UDK 903,12/'15(497 11)"633/634":31417
Documenta PraehistoricaXXXIII (2006)
Further notes on Mesolithic-Neolithic contacts
in the Iron Gates Region and the Central Balkans
Ivana Radovanovic
Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas, USA
ivana@ku.edu
ABSTRACT - Hunter-gatherer/farmer contact in the Iron Gates region is re-examined in view of re-
cent archaeological research, and the social dynamics, population movements and interactions of
small scale societies. Full, non-hostile interaction between hunter-gatherers and farmers in the Iron
Gates region is proposed for the mid- 7th millennium calBC, followed by hunter-gatherer encapsula-
tion at the end 7th millennium calBC. The lack of archaeological records on the Central Balkan Post-
glacial and Early Holocene hunter-gatherers is highlighted as a major obstacle to fully understanding
cultural transformations, including the Neolithic transition, in this region.
IZVLEČEK - V luči sodobnih arheoloških raziskav smo ponovno preučili kontakt med lovci in nabiral-
ci ter poljedelci na območju Železnih vrat in socialno dinamiko, populacijske premike ter interakcije
majhnih družb. Predlagamo, da je med lovci in nabiralci ter poljedelci na območju Železnih vrat v
sredini sedmega tisočletja calBC obstajala popolna, nesovražna interakcija, ki ji je sledila kapsula-
cija lovcev in nabiralcev na koncu sedmega tisočletja calBC. Poudarili smo, da je glavna ovira pripo-
polnemu razumevanju kulturnih transformacij, tudi neolitske tranzicije v tej regiji, pomanjkanje ar-
heoloških zapisov o centralno balkanskih post glacialnih in zgodnje holocenskih lovcih in nabiralcih.
KEY WORDS - Balkans; Mesolithic; Neolithic; Lepenski Vir; hunter-gatherer/farmer; interaction;
migration; landscape learning
Introduction
The idea of the potential contact between hunter-
gatherers and early food producers during the 7th
and early 6th millennium calBC emerged because of
the contemporaneity of the Central Balkan Early
Neolithic sites with the Iron Gates Mesolithic, along
with the occurrence of items and features traditio-
nally related to the 'Neolithic package'1 in Mesolithic
contexts (Garašanin and Radovanović 2001; Jova-
nović 1972; Kaczanowska and Kozlowski 2003;
Päunescu 1987; Radovanović 1996c; Voytek and
Tringham 1989).
Apart from the Danube Iron Gates Gorges, the exis-
ting archaeological record does not imply any straight-
forward evidence of contact between hunter-gathe-
rers and early food producers elsewhere in this re-
gion. A few sites in the Morava valley, all of them
Early Neolithic, may only indicate the possibility of
such contact, since the time of their occupation over-
laps with the time of the Late Mesolithic and Early
Neolithic in the not so distant Danube Gorges. On
these grounds, a patchy distribution of rare 'last hun-
ter-gatherers' who co-existed with regional Early Neo-
lithic groups has been proposed (Chapman 1989;
Radovanović 1996c; Tringham 2000; Voytek and
Tringham 1989). Confirmed contact of the Iron Gates
Mesolithic with the Early Neolithic, based on the pre-
sence of various material culture elements assumed
1 In the Balkans, the classic 'Neolithic package' items and features, although marked by important regional variability, may include
all or only some of the following: monochrome and/or painted pottery, fired clay objects, rectangular structures constructed from
wattle-and-daub, macro-blade chipped stone industries, polished stone objects and grinding stones, domesticated plants and animals
(sheep, goat, cattle, pig, wheat, barley, lentils, peas), intramural human burials in contracted position, etc.
to be a part of the 'Neolithic package', goes back at
least to 6300 cal BC. It is unlikely that the demogra-
phics of the Central Balkans were marked at that
time by a proportion of food-producing groups so
large as to lead to the encapsulation of the remain-
ing hunter-gatherers. The situation may more accu-
rately be described as a mosaic of diverse hunter-ga-
therer and early food producing groups having set-
tled different niches, or even sharing them to a cer-
tain extent. The early food producers were more pro-
bably surrounded by the hunter-gatherers at that
time, than vice-versa. The beginning of this contact -
preceding 6300 calBC - could be imagined with
small 'pioneer' Neolithic groups who had entered
this area, but were not able to begin pursuing their
established mode of production, based on domesti-
cated plant and animal exploitation, without co-ope-
ration with local hunter-gatherers (for a variety of
reasons discussed below). This possibility cannot be
ruled out only because the diagnostic 'Neolithic pac-
kage' elements preceding 6300 calBC are absent
from Iron Gates Mesolithic contexts. It should ini-
tially be explored by identifying changes in a num-
ber of different aspects of the IGM hunter-gatherers'
material culture, and by investigating whether they
could be a direct or an indirect result of that contact
(see also Radovanović 2006a; Tringham 2000.44).
The encapsulation of hunter-gatherers' may be pro-
bable only in the final stages of the Neolithic settle-
ment of the Danube Gorges and elsewhere over se-
veral centuries following 5900 calBC, during the Mid-
dle Neolithic Starčevo. The goal of this paper is to
discuss such contacts and their impact on different
groups living in the area at that time.
Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene research
bias in the Central Balkans
Regrettably, we still know very little about prehisto-
ric hunter-gatherers in Central Balkan areas other
than the Danube Gorges. Only in the past few years
have a more intensive survey and test excavations
targeting the Late Pleistocene sites in this region
begun to yield very promising results (Mihailović D.
and Mihailović B. pers. com), providing further evi-
dence that the Central Balkans is not a Palaeolithic/
Mesolithic void, as has been assumed (but see Trin-
gham 2000.32) (Fig. 1). It is quite unlikely that the
Late Palaeolithic and Early Mesolithic hunter-gathe-
rers, or their Palaeolithic predecessors, who frequen-
ted the Danube Gorges were the only groups pre-
sent in the region. It is even less likely, since the Bal-
kan Peninsula was an important refugium for the
European living world during the Ice Ages (Koziow-
ski 1999, Mišić 1981; Taberlet and Cheddadi 2002;
Tzedakis et al. 2000), with no indication of living
conditions worsening to such a degree as to force
all hunter-gatherers to abandon the entire region at
any time during the Pleistocene or later. Some of the
evidence could indeed be missing due to the erosive
and accumulative processes responsible for the de-
struction and deep burial of sediments containing a
potential Pleistocene and Early Holocene archaeolo-
gical record (Dolukhanov 1979; Montet-White 1999).
However, recent research in Serbia indicates that
such explanations are not applicable to the entire
Central and/or Eastern Balkans.
Therefore, the scarcity of fully explored geological,
palaeontological, and archaeological record from the
Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene can be noted as
the main cause of the inadequate knowledge of and,
hence, questionable interpretations regarding the
cultural change and transformations that took place
during earlier prehistoric periods in the Central Bal-
kans. No wonder that the scarcity of this record in-
fluenced so strongly, for example, some versions of
the Neolithic demic diffusion model, which portray
a relentless population 'wave' advancing from the
Middle East over the Central Balkan 'void', circum-
venting only the Danube Gorges' coastal areas which
were settled by the solitary hunter-gatherers.
Why is the Palaeolithic/Mesolithic evidence so scarce?
The most important reason is the very low priority
that Palaeolithic and Mesolithic explorations had in
the archaeology of the Central Balkans (principally
Serbia) during most of the 20th century. Prehistoric
archaeology in Central and South-East Europe was,
and to a great extent still is, practiced within the
long tradition of the cultural-historical approach,
with a significant penchant for the study of the Neo-
lithic and later prehistoric periods. In contrast to
neighbouring areas (Hungary, Romania and, much
later, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Bulga-
ria, Greece, and Albania), the Pleistocene and Early
Holocene hunter-gatherer settlements in Serbia were
of only peripheral interest for most local scholars.
The lack of systematic archaeological surveys and
scarcity of regional quaternary studies was a recog-
nized fact, but it did not initiate any substantial re-
vision of the 'mainstream' agenda. The belief that
the Central Balkans was devoid of human settlement
during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene was,
albeit illogically, reinforced. No wonder that the re-
sults of the survey and rescue excavations on the
right banks of the Danube Gorges and downstream
areas in the mid 1960s, which brought to light evi-
Fig. 1. Balkan Peninsula with locations of Mesolithic (■) and
Early Neolithic sites (•o) (after Tringham 2000).
dence of Early and Late Mesolithic camp sites, came
as a complete surprise.
It is true that the Childean perception of the Balkans
as a 'bridge' and/or a 'buffer-zone' between the Near
East and Europe influenced the research goals of
scholars in both regions, in the past and today (Kot-
sakis 2003.217; Tringham 2000.19-56). A signifi-
cant emphasis was on topics such as the origins of
food production, metallurgy, social complexity, and
the ensuing processes of their diffusion over the Bal-
kans through population movements, acculturation
and exchange, believed to be directly reflected in
the spatial and temporal variability of material cul-
ture (especially pottery).
The study of hunter-gatherers and its potential
in the Central and Southern Balkans
our topic. While the distribution and
density of Central Balkan Mesolithic
settlements is still largely unknown,
the Greek record shows an uneven
geographical distribution, with hun-
ter-gatherer sites in the Epirus, Argo-
lid, and on the coasts. Other parts of
the country, according to the results
of extensive survey, were virtually
uninhabited between 13 000 BP and
the beginning of the Holocene (Run-
nels 2003.128). Kotsakis (2001.66;
2003.218), however, does not see
this hiatus in occupation as a demo-
graphic reality, but rather as another
preconception caused by insufficient
research (especially evident after the
discovery of the Mesolithic in the
Theopetra cave in NW Thessaly),
coupled with the archaeological in-
visibility of the sites situated on the
now submerged coasts, or in loca-
tions buried under alluvium. Perles
(2003.103) concurs with Runnels
that Greece was extensively surve-
yed, arguing that it was "sparsely po-
pulated during the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic", with
the additional setback of the low visibility of Meso-
lithic open air sites (in contrast to caves) which were
occupied for brief periods of time, thus leaving no
substantial material record. She supposes that "if a
local dynamic towards more complex and more se-
dentary societies had taken place, the settlements
would have become all the more important and ar-
chaeologically visible...exemplified not only by the
Near and Middle East with the Natufian and Querme-
zian settlements, but also, for instance the Iron Gates
Mesolithic or Erteb0lle complex."
Perles' note on the subject of hunter-gatherers' shift
to greater complexity and/or sedentism driven by 'lo-
cal dynamics' may be a good opportunity to clarify
the term 'hunter-gatherers', either simple, complex
or sedentary.
Similarly to the Central Balkans, the Palaeolithic and
Mesolithic were understudied in Greece in compari-
son to other parts of Europe. This situation began to
change in the 1970s, and Palaeolithic-Mesolithic re-
search has steadily intensified ever since (for recent
reviews see Bailey et al. 1999; Galanidou and Per-
les 2003). However, some questions remained open,
particularly in regard to the Post-glacial and Early
Holocene human occupation that is of interest for
In the early ethnographic literature, hunter-gatherer
groups were portrayed as self-sufficient, practicing a
pure foraging economy, timeless and stuck in a de-
velopmental cul-de-sac. They were marked by "...lit-
tle personal property and an egalitarian social sy-
stem; sporadic gathering of the bands, and much
mobility of individuals between bands; fluid orga-
nization involving no territorial rights; no food
storage and no group strongly attached to a parti-
cular area..." (Rowley-Conwy 2001.40). Deviations
from this description such as territoriality, trade, so-
cial hierarchy, restricted mobility and/or sedentism,
and other traits associated with greater complexity,
were seen not as genuine behaviours, but as by-pro-
ducts of recent acculturation (Bird-David 1995.17;
Layton 2001.293).
However, anthropological understanding of the term
has been redefined over the past five decades, based
both on the observations of hunter-gatherer variabi-
lity in the modern ethnographic and ethno-histori-
cal record, and a diversity of analytical approaches
marked by emphasis on one or another aspect of
hunter-gatherer existence: economy, behavioural eco-
logy, technology, society, or ideology. A variety of
more refined classifications of hunter-gatherers resul-
ted from this work, such as Binford's foragers or col-
lectors, groups with residential or logistic mobility,
or Woodburn's groups with immediate- or delayed-
return. In terms of social organization they were
commonly described as egalitarian and 'simple' or
non-egalitarian and 'complex' - (for comprehensive
reviews and discussions see papers in Ingold, Riches
and Woodburn 1995; Panter-Brick, Layton and
Rowley-Conwy 2001). These studies had a different
impact on archaeologists and anthropologists, caused,
among other things, by the different time-scale of
their research. Socio-cultural anthropologists' synch-
ronic approach led to a greater awareness of the
hunter-gatherers' variability, which encompasses nu-
merous culturally specific economic, technological,
social, and ideological responses to local environ-
mental and demographic conditions. The archaeolo-
gists' diachronic approach leaned towards progres-
sivist assumptions about hunter-gatherers: that there
is a trend from 'simple' to 'complex' groups, that a
greater social complexity of hunter-gatherers auto-
matically implies that it had to emerge from a prior
simple form, such as the 'Original Affluent Society'
described by Sahlins (1972), that a change toward
complexity occurs slowly, leads to agriculture as its
logical outcome, and that such change is irreversible.
Yet, based both on the analyses of ethnographic and
archaeological record, each of these assumptions was
shown to be incorrect (Rowley-Conwy 2001.44-52;
2004.86). The above noted differences in approaches
are certainly simplified, since not all archaeologists
are progressivist, and those who are would not sub-
scribe to all these common assumptions. In relation
to my topic here, they may help understand the roots
of a major disagreement among scholars about the
relationship (or a lack of it) between the Iron Gates
Mesolithic and Early Neolithic of the Central Balkans.
The main split between archaeologists interpreting
the same evidence from the Danube Gorges occurred
along the line which divides (often implicit) progres-
sivist approaches from their alternatives, which were
more concerned with hunter-gatherer responses to
the local environmental and social conditions and
their historical trajectories (for the history of re-
search in the Danube Gorges area since the 1960s
and the effects of these approaches on interpreta-
tion, see Radovanović 1996a).
Having argued for a non-progressivist, 'local dyna-
mics' approach, Rowley-Conwy classifies the ethno-
graphically observed varieties of hunter-gatherer
groups into four types (2001.42):
"© the OAS [Sahlins' "Original Affluent Society"
type]: groups with little or no logistic movement of
resources or food storage, found mostly in tropical
regions (e.g. the Aborigines); some occur in higher
latitude areas, where resources are available through-
out the year and people can move from one resource
to the next, exploiting them in sequence without the
need for much storage;
© logistic groups that do not defend territories, such
as most Inuit;
© logistic groups that do defend territories - many
of Woodburn's delayed return groups;
© sedentary groups who invariably defend territo-
ries and store resources, forming a continuation of
type 3."
These types do not develop from one another follo-
wing a path beginning with type 1 (i.e., 'simple', ega-
litarian, OAS, foragers, residentially mobile, imme-
diate-return groups) and ending with type 4. All but
type 1 can be defined as complex (i.e., non-egalita-
rian, collectors, logistically mobile or sedentary, de-
layed-return groups). Further discussion on type 1
will show that labelling it as 'simple' is yet again
questionable.
In the complex, delayed-return small-scale societies
(pastoral, agricultural and hunter-gatherer), "the bin-
ding commitments and dependencies are most of-
ten those of kinship and affinity: we may find lin-
eages, clans and other kinship groups (...) mar-
riage alliances between groups (...) and other sorts
of formal contractual bonds to which people are
committed" (Woodburn 1995.34).
In contrast to these, the social organization of groups
with immediate-return systems (Rowley-Conwy's type
1) are marked by "flexible social groupings, often
changing their composition, individuals that have
a choice whom they associate with in residence, in
the food quest, in trade and exchange and in ritual
contexts; people are not dependent on specific other
people, whether relationship of kinship or other re-
lationships, stress sharing and mutuality, but do
not involve long-term binding commitments of the
sort that characterize delayed-return systems; dis-
tinctions - other than those between sexes - of
wealth, power and status are systematically elimi-
nated" (Woodburn 1995.34). One among many
other examples is the south Indian Nayaka's egali-
tarian hunter-gatherers' view of kinship, which "was
primarily made by recurring social actions of sha-
ring and relating with, not by blood or by descent,
not by biology or by myth or genealogy", also a per-
son is sensed as one "with whom we share with"
(Bird-David 1999.73). The systematic elimination or
discouraging of socially unacceptable behaviours in
egalitarian hunter-gatherer groups implies a collec-
tive consensus, but it also implies social control and
pressure to maintain it; but who is in control and
where does the pressure come from? Since egalita-
rian groups "place enormous emphasis on creating
and maintaining communal consensus", this often
sparks "a kind of equally elaborate reaction forma-
tion" of "the extreme forms of symbolic violence"2
(Graeber 2004.25 and also Clastres 1997). The con-
sensus is thus maintained by re-affirming internal-
ized cultural tradition through various aspects of
symbolic conflict (Chamberlain 2006.42). The qua-
lification of theses societies as 'simple' does not
make much sense, knowing that such symbolic
means of control and pressure act in order to up-
hold the egalitarian system. Even if the symbolic
means are 'imaginary' from the etic standpoint, they
are not less real and powerful in the emic view.
Along with various types of non-egalitarian hunter-
gatherer societies, and "from the perspective of the
flexibility, mobility and social equality", egalitarian
hunter-gatherer society "may be the most remark-
able and specialized social form that humans have
ever evolved. It has no claim to be the original hu-
man condition" (Rowley-Conwy 2001.65).
Furthermore, ethnographically known egalitarian
hunter-gatherers were not found in situations of
'pristine isolation', but in interaction with other
groups (including ethnographers), with whom they
co-operate through relationships of symbiosis, or de-
pendence and subordination (Layton 2001.299-
302, 306; Pennigton 2001.178; Woodburn 1995.
35). The ethnographic record shows that many of
these groups were versatile, switching between fora-
ging and horticulturalist or herding modes of pro-
duction to suit current conditions (Layton 2001.303).
These oscillations between the 'genuine' simple hun-
ter-gatherer mode and more complex ones underline
the significant role of the local environmental and
social dynamics that perpetuated them.
The ethnographic record also shows that egalitarian
groups are not pre-existing cultural entities, but spe-
cial alliances of individuals created in opposition to
the internal social dynamics of their 'parental' group
and/or to the external pressure of neighbours. This
is why they are marked by great fluidity, establishing
their 'kinship', in Bird-David's words "not by blood
or by descent, not by biology or by myth or genea-
logy" (l.c.). Such observations are important for ar-
chaeologists, especially when they study prehistoric
hunter-gatherers' interaction with other groups,
either hunter-gatherers, food producers or both.
In this respect I agree with Perles' comment above
about the importance of local dynamics in the for-
mation of prehistoric hunter-gatherer settlement pat-
terns which directly determines the visibility of the
archaeological record. The assumed low visibility of
Mesolithic open-air sites in Greece may indeed be the
consequence of greater hunter-gatherer mobility
(type 1) at that time. Previous discussion also points
to a fact that most of the ethnographically known
egalitarian groups (i.e., residentially mobile or im-
mediate-return groups) were, at the time anthropo-
logists studied them, surrounded or encapsulated by
other small- or large scale societies with whom they
may have co-operated. The high mobility (and egali-
tarianism) of the Greek Mesolithic groups could
therefore have been a result of the interaction with
the neighbouring, complex (logistic) hunter-gatherer
groups, but the settlements of such logistic groups
have yet to be found (along the now submerged
coasts or deep under the alluvium, according to Kot-
sakis). We have also seen that egalitarian groups
could be formed through avoidance of co-operation,
2 Drawing these ideas about symbolic violence, which is reflected in these societies' cosmologies, myths and rituals, from P. Clastres,
Graeber continues "...there is a striking contrast between the cosmological content, which is nothing if not tumultuous, and
social process, which is all about mediation, arriving at consensus. None of these societies are entirely egalitarian: there are
always certain key forms of dominance, at least of men over women, elders over juniors. (...) It is hardly a coincidence that
when larger, more systematically violent forms of domination do emerge, they draw on precisely these idioms of age and gen-
der to justify themselves."
provided that the resources they foraged were avai-
lable all-year round and distributed in niches diffe-
rent from those used by logistic, delay-return groups.
In both cases, egalitarian, consensus based groups
are created in response and opposition to surroun-
ding groups. They cannot emerge and exist without
'the other'. Woodburn (1995.63) states that "opposi-
tional egalitarian solidarity" may have been repeat-
edly "invented and re-invented" where "economic
circumstances were appropriate" without the need
to be triggered by outside pressure. One can also
argue that the 'invention' of oppositional egalitarian
solidarity may be a response to internal social pres-
sure: social tensions growing inside the parental de-
layed-return group (which then becomes 'the other').
The low archaeological visibility of highly mobile
hunter-gatherer groups in the Mesolithic in Greece
may apply to the period when farming communities
were established and attained greater population
densities. Some local hunter-gatherer groups (egali-
tarian or otherwise) were then assimilated, while
others could have remained encapsulated for some
time, leaving a 'simple' mobile hunter-gatherer sig-
nature in the archaeological record.
The above discussion on hunter-gatherer variability
based on the ethnographic record was interspersed
with my comments on recent research in Greece.
They served as a 'proxy' to better understand the
circumstances of the early to mid-Holocene hunter-
gatherer research in the Central Balkans and its po-
tential. Apart from geographical proximity (although
not a geographical resemblance), such an alternative
was also chosen because of the historical similarities
in the mainstream research agendas in both regions
which resulted in a considerable dearth of studies of
the prehistoric hunter-gatherer record. It not only
delayed research of hunter-gatherer variability in
this part of the world, but also impeded better un-
derstanding of the 'Neolithisation process' which for
a long time was, and still is, the main focus of the
regional archaeological explorations. This research
was heavily biased toward only one side of the 'Neo-
lithisation' coin: that of established food producing
groups. This process cannot be known without a
much better grasp of the local hunter-gatherers' way
of life, settlement patterns, ways in which they inte-
racted with other groups, long- and short-distance
exchange networks and routes and, in relation to
these, the effects of long- and short- distance (small
or large scale) population movements; and last but
not least, the effects of changing environmental con-
ditions.
A brief reminder of the solitary Late Post-glacial and
Holocene hunter-gatherer archaeological evidence
until the time of contact with early food producers
from the Central Balkans, i.e., the Danube Gorges
now follows.
Late Post-glacial and Early-Mid Holocene in the
Danube Gorges
The process by which settlement intensified in the
Late Post-glacial and Early Holocene in the Danube
Gorges is well documented, including the ongoing
process of settlement and reinforcement of distinct
local cultural identity markers observed in the stan-
dards of material culture production (Radovanović
1996b) (Fig. 2). The Iron Gates region witnessed ex-
tensive settlement in this period at the Climente II
cave, the rock shelter at Cuina Turcului, and at the
open air sites of Padina (layer A1) and the earliest
occupation at Vlasac (Kozlowski 1999; Radovano-
vić 1981; 1996a). While the caves and rock-shelter
sites in the Iron Gates area of this period are marked
by activities such as the specialized hunting of ibex
(Cuina Turcului) or red deer and wild boar (Climente
II), the open air camps at Padina A, Vlasac and pro-
bably a number of other sites, specialized in fishing.
These sites were not all-year-round settlements, but
locations belonging to a broader network of sites
used by local hunter-gatherer groups. The full terri-
torial extent and complexity of this network is still
unknown.
The local hunter-gatherers' inclination of establishing
and frequenting fishing camps along the Danube,
both in the Iron Gates Gorges and downstream, con-
tinued to intensify in the Early Holocene through in-
ter-group competition, sometimes resulting in hostile
interactions (Lourandos 1995.150; Radovanović
2006b; Roksandic et al. 2006). These camps were
regularly revisited, with the material culture record
reflecting the presence of logistic, territorial and
complex hunter-gatherer groups who established per-
manent structures and formal disposal areas at Padi-
na, Vlasac, Proto-Lepenski Vir, Icoana, Hajdučka Vo-
denica, Schela Cladovei, Kula (Radovanović 1996a)
(Figs. 3 and 4). The growing significance of aquatic
resources in the subsistence of these communities
was confirmed both by the predominance of fish in
the faunal remains and palaeodietary analyses revea-
ling a strong aquatic signature (Bonsall et al. 1997).
A trend toward greater social complexity, perma-
nence of settlements and the territoriality of coastal
hunter-gatherers whose subsistence was based on
aquatic resources (either from the sea, lakes or large
Fig. 2. Mesolithic sites in the Iron Gates Gorges (after Radovanović
1996a;.
rivers) is a well explored phenomenon in archaeo-
logy and ethnography (for example, see Palsson
1995.194 ff on the strong correlation between de-
pendence on coastal resources and permanence of
settlement).
However, there was a major shift from aquatic re-
sources to mixed a terrestrial diet around the mid-
7th millennium calBC (Bonsall et al. 1997). Several
other lines of evidence also mark a considerable
change in the Iron Gates Mesolithic community's
way of life at that time. Studies of the material cul-
ture from the entire region imply a restriction of the
size of territory settled by Iron Gates Mesolithic hun-
ter-gatherers in this period, and the abandonment of
the entire left bank and parts of the right bank of the
Danube with downstream areas (for the abandon-
ment of sites implied by stratigraphic gaps and dis-
continuities in traditional technologies see: Antono-
vič 2006; Radovanović 1996a; 1996c). This assum-
ption was supported by Bonsall and his collabora-
tors' (2000) discussion on the lack of continuity in
14C dates for the period between ca 6300-5900
calBC at Vlasac, Icoana, Ostrovul Banului, Ostrovul
Corbului, and Schela Cladovei, and the later re-occu-
pation of these locations at 5900 cal BC. Post 6300
calBC, massive site abandonment coincides with the
establishment of a new series of permanent struc-
tures in only two (explored) settlements in the Upper
Gorges: Padina B and Lepenski Vir I-II. Traditional
forms of settlement organization, architectural ele-
ments and burial practice were modified, and new
material, such as pottery and other artefacts of local
Early Neolithic provenance was incorporated (Gara-
šanin and Radovanović 2001; Radovanović 1996c;
2000; 2006a). There is evidence confirming conti-
nuity at the Lepenski Vir settlement between 6300
and 5900 calBC (Bonsall et al. 2004), and a conti-
nuity of the settlement at Padina has
also been proposed (Borić and Mi-
racle 2004).
The presence of new material culture
elements has led archaeologists to
assume the co-existence of Lepenski
Vir and Padina communities with
the regional Early Neolithic groups.
Among the main elements indicating
direct contact with Early Neolithic
groups are diagnostic raw materials
and technologies (see also different
arguments, but the same general
idea, in Borić 1999; Jovanović 1987;
Kaczanowska and Koztowski 2003;
Kozlowski 1982; Koztowski and Koztowski 1984;
Paunescu 1987; Radovanović 1996a; Voytek and
Tringham 1989). The question of the presence of
pottery between 6300 calBC and 5700 calBC in the
Iron Gates Mesolithic in the Upper Gorges has been
explored (Garašanin and Radovanović 2001; Ra-
dovanović 1996a) in view of the stratigraphically
secure evidence from Lepenski Vir phases LV I/2-3
and Padina B/I-III. In order to clarify which Neoli-
thic group came into contact with the Mesolithic com-
munity at Lepenski Vir and Padina, this evidence was
correlated with the Early Neolithic of the Central Bal-
kans (see Tab. 2 in Garašanin and Radovanović
2001). A conclusion very similar to Srejovic's (1966b)
first interpretation of the Lepenski Vir stratigraphy
was reached, that is: Lepenski Vir I represents phase
I of the Starčevo culture in terms of pottery presence,
while Lepenski Vir IIIa and IIIb correspond to Star-
Fig. 3. Sculptures from Lepenski Vir structures
(Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade).
čevo IIa and Starčevo IIb respectively. Effectively,
'Proto-Starčevo' and Starčevo I would represent one
and the same initial phase in the Starčevo cultural
sequence, strongly marked by early elements of the
Balkan-Anatolian complex of the Early Neolithic
(Fig. 5).
The Danube Gorges will be reoccupied at a later date,
after 5900 calBC. These settlements (apart from Pa-
dina and Lepenski Vir, where the Mesolithic 'cultural
identity' markers still endured) were built according
to 'classic' Neolithic standards: irregular dugout dwel-
lings and/or above ground huts, with rectangular
ground-plans furnished with circular hearth construc-
tions, such as at Razvrata II, Ostrovul Mare km. 873,
Ostrovul Corbului II/hor.VII, Hajdučka Vodenica II,
Donje Butorke, Ajmana, Pesak-Vajuga, Velesnica, Usce
kameničkog potoka, Knjepiste, and Alibeg at the en-
trance of the Danube to the upper gorges (Radova-
nović 1996c.43-44).
Bonsall et al. (2000) hypothesized that the abandon-
ment of a large number of the Iron Gates Mesolithic
sites in the period 6300-5900 cal BC could have
been triggered by the global climatic oscillation at
8250-7900 BP (cca 6300-5950 calBC). This event
was marked by cooler and wetter conditions, and
may have resulted in extensive periodical flooding
of the Danube banks. In their view, the exception
would be the settlement of Lepenski Vir, which the
Iron Gates Mesolithic community probably regarded
as a sacred site, and therefore chose not to abandon.
The duration of this climatic oscillation corresponds
to the construction of the Lepenski Vir I structures,
with floors made of a heavy-duty mixture of lime-
stone and sand unique in the whole Iron Gates area
(Fig. 6). These sturdy floors have been interpreted as
protection against the structures being washed away
by flooding (see also Chapman 2000.195).
Boric and Miracle (2004) opposed this interpretation
because of the lack of evidence of sediments that
may correspond to floods. The palaeo-climatological
record on the effects of the '8200 BP cold event' in
South-Eastern Europe is still inconclusive. In contrast
to North-western and Central Europe where a high-
resolution record about this event was assembled,
its magnitude and effects farther east in Eurasia are
unknown (Davis et al. 2003; Morrill and Jacobsen
2005; Veski, Seppa, and Ojala 2004) Although the
abandonment of the Iron Gates Mesolithic sites can-
not be explained only in terms of climatic deteriora-
tion, some floods and their impact on local groups
cannot be excluded. Srejovic (1966a) observed 'a
Fig. 4. Early Mesolithic burial, from Proto-Lepenski
Vir (Institute of Archaeology, Belgrade).
thin layer of brown loessic sand' at places between
the LV I and LV II settlements, and supposed that
the site could have been abandoned for some time.
In my view, the lowermost parts of this site might
have been abandoned: according to my 1996 phas-
ing of LV I settlements, the latest phase of Lepenski
Vir I (LV I/3, corresponding roughly to Srejovic's pha-
ses LV Id-e) consists of somewhat overcrowded rows
of houses located on a steep slope in the rear of the
settlement (Radovanović 1996a.Figs. 3.17, 3.22,
3.23 and especially 3 36). It is therefore likely that
the retreat of the entire settlement higher up the
slope might have been related to an increased dan-
ger of flooding at the lower elevations. Therefore
the structures in these elevated parts of the site could
have avoided periodical flooding. A similar trend of
'retreat up the slope' of the chronologically latest
houses has also been observed at Padina, another
Mesolithic site that continued to be used over a con-
siderable time during the VI millennium calBC (Ra-
dovanović 1996a.Fig. 3.5).
Contacts and transitions
The internal relationships within a small-scale society
that constitute their social organization are often se-
parated in anthropological literature (for analytical
purposes) from external relationships with neigh-
bours, traders, newcomers, etc. This external rela-
tionship is usually termed 'contact' (for a critique of
this analytical division see Bird-David 1995.17), 'co-
existence' and 'interaction' that ranges from the sym-
Fig. 5. Correlations of AMS calendar dates from Lepenski Vir with the Early Neolithic periodization of
the Central Balkans (adapted after Garašanin and Radovanović 2001 and Bonsall et al.2004).
LV settlement phases	LV pottery phases	AMS dates	EN dispersal and landscape learning in IGM	EN Balkan- Anatolian complex	EN Carpatho- Danubian complex
LV I/i	|	|	Pioneer colonization; rapid dispersal and landscape learning. Full non-hostile interaction withresident population. Abandonment of the Mesolithic Lepenski Vir by 5800 BC	Anzabegovo Ia Proto-Sesklo	
LV I/2	LV IIIai	Between 6380-6200 BC and 6080-5970 BC			Starčevo I
LV I/3-				Anzabegovo Ib	
LV II	LV IIIa2	At or after 6010-5810 BC		Anzabegovo Ic Gura Baciului	Starčevo IIa
LV IIIb	LV IIIb	At or before 5720-5550 BC	Abandonment of Lepenski Vir after 5550 BC	Anzabegovo II	Starčevo IIb
biosis to dependence and subordination of one group
to another (Layton 2001.295-301).
The following discussion focuses on contact between
hunter-gatherers and farmers. Although it is another
analytical division that may be criticized (we only
need to remember the above-noted oscillations in
the production mode of 'egalitarian' small-scale so-
cieties), Rowley-Conwy (2004.97) stated that the
hunter-gatherer:farmer dichotomy is analytically and
empirically valid. He compared three phases (availa-
bility, substitution, consolidation) of the model of
transition to agriculture (Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy
1986) to the results of Hunn and Williams' (1982)
study of the economic practices of 200 ethnographi-
cally known small-scale societies. Zvelebil and Row-
ley-Conwy's availability phase predicts that a small-
Fig. 6. Lepenski Vir I structures (Institute of Archa-
eology, Belgrade).
scale society depends on less than 5% of agricultural
products in their diet; the substitution phase would
include 5%-50%, and the consolidation phase more
than 50%. Hunn and Williams' study has shown that
in ethnographically known small-scale societies, agri-
cultural products contribute either less than 5% to
the diet (these are hunter-gatherers, corresponding
to Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy's availability phase)
or more than 45% (agriculturalists, corresponding to
the consolidation phase). Statistically negligible per-
centage reflected 5%-50% participation of agricul-
tural products (substitution phase), implying that
this phase is unstable and probably of very short du-
ration, and would probably be difficult to detect in
archaeological record. According to these data the
small-scale societies would consist of either hunter-
gatherers or farmers, not likely to linger in the in-
termediate substitution phase (Rowley-Conwy 2004.
97). This brings us to the topic of current palaeo-die-
tary studies in the Iron Gates Mesolithic
A new and larger series of radio-carbon measure-
ments of the remaining and still datable archaeolo-
gical record from the Iron Gates Mesolithic sites has
been vital for further clarification of the duration,
continuities and actual contemporaneity of particu-
lar settlements. The combination of dating human
bones with the use of 5-13C and 5-15N dietary ana-
lyses has produced a powerful (although not enti-
rely conclusive) tool for the understanding of burial
record, deposition processes and habitat in the area
(Bonsall et al. 2006).
According to the initial study of Bonsall et al. (1997),
there was a shift from a considerable intake of aqua-
tic resources to a broad-spectrum diet, with emphasis
on terrestrial resources, based upon the values of
513C and 515N in the collagen extracted from hu-
man bones from the sites of Lepenski Vir, Vlasac and
Schela Cladovei. Another explanation was offered,
relying upon Schulting's model (1998), emphasizing
a shift from a marine/aquatic to a mixed diet, with
a considerable intake of freshwater fish. It was poin-
ted out (Radovanović 2000) that regardless of the
differences between these two models, they both im-
ply that a significant dietary change took place in the
Iron Gates Gorges after the mid-VII millennium cal
BC and, for the convenience, the diets were marked
as 'Early' (before the dietary shift at the mid-VII mil-
lennium cal BC) and 'Late' (after the dietary shift).
In further discussion on the stable isotopes and food
resources in the Iron Gates area, Bonsall et al. (2000)
rejected the suggestion that anadromous fish (which
may contribute to the "marine aquatic" signature)
could be a source of the high 515N values in some
Mesolithic skeletons - which were higher than those
expected for a diet based on freshwater fish only -
"because there was no corresponding enrichment in
513C values, and because average 515N and 513C for
Mesolithic adults in Schela Cladovei (where there
is abundant evidence for Mesolithic exploitation of
sturgeon) appeared very similar to those of their
counterparts at Lepenski Vir and Vlasac where no
sturgeon remains were identified." Part of this ar-
gument would be contested by a later report stating
that sturgeon remains were identified in the faunal
assemblage collected from and/or beneath Lepenski
Vir house floors, apparently missed in the course of
S. Bökönyi's initial analysis of this material in 1960s
(Borić et al. 2004). Nevertheless, this new informa-
tion does not substantially affect the argument of
Bonsall and collaborators, since the Danube Acipen-
seridae were in fact freshwater fish until 5600 calBC,
when the Black Sea became a marine environment
after rejoining the waters of the Mediterranean (Bon-
sall et al. 2000; Ryan et al. 1997). On the basis of
stable isotope analyses Bonsall and collaborators
proposed palaeo-dietary groupings of the skeletal re-
mains from Lepenski Vir, Vlasac and Schela Cladovei
into two periods - Mesolithic and Neolithic - the for-
mer marked by high 515N values, and the latter with
these values depleted. These data were then imposed
on Srejovic's (1969; 1972) phasing of occupation at
these two sites. However, after the new AMS dates
were correlated to Srejovic' phases LV Ia-d, LV IIIal-
a2 and LV IIIb, they appeared to be inconsistent both
with the phasing and the known radiometric mea-
surements of the charcoal samples from Lepenski
Vir structures. A problem emerged, since the AMS
dates from bone samples seemed to be older than
the radio-carbon measurements of charcoal samples
from the concurrent contexts.
Cook et al. (2001; 2002) succeeded in overcoming
this problem, having found that the AMS dates from
the bone collagen have to be corrected for a fresh-
water reservoir effect (FWR), based on the premise
that "human diet may have included material from
a reservoir that differed in 14C specific activity from
the contemporary atmosphere". The AMS dates of
individual human bones were corrected for the cor-
responding FWR, and this procedure resulted in a
series of radio-carbon dates that were, at this time,
more satisfactorily correlated with known 14C dates
obtained from charcoal samples at Lepenski Vir and
other sites. Nevertheless, the problems of the incon-
sistency of human burial dates with those of the
house phases at Lepenski Vir remained (Bonsall et
al. 2006; Radovanović 2006b) (Fig. 7).
Further analyses of the stable isotope signatures
from the Iron Gates Mesolithic ensued. Grupe et al.
(2003) provided additional information about sta-
ble isotope signatures from Lepenski Vir and Vlasac,
noting that the "younger human finds at Lepenski
Vir are not only morphologically totally different
from the older finds, but tend at the same time to
have the lowest 515N values". Similarly to Bonsall et
al. (2000), their analysis implies a diachronic change
in palaeo-dietary habits at this site. Bonsall et al.
(2000; 2002) maintain that the "younger" sample
has a strong "terrestrial" isotopic profile, based on
the increase of 513C in the isotopic signature, which
corresponds to cattle rather than to deer. It remained
less clear why they refer to this type of signature as
the signature of domestic cattle only (see also Grupe
et al. 2003). Bonsall et al. (2000) provided two pos-
sible scenarios for the palaeo-dietary change in the
Iron Gates Mesolithic: either the adoption of a food
producing economy, or exchange for agricultural pro-
ducts with neighbouring farmers (see also Tringham
2000; Voytek and Tringham 1989).
Other scenarios proposed that a decrease in the im-
portance of fish as a staple food resource was trig-
gered by contact with first farmers (Radovanović
1996a; 1997), or excluded the possibility of a diet
based on agricultural products, since the lack of do-
mesticated faunal remains at Lepenski Vir does not
support such a possibility, along with the fact that
the Danube Gorges are quite unsuitable for agricul-
ture (Borić et al. 2004). These two scenarios imply
that the local hunter-gatherers switched to the mixed
broad spectrum diet (based on hunting and fishing)
Lepenski Vir phases	Ranges of FWR corrected and calibrated AMS dates	Number of occurrences
Proto-Lepenski Vir	9320-9190 BC 8310-8180 BC	2
Lepenski Vir i/1		none
Lepenski Vir I/2-3	6380-6200 BC 6080-5970 BC	12
Lepenski Vir ii Lepenski Vir iiib	6010-5810 BC 5720-5550 BC	5
Fig. 7. The AMS dates and stable isotope evidence from a
new series of 14 samples from the site of Lepenski Vir (Bon-
sall et al. 2004; with more detail in Bonsall et al. in press;,
together with five earlier measurements from this site (Bon-
sall et al. 1997;. It is important to note that AMS dates in
this table represent the occurrence of dated human bone
samples originating from the Lepenski Vir settlement con-
tßXtSy but they do not necessarily date these contexts (see
also Bonsall et al. 2006;.
floors. Archaeologists have never viewed it
as just another fishing camp, but as a pro-
bable aggregation site that may have wit-
nessed intense ritual activities3 since its
Early Mesolithic (Proto-Lepenski Vir) phase,
and which continued to play an important
social and ritual role in the lives of local
communities in later periods, both during
and after the above-noted abandonment of
sites on the left Danube bank and the Lower
Gorges. According to this third scenario, if
the structure of faunal remains at Lepenski
Vir contradicts the palaeo-dietary signature
of the individuals buried at this same site,
it is clear that Lepenski Vir could not have
been a hunter-gatherer residential site, since
it does not reflect the everyday subsistence
activities of the group who used it.
at the time of contact with the Early Neolithic. I have
earlier (Radovanović 1996a.314; 1997) attempted
to explain the contradiction between the faunal re-
cord in the post 6300 calBC Lepenski Vir (reflecting
the significance of .-selected resources and the en-
suing greater mobility of hunter-gatherers) and the
perpetuation of settlement's permanency and sym-
bolic displays (in spite of the diminished importance
of r-selected resources i.e, fish) in terms of the local
Mesolithic population's social and ideological resis-
tance to contact with Early Neolithic groups.
I will here add yet another potential scenario that
does take into account an intake of domestic food
resources (as proposed by Bonsall et al. 2000) by
the individuals interred at Lepenski Vir after 6300
calBC. These individuals could in fact have been af-
filiated to the early farming communities who lived
in areas outside the Danube Gorges, at least during
the past 10 years of their lives. The settlement of Le-
penski Vir is usually, and with very good reason,
taken to be quite dissimilar to other sites in the Da-
nube Gorges, because it is the only site with substan-
tial durable structures containing sculptures and
other symbolic artefacts, a record of complex burial
procedures, a strong demographic bias of burials in
favour of males, along with a large number of new-
borns and infants beneath the trapezoid structure
The question, therefore, is not if Mesolithic
hunter-gatherers interacted with the Early Neolithic
groups, but how were these groups affected by this
interaction. Do Lepenski Vir settlements I and II re-
flect the availability phase (a hunter-gatherer diet,
based on the faunal remains and a palaeo-dietary
signature interpreted as wild resource intake), or
consolidation phase (farmer's diet, based on the pa-
laeo-dietary signature interpreted as domestic re-
source intake) in terms of Zvelebil and Rowley-
Conwy's agricultural transition model.
Before exploring these scenarios further, let us first
revisit briefly the concept of migration, since it has
had an important role in archaeological interpreta-
tions of the Meso/Neolithic transition in South-east
Europe.
Migrations and landscape learning
Anthony's (1990) comprehensive review of this con-
cept describes the causes for migration in terms of
push (economic and/or social tension in the home
region) and pull (attraction in the destination re-
gion) factors. He distinguishes long and short dis-
tance migrations with the likelihood of a long-dis-
tance migration to occur "much more rapidly among
societies with focal economies, since they were
likely to deplete critical resources within a given unit
3 Ritual performances at residential and aggregation camps in the ethnographic record involve visits by supernatural beings who
appear through trance and dance, or make their voices heard, for example 'shaking tent ritual' among the Cree, the !Kung 'medi-
cine dance', the Hadza's 'sacred epeme dance, the Batek 'fruit season's singing session' and the Palyan and Pandaram 'spirit
possesion'. These ritual performances may be held as frequently as weekly among the !Kung, monthly among the Hadza, and
"whenever need arises" among the Pandaram, and they could include up to one third of the community (Bird-David 1999.78).
area more rapidly than societies practising diffuse or
broad-spectrum subsistence strategies." i.e., among
farmers, and "given the proper mix of home nega-
tives, destination positives, and low transport cost,
focally adapted farmers might be considered more
likely to migrate long distances than broad spectrum
hunter-gatherers. Local moves would have only sub-
tle effects on material culture, and would therefore
be difficult but not impossible." (ibid. 901) Short-
distance migration will consist of slow gradual moves
and is generally distinctive for hunter-gatherers.
The migration process begins with movements of a
few people ('scouts'), often along known, previously
used routes in long-distance exchanges. Such small
groups are goal-oriented, since migration is unlikely
if there is no information about the destination re-
gion. Scout movements can be rapid (leap-frog mi-
gration), reaching quickly and deep into the new
lands, and they are archaeologically detectable as
'islands', separated by less desirable (either settled
or unsettled) territory.
A secondary flow (chain or stream migration) of
larger groups will follow, "which is quite different in
goal orientation and composition from the initial mi-
grant group" (Anthony 1990.902), moving along the
known route and establishing the 'residential' phase
of more substantial land use (Runnels 2003.126-
127). Migrants will move along mega-patches, such
as easily traceable geographic features, rivers, linear
mountain chains, clear ecological zones, i.e. land-
scapes more easily internalized into a cognitive map
(Kelly 2003.54). This brings us to an explanation of
the concept of landscape learning, which describes
the consistent process of developing knowledge
about a new environment. It is a "social response to
situations in which there is both a lack of knowledge
of the distribution of natural resources in a region
and a lack of access to previously acquired knowl-
edge about that distribution" (Rockman 2003.12),
which is precisely the situation that the pioneer co-
lonizers had to confront.
Drawing upon Rockman (2003), Meltzer (2003) of-
fers a model that takes the factor of new landscape
learning and its speed, curve and mode, as an im-
portant part of colonizing success, which may contri-
bute significantly to our understanding of the pro-
cess of settling in unfamiliar environments. He pro-
posed a basic division: landscape learning with no
resident population, and landscape learning with a
resident population. Since there was a resident po-
pulation in the Balkans, I will note only the part of
his model regarding the modalities of interaction
between the resident population and the colonizers:
no interaction; limited or hostile interaction; and full
(non-hostile) interaction. In all cases the newcomers
would have to learn about the environment from
landscape cues and the indigenous population. The
mode of learning would have been copying in the
case of 'no interaction', and tutorial in cases of 'limi-
ted' and 'full interaction'. However, the speed of lear-
ning is greatest and the learning curve steepest only
in the case of full and non-hostile interaction.
Landscape learning is slow, and includes not only
building personal experience, but also incorporating
those of preceding generations. Its slow rate stands
in contrast to the fast pioneer colonization (or rapid
directional dispersal) model established for the Early
Neolithic colonization of Southeast Europe (Perles
2003; Zvelebil 2001). This model is supported by a
number of recent studies of ancient and modern DNA
(Bentley, Chikhi, and Price 2003.63; Haak et al.
2005.1017; Richards 2003.159) and the latest series
of the Final Mesolithic and Early Neolithic radio-car-
bon dates from the Central Balkans (Bonsall et al.
2004; Borić and Miracle 2004; Whittle et al. 2002).
Kelly (2003.54) explains, when discussing the fast
rate of colonization process that ".people are not
able to learn landscapes, since learning requires per-
sonal experience that is gathered from an early age
and that is encoded in folklore that requires some
time depth in development" and adds "that this
means, coincidentally, that the nature of the adap-
tation brought with a colonizing population will have
a strong influence over the initial choices made."
Since the new environment cannot be learned quick-
ly, migrants need to rely upon a more generalized
knowledge, choosing to settle areas ecologically and
topographically similar to those in their homeland
or, in the absence of these, in areas with less than
optimal conditions for their traditional mode of pro-
duction.
The colonizers' choice of particular ecological niches
is detectable in the archaeological record, since they
preferred to settle in the flood plains where they
could practice agriculture optimally, in Thessaly, for
example, and later in the Pannonian basin (van
Andel and Runnels 1995.481). A preference for such
niches is reflected in the establishment of long-term
settlements. It cannot be explained only in terms of
topographical, hydrographical, and ecological con-
ditions and how well they seemed to fit the mi-
grants' expectations. Such choices of niches may also
imply an awareness of the fixed inter-group bounda-
ries separating farmers from the surrounding niches
exploited by the local hunter-gatherers. In the Thes-
salian Early Neolithic, for example, such boundaries
are reflected in a deliberate avoidance of exploita-
tion of the wild resources, local lithic raw materials
and use of caves and rock-shelters, which is interpre-
ted as an implication of a possible cultural prohibi-
tion (Perles 2001.5; 2003.106; see also Thomas
2003.69). Discussing the faunal record from the Bal-
kan Early Neolithic sites south of the Morava/Vardar
watershed and Sredna Gora mountains in Bulgaria,
Tringham (2000.25) also notes that wild food resour-
ces in the local rich micro- and macro-environment
were under-utilized, but she wonders if it was
"through ignorance or through resistance to ventu-
ring far in space or concept into the unknown." Both
scenarios are viable, since the niche separation could
initially have been the result of 'non-interaction' or
'limited interaction", or, basically a hostile interac-
tion with local hunter-gatherers. A slow pace of land-
scape learning is therefore implicated ('a resistance
to venturing in space'). The encapsulation of the lo-
cal hunter-gatherers at a time when a greater popu-
lation density in the Early Neolithic of Southern Bal-
kans was reached, may have led to the introduction
of such 'cultural prohibitions', and this brings to
mind similarities with more recent examples of the
hunter-gatherer/farmer social interaction from the
ethnographic record (Woodburn 1995.37-40)4.
However, following Meltzer's model, learning a new
landscape may also have been a fairly rapid process,
due to a completely non-hostile interaction with the
local population. In the case of the Central Balkans
and the Iron Gates region, one can easily recognize
the archaeological signature of the initial Neolithic
as a 'rapid directional dispersal', including the Meso/
Neolithic 'mix' that occurred in the Lepenski Vir set-
tlements.
The very first Early Neolithic settlers in the Central
Balkans were individuals or smaller groups that ac-
tually needed the support of the indigenous hunter-
gatherers in order to gain crucial information about
a variety of factors such as the local topography,
short-term seasonal climatic, hydrographic and eco-
logical fluctuations, long-term changes in the availa-
bility of resources and the likelihood of catastro-
phic events - information that otherwise has to be
learned over several generations. As stated at the
beginning of this paper, we know almost nothing
about these hunter-gatherers outside the Iron Gates
region. However, we can see that the archaeological
signature of the Early Neolithic settlements in the
Central Balkans stands in contrast to those in the
South. The settlements are short-term, tactical, and
'opportunistic', and there is no clear 'niche separa-
tion' (local lithic raw materials are used along with
exotic ones; caves and rock-shelters were utilized;
wild game exploitation is practiced), in contrast to
the above discussed Thessalian and Bulgarian record
(Tringham 2000.25).
In the Danube Gorges case, learning about the new
landscape may have required learningfrom the re-
sident population and within the framework of the
resident population's tradition - understood here
as the totality of "the socially and culturally defined
normative rules for the transmission of knowledge
and practical skill from one generation to another"
(Zvelebil 2001.1). The archaeological signature of
the Meso-Neolithic contact in the Danube Gorges, for
example, implies that encounters with the local Me-
solithic population were not marked by conflict,
quite in contrast to the local inter-group or inter-per-
sonal violence during the Early Mesolithic reported
at Vlasac and Schela Cladovei (Boroneanf 1973;
Roksandic et al. 2006). Ensuring this support neces-
sitates very close social links with a resident group,
including exchange and inter-marriage. Regardless
of their knowledge of plant cultivation and stock
breeding from their homeland (and in spite of brin-
ging some or all of the 'Neolithic package'), the new-
comers could not have been self-sufficient, either eco-
nomically or socially, for some time in the novel and
unfamiliar surroundings (Tringham 2000.49, Zvele-
bil and Lillie 2000.64-65). In this respect I agree
with Tringham (ibid. 47) that the (Mesolithic) "fora-
4 Such cultural prohibitions targeted at the hunter-gatherers are conceivable in the circumstances of their encapsulation. Woodburn
(1995.34, 40) notes that "...nomadic hunting and gathering as a way of life does offer so many patterned contrasts to the che-
rished values of successful farmers that it is readily represented as alien and unintelligible; for farmers, it simply cannot be
a 'real' coherent way oflife at all and must be a bastardized form" These cultural prohibitions would justify a farming commu-
nity's pressure on the hunter-gatherers, which may include some or all the following: "attempts to kill or injure them or to coerce
them using violence; to classify them as inferiors and to treat them as such; to seize and entice them (especially their women
and children) to work as slaves, servants or clients; to dispossess them of their land or the natural resources of their land; to
seize their artefacts, or wild resources they have harvested; to divert them from working to meet their own needs into working
to obtain furs, ivory, honey, meat, or other goods required by outsiders; to proselytize them and incorporate them, often in
subsidiary roles, into outsider religious and ritual systems."
gers in the Danube Gorges would have been the
more dynamic partners in that interaction", because
"they had greater access to exchange relations with
agriculturalists, along with ceremonial paraphernalia
and social complexity that such status might imply."
The post-6000 calBC farmers and stock-breeders in
the Morava and Middle Danube valley would actu-
ally represent a part of the "secondary flow", a fur-
ther north-westerly move of the south-east European
agricultural frontier (van Andel and Runnels 1995;
Zvelebil 2001; Zvelebil and Lillie 2000). This possi-
bility has been supported by the recent radio-carbon
dating for a number of these settlements, along with
the palaeoecological evidence (Whittle et al. 2002;
Willis and Bennett 1994). The groups spinning off
that population were those that re-occupied the Iron
Gates Gorges, establishing classic Starcevo-type set-
tlements in the previously abandoned locations (Vla-
sac, Schela Cladovei etc.) and in locations that were
still in use, enduring since the mid 7th millennium
calBC, at Lepenski Vir and Padina.
Conclusion
The Mesolithic-Neolithic contact - preceding 6300
calBC - in the Danube Gorges was initiated by small
'pioneer' Neolithic groups. They were not self-suffi-
cient economically and socially upon their arrival,
and in order to subsist, had to co-operate with the
resident population within the local framework of
cultural traditions. Their 'signature' in the Iron gates
Mesolithic include some elements of the Early Neoli-
thic 'package', but may also be seen in some other
aspects of the Late Mesolithic archaeological record
(reflected in modifications of architectural standards
and burial procedures). Based on the Early Neolithic
record in the Central Balkans, a similar scenario of
non-hostile interaction with local population may
be expected. During this still unclear process of the
early interaction between hunter-gatherers and far-
mers or stock-breeders around 6300 calBC, the Iron
Gates Mesolithic sites were abandoned, except for
Lepenski Vir and Padina, either as a result of clima-
tic deterioration, increasing colonizers' pressure, or
both. These factors did not allow Mesolithic hunter-
gatherers to continue the intensive exploitation of
aquatic resources. Since the intensification of aquatic
resources and more permanent settlement among
coastal hunter-gatherer groups is primarily triggered
by inter-group competition, the abandonment of al-
most all fishing camps implies that this kind of com-
petition ceased. The palaeo-dietary signature of this
population confirms that aquatic sources ceased to
be a staple food resource. These Late Mesolithic hun-
ter-gatherers switched to a more mobile way of life,
implied by the .-selected species in the faunal re-
cord. However, they continued to use the only two
remaining locations - Lepenski Vir and Padina - pro-
bably as seasonal fishing camps and aggregation
sites. On the one hand, the interaction with Neoli-
thic groups was non-hostile and fully cooperative.
On the other, the perpetuation of these locations'
use and symbolic displays in material culture prob-
ably reflect the above described 'symbolic conflict',
especially at Lepenski Vir. In spite of the diminished
importance of r-selected species (i.e., fish), this situa-
tion is interpreted in terms of the local Mesolithic
population's ideological, but not economic and so-
cial, resistance to contact with the Early Neolithic
groups. According to another scenario, the mixed
terrestrial signature in the palaeo-dietary record of
the Lepenski Vir population is interpreted in terms
of subsistence based on domestic food resources
(but then, this population can no longer be a hunter-
gatherer population).
The end of the cold and wet climatic oscillation at
5900 calBC corresponds to a more substantial Neo-
lithic settlement of the Central Balkans, including
the Iron Gates and neighbouring areas, as indicated
by the increasing number of recorded Middle Neoli-
thic archaeological sites. This secondary flow would
correspond to larger farming population moving and
settling in the Central Balkans, establishing longer-
term settlements and more extensive land-use in the
Morava and the middle Danube basin. The Danube
Gorges sites were re-occupied, but this time by Neo-
lithic groups displaying a full range of the 'Neolithic
package' elements. The increase in Neolithic popu-
lation density (which included the second wave of
'colonizers', descendants of early colonizers and lo-
cal residents, and the assimilated groups of local hun-
ter-gatherers) outside of the Danube Gorges, proba-
bly triggered the encapsulation of the remaining
hunter-gatherers in the Upper Gorge. They contin-
ued for some time to re-affirm their cultural tradi-
tions by maintaining and revisiting the long-estab-
lished Lepenski Vir and Padina aggregation camps,
until in the mid-6th millennium when they were fi-
nally abandoned - but the surrounding Middle Neo-
lithic settlements in the Danube Gorges were soon
to be abandoned too. In their discussion on the Iron
Gates Mesolithic, Fiedel and Anthony (2003) cap-
tured very well a probable reason for such develop-
ment: ".the Neolithic farmers were less concerned
with securing a good local fishing place than with
winning control of this nexus of indigenous social
and ideological resistance. Once they accomplished
their goal, they had little further interest in this agri-
culturally marginal area".
Recent studies in the Meso/Neolithic transition based
on, for example, genetic models (Barbujani and
Chikhi 2006), population dynamics (Davison et al.
2006), and radio-carbon data (Gkiasta et al. 2003.
48) were not discussed here at great length. They all
emphasize the 'overall process' and 'continent-wide
patterns' which could not, so far, contribute substan-
tially to a topic that attempted to explore local social
(and demographic) dynamics, which we have seen
to be of the outmost importance in the understan-
ding of any kind of 'transition'.
REFERENCES
ANTHONY D. W. 1990. Migration in archaeology: The
baby and the bathwater. American Anthropologist 92:
895-914.
ANTONOVIĆ D. 2006. Stone tools from Lepenski Vir.
Cahiers des Portes de Fer, Monographies 5. Institute of
Archaeology. Belgrade.
BAILEY G. N., ADAM E., PANAGOUPLU E., PERLES C. and
ZACHOS K. (eds.) 1999. The Palaeolithic Archaeology of
Greece and Adjacent Areas. Proceedings of the ICOPAG
Conference, Ioannina. British School of Athens Studies.
London. Vol. 3.
BARBUJANI G. and CHIKHI L. 2006. DNAs from the Euro-
pean Neolithic. Heredity 97: 84-85.
BENTLEY R. A., CHIKHI L. and PRICE T. D. 2003. The Neo-
lithic transition in Europe: comparing broad scale genetic
and local scale isotopic evidence. Antiquity 77: 63-66.
BIRD-DAVID N. H. 1995. Hunter-gatherers and other peo-
ple: a re-examination. In T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Wood-
burn (eds.), Hunters and Gatherers: History, Evolution
and Social Change. Berg, Oxford and Washington D.C.:
Vol. 1: 17-30.
1999. "Animism" Revisited: Personhood, Environment,
and Relational Epistemology. Current Anthropology
40 (Supplement): 67-91.
BONSALL C., COOK G. T., HEDGES R. E. M., HIGHAM T. F.
G., PICKARD C. and RADOVANOVIĆ I. 2004. Radiocarbon
and stable isotope evidence of dietary change from the
Mesolithic to the Middle Ages in the Iron Gates: new re-
sults from Lepenski Vir. Radiocarbon 46(1): 293-300.
BONSALL C., LENNON R., MCSWEENEY K., STEWART C.,
HARKNESS D., BORONEANT V., PAYTON R., BARTOSIE-
WICZ L. and CHAPMAN J. C. 1997. Mesolithic and Early
Neolithic in the Iron gates: a palaeodietary perspective.
Journal of European Archaeology 5(1): 50-92.
BONSALL C., RADOVANOVIĆ I., ROKSANDIC M., COOK G.
T., HIGHAM T. and PICKARD C. 2006. Dating Burial Prac-
tices and Architecture at Lepenski Vir. In C. Bonsall, V.
Boroneant and I. Radovanović (eds.), The Iron Gates in
Prehistory: in press. Archaeopress. Oxford.
BORIĆ D. 1999. Places that created time in the Danube
Gorges and beyond, c. 9000-5500 BC. In M. Budja (ed.),
6th Neolithic Studies, Documenta Praehistorica XXVI:
41-70.
BORIĆ D., GRUPE G., PETERS J. and MIKIC Z. 2004. Is the
Mesolithic-Neolithic subsistence dichotomy real? New sta-
ble isotope evidence from the Danube Gorges. European
Journal of Archaeology 7(3): 221-248.
BORIĆ D. and MIRACLE P. 2004. Mesolithic and Neolithic
(dis)continuities in the Danube Gorges: new AMS dates
from Padina and Hajducka Vodenica (Serbia). Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 23(4): 341-371.
BORONEANT V. 1973. Recherches archeologiques sur la
culture Schela Cladovei de la zone des Portes de Fer. Da-
cia N.S. XVII: 5-39.
CHAMBERLAIN M. 2006. Symbolic Conflict and the Spa-
tiality of Traditions in Small-scale Societies. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 16:1:39-51.
CHAPMAN J. 1989. Demographic trends in neothermal
south-east Europe. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in
Europe. John Donald. Edinburgh: 500-515.
2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology, people, places
and broken objects in the prehistory of South-Eastern
Europe. Routledge. London, New York.
CLASTRES P. 1997. Archäologie de la violence. La querre
dans les societesprimitives. Editions del'Aube. Marseilles.
COOK G. T., BONSALL C., HEDGES R. E. M., MCSWEENEY
K., BORONEANT V. and PETTITT P. B. Nr. 2A: 453-460.
2001. A freshwater diet-derived 14C reservoir effect at
the stone age sites in the Iron Gates Gorge. Radiocarbon
43(2A): 453-460.
COOK G. T., BONSALL C., HEDGES R. E. M., MCSWEENEY
K., BORONENAT V., BARTOSIEWICZ L. and PETTITT P. B.
2002. Problems of dating human bones from the Iron
Gates. Antiquity 76: 77-85.
DAVIS B. A. S., BREWER S., STEVENSON A. C. and GUIOT
J. 2003. The temperature of Europe during the Holocene
reconstructed from pollen data. Quaternary Science Re-
views 22: 1701-1716.
DAVISON K., DOLUKHANOV P., SARSON G. R. and SHUKU-
ROV A. 2006. The role of waterways in the spread of the
Neolithic. Journal of Archaelogical Science 33:641-652.
DOLUKHANOV P. M. 1979. Ecology and Economy in Neo-
lithic Eastern Europe. Duckworth. London.
FIEDEL S. J. and ANTHONY D. W. 2003. Deerslayers, path-
finders, and icemen: origins of the European Neolithic as
seen from the frontier. In M. Rockman and J. Steele (eds.),
Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes: The archaeology
of adaptation. Routledge. London and New York: 144-168.
GALANIDOU N. and PERLES C. (eds.) 2003. The Greek Me-
solithic. Problems and Perspectives. British School at
Athens Studies 10. The British School at Athens. London.
GARASANIN M. and RADOVANOVIĆ I. 2001. A pot in house
54 at Lepenski Vir I. Antiquity 75:118-125.
GKIASTA M., RUSSELL T., SHENNAN S. and STEELE J. 2003.
Neolithic transition in Europe: the radiocarbon record re-
visited. Antiquity 77: 45-62.
GRAEBER D. 2004. Fragments of Anarchistic Anthropo-
logy. Prickly Paradigm Press, LLC. Chicago.
GRUPE G., MIKIĆ Z., PETERS J. and MANHART H. 2003.
Vertebrate food webs and subsistence strategies of Meso-
and Neolithic populations of Central Europe. In G. Gruppe
and J. Peters (eds.), Decyphering Ancient Bones. The Re-
search Potential of Bioarchaeological Collections. Docu-
menta Archaeobiologiae. Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH.
Rahden/Westf: 193-212.
HAAK W., FORSTER P., BRAMANTI B., MATSUMURA S.,
BRANDT G., TANZER M., VILLEMS R., RENFREW C., GRO-
NENBORN D., ALT K. W. and BURGER J. 2005. Ancient
DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old
Neolithic sites. Science 310:1016-1028.
HUNN E. S. and WILLIAMS N. M. 1982. Introduction. In E.
S. Hunn and N. M. Williams (eds.), North American and
Australian hunter-gatherers. Australian Institute of Abo-
riginal Studies. Canberra: 1-16.
INGOLD T., RICHES D. and WOODBURN J. (eds.) 1995.
Hunters and Gatherers: History, Evolution and Social
Change. Berg. Oxford and Washington D.C. Vol. 1.
JOVANOVIĆ B. 1972. The autochtonous and migrational
components of the Early Neolithic in the Iron Gates. Bal-
canica III: 49-58.
1987. Die Architektur und Keramikder Siedlung Padi-
na B am Eisernen Tor, Jugoslawien. Germania 65 (1):
1-16.
KACZANOWSKA M. and KOZLOWSKIJ. K. 2003. Origins of
the Linear Pottery Complex and the Neolithic Transition
in Central Europe. In A. J. Ammerman and P. Biagi (eds.),
The Widening Harvest. The Neolithic Transition in Eu-
rope: Looking Back, Looking Forward. Archaeological In-
stitute of America, Boston: 227-248.
KELLY R. L. 2003. Colonization of new land by hunter-
gatherers: expectations and implications based on ethno-
graphic data. In M. Rockman and J. Steele (eds.), Coloni-
zation of Unfamiliar Landscapes: The archaeology of
adaptation. Routledge. London and New York: 44-58.
KOTSAKIS K. 2001. Mesolithic to Neolithic in Greece. Con-
tinuity, discontinuity or change of course? In M. Budja
(ed.), 8th Neolithic Studies, Documenta Praehistorica
XXVIII: 63-73.
2003. From the Neolithic side: the Mesolithic/Neolithic
interface in Greece. In N. Galanidou and C. Perles
(eds.), The Greek Mesolithic. Problems and Perspec-
tives. The British School at Athens. London: 217-221.
KOZLOWSKIJ. 1999. Gravettian/Epigravettian sequences
in the Balkans; environment, technologies, hunting stra-
tegies and raw material procurement. In G. N. Bailey, E.
Adam, E. Panagouplu, C. Perles and K. Zachos (eds.), The
Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas,
Proceedings of the ICOPAG Conference, Ioannina. Bri-
tish School of Athens Studies, London: 319- 329.
KOZLOWSKI J. K. 1982. La neolithisation de la zone bal-
kano-danubienne du point de vue des industries lithiques.
Prace archeologiczne 33: 131-136.
KOZLOWSKI J. K. and KOZLOWSKI S. K. 1984. Chipped
Stone Industries from Lepenski Vir, Yugoslavia. Preisto-
ria Alpina 19:259-293.
LAYTON R. 2001. Hunter-gatherers, their neghbours and
the Nation State. In C. Panter-Brick, P. Rowley-Conwy and
R. Layton (eds.), Hunter-Gatherers. An Interdisciplinary
Perspective. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: 292-
321.
LOURANDOS H. 1995. Palaeopolitics: resource intensifica-
tion in Aboriginal Australia and Papua New Guinea. In
T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn (eds.), Hunters and
Gatherers. History, Evolution and Social Change. Berg,
Oxford and Washington D.C.: Vol. 1: 148-160.
MELTZER D. J. 2003. Lessons in landscape learning. In M.
Rockman and J. Steele (eds.), Colonization of Unfamiliar
Landscapes: The archaeology of adaptation. Routledge,
London and New York: 222-241.
MIŠIĆ V. 1981. Šumska Vegetacija Klisura i Kanjona
Istočne Srbije. Belgrade: Institut za Biološka Istraživanja
"Siniša Stankovic".
MONTET-WHITE A. 1999. A scarcity of MUP sites in the
Sava valley, stratigraphic hiatus and/or depopulation. In
W. Roebroeks, M. Mussi, J. Svoboda and K. Fennema (eds.),
Hunters of the Golden Age, the Mid Upper Palaeolithic
of Eurasia 30,000-20,000BP. University of Leiden, Lei-
den: 241-247.
MORRILL C. and JACOBSEN R. M. 2005. How widespread
were climate anomalies 8200 years ago? Geophysical Re-
search Letters 32:10.1029/2005GL023536.
PALSSON G. 1995. Hunters and gatherers of the sea. In T.
Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn (eds.), Hunters and
Gatherers. History, Evolution and Social Change. Berg,
Oxford and Washington D.C. Vol. 1: 189-204.
PANTER-BRICK C., LAYTON R. H. and ROWLEY-CONWY P.
(eds.) 2001. Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Per-
spective. Biosocial Society Symposium Series. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge.
PÄUNESCU Al. 1987. Les industries lithiques du Neolithi-
que ancien de la Roumanie et quelques considerations sur
l'inventaire lithiques des cultures du Neolithique moyen
de cette contree. In J. K. Kozlowski and S. K. Kozlowski
(eds.), Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming
Cultures in Europe, Archaeologia Interregionalis. War-
saw University and Jagiellonian University, Warsaw and
Cracow: 75-94.
PENNIGTON R. 2001. Hunter-gatherer demography. In C.
Panter-Brick, R. Layton and P. Rowley-Conwy (eds.), Hun-
ter-Gatherers. An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Biosocial
Society Symposium Series. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge: 170-204.
PERLES C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece: The first
farming communities in Europe. Cambridge University
Press. Cambridge.
2003. An alternate (and old-fashioned) view of Neoli-
thisation in Greece. In M. Budja (ed.), 10th Neolithic
Studies. Documenta Praehistorica XXX: 99-113.
RADOVANOVIĆ I. 1981. Ranoholocenska kremena indu-
strija sa lokaliteta Padina u Djerdapu. Arheološki Insti-
tut. Belgrade.
1996a. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. Archaeological Se-
ries 11. Ann Arbor, International Monographs in Pre-
history. Michigan.
1996b. Kulturni identitet djerdapskog mezolita. Zbor-
nik Radova Narodnog Muzeja 16: 39-47.
1996c. Mesolithic/Neolithic contacts: a case of the Iron
Gates region. In M. Budja (ed.), Poročilo o raziskova-
nju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji
XXIII: 39-48.
1997. The Culture of Lepenski Vir: A Contribution to
the Interpretation of its Ideological Aspects. In M. La-
zic (ed.), Antidoron Dragoslavo Srejovici completis
LXV annis ad amicis, collegis, discipulis oblatum.
Center for Archaeological Research, Belgrade: 87-93.
2000. Houses and burials at Lepenski Vir. European
Journal of Archaeology 3(3): 331-350.
2006a. Lepenski Vir: Belief System of the Hunter-Ga-
therer Communities in the Danube Gorges. (in prep).
McDonald Institute Monographs. Cambridge.
2006b. Not just a good place for fishing: Meso-Neolithic
contact at the site of Lepenski VIr in view of the new
AMS and stable isotope evidence. In N. Tasic and C.
Grozdanov (eds.), Hommage to Milutin Garašanin.
Serbian Academy of Sciences. Special Edition, Belgrade:
69-79.
RICHARDS M. 2003. The Neolithic Invasion of Europe. An-
nual Review of Anthropology 32:135-162.
ROCKMAN M. 2003. Knowledge and learning in the archa-
eology of colonization. In M. Rockman and J. Steele (eds.),
Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes: The archaeo-
logy of adaptation. Routledge, London and New York: 3-
24.
ROKSANDIC M., DJURIĆ M., RAKOČEVIĆ Z. and SEGUIN K.
2006. Interpersonal Violence at Lepenski Vir Mesolithic/
Neolithic Complex of the Iron Gates Gorge (Serbia-Roma-
nia). American Journal of Physical Anthropology 129:
339-348.
ROWLEY-CONWY P. 2001. Time, change and archaeology
of hunter-gatherers: how original is the 'Original Affluent
Society'? In C. Panter-Brick, R. H. Layton and P. Rowley-
Conwy (eds.), Hunter-Gatherers. An Interdisciplinary
Perspective, The Biosocial Society Symposium Series.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 39-72.
2004. How the West Was Lost. A Reconsideration of
Agricultural Origins in Britain, Ireland, and Southern
Scandinavia. Current Anthropology 45 (Supplement):
83-113.
RUNNELS C. 2003. The Origins of Greek Neolithic. In A J.
Ammerman and P. Biagi (eds.), The Widening Harvest.
The Neolithic Transition in Europe: Looking Back,
Looking Forward. Archaeological Institute of America Bo-
ston: 121-132.
SAHLINS M. 1972. The Stone Age Economics. Aldine. Chi-
cago.
SREJOVIC D. 1966a. Lepenski Vir - a new prehistoric cul-
ture in the Danubian region. Archaeologia lugoslavica
VII: 13-17.
1966b. Lepenski Vir, Boljetin - Neolitsko naselje. Ar-
heološki Pregled 8:94-96.
1969. Lepenski Vir, Nova praistorijska kultura u Po-
dunavlju. Srpska Književna Zadruga. Beograd.
1972. Europe's First Monumental Sculpture: Lepen-
ski Vir. Thames and Hudson. London.
TABERLET P. and CHEDDADIR. 2002. Quaternary Refugia
and Persistence of Biodiversity. Science 297:2009-2010.
THOMAS J. 2003. Thoughts on the 'Repacked' Neolithic
Revolution. Antiquity 77: 61-74.
TRINGHAM R. 2000. Southeastern Europe in the transi-
tion to agriculture in Europe: bridge, buffer or mosaic. In
T. D. Price (ed.), Europe's First Farmers. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge: 19-56.
TZEDAKIS P. C., LAWSON I. T., HEWITT G. M. and PIERCE
R. C. 2000. Buffered Tree Population Changes in a Quater-
nary Refugium: Evolutionary Implications. Science 297:
2044-2047.
VAN ANDEL T. H. and RUNNELS C. N. 1995. The earliest
farmers in Europe. Antiquity 69: 484-500.
VESKI S., SEPPA H. and OJALA A. E. K. 2004. Cold event
at 8200 BP recorded in annualy laminated lake sediments
in eastern Europe. Geology 32: 681-684.
VOYTEK B. and TRINGHAM R. 1989. Rethinking the Meso-
lithic: the case of south-east Europe. In C. Bonsall (ed.),
The Mesolithic in Europe. John Donald, Edinburgh: 492-
500.
WHITTLE A., BARTOSIEWICZ L., BORIC D., PETTITT P. and
RICHARDS M. 2002. In the beginning: new radiocarbon
dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-
east Hungary. Antaeus 25: 63-117.
WILLIS J. J. and BENNETT K. D. 1994. The Neolithic tran-
sition - fact or fiction? Palaeoecological evidence from
the Balkans. The Holocene 4:326-330.
WOODBURN J. 1995. African hunter-gatherer social or-
ganization: is it best understood as a product of encap-
sulation? In T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn (eds.),
Hunters and Gatherers. History, Evolution and Social
Change. Berg, Oxford and Washington D.C. Vol. 1: 31-64.
ZVELEBIL M. 2001. The agricultural transition and the ori-
gins of Neolithic society in Europe. In M. Budja (ed.), 8th
Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica XXVIII: 1-
26.
ZVELEBIL M. and LILLIE M. 2000. Transition to agriculture
in eastern Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe's FirstFar-
mers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 57-92.
ZVELEBIL M. and ROWLEY-CONWY P. 1986. Foragers and
farmers of Atlantic Europe. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters
in Transition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge:
67-93.