Faunal assemblages from the Early Neolithic of the central Balkans: methodological issues in the reconstruction of subsistence and land use

The Iron Gates in Prehistory:

Edited by

Clive BonsallVasile Boroneanţ

Ivana Radovanović

BAR International Series 1893

2008

New perspectives

This title published by

ArchaeopressPublishers of British Archaeological ReportsGordon House276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 [email protected]

BAR S1893

The Iron Gates in Prehistory: New perspectives

© the individual authors 2008

Cover and Title Page illustration: ‘The Nymph’ drawn by N. Mitri!, based on a gural sculpture from Lepenski Vir now in theNational Museum collection in Belgrade ((with permission)

ISBN 978 1 4073 0373 4

Printed in England by Blenheim Colour Ltd

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxfordOX2 [email protected]

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is availablefree from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

The earliest food producing societies in temperate SoutheastEurope north of the Mediterranean littoral appear in thecentral-north part of the Balkan peninsula (hereafter referredto as the central Balkans — Fig. 1) during the earlier half ofthe Neolithic. The Early Neolithic (Starčevo culture) of thecentral Balkans, c. 7300–6400 BP (6150–5350 cal BC), wit-nessed the earliest spread of farming adaptations in Europenorth of the Mediterranean littoral (Tringham 1971; Barker1985). It is within this region that food production strategiesbased essentially upon an eastern Mediterranean complex ofplants and animals are modified before spreading to the tem-perate climatic zones of Central and Northern Europe(Champion et al. 1984; Barker 1985).

Many scholars have proposed explanatory models, oftenincluding economic or subsistence components (with apaucity of supporting data), for the spread of the EarlyNeolithic food producing cultures of temperate SoutheastEurope (e.g. Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1971; Garašanin1973, 1983; Bökönyi 1974a; Barker 1985; Whittle 1985).While the Early Neolithic of the central Balkans is con-sidered one of the most crucial periods in European prehis-tory, it nonetheless remains one of the most poorly investig-ated in terms of prehistoric economics. But, if economicprocesses are recognized as fundamental to the emergence offood producing society, economic data must be collected andused to test models for their evolution.

The appearance of early food producing societies in tem-perate Southeast Europe is often assumed by archaeologiststo be the result of the migration of previously establishedfood producing communities from the south (e.g. Childe1929, 1958; Ammerman & Cavalli-Sforza 1971; Tringham1971: 70ff.; Champion et al. 1984: 100, 120; cf. Dennell1985: 153ff.; Whittle 1985: 54). Two often unstated assump-tions are used to support this view of the spread of food pro-ducing societies into temperate Southeast Europe:

1. If domestic fauna are found to be dominant in EarlyNeolithic sites in the region, these sites belong to intrusivecolonists colonizing an essentially open nearly uninhab-ited environment; and

2. Since terminal Mesolithic sites are poorly represented inthe region (with the exception of agriculturally marginalareas such as the Danubian Iron Gates or Montenegrinhighlands), significant indigenous Mesolithic hunting-gathering populations survived only in such areas, andslowly adopted domestic economies.

Therefore, any sites with domesticated plants and animalsfound outside of these refugia were assumed to belong to in-trusive agricultural populations. The first Early Neolithiczooarchaeological studies from the region demonstrated apreponderance of domestic fauna in Early Neolithic sitesoutside of the Iron Gates (e.g. Bökönyi 1974b, 1976, 1988;Clason 1980). These were used in support of this circularreasoning. Recent studies indicate a more complex picture.As will be shown in this paper, the frequency of domesticfauna in sites cannot be used to argue for the presence or ab-sence of indigenous populations in and outside of agricultur-ally marginal areas. Rather, the frequencies of faunal remainsin sites are a reflection of differential resource exploitation,recovery methodology, and bone assemblage attrition.

The Early Neolithic of the central Balkans has been ex-tensively investigated because of the interest in the origins offood production in Europe. But, little effort has been placedupon the systematic recovery of faunal remains from suchsites. This has resulted in a dramatically biased zooarchae-ological database, and one that has been uncritically acceptedin the literature to explain the origins of food production inSoutheast Europe (e.g. Murray 1970; Barker 1985; Whittle1985; Halstead 1988). Neither the few systematic zooar-chaeological studies nor the secondary discussions employ-ing such data have paid attention to the taphonomic history of

103

Faunal assemblages from the Early Neolithicof the central Balkans: methodological issues in the

reconstruction of subsistence and land use

Haskel J. Greenfield

Abstract: The earliest food producing societies in Europe north of the Aegean littoral appear in the central Balkans during the EarlyNeolithic. As a result, they are frequently included in discussions of the evolution of animal domestication in Europe. However, relativelylittle zooarchaeological research has been undertaken in the central Balkans. This paper has two goals. First, it introduces and discusses thenature, quality and problems pertaining to each of the major Early Neolithic zooarchaeological samples from the central Balkans todemonstrate the difficulty of inter-assemblage comparison. Second, it explores the potential of these assemblages for reconstructing animalexploitation strategies and land use patterns during the Early Neolithic, which are essential for understanding the economic processes in-volved in the evolution of early food producing societies in Southeast Europe. It is shown that it would be misleading to uncritically acceptthese assemblages as high quality sources of information for reconstructing the origins of animal domestication in Southeast Europe andanimal exploitation strategies and land use patterns during the Early Neolithic. These assemblages have a very limited potential for under-standing the economic processes involved in the evolution of early food producing societies in Southeast Europe.

Key words: fauna, Neolithic, southeast Europe, subsistence, land use patterns

samples or to the methodological problems connected withthe faunal samples from this period and region (cf. Gifford1981; Greenfield 1991, 1993). In the region, there is a dearthof published systematic analyses of Early Neolithic fauna.Most published accounts consist of species-frequency lists orpreliminary reports, usually lacking detailed supporting data.These shortcomings in the database are significant influencesduring reconstruction of prehistoric economies on the basisof inter-site patterning in bone assemblages. It is only aftermethodological and taphonomic issues are addressed thatanimal exploitation strategies can be discussed. Some of themore important Early Neolithic faunal samples from thecentral Balkans are discussed here in order to demonstrate

some of the difficulties involved in inter-assemblage com-parison and their potential for reconstructing animal exploit-ation strategies and land use patterns.

The region, archaeological ‘culture’ and sites

The regionThe central Balkans encompasses the eastern half of theformer Yugoslavia. It includes the countries presently knownas Serbia, Bosnia, and Macedonia. The term Balkan was ori-ginally a Turkish word, meaning a chain of (forested) moun-tains (Naval Intelligence Division 1944; Klaić 1982). The

104

The Iron Gates in Prehistory

Figure 1. Map of the central Balkans, showing Early Neolithic sites with analyzed faunal assemblages mentioned in text.Site name abbreviations used in all figures and tables are: A=Anza; B=Blagotin; BC=Bukovačka Česma; D=Divostin;F=Foeni-Salaş; G=Golukot; HV=Hajdučka Vodenica; LV=Lepenski Vir; LB=Ludoš Budžak; M=Madžari; N=Nosa;O=Obre; P=Padina; RB=Rug Bair; S=Starčevo; V=Vlasac.

Balkan Peninsula is a topographically complex environmentwith several interconnected mountain systems coursingthrough the area. Highlands and lowlands are juxtaposed,with more than 37% of the land above 500m (Turnock 1989:8). This variation in landforms within a small area has astrong influence on local climate. The regional climate istransitional between that of temperate Central Europe and themore arid Mediterranean basin. Climate and plant and animalcommunities take on different characteristics not only in ageneral north–south gradient, but also with increasing alti-tude. Neighbouring valleys often exhibit very different com-binations of regional environmental variables, yet retain thegeneral pattern of environmental diversity within the area asa whole (Pounds 1969).

The Early Neolithic of the central BalkansThe advent of the Neolithic in this region is generally con-nected to the appearance of food producing technology andadaptations, such as settled communities, ceramics, polishedstone tools, domestic plants and animals. These are found inlarge quantities for the first time with the Starčevo culture.The Early Neolithic of the central Balkans coincides for themost part with the spatial extent of the Starčevo ‘culture’c. 7300–6400 BP (6150–5350 cal BC — cf. Tringham 1971;Gimbutas 1976; Garašanin 1983).1 Geographical variants ofthe Starčevo culture are known from Romania (Criş) andHungary (Körös). The Starčevo culture has been temporallysubdivided into several sub-phases. Several competing chro-nological systems have been proposed on the basis of,primarily, the seriation of ceramic materials found at strati-fied and unstratified sites throughout the region (e.g. Milojčić1949; Aranđelović-Garašanin 1954; Gimbutas 1976;Garašanin 1979, 1983; Srejović 1988). It is considered to bethe archaeological manifestation of the earliest Neolithicpopulations in the region.

Large-scale excavations have demonstrated that Starčevosettlements are not internally differentiated into functionallydistinct areas (such as domestic houses, specialized workareas, cemeteries). There is little evidence for socio-economic differentiation among houses or burials that wouldimply significant status distinctions within communities.Remains of structures include both semi-subterranean andground-level dwellings, often with associated hearths andrefuse/storage pits. Artefacts include coarse and fine ceram-ics, small ceramic altars, amulets, chipped and ground stonetools, bone and antler tools, and unmodified animal bonesand shells. The ceramics are thick-walled and decorated witha variety of typical Starčevo decorative motifs, includingmono- and polychrome painting, interior burnishing, pinch-ing, impressing, channelling, and barbotine surface decora-tions (Tringham 1971; Garašanin 1979, 1983; Srejović 1979;Leković 1985; Bogdanović 1988; McPherron & Srejović1988; Chapman 1989; Greenfield 2000; Jongsma &Greenfield 2001).

The sitesMost of our knowledge of Early Neolithic subsistence de-rives from four groups of sites. Each is located in a differentenvironmental context. The nature of the subsistence datadiffers between each of these environments.

1. The first are found along the banks of the Danube in thegorge known as the Iron Gates (Lepenski Vir: Bökönyi1971; Padina: Clason 1980; Hajdučka Vodenica:Greenfield, this volume). The sites in the gorge share ac-cess to a similar range of resources and have similar faunalproportions.

2. The second group is located in the northern end of theMediterranean environmental zone. They are also at thesouthern end of the Starčevo range. Sites include Anza andRug Bair in a small Macedonian upland basin (Bökönyi1976; Schwartz 1976).

3. The third group includes those found in the rolling hillsand river valleys of central Serbia and Bosnia, such asDivostin and Blagotin nestled among the rolling hills ofcentral Serbia, Bukovačka Česma in the Morava rivervalley, and Obre I in a valley deep in the mountains ofnorthern Bosnia (Bökönyi 1974b, 1988; Greenfield 1994,Greenfield & Jongsma n.d.). This is the transition zonebetween the Mediterranean and the Central Europeantemperate climatic system. River valleys, such as theMorava, Bosna and Vardar were important routes for thespread of Early Neolithic adaptations from theMediterranean to Central Europe and a centre for Starčevosettlement (cf. Barker 1975; Srejović 1979). As such, theyrepresent an important link in understanding the spread ofearly farming adaptations out of the southern Balkans intothe rest of Europe.

4. The fourth group is found in the Pannonian Plain (a non-political term for the great lowlands encompassingHungary, eastern Romania, and the northern part of theformer Yugoslavia). These sites are at the northern end ofthe Starčevo range. Sites from this group include the typesite of Starčevo on the Danube along the south edge of theplain and those further north and east, in the interior of theplain, such as Foeni-Salaş, Ludoš-Budžak, Nosa, andGolukot (Bökönyi 1974a; Clason 1980; Lazić 1988;Greenfield et al. n.d.). They are found close to theHungarian or Romanian borders and are located in a moreCentral European climatic system (Pounds 1969).

Environmental variability in site location

Based on vegetation, climate and topography, the region canbe divided into four major zones:1. A Mediterranean zone in the southern half of the Balkan

Peninsula, with low annual precipitation, high summertemperatures, and semi-steppe vegetation (Anza and RugBair).

2. A temperate transition zone in the hills of Serbia andBosnia, transitional in many of its environmental charac-teristics between the Mediterranean and Central Europeansystems. This zone is characterized by high, year-roundprecipitation, deciduous forests and strong soil develop-ment. The sites in this zone are located on hills overlook-ing river floodplains and surrounded by agriculturally fer-tile soils (Blagotin, Obre I, Divostin, Bukovačka Česma).

3. A temperate highland zone in the Iron Gates gorge of theDanube, surrounded by the mountains of eastern Serbia,thick deciduous forests, soils with poor agricultural po-

105

Haskel Greenfield: Early Neolithic faunal assemblages from the central Balkans

tential, and overlooking the Danube and its rich aquaticresources (Hajdučka Vodenica, Lepenski Vir, Padina); and

4. A temperate Central European lowland zone in the plainsof Pannonia (Starčevo, Golukot, Foeni-Salaş, Nosa, andLudoš-Budžak). These sites overlook the floodplains ofrivers, streams and marshes, with flora and fauna adaptedto soils with high moisture levels.

Some methodological issues in inter-assemblagecomparisonAlthough consideration of the taphonomic history of eachsample is a necessary precondition to the reconstruction ofprehistoric subsistence and land use, most of the sampleswere not excavated, analyzed or published in a manner thatallows a systematic reconsideration of their taphonomic his-tory. Consideration of the methodological problems underly-ing the faunal studies can be used, however, to enhance ourunderstanding of some of the inter-assemblage variability.Eventually, we may be able to differentiate patterning in thesamples attributable to methodology from that of prehistorichuman behaviour. Some of the more important methodolo-gical issues in inter-assemblage comparison are discussednext. The issues chosen for discussion are those that can bere-evaluated given the limited nature of most faunalpublications.

Recovery methodologyIt has long been a truism of faunal analysis that recoverymethodology dramatically affects the outcome conclusionsof the analysis (Payne 1972; Casteel 1973). As a result, col-lection methodology must be considered before any conclu-sions concerning human behaviour can be made. In general,bone collection from this region has been unsystematic. Allof the samples were unsieved except for Anza, Blagotin,Foeni-Salaş and Rug Bair. Only Foeni-Salaş and Rug Bair’sfauna were entirely sieved. The sieved and unsieved samplesfrom Anza and Blagotin were not separated during analysis.Hand recovery affects the results of all the analyses in thefollowing manner:1. The bones of larger animals will be more completely col-

lected than smaller animals. This will result in over-representation of larger animals in assemblages. For ex-ample, cattle remains were collected more frequently thansheep remains, over-representing them in the assemblagerelative to their original frequencies. Such is the situationat Obre (Bökönyi 1974b; Clason & Prummel 1977;Greenfield 1986, 1991).

2. The size of the bone is also an important variable. Thelarger the bone of the same species, the more likely it isthat it will be collected. Large bones are more frequentlycollected than the smaller bones of the same taxon. Thus,reconstruction of preferential selection of body parts foruse and/or disposal is compromised. If excavators prefer-entially collect large unbroken long bones (e.g. humerus)and ignore the smaller bones (e.g. phalanges, tarsals andcarpals), then one may mistakenly assume that the prehis-toric occupants disposed of the missing bones elsewhere.However, the reason that the smaller bones are missingfrom the assemblage is due more to the behaviour of the

archaeologists conducting the excavation than to the be-haviour of the prehistoric occupants (Lyman 1994).While most faunal studies from the region do not list the

type and frequency of various element categories, somestudies do (Clason 1980; Greenfield 1994, n.d. a, b, thisvolume). There is a systematic recovery bias against smallbone elements. When the distribution of element categoriesare compared in the unsieved samples, there is a total or nearabsence of small elements (phalanges, carpals and tarsals) forthe medium- and small-sized mammals (e.g. ovicaprines,pigs, dogs, beaver). They are relatively more common amonglarge mammals, both domestic and wild. In the sievedsamples, the small element categories are more common.

It is also possible to note the effect of recovery technologyupon overall sample size by comparing the Iron Gatessamples (Lepenski Vir, Padina, Vlasac, and HajdučkaVodenica — Bökönyi 1971, 1978; Clason 1980; Greenfield,this volume). The excavators of Lepenski Vir, Padina, andHajdučka Vodenica openly acknowledge that bone recoverywas limited and biased toward what was considered to betools or otherwise modified bones (Greenfield, this volume;B. Jovanović, pers. comm.). The result was extremely lowrecovery rates when compared to Vlasac (Srejović & Letica1978) where efforts were made to avoid the mistakes of theearlier excavations in the gorge. The other assemblages aredominated by large mammal taxa (red deer, cattle). AtVlasac, contrary to the other excavations in the gorge, theremains of fish and various small- and medium-sized taxadominate the assemblage in all phases.

QuantificationOnly two methods have been used to quantify species rep-resentation from Early Neolithic faunal assemblages in thecentral Balkans: number of individual specimens (NISP) andminimum number of individuals (MNI) (see Bökönyi 1970;Greenfield 1986, 1991 — for reviews of procedures in theBalkans). In this study, only NISP counts are employed forseveral reasons. First, the problems with MNI seem to bemore severe than with NISP (Grayson 1984). For example,both MNI and NISP appear to be equally predictive of spe-cies abundance in large samples (>10,000 fragments). Someof the samples, however, are relatively small, and NISP ismore useful for the analysis of small samples, especiallythose with unequal species frequency ratios (Gilbert et al.1982). Also, MNI counts are not given for all of the samples,being available only for the total remains of each speciesfrom six of the sites (Divostin, Lepenski Vir, Ludoš-Budžak,Nosa, Obre and Anza I–III). In each instance, the values werecalculated in the same manner (Bökönyi 1970). Finally, NISPcounts are available for all of the sites, making the samplesmore comparable. In the NISP counts from Blagotin, Foeni-Salaş, Hajdučka Vodenica and Bukovačka Česma, whole andpartially articulated skeletons and limbs were not double-counted. Articulated specimens were counted only once.Antler and horn fragments were few and mostly attached tocranial elements (Greenfield 1986).

It is not known if the NISP counts from the other sites werecalculated in exactly the same way since there is no discus-sion of NISP methodology in their publication. Even thoughthe question of individual groups of articulated elements was

106


not directly addressed in the previously published analyses ofany of the sites except those analyzed by the author, the ar-ticulated remains of whole skeletons were not found at Anza,Obre, Divostin, Hajdučka Vodenica and Bukovačka Česma.Only the analyses conducted by the author have recognizedthe importance of documenting the presence of articulatedlimbs in order to modify NISP or MNIs. Articulated limbswere found at Blagotin, Bukovačka Česma and Foeni-Salaş(Bökönyi 1974b, 1976, 1988; Greenfield 1994, this volume,n.d. a, b).

Data publicationEach of the published assemblages has been published inways that limit reanalysis. Even though the samples fromAnza, Divostin and Obre were excavated by both natural andartificial stratigraphic units, the Early and Late Neolithicsamples were not distinguished for publication except forinitial summary statistics. For example, while species pro-portions over time are noted, changes in age and sex propor-tions are not reported. As a result, it is impossible to identifyshifts in culling strategies.

CurationSaving and storing bone collections in safe and accessiblefacilities is fundamental to the pursuit of the discipline.Advances made in one generation can be improved upon if

the next generation can access the materials. However, thecentral Balkans is plagued by poor storage facilities and aninadequately developed ethos in relation to the storage ofzooarchaeological materials. The faunal remains from mostof the largest collections were discarded immediately afteranalysis (Obre, Lepenski Vir, Divostin — personal commu-nications from Sandor Bökönyi, Dragoslav Srejović,Svetozar Stanković). Only the bone tools were kept sincethey were considered to be artefacts, in addition to smallsamples of other bones. The faunal remains from Anza andRug Bair were kept for several years in a storage shed outsideof the local museum. By the time I tried to re-examine theAnza remains in 1982, rats had gotten into the shed. All of thebags and tags were destroyed, and the faunal remains sub-sequently discarded by the curators. The remains fromHajdučka Vodenica and Padina are stored at the central stor-age facility for the Serbian Iron Gates sites at Karataš. It isextremely difficult to access material in this facility sincecrates of material are stored one on top of the other, withoutany central cataloguing system. The remains from Starčevoand Blagotin are stored in Belgrade (at the National Museumand the University of Belgrade, respectively), while thosefrom Foeni-Salaş are in Timişoara, Romania (MuzeulBanatului). Selected samples from Hajdučka Vodenica,Blagotin and Foeni-Salaş are in Winnipeg, Canada(University of Manitoba). The fate of the other collections is

107


Site Context type Light Medium Heavy Total

Blagotin Exterior in cultural horizon 50 14.49% 133 38.55% 162 46.96% 345Exterior - in ploughzone above ZM02 4 2.17% 135 73.37% 45 24.46% 184Subtotal - Exterior 54 10.21% 268 50.66% 207 39.13% 529Interior (Pit house - central) 10761 61.27% 5893 33.56% 908 5.17% 17562Interior (Pit house - peripheral) 2194 16.30% 9994 74.27% 1268 9.42% 13456Subtotal - Interior 12955 41.77% 15887 51.22% 2176 7.02% 31018Grand total 13009 41.24% 16155 51.21% 2383 7.55% 31547

Bukovačka Česma Mixed 544 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 544

Foeni-Salaş Exterior in cultural horizon 485 14.52% 2592 77.58% 264 7.90% 3341Interior (Pit house) 632 12.20% 4375 84.46% 183 3.53% 5190Grand total 1117 13.09% 6967 81.67% 447 5.24% 8531

Hajdučka Vodenica Mixed 27 24.11% 29 25.89% 56 50.00% 112

Weathering Stages

Table 2. Frequency distribution of weathering stages from Early Neolithic levels of each site.

Table 1. Frequency distribution of burnt and unburnt bones from Early Neolithic levels of each site.

Site Context Burnt Unburnt TotalN % N % N

Blagotin Exterior 20 2.27% 861 97.73% 881Pit house - central 319 1.82% 17228 98.18% 17547Pit house - peripheral 482 3.58% 12982 96.42% 13464Plough zone above pithouse 2 1.38% 143 98.62% 145Subtotal 823 2.57% 31214 97.43% 32037

Bukovačka Česma All 1 0.18% 543 99.82% 544

Foeni-Salaş If grey bones are deducted 497 6.06% 7700 93.94% 8197

Hajdučka Vodenica All 2 1.79% 110 98.21% 112

unknown at present, but I suspect that they have been dis-carded. The various analysts also had an influence on cura-tion. In general, Sandor Bökönyi advised his Yugoslavianhosts that they could discard the remains after he finished hisanalysis. In contrast, all other analysts encouraged that theircollections be curated. However, since the advent of theBalkan wars of the 1990s, the condition of any of the collec-tions is uncertain.

Physico-chemical assemblage attrition

Most analyses ignore the issue of assemblage attritionthrough weathering and other destructive forces. The contro-versy surrounding the ‘schlepp effect’ is a good example(Lyman 1994). Without a discussion of taphonomic vari-ables, it is impossible to judge the value of assemblages forsubsistence reconstructions.

BurningMost Early Neolithic faunal reports do not mention burntbones at all. Only a very small fraction of burnt bones werefound at Blagotin (2.57%), Bukovačka Česma (0.18%),Foeni-Salaş (6%) and Hajdučka Vodenica (1.8% — Table 1).The highest values come from Foeni-Salaş, which is two tothree times higher than the values found in all the rest.Similarly low frequencies of burnt bones were found in LateNeolithic and post-Neolithic assemblages from the region(Greenfield 1986, 1991).

Why are so few bones burnt? There are several possiblereasons. Most bones probably were still covered with meat

when exposed to fire, were boiled in a stew-like concoction,or had their meat removed prior to cooking. In each case,there would have been limited contact between the bone andthe flame. Also, the burnt bone may have simply disinteg-rated in the soil, since burnt bone breaks up into small frag-ments more readily than uncooked bone (Bonfield & Li1966). Another reason that few pieces of burnt bone arefound is differential disposal patterns. Cooking areas(hearths) and nearby middens are the depositional contexts inwhich burnt bone most likely would have been discarded.Other than in the Iron Gates sites, few hearths have beenfound. At Bukovačka Česma, almost all of the bones aroundthe two excavated hearths (trench 5, N=40; trench 8, N=11)were not burnt. At Anza, most debris was acknowledged toderive from exterior middens (Bökönyi 1976), where theburnt bone would have broken up and disintegrated relativelyquickly. However, due to the nature of excavation methodo-logy at most of the sites that gathered together disparatepieces of bone from large-scale excavation units, no spatialanalyses of bone distributions can be conducted.

Why were so many more burnt bones found at Foeni-Salaşthan at the other sites? Given the absence of any evidence forlarge-scale burnt destruction of the settlement, and the factthat most of the burnt bone remains were from small uniden-tifiable fragments, it would appear most likely that the ex-tensive dry and wet sieving operation would have been re-sponsible for the differences.

Bone weathering and depositional contextThe degree of weathering of samples can also profoundly af-fect the level of reconstruction. Analyses that avoid this issue

108


Table 3. Faunal remains from central Balkan Early Neolithic sites. The ‘number of taxa’ column includes all bones iden-tified to a class or finer taxonomic level. Unidentified ovicaprines (i.e. those that are not identified to either Ovis or Capra)are not counted if Ovis or Capra are present. If Ovis or Capra are not present, then unidentified ovicaprines would becounted only once. All invertebrates, bird, and fish remains, respectively, are each treated as a single taxon owing to thelow level of analysis accorded their remains (Bökönyi 1970, 1974, 1976, 1988; Clason 1980; Lazić 1988; Moskalewska1986; Schwartz 1976; Greenfield n.d. a, b).

Site Figure Number Wild Domestic NISP Notesabbreviations of taxa

Anza I–III A 14 138 4.25% 3112 95.75% 3250 aBlagotin B 18 719 8.29% 7959 91.71% 8678 aBukovačka Česma BC 11 166 61.48% 104 38.52% 270Divostin I D 14 203 8.45% 2198 91.55% 2401Foeni-Salaş F 17 416 19.87% 1678 80.13% 2094Golukot G 10 893 68.38% 413 31.62% 1306Hajdučka Vodenica H 11 211 84.40% 39 15.60% 250Lepenski Vir III L 21 1765 74.50% 640 27.02% 2369Ludoš-Budžak LB 18 572 20.91% 2163 79.09% 2735Madžari M 17 185 6.44% 2689 93.56% 2874Nosa N 16 736 71.88% 229 22.36% 1024Obre I O 19 1700 20.75% 6491 79.25% 8191Padina B P 19 2656 92.64% 211 7.36% 2867Rug Bair R 9 13 1.88% 680 98.12% 693 bStarčevo S 19 1029 25.91% 2943 74.09% 3972

a. Sieved and unsieved samples were not separated during analysis.b. Sieved fauna from the American excavations.

are in danger of reconstructing the patterns of preservationrather than any prehistoric behaviour. There are profounddifferences in preservation between the samples analyzed bythe author.

One major source of bone weathering is soil pH. Soil pHlevels, however, were not measured for most sites, since theywere excavated prior to an interest in taphonomy in the re-gion. However, pH was measured at Blagotin and Foeni-Salaş. At both, the Early Neolithic deposits ranged from pH5.0 to 7.0, depending upon the context — relatively normalvalues for the region. While pH may have had less of an in-fluence, depositional context probably had a great influence.

There appear to be regional variations in bone preserva-tion. The material from the Iron Gates seems to be muchmore poorly preserved than the other regions. Most of theHajdučka Vodenica sample was heavily eroded (50% —Table 2), with characteristic weathering cracks, pitted bone

surfaces, and the loss of delicate features. Based on a study ofsome of the bone tools from Lepenski Vir and Vlasac curatedat the University of Belgrade, the state of preservation of theHajdučka Vodenica sample is probably characteristic of theother Iron Gates samples.

In the central Serbian sites, bones tend to be much betterpreserved. The Bukovačka Česma sample is remarkable forthe preservation of even delicate morphological features(Greenfield 1994). All of the bones were very well preserved.At Divostin, bones were well preserved when buried in theashy and alkaline soil of pits. Bones from the cultural horizon(which is composed of Smonica-type soils, with a heavy claycontent and high water retention), however, were so fragileand soft that they fragmented or disintegrated during excav-ation (Lyneis 1988: 301).2 At nearby Blagotin, there weresimilar patterns of preservation to those found at Divostin(Greenfield 2000, n.d. a; Greenfield & Jongsma n.d.). Most ofthe bones were lightly (41%) or moderately (51%) weathered(Table 2). However, when the remains are divided betweenthose found within features (such as pits) and those that lay inthe open, the degree of preservation is very different. In theexterior deposits, whether in the plough zone or in the cul-tural deposits, most of the remains were either moderately(51%) or heavily (39%) weathered. Very few were lightlyweathered. In the interior deposits, most of the remains weremoderately (51%) or lightly (41%) weathered. There aresome differences between specific deposits, but the effect ofdepositional context on preservation remains (Meadow1978).

Only one sample had information from Pannonia —Foeni-Salaş (Greenfield n.d. b; Greenfield et al. n.d.). It hada very different pattern of preservation. Most of the bones(81.6% — Table 2) were only moderately preserved, regard-less of whether bones were recovered in pits or in the exteriordeposits. This is a reflection of the sandy loam deposits of thesite. It is difficult to gauge the pattern of bone preservation attell sites (which had deeply stratified deposits that were ad-vantageous for bone preservation — Obre I, Anzabegovo)since there is no recorded information on these sites.

In general, preservation is worst in the Iron Gates (wherethey were heavily eroded), those from Pannonia were better,and those from central Serbia were the best. BukovačkaČesma had the best preserved assemblage of all. Little isknown about preservation at the other sites in the region.

Discussion

Despite all of the above issues, can anything be said aboutsubsistence practices? Before this can be accomplished, twoother issues must be examined.

Sample size and taxonomic diversityThe samples under consideration range quite widely in size.While large samples are best for reconstruction of subsist-ence practices, even small assemblages should be con-sidered. They can contribute information otherwise unob-tainable from other sources. Even though the number ofsamples and the diversity of environmental settings ofStarčevo sites with analyzed fauna is extremely small, each

109


Figure 2. Semi-logarithmic scale scatter-plot showing re-lationship between number of taxa identified and identifiedtaxa assemblage size in each assemblage.

Figure 3. Normal scale scatter-plot showing relationshipbetween number of taxa identified and identified taxa as-semblage size in each assemblage.

adds a new dimension to our understanding of Starčevoadaptations.

Species counts are available by separate Starčevo phasesonly for Anza. At Obre, it is difficult to correlate the speciesfrequencies with major occupational phases or strata (cf.Bökönyi 1974b; Greenfield 1991). The faunal samples frommost sites were not published by separate levels, horizons, orphases within the Starčevo layer(s) (except at Starčevo, it-self). As a result, it would be impossible to re-analyze thematerial, if and when the sub-phasing of the Starčevo culture,in general, or excavation units at particular sites, becomesmore refined. The total fragment count of unidentified speci-mens (Table 1) is unknown from half of the sites (Anza,Divostin, Lepenski Vir, Obre). Since total fragment countcannot be used to examine the impact of total number offragments upon taxonomic diversity, a proxy measure mustbe used instead — i.e. NISP. Only Obre and Blagotin havesubstantial samples of identified taxa (8000+ NISP). The resthave medium (2000–4000 bones) or small samples (c. 1000or less).

When the number of identified taxa are plotted against thenumber of bones identified to a genus or species in the sampleon a semi-logarithmic scale, all the sites fall into a singlelarge cluster (Fig. 2). A semi-logarithmic scale was chosenbecause the sample sizes are so disparate. It would appearthat a curvilinear relationship exists between the two vari-ables (y = 4005.6 Ln (x) – 7917.9). Statistically, when a cur-vilinear relationship appears and there is a low correlation(R2 = 0.1951), it is possible that the nature of the scale wasincorrect.

When the two variables are plotted on a normal scale, adifferent pattern emerges. Two separate distributions appear(Fig. 3). In the lower half of the graph, there is a strong pos-itive correlation between identified sample size and species

diversity (R2 = 0.73). In other words, the greater the size ofthe identified sample, the greater is the number of identifiedtaxa. The small number of identified taxa in small as-semblages is, therefore, a reflection of sample size. Rarespecies may appear in small data sets, but less common formsappear regularly only when the sample reaches certain min-imal size levels (usually several thousand identified frag-ments: Casteel 1973; Grayson 1984). Although the absenceof rare species in small samples does not dramatically affectthe overall analysis of subsistence systems, they are neces-sary for other types of analysis (e.g. ecological reconstruc-tion: Hesse & Wapnish 1985). Several factors, such as re-covery and preservation, may intervene to affect the normallylinear relationship between the sample size of identifiedmammal bones and the number of mammal species.

In the upper half of the graph, a different pattern appears,with the data from Blagotin and Obre. Major increases intaxonomic diversity can occur even when there are onlymodest increases in sample sizes. In these two cases, in-creases in sample size did not significantly alter taxonomicdiversity. It would appear that once sample sizes reach a cer-tain level (above 5000 identified specimens), other variablesaffect taxonomic diversity. In these cases, location wouldhave limited the range of taxa available for exploitation. Obreis found overlooking a major river, while Blagotin is found inthe highlands and away from any major water source. Hence,location and available surrounding resources can be a com-pounding issue.

Domestic:wild proportionsIs there a variable governing the relative frequency of do-mestic and wild animals in assemblages? Initial comparisonof the domestic:wild species percentages from Starčevo sitesreveals that half of the assemblages have relatively high andthe other half relatively low percentages of wild animals.There is no overlap between the two groups. All three of theIron Gates sites have very high wild species frequencies(>61%). But three of the sites outside of the Iron Gates(Ludoš-Budžak and Golukot in the Pannonian plain, andBukovačka Česma in central Serbia) also have very high wildspecies counts. The remaining eight sites outside of the IronGates have a preponderance of domestic animals (>74%).How can these distributions be interpreted? In the past, sitesoutside of the Iron Gates were assumed to be those of intrus-ive food producers because most of the fauna was domestic.In contrast, sites in the Iron Gates were assumed to be fromindigenous hunter-gatherers because:1. Even when food production appeared, it was never a

mainstay of the local economy (cf. Bökönyi 1971, 1978),and

2. The human skeletal record has been consistentlyinterpreted to represent population continuity in the IronGates from the Terminal Palaeolithic through theMesolithic and into the Early Neolithic (cf. Živanović1975, 1976, 1979).3

In fact, the reality is more complex; sites with high and lowfrequencies of wild fauna are found outside the Iron Gates. Ifwe continue to use the logic of most researchers on the EarlyNeolithic of the region, does this mean that even sites outsideof the Iron Gates belong to hunter-gatherers? This is a point

110


Figure 4. Normal scale scatter-plot showing relationshipbetween percentage of wild animals in the assemblage andidentified taxa assemblage size.

to be returned to later.When the number of identified fauna from each of the sites

is plotted against the percentage of wild animals identified inthe assemblage, three clusters appear (Fig. 4). Using the x-axis, the samples can be divided on the basis of percentage ofwild animals — one group with a high percentage of wildanimals and two groups with low percentages. Each of themajor groups can be subdivided on the basis of sample size:1. The high wild percentage group contains sites with both

low and medium sample sizes. This group comes from avariety of environmental settings. It includes the sitesfrom the Iron Gates. The other sites in this group are foundin the region beyond the narrow seclusion of the IronGates, in a variety of environmental contexts. The implic-ations of these distributions appear fairly obvious. Thehigh percentage of wild fauna found in the Iron Gates sitesreflect the isolation, topographic ruggedness and abund-ance of wild fauna, and the lower energy returns of pas-toralism versus hunting-fishing. The topography and en-vironment of the gorge with its steep slopes and thickforests make pastoralism difficult and less profitable as asubsistence strategy when compared with the hunting ofwild ungulates. The high percentage of wild fauna in thesites outside the Iron Gates (Bukovačka Česma, Golukot,and Nosa) is clearly influenced by the location of the sitesnear or on major riverine environments. These sites aremore similar to those from the Iron Gates. This is a verydifferent pattern than in the other sites found outside of theIron Gates sites rather than the generally accepted patternfor sites outside of the Iron Gates.

2. The low wild percentage group can be divided into twosub-groups: (i) one sub-group is composed of sites withsmall and medium sample sizes; (ii) the other sub-group iscomposed of sites with large sample sizes.On the surface, it would appear that the difference in

wild:domestic ratios may be affected by sample size. Thesmaller samples tend to have higher percentages of wild an-imals. The situation is more complex. One variable is recov-ery method (sieving or hand recovery). The partially sievedsamples include both those with large (Blagotin) and mediumsample sizes (Anza) among the low wild group. Sieving doesnot appear to have much of an effect on wild: domestic ratios.The preponderance of wild fauna cannot be attributed en-tirely to recovery method since wild animals are generallynot larger than domestic animals. If anything, many wild taxaare smaller (e.g. beaver and fish) and would be more difficultto recover by hand. Hand collection would under-representthe wild component of the assemblage. Fish remains, in par-ticular, are poorly collected by hand and therefore could bepredicted to have been present in larger quantities before ex-cavation. For example, they already represent 10% of theBukovačka Česma sample, a hand collected site locatedabove the floodplain of the Morava river. They were probablypresent in even greater frequencies before excavation.

Another possibility is the surrounding environment and itsrelationship to the subsistence economy. Most of the siteswith high frequencies of wild fauna are found in a limited setof environments — in the temperate environmental zone, andclose to rivers, streams and floodplains that even todayabound with wildlife. The sites with smaller sample sizes also

happen to be in such environments. Therefore, their high wildfrequencies may not be a reflection of sample size, but oftheir exploitation of the rich wild resources in the surround-ing wetlands. The faunal remains of Bukovačka Česma,Golukot and Nosa are more similar to those from the IronGates than from other sites spread through the hill country ofSerbia, Bosnia or Macedonia because they also overlookresource-rich aquatic environments. Much of the source ofvariation between samples can therefore be attributed to alimited set of variables: recovery methodology, sample sizeand environmental location. Therefore, the percentage ofwild or domestic fauna may still be used as a general reflec-tion of overall environment. Recovery can alter the detailssignificantly, nonetheless.

Much of the source of variation between assemblages cantherefore be attributed to a limited set of variables: recoverymethodology, sample size and environmental location. Thequantity of wild remains in sites outside of the Iron Gates canbe relatively high indicating that traditional assumptionsconcerning the nature and rate of spread of the transition to afood producing economy rate in Southeast Europe need to bere-evaluated. The spread of food production may be a morecomplex process than previously envisioned.

Some thoughts on the transition to food production inSoutheast EuropeIf we accept the assumption that sites with wild resources inthe Iron Gates are the remains of indigenous foragers, then itmay even be that some of the sites outside of the Iron Gateswith a predominance of wild resources may also be the re-mains of acculturating foragers. In fact, we know too littleabout the relationship between Mesolithic and EarlyNeolithic populations in this region to be able to make suchblanket assumptions. While Early Neolithic sites are wide-spread across the region, so much is assumed in Mesolithicstudies on the basis of a few highly concentrated localities(Iron Gates, Montengro).

For much of the Early Neolithic of Central and NorthernEurope, indigenous Mesolithic foragers probably coexistedwith initial and intrusive food producers. All we need to do isto look at the evidence from other better-studied regions forcomparison. For the first phase of the Early Neolithic ofCentral and Northern Europe, indigenous Mesolithic for-agers coexisted with initial and intrusive food producers (e.g.Bogucki 1988). There is also evidence for acculturation byindigenous foragers to an agricultural lifestyle (Price 1987).In contrast, most studies of Southeast European prehistoryimplicitly assume that either the indigenous population im-mediately adopted food production upon its arrival or thearea was not occupied by foragers at the advent of theNeolithic. The Mesolithic forager sites are not visible in theareas of intensive Early Neolithic settlement (in the greatriver valleys, beyond the Iron Gates and Montenegrin high-lands). The widespread presence of Mesolithic sites (in areasthat have been systematically surveyed, i.e. Iron Gates —Whittle 1985; or in regions with little vegetative cover, e.g.Montenegro — Djuričić 1991) and the demonstrable con-tinuity between Mesolithic and Early Neolithic human popu-lations in the more mountainous and less accessible areas ofthe peninsula (i.e. the Iron Gates — Živanović 1975, 1976,

111


1979; y’Edynak 1978) indicate that it is likely that foragerswere also present in the lowlands at the advent of theNeolithic.

If indigenous foragers were present at the advent of theNeolithic, it might be more realistic to assume that they co-existed with early food producers for a period of time, onlyslowly abandoning foraging subsistence economies? Duringthis transition, they may have retained much of their com-mitment to foraging while at the same time incorporatingsome domestic food producing strategies and technologiesinto their subsistence round (as occurred in Southwest,Northwest and Northeast Europe — Price 1987; Rimantiene1992), such as domestic animals, pottery production, or otherhallmarks of Starčevo sites. If this is the case, we might ex-pect foraging communities to retain their mobility, while ad-opting and incorporating domestic animals into their mobilesubsistence system before adopting other Early Neolithic ac-coutrements (such as pottery) or vice versa as in northern andWestern Europe (cf. Zvelebil & Dolukhanov 1991). If thiswas the case, many of the sites defined as Mesolithic on thebasis of lithic typology and the absence of ceramics may, infact, date from the Early Neolithic. The paucity of radiocar-bon dates from ‘Mesolithic’-type sites makes this a difficulthypothesis to test immediately. However, there are no caseswhere domestic animals are found in clear association with aMesolithic-type stone tool technology (and where EarlyNeolithic pottery is absent) outside of the Iron Gates. The fewearly Holocene sites without pottery, but with a Mesolithicstone assemblage, do not contain any domestic animals. Butthere are several sites outside of the Iron Gates with EarlyNeolithic material culture, but with assemblages dominatedby wild animals (Greenfield, this volume).

The question then arises — to whom do these settlementsactually belong?1. Are they settlements of indigenous foragers slowly accul-

turating to a food producing economy by selectively in-corporating components of typical Starčevo materialculture?

2. Are they a specialized wild food collection site for a largercommunity committed to domestic economies?

3. Do they represent new settlements established by recentlyarrived food producers who have yet to build up the agri-cultural component of their local economy?

4. Or, could they be settlements of food producers who havemoved into an agriculturally marginal area?

Each alternative has an emphasis upon wild resources as alogical explanation for the patterning in the data. How tochoose between alternatives?

The second and third choices seem less likely consideringthe size and degree of permanency of the settlements, as re-flected by the material culture and domestic architecture, andthe absence of any evidence for specialized production andexchange between contemporary sites involving foodstuffs atthis time or even later in the Neolithic. Estimations of theseasonality of death of various species based upon the age-at-death of the various species at several sites also indicateyear-round occupation (Clason 1980; Arnold & Greenfield2006). It is more difficult to distinguish between the first andfourth choices. The choice varies depending upon the evid-ence chosen to consider. In the Iron Gates, there is evidence

for human population, material culture, and subsistence con-tinuity between Mesolithic and Early Neolithic levels, evenwith the appearance of new subsistence strategies and mater-ial culture. But comparable studies have not been undertakenupon assemblages from Mesolithic sites outside of the IronGates. Also, virtually all sites with a Mesolithic-type artefactassemblage from the region outside of the Iron Gates are notdated by radiocarbon techniques. They are assumed to dateearlier than Starčevo on the basis of the similarity of theirmaterial cultural assemblages to other Mesolithic sites in theIron Gates and on the absence of Starčevo ceramic materialculture.

Conclusion

Previous studies of the earliest food producing communitiesin the more temperate zones of Southeast Europe, such as thecentral Balkans, have generally attempted to show that sub-sistence economies were largely orientated towards domesticanimal economies (e.g. Murray 1970; Barker 1985). Faunaldata from Early Neolithic sites in the central Balkans are re-considered here to demonstrate that animal exploitationstrategies during the Early Neolithic of the region was a rel-atively complex matter and that taphonomic issues must beconsidered if prehistoric economies are to be understood.Even though such faunal assemblages can increase our un-derstanding of Early Neolithic subsistence strategies, it is notan easy leap from bones to human behaviour. A number ofstudies have demonstrated the obvious and not so obviouspitfalls of extrapolating from patterning in bone assemblagesto prehistoric human behaviour (e.g. Gifford 1981;Greenfield 1986, 1988a, 1988b, 1991; Koster & Chang1986). All of the analyses of Early Neolithic faunal as-semblages and the ensuing comparative use of their resultshave ignored the possible distorting effects of bone as-semblage attrition (e.g. Champion et al. 1984; Lazić 1988).There is a great deal of variability from site to site which af-fects the representativeness of the sample and utility of thefinal analysis, such as variability of the surrounding environ-mental conditions (temperature, precipitation), local sedi-mentary conditions (including soil type and pH), recoveryprocedures, and methods of quantification. As a result of there-evaluation of the quality of the Early Neolithic faunal dataderived from such an approach, it is hoped that this will forcea reconsideration of the significance and value of conclusionsderived from previously analyzed faunal assemblages.

Notes1. Manson (1990, this volume) established an age range of

6100–5100 cal BC, based on the archaeomagnetic intensity ana-lysis of Starčevo and Körös ceramic sherds.

2. But note that Bökönyi’s (1988) faunal report does not deal withthis issue.

3. Skeletal series from Starčevo sites outside of the Iron Gates arefew and far between. However, they are now being re-analyzedand show continuity with Mesolithic populations (see thisvolume).

AcknowledgementsI should like to express my sincere gratitude to my numerous friends

112


and colleagues throughout the central Balkans who made availabletheir assemblages for analysis or who helped in the excavation andanalysis. Unfortunatel, there are too many to list separately here.Funding for this research came from a variety of sources, includingthe National Science Foundation (#BNS8105358), the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research (#4210), theFulbright-Hays Foreign Language and Area Studies Program(Program no. 84.022; Project no. 022AH10048), the InternationalResearch and Exchanges Board (1981–82, 1993–94), the Universityof Manitoba, Winnipeg (1990–99), and the Social Science andHumanities Research Council of Canada (1990–1996). I am gratefulto all of them for supporting the fieldwork, analysis and writing upof this paper. In particular, I thank my wife, Tina Jongsma, whoshared much of the field and laboratory analysis that led to this pa-per. Any errors, however, are my responsibility.

ReferencesAmmerman, A. & Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1971: Measuring the rate of

spread of early farming in Europe, Man n.s. 6: 674–688.Aranđelović-Garašanin, D. 1954: Starčevačka Kultura. Ljubljana:

Universitet v Ljubljana.Arnold, E.R. & Greenfield, H.J. 2006: The Origins of Transhumant

Pastoralism in Temperate Southeastern Europe: AZooarchaeological Perspective from the Central Balkans.British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1538.Oxford: Archaeopress.

Barker, G. 1975: Early Neolithic land use in Yugoslavia.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 41: 85–104.

— 1985: Prehistoric Farming in Europe. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bogucki, P. 1988: Forest Farmers and Stockherders: EarlyAgriculture and its Consequences in North-Central Europe.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bökönyi, S. 1970: A new method for the determination of the num-ber of individuals in animal bone material. American Journal ofArchaeology 74: 291–292.

— 1971: Animal remains from Lepenski Vir. Science 167:1702–1704.

— 1974a: History of Domestic Mammals in Central and EasternEurope. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.

— 1974b: The vertebrate fauna. In Gimbutas, M. (ed.) ‘Obre I andII. Neolithic Sites in Bosnia’. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen desBosnisch-Herzegowinischen Landesmuseum, Arheologie 3, partB: 55–154 (Sarajevo).

— 1976: The vertebrate fauna from Anza. In Gimbutas, M. (ed.)Neolithic Macedonia as Reflected by Excavation at Anza,Southeast Yugoslavia. Los Angeles: The University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles (Monumenta Archaeologica, vol. 1),313–363.

— 1978: The vertebrate fauna of Vlasac. In Srejović, D. & Letica,Z. (eds) Vlasac: A Mesolithic Settlement in the Iron Gates, vol. 2.Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Science and Arts, 35–65.

— 1988: The Neolithic fauna of Divostin. In McPherron, A. &Srejović, D. (eds) Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia.Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Department ofAnthropology (Ethnology Monographs no. 10), 419–446.

Bonfield, W. & Li, C.H. 1966: Deformation and fracture of bone.Journal of Applied Physics 37: 869–875.

Casteel, R.W. 1973: Some biases in the recovery of archaeologicalfaunal remains. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39:382–388.

Champion, T., Gamble, C., Shennan, S. & Whittle, A. 1984:Prehistoric Europe. London: Academic Press.

Childe, V.G. 1929: The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.— 1958: The Prehistory of European Society. Harmondsworth:

Penguin.Clason, A.T. 1980: Padina and Starčevo: game, fish and cattle.

Palaeohistoria 22: 142–173.Clason, A.T. & Prummel, W. 1977: Collecting, sieving and archae-

ozoological research. Journal of Archaeological Science 4:171–175.

Dennell, R. 1984: European Economic Prehistory: A NewApproach. London: Academic Press.

Djuričić, L. 1991: Surveying Paleolithic and Mesolithic Sites (inSerbian). Glasnik Srpsko Arheolosko Društvo (Journal of theSerbian Archaeological Society — Belgrade) 7: 43–51.

Garašanin, M. 1973: Praistorija na Tlu SR Srbija, 2nd edition.Belgrade: Srpska Kniževna Zadruga.

— 1979: Centralbalkanska zona, In Basler, D., Benac, A.,Gabrovec, S., Garašanin, M., Tasić, N., Cović, B. & Vinski-Gasparini, K. (eds) Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja II:Neolitsko Doba. Sarajevo: Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosnei Hercegovine, 79–212.

— 1983: The Stone Age in the central Balkans. In CambridgeAncient History, volume 3, part 1. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 75–135.

Gifford, D.P. 1981: Taphonomy and paleoecology: a critical reviewof archaeology’s sister disciplines. In Schiffer, M.B. (ed.)Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, volume 4. NewYork: Academic Press, 365–438.

Gilbert, A.S., Singer, B.H. & Perkins, D. 1982. Quantification ex-periments on computer-simulated faunal collections. Ossa 8:79–94.

Gimbutas, M. (ed.) 1976: Neolithic Macedonia as Reflected byExcavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. Los Angeles: TheUniversity of California, Los Angeles (MonumentaArchaeologica, vol. 1).

Grayson, D.K. 1984: Quantitative Zooarchaeology. New York:Academic Press.

Greenfield, H.J. 1986: The Paleoeconomy of the Central Balkans(Serbia): A Zooarchaeological Perspective on the Late Neolithicand Bronze Age (4500–1000 BC). BAR International Series 304.Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

— 1988a: Bone consumption by pigs in a contemporary Serbianvillage: implications for the interpretation of prehistoric faunalassemblages. Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 473–479.

— 1988b: The origins of milk and wool production in the OldWorld: a zooarchaeological perspective from the centralBalkans. Current Anthropology 22: 573–593.

— 1991: Fauna from the Late Neolithic of the central Balkans: is-sues in subsistence and land use. Journal of Field Archaeology18: 161–186.

— 1993: Zooarchaeology, taphonomy, and the origins of food pro-duction in the central Balkans. In Jamieson, R.W., Abonyi, S. &Mirau, N.A. (eds) Culture and Environment: A Fragile Co-existence. Proceedings of the 24th Chacmool Conference.Calgary: University of Calgary Archaeological Association,111–117.

— 1994: Faunal remains from the Early Neolithic Starčevo settle-ment at Bukovačka Česma, Starinar n.s. 43/44: 103–114.

— 2000: Integrating surface and subsurface reconnaissance data inthe study of stratigraphically complex sites: Blagotin, Serbia.Geoarchaeology 15: 167–201.

— n.d. a: ‘Vertebrate Fauna from Blagotin’. Unpublishedmanuscript on file, University of Manitoba, Department ofAnthropology.

— n.d. b: ‘Vertebrate Fauna from Foeni-Salaş’. Unpublishedmanuscript on file, University of Manitoba, Department ofAnthropology.

113


1

Greenfield, H.J. & Jongsma, T.L. n.d.: Early Neolithic Blagotin: asummary of recent research. In Bailey, D.W., Whittle, A. &Cummins, V. (eds) Sedentism in the Central and East EuropeanNeolithic. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Greenfield, H.J., Jongsma,T.L. & Jezik, S. n.d.: Sedentary pastoralgatherers in the Early Neolithic — architectural, botanical, andzoological evidence for mobile economies from Foeni-Salaş,SW Romania. In Bailey, D.W., Whittle, A. & Cummins, V. (eds)Sedentism in the Central and East European Neolithic. Oxford:Oxbow Books.

Halstead, P. 1989: Like rising damp? An ecological approach to thespread of farming in south east and central Europe. In Milles, A.,Williams, D. & Gardner, N. (eds) The Beginnings of Agriculture.BAR International Series 406. Oxford: B.A.R., 23–53.

Hesse, B. & Wapnish, P. 1985: Animal Bone Archaeology: FromObjectives to Analysis. Washington D.C.: Taraxacum Press.

Jongsma, T. & Greenfield, H.J. 2001: Architectural technology andthe spread of early agricultural societies in temperate southeast-ern Europe. In Tupakka, S., Gillespie, J. & de Mille, C. (eds)Untrampled Ground — Untrammelled Views: HumanExploitation of, and Settlement Patterns on, New Landscapes.Proceedings of the 31st Annual Chacmool Conference, 1998.Calgary: University of Calgary, Department of Archaeology,181–200.

Klaić, B. 1982: Rjecnik Stranih Rijeci. Zagreb: Naklodni ZavodMatice Hrvatske.

Koster, H. & Chang, C. 1986: Beyond bones: toward an archaeologyof pastoralism. In Schiffer, M.B. (ed.) Advances inArchaeological Method and Theory, volume 9. Orlando:Academic Press, 97–148.

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

Leković, V. 1985: The Starčevo mortuary practices — new per-spectives. Godišnjak (Sarajevo: Centar za BalkanaloškaIstraživanja) 15: 157–172.

Lyman, R.L. 1994: Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Lyneis, M.M. 1988: Antler and bone artifacts from Divostin. InMcPherron, A. & Srejović, D. (eds) Divostin and the Neolithic ofCentral Serbia. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Departmentof Anthropology (Ethnology Monographs no. 10), 301–319.

Manson, J.L. 1990: A Reanalysis of Starčevo Culture Ceramics:Implications for Neolithic Development in the Balkans.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Southern Illinois University,Carbondale, IL.

Meadow, R. 1978: Effects of context on the interpretation of faunalremains. A case study. In Meadow, R. & Zeder, M.A. (eds)Approaches to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Peabody Museum Bulletin no. 2, 15–21.

Milojčić, V. 1949: Chronologie der Jungeren Steinzeit Mittel- undSüdosteuropas. Berlin: Gebruder Mann.

Murray, J. 1970: The First European Agriculture: A Study of theOsteological and Botanical Evidence until 2000 B.C. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.

Naval Intelligence Division. 1944: Jugoslavia. GeographicalHandbook Series, vol. 1. London: Naval Intelligence Division.

Payne, S. 1972: Partial recovery and sample bias: the results of somesieving experiments, In Higgs, E.S. (ed.) Papers in EconomicPrehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 49–64.

Pounds, N. 1969: Eastern Europe. Chicago: Chicago UniversityPress.

Price, T.D. 1987: The Mesolithic of western Europe. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 1: 225–306.

Rimantiene, R. 1992: The Neolithic of the eastern Baltic. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 6: 97–143.

Schwartz, C. 1976: The vertebrate fauna from Rug Bair. InGimbutas, M. (ed.) Neolithic Macedonia as Reflected byExcavation at Anza, Southeast Yugoslavia. Los Angeles: TheUniversity of California, Los Angeles (MonumentaArchaeologica, vol. 1), 364–374.

Srejović, D. 1979: Protoneolit kultura Lepenskog vira. In Basler, D.,Benac, A., Gabrovec, S., Garašanin, M., Tasić, N., Cović, B. &Vinski-Gasparini, K. (eds) Praistorija Jugoslavenskih ZemaljaII: Neolitsko Doba. Sarajevo: Akademija Nauka i UmjetnostiBosne i Hercegovine, 33–78.

Srejović, D. & Letica, Z. (eds) 1978: Vlasac: A MesolithicSettlement in the Iron Gates, 2 volumes. Belgrade: SerbianAcademy of Arts and Sciences.

Tringham, R. 1971: Hunters, Fishers and Farmers of EasternEurope, 6000–3000 B.C. London: Hutchinson UniversityLibrary.

Turnock, D. 1989: The Human Geography of Eastern Europe.London: Routledge.

Whittle, A. 1985: Neolithic Europe: A Survey. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

y’Edynak, G. 1978: Culture, diet and dental reduction in Mesolithicforager-fishers of Yugoslavia. Current Anthropology 19:616–618.

Živanović, S. 1975: A note on the anthropological characteristics ofthe Padina population. Zeitschrift für Morphologie undAnthropologie 66: 161–175.

— 1976: Cromagnon in the Iron Gate Gorge of the Danube. Nature260: 518.

— 1979: Further evidence on Cro-Magnon in the Iron Gate Gorgeof the Danube. Current Anthropology 20: 805–806.

Zvelebil, M. & Dolukhanov, P.M. 1991: The transition to farming ineastern and northern Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 5:233–278.

114


Documents

Faunal assemblages from the Early Neolithic of the central Balkans: methodological issues in the reconstruction of subsistence and land use