we define as a coherent andbounded culture/tradition. It is not pure cultural essencesthat we encounter in these examples from either side ofthe Mesolithic-Neolithic divide; the examples indicatefluid boundaries between our Mesolithic and Neolithiccategorizations. In this respect, the Danube Gorges shouldnot be taken as an exception to the nature of theMesolithic-Neolithic transformations; it should be seenas a case study with rich potential for framing morenuanced theoretical arguments, which could inform otherregional sequences.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have presented ways to re-consider theporosity of the culture concept, our unnecessary relianceon an Orientalist dichotomy of Mesolithic-Neolithictransformations, and the familiar narratives of structuredprogress which exist in narratives of frontier models. Inopposition to narrow and monolithic visions of culturalidentity which dominate current discussions with regardto these periods, I have emphasized the complexity ofidentity construction. When examined in detail, evidencefrom Mesolithic and early Neolithic sites suggests mixed

processes of cultural transformations and significantvariability. The importance of local knowledge under-mines arguments that use (dis)continuous sequences asthe evidence for and against colonization (i.e. theindigenous scenarios of the Mesolithic-Neolithic trans-formations). The break with the past in the early NeolithicBalkans is less sharp than usually assumed; this may bea factor of cultural memory in particular locales andpractices. Evidence from the region undermines ideasabout progressive early Neolithic inscriptions over anempty landscape (as suggested by models of migration)and finds inadequate the modelling of encounters between

cultures with supposedly pure essences.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Alasdair Whittle and DouglassBailey for the possibility to join this publication and AnnaBoozer, Nan Rothschild and Lindsay Weiss for providingcomments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Bibliography

Adam, E. 1999. Preliminary presentation of the UpperPalaeolithic and Mesolithic stone industries of TheopetraCave, Western Thessaly. In G. N. Bailey, E. Adam, E.Panagopoulou, C. Perls and K. Zachos (eds), ThePalaeolithic archaeology of Greece and adjacent areas,

26670. Athens: British School at Athens.Ammerman, A. J. and Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. 1973. A population

model for the diffusion of early farming in Europe. In C.Renfrew (ed.), The explanation of culture change. modelsin prehistory, 34357. London: Duckworth.

Benac, A. (ed.) 1975. Crvena Stijena: Zbornik Radova. Niki.Benac, A. and Brodar, A. 1958. Crvena Stijena 1956. Glasnik

Zemaljskog Muzeja 13, 2165.Biagi, P. and Spataro, M. 2001. Plotting the evidence: some

aspects of the radiocarbon chronology of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Mediterranean Basin. Atti dellaSociet per la preistoria e protoistoria della regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 12, 1554.

Biagi, P. and Voytek, B. 1994. The Neolithisation of the TriesteKarst in north-eastern Italy and its neighboring countries.ANyregyhzi Jsa Andrs Mzeum vknyve 26, 6373.

Bogucki, P. 1988. Forest farmers and stockherders: earlyagriculture and its consequences in north-central Europe.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bogucki, P. 1995. The linear pottery culture of central Europe.In W. K. Barnett and J. W. Hoopes (eds), The emergence ofpottery: technology and innovation in ancient societ ies,8997. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Bolomey, A. l. 1978. Why no early Neolithic in Dobrogea?Dacia 22, 4152.

Bonsall, C., Lennon, R., McSweeney, K., Stewart, C., Harkness,D., Boronean, V., Bartosiewicz, L., Payton R. andChapman, J. 1997. Mesolithic and early Neolithic in theIron Gates: a palaeodietary perspective.Journal of EuropeanArchaeology 5, 5092.

Bonsall, C., Cook, G., Lennon, R., Harkness, D., Scott, M.,Bartosiewicz, L. and McSweeney, K. 2000. Stable isotopes,radiocarbon and the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in theIron Gates. Documenta Praehistorica 27, 11932.

Bori, D. 1999. Places that created time in the Danube Gorgesand beyond, c. 90005500 BC. Documenta Praehistorica26, 4170.

Bori, D. 2002a. The Lepenski Vir conundrum: reinterpretationof the Mesolithic and Neolithic sequences in the DanubeGorges. Antiquity 76, 102639.

Bori, D. 2002b. Seasons, life cycles and memory in the DanubeGorges, c. 100005500 BC. University of Cambridge:Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.

Bori, D. 2003. Deep time metaphor: mnemonic andapotropaic practices at Lepenski Vir. Journal of SocialArchaeology 3, 4175.

Bori, D. in press. Fuzzy horizons of change: Orientalism andthe frontier model in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. InN. Milner and P. C. Woodman (eds), The Mesolithic: newdirections and alternative narratives. Oxford: Oxbow Press.

Bori, D. and Miracle, P. 2004. Mesolithic and Neolithic(dis)continuities in the Danube Gorges: new AMS datesfrom Padina and Hajduka Vodenica (Serbia). OxfordJournal of Archaeology 23(4): 34171.

Bori, D, Grupe, G., Peters J. and Miki, . 2005. Is theMesolithic-Neolithic subsistence dichotomy real? Newisotopic evidence from the Danube Gorges. EuropeanJournal of Archaeology 7(3).

Boronean, V. 2001. Paleolithique superieur et epipaleolithiquedans la zone des Portes de Fer. Bucureti: Silex.

Borsy, Z. 1990. Evolution of the alluvial fans of the Alfld. InA. Rachocki and M. Church (eds), Alluvial fans: a field


13/16

Duan Bori28

approach, 22946. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Bradley, R. 1998. The significance of monuments. On the

shaping of human experience in Neolithic and Bronze AgeEurope. London: Routledge.

Brck, J. 2001. Monuments, power and personhood in theBritish Neolithic. Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute 7, 64967.

Budja, M. 1999. The transition to farming in MediterraneanEurope an indigenous response.Documenta Praehistorica26, 11941.

Chapman, J. C. 1993. Social power in the Iron Gates Mesolithic.In J. Chapman and P. Dolukhanov (eds), Culturaltransformations and interactions in eastern Europe, 71121. Aldershot: Avebury.

Chapman, J. C. 1994. The origins of farming in south eastEurope. Prhistoire Europenne 6, 13356.

Chapman, J. C. 1999. The origins or warfare in the prehistoryof central and eastern Europe. In J. Carman and A. Harding(eds), Ancient warfare: archaeological perspectives, 101

42. Stroud: Sutton.Chapman, J. C. 2000. Fragmentation in archaeology. People,

places and broken objects in the prehistory of south-easternEurope. London: Routledge.

Chapman, J. and Mller, J. 1990. Early farmers in theMediterranean basin: the Dalmatian evidence.Antiquity 64,12734.

Clifford, J. 1986. Introduction: partial truths. In J. Clifford andG. E. Marcus (eds), Writing culture: the poetics and politicsof ethnography, 126. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Clifford, J. 1988. The predicament of culture. Twentieth-centuryethnography, literature, and art. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Cook, G., Bonsall, C., Hedges, R. E. M., McSweeney, K.,Boronean, V., Bartosiewicz L. and Pettitt, P. B. 2002.Problems of dating human bones from the Iron Gates.Antiquity 76, 7785.

Dennell, R. 1985. The hunter-gatherer/agricultural frontier inprehistoric Europe. In S. W. Green and S. M. Perlman (eds),The archaeology of frontiers and boundaries, 11339.Orlando: Academic Press.

Dimitrijevi, V. and Bori, D. forthcoming.Animal bones fromPadina. Beograd: Arheoloki institut.

Djurii, L. 1997. Vrua peina. Starinar48, 1959.Drummond, L. 1981. The cultural continuum: a theory of

intersystems.Man 15, 35274.

Fischer, M. M. J. 1986. Ethnicity and the post-modern arts ofmemory. In J. Clifford and G. E. Marcus (eds), Writingculture: the poetics and politics of ethnography, 194233.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Galanidou, N. 1996. So far away, so close: historical andtheoretical perspectives on Palaeolithic and Mesolithicresearch in Greece.Ariadne (Scientific Bulletin of the Schoolof Philosophy, University of Crete) 8, 729.

Garaanin, M. and Radovanovi. I. 2001. A pot in house 54 atLepenski Vir I. Antiquity 75, 11825.

Gatsov, I. 1989. Early Holocene flint assemblage from theBulgarian Black Sea Coast. In C. Bonsall (ed.), TheMesolithic in Europe, 4715. Edinburgh: John Donald.

Gatsov, I. and zdoan, M. 1994. Some epi-palaeolithic sitesfrom NW Turkey. Aa Domal and Gmdere.Anatolica20, 97120.

Gob, A. 1990. Chronologie du Msolithique en Europe. Atlasdes dates 14C. Lige: C.I.P.L.

Gregg, S. 1988. Foragers and farmers. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Grupe, G., Manhart, H., Miki . and Peters, J. 2003.Vertebrate food webs and subsistence strategies of Meso-and Neolithic populations of central Europe. In G. Grupeand J. Peters (eds), Documen ta archaeobiologiae 1.Yearbook of the state collection of anthropology andpalaeoanatomy, Mnchen, Germany, 193213. Rahden/Westf.: Verlag M. Leidorf.

Harrold, F. B., Korkuti, M., Ellwood, B., Petruso K. andSchuldenrein, J. 1999. The Palaeolithic of southern Albania.In G. N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perls andK. Zachos (eds), The Palaeolithic archaeology of Greeceand adjacent areas, 36172. Athens: British School atAthens.

Harrold, F. B., Russel N. and Wickens, J. in press. TheMesolithic of Konispol Cave, Albania. In P. Rowley-Conwy

and A. Matsui (eds), From the Jomon to Star Carr. Oxford:British Archaeological Reports.

Jacobsen, T. W. 1969. Excavations at Porto Cheli and vicinity,preliminary report, II: the Franchti Cave.Hesperia 38, 34381.

Jacobsen, T. W. 1976. 17,000 years of Greek prehistory. InHunters, farmers and civilizations: old world archaeology.Readings from Scientific American, 13351. San Francisco:W. H. Freeman and Company.

Jacobsen, T. W. and Farrand, W. R. 1987. Franchthi Cave andParalia. maps, plans, and sections. Excavations atFranchthi Cave, fasc. 1. Bloomington and Indianapolis:Indiana University Press.

Kertsz, R. 1994. Late Mesolithic chipped stone industry fromthe site Jsztelek I (Hungary). In G. Lrinczy (ed.), Von derSteinzeit bis zum Mittelalter. Studien zum 60. Geburstagvon Ott Trogmayer, 2344. Szeged.

Kertsz, R. 1996a. The Mesolithic in the Great HungarianPlain. In L. Tlas (ed.), At the fringes of three worlds:hunter-gatherers and farmers in the middle Tisza valley, 534. Szolnok: Damjanich Museum.

Kertsz, R. 1996b. A new site of the Northern Hungarian Plain:Mesolithic industry in the Jzsg Area. Tisicum 9, 2744.

Kertsz, R., Smegi, P., Kozk, M., Braun, M., Flegyhzi, E.and Hertelendi, E. 1994. Archaeological and palaeologicalstudy of an early Holocene settlement in the Jzsg area(Jszberny I). Acta Geographica Debrecina 32, 549.

Klein, K. L. 1997. Frontiers of historical imagination.Narrating the European conquest of Native America, 18901990. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Koumouzelis, M., Kozowski, J. K., Nowak, M., Sobczyk, K.,Kaczanowska, M., Pawlikowski M. and Pazdur, A. 1996.Prehistoric settlement in the Klisoura Gorge, Argolid,Greece (Excavations 1993, 1994). Prhistoire Europenne8, 14373.

Koumouzelis, M., Kozowski J. and Ginter, B. 2003. Mesolithicfinds from Cave 1 in the Klisoura Gorge, Argolid. In N.Galanidou and C. Perls (eds), The Greek Mesolithic:problems and perspectives, 11322. London: British Schoolat Athens.

Kozowski, J. K. and Kozowski, S. K. 1983. Le Msolithique lest des Alpes. Preistoria Alpina 19, 3756.

Kozowski, J. K., Kozowski S. K. and Radovanovi, I. 1994.


14/16


Meso- and Neo lith ic sequences of the Odmut Cave(Montenegro). Warszawa: Wydawnictwa UniwersytetuWarszawskiego.

KyparissiApostolika, N. 1995. Prehistoric inhabitation inTheopetra cave, Thessaly. In J.-C. Decourt, B. Helly and K.Gallis (eds), La Thessal ie, Colloque in ternationaldarchologie: 15 annes de recherches (19751990), bilanset perspectives, Lyon, 1990, 1038. Athens: TameioArchaiologikon poron kai apallotrioseon.

KyparissiApostolika, N. 1998. The significance of TheopetraCave in for Greek prehistory. ERAUL 85, 24152.

KyparissiApostolika, N. 2000. The Mesolithic/Neolithictransition in Greece as evidenced by the data at TheopetraCave in Thessaly. Documenta Praehistorica 27, 13340.

KyparissiApostolika, N. 2003. The Mesolithic in TheopetraCave: data on a debated period of Greek prehistory. In N.Galanidou and C. Perls (eds), The Greek Mesolithic:problems and perspectives, 18998. London: British Schoolat Athens.

Lee, R. and DeVore, I. (eds) 1968. Man the hunter. Chicago:Aldine.

Lichardus, M. and Lichardus, J. 2003. Strukturelle Grundlagenzum Verstndnis der Neolithisierungsprozesse in Sdost-und Mitteleuropa. In E. Jerem and P. Raczky (eds),Morgenrot der Kulturen. Frhe Eta ppen derMen schhei tsgeschichte in Mittel- und Sdosteuropa.Festschrift fr Nndor Kalicz zum 75. Geburstag, 61-81.Budapest: Archaeolingua.

Lubbock, J. 1865. Pre-historic times, as illustrated by ancientremains, and the manners and customs of modern savages.London: Williams and Norgate.

Markovi, ., 1974a. Peina Odmutnjaa, Pluine vieslojnopraistorijsko nalazite. Arheoloki pregled16, 1011.

Markovi, ., 1974b. The stratigraphy and chronology of theOdmut Cave. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 15, 712.

Markovi, ., 1985. Neolit Crne Gore. Beograd: Centar zaarheoloka istraivanja Filozofskog fakulteta.

Meskell, L. 2001. Archaeologies of identity. In I. Hodder (ed.),Archaeological theory today, 185213. Cambridge: PolityPress.

Mihailovi, D. 1996. Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic chippedstone industries from the rock-shelter of Medena Stijena. InD. Srejovi (ed.), Prehistoric settlements in caves and rock-shelters of Serbia and Montenegro, 960. Beograd: Centarza Arheoloka Istraivanja, Filozofski Fakultet.

Mihailovi, D. 1998. Noviji rezultati istraivanja gornjeg

paleolita i mezolita na tlu Srbije i Crne Gore. In N. Tasi(ed.), Rad Dragoslava Srejovia na istraivanju praistorijecentralnog Balkana, 3953. Kragujevac: Centar za NaunaIstraivanja SANU i Univerziteta u Kragujevcu.

Mihailovi, D. 1999. The Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithicstone industries of the Montenegro. In G. N. Bailey, E.Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perls and K. Zachos (eds),The Palaeolithic archaeology of Greece and adjacent areas,34356. Athens: British School at Athens.

Mihailovi, D. and Dimitrijevi, V. 1999. La fin duPalolithique Suprieur et le Msolithique dans leMontngro Evolution des techniques et du mode desubsistance. In A. Thvenin (ed.), LEurope des dernierschasseurs, pipalolithique et Msolithique, 38590. Paris:Editions du CTHS.

Miki, . 1980. Anthropologische typen der erdap (Eisernen

Tor) serie. In Problmes de la Nolithisation dansCertaines Rgions de lEurope, 15161. Krakow.

Miracle, P. T. 1997. Early Holocene foragers in the karst ofnorthern Istria. Poroilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolitain eneolita v Sloveniji 24, 4361.

Miracle, P. T. 2002. Mesolithic meal from Mesolithic middens.In P. Miracle and N. Milner (eds), Consuming passions andpatterns of consumption, 6588. Cambridge: McDonaldInstitute for Archaeological Research.

Miracle, P., Galanidou N. and Forenbaher, S. 2000. Pioneersin the hills: early Mesolithic foragers at ebrn Abri (Istria,Croatia). European Journal of Archaeology 3, 293329.

Moore, H. 1987. Problems in the analysis of social change: anexample from the Marakwet. In I. Hodder (ed.),Archaeologyas long-term history, 85104. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Moundrea-Agrafioti, A. 2003. Mesolithic fish hooks from theCave of Cyclope, Youra. In N. Galanidou and C. Perls(eds), The Greek Mesolithic: problems and perspectives,

13141. London: British School at Athens.Nemeskri, J. 1969. Stanovnitvo Lepenskog Vira. In D.

Srejovi, Lepenski Vir Nova praistori jska kultura uPodunavlju, 23957. Beograd: Srpska Knjievna Zadruga.

Nemeskri, J. 1978. Demographic structure of the VlasacEpipalaeolithic population. In M. Garaanin (ed.), Vlasac mezolitsko naselje uerdapu (II), 97133. Beograd: SrpskaAkademija Nauka i Umetnosti.

Newton, S. 2003. The Mesolithic fauna from Theopetra Cave.In N. Galanidou and C. Perls (eds), The Greek Mesolithic:problems and perspectives,199205. London: British Schoolat Athens.

Nietszche, F. 2001. The gay science (trans. J. Nauckhoff).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

zdoan, M. 1997. The beginning of the Neolithic economiesin southeastern Europe: an Anatolian perspective. Journalof European Archaeology 5, 133.

zdoan, M. and Gatsov, I. 1998. The aceramic Neolithic periodin western Turkey and in the Aegean. Anatolica 24, 20925.

Perls, C. 1990. Les industries lithiques taills de Franchthi(Argolide, Grce), vol. II,Les industries du Msolithique etdu Nolithique initial. Excavations at Franchthi Cave.Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Perls, C. 1999. Long-term perspectives in the occupation ofthe Franchthi Cave: continuity and discontinuity. In G. N.Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perls and K. Zachos

(eds), The Palaeolithic archaeology of Greece and AdjacentAreas, 31118. Athens: British School at Athens.

Perls, C. 2001. The early Neolithic in Greece. The first farmingcommunities in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Perls, C. 2003. The Mesolithic at Franchthi: an overview ofthe data and problems. In N. Galanidou and C. Perls (eds),The Greek Mesolithic: problems and perspectives, 7987.London: British School at Athens.

Pluciennik, M. 1998. Deconstructing the Neolithic in theMesolithic-Neolithic transition. In M. Edmonds and C.Richards (eds), Understanding the Neolithic of north-western Europe, 6183. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.

Pluciennik, M. 1999. Archaeological narratives and other waysof telling. Current Anthropology 40, 65378.

Pluciennik, M. 2001. Archaeology, anthropology and


15/16

Duan Bori30

subsistence. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute7, 74158.

Pluciennik, M. 2002. The invention of hunter-gatherers inseventeenth-century Europe. Archaeological Dialogues 9,98151.

Powell, J. 2003. The fish bone assemblage from the Cave ofCyclope, Youra: evidence for continuity and change. In N.Galanidou and C. Perls (eds), The Greek Mesolithic:problems and perspectives, 1739. London: British Schoolat Athens.

Price, D. (ed.) 2000. Europes first farmers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Radovanovi, I. 1996a. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. Ann Arbor:International Monographs in Prehistory.

Radovanovi, I. 1996b. Mesolithic/Neolithic contacts: a caseof the Iron Gates region. Poroilo o RaziskovanjuPaleolitika, Neolitika in Eneolitika v Sloveniji 23, 3948.

Radovanovi, I. and Voytek, B. 1997. Hunters, fishers orfarmers: sedentism, subsistence and social complexity in

the erdap Mesolithic. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia29, 1931.

Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and language: a puzzle ofIndoeuropean origins. London: Cape.

Roksandi, M. 1999. Transition from Mesolithic to Neolithicin the Iron Gates gorge: physical anthropology perspective.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthro-pology, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.

Roksandi, M. 2000. Between Foragers and Farmers in theIron Gates Gorge: Physical Anthropology Perspective.Djerdap Population in Transition from Mesolithic toNeolithic. Documenta Praehistorica 27, 1100.

Rothschild, N. 2003. Colonial encounters in a Native Americanlandscape: the Spanish and Dutch in North America.Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Rudebeck, 1996. Heroes and tragic figures in the transition tothe Neolithic. Exploring images of the human being inarchaeological texts. Journal of European Archaeology 4,5586.

Runnels, C. 2001. Review of Aegean prehistory IV: the StoneAge of Greece from the Palaeolithic to the advent of theNeolithic. In T. Cullen (ed.), Aegean prehistory: a review.American Journal of Archaeology Supplement1, 22554.Boston: Archaeological Institute of America.

Russell, N. 1998. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in thefaunal assemblage from Konispol cave, Albania. In H.Buitenhuis, L. Bartosiewicz and A. Choyke (eds),

Archaeozoology of the Near East III, 14559. Groningen:Groningen Institute of Archaeology.

Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. Harsmondsworth: Penguin.Said, E. 1993. Culture and imperialism. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf.Sampson, A. 1996. Na stoicea gia th mesoliqik perodo

ston ellhnik cro. Arcaiologa kai Tcnej61, 4651.Sampson, A. 1998. The Neolithic and Mesolithic occupation of

the Cave of Cyclope, Youra, Alonnessos, Greece. TheAnnual of the British School at Athens 93, 12541.

Sampson, A., Kozowski J. K. and Kaczanowska, M. 1998.Entre lAnatolie et les Balkans: une squence Msolithique-Nolithique de lIle de Gioura (Sporades du Nord). ERAUL85, 12541.

Sampson, A., Kozowski J. K. and Kaczanowska, M. 2003.Mesolithic chipped stone industries from the Cave of

Cyclope on the island of Youra (northern Sporades). In N.Galanidou and C. Perls (eds), The Greek Mesolithic:problems and perspectives, 12330. London: British Schoolat Athens.

Schrire, C. 1980. An enquiry into the evolutionary status andapparent identity of San hunter-gatherers. Human Ecology8, 932.

Schrire, C. 1984. Wild surmises on savage thoughts. In C.Schrire (ed.), Past and present in hunter-gatherer societies,125. London: London Academic Press.

Schrire, C. 1995. Digging through darkness. Chronicles of anarchaeologist. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Schuldenrein, J. 1998. Konispol Cave, Southern Albania, andcorrelations with other Aegean caves occupied in the lateQuaternary. Geoarchaeology 13, 50126.

Sordinas, A. 1969. Investigation of prehistoric Corfu during19641966. Balkan Studies 10, 393.

Sordinas, A. 2003. The Sidarian: maritime Mesolithic non-geometric microliths in western Greece. In N. Galanidou

and C. Perls (eds), The Greek Mesolithic: problems andperspectives, 8997. London: British School at Athens.

Srejovi, D. 1967. Lepenski Vir. Beograd: Narodni Muzej.Srejovi, D. 1969.Lepenski Vir Nova praistorijska kultura u

Podunavlju.Beograd: Srpska Knjievna Zadruga.Srejovi, D. 1972. Europes first monumental sculpture: new

discoveries at Lepenski Vir. London: Thames and Hudson.Srejovi, D. 1974. The Odmut Cave a new facet of the

Mesolithic culture of the Balkan peninsula. ArchaeologiaIugoslavica 15, 312.

Srejovi, D. and Babovi, L. 1983. Umetnost Lepenskog Vira.Beograd: Jugoslavija.

Stefanovi, S. and Bori, D. in press. The new born infantburials from Lepenski Vir: in pursuit of contextual meanings.In C. Bonsall, V. Boronean and I. Radovanovi (eds), TheIron Gates in prehistory: new perspectives. Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports.

Thissen, L. 2000. Thessaly, Franchthi and Western Turkey:Clues to the Neolithisation of Greece? DocumentaPraehistorica 27, 14151.

Thomas, J. 1996. Time, culture and identity. London: Routledge.Thomas, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. London:

Routledge.Todorova, M. 1997. Imagining the Balkans. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Trantalidou, K. 2003. Faunal remains from the earliest strata

of the Cave of Cyclope, Youra. In N. Galanidou and C.

Perls (eds), The Greek Mesolithic: problems andperspectives, 14372. London: British School at Athens.

Tringham, R. 2000. Southeastern Europe in the transition toagriculture in Europe: bridge, buffer or mosaic. In T. D.Price (ed.), Europes first farmers, 1956. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Trogmayer, O. 1964. Megjegyzsek a Krs csoport relatvidrendjhez (Remarks to the relative chronology of theKrs group). Archaeologiai rtest91, 6786.

Turner, B. S. 1994. Orientalism, postmodernism and globalism.London: Routledge.

Turner, B. S. 2001. On the concept of axial space: Orientalismand the originary.Journal of Social Archaeology 1, 6274.

Turner, F. J. 1893. The significance of the frontier in Americanhistory. Annual Report of the American His toricalAssociation 1893, 190227.


16/16


van Andel, T. and Runnels, C. 1995. The earliest farmers inEurope. Antiquity 69, 481500.

Voytek, B. 1987. Analysis of lithic raw material from sites ineastern Yugoslavia. In K. T. Bro (ed.), Papers for the firstinternational conference on prehistoric flint mining andlithic raw material identification in the Carpathian Basin,Budapest-Smeg, 1986, 28795. Budapest.

Voytek, B. and Tringham, R. 1989. Rethinking the Mesolithic:the case of south-east Europe. In C. Bonsall (ed.), TheMesolithic in Europe, 4929. Edinburgh: John Donald.

Wagner, R. 1980. The invention of culture. Chicago: ChicagoUniversity Press.

Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic. The creation of newworlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whittle, A. 1998. Fish, faces and fingers: presences andsymbolic identities in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition inthe Carpathian Basin. Documenta Praehistorica 25, 13350.

Whittle, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Bori, D., Pettitt P. and Richards,

M. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon dates for theearly Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary.Antaeus 25, 63117.

Whittle, A., Bartosiewicz, L., Bori, D., Bronk Ramsey, C.,Higham, T., Pettitt P. and Richards, M. in press. In thebeginning: some corrections. Antaeus 26.

ivanovi, S. 1975a. A note on the anthropological

characteristics of the Padina population. Zeitschrift frMorphologie und Anthropologie 66, 16175.

ivanovi, S. 1975b. Mesolithic population in erdap.Balcanica 6, 110.

ivanovi, S. 1975c. Ostaci ljudskih skeleta iz praistorijskognalazita na Hajdukoj Vodenici. Starinar26, 1239.

ivanovi, S. 1976. Cromagnon in the Iron Gate Gorge of theDanube. Nature 260, 518.

ivanovi, S. 1979. Further evidence on Cro-Magnon man inthe Iron Gate Gorge of the Danube. Current Anthropology20, 805.

Zvelebil, M. 1986. Mesolithic prelude and Neolithic revolution.In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition: Mesolith icsocieties of temperate Euroasia and their transition tofarming, 16787. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zvelebil, M. 1994. Neolithisation in Eastern Europe: a viewfrom the frontier. Poroilo o Raziskovanju Paleolitika,Neolitika in Eneolitika v Sloveniji 22, 10751.

Zvelebil, M. and Lillie, M. 2000. Transition to agriculture in

eastern Europe. In D. T. Price (ed.), Europes first farmers,5792. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zvelebil, M. and Rowley-Conwy, P. 1986. Foragers and farmersin Atlantic Europe. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hun ters intransition: Mesolithic societies of temperate Euroasia andtheir transition to farming, 6793. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

ch3_dušan borić

Documents