by Chris Fowler
Base map drawn by Jane Mathews and supplied by John Robb.
MAP 2 Selected sites in Mediterranean and south-east Europe mentioned in the volume (alphabetically by country):
Bosnia: Obre (1); Okolişte (2) – Bulgaria: Ai Bunar (3); Durankulak (4); Goljamo Delchevo (5); Kamenovo (6); Karanovo (3); Orlovo (7); Ovcharovo (8); Poljanitsa (8); Slatina (9); Targovishte (10); Varna (11) – Croatia: Danilo (12); Pupicina cave (13) – France: Camp-de-Laure (14); Causses plateau (15); Filitosa (16); Gazel cave (17); Le Crès (18); Les Oullas (19); Mont Bégo (20); Pendimoun (21); Saint-Véran (19); Terrina (22) – FYROM: Anza/Anzabegovo (23); Tumba Madjari (24) – Greece: Alepotrypa cave (25); Argissa (26); Dikili Tash (27); Dimini (28); Franchthi cave (29); Kephala (30); Knossos (31); Makri (32); Makriyalos (33); Melos (34); Nea Nikomedeia (35); Plateia Magoula Zarkou (36); Sesklo (28); Sidari (37); Sitagroi (27); Skoteini cave (38); Soufli Magoula (26); Theopetra cave (39); Zas cave (40) – Hungary: Alsónyék (41); Berettyóújfalou (42); Bodrogkeresztúr (43); Csőszhalom (44); Ecsegfalva (42); Endrőd (45); Hódmezővásárhely (46); Kisköre (47); Lengyel (48); Szentgál (49); Szentgyörgyvölgy (50); Tiszapolgár-Basatanya (51); Zengővárkony (48) – Italy: Acconia (52); Arene Candide (53); Botteghino (54); Defensola (55); Edera (56); Filiestru cave (57); Grotta della Monaca (58); Hauslabjoch/Ice Man (59); La Marmotta (60); Lagnano da Piede (61); Libiola (62); Lipari (63); Lugo di Romagna (64); Mirabello Eclano (65); Molino Casarotto (66); Monte Loreto (62); Monte Viso (67); Neto (68); Pantelleria (69); Passo di Corvo (70); Piano Vento (71); Pulo di Molfetta (72); Remedello (73); Sammardenchia (74); Stentinello (75); Su Coddu (76); Uzzo cave (77); Valcamonica (78); Valle d’Aosta (79); Valtellina (80) – Portugal: Alcalar (81); Angerinha (82); Anta Grande do Zambujeiro (83); Antelas (84); Cabeço da Arruda (85); Escoural (83); Leceia (86); Mocissos (87); Olival da Pega (88); Vila Nova de São Pedro (85); Zambujal (89) – Romania: Cernavodă (90); Gumelniţa (91); Gura Baciului (92); Iclod (92); Parţa (93); Pietrele (94); Schela Cladovei (95); Turdaş (96); Uivar (93) – Serbia: Belovode (97); Blagotin (98); Divostin (99); Donja Branjevina (100); Gomolava (101); Grivac (102); Lepenski Vir (103); Padina (103); Rudna Glava (103); Selevac (104); Starčevo (105); Vinča (105); Vlasac (103) – Spain: Almizaraque (106); Bóbila Madurell (107); Ca n’Isach (108); Casa Montero (109); Cerro de la Virgen (110); Cueva de les Cendres (111); Cueva de los Murciélagos (112); Cueva de Toro (113); Dombate (114); La Draga (115); La Pijotilla (116); La Vaquera (117); Los Millares (118); Mas D’Is (119); Pico Ramos (120); Terrera Ventura (118); Valencina de la Concepción (121).
Base map drawn by Jane Mathews and supplied by John Robb.
MAP 3 Selected sites in central Europe mentioned in the volume (alphabetically by country):
Austria: Asparn-Schletz (1); Brunn-Wolfholz (2); Friebritz (1); Mondsee (3) – Belgium: Spiennes (4) – Czech Republic: Bylany (5); Dolní Věstonice (6); Jistebsko (7); Miskovice (5); Těšetice (8); Vedrovice (9) – France: Barnenez (10); Beg an Dorchenn (11); Carnac (12); Clairvaux (13); Chalain (13); Condé-sur-Ifs (14); Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (15); Ensisheim (16); Gavrinis (17); Grand-Pressigny (18); La Chaussée-Tirancourt (19); La Hoguette (20); Locmariaquer (17); Menneville (15); Prissé-la-Charrière (21); Romigny/Lhéry (22); Sélédin (23); Table des Marchand (17); Tumulus de Saint-Michel (12); Villeneuve-Saint-Germain (24) – Germany: Aichbühl (25); Aiterhofen (26); Aldenhovener Platte/Merzbach valley (27); Altheim (28); Bad Cannstatt (29); Bruchsal (30); Dresden-Prohlis (31); Dürrenberg (32); Federsee (25); Flomborn (33); Goseck (32); Heidelberg-Handschuhsheim (34); Heilbronn-Klingenberg (35); Herxheim (36); Hetzenberg (35); Hohlestein (37); Hornstaad (38); Ippesheim (39); Jülich (27); Jungfernhöhle (40); Kückhoven (41); Künzing-Unternberg (42); Meisternthal (43); Michelsberg-Untergrombach (30); Rheine (44); Rheindürkheim (33); Rheingewann (33); Rössen (32); Salzmünde (45); Sipplingen (46); Sondershausen (47); Stephansposching (48); Talheim (49); Trebur (50); Urmitz (51); Vaihingen (29); Wiederstedt (45); Wiesbaden-Erbenheim (50) – Netherlands: Beek (52); Buinen (53); Eext (53); Elsloo (52); Emmeloord (54); Geleen (52); Molenaarsgraf (55); Rijckholt (56) – Poland: Bozejewice (57); Brześć Kujawski (58); Krzemionki (59); Olszanica (60) – Slovakia: Nitra (61); Svodín (62) – Switzerland: Arbon-Bleiche (63); Arconciel (64); Auvernier (65); Bielersee (66); Breitenloo (63); Burgäschisee (67); Egolzwil (68); Lake Zürich (69); Marin (65); Sion (70).
Base map drawn by Jane Mathews and supplied by John Robb.
MAP 4 Selected sites in northern and north-west Europe mentioned in the volume (alphabetically by country):
Denmark: Bautahøj (1); Björnsholm (2); Bogø (3); Bornholm (4); Bygholm Nørremark (5); Dragsholm (6); Fakkemose (7); Hanstegård (8); Klokkehøj (9); Lindebjerg (10); Muldbjerg (11); Poskær Stenhus (12); Sarup (13) – Finland: Astuvansalmi (14) – Germany: Helgoland (15); Rosenhof (16); Rügen (17) – Great Britain: Avebury (18); Balbridie (19); Balfarg (20); Briar Hill (21); Cairnholy (22); Coldrum (23); Crickley Hill (24); Dorchester-on-Thames (25); Duggleby Howe (26); Dunragit (27); Durrington Walls (28); Eilean Domhnuill (29); Etton (30); Giant’s Hills (31); Grimes Graves (32); Haddenham (33); Hambledon Hill (34); Hazelton North (24); Hembury (35); Kilmartin Glen (36); Kilverstone (32); Knap Hill (18); Knappers (37); Knowlton (38); Lismore Fields (39); Llandegai (40); Lochhill (41); Lockerbie (42); Maumbury Rings (43); Monkton Up Wimborne (44); Rothley Lodge Park (45); Rudston (26); Runnymede Bridge (46); Slewcairn (22); Stonehenge (28); Street House (47); Sweet Track (38); Trelystan (48); Upper Ninepence (49); West Kennet (18); White Horse Stone (50); Windmill Hill (18); Yarnton (51) – Ireland: Ballyglass (52); Ballyharry (53); Ballymacdermot (54); Carrowkeel (55); Cloghers (56); Connemara (57); Corbally (58); Corlea (59); Dowth (60); Ferriter’s Cove (61); Kilgreany cave (62); Knowth (60); Linkardstown (63); Lough Gur (64); Magheraboy (65); Newgrange (60); Parknabinnia (66); Tankardstown (67) – Latvia: Zvejnieki – Lithuania: Kretuonas (69); Turlojišké (70) – Norway: Ausevik (71); Bardal (72); Evenhus (73); Hammer (74); Hitra (75); Hjelle (76); Leirfall (73); Mjeltehaugen (77); Ogna (78); Røkke (79); Stakaneset (80); Vevang (81); Vingen (77); Voll (78) – Sweden: Åby (82); Ajvide (83); Alvastra (84); Bollbacken (85); Borgeby (86); Carlshögen (87); Dagstorp (88); Fräkenrönningen (89); Frälsegården (90); Kivik (87); Köpingsvik (91); Landbogården (92); Linköping (93); Malmö (86); Nämforsen (94); Piledal (87); Ramshög (87); Skumparberget (95); Turinge (93); Ystad (87).
Base map drawn by Jane Mathews and supplied by John Robb.
PART I
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1
THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF NEOLITHIC EUROPE
An Introduction
CHRIS FOWLER, JAN HARDING, AND DANIELA HOFMANN
INTRODUCTION
STUDIES of the European Neolithic have changed considerably and diversified significantly over the past 50 years. Forms of evidence have been brought into the fold through the expansion of types of archaeological fieldwork and scientific analyses, from rock art studies to the analysis of DNA and stable isotopes in human skeletal remains. Calibrated radiocarbon chronologies have had a major impact on understanding sequences of prehistoric activity. New perspectives have also been developed, with a shift in emphasis from geographically sweeping generalizations to more fine-grained and often regionally specific accounts. This has been accompanied by an interest in new themes for analysis, including exploration of Neolithic landscapes, cosmologies, bodies, and personhood. Yet for a long time there has been no single volume that combines all of these forms of evidence and perspectives in a comprehensive and detailed study of the European Neolithic from Iberia to Russia and from Norway to Malta. This volume attempts to remedy this by bringing together the research of leading experts from across Europe into a wide-ranging discursive resource suitable for undergraduates, postgraduates, and more experienced scholars of the Neolithic. Its chapters disseminate the results of recent research, but importantly also set out agendas and themes for future work. As such, the book combines up-to-date syntheses with current innovative thinking, to both inform and
inspire the reader. It ends with three commentaries which stand back from the detail and develop key debates for Neolithic studies. Contributors come from different archaeological traditions and perspectives, working in different languages and through different media. In inviting this range of contributors the editors sought to portray the strength and diversity of Neolithic archaeology across Europe, whilst providing the reader with as comprehensive and detailed a coverage as could be achieved within the confines of one book.
DEFINING THE ‘NEOLITHIC IN EUROPE’
The timescale and duration of the Neolithic vary greatly from region to region. We consider the period from c. 6500 BC, when a Neolithic lifestyle is identified in parts of Greece, to c. 2500 BC when it reached northernmost Europe (though some contributions mention later evidence). Given this broad chronological frame, the book also touches on many ‘Mesolithic’, ‘Chalcolithic’, or even ‘Bronze Age’ societies, and indeed, the way in which these communities co-existed and interacted with ‘Neolithic’ societies is at the heart of investigating process, change, invention, and adoption just as much as interactions within and between differing ‘Neolithic’ communities. There is considerable variation in how the Neolithic is chronologically subdivided, and there is a bewildering array of different schemata and cultural labels across the continent (Fig. 1.1), built up according to different criteria. This does not, however, preclude the existence of broad trends. For instance, a recurring theme for large parts of Europe is the distinction between the early Neolithic and late Neolithic (e.g. Müller, Chapter 3; Schier, Chapter 5; Malone, Chapter 9; cf. Hodder 2013). The importance of transformation throughout the period is such that we can even question the extent to which it is meaningful to talk of ‘a Neolithic’, or, for that matter, ‘a Mesolithic’ or ‘a Chalcolithic’ (see, e.g., Allen et al. 2012; Lichardus 1991; Pluciennik 2008).
FIG. 1.1. Schematic representation of main archaeological cultures by key area. This is intended as a general guide only; not every grouping or geographical area could be covered, and details (especially regarding dates) are debated and constantly being revised. Spellings may also vary between regions and researchers. Abbreviations: EN = early Neolithic; MN = middle Neolithic; LN = late Neolithic; CT = Cucuteni-Tripillia; Mor. Painted W. = Moravian Painted Ware; TRB = Trichterbecherkultur (= Funnel Beaker culture). Information has been synthesized from the following sources: Bagolini 1992; Cipolloni Sampó 1992; Louwe Kooijmans 2007; Lüning 1996; Mottes et al. 2002; Strahm 1994; Whittle 1996. Advice on Iberia is courtesy of Ana Vale. Thanks also to John Chapman and Andrea Dolfini for critical comments.
Indeed, the meaning of the term ‘Neolithic’ is constantly debated, and consequently so are the criteria used to define the archaeological presence of Neolithic communities. The identification of agriculture is usually paramount, although this still varies between European regions, and in some places the presence of polished stone or pottery is taken to indicate a Neolithic community (e.g. Kunst 2010; Barker 2006, among many others). More radically, the Neolithic has also been defined as a way of thinking about and reorganizing the world (Hodder 1990; Thomas 2013), or even as nothing more than a range of material and symbolic media that could be adopted and transformed by communities through a creative process of identity generation (Thomas 1988). Robb (2013) has recently argued that the Neolithic was initially characterized by varied novel relations between people, things, animals, and places, and decisions taken with the short or medium term in mind, but that this diversity and flexibility increasingly led to a series of emerging and converging unintended consequences, resulting in a widespread long-term process of transformation that could not be undone. In two commentaries closing this volume, Thomas (Chapter 55) and Kristiansen (Chapter 56) interpret the Neolithic as a form of social organization predicated on distinctive relations with things, places, and animals, competitive communities, and the control of wealth. As both Thomas and Kristiansen suggest, the simple presence or absence of certain material traits by themselves are not the right basis from which to identify communities as Neolithic or otherwise, but this does not mean period terms are redundant. Neolithic communities were diverse and varied, just as Mesolithic ones were, but we cannot escape the fact that almost everywhere in Europe and in most respects Neolithic communities became quite different from Mesolithic ones.
Underlying these various interpretations is the idea that the Neolithic was a way of life, a way of getting on in and with the world; what exactly this involved varied over time and across space, but that degree of variation was elastic to the extent that archaeologists still think it valuable to talk about some societies as Neolithic and others as Mesolithic or Bronze Age. It is particularly interesting that Thomas and Kristiansen emphasize that there is something distinctive about Neolithic communities, given that improvements in how chronologies are produced mean it is now possible that future generations of Neolithic scholars will be able to locate their studies in terms of specific centuries, or even decades (Whittle and Bayliss 2007; Whittle et al. 2011)—as has long been possible in the rare areas of Europe with exceptional dating evidence (Billamboz 2012). Dramatically improved chronological resolution may support discussion of certain centuries across a large area, encourage the consideration of more sophisticated models of coexistence between different kinds of society and stimulate further reflection on processes of change. The debate over whether or not we should term certain communities ‘Neolithic’, and what this means, will not end any time soon, but it should become more precise and refined in step with these improved chronological frameworks.
Much research into the European Neolithic has been completed within defined national boundaries and often according to national traditions and agendas, making comparisons between areas difficult. In addition, a region may show strong affinities with one area in one Neolithic phase, and with a different area in another. This makes creating and adhering to geographic limits complicated. Here it was decided that the geographical remit would be as comprehensive as possible. As a very general guide, four macro-regions are represented in most sections of the book: south-east Europe (broadly covering Greece and the Balkans up to Hungary and reaching as far east as Bulgaria), central and eastern Europe (from eastern France into eastern Russia), northern and western Europe (the Baltic, the North European Plain, the Atlantic façade of Portugal and France, and the British Isles), and the Mediterranean (including Italy, southern France, and Spain). Inevitably, coverage of some of these areas is stronger than others. There is a weakness in the coverage of eastern Europe, and more specifically Russia and the countries which achieved independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Similarly under-represented is interaction between the southern European fringe of the Mediterranean and northern Africa. The exploration of these eastern and southern ‘extensions’ to the European Neolithic offer an exciting agenda for future research which could not be exploited here. Our contributors, do, however, extensively investigate connections within Europe. As a result, landscapes and regions often become collated into larger geographic entities, and frequent reference is made to ‘northern’ or ‘north-western Europe’, ‘central Europe’, and ‘eastern Europe’. We did not predefine these, and so there is inevitably some variation in what is meant by each term. But the resulting freedom for contributors has enabled them to break free of traditional limits like national borders and create accounts which emphasize interaction and pan-European processes: indeed, authors were often encouraged to collaborate in order to provide expertise that crossed national boundaries and operated at the scale of the archaeological phenomena under investigation.
SCALES OF TIME AND SPACE: STUDYING BIG ISSUES FROM FRAGMENTARY AND SPECIFIC EVIDENCE
Dividing the book into thematic parts and constituent sections facilitates comparison across regions and between the chronological sub-divisions of the Neolithic. Arranging the material in this way has shown that in spite of our often tightly focused specialisms and differing traditions of research, Neolithic sp
ecialists from different regions grapple with many of the same problems. This is most evident when considering the archaeological evidence for Mobility and interaction at the large scale, with which this volume begins. Sections on the Movement of plants, animals, ideas and people and Sequences of cultural interaction and cultural change highlight the shared research agendas across Europe. In contrast to many of the important existing publications on the matter (e.g. Whittle and Cummings 2007; Gronenborn and Petrasch 2010, amongst many others), this section does not focus on the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition alone, but reflects on these factors throughout the Neolithic, their possible role in innovation and change, and whether different processes were responsible for dissemination over time and across space. As such, it provides broad overviews of the landscape and climate of the European landmass and the cultural development in each of the four main regions. These accounts of macro-process are preceded by an initial discussion of the physical and environmental opportunities and constraints found across Europe (Brown et al., Chapter 2), and a contribution (Shennan, Chapter 7) on relationships between the movements of languages, genes, practices, and people. Chapters in this section remind us of different, locally varied rates of change that mesh with or gel into large-scale trends and long-term processes. For instance, Brown et al. report that fluctuations in climate may relate to shifting subsistence practices in some cases, but seemingly not to widespread changes in material culture. Longer-term patterns can also be set alongside the impact of single events and relatively sudden changes, such as the long-distance diffusion of new products, practices, and people from the outset of and during the Neolithic (cf. Rowley-Conwy 2011; Tresset, Chapter 6). Indeed, such events and larger processes of change are arguably inseparable (see also Bolender 2010).
