ch8 laurens thissen

7/30/2019 Ch8 Laurens Thissen

1/8

8. The role of pottery in agropastoralistcommunities in early Neolithic southern Romania

Laurens Thissen

In this paper, I consider possible causes for the adoption

of pottery by early Neolithic communities in the lower

Danube Plain, Romania. Assessment of cooking pots used

for stone boiling may fit in with pre-Neolithic food

processing patterns, and may blur traditional Mesolithic

Neolithic boundaries. Simultaneously, the adoption of

new tools reflecting changing life-styles and subsistence

patterns affords glimpses into the choices, tensions and

decisions assumed to have existed in a society in flux.

Premises and assumptions

I write this paper with the premise that the lower Danube

Plain in southern Romania was actively lived-in during

the time immediately preceding the adoption of new

subsistence techniques somewhere in the sixth

millennium cal BC.1 It follows that I regard this adoption

as largely a local process. I share Chapmans assertion

that it is mainly due to recovery bias that sites from this

period, conventionally labelled as Mesolithic, have not

yet been found (Chapman 1989, 504). Mesolithic

presence is firmly proved, however, by settlements to the

west, in the Iron Gates, and more particularly by the

floodplain site of Schela Cladovei just outside of the Iron

Gates proper (Bonsall et al. 2002, 4). FloodplainMesolithic sites exist also in the east (e.g. Soroki on the

Dniestr and Pechera on the Bug Rivers; Chapman 1989,

504). Even though there is as yet no evidence for

Mesolithic sites in the southeastern Romanian Plain,2 the

sites from the Gorges, the Bug and the Dniestr suggest

that the lower Danube and its many north-south flowing

tributaries in southern Romania must have provided

abundant resources (notably, migratory fish) which were

potentially attractive to hunter-gatherers (Rowley-Conwy

and Zvelebil 1989, 51; Zvelebil 1986), We may infer

from these local factors that people moving in and around

this area were delayed return, or complex, hunter-

gatherers (Zvelebil 1998, 8f.), an inference supported (if

we may extrapolate that evidence) by the Iron Gates and

Dniestr examples (cf. Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil 1989,

52). As summarised in Zvelebil (1998, 8), the defining

elements of complex hunter-gatherers (such as

specialised use of resources, storage, investment in

complex technology, ownership of resources, increased

sedentism, higher population densities, greater social

ranking and erosion of egalitarian ideology) have still to

be demonstrated for our study area. However, if we fit the

ensuing early Neolithic period within a longer historical

trajectory, then we must link back its achievements now

becoming visible to that Mesolithic time-frame. Put

another way, if we accept the Mesolithic-early Neolithic

within or perhaps better, as, a single historical trajectory,then the developments in the early Neolithic must be

incipient in the Mesolithic (as well as implicit). Proof of

continuity is suggested by the fact that at several of the

Iron Gates sites early Neolithic levels are deposited above

Mesolithic ones.3 Although separated in time, such

deposits may well represent repeated visits and stays at a

known locale, testifying to the preservation of memory to

that place (cf. Bori 1999 on deep time vis--vis the Iron

Gates; see Bori this volume).

Recovery bias also affects our knowledge of the early

Neolithic. The early Neolithic site of Teleor 003 in the

village of Mgura in the Teleorman Valley in southernRomania is covered by an alluvial deposit of about 1m

and was only found during irrigation and cable

trenching.4 Despite these limiting factors, the available

evidence in the lower Danube Plain, for the Romanian

part alone, amounts to over 40 sites datable to the early

Neolithic; this distribution is not up-to-date, nor have

many systematic surveys been carried out. Recent work

indicates the presence of many more early Neolithic sites

in the Olt, Jiu and Desnui river valleys (Nica and

Rdoiescu 2002, 9); comparable density patterns will

eventually emerge in the areas eastwards of the Olt valley,

which are even less well surveyed. Ultimately, the overall

distribution of early Neolithic locations in the lower

Danube area will more closely resemble the picture from


2/8

Laurens Thissen72

Moldavia (Lazarovici 1984, 89, 104; Ursulescu 1993

mentions 146 Starevo-Cri sites for that region). The

emerging density of early Neolithic settlements in the

lower Danube and in Moldavia probably masks the real

distribution; most of these settlements were small, short-

lived sites that may have relocated up- or downstreamover time. There may have been a multiplicity of sites

used for different purposes at varying times of the year.

This links up with the underlying assumption of this

paper and the underlying current concepts of the early

Neolithic Balkan society especially the Starevo-Cri:

mobility (see Bailey 2000, 57, 75; Whittle 1997). While

noting restrictions over site location that followed the

adoption of agriculture and noting the hypothesised

increase in sedentism, it might be better to characterise

the early Neolithic commitment to land in terms of semi-

sedentism. This implies that the sites that have been found

represent only one part of the total settlement system. Italso means that we must be careful in our interpretations

of what we find. Thus, the near absence of hunting and

fishing evidence in the faunal record of Teleor 003

(Adrian Blescupers. comm.), may indicate that theseactivities were carried on off-site, or even off-area and,

furthermore, that these might well relate to different

seasons.

Tentatively, we might define what we now label as

Starevo-Cri society as complex hunter-gatherers,

possibly practicing small-scale horticulture (Amy

Bogaard pers. comm.) and animal husbandry (thoughanimal exploitation appears specialised as the dominant

species in the fauna is Bos taurus (Adrian Blescupers. comm.)), and who were willing to adopt innovations(Thomas 1988, 64) such as farming and pottery. The

numerous pits encountered on Starevo-Cri sites which

are commonly interpreted as dwellings (see discussion

below), might alternatively be regarded as storage

facilities (cf. Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil 1989, 53,

contemplating such a use in the Bug-Dniestr culture).5

People were moving about in the rolling country set

between the southern Carpathian Mountains (the

Transylvanian Alps) to the north, and the Balkan range

(Stara Planina) to the south. The lower Danube Plain is

characterised by the northsouth flowing tributaries thatoriginate in the southern Carpathian Mountains and

empty into the Danube. Often highly meandering, these

rivers are edged by low terraces (Bailey et al. 2002) andwere favoured locations for settlement during the early

and middle Neolithic periods (Starevo-Cri and Dudeti/

Vdastra) (Bailey 2000, 60). It is likely that the pattern

of parallel, northsouth rivers had a large impact on

peoples conceptions of the landscape, and determined

senses and patterns of direction and movement. The

modern landscape around Teleor 003 offers an intricate

play of subtle differences in elevation and colour settings,

creating constantly changing perspectives, now hiding

and then showing features within it. At first appearing

unexciting to the casual observer walking through, it

turns into a magisterial and ever-changing landscape:

wide skies, water birds, and far-reaching sounds strangely

enchanting (see Mills this volume on sound in the

landscape).

Sherds and pots

The early Neolithic pottery in southern Romanian

Starevo-Cri society was not invented there, but is

present from the first cutting into a Cri site; it is there in

enormous quantity. Seen in terms of the absence of

Mesolithic traces, the pottery seems unequivocally linked

to the earliest built environments as does evidence for

plant and animal domesticates, regardless of the role these

played in local subsistence. The newness of pottery to

this society was not expressed in scarcity; there seems to

have been no surprise or wonder; vessel shapes are

confident. As laid on my table in the lab in the AlexandriaMuseum, the Starevo-Cri sherds from Teleor 003

represent complete vessels made and used by people living

in the early Neolithic in a river valley in south Romania.

They are straightforward during analysis and through

the assessment of fabrics, manufacture, firing methods,

morphology, and typology. The Starevo-Cri material

does not have the complexity of form, decoration and

fabric that I know from the Dudeti, Vdastra and Boian

ceramics which I have also been studying from the same

area. The early Neolithic Starevo-Cri pottery looks

homogeneous in morphology and technology (it is easy!);

this may be misleading as it is not easy when I need to

finding meaning in it. Colours, feel, and the sound that

the sherds make when I empty a unit bag on to my table

are familiar to me; I have dealt with pottery from other

early sites both in the Balkans and in north-west Turkey

and the Starevo-Cri sherds are more familiar than the

later Boian-period ceramics.6 The feel of the sherds is

familiar: smooth, burnished surfaces matching smoothly

curving profiles; the presence of fibre temper influencing

the weight, sound and smell of the sherds on my work

table; the bonfiring of the original pots assuring a subdued

ring while handling. With sherds in hand, questions arise:

about function, quantities, shifts over time in form, style

and techniques; who made them, when, and why? Whatwas their role in society? Possibly, these sherds/vessels

represent a successful adoption of an innovative

technology, successful in view of the enormous quantities

in which we find them and in my contemplation of their

perfection of form and finish; successful in their

homogeneous diversity and variance. Each form is part

of a consistent category, and each sherd I am able to

assign to a form seems to represent a perfect example of

that category, approaching a prototype (Miller 1985, 44;

cf. Shanks 1993). Despite differences in surface treatment

and in shape, the material is interlinked through fabric,

firing and manufacture, as well as through recurrent

technological themes, such as the use of a diluted clay

slip on the plain-burnished vessels, and occurring on the


3/8

The role of pottery in agropastoralist communities in southern Romania 73

insides of surface-roughened pots. All the sherds/vessels

are accomplished and sophisticated within themselves.

The manufacture of them was left to accomplished people.

Interestingly, there is ambiguity where decoration is

concerned. Where present, decoration is mostly painted

and when mistakes were made they would have beencorrected (cf. Shanks 1993). This is different from the

later (Dudeti, Vdastra and Boian) periods with their

burnished, incised, impressed, white-filled treatments.

In the few instances when there is incision or grooving it

looks careless or, more accurately, unaccomplished.

Working into the pot for decoration was obviously not

part of the normal procedures for decoration; possibly it

did not belong to the expertise of the early potters.

However, painting was perfect (lines are taut) and

occasionally sophisticated, (i.e. when using spirals).

There were no second chances for the fanciful pliss-

decoration (channelling, ripples, cannelures) of thesubsequent Dudeti and Vdastra periods. Indeed, Cri

potters did not use such techniques, except for a clumsy

zigzag grooving that is occasionally encountered. The

successful application ofpliss decoration requiredextreme skill, forethought and planning; these aspects

are challenged and played out to the full during the

Vdastra period when they were attempted in grand

designs on large jars.

The various categories suggest different uses; I start

thinking about these differences. Obviously, there are

preset rules linked to various categories with mutually

exclusive attributes; specific forms and surface treatment

appear to be linked to a large degree and they enablecategorisation on the basis of the most salient

characteristics. A red-firing ochre slip is used for large

pedestaled dishes, for smaller-sized pedestaled cups, and

for open bowls which are decorated with black and/or

white paint. Red slip is hardly ever used for other forms,

but it occurs on a large basin with wavy rim where the

inside is red slipped and burnished, while the outside has

surface roughening. Surface roughening (a term that

encompasses impresso, barbotine and/or slashed exteriorsurface treatments) is associated with medium- and

larger-sized pots with thick disk bases, where the interiors

are mostly covered with a diluted clay slip and carefullyburnished. Such exterior surface treatment occurs also

on two large sloping-sided basins, with undulating rims;

it is not yet attested on other forms. Plain-burnished forms

in dark colours (dark-brown, grey-black, never red-

slipped) represent various types of bowls: mostly elegantly

S-shaped and occasionally carinated ones. They have

small and low disk bases (which are slightly concave

underneath) or delicate ring bases. The insides of such

vessels are also burnished. Sporadically, such plain-

burnished bowls have zigzag-grooved decorations on the

shoulders.

At present, I do not have full control of all the shapes;

the heavy fragmentation of the pottery recovered prevents

this. The description above might be too simple. For

instance, possibly there is a discrete association of size

and specific variants of surface-roughened pots. Thick,

cable-like appliqu decoration on the outsides of body

sherds seems to co-occur with surface-roughened vessels

of large size; this is suggested by the large diameters of

those body sherds.7 Vertically-pierced knob handles,always plain-burnished, never surface-roughened or red-

slipped, turn up occasionally, and they suggest a plain-

burnished basic-level category not yet recovered.

Summarising, the assemblage appears to consist of the

following basic-level categories: a) plain-burnished

small- and medium-sized bowls, well made and carefully

finished, of dark colours; b) surface-roughened medium-

to large-sized pots with thick disk bases, in buff to brown

colours; c) red-ochre all-over-slipped dishes on high

pedestal bases that might be lobed (originally such vessels

shined with burnishing); and d) small-sized cups on small

pedestal bases, and larger everted and carinated bowls(no associated bases yet known) that are both red-slipped

and decorated with various linear and curvilinear motifs

in a black manganese and/or a white non-calcareous

paint.

Pits in context

In addition to the restrictions caused by the nature of the

sample and its size, the meaning of the assemblage eludes

me for two other factors. First, the sense of ephemerality

caused by the Starevo-Cri pit features from Teleor 003

(the only structural features recovered until now from the

site so far), and our inability to comprehend these features

in terms of function (were they dwellings, storage, refuse-

fills?). Second, the archaeological context of the sherds.

They occur in considerable quantities within and outside

these pits, but preliminary analysis of deposition (taking

into account sizing, breakage, degree of erosion, presence/

absence of joins, and the counting and weighing of

sherds) does not indicate clear-cut association with

features (e.g. in terms of joins, size and degree of

abrasion). At best, the material is secondarily deposited.

Interpretation of the material thus has to come from the

sherds themselves. Even so, I attempt to put the ceramics

within a social context, conceiving of them as tools/objects within the life of Starevo-Cri society.

Each vessel was handmade, and as such was a

statement of expertise, experience, and of a successful

operational chain. The sherds on my table link up to

original, new objects playing their role within society.

Due to their individual hand manufacture, the original

brilliance when first used (literally for the slipped and/or

burnished vessels), their subsequent attrition and ultimate

breakage may represent carefully monitored stages in the

use-life of the vessel. There is nothing fortuitous here. In

saying this I want to avoid allowing the ceramics to be

subsumed beneath something other than themselves

(Shanks 1993). I am not interested here in chronology

(which phase of Starevo-Cri), or in style (is the painting


4/8

Laurens Thissen74

subsumed beneath the Linear A, or the Girlandoid B),

or even in issues of identifying pottery workshops (though

this latter is not applicable here because I assume

domestic production).

Pits, and pits conceived as habitations are a classic

feature of Starevo-Cri sites, and critical assessments ofcultural development, chronology and contact have been

made on the basis of pit (conceived as house) contexts

(e.g. Starevo, Donja Branjevina, Crcea). Given their

irregular size, irregular ground surface, the absence of

primary contexts within them, and other practical

objections, their function as habitations, even short-term

ones, is difficult to accept (see Lichter 1993, 24 for a

succinct dismissal of the dwelling option; cf. also the

experiment carried out by Monah, as described by

Chapman 2000, 86). In fact, although many Starevo-

Cri sites are defined only by pits, there are many surface-

level houses excavated in Romania, enough to discardthe idea that the many pits in early Neolithic sites served

as habitations unless they were very temporary ones.8

Rectangular structures excavated at Glvnetii Vechi

are reduced to many burnt fragments of daub covering a

rectangular area,9 that the excavator reconstructed as a

building resting on a platform of rather thin branches

joined by wattlework and plastered with a coat of loam

(Coma 1978, 12; Mantu 1991). There were no postholes.

The description suggests structures that we might

reconstruct with quite low standing walls and that have a

lean-to, overhanging gable roof. Roof coverage might

have been with the reeds (still collected today by farmers)

and which may have been isolated and strengthened witha coating of mud. The platform might have rested on

wood blocks in this stone-poor region. The frequent

presence of surface-level habitations leaves room for

assuming that such structures also were built on sites

where only pits have been found (e.g. Crcea-La Hanuri,

Gura Baciului, Donja Branjevina, Starevo). When not

burnt, the nature of construction contributes to

archaeological invisibility, certainly so where excavation

methods are of low resolution, and/or excavation areas

small, or laid out as narrow trenches (cf. Peri 1998 for

a similar critique concerning the early Neolithic in

Serbia).Even if one accepts that the surface-level structure

was the normal dwelling type for Starevo-Cri society,

the aspect of ephemerality remains. The archaeological

invisibility of these structures when not burnt, with their

living floors resting on wood-blocks and hovering over

the earth rather than anchored to it, creates the image of

houses floating on the Danube Plain. This landscape

should probably also be filled in with the untraceable

campsites related to hunting, fishing and herding cattle,

up- or downstream of the rivers, or south to the banks of

the Danube. This complex image of frequent site

relocations and short (seasonal) stays combines to

structure my thoughts towards mobility, semi-sedentism,

or residential mobility (Whittle 1997, 15). Residential

mobility of Starevo-Cri society in the lower Danube

Plain influences my interpretation of vessel use.

Stones, baked-clay objects and cooking

The increased sedentism of the Starevo-Cri period, asimplied by settlements with structural features, by

evidence of crop cultivation, and perhaps also by the

abundant presence of ceramics, fits within a longer

trajectory that starts at least in the Mesolithic. Though

we do not have solid information on the Mesolithic in the

lower Danube, we can profitably reconsider the use of

material culture as well as peoples dealings with animals

and plants in the Starevo-Cri stage and then link that

back to the practices of a previous time. Because they are

deliberate incorporations within existing frameworks of

technology and method, all accepted (hence, successful)

innovations link back to previous times as well. Forexample, the attested predominance of cattle in favour of

sheep/goat in the archaeozoological record of Starevo-

Cri (as well as in the later Dudeti) sites should be

considered within existing pre-Neolithic practices, ideally

to be explored along Mesolithic dealings with bovids.10

Another potential link to pre-ceramic times (and proof

of unchanging ritual practice) is the use of red ochre in

Starevo-Cri society. As pointed out by G, red ochre

has been used in ritual contexts in the lower Danube

region from Epi-Palaeolithic times to the Bronze Age

(G and Mateescu 19992001; and Bailey 2000, 111

for the use of red ochre in the Iron Gates area). In

addition, red ochre was used as background for the black-

or white-painted decoration, and exclusively for all-over

slipping of the large (up to 3035cm in diameter)

pedestaled dishes. Moreover, all the red ochre, both from

burials11 and that used for slipping Cri pottery was of

local origin and derived from loams, clays and terra rossa

from Oltenia, Muntenia, Northern Bulgaria, the Iron

Gates region and Northern Serbia (G and Mateescu

19992001). We may at least assume that the shiningly

burnished, red Cri pedestaled dishes had a special

significance, and maybe they represent a transference of

red ochre use from non-ceramic containers in a non-

ceramic Mesolithic context on to more permanent media;the slipping, burnishing and firing processes that were

involved served to immortalise the raw material as well

as its associated connotations. In addition, the continued

use of red ochre suggests the preservation of local

knowledge, and the maintenance of tradition on the part

of Starevo-Cri society: a proof of insertion and of

belonging to an earlier time.

The use of pottery can be explored fruitfully within a

framework of continuity and incorporation, and it can be

set off against, but more significantly perhaps treated as

an addition to, possibly existing patterns in non-ceramic

containers in the Mesolithic period. My interpretation of

a specific vessel category of the early Neolithic, a

medium-sized hole-mouth pot with roughened (impresso


5/8


and/or barbotine) exterior surfaces may represent a clue

to specific previous practices in the process of being

transformed and adapted. If true, this interpretation might

simultaneously reveal the tensions of dealing with

innovation.12

I propose that the surface-roughened pots in Starevo-Cri society in the lower Danube area were used for

cooking by means of stone boiling, or indirect moist

heating (Sassaman 1995). All vessels belonging to this

group have their exterior surfaces roughened in one way

or other, which may be slashed, impressed/pinched by

nail, grooved, or barbotined. Average wall thicknesses

are 910mm, though they vary from 817mm. Diameters

range from 1230cm, but seem to concentrate between

1220cm (though the sample is not big enough to be

more precise). All such pots were fitted out with thick,

solid disk bases, which always have traces of use-wear

underneath. General exterior colours are buff, brown,occasionally dark brown or orangey, with the lighter

shades dominating. Interior colours may have similar

shades as the exteriors, but many are a shade darker, or

even dark brown to blackish and real black. All interiors

were originally covered with a diluted clay-slip, and

carefully burnished all-over; this contrasts with the

surface-roughened exteriors. There are few clear traces

of smudging or smoke blackening, either on base

fragments or on the insides of shoulder pieces. Some of

the base fragments, burnished on the inside, have traces

of use-abraded interiors, with a slightly duller burnishing

cover. This is the case for the centre of base interiors

which are lighter coloured than are the bordering interiorzones which, in turn, appear smudged. Some of the base

fragments have bleached interiors, possibly as a result of

frequent water heating and cooking. These pots were

capacious, had heavy, stable bases, thick walls and fibre

temper; the widening and shrinking of the pores in the

heating/cooling process would have made them heatproof.

The slipping and burnishing of interiors must have had a

purpose which might have varied from liquid or food

storage to heating and cooking (see Schiffer 1990;

Schiffer et al. 1994). The almost complete absence ofsmudging and soot traces on bases suggests that these

pots were not heated directly on an open fire. Their shapeand technology make them suited for indirect moist

heating with cooking stones.

Indirect moist heating was common practice in

American Indian contexts and was associated with thick-

walled fibre-tempered vessels (Braun 1983; Brown 1989;

Crown and Willis 1995; Sassaman 1995). Pre-heated

stones were used to boil the vessels contents; baked-clay

objects, which conduct heat and resist thermal shock

when tempered with plant fibres, might have been

successfully used for the same purpose, as has been

demonstrated by Jones in ethnoarchaeological experi-

ments (Jones 1998).13 Jones additionally proved that

baked-clay objects are able to bring water to a boil in

non-ceramic containers. In the American south-east,

perforated soapstone cooking stones which were first

interpreted as net sinkers are now understood as heating

elements; perforations enabled the use of sticks or antlers

for easy manipulation to transport them from fire to pot

(Sassaman 1995, 229 and figure 18.4, mentioning

ethnographical examples). Given this proven capabilityto boil water with preheated cooking stones and baked-

clay objects, it is worth reconsidering the baked-clay

objects found within Starevo-Cri contexts: the net

sinkers, loom weights and crudely shaped balls that have

been found at several Starevo-Cri sites in Romania (e.g.

several sites in the Banat (Lazarovici 1969, figure 2;

1979, 28f., plate 4: H)). Similar baked-clay objects (often

perforated) turn up in Krs assemblages as well:

Tiszajen (Raczky 1976, figure 3, 1315) and Maroslele-

Pana (Trogmayer 1964, figure 10.7). Where neither the

characterisation of net sinkers nor of loom weights can

be established conclusively (i.e. where baked-clay netsinkers are impractical), the potential use of these objects

for indirect moist heating takes on a greater potential.

Along with my assumption of the local development

from the Mesolithic into the early Neolithic, we might

consider the use of cooking stones and ceramic pots as

reflecting cooking methods in non-ceramic containers

during the Mesolithic. Obviously, the adoption of pottery

within Starevo-Cri society was full-hearted; however, I

suggest that its use was no more than an addition to

existing ways of life. It is not so much that the existing

technology became unsuitable or unsatisfactory, as Rice

put it (1999, 40), as it is that pottery was found suitable

to fulfil needs that could be met while people wereresident. Ceramics could have had various practical

advantages over non-ceramic materials (see Arnolds list

1985, 12842); an important one is that pots are not

worn out so rapidly by new tasks (Crown and Willis

1995, 244). Being semi-sedentary, people were rapidly

enabled to perceive qualities of pottery (e.g. stability,

taste, durability in terms of attrition) that outweighed

any potential disadvantage (e.g. reduced portability,

friability, heaviness) when compared to baskets, wooden

or leather containers.

Conclusions

The adoption of pottery, at a fully developed level,

suggests that there existed mechanisms that enabled craft-

persons to successfully insert ceramics into society. Such

people must have had knowledge of local clay-sources,

slips, pigments (red ochre, manganese, white paint), fibre

tempers, fuels, and so on. Furthermore, the adoption of

pottery presupposes the societys willingness and

readiness to embrace the innovation. In the hypothetical

case of cooking pots, as discussed above, the innovation

existed alongside existing practices of heating foodstuffs/

liquids in non-ceramic containers. Within a semi-

sedentary society such as the Starevo-Cri communities,

possibly both techniques of cooking continued to be used


6/8

Laurens Thissen76

simultaneously. People may have used the old ways of

cooking (in non-ceramic containers) while groups were

mobile and used the new method of cooking (in pottery

vessels) only while resident.

Such a network possibly covered the lower Danube

catchment at least from the Iron Gates in the west toeastern Romania. Within such a network may have

featured sites in northern Bulgaria (e.g. Kremikovci,

Gradeshnitsa-Malo Pole and Devetaki Cave), as well as

the fully agricultural sites of Bulgarian Thrace. Specific

technological traits of pot manufacture in the lower Danube

area resemble those known at Karanovo: coil-manufacture

and firing methods for preserving the red ochre slips

(Nikolov 1997, 106); and the covering of the insides of

surface-roughened pots with diluted clay-slips (Nikolov

1997, 110).14 A key mover towards the adoption of farming

and pottery in the lower Danube area may have been more

stable, typically agricultural communities in the SofiaBasin and over the Balkan range in Bulgarian Thrace,

where the Maritsa Plain was settled 58005700 cal BC.

Pottery in Starevo-Cri society was probably

introduced or adopted concurrently with the new

subsistence techniques, and although there is no direct

causal relationship between these two phenomena (Rice

1999, 10), initial pottery-use in the early Neolithic lower

Danube area can be linked practically to the preparation

and boiling of (potentially new) vegetable foods with meat

being prepared according to existing practice (e.g.

roasting, grilling, pit-cooking). If we want to explain the

emergence of pottery in the lower Danube, then we must

also explain the emergence of farming. The origins forsubsistence change in the Danube region may rest on

increased seasonal floodings that transformed

riverineregions, providing more varied and abundant

disturbed habitats for pioneer plant colonisation (Rice

1999, 24). Expanding on Bonsall et al.s argument thatdue to the increase of seasonal floodings people

abandoned their existing settlements and moved them to

higher locations (Bonsall et al. 2002, 4), we canhypothesise that in the first half of the sixth millennium

cal BC, people began looking for alternative subsistence

methods in order to counteract growing instability of the

riparian resources.

Notes

1 Since 2001 I have participated in the Southern Romanian

Archaeological Project (Bailey et al. 1999; 2001; 2002) asa ceramics analyst. The Neolithic pottery from the site

Teleor 003, currently being excavated within SRAP,

provides the basis for the thoughts ventured here.

Funding for SRAP comes from the British Academy,

Cardiff University and the Teleorman County Council

(Romania).

2 But a scatter of flint, without associated sherds, on the

Vedea River terrace near the modern town of Alexandria

might be of Mesolithic date (Pavel Mirea pers. comm.).3 At locations that provided some time depth, Mesolithic

sites are usually directly covered by Neolithic layers that

produced pottery datable to Starevo IIIII (Milojis

periodisation). This is the case at the sites of Schela

Cladovei (Boronean 1990; Bonsall et al. 1997; 2000),Ostrovul Corbului, Ostrovul Banului, Dubova-Cuina

Turcului and Icoana (Boronean 1970, 25; Nica 1977, 13).

It is of course also the case at Lepenski Vir, Padina, and

Vlasac, among others (Radovanovi 1996).

4 Also see Chapman (1989, 513) for the early Neolithic

Danube floodplain site of Basarabi, which was hidden by

2m of alluvial deposit see also Nica 1971, 547f.

5 The same authors refer also to large pits on Upper

Palaeolithic sites in Central Russia which have been

interpreted as facilities for storing meat (Rowley-Conwy

and Zvelebil 1989, 55).

6 Despite dealing with quite prosaic material, I am acting as

the archaeologist as connoisseur (Shanks 1993). My

assessment of the pottery conforms to connoisseurship

based on intuition, long-term handling and reading around

the material (Shanks 1993).7 I am directed to this idea by a possible parallel in the

Karanovo III assemblages from the type site, where large

storage vessels as they are labelled, seem to be

(exclusively?) linked with finger-impressed appliqu ridges

either running around the body of the vessels or applied

randomly (Nikolov 1997, plates. 41: 16, 51: 1, 58: 7, 60

62, among many others).

8 Surface-level houses are, for instance, excavated at

Glvnetii Vechi (Coma 1978), Poieneti (Mantu 1991),

Bal (Popuoi 1980), Verbia, Trestiana (Popuoi 1983),

Ocna Sibiului (Paul 1995), eua (Ciut 2000), and many

more (see Ursulescu 1988 for an overview).

9 The discrete distribution of burnt daub might indicate that

houses were set on fire intentionally, possibly at the end of

their use-lifes (see Tringham this volume).

10 Dependence on cattle in favour of sheep/goat is also attested

for early Neolithic Romanian Banat sites (see El Susi 1996,

218); similar conclusions were reached for the sites of

Glvnetii Vechi (Coma 1978, 13) and Verbia (Coma

1959, 176). A domination of cattle was noted also in the

Moldavian Republic (Dergachev et al. 1991). Bolomey(1976) notes a high ratio of cattle breeding in Crcea-La

Hanuri, and frequent killings of young animals under two

years. This is in contrast with early Neolithic evidence

from Schela Cladovei, where there is preponderance of

sheep/goat and fishing (Bartosiewicz et al. 1995, 12),

although, even here, cattle rank second among domesticanimal remains.

11 A big lump of red ochre (diameter 15cm) was found with

a burial at the StarevoCri site of Suceava-Parcul Cetii

(Ursulescu 1978).

12 During the Dudeti period, which follows StarevoCri,

vessels that might be regarded as cooking pots lacked any

fibre tempering, were thinner walled, had simple flat bases

and lacked an interior clay slip.

13 After filling a gourd with roughly four liters of water, I

retrieved a red-hot BCO [BCO = baked clay object; ed.]

from the fire; I hesitantly dropped it into the gourd, half

expecting to hear the muffled whump of a BCO

disintegrating from thermal shock. To my amazement, it

simply hissed and sizzled as though it were a stone. So in

went another, then another Five clay balls brought the


7/8


gourd to a low boil, and resulted in no observable damage

to the clay (Jones 1998).

14 StarevoCri society in the lower Danube area as described

here is roughly contemporaneous to Karanovo III in

Bulgarian Thrace (i.e. about 5700 cal BC), but predating

the parallel phenomena of Karanovo III and Dudeti.

Bibliography

Arnold, D.E. 1985. Ceramic theory and cultural process.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bailey, D.W. 2000. Balka n prehi story. Exc lusion,incorporation and identity. London: Routledge.

Bailey, D.W., Andreescu, R., Howard, A., Macklin, M. and

Mills, S. 2002. Alluvial landscapes in the temperate Balkan

Neolithic: transition to tells. Antiquity 76, 34955.Bailey, D.W., Andreescu, R. and Mills, S. 1999. Southern

Romania Archaeological Project. Preliminary report 1998.Cardiff: School of History and Archaeology, Cardiff

University.Bailey, D., Andreescu, R., Mills, S. and Trick, S. 2001.

Southern Romania Archaeological Project. Secondpreliminary report. Cardiff: School of History andArchaeology, Cardiff University.

Bartosiewicz, L., Bonsall, C., Boronean, V. and Stallibrass,

S. 1995. Schela Cladovei: a preliminary review of the

prehistoric fauna. Mesolithic Miscellany 16, 219.Bolomey, A. 1976. Pe marginea analizei arheoostrologice a

materialului de la Crcea-Dolj. Studii i Cercetri de IstorieVeche i Arheologie 27, 46575.

Bonsall, C., Cook, G., Lennon, R., Harkness, D., Scott, M.,

Bartosiewicz, L. and. McSweeney, K. 2000. Stable isotopes,

radiocarbon and the MesolithicNeolithic transition in theIron Gates. Documenta Praehistorica 27, 119132.Bonsall, C., Lennon, R., McSweeney, K., Stewart, C., Harkness,

D., Boronean, V., Bartosiewicz, L., Payton, R. and

Chapman, J. 1997. Mesolithic and early Neolithic in the

Iron Gates: a palaeodietary perspective.Journal of EuropeanArchaeology 5, 5092.

Bonsall, C., Macklin, M., Payton, R. and Boronean, A. 2002.

Climate, floods and river gods: environmental change and

the MesoNeolithic transition in southeast Europe. BeforeFarming 34, 115.

Bori, D. 1999. Places that created time in the Danube Gorges

and beyond, c. 90005500 BC. Documenta Praehistorica26, 4170.

Boronean, V. 1970. La civilisation Cri de Cuina Turcului.Actes du VIIe Congrs International des SciencesPrhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Prague1966, 407410.

Boronean, V. 1990. Le site de Schela Cladovei: problmes

poss par la transition de la culture Cri-Starevo la culture

Vina. In D. Srejovi and N. Tasi (eds), Vina and itsworld, international symposium. The Danubian region from6000 to 3000 B.C., 1437. Beograd: Serbian Academy ofSciences and Arts.

Braun, D. 1983. Pots as tools. In J. Moore and A. Keene (eds),

Archaeological hammers and theories, 10734. New York:Academic Press.

Brown, J.A. 1989. The beginnings of pottery as an economic

process. In S. van der Leeuw and R. Torrence (eds), Whatsnew? A closer look at the process of innovation, 20324.London: Unwin Hyman.

Chapman, J. 1989. Demographic trends in neothermal south-

east Europe. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe,50015. Edinburgh: John Donald.

Chapman, J. 2000. Pit-digging and structured deposition in the

Neolithic and Copper Age. Proceedings of the PrehistoricSociety 66, 6187.

Ciut, M. 2000. Contribuii la cunoaterea celui mai vechi

orizont al neoliticului timpuriu din Romnia: cultura Precri

descoperirile arheologice de la eua-La crarea morii.

Apulum 37, 51101.Coma, E. 1959. La civilisation Cri sur le territoire de la R. P.

Roumaine. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 1, 17384.Coma, E. 1978. Contribution ltude de la culture Cri en

Moldavie (le site de Glvnetii Vechi). Dacia 22, 936.Crown, P. and Wills, W. 1995. Economic intensification and

the origin of ceramic containers in the American southwest.

In W. Barnett and J. Hoopes (eds), The emergence of pottery.Technology and innovation in ancient societies, 24154.Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Dergachev, V., Sherratt, A. and Larina, O. 1991. Recent resultsof Neolithic research in Moldavia (USSR). Oxford Journalof Archaeology 10, 116.

El Susi, G. 1996. Vntori, Pescari i Cresctori de Animalen Banatul Milenilor vi .Ch I d.Ch. Studiu Arheozoologic(Jger, Fischer und Viehzchter im Banat im 6. Jahrtausendv. Chr. 1. Jahrtausend n. Chr. ArchozoologischesStudium. Timioara: Editura Mirton.

G, G. and Mateescu, C. 19992001. The use of ochre for

pottery decoration in the middle Neolithic at Vdastra.

Dacia 4345, 18395.Jones, S. 1998. More news from the archaic kitchen: the roots

of ceramic technology in North America. World AtlatlMagazine 1 (http://www.atlatl.net/).

Lazarovici, G. 1969. Cultura Starevo-Cri n Banat.Acta MuseiNapocensis 6, 326.

Lazarovici, G. 1979.Neoliticul Banatului. Cluj-Napoca: Muzeulde Istorie al Transilvaniei Cluj.

Lazarovici, G. 1984. Neoliticul timpuriu n Romnia. ActaMusei Porolissensis 8, 49104.

Lichter, C. 1993. Untersuchungen zu den Bauten dessdosteuropischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums.Buch am Erlbach: Verlag Marie L. Leidorf.

Mantu, M. 1991. The Starevo-Cri settlement from Poieneti

(Vaslui County). Banatica 11, 17383.Miller, D. 1985. Artefacts as categories. A study of ceramic

variability in central India. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Nica, M. 1971. O aezare de tip Starevo-Cri lng Basarabi

(Jud. Dolj). Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche i Arheologie22, 54756.

Nica, M. 1977. Nouvelles donnes sur le nolithique ancien

dOltnie. Dacia 21, 1353.Nica, M. and Rdoiescu, L. 2002. Aezri i locuine neolitice

descoperite pe teritoriul Olteniei. Arhivele Olteniei 16, 726.

Nikolov, V. 1997. Die neolithische Keramik. In S. Hiller and

V. Nikolov (eds), Karanovo. Die Ausgrabungen imSdsektor 19841992, 10546. SalzburgSofia: VerlagFerdinand Berger und Shne.

Paul, I. 1995. Vorgeschichtliche Untersuchungen inSiebenbrgen. Alba Iulia: Universitatea Alba Iulia.

Peri, S. 1998. Vieslojna neolitska naselja i problem kulturne


8/8

Laurens Thissen78

stratigrafije neolita na teritoriji Srbije (Mehrschichtige

neolithische Siedlungen und das Problem der

Kulturstratigraphie des Neolithikums in Serbia). Starinar49, 1138.

Popuoi, E. 1980. Sondajul arheologic de la Bal (jud. Iai).

Arheologia Moldovei 9, 717.Popuoi, E. 1983. Spturile arheologice de la Trestiana, com.

Grivia (jud. Vaslui). Materiale i Cercetri Arheologice15, 2836.

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

Raczky, P. 1976. A Krs kultra leletei Tiszajenn.

Archaeologiai rtesit 103, 17189.Rice, P. M. 1999. On the origins of pottery. Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 6, 154.Rowley-Conwy, P. and Zvelebil, M. 1989. Saving it for later:

storage by prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe. In P.

Halstead and J. OShea (eds),Bad year economics: culturalresponses to risk and uncertainty, 4056. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Sassaman, K. 1995. The social contradictions of traditional

and innovative cooking technologies in the prehistoric

American southeast. In W. Barnett and J. Hoopes (eds), Theemergence of pottery. Technology and innovation in ancientsocieties, 22340. Washington: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

Shanks, M. 1993. Style and the design of a perfume jar from an

Archaic Greek city state.Journal of European Archaeology1, 77106.

Schiffer, M. 1990. The influence of surface treatment on heating

effectiveness of ceramic vessels.Journal of Archaeological

Science 17, 37381.Schiffer, M., Skibo, J., Boelke, T., Neupert, M. and Aronson,

M. 1994. New perspectives on experimental archaeology:

surface treatments and thermal response of the clay cooking

pot. American Antiquity 59, 197217.Thomas, J. 1988. Neolithic explanations revisited: the

MesolithicNeolithic transition in Britain and south

Scandinavia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 5966.

Trogmayer, O. 1964. Megjegyzesek a Krs csoport relativ

idrentjehez. Archaeologiai rtesit 91, 6786.Ursulescu, N. 1978. Mormintele Cri de la Suceava-Platoul

cimitirului. Suceava 5, 818.Ursulescu, N. 1988. Unele observaii privind locuinele culturii

Starevo-Cri din Moldova. Hierasus 78, 715.Ursulescu, N. 1993. La typologie et lorganisation des

tablissements des premiers civilisations nolithiques de la

Moldavie. Arheologia Moldovei 16, 1114.Whittle, A. 1997. Moving on and moving around: Neolithic

settlement mobility. In P. Topping (ed.), Neo lith iclandscapes, 1522. Oxford: Oxbow.

Zvelebil, M. 1986. Mesolithic societies and the transition to

farming: problems of time, scale and organisation. In M.

Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition. Mesolithic societiesof temperate Eurasia and their transition to farming, 16788. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zvelebil, M. 1998. Whats in a name: the Mesolithic, the

Neolithic, and social change at the MesolithicNeolithic

transition. In M. Edmonds and C. Richards (eds),

Understanding the Neolithic of north-western Europe, 136. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.

ch8 laurens thissen

Documents