31
This PDF file of your paper in Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe belongs to the publishers Oxbow Books and is their copyright. As author you are licenced to make up to 50 offprints from it, but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide Web or in any other form.

2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

This PDF file of your paper in Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe belongs to the publishers Oxbow Books and is their copyright.

As author you are licenced to make up to 50 offprints from it, but beyond that you may not publish it on the World Wide Web or in any other form.

Page 2: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic
Page 3: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Living Well Together?Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic

of South-East and Central Europe

Edited by Douglass W. Bailey, Alasdair Whittle

and Daniela Hofmann

Oxbow Books

Page 4: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Published byOxbow Books, Oxford

© Oxbow Books and the individual authors, 2008

ISBN 978-1-84217-267-4

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

This book is available direct from

Oxbow Books, Oxford

and

The David Brown Book CompanyPO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA

Phone:860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468

or from our website

www.oxbowbooks.com

Cover design: Douglass Bailey

Printed in Great Britain byHobbs the Printers, Southampton

Page 5: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

List of Contributors ....................................................................................................................................... v

1. Livingwelltogether?QuestionsofdefinitionandscaleintheNeolithic of south-east and central Europe Douglass Bailey and Alasdair Whittle .......................................... 1

2. IlıpınarandMenteşe:earlysettlementintheeasternMarmararegion Jacob Roodenberg and Songül Alpaslan-Roodenberg ......................................................................... 8

3. Household dynamics and variability in the Neolithic of Greece: the case for a bottom-up approach Stella Souvatzi ............................................................................ 17

4. Tell settlements: a pattern of landscape occupation in the Lower Danube Radian-Romus Andreescu and Pavel Mirea ....................................................................................... 28

5. LateNeolithicspatialdifferentiationatPolgár-Csőszhalom,easternHungary Pál Raczky and Alexandra Anders ...................................................................................................... 35

6. Uivar:alateNeolithic–earlyEneolithicfortifiedtellsiteinwesternRomania Wolfram Schier .................................................................................................................................... 54

7. Meet the ancestors: settlement histories in the Neolithic John Chapman .................................................................................................................................... 68

8. The view from the village: the context of tell mapping and habitual visibility Steven Trick ......................................................................................................................................... 81

9. EarlyNeolithicpotteryproductioninRomania:GuraBaciului andŞeuşaLa-CărareaMorii(Transylvania)Michela Spataro .......................................................... 91

10. Material culture traditions and identity Elisabetta Starnini ............................................................................................................................. 101

11. SedentarypastoralgatherersintheearlyNeolithic:architectural,botanical,andzoological evidenceformobileeconomiesfromFoeni-Salaş,south-westRomania Haskel J. Greenfield and Tina Jongsma ........................................................................................... 108

12. CrophusbandryanditssocialsignificanceintheKörösandLBKcultures Amy Bogaard, Joanna Bending and Glynis Jones ............................................................................ 131

13. Inter-generationaltransmissionofcultureandLBKorigins:someindications from eastern-central Europe Alena Lukes and Marek Zvelebil .......................................................... 139

14. The boundary in western Transdanubia: variations of migration and adaptation Eszter Bánffy ...................................................................................................................................... 151

15. PerspectivesonthebeginningsoftheearliestLBKineast-centralEurope Eva Lenneis ........................................................................................................................................ 164

Contents

Page 6: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic
Page 7: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Amy BogaardSchool of Archaeology 36 Beaumont Street Oxford OX1 [email protected]

John ChapmanDepartment of Archaeology SouthRoadDurham DH1 3LE [email protected]

Haskel J. GreenfieldDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of ManitobaFletcher Argue 435Winnipeg,[email protected]

Daniela HofmannSchool of History and ArchaeologyCardiff UniversityHumanities BuildingColum DriveCardiff CF10 [email protected]

Glynis JonesDepartment of Archaeology UniversityofSheffield Northgate House West Street SheffieldS14ET [email protected]

Tina Jongsma Department of AnthropologyUniversity of ManitobaFletcher Argue 435Winnipeg,[email protected]

Songül Alpaslan-RoodenbergNetherlands Institute for the Near East University of LeidenP.O. Box 9515 2300RALeidenNetherlands

Alexandra AndersHAS-ELTEResearchGroupforInterdisciplinaryStudiesMúzeumkrt.4/B.1088 [email protected]

Radian-Romus Andreescu RomanianNationalMuseumofHistoryCaleaVictoriei,nr.12Sect.3,codpoştal030026Bucureş[email protected]

Douglass Bailey School of History and ArchaeologyCardiff UniversityHumanities BuildingColum DriveCardiff CF10 [email protected]

Eszter BánffyHungarian Academy of SciencesNádor u. 71051 Budapest [email protected]

Joanna BendingDepartment of Archaeology UniversityofSheffield Northgate House West Street SheffieldS14ET [email protected]

List of Contributors

Page 8: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Stella SouvatziHellenic Open [email protected]

Michela SpataroInstitute of Archaeology University College London 31–34 Gordon Square London WC1H [email protected]

Elisabetta StarniniDepartment of Archaeology and Classical PhilologyUniversity of [email protected]

Steven TrickDepartment of Environmental ScienceInstitute of Technology, [email protected]

Alasdair WhittleSchool of History and ArchaeologyCardiff UniversityHumanities BuildingColum DriveCardiff CF10 [email protected]

Marek ZvelebilDepartment of Archaeology UniversityofSheffield Northgate House West Street SheffieldS14ET [email protected]

Eva LenneisUniversitätsdozentatInstitutfürUr-undFrühgeschichteUniversität [email protected]

Alena LukesDepartment of Archaeology UniversityofSheffield Northgate House West Street SheffieldS14ET [email protected]

Pavel MireaTeleorman County Museum of History ul. 1848, nr. 17700 [email protected]

Pál RaczkyELTE Institute of Archaeological SciencesMúzeumkrt.4/B.1088 [email protected]

Jacob RoodenbergNetherlands Institute for the Near East University of LeidenP.O. Box 9515 [email protected]

Wolfram SchierFreieUniversitätBerlin,InstitutfürPrähistorischeArchäologieAltensteinstrasse 15D-14195 Berlin [email protected]

Page 9: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

11.  Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the early Neolithic: architectural, botanical, and zoological evidence for mobile economies from Foeni-Salaş, south-west Romania

Haskel J. Greenfield and Tina Jongsma

IntroductionThis paper examines the nature of early Neolithic settlement in  temperate  south-east  Europe  by  summarising  and discussing  the  results  of  the  1992–1994  survey  and excavation at the early Neolithic Starčevo-Criş culture site of Foeni-Salaş, south-west Romania. Work at Foeni-Salaş marks the first use of systematic survey, excavation and recovery procedures during the investigation of a Starčevo-Criş site. This paper demonstrates that houses at early Neolithic Foeni-Salaş were semi-subterranean in form and distributed  in a semicircle around a  larger pit-house and a central open space. Pit-houses are cross-culturally associated with mobile economies. Together with the absence of storage facilities, the heavily domesticated fauna appropriate for a mobile economy, and low frequencies of domestic flora, the pit-houses at Foeni-Salaş imply that early Neolithic  societies  in  temperate  south-east Europe (Serbia, northern Bulgaria, southern Romania) were fundamentally different from those of the Mediterranean littoral (Greece and southern Bulgaria). Support for this assertion will come from comparative data from other sites in the region. Results of the work at Foeni-Salaş lead to important new conclusions concerning the nature of Starčevo-Criş settlement and subsistence at the time when food producing societies spread into the vast plains of south-east and central Europe.   The early Neolithic painted pottery cultures (Karanovo I-Kremikovici-Starčevo-Criş-Körös) of south-east Europe (Fig. 1) have long been recognised as the archaeological manifestations  of  the  earliest  European  food  producing societies north of the Mediterranean littoral. They have long been synonymous with the spread of food production from the Aegean northwards into the temperate environments of central Europe (Tringham 1971). In the central Balkans, an  essentially  Near  Eastern/Mediterranean  complex  of domestic plants and animals was readapted to a temperate

central European environment (Greenfield 1993; Whittle 1996). Within 500 years, food producing economies rapidly spread throughout much of temperate central, western and northern Europe (Bogucki 1988; 1996).   Other  than  demonstrating  the  early  importance  of domestic economies to these cultures and the changes in material  culture  (i.e. the appearance of ceramics), most research on the cultural complexes in the central Balkans and neighbouring areas (Starčevo-Körös-Criş in Serbia, south-east Hungary, and south-west Romania) has focussed on external chronological relationships and internal sub-phasing (e.g. Ehrich and Bankoff 1990; Gimbutas 1974; 1976; Garašanin 1983; Lazarovici 1979; Srejović 1979). Few studies have attempted to assess the nature of early Neolithic regional settlement patterns (e.g. Barker 1975; 1985; Chapman 1990; Kosse 1979; Nandris 1976; Sherratt 1982). Even the nature of residential structures in such sites still remains under debate (Ehrich 1977 versus Garašanin 1983). Because previous excavations did not systematically collect, record or publish the exact distribution of excavated materials in a manner which would allow reconstruction of  early  Neolithic  intra-settlement  social  and  economic organisation, little is known of the internal (intra-settlement) economic  and  social  organisation  of  these  early  food producing communities (cf. Chapman 1989). To learn more about these elements in these communities required the excavation of a  single-phase early Neolithic  site. To reconstruct the internal social and economic organisation of a single early Neolithic settlement required the mapping, in situ,  of  the distributions of  features and artefacts  and thus the documentation of relationships between different types  of  features  and  their  associated  artefacts.  Before the work at Foeni-Salaş, such a programme had never been undertaken at a Starčevo-Körös-Criş culture, early agricultural site. With few exceptions in the early Neolithic of the

Page 10: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

11. Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the early Neolithic 109

northern Balkans, there are two major settlement types (tells and flat sites), which are geographically separated (Chapman 1989). The east Balkan (or Bulgarian) tell sites (Karanovo I-Kremikovci cultures; Bailey and Panayotov 1995) appear in large measure to be a continuation of the Near  Eastern  settlement  type.  Because  of  the  excellent preservation  of  structures  and  the  Bulgarian  tradition of  conducting  large-scale  horizontal  exposures,  most research  on  intra-settlement  organization  in  this  region has  focussed  on  the  tell  sites  of  the  Karanovo  culture. However, the unsystematic nature of artefact collection

and  recording  has  frustrated  attempts  to  understand  the spatial distribution of activity areas within sites. Flat sites (with laterally displaced stratigraphy) are generally found west and north of the Bulgarian culture groups and are associated with the Starčevo-Körös-Criş cultures in Serbia, eastern Bosnia and Croatia, southern Romania, and south-east Hungary (Greenfield and Draşovean 1994; Kosse 1979; Sherratt 1982). Recently, flat sites have been investigated in Greece (Halstead 1999); they represent a new settlement type for early agriculturalists in the southern Balkans. As early agriculturalists began

100 km

Mediterranean Sea

Aegean Sea

Adriatic Sea

Black Sea

Athens

Sofia

BucharestBeograd

Budapest

Sava R.

Drina R

.

Morava R.

Tisza

R.

Körös R.

Olt R.

Danube R.

Vardar R.

20˚

20˚

1

Timisoara¸

Mures R.¸

Danube R.

Drava R.

Timis R.¸

green�eld1.ai

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

1011

Figure 1. Locations of sites mentioned in the text: 1) Anza; 2) Blagotin; 3) Divostin; 4) Vinča; 5) Starčevo; 6) Foeni-Salaş; 7) Ocna-Sibiului; 8) Gura Baciului; 9) Donja Branjevina; 10) Cuina Turcului; 11) Lepenski Vir.

Page 11: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Haskel J. Greenfield and Tina Jongsma 110

to explore the more open landscape to the north and west of Bulgaria, they found fewer constraints upon settlement spread and reoccupation of locations. Since flat sites are often  thought  to  have  been  disturbed  by  later  processes such as ploughing, prehistorians who were interested in spatial processes ignored studying them. This paper reconsiders the nature of the flat (Starčevo-Körös-Criş) sites through the excavations at Foeni-Salaş and uses data from the site to argue that the appearance of flat sites represents a shift from more sedentary to more mobile forms of settlement.

The site of Foeni-SalaşA collaborative program of survey and excavation at Foeni-Salaş was carried out by the University of Manitoba and Museum of the Banat from 1992–1994 under the direction of Dr. Haskel J. Greenfield (University of Manitoba) and Dr. Florin Draşovean (Museum of the Banat). This paper summarises the data from the project in relation to early Neolithic settlement activity. Foeni-Salaş is an early Neolithic site in the south-west part of the Romanian

Banat (Fig. 2). It is radiocarbon dated to approximately 7250 BP (c. 5350–5140 cal BC). The earlier dates in the distribution are considered to be less reliable since there is little evidence of clustering and they all come from the same deposits. The site appears to have been occupied for a short period of time (c. 100 years) during the Starčevo-Criş culture and then abandoned until the early Iron Age, after which it was abandoned once again until the early Medieval (fourth–fifth century AD) and Late Medieval periods (tenth–eleventh century AD). While the later periods at the site are heavily disturbed, the early Neolithic is more or less intact and was not subject to erosion. Situated on top of a low mound surrounded by modern agricultural fields, the site has a single occupation level, the shallow depth of which allowed the excavators to open a large area of the site in three summers of field work; excavation methodology was designed to acquire a better  understanding of  the  socio-economic  and  spatial organisation of an early Neolithic community. Furthermore, the site is important because of its ephemeral nature (it was occupied for a very short time), and, as such, it is particularly useful for increasing our understanding of the spatial aspects of the early Neolithic social-economic organisation.

Physical geography and surroundingsFoeni-Salaş is 3 km north of the modern village of Foeni in the county of Timiş (Banat province, Romania); the village of Foeni lies approximately 45 km south-west of Timişoara, the capital of the Banat. The Banat is the south-eastern-most area of Pannonia, the ancient and politically neutral name for the plain that sits within the arc formed by the Carpathian, Alpine, and Dinaric mountain ranges. The site of Foeni-Salaş lies alongside the asphalt road between the villages of Foeni and Ionel, and is approximately 3 km from the Serbian border; site coordinates are 20° 51′ 32.05″ east longitude and 45° 31′ 13.76″ north latitude and 80 m (241 feet) asl (Greenfield and Draşovean 1994). The site lies in the midst of the flat alluvial plain that runs between the Timiş and Bega Rivers; the altitude of the Timiş plain is c. 80 m asl (Greenfield and Draşovean 1994). In the nineteenth century, the Timişat stream and the Bega and Timiş rivers were channelled and large areas of the plain were drained. What today is rich agricultural land was formerly swamp and marsh. The site currently lies in a region with a central European type climate (Fig. 3); summers are wet and hot and the winters are moist and cold with winds coming from the Russian steppes over the  mountains  and  across  the  plains.  Although  modern moisture  levels  for  this  region  are  relatively  high,  the Banat receives less moisture than do the western and northern areas of the plain because of the Carpathians’ rain shadow effect which blocks moisture coming from the east. Precipitation is highest in July, declines in August and September, and rises again in October and November; there are 120–130 days of rain and 15–20 of snow per year (Zăvoianu 1979, 38, 41).

Pancevo

Zrenjanin

Kikinda Timisoara

Zemun

Foeni

S E R B I A

DELIBLATSKA PESCARA

R O M A N I A

Beograd

Smederevo

100

100

300

100

300

100100

300

100100

DUNAV

SAVA

TAMIS

TIMIS

BEGEJ

CANALUL BEGA

TISA

MO

RA

VA

BEGA

0 50 km

N

green�eld2.ai

Figure 2. The Banat region in Serbia and Romania (south-east Pannonia), showing the location of the village of Foeni in relation to major landforms in the immediate region.

Page 12: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

11. Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the early Neolithic 111

Physical description of the siteFoeni-Salaş is located on the south-west half of a low rise that runs south-west–north-east along a natural hill which reaches c. 5 m above the flood plain (Fig. 4). The rise is a remnant of a large-scale loess terrace that forms the western edge of the floodplain of the Timişat, a tributary stream of the Timiş River (Greenfield and Draşovean 1994). Though the early Neolithic site is small (c. half a hectare), the systematic surface collection (Fig. 5) gave the impression that the site was much larger, an impression generated from distributions of Medieval material along the northern half of the site and from the down-slope movement of material in the southern half of the site. Some of the highest densities of the later (Dacian and Medieval) material were found at the bottom of the southern slope, and all were out of context. This is the only part of the site with a relatively steep slope and in which later deposits were eroded. The early Neolithic settlement of Foeni-Salaş is small (c. 2000 sq. m; Fig. 6) and oriented towards the south, facing a palaeochannel or oxbow of the Timişat, which, in the past, wrapped itself around  the  southern  and  eastern  sides of  the  site. Today, the Timişat has been straightened and channelled and lies about 100 m east of the site. The site slopes steeply on the east and south, and gently towards the west and north down to the modern day cultivated fields. The objective of the excavation was to investigate a

single  early  Neolithic  settlement  by  mapping  features and artefacts in a way which allowed analysis of intra-settlement variation as well as the reconstruction of early Neolithic social and economic organisation. Across the top of the natural rise at Foeni-Salaş, a grid was laid out with macro-blocks measuring 20 × 20 m (Figs 4–6) and divided into 5 × 5 m trench areas, which were further subdivided into  1  × 1 m quads. Quads were used as the standard minimal  spatial  unit  for  collecting  remains,  although  in practice they were often further subdivided. Each 5 × 5 m trench contained 25 quads. It was felt that larger sized units would mask small-scale artefact spatial patterns. All material within each quad was separately described, bagged and labelled for further analysis.   Depending on the nature, context and visibility of each stratum, excavation was by a combination of natural and artificial stratigraphic units. The plough zone was removed as an occasionally subdivided 30 cm unit with picks and shovels. Each subsequent horizon was removed with trowels and small handpicks; spades and shovels were used if the horizon was culturally sterile. Unless there were noticeable changes  in  soil  colour  or  texture,  levels  underneath  the plough zone were excavated in arbitrary horizontal 10 cm thick layers. Small tools were used for more delicate work

0 100 200

km

TransitionalMediterraneanWarm Humid Cool HumidWest Coast Marine

Highland

green�eld3.ai

Figure 3. Major climatic zones in south-east Europe (after Pounds 1969).

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

Site North

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

0 20 40 60 80

149 150 151

129 130 131

170

X

green�eld4.ai

Figure 4. Topographic map of the site at Foeni-Salaş, with 20 × 20 m. blocks. X = base datum (SURFER 8 generated).

Page 13: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Haskel J. Greenfield and Tina Jongsma 112

Figure 5. Extent of site based on frequency distribution of all surface ceramics from all periods (SURFER 8 generated) (5 ceramics/contour).

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

Site North

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

green�eld5.ai

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

Site North

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

green�eld6.ai

Figure 6. Extent of site based on frequency distribution of early Neolithic Starčevo ceramics (SURFER 8 generated) (5 ceramics/contour).

such  as  cleaning  concentrations  (e.g. trowels, spatulas, brushes, brooms, dustpans, dental picks, and spoons). When artefact concentrations were noticed, all large remains were drawn to scale on trench plans and elevations were taken of the bottom of the relevant level or cut. Each major stratigraphic unit was termed a locus and was assigned its own locus number. When differences in soil  types, both inside and outside of features, and inside and outside of artefact concentrations were noted, each unit was separately excavated and designated as a locus. Some loci extended across the entire site, while others were more limited. All of the soil from the cultural horizons was sieved with 1 cm mesh. Soil from culturally important deposits (i.e. pits, fireplaces) was collected, sieved, and a sample taken for flotation. Areas that had traces of charcoal or burnt soil were also sampled for flotation and radiocarbon analysis.

TaphonomyAt Foeni-Salaş, the most important taphonomic agent was rodents, whose activity was intense. Rodent burrows riddle  all  strata  of  the  site,  often  blurring  stratigraphic distinctions, moving artefacts down as much as 50 cm, and

even destroying areas of the trenches overnight during the project. Rodents seem to have a preference for deposits with high organic content. Burrows perforated the edges of the Starčevo-Criş pit complexes, destroying walls and floors to the extent that they became indistinguishable from the surrounding strata; many postholes appear to have been incorporated into, or eradicated by, rodent burrows. Modern (and ancient) ploughing was another important taphonomic agent. Ancient ploughing is evident across the site in Locus 4 (Greenfield and Draşovean 1994), while modern disturbance has created a two-level plough zone down to 30 cm from the surface. Current ploughing with a relatively shallow plough (20–30 cm deep) still brings artefacts to the surface. The effects of a deeper shovel-like plough (extending to 50–60 cm) are also evident (Greenfield and Draşovean 1994) (Fig. 7). A third taphonomic factor is the destruction of the Neolithic layers by later occupants at the site (i.e. Eneolithic, Middle Bronze Age, early Iron Age, Dacian and Medieval periods). Most extensive are early Iron Age activities, which destroyed parts of several early Neolithic pits, and Medieval ploughing (in Locus 4) which incorporated the top of the early Neolithic deposit (Fig. 8).

Page 14: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

11. Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the early Neolithic 113

Main stratigraphic sequenceExcavation and auguring defined the following five easily distinguished  natural  and  cultural  horizons  that  extend across the site (Fig. 8). Locus 12 represents a thick deposit of  Pleistocene  loess. At  the  end  of  the  Pleistocene,  the upper loess horizon was colonised by vegetation. The resulting soil modification caused by the vegetative growth and the accumulation of detritus caused the formation of the overlying Locus 5, a horizon that probably represents the first post-Pleistocene humus at the site. Locus 2 overlays Locus 5 and is contemporary with the site’s first occupants (Starčevo-Criş), who settled on top of the post-Pleistocene Locus 5 horizon. Locus 2 extends across the site and marks the Starčevo-Criş exterior living horizon and contains large and small features (i.e. Loci 7, 10, 23, 25, 40, 50) (Fig. 9). To build their structures, the Neolithic occupants dug into and through Loci 5 and 12. After the Starčevo-Criş occupation, the site was abandoned for more than 2000 years. The next major pan-site horizon is Locus 4, a Medieval plough zone extending across the site and 

incorporating ceramic material from each of the preceding phases. There are no pan-site horizons from the intervening periods (Eneolithic, Bronze Age, Halstatt, or Dacian); their deposits and remains are incorporated into or truncated by Locus 4, and the artefacts are not in primary contexts. The only features to remain intact from the earlier periods are found below the Medieval plough zone. Locus 1 overlies all deposits and is the modern plough zone. 

Starčevo-Criş featuresAll of the Starčevo-Criş features were found in the southern half of the site, facing the old river channel which ran to the south and east of the site. Most features are pits, though some appear to be remains of surface structures. Five pits (Loci 7, 10, 24, 41, and 50) are mid-sized and arranged in a semicircle around the perimeter of the site. In the centre of the arc of pits, there is a large open space; in the open space were a large pit (Locus 23), a small pit (Locus 25), a surface feature with a low artefact density and packed

Stan

ding

Pro

file

Standing Profile

Standing Profile

Stan

ding

Pro

file

Stan

ding

Pro

file

Border

Bottom Edge

Bottom Edge Ditch 1

Standing Profile

Bottom Edge

Border

Excavated

May 1993

Locus 5

Bottom Edge

Ditch 1Ditch 1

Locus 8Locus 1

Border

green�eld7.ai

Figure 7. Locus 2 artefact distribution excavated in 1993 in trenches 131A, B, E, F and J. Note plough marks in 131J.

Page 15: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Haskel J. Greenfield and Tina Jongsma 114

dirt (Locus 52), and a large surface concentration of bone and ceramics (Locus 51) (Fig. 9). Locus 7 is a pit feature that combines the stratigraphically differentiated Sub-loci 14, 16 and 17. Sub-locus 14 is the upper fill of the Locus 7 pit complex. Sub-locus 16 is the middle fill of Locus 7 and is distinguishable by its unique contents: almost 10,000 snail shells, a smaller number of mussel shells, Starčevo-Criş ceramics, and mammal bones. At the bottom of the Locus 7 pit is Sub-locus 17, which is a living horizon; trapezoidal in form, 5 × 4 m in size, aligned north-south.  Sub-locus  17  contains  remnants  of  a  small domed oven and has post-holes around its perimeter.

Locus 10 is another mid-sized pit complex: 4 m wide, aligned east-west, and trapezoidal in form. As with Locus 7, Locus 10 has comparable material and a three-part content. In its centre was a small central hearth-like feature, and around the perimeter were a few postholes. Locus 24 is a third mid-sized pit complex. Trapezoidal in shape, 7 × 6 m, aligned north-south, the locus contained a fire pit at the southern end and was heavily disturbed by early Iron Age and Eneolithic activities. Locus 41 is the fourth mid-sized pit complex (4 × 4 m). Though it was badly disturbed by early Iron Age pits, a few postholes were noted, as was the presence of a central

Q 23 Q 22 Q21

Locus 05

Locus 07 (14)

Locus 04

L 02

Locus 01

L 02

Locus 12

Post Holes

80.60

80.80

81.00

81.20

81.40

81.60

80.60

80.80

81.00

81.20

81.40

81.60

Figure 11: South Profile of 131F

green�eld8.ai

Figure 8. Southern profile of 131F illustrating typical stratigraphy across the site.

Locus 50

20 0 20 m 40 m.0

greenfield9.ai

Locus 10

Locus 24

Locus 23

Locus 41 Locus 7

Figure 9. Map of early Neolithic pit house features at Foeni-Salaş. Each square represents one 1 m quad.

Page 16: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

11. Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the early Neolithic 115

fire pit; it is the only mid-sized pit complex not filled with debris. Located between Loci 10 and 41, Locus 50 is the fifth mid-sized pit complex. Discovered during auguring on the last day of the final field season (and thus not excavated), it is trapezoidal, 2 m deep, of Starčevo-Criş date and contains snail shells, animal bones, and ceramics; it is thus similar in size, shape, and contents to Loci 7 and 10. Twelve metres in diameter, Locus 23 is the largest pit  complex,  is  circular  in  shape,  contains  a  tripartite stratigraphy,  a  large  dome-shaped  oven  and  a  large centrally-located fire pit in its lowest layer, and has postholes around its perimeter. Locus 25 is a small (1 m diameter) storage pit containing a concentration of Starčevo-Criş storage ceramics; Locus 25 is connected to Locus 2, and extends slightly beneath it. Locus 51 is the remains of a large circular-shaped surface deposit of Starčevo-Criş ceramics and a few bones. Possible postholes were associated with its perimeter and we have interpreted it as a possible weaving hut. Locus 52 is interpreted as a livestock enclosure (corral) due to the perimeter of postholes, the uneven surface, and the highly compacted light-coloured soil. Locus 53 is a surface concentration of daub not associated with architectural features or artefact concentrations, and may  represent  the  remains  of  a  small,  above-ground structure made of daub and used for storage. The mid-sized and large pit complexes (Loci 7, 10, 24, 41, 50 and 23 respectively) are semi-subterranean Starčevo-Criş structures. Each has a similar stratigraphic sequence with a basal (living) horizon, a dense middle fill, and probably an overlying lower density deposit. Interestingly, the density of remains in the living horizon tends to be the lowest. After the abandonment of the living horizon, the pit was filled with refuse which became the focus for rodents and other scavengers. The refuse fill layer is followed by a deposit that probably represents roof collapse; this was followed by a final silting in of the pit (with washed in cultural residue) which occurred after site abandonment. Similar sequences are seen at Blagotin (Greenfield and Jongsma 2006; Hayden 1997). Locus 23 was the largest structure found at Foeni-Salaş, and all of the other features are arranged in a semicircle around it, almost equidistant from the centre of the open area. Also in the centre of the arc of structures was the small storage pit (Locus 25).

Reconstructing structure type and locationFor almost 70 years, since the first Starčevo-Criş pit-complexes were identified, there has been a debate over the nature of early Neolithic  structures. Opinion divides between the local specialists who argue for the presence of pit-houses (e.g. Bogdanović 1988; Garašanin 1983) and western prehistorians who argue that the pits are borrow pits used to obtain building materials for now destroyed

surface-houses (e.g. Ehrich 1977). The data from Foeni-Salaş contribute to resolving this debate.   Based upon ethnographic analogies from this and other regions of the world (cf. Gilman 1987; Jongsma 1997), a  pit  must  possess  particular  characteristics  for  it  to  be defined as a living structure. First, it must have evidence of being covered (i.e. postholes must exist around the edges and/or inside to support a roof). Second, it must have a definable shape (e.g. pit sides must be relatively vertical and steep to maximise walking space under the roof and to prevent water from running in). Third, there should be a slight hump of soil around the outside edges to prevent mud from washing in during a rain storm. Fourth, there should be material lying in situ on the floor and not merely floating in the sediment. Fifth, there may be some kind of soil bench around the edge. Each of the mid- and large-sized pits at Foeni-Salaş fits these criteria. First,  they contain a central and perimeter postholes beyond steeply inclined pit edges. Pits were dug vertically or at slight inward angles. Second, these Foeni-Salaş pits have a common shape (circular or sloppy trapezoid), with sharply inclined sides on the sides of the structure. Third, entrances to the pits are evident; the floor in Locus 7 slopes gradually downwards from east to west, implying that the pit was entered from the east. Fourth, basal  living horizons are distinguishable  from overlying fills. Starčevo-Criş phase ceramics, artefacts, and bones were found in situ on the floor. There are relatively few snail shells in the basal horizon, while the overlying middle horizons  tend  to have high densities of snail  shells. The original floor of the pit-house is found along the bottom of  the pit,  and extends on  to  the  surrounding  shelf. The material floating higher up in the locus probably represents material that filled the pit-house after it was abandoned and collapsed.  Fifth,  internal  features  are  evident,  including central hearths, peripheral domed ovens, and soil benches and shelves; there is a large loess-like bench along the northern edge of Locus 7, and, when it was dug by its occupants, soil was piled in a hump around the pit’s edges to form benches. Loci 7 and 23 (Fig. 10) contained two clay domed ovens; both were on the sides of the pits with their openings facing towards the inside of the structure, and both were filled with carbon and ash.   The  shapes of  the mid-sized pit-houses are  relatively constant, enclosing 5 ×  4–6  m  trapezoidal  areas.  The location of perpendicular postholes in the walls of the pits implies the presence of short walls that would have met low sloping roofs. These walls and roofs were probably similar to the Iron Age surface structures reconstructed at Butser Farm (Reynolds 1979) and thus are unlike other reconstructions  of  early  Neolithic  pit-houses  from  the region which propose steeply sloping roofs that double as walls (Draşovean 1989, 32; Srejović 1972). Sloped wall-roofs require angled postholes; the Foeni-Salaş postholes are vertical and thus similar to those found at the only other Starčevo site with published data, Divostin I (Bogdanović 1988; Greenfield and Jongsma 2006). Given the low slope

Page 17: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Haskel J. Greenfield and Tina Jongsma 116

locus 15

locus 08

postholes

reconstructed

top of locus

bottom of locus

locus 07

locus 07

internalfeatures

81.21 m

80.61 m

81.21 m81.11 m

81.11 m

80.51 m

81.11 m

80.51 m

81.21

m

81.11 m

locus 07

COMPOSITE OF UPPER AND LOWER EDGES OF LOCI7,8,15.

bakedearthsemi-circle(hearth ?)

fish bonesandcarboncoveredby loess.

81.11

m

packedmud

clay

loess

greenfield10.ai

Figure 10. Early Neolithic pit-houses and ovens: plan of central area of pit-house (Locus 7) from Foeni-Salaş (in Trench 131F, Quads 1–3, 5–8, 11–13, 16–18, 21–23).

of the upper pit edge and the associated dense distribution of artefacts along the edges of the pit,  the roof probably extended  slightly  beyond  the  postholes  and  created  an overhanging eave where material accumulated or was stored; the density of material along these edges was often higher than it was in the centres of the pits. The lack of

evidence for daub floors implies that the superstructure was made of very lightweight materials (e.g. reeds and small branches) and that the structures had not burnt down. Distinguishing postholes from rodent holes was extremely difficult. The best criterion was that postholes are discrete: that they could not be traced into tunnels, and 

Page 18: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

11. Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the early Neolithic 117

had a clear bottom. All of the holes that met this criterion were relatively perpendicular to the ground surface. All  of  the  slanted  holes  and  some  of  the  perpendicular holes connected to rodent tunnels and were not counted as postholes. Rodent holes under the floors of the pits caused ceramics to filter into the underlying Pleistocene deposits. Some postholes were more easily recognisable by their stratigraphic association; a few had compact or baked clayey soil surrounding them (e.g. Locus 7 – 131F, Quad 21). There were two different posthole sizes: larger (10–20 cm wide) and smaller (5–10 cm wide). The larger holes were centrally located.

ChronologyExamination of the evidence for early Neolithic chronology leads to a dilemma at Foeni-Salaş. The traditional relative typological  chronology  is  based  upon  a  complex  cross-dating of stratified deposits. The ceramics from Foeni-Salaş suggest that the site belongs to a single phase of the traditional ceramic chronology. Indeed,  this  is supported by  the  stratigraphic  analysis.  The  radiocarbon  dating, however, tells a different story. On the basis of the relative frequency and presence-absence of stylistic elements determined during  the preliminary  analysis of  ceramics, the early Neolithic occupation of Foeni-Salaş is tentatively dated to the first half of the second phase of the Starčevo-Criş culture, with IIA and some possibly IIB stylistic motifs dominating (Garašanin 1973; 1983; Greenfield and Draşovean 1994; Lazarovici 1984). Stylistically, the site has connections with other Starčevo-Criş sites from the area: Timişoara-Fratelia, China Furculum I, Gura Baciului, Ocna-Sibiului, and Lepenski Vir IA (cf. Ciută 2005; Lazarovici 1984, 62; Lazarovici and Maxim 1995; PaulPaul 1995; Păunescu 1979; Vlassa 1980; Srejović 1972).Păunescu 1979; Vlassa 1980; Srejović 1972). Foeni-Salaş contained pottery with chaff or sand temper (Greenfield and Draşovean 1994; Spataro 2003). In  general,  the  ceramics  are  monochrome,  globular  in shape, with pseudo-barbotine decoration on vessel bodies and fingernail impressions and pinches on the rims. A few white painted sherds were found as well. There is a prevalence of lug handles suitable for suspending the pots. The most diagnostic shapes are open bowls, wide-mouthed jars, and narrow-necked globular pots. Some of the pottery is strongly burnished and very well fired with chaff and sand tempers. On the basis of the stratigraphy, there is a single early Neolithic horizon which connects the different Starčevo-Criş features. Although each mid- and large-sized pit contains  internal  stratigraphy,  they all connect  to  the single extra-pit horizon (Locus 2). The implication is that there was a single living horizon, without any reoccupation. The multiple horizons within the pits represent living, then abandonment fill, and subsequent architectural collapse. Five of the animal bones were radiocarbon dated (Table 1),1 and though only three were considered accurate, these dates suggest that the site was occupied for a relatively short period of  time during  the second half of 

the fifth millennium cal BC (5600–5300 cal BC). The other two dates were rejected because they fell outside the range of the Starčevo-Criş culture in the Banat.2 The Starčevo culture from this region dates from 5900–5100 cal BC (Ehrich and Bankoff 1990; Manson 1990; 1995). Three of the Foeni-Salaş samples (nos 1, 2, 4) cluster in the second half of the sixth millennium cal BC and, when calibrated (5140–5330 cal BC), fall at the end of the expected Starčevo-Criş chronological range (Phase III–IV). Compared to other sites, these are very late dates for a Starčevo-Criş II occupation.   Of the other dates, Sample 6 provided a very early date which precedes agricultural expansion in this area of Europe by almost 1000 years; Sample 6 was considered inaccurate, perhaps due to the small size of the carbon sample analysed. Sample 5 provides, almost exactly, the date one would expect for a Starčevo-Criş Phase II site. However, though Sample 5 provided an earlier date than the later cluster of dates, it was found stratigraphically above them, and this makes it suspect. On the basis of the two sets of dates, the site  could have been occupied  for  a  short period of  time during one or two phases: the beginning of the second half of the sixth millennium cal BC; during the second half of the sixth millennium cal BC; or separately, in both periods. Until more dating samples are analysed, we cannot be any more precise. In the meantime, the earlier date is less likely to be accurate as it came from a secondary context in the middle fill. Also, the absence of stratigraphic or typological evidence for separate phases of occupation makes the earlier date unlikely. The cluster of three dates from the basal horizons of two different pit complexes (Loci 7 and 10) demonstrates their near contemporaneity; this is also implied by their stratigraphic relationship.   These dates present a problem for the traditional dating of the Starčevo-Criş culture sub-phases. If Foeni-Salaş was occupied only in the second half of the sixth millennium cal BC, then the relatively late calibrated date for the second phase of the Starčevo-Criş culture in the Banat would be significant. Most analyses have assumed that each Starčevo-Criş phase was more or less contemporary throughout the culture area. However, the data from Foeni-Salaş suggest

10000 BC 9000 BC 8000 BC 7000 BC 6000 BC 5000 BC 4000 BCCalibrated date

BGS 1779 6200±200BP

BGS 1781 6330±150BP

BGS 1780 6420±170BP

BGS 1782 6980±140BP

BGS 1783 7880±200BP

green�eldtable1.ai

Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from Foeni-Salaş.

Page 19: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Haskel J. Greenfield and Tina Jongsma 118

not  only  a  substantial  lag  in  the  relative  phasing  of  the Starčevo-Criş culture from the south to the north, but also that the sub-phases may have lasted for differential lengths of time in different areas (cf. Manson 1990); for example, Starčevo II deposits may be later in the northern half of its distribution than they are to the south. More dating will help to clarify this situation. Recent regional dating, however, indicates little time lag during the spread of the initial phase of the culture (Biagi et al. 2005), but does not deal with the issue of internal dating of the culture.

ArchitectureBaked daub remains are commonly recovered in early Neolithic sites and they imply that structures frequently burned down (Bankoff and Winter 1979; Tringham 2005). Daub is the baked remains of clay walls, floors, ovens and hearths. Wattle-and-daub walls are difficult to identify unless they have been burnt down and the clay thus fired. Over time, if left unfired, wattle-and-daub completely disintegrates and becomes archaeologically invisible (McIntosh 1974, 167). In a typical wattle-and-daub construction, a framework of poles and twigs is lashed together using twigs, vines or thin pliable bark strips. Wet earth (any easily available soil may be used) is pounded on one or both sides by hand. In order to smooth the surface, an instrument is often run over the surface of the completed, but still wet, wall. The structure is then roofed in thatch. The wattle-and-daub wall is quite thin and slants inward in order to counteract horizontal thrust. When a wall has eroded enough to be considered unsafe, the entire wall either falls down or is pulled down. Ethnographically, the poles are often collected for reuse or as firewood, and the remaining wall material disintegrates with rain and wind, very quickly becoming a low featureless mound; new homes may be built on top after only minor levelling (McIntosh 1974, 162–3). By quantifying the spatial distribution of daub remains across  a  site,  it  is  possible  to  determine  the  location  of structures. Theoretically, in terms of the type, quality, quantity, and size of daub remains, one should be able to detect differences between surface and semi-subterranean dwellings, and between habitation pits and pits used for other functions. One can determine the function of a feature through the analysis of daub remains. For example, burnt daub found in a pit is the result of covering the pit with an overlying superstructure which had burned down. After collapse, the burnt superstructure fills the pit. Furthermore, pits that were dwellings should contain high concentrations of daub, with the density of daub rapidly decreasing outside the pit. If the structure did not burn down, there will be little evidence of the superstructure, making the interpretation of the pit’s function more difficult. If the only evidence of  architectural  daub  in  a  pit  is  tiny  fragments  of  daub, then it is possible that the pit was used solely for refuse or that the structure was not burnt. Daub also is commonly found in refuse pits, though here it often consists of small eroded fragments in secondary positions. There should be 

a difference in the quantities and sizes of daub remains found in refuse-pits and those found in dwelling pits. By analysing  architectural  daub,  it  is  possible  to  determine if floors, walls and other dwelling features (e.g. ovens) were found in all pits, some pits or elsewhere on the site. In  contrast,  pits  that  do not have  architectural  daub and no evidence of systematic associations of artefacts (except for the odd broken weight or whorl) may be interpreted as refuse deposits.   It  is also possible to identify the function of different types  of  daub  (e.g. from floors or walls; Shaffer 1983; Tringham and Stevanović 1990). At Foeni-Salaş, a variety of  attributes  (e.g. temper, firing, shape, measurements) were used to identify the nature of the architectural daub. Four types of architectural daub were identified: house floor daub; house wall daub; oven floor daub; and oven dome daub. By identifying each daub fragment in this way, it was possible to map out the distributions and identify concentrations of each type (Jongsma 1997; Jongsma and Greenfield 2001); the concentrations of daub helped determine the function of individual features (i.e. pit-house, storage pit, surface-house).   The  spatial  distribution  of  each  daub  type  across  the site was analysed using SURFER 8 (Golden Software), a computer program that runs under Microsoft Windows for  plotting  distributions  of  remains  across  a  surface.  It quickly and easily converts spatially organised data into contours, 3D surfaces, and a variety of other forms of maps. The analysis used daub weight to identify daub concentrations to determine the association between pits and architectural daub. Distribution contour maps were generated with 50 g interval contours (weights less than  50 g were assumed to be background noise and thus excluded from the analysis). The data were organised by the 1 sq. m quads in which most of it was excavated. Hence, the data indicate densities per square metre. The distribution of daub concentrations was compared with known feature distributions (surface and sub-surface) as identified during excavation at the site. The analysis was designed to test two hypotheses: 1) that Starčevo-Criş houses were surface wattle-and-daub houses (i.e.  if  this were the case, then architectural daub concentrations would not correlate with large pits); 2) that Starčevo-Criş houses were semi-subterranean dwellings (pit-houses) (i.e. if this were the case, then large quantities of architectural daub would be associated with large pits). At Foeni-Salaş, some house wall daub was found everywhere that an early Neolithic feature was located. However, the quantity of wall daub differed among different features. Four concentrations of wall daub were evident (Fig. 11). The concentrations found in Loci 41 (a pit) and 53 (an exterior surface) are extremely small in size and spatially discrete (<3 m wide). The other two concentrations were found in pits (Loci 23 and 24) and are much larger and wider in size (8–9 m wide). Insignificant quantities (<59 gm) of wall daub were found in the other Starčevo-Criş pit loci (Loci 7 and 10), in a storage pit

Page 20: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

11. Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the early Neolithic 119

(Locus 25), and in surface feature/concentrations (Loci 51 and 52; not represented on the SURFER map). Floor daub was found in a range of contexts similar to those which contained wall daub (Fig. 12). The two largest concentrations of floor daub are associated with pit features (Loci 23 and 24); Locus 23 contained the largest spatial concentration of floor daub. Low frequencies (50 g) were associated with Loci 41 (a pit feature) and 53 (an exterior surface). Two isolated low intensity hot spots are visible in the map; each of these is small and represents intrusive remains from later features.

Oven floor fragments were found in two large concentrations (Loci 23 and 24; Fig. 13) and in one small concentration (Locus 41). All three correspond to early Neolithic pit features. Oven floor daub was found in the other pit locus (Locus 7), though it was in a quantity too small to be plotted in SURFER. In some pit features, oven daub was found in the same pit features in which were found high quantities of wall and floor daub. Oven dome daub fragments were found only in Locus 23 (Fig. 14), in two clusters, one at each end of the pit.3

   A substantial portion of the daub could not be analysed 

160 180 200 220South

North

120

140

160

180

Wes

t

East

L. 41

L. 23

L. 53

L. 24

greenfield11.ai

Figure 11. Distribution of house wall daub (50 g contour intervals, 50 g minimum).

160 180 200 220South

North

120

140

160

180

West Ea

st

L. 41

L. 23

L. 24

L. 53

greenfield12.ai

Figure 12. Distribution of house floor daub (50 g contour intervals, 50 g minimum).

160 180 200 220South

North

120

140

160

180

Wes

t

East

L. 41

L. 23 L. 24

greenfield13.ai

160 180 200 220South

North

120

140

160

180

Wes

t

East

L. 23

greenfield14.ai

Figure 13. Distribution of oven floor daub (50 g intervals, 50 g minimum).

Figure 14. Distribution of oven dome daub (50 g intervals, 50 g minimum).

Page 21: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Haskel J. Greenfield and Tina Jongsma 120

due to two factors. First, the material excavated in the first season (1992) was not analysed in the same systematic fashion as described above and, as it had been discarded prior to implementation of the new typological scheme, re-examination was impossible. This omission (and the missing material) is a factor in the absence of concentrations of architectural daub in Loci 7 and 10 which were primarily excavated in 1992. For the daub recovered in later field seasons (1993–94), some could not be identified as any one particular architectural element. The distribution of unidentified daub (Fig. 15) shows that all of the early Neolithic pit features (Loci 7, 10, 23, 24, and 41) contained varying, but substantial quantities of daub; little daub was found in the intervening spaces. Comparison of daub distributions with the early Neolithic features makes it possible to determine the locations of dwellings. The combination of daub distributions and associated excavated features supports the identification of Loci 7, 10, 23, 24, and 41 as semi-subterranean dwellings (pit-houses); there is an abundance of additional indicators that these pit features were initially used for habitation (e.g. hearths, postholes, shelves, benches, and wall, floor, and oven daub).   Based upon excavation data and the results of the spatial analysis  of  daub,  there  is  no  unambiguous  evidence  for surface-houses at Foeni-Salaş. A few surface deposits (Loci 51 and 52) were recognised during excavation as locations of activity on the surface, but none were used as a house. Locus 51 is presently interpreted as a weaving locus and Locus 53 as an open-air above-ground storage area. These surface deposits were not sedimentologically distinct from the surrounding open areas, and they were identified as distinct activity areas only by their association with artefact concentrations. The near or complete absence of daub in 

160 180 200 220South

North

120

140

160

180

Wes

t

East

L. 41

L. 7

L. 24

L. 23

L. 10

greenfield15.ai

Figure 15. Distribution of unidentified daub (200 g interval, 200 g minimum).

these loci suggests that these areas do not represent surface structures. It is likely that the weaving feature (Locus 51) was roofed but not enclosed inside a structure.

Faunal evidence for mobilityFaunal remains from Foeni-Salaş are substantial, even without considering the microfauna recovered during water-sieving and flotation (Table 2); micro-faunal material is  substantial  and  is  part  of  the  material  yet  to  be  fully analysed or quantified. In terms of the likely food taxa, domestic animals dominate (79%), and of these, cattle are abundant (34.9%). Combined ovicaprids are more common taxa (39.6%), but probably rank second and third in terms of NISP (Number of Identified Specimens, corrected for articulations). In frequency, ovicaprids are followed by wild animals, such as fish (5.2%), red deer (4.4%), roe deer (3.4%), and aurochs (2.5%). Proportions of domestic (3.8%) and wild pig (1.5%) were low and other taxa are present in very small quantities (<2%). Given the environment, the frequencies of taxa are surprising, particularly the high proportions of ovicaprid and low ones of fish, and domestic and wild pig. One would have expected a greater presence of pigs in the very wet and swampy surroundings (at least until the swamps were drained in recent times). Also surprising, considering the swampy environment, are the prevalence of ovicaprids and the low frequencies of semi-aquatic and aquatic fauna (especially as recovery was by sieving and flotation). The small quantity of wild fauna is equally surprising. At many of the earliest Starčevo-Criş settlements in central Serbia and the Serbian Vojvodina, faunal assemblages are dominated by cattle and ovicaprids (e.g. at Blagotin). However, this pattern is distinct from those reported for other  comparable  sites  and  for  sites  in  the  Iron  Gates, Pannonia and similar low-lying areas (e.g. Blazić 1992; Greenfield 1993; 1994; in press), where pigs and wild fauna are more common. With time, pigs and wild fauna become more important (i.e. during the middle and late Neolithic Vinča culture; Greenfield 1986; 1991; 1993; Jongsma and Greenfield 1996). The implication is that the local economy was heavily reliant upon mobile domestic fauna; this has important implications for settlement mobility, as will be discussed below.

Harvest profiles and settlement mobility4

While there were too few pig mandibular teeth for a harvest profile to be constructed, it was possible to lump together the  Ovis aries  and  Capra hircus  samples  into  an  Ovis/Capra category for analysis (Fig. 16). Among Ovis/Capra there is some, but very little, mortality of the youngest age classes (0–2 to 2–6 months). This is followed by very high mortality of the 2–6 months to 1–2 year age groups. There is a plateauing of the mortality rate between the 1–2 and 2–3 year age classes, followed by a rapid mortality from 2–3 years to 4–6 years. Ovis/Capra mortality  decreases 

Page 22: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

11. Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the early Neolithic 121

afterwards. The evidence for mobility comes most directly from these data. The presence of the 0–2, 2–6, and 6–12 month  age  classes  implies  a  year-round  availability  of herds.  This,  in  turn,  suggests  continuous  culling  of  the herd  and  residential  stability  throughout  the  year.  This pattern  is  similar  to  that  found  at  Blagotin  (Arnold  and Greenfield 2004; 2006). However, the gross scale of the ageing system prevents determining whether the sites were occupied when the animals were 7 or 12 months of age.

If so, the site would have been occupied during the colder half of the year. The harvest profile for Bos taurus  indicates  rapid mortality of the 0–1 month age class, a slight reduction in mortality rate for the 1–8 month age class, followed by rapid mortality of the 8–30 month class (Fig. 17). The 30–36 month age group is not represented in the profile, though a rapid mortality rate of the young adult age group is  documented. Adult  and old  adult  age  classes  are  also 

Domestic/Wild Taxon No. % % of food

Domestic Bos taurus 895 7.86% 34.92%

Canis familiaris 18 0.16% 0.70%

Capra hircus 77 0.68% 3.00%

Ovis aries 270 2.37% 10.53%

Ovis/Capra 668 5.86% 26.06%

All Ovicaprids 1015 8.91% 39.60%

Sus scrofa dom. 99 0.87% 3.86%

Domestic Total 2027 17.79% 79.09%

Wild Bos primigenius 63 0.55% 2.46%

Canis lupus 7 0.06% 0.27%

Capreolus capreolus 87 0.76% 3.39%

Cervus elaphus 113 0.99% 4.41%

Lepus europaeus 10 0.09% 0.39%

Sus scrofa fer. 39 0.34% 1.52%

Unio pictorum 6 0.05% 0.23%

Ursus arctos 2 0.02% 0.08%

Aves sp. 48 0.42% 1.87%

Equus sp. 1 0.01% 0.04%

Pisces sp. 139 1.22% 5.42%

Emys orbicularis 21 0.18% 0.82%

Wild Total 536 4.71% 20.91%

Total of Domestic and Wild taxa 2563

Not applicable Homo sapiens 11 0.10%

Spalax sp. 39 0.34%

Amphibia sp. 3 0.03%

Rodentia sp. 102 0.90%

Reptilia sp. 2 0.02%

Not applicable Total 157 1.38%

Unknown Bos/Cervus 14 0.12%

Ovis/Capra/Capreolus 9 0.08%

Sus scrofa 7 0.06%

Mammal – Large 2129 18.69%

Mammal – Medium 2436 21.39%

Mammal – Small 6 0.05%

Mammal – Large/Medium 1 0.01%

Unknown 4069 35.72%

Unknown Total 8671 76.12%

Grand Total 11391

Table 2. Distribution of early Neolithic osteological remains from Foeni-Salaş based on NISP. Percentage of food reflects only those considered domestic or wild taxa.

Page 23: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Haskel J. Greenfield and Tina Jongsma 122

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 months 0-2 monthsA

2-6 monthsB

6-12 monthsC

1-2 yearsD

2-3 yearsE

3-4 yearsF

4-6 yearsG

6-8 yearsH

8-10 yearsI

Mandibular Stage and Absolute Ages

%A

geSu

rviv

al

greenfield16.ai

Figure 16. Combined Ovis/Capra harvest profile based on preserved mandibles and teeth (Greenfield and Arnold 2006).

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 months 0-1 monthA

1-8 monthsB

8-18 monthsC

18-30months

D

30-36months

E

young adultF

adultG

old adultH

senileI

Mandibular Stages and Absolute Ages

%A

geSu

rviv

al

greenfield17.ai

Figure 17. Cattle harvest profile based on preserved mandibles and teeth (Greenfield and Arnold 2006).

missing. This pattern is similar to that found at Blagotin. The harvest profile indicates the exploitation of the herd for primary products, and it indicates that the youngest age classes (0–1, 1–8 and 8–18 months) are present, implying

year-round culling of the herds. This suggests residential stability throughout the year, although the data categories are very broad in their seasonal definitions (Arnold and Greenfield 2004; 2006).

Page 24: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

11. Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the early Neolithic 123

MolluscaLarge quantities (18,955) of snail shells were recovered at Foeni-Salaş (Table 3). While five species of snails were distinguished, 92% are of a single species: the region’s common snail, Helix pomatia. A few of the rarer species are probably intrusive, since their presence in early Neolithic deposits is most likely due either to the fact that they are taxa that bore downwards or that their presence is a result of rodent activity. Recent discussion of snail exploitation from early Neolithic sites in this region (Blazić 1992) has focussed on the abundances of snails at Starčevo-Criş sites in the swampy lowland of the region (Blazić 1992; Lazić 1988; Mussi et al. 1995). As is commonly concluded about Mesolithic assemblages, the near absence of wild

animals  in  the  assemblage  and  the  prevalence  of  shell foods could be taken to indicate the latter’s contribution to human diet (Lubell 2004; Girod 2001–2002). Contrary to common belief, snail meat is not an adequate protein replacement  for  other  animal  meats.  It  has  its  greatest value as a carbohydrate replacement, in other words, as a replacement for grains. In an area where grain is not cultivated on a  large  scale,  collection  and processing of shell  foods  may  have  gained  great  importance. Another possible interpretation for the large quantities of shells has been suggested by some of the older villagers in modern Foeni who remember stories about crop failures which led to widespread famine during the mid- and late-nineteenth century, and during which villagers had gathered snails in large quantities. Although snails were not part of the normal diet of the modern inhabitants of Foeni (or of their nineteenth century predecessors), snail shells were ground into flour and used for baking and cooking; shells become a starvation substitute for flour made from grains. Neither of these two modern scenarios is likely because almost all of the Neolithic shells were found intact. If they were food remains and were discarded on walking surfaces during the occupation of the site, it is likely that large quantities would have been fragmented. This was not the case. Therefore, it is more likely that the snails are intrusive to the deposits. Not only were almost all of the shells found in the pit-dwelling complexes, but their state of preservation

Data Early Neolithic % Helix pomatia 18955 91.81% Planorbis corneus 558 2.70% Limnae stagnalis 223 1.08% Cepea nemoralis 430 2.08% Helix aspersa 480 2.32%

Table 3. Distribution of snail remains (NISP) in early Neolithic deposits at Foeni-Salaş.

Taxa Locus 2 Locus 7 Locus 10 Locus 23 Locus 24 Locus 25 Locus 41 UbiquityScores

T. monococcum x x x x 57% Gramineae x x x 42% Quercus sp. x x 29% Poa/Phragmites x x 29% T. dicoccum x x 29% Cornus mas x x 29% P. miliaceum x x 29% Silene sp. x x 29% Chenopodium sp. x 14% Lens sp. x 14% Avena sp. x 14% Hordeum vulgare x 14% Malva/Galium x 14% Galium sp. x 14% Sambucus nigra x 14% Papaver sp. x 14% Sonchus asper x 14% Prunella vulgaris x 14% Unknown 1 x 14% Unknown 3 14% Unknown 4 x 14% Unknown 5 x 14%

Table 4. Ubiquity analysis of carbonised seed remains from early Neolithic contexts at Foeni-Salaş (based on flotation of sediments).

Page 25: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Haskel J. Greenfield and Tina Jongsma 124

(almost always unbroken), and their positions (crammed into every corner of the pit-dwellings or, most commonly, in the middle horizons of the pits) suggest that it is unlikely that people would have been eating, discarding, and then living in the pit-houses and walking on the shells without breaking them. As is well known, snails will aestivate in nutrient rich deposits (Ellis 1969; Zhadin 1952), and this is probably the case at Foeni-Salaş. Snails are present in large numbers at the site because it is an ideal place to aestivate. There is no evidence that they were consumed by the early Neolithic inhabitants.

Paleobotanical analysis5 Systematic  flotation  of  the  deposits  across  the  site ensured adequate spatial sampling for botanical remains. Considering the quantity of soil that was floated, and in

contrast to reports from contemporary tell sites, very few carbonised seed remains were recovered. Most of the remains are unidentifiable fragments of burnt wood; there were only a few wild seeds. There is very little evidence of charred grains of domestic wheat or barley (Table 4; Jezik 1998). In total, 121 charred seeds were recovered from Foeni-Salaş: 19% domestic seeds, 66% gathered seeds, and 15% wild and weedy seeds (Table 5; Jezik 1998).   The  absence  of  domestic  grains  is  not  a  result  of collection strategies or soil characteristics. Two possibilities remain. Either domestic grains were not cultivated at Foeni-Salaş or no grains were accidentally charred during processing. The latter is considered to be less likely given the widespread presence of carbonised grains on tell (mound) sites from the region (e.g. Dennell 1978; Renfrew 1974; 1989). A similar paucity of domestic grains was recovered  from  contemporary  deposits  at  Blagotin.  At Foeni-Salaş and at Blagotin, no stone grinding tools were

Type Taxon Total Whole Total Fragments

Domesticates Gramineae 6.00 2.00

T. monococcum 7.00 1.50

T. dicoccum 2.00 0.00

H. vulgare 0.00 0.50

Lens culinaris 1.00 0.00

Avena sp. 1.00 0.00

P. miliaceum 1.00 0.00

cf. Panicum sp. 1.00 0.50

Gathered Cornus mas 2.00 1.50

Quercus sp. 17.00 59.00

Weeds Sonchus asper 1.00 0.00

Malva/Galium 0.00 0.50

Galium sp. 2.00 0.00

Chenopodium sp. 3.00 0.00

Sambucus nigra 2.00 0.00

Papaver sp. 2.00 0.00

Silene sp. 3.00 0.00

Poa/Phragmites 1.00 0.50

P. vulgaris 1.00 0.00

Unknown 1 0.00 0.50

Unknown 2 0.00 0.50

Unknown 3 0.00 0.50

Unknown 4 0.00 0.50

Total 53.00 68.00

Table 5. Whole and fragment distribution of carbonised seed remains from early Neolithic contexts at Foeni-Salaş.

Page 26: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

11. Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the early Neolithic 125

found in early Neolithic deposits; grinding grain was not an  important  activity  at  either  of  these  early  Neolithic Starčevo/Starčevo-Criş culture sites. At Foeni-Salaş, botanical remains were found in thin scatters of selected strata in the pits and consisted of mixtures of domesticated cereal grains, weeds and gathered fruit seeds. The remains from each pit-house feature were very heterogeneous, and the deposits may reflect short-term use of  botanical  material.  The  paucity  of  domesticated  plant remains may imply that the people at Foeni-Salaş seldom relied on plant agriculture or that the settlement was occupied for periods of time which were too short for large amounts of botanical remains to accumulate in pits and features. 

ConclusionsThe excavations at Foeni-Salaş demonstrate the presence of a new Starčevo-Criş II settlement in the Romanian Banat. Radiocarbon dating has fixed (at the time of analysis, for the first time) the absolute dating of a single phase of the Starčevo-Criş culture (c. 5350–5140 cal BC) in this part of its geographic distribution. Importantly, these dates are fundamentally different from those proposed by Manson (i.e. 7050–6800 BP/5100–4850 bc uncal.; 5950–5650 cal BC; Manson 1990; 1995), dates which were based upon sites from the southern end (rather than the centre) of  the  distribution.  These  dates  are  similar  to  those  for Starčevo-Criş IIB phase sites in the surrounding region (Biagi and Spataro 2005, 36–7). Furthermore, the Foeni-Salaş dates suggest that the absolute dates of individual stylistic phases of the culture are not uniform across the geographic extent of the Starčevo-Criş culture. The absence of temporal uniformity of sub-periods calls into question the utility of the regional stylistic sequence for comparing sites between regions. Foeni-Salaş has a single thin early Neolithic occupation level. There is no evidence of later Starčevo-Criş structures cutting  into  earlier  ones.  Daub  architecture  and  the construction  of  durable  structures  are  almost  completely absent. Simple semi-subterranean huts were constructed and occupied for a short period of time. Floors were not specially constructed or plastered. Instead, floors were simply the bottoms of the pits, which were dug into the well drained Pleistocene loess deposit. It appears that people at Foeni-Salaş invested little energy in modifying or improving their living areas. Because there is no evidence of  stratigraphic  accumulations  of  multiple  occupation levels above the basal level, because of the absence of well constructed hearths useful for prolonged warming during the colder seasons, and because of the absence of immoveable storage facilities (such as clay ovens and large storage pots), the Foeni-Salaş dwellings seem to have been abandoned relatively soon after construction. The features of human and architectural activity which are absent from Foeni-Salaş are characteristics of more sedentary societies. At Foeni-Salaş, after the pit-dwellings were abandoned, they were filled with midden materials from neighbouring structures. However,

the pit-dwellings were not subsequently reoccupied or dug into; this suggests that the pits were probably still open during the remainder of the site’s occupation. Based on the analysis of Foeni-Salaş, the Starčevo-Criş culture appears to have had a relatively mobile settlement system, with relatively short-term occupations of structures and, perhaps, of sites as well. Subsequent fieldwork at Foeni-Salaş will attempt to determine if all of this site’s structures were in use at the same time.   Based  upon  our  analysis,  it  appears  that  the  early Neolithic residents at Foeni-Salaş lived in a cluster of five small pit-houses (Loci 7, 10, 24, 41, and 50), arranged in a semicircle around a larger pit-house (Locus 23). Ovens and hearths found in association with the smaller and larger pit-houses may indicate that each pit-house was economically independent and, therefore, represents a single household (or household cluster). The size of each of the smaller pit-houses (20–30 sq. m) implies that they were occupied by a nuclear or small extended family (Naroll 1962; Wiessner 1974). The presence of a possible corral in the centre of the arc of smaller pit-houses (Locus 52) may indicate that some activities, such as stock-keeping, may have been of a more communal nature. The presence of a large centrally placed pit-house, larger than the rest (Locus 23), may also indicate an integrative, communal, social function. At this point, the nature of that function remains indeterminate; a full analysis of the other material from the site will help to clarify the situation.   Does  each  pit-house  represent  a  separate  household or was the entire site a single household? The spatial pattern identified at Foeni-Salaş is that of a few pit-houses surrounding a larger and more centrally located pit-house. Duplication of artefact distributions between pit houses suggests that this site represent at least two households (Senior 2004; Zita 2006). This is a much smaller scale of community than is seen in other early Neolithic cultures to the north, south or east of the Starčevo-Criş culture area (Bogucki 1988; Chapman 1989). Clearly, the appearance of pit-houses in the Starčevo-Körös-Criş culture area (Bogdanović 1988; Greenfield and Draşovean 1994; Lazarovici 1979; Makkay 1978; 1992) is not related to the particulars of this culture’s environment, an environment which is similar, essentially, to that of the neighbouring cultures where there is abundant evidence of surface-houses. Also,  the  nature  of  the  deposits  and,  by implication, the nature of occupation at Starčevo-Criş sites in  this  region are different  from  those of cultures  to  the south. Thin deposits, the absence of overlapping features, and the low frequencies of features (e.g. ovens, hearths) which are generally found at Starčevo-Criş sites imply that occupation at Foeni-Salaş and related sites was short-term in nature. This pattern contrasts with that of later Starčevo, Criş, and Körös settlements which (generally) have thick deposits and more evidence of storage pits, ovens, hearths and surface-houses (Bogdanović 1988; Chapman 1989; Horvath 1989; Gimbutas 1991; Kosse 1979). Cross-cultural research shows that there are social

Page 27: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Haskel J. Greenfield and Tina Jongsma 126

and environmental conditions associated with the use of pit-houses (Gilman 1987, 538). Pit-houses tend to be used seasonally. In non-tropical areas, the majority of pit-structures are used as winter-only habitation dwellings. They are often abandoned in the warm weather because they flood and become infested with vermin. Surface-houses are not as thermally efficient as pit-dwellings and thus pit-houses are favoured for winter occupation. Pit-structures are present only within a specific range of population densities. Generally, pit-dwelling settlements have lower population numbers than do other settlements with other types of houses. The average population of a settlement that uses pit-dwellings is approximately 100 people. Pit-house communities with the densest populations have access to large,  rich, and fairly predictable food resources (Gilman 1987, 544). However, absolute population numbers do not themselves determine the use of pit- or surface-houses; there  is  a  range  of  population  sizes  that  corresponds  to surface-house use as compared to pit-houses. The population densities for surface-houses are higher than the lowest population density per pit-structure (Gilman 1987, 551). Furthermore, pit-houses are associated with increased settlement  mobility,  usually  involving  a  demonstrated seasonal mobility strategy. Social groups using pit-houses generally move more frequently and often more than once each year (Gilman 1987, 550). More mobility means that people take themselves to the locations of resources, rather than bringing the resources with them, and thus fewer storage facilities are necessary. This may explain the paucity of storage facilities on early Neolithic settlements in comparison to late Neolithic settlements from this area. What, then, are the archaeological implications of the discovery of pit-dwellings? They indicate the presence of a mobile society, with the site in use seasonally (usually in the winter months), or for slightly longer periods. Also, pit-dwellings should contain little, if any, evidence for long-term food storage (either through storage pits, ceramic pots or granaries). The size of a pit-dwelling settlement will be relatively small, usually less than 100 people, and subsistence strategies will be based on hunting and gathering and may include some food production (Gilman 1987, 547). The proposal that pit-houses are associated with more mobile societies is supported by the data from Foeni-Salaş; indeed only one storage pit (Locus 25) was found on the site. Hunting and gathering, and rudimentary or casual agricultural economies accompany the majority of cross-culturally documented pit-dwelling cultures (Murdock 1967; Gilman 1987; Rocek 1995). Pit dwellings will be used, regardless of the presence or absence of agriculture,  if  three  critical  conditions  are  met:  a  cold season; a bi-seasonal settlement pattern; and reliance on stored food (Gilman 1987, 546, 551). Analysis of the Foeni-Salaş flora  and  fauna  also supports Gilman’s cross-cultural research. Though fauna are heavily biased toward domestic animals (80%) and thus  suggest  year-round  sedentary  occupation,  most  of the fauna (75%) are mobile taxa (cattle, sheep, and goats).

Although it was a subsistence component, crop agriculture (documented by carbonised seeds) was not the dominant subsistence mode. Botanical remains contained a mixture of wild and domestic seeds. Gathering resources, such as Cornelian cherry, supplemented subsistence, although the weeds presented are commonly found growing in fields of wheat or barley. More importantly, all domesticated plant remains were clean in terms of chaff or fused parts, such as rachis or stem fragments (only one rachis fragment was found: Locus 24), and this suggests that grain processing took place away from the site and that the plant remains recovered on sites were either brought or traded to the residents of Foeni-Salaş by agriculturists living elsewhere (Jezik 1998). Finally, there were no artefacts or storage areas typical of agricultural settlements. The site yielded very few microliths with sickle gloss, further suggesting that cultivation was not a primary focus of subsistence (pers. comm. Elizabeth Dinan; Kuijt 1994).   Therefore, based on the absence of botanically related features  and  implements,  agriculture  does  not  appear  to have been of major importance to the economy at Foeni-Salaş. Together, the presence of pit-houses, the heavily domesticated faunal record, and the mixed wild and domestic botanical remains, suggest the presence of mobile economies, with a high reliance on domestic pastoralism in combination with a smaller element of wild and domestic plant use. For the first time, we can see that these are mobile pastoral societies that are not heavily reliant upon domestic  plant  agriculture  (contra  the  typical  image  of early food producing societies in south-east Europe). The major samples of carbonised grain from this part of the Balkans come from tell sites located around the perimeter of the region in what may be argued are different archaeological cultures (Dennell 1978; Renfrew 1974; 1976). In addition, a large number of samples have been recovered from later Neolithic sites in the region (McLaren and Hubbard 1990; Renfrew 1974; Hopf 1975). How does one  interpret  the  paucity  of  carbonised  domestic  grains from Foeni-Salaş? One possibility is that domestic grains were not grown, that wild plant resources were gathered instead, and that stock raising was the main focus of the domestic  economy.  The  dearth  of  potential  agricultural tools (grinding stones, antler mattocks and ground stone axe-adzes) at Foeni-Salaş supports the conclusion that domestic grains were of minimal importance. The presence of a non-agricultural economy at Foeni-Salaş would have widespread implications for re-assessing early Neolithic subsistence in the region. Were the Starčevo-Criş people (like those at Foeni-Salaş) indigenous hunter-gatherers or intrusive, colonising food producers from the Mediterranean littoral? The spatial organisation of sites like Foeni-Salaş is very similar to Mesolithic camps known across Europe and very unlike that of the early food producers of the Mediterranean littoral. Given the low emphasis placed upon plant agriculture (again contrary to the situation in the Mediterranean littoral sites), it is likely that the indigenous Mesolithic inhabitants

Page 28: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

11. Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the early Neolithic 127

(as exemplified by the abundant remains in and around the nearby Iron Gates) rapidly took on the characteristics of domestic lifestyles (ceramics and domestic animals) that most easily fit into their mobile lifestyles (cf. Geddes 1982). This pattern is well known from northern Europe, where local hunter-gatherers adopt much of the material culture  of  the  agriculturalists  to  their  immediate  south (e.g.  Zvelebil  et al. 1998). For the first time in south-eastern Europe, there may an indication for the transition of indigenous Mesolithic hunter-gatherers into early food producers without the impact of migration. However, the plethora of similarities between south-east European and the Mediterranean littoral’s early food producing communities  (in  terms  of  types  of  crops,  animals,  and material culture) argues for some kind of colonisation in at least isolated circumstances. These colonists, then, had to coexist with indigenous groups, who adopted agricultural lifestyles more slowly. Therefore, the spread of agriculture through Europe occurred by processes of both acculturation and limited colonisation. The economic processes at work on the early Neolithic groups of the Mediterranean littoral were different from those in the temperate zone of south-east Europe, and the differences between the two areas should not be glossed over in our efforts to understand the origins of farming in Europe (Greenfield 1993; in press). The importance of Foeni-Salaş lies in its ephemeral nature.  In  general,  the  thinness  of  the  early  Neolithic horizon (Locus 2), the ephemeral nature of the associated architecture, the reliance upon mobile pastoral animals, and the paucity of domestic grains at the site lead one to conclude that the occupation at Foeni-Salaş may have been short-term (a year or two at most). If so, this would imply that such early Neolithic communities were semi-sedentary, and it would produce a very different picture from that typically painted for south-east European early Neolithic communities. The ephemeral nature of Foeni-Salaş makes the site of value for understanding the nature of early Neolithic adaptations in this region. Previously, such an understanding of the nature of early Neolithic communities has been hindered by  the research focus on large tell sites with their presumed longer-term occupations and unsystematic excavation and recovery procedures. The application of systematic excavation and recovery at Foeni-Salaş has made it possible, for the first time  in  this  region,  to  begin  to  understand  the  nature  of early Neolithic communities. The initial entrance of communities into a new area can be viewed in terms of tactical opportunism. The mapping of environmental variability leads to a series of short-term settlements (Kaiser and Voytek 1982; Bogucki 1979). From this  perspective,  the  spread  of  agriculture  in  temperate south-east  Europe  appears  to  set  the  stage  for  the  rapid spread across the rest of temperate Europe, as the nature of settlement becomes more comparable to that of central and northern Europe (Bogucki 1988; 1996). The results from Foeni-Salaş increase our understanding of the north Balkan early Neolithic and the eventual spread of food producing communities throughout temperate Europe.

AcknowledgementsThe research described in this paper was sponsored by The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, the International Research and Exchanges Board (Washington, DC), the National Academy of Sciences (Washington, DC), and the Museum of the Banat, Timişoara, Romania. The excavations were directed in the field by Haskel Greenfield (with the occasional visits by the Romanian co-director, Florin Draşovean); the lab director was Tina Jongsma. Assistants during the field season included the following: (from Canada) Bonnie Brenner, Lisa Challinor, Sandra Jezik, Hani Khalidi, Ian Kuijt, Megan Mare, Iosif Moravetz, Mark Paxton-Macrae; (from Serbia) Boban Trifunović, Viktor Ačimović, Dušan Borić, Vladan Čurić, Alexandar Kapuran, and Dimitrije Madas; (from Romania) Dan Ciobotaru, Vali Cedica, Silviu Saftu, and Alexandru Szentmiklosi; and (from the USA) Stuart Cox, Elizabeth Dinan, and Zev Greenfield. All photographs were taken by Zev Greenfield. Special thanks must also be extended to Liviu Chira (who owned the land), Deian (deceased) and Marietta Amici and their family (our host for the various field work seasons), and the people of Foeni; to Michelle Perles and Elizabeth Arnold for help in revising each of the data sets for consistency, to Elizabeth Arnold for helping to carry out the tooth eruption and wear analysis, and to Douglass Bailey and Paolo Biagi for critically reading and helping to correct the manuscript. This research was only possible through their aid. All plan and profile illustrations were drawn using Arcview and Adobe Illustrator. The SURFER 8 illustrations were generated by the authors; Larry Stene produced the map of south-west Pannonia.

Notes 1 The radiocarbon dating of bone samples was conducted byThe radiocarbon dating of bone samples was conducted by

Howard Melville at the Brock University Earth Sciences Laboratory, Ontario, Canada.

2 This time range is at odds with a recent independent dating of another bone sample from Foeni-Salaş, which yielded a corrected date of 7510 ±60 BP (uncalibrated), 6440–6340 BC (calibrated, 1 sigma), 6450–6240 BC (calibrated, 2 sigmas) (Signature FS2; Lab no. GrN-28455; Context – Locus 41, Trench 129I, Quad 5, Cut 5 Biagi, Shennan and Spataro 2005: 46–7). This date is also too old for the early Neolithic of the region and should be rejected as probably contaminated.

3 Though a second oven-like daub concentration was found in Locus 7, it was found at the outset of the first season and was not collected for later analysis. However, it was well documented in the notes and its presence is clearly visible in the plan drawings of the pit-house.

4 With contributions from Elizabeth Arnold. 5 With contributions from Sandra Jezik.With contributions from Sandra Jezik.

Page 29: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Haskel J. Greenfield and Tina Jongsma 128

BibliographyArnold, E. and Greenfield, H.J. 2004. A zooarchaeological

perspective on the origins of vertical transhumant pastoralism and  the  colonization  of  marginal  habitats  in  temperate southeastern  Europe.  In  M.  Mondini,  S.  Muñoz  and  S. Winkler (eds), Colonisation, migration and marginal areas: a zooarchaeological approach (Proceedings of the 9th ICAZ Conference, Durham 2002, Vol. 2),  96–117.  Oxford: Oxbow.

Arnold, E. and Greenfield, H. 2006. The origins of transhumant pastoralism in temperate southeastern Europe: a zooarchaeological perspective. Oxford: BAR.

Bailey, D. W. and Panayotov, I. (eds), 1995. Prehistoric Bulgaria. Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.

Bankoff, H.A. and Winter, F.W. 1979. A house burning in Serbia. Archaeology 32(5), 8–14.

Barker, G. 1975. Early Neolithic land use in Yugoslavia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 185–204.

Barker, G. 1985. Prehistoric farming in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biagi, P. and Spataro, M. 2005. New observations on the radiocarbon chronology of the Starčevo-Criş and Körös cultures. In L. Nikolova and J. Higgins (eds), Prehistoric archaeology and anthropological theory and education (Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 6–7), 35–40. Sofia-Karlovo: International Institute of Anthropology, Salt Lake City and Prehistory Foundation.

Biagi, P., Shennan, S. and Spataro, M. 2005. Rapid rivers and slow seas? New data for the radiocarbon chronology of the Balkan peninsula. In L. Nikolova and J. Higgins (eds), Prehistoric archaeology and anthropological theory and education (Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects 6–7), 41–52. Sofia-Karlovo: International Institute of Anthropology, Salt Lake City and Prehistory Foundation.

Blazić, S.1992. Fauna Donja Branjevina: preliminary report. In D. Srejović (ed.), Archaeology and natural science (Arheologija i Priprodne Nauke), 65–7. Belgrade: SANU.

Bogdanović, M. 1988. Architecture and structural features at Divostin. In A. McPherron and D. Srejović (eds), Divostin and the Neolithic of central Serbia, 35–142. Pittsburg, PA.: University of Pittsburgh, Department of Anthropology, Ethnology Monographs.

Bogucki, P. 1979. Tactical and strategic settlements in the early Neolithic of lowland Poland. Journal of Anthropological Research 35(2), 238–46.

Bogucki, P.1988. Forest farmers and stockherders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bogucki, P. 1996. The spread of early farming in Europe. American Scientist 84(3), 242–53.

Chapman, J.C. 1989. The early Balkan village. In S. Bökönyi (ed.), Neolithic of southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern connections, 33–53. Budapest: Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences. 

Chapman, J.C. 1990. The Neolithic in the Morava-Danube confluence area: a regional assessment of settlement pattern. In R. Tringham and D. Krstić (eds), Selevac: A Neolithic village in Yugoslavia, 13–44. Los Angeles: UCLA Institute of Archaeology.

Ciută, M.-M. 2005. Începturile Neoliticuului Timporiu în Spaţiul Intracarpatic Transilvănean. Bibliotheca UniversitatisBibliotheca Universitatis Apulensis XII. Alba Iulia: Universitatis Apulensis.. Alba Iulia: Universitatis Apulensis. Alba Iulia: Universitatis Apulensis.Alba Iulia: Universitatis Apulensis.Universitatis Apulensis..

Dennell, R.W. 1978. Early farming in south Bulgaria from the VI to the III millennia B.C. Oxford: BAR.

Draşovean, F. 1989. Observaţii pe marginea unor materiale inedite privind raportuirle dintre culturile Starčevo-Criş, Vinča A şi lumea liniarã în nordul Banatului. Apulum 24, 9–48.

Ehrich, R.W. 1977. Starčevo revisited. In V. Markotić (ed.), Ancient Europe and the Mediterranean, 59–67. Warminster: Aris and Phillips.

Ehrich, R.W. and Bankoff, H.A. 1990. Absolute chronology of the Neolithic in southeastern Europe. In R. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World archaeology, 375–94. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ellis,  A.E.  1969.  British snails: a guide to the non-marine gastropoda of Great Britain and Ireland, Pleistocene to recent. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Garašanin, M. 1973. Praistorija na Tlu SR Srbije.  Belgrade: Srbska Knjunevna Zadruga.

Garašanin, M. 1983. The Stone Age in the central Balkans. Cambridge Ancient History 3(1), 75–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Geddes, D. 1982. Neolithic transhumance in the Mediterranean Pyrenees. World Archaeology 15, 51–66.

Gilman, P. 1987. Architecture as artifact: pit-structures and pueblos in the American Southwest. American Antiquity 52(3), 538–65.

Gimbutas,  M.  1974.  Obre I and II. Neolithic sites in Bosnia (Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des Bosnisch-Herzegowinischen Landesmuseums IV). Sarajevo: Zemaljski Muzej.

Gimbutas, M. (ed.) 1976. Neolithic Macedonia: as reflected by excavation at Anza, southeast Yugoslavia. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, UCLA.

Gimbutas, M. 1991. The civilization of the Goddess: the world of Old Europe. New York: Harper Collins.

Girod, A. 2001–2002. The Holocene molluscs of Edera Cave (Aurisina, northeastern Italy): qualitative and spatial analyses – 1990–1997 excavations. Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 13, 35–55.

Greenfield, H.J. 1986. Paleoeconomy of the central Balkans (Serbia): a zooarchaeological perspective on the late Neolithic and Bronze Age (ca. 4500–1000 BC). Oxford: BAR.

Greenfield, H.J. 1991. Fauna from the late Neolithic of the central Balkans: issues in subsistence and land use. Journal of Field Archaeology 18, 161–86.

Greenfield, H.J. 1993. Zooarchaeology, taphonomy, and the origins of food production in the central Balkans. In R.W. Jamieson, S. Abonyi and N.A. Mirau (eds), Culture and environment: a fragile co-existence. Proceedings of the 24th Chacmool Conference, 111–7. Calgary: University of Calgary.

Greenfield, H.J. 1994. Faunal remains from the early Neolithic Starčevo settlement at Bukovačka Česma. Starinar 43–44, 103–14.

Greenfield, H.J. in press. Subsistence systems during the early Neolithic of the central Balkans: a faunal taphonomic perspective. In C. Bonsall, V. Boroneanţ and I. Radovanović (eds), New perspectives on the Iron Gates. Oxford: BAR.

Greenfield, H.J. and Draşovean, F. 1994. An early Neolithic Starčevo-Criş settlement in the Romanian Banat: preliminary report on the 1992 excavations at Foeni-Salaş. Annale Banatului 3, 45–85.

Greenfield, H. J. and Jongsma, T. L. 2006. The spatial organization

Page 30: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

11. Sedentary pastoral gatherers in the early Neolithic 129

of  Early  Neolithic  settlements  in  temperate  southeastern Europe: a view from Blagotin, Serbia. I. In E.C. Robertson, J.D. Siebert, D.C. Fernandez and M.U. Zender (eds), Space and spatial analysis in archaeology, 69–79. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

Halstead, P. (ed.) 1999. Neolithic society in Greece. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Hayden, B. 1997. The pithouses of Keatley Creek. New York: Harcourt and Brace.

Horvath, F. 1989. A survey on the development of Neolithic settlement pattern and house types in the Tisza region. Varia Archaeologica Hungarica (Neolithic of southeastern Europe and its Near Eastern connections) 2, 85–103.

Hopf, M. 1975. Frühe Kulturpflanzen aus Bulgarien. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 20, 1–55.

Jezik, S. 1998. The origins of agriculture in temperate Europe: an exploration into the subsistence strategies of two early Neolithic sites in the central Balkans, Foeni-Salaş and Blagotin. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, University of Manitoba.

Jongsma, T.L. 1997. Distinguishing pits from pit-houses: an analysis of architecture from the early Neolithic central Balkan Starčevo-Criş culture through the analysis of daub distributions. Unpublished MA Dissertation, University of Manitoba.

Jongsma, T.L. and Greenfield, H.J. 1996. The vertebrate fauna from middle and late Neolithic Sinandrei, SW Romania, 1992 excavations. In F. Draşovean (ed.), The Vinča culture, its role and cultural connections: international symposium on the Vinča culture, its role and cultural connections, Timişoara, Romania, October 1995, 295–308. Timişoara: Museum of the Banat. 

Jongsma, T.L. and Greenfield, H.J. 2001. Architectural technology and  the  spread  of  early  agricultural  societies  in  temperate southeastern Europe. In S. Tupakka, J. Gillespie and C. de Mille (eds), Untrampled ground – untrammelled views: human exploitation of and settlement patterns on new landscapes (Proceedings of the 31st (1998) Annual Chacmool Conference), 181–200. Calgary: University of Calgary.

Kaiser, T. and Voytek, B. 1982. Sedentism and economic change in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2, 323–53.

Kosse,  K.  1979  Settlement ecology of the early and middle Neolithic Körös and Linear Pottery cultures in Hungary. Oxford: BAR.

Kuijt, I. 1994. Foeni, Romania, 1992 preliminary report: analysis of chipped stone tools. Annale Banatului 3, 86–93.

Lazarovici, G. 1979. Neoliticul Banatului. Cluj-Napoca: Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis.

Lazarovici, G. 1984. Neoliticul timporiul din Romaniae. Acta Musei Porolissensis (Zalau, Romania) 8, 49–104.

Lazarovici, G. and Maxim, Z. 1995. Gura Baciului. Bibliotheca Musei Napocensis, Monografia Arheologică XI. Cluj-Napoca: Musei Napocensis.

Lazić, M. 1988. Fauna of mammals from the Neolithic settlements in Serbia. In D. Srejović (ed.), The Neolithic of Serbia, 24–38. Belgrade: University of Belgrade.

Lubell, D. 2004. Prehistoric edible land snails in the circum-Mediterranean: the archaeological evidence. In J.-P. Brugal and J. Desse (eds), Petits animaux et sociétés humaines. Du complément alimentaire aux ressources utilitaires, 78–98. Antibes: Éditions APDCA.

McIntosh, R. 1974. Archaeology and mud wall decay in a West African village. World Archaeology 6(2), 155–67.

McLaren, F.S. and Hubbard, R.N.L.B. 1990. The archaeobotanical remains. In R. Tringham and D. Krstić (eds), Selevac: a Neolithic village in Yugoslavia, 247–54. Los Angeles: UCLA.

Makkay, J. 1978. Excavations at Bicske I. The early Neolithic – The earliest Linear Band Ceramic. Alba Regia 16, 9–60.

Makkay, J. 1992. Excavations at the Körös culture settlement of Endröd-Öregszölök 119 in 1986–1989. In S. Bökönyi (ed.), Cultural and landscape changes in south-east Hungary: report on the Gyomaendröd Project,  121–94.  Budapest: Archaeolingua.

Manson, J.L. 1990. A reanalysis of Starčevo culture ceramics: implications for the Neolithic development in the Balkans. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern Illinois.

Manson, J.L. 1995. Starčevo pottery and Neolithic development in the central Balkans. In W.K. Barnett and J.W. Hoops (eds), The emergence of pottery, 65–77. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Murdock, G.P. 1967. Ethnographic atlas.  Pittsburgh,  PA.: University of Pittsburgh.

Mussi, M., Lubell, D., Arnoldus-Huyzendveld, A., Agostini, S. and Coubray, S. 1995. Holocene land snail exploitation in the highlands of central  Italy and eastern Algeria: a comparison. Préhistoire Européenne 7, 169–89.

Nandris, J. 1976. Some factors in the early neothermal settlement of southeast Europe. In G. Sieveking, I.H. Longworth and K. Wilson (eds), Problems in economic and social archaeology, 549–56. London: Duckworth.

Naroll, R. 1962. Floor area and settlement population. American Antiquity 27(4), 587–9.

Paul, I. 1995 Aspekte des Karpatisch-Balkanisch-Donauländischen Neolithikums. Die Präcriş-Kultur. In I. Paul (ed.),In I. Paul (ed.), Vorgeschichtliche Untersuchungen in Siebenbürgen, 28–68. Alba Iulia: Universitatis Apulensis.Universitatis Apulensis.

Păunescu, A. 1979. Cercetarile arheologice de la Cuina Turcului-Dubova (Jud. Mehedinti). Tibiscus 5, 11–56.

Pounds,  N.  1969.  Eastern Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Renfrew, J. 1974. Report on the carbonised cereal grains and seeds from Obre I, Kakanj and Obre II. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des Bosnisch-Herzegowinischen Landesmuseums 4(A), 47–53.

Renfrew, J. 1989. Carbonised grain and seed. In M. Gimbutas, S. Winn and D. Shimabuku (eds), Achilleion, a Neolithic settlement in Thessaly, Greece 6400–5600 BC, 307–10. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California Press.

Reynolds, P.J. 1979. Iron Age farm: the Butser experiment. London: British Museum Publications.

Rocek, T.R. 1995. Sedentarization and agricultural dependence: perspectives  from  the  pithouse-to-pueblo  transition  in  the American Southwest. American Antiquity 60(2), 218–39.

Senior, E. 2004. Modes of production during the early Neolithic: Foeni-Salaş. Unpublished Masters Dissertation, University of Manitoba.

Shaffer, G.D. 1983. Neolithic building technology in Calabria, Italy. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton.

Sherratt, A.G. 1982. The development of Neolithic and Copper

Page 31: 2008 Greenfield-Jongsma Early Neolithic Foeni Whittle Bailey Unsettling Neolithic

Haskel J. Greenfield and Tina Jongsma 130

Age settlement in the Great Hungarian Plain, part I: the regional setting. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 1(3), 287–316.

Spataro, M. 2003 Early Neolithic pottery production in the Balkans: minero-petrographic analyses of the ceramics from the Starčevo-Criş site of Foeni-Sălaş (Banat, Romania). Atti della Società per la Preistoria e Protostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 14, 25–44.

Srejović, D. 1972. New discoveries at Lepenski Vir. New York: Stein and Day.

Srejović, D. 1979. Protoneolit Kultura Lepenskog vira. In D. Basler, A. Benac, S. Gabrovec, M. Garašanin, N. Tasić and K. Vinski-Gasparini (eds), Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja II: Neolitsko Doba, 33–78. Sarajevo: Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.

Tringham, R. 1971. Hunters, fishers, and farmers of eastern Europe, 6000–3000 BC. London: Hutchinson.

Tringham, R. 2005. Weaving house life and death into places: a blueprint for a hypermedia narrative. In D.W. Bailey, A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds), (un)settling the Neolithic, 98–111. Oxford: Oxbow.

Tringham, R. and Stefanović, M. 1990. The nonceramic uses of clay. In R. Tringham and D. Krstić (eds), Selevac: a Neolithic village in Yugoslavia, 323–96. Los Angeles: UCLA.

Vlassa, N. 1980. Din nou despre poziþia stratigricã orizontului Gura Baciului I. Marisia 10, 691–7.

Whittle, A. 1996. Europe in the Neolithic: the creation of new worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wiessner, P. 1974. A functional estimator of population from floor area. American Antiquity 39(2), 343–9.

Zăvoianu, I. 1979. Judeţul Timiş – Sport-turism. Timişoara: Editura Academiei.

Zhadin, I. 1952. Mollusks of fresh and brackish waters of the U.S.S.R. (Keys to the fauna of the U.S.S.R., No. 46) (trans. the Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem). Moscow: Zoological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.

Zita, P. 2006. Early Neolithic intra-settlement social organization: a relational database approach to Foeni-Salaş (SW Romania). Unpublished Masters Dissertation, University of Manitoba.

Zvelebil, M., Dennell, R. and Domańska, L. (eds) 1998. Harvesting the sea, farming the forest: the emergence of Neolithic societies in the Baltic region. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.