8.

The role of pottery in agropastoralist communities in early Neolithic southern Romania

Laurens Thissen

In this paper, I consider possible causes for the adoption of pottery by early Neolithic communities in the lower Danube Plain, Romania. Assessment of cooking pots used for stone boiling may fit in with pre-Neolithic food processing patterns, and may blur traditional Mesolithic Neolithic boundaries. Simultaneously, the adoption of new tools reflecting changing life-styles and subsistence patterns affords glimpses into the choices, tensions and decisions assumed to have existed in a society in flux.

Premises and assumptions

I write this paper with the premise that the lower Danube Plain in southern Romania was actively lived-in during the time immediately preceding the adoption of new subsistence techniques somewhere in the sixth millennium cal BC.1 It follows that I regard this adoption as largely a local process. I share Chapmans assertion that it is mainly due to recovery bias that sites from this period, conventionally labelled as Mesolithic, have not yet been found (Chapman 1989, 504). Mesolithic presence is firmly proved, however, by settlements to the west, in the Iron Gates, and more particularly by the floodplain site of Schela Cladovei just outside of the Iron Gates proper (Bonsall et al . 2002, 4). Floodplain Mesolithic sites exist also in the east (e.g. Soroki on the Dniestr and Pechera on the Bug Rivers; Chapman 1989, 504). Even though there is as yet no evidence for Mesolithic sites in the southeastern Romanian Plain,2 the sites from the Gorges, the Bug and the Dniestr suggest that the lower Danube and its many north-south flowing tributaries in southern Romania must have provided abundant resources (notably, migratory fish) which were potentially attractive to hunter-gatherers (Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil 1989, 51; Zvelebil 1986), We may infer from these local factors that people moving in and around this area were delayed return, or complex, huntergatherers (Zvelebil 1998, 8f.), an inference supported (if we may extrapolate that evidence) by the Iron Gates and

Dniestr examples (cf. Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil 1989, 52). As summarised in Zvelebil (1998, 8), the defining elements of complex hunter-gatherers (such as specialised use of resources, storage, investment in complex technology, ownership of resources, increased sedentism, higher population densities, greater social ranking and erosion of egalitarian ideology) have still to be demonstrated for our study area. However, if we fit the ensuing early Neolithic period within a longer historical trajectory, then we must link back its achievements now becoming visible to that Mesolithic time-frame. Put another way, if we accept the Mesolithic-early Neolithic within or perhaps better, as, a single historical trajectory, then the developments in the early Neolithic must be incipient in the Mesolithic (as well as implicit). Proof of continuity is suggested by the fact that at several of the Iron Gates sites early Neolithic levels are deposited above Mesolithic ones. 3 Although separated in time, such deposits may well represent repeated visits and stays at a known locale, testifying to the preservation of memory to that place (cf. Bori 1999 on deep time vis--vis the Iron Gates; see Bori this volume). Recovery bias also affects our knowledge of the early Neolithic. The early Neolithic site of Teleor 003 in the village of Mgura in the Teleorman Valley in southern Romania is covered by an alluvial deposit of about 1m and was only found during irrigation and cable trenching.4 Despite these limiting factors, the available evidence in the lower Danube Plain, for the Romanian part alone, amounts to over 40 sites datable to the early Neolithic; this distribution is not up-to-date, nor have many systematic surveys been carried out. Recent work indicates the presence of many more early Neolithic sites in the Olt, Jiu and Desnui river valleys (Nica and Rdoiescu 2002, 9); comparable density patterns will eventually emerge in the areas eastwards of the Olt valley, which are even less well surveyed. Ultimately, the overall distribution of early Neolithic locations in the lower Danube area will more closely resemble the picture from

72

Laurens Thissen turns into a magisterial and ever-changing landscape: wide skies, water birds, and far-reaching sounds strangely enchanting (see Mills this volume on sound in the landscape).

Moldavia (Lazarovici 1984, 89, 104; Ursulescu 1993 mentions 146 Starevo-Cri sites for that region). The emerging density of early Neolithic settlements in the lower Danube and in Moldavia probably masks the real distribution; most of these settlements were small, shortlived sites that may have relocated up- or downstream over time. There may have been a multiplicity of sites used for different purposes at varying times of the year. This links up with the underlying assumption of this paper and the underlying current concepts of the early Neolithic Balkan society especially the Starevo-Cri: mobility (see Bailey 2000, 57, 75; Whittle 1997). While noting restrictions over site location that followed the adoption of agriculture and noting the hypothesised increase in sedentism, it might be better to characterise the early Neolithic commitment to land in terms of semisedentism. This implies that the sites that have been found represent only one part of the total settlement system. It also means that we must be careful in our interpretations of what we find. Thus, the near absence of hunting and fishing evidence in the faunal record of Teleor 003 (Adrian Blescu pers. comm.), may indicate that these activities were carried on off-site, or even off-area and, furthermore, that these might well relate to different seasons. Tentatively, we might define what we now label as Star evo-Cri society as complex hunter-gatherers, possibly practicing small-scale horticulture (Amy Bogaard pers. comm.) and animal husbandry (though animal exploitation appears specialised as the dominant species in the fauna is Bos taurus (Adrian Blescu pers. comm.)), and who were willing to adopt innovations (Thomas 1988, 64) such as farming and pottery. The numerous pits encountered on Starevo-Cri sites which are commonly interpreted as dwellings (see discussion below), might alternatively be regarded as storage facilities (cf. Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil 1989, 53, contemplating such a use in the Bug-Dniestr culture).5 People were moving about in the rolling country set between the southern Carpathian Mountains (the Transylvanian Alps) to the north, and the Balkan range (Stara Planina) to the south. The lower Danube Plain is characterised by the northsouth flowing tributaries that originate in the southern Carpathian Mountains and empty into the Danube. Often highly meandering, these rivers are edged by low terraces (Bailey et al. 2002) and were favoured locations for settlement during the early and middle Neolithic periods (Starevo-Cri and Dudeti/ Vdastra) (Bailey 2000, 60). It is likely that the pattern of parallel, northsouth rivers had a large impact on peoples conceptions of the landscape, and determined senses and patterns of direction and movement. The modern landscape around Teleor 003 offers an intricate play of subtle differences in elevation and colour settings, creating constantly changing perspectives, now hiding and then showing features within it. At first appearing unexciting to the casual observer walking through, it

Sherds and pots

The early Neolithic pottery in southern Romanian Star evo-Cri society was not invented there, but is present from the first cutting into a Cri site; it is there in enormous quantity. Seen in terms of the absence of Mesolithic traces, the pottery seems unequivocally linked to the earliest built environments as does evidence for plant and animal domesticates, regardless of the role these played in local subsistence. The newness of pottery to this society was not expressed in scarcity; there seems to have been no surprise or wonder; vessel shapes are confident. As laid on my table in the lab in the Alexandria Museum, the Star evo-Cri sherds from Teleor 003 represent complete vessels made and used by people living in the early Neolithic in a river valley in south Romania. They are straightforward during analysis and through the assessment of fabrics, manufacture, firing methods, morphology, and typology. The Starevo-Cri material does not have the complexity of form, decoration and fabric that I know from the Dudeti, Vdastra and Boian ceramics which I have also been studying from the same area. The early Neolithic Starevo-Cri pottery looks homogeneous in morphology and technology (it is easy!); this may be misleading as it is not easy when I need to finding meaning in it. Colours, feel, and the sound that the sherds make when I empty a unit bag on to my table are familiar to me; I have dealt with pottery from other early sites both in the Balkans and in north-west Turkey and the Starevo-Cri sherds are more familiar than the later Boian-period ceramics.6 The feel of the sherds is familiar: smooth, burnished surfaces matching smoothly curving profiles; the presence of fibre temper influencing the weight, sound and smell of the sherds on my work table; the bonfiring of the original pots assuring a subdued ring while handling. With sherds in hand, questions arise: about function, quantities, shifts over time in form, style and techniques; who made them, when, and why? What was their role in society? Possibly, these sherds/vessels represent a successful adoption of an innovative technology, successful in view of the enormous quantities in which we find them and in my contemplation of their perfection of form and finish; successful in their homogeneous diversity and variance. Each form is part of a consistent category, and each sherd I am able to assign to a form seems to represent a perfect example of that category, approaching a prototype (Miller 1985, 44; cf. Shanks 1993). Despite differences in surface treatment and in shape, the material is interlinked through fabric, firing and manufacture, as well as through recurrent technological themes, such as the use of a diluted clay slip on the plain-burnished vessels, and occurring on the

The role of pottery in agropastoralist communities in southern Romania insides of surface-roughened pots. All the sherds/vessels are accomplished and sophisticated within themselves. The manufacture of them was left to accomplished people. Interestingly, there is ambiguity where decoration is concerned. Where present, decoration is mostly painted and when mistakes were made they would have been corrected (cf. Shanks 1993). This is different from the later (Dudeti, Vdastra and Boian) periods with their burnished, incised, impressed, white-filled treatments. In the few instances when there is incision or grooving it looks careless or, more accurately, unaccomplished. Working into the pot for decoration was obviously not part of the normal procedures for decoration; possibly it did not belong to the expertise of the early potters. However, painting was perfect (lines are taut) and occasionally sophisticated, (i.e. when using spirals). There were no second chances for the fanciful plissdecoration (channelling, ripples, cannelures) of the subsequent Dudeti and Vdastra periods. Indeed, Cri potters did not use such techniques, except for a clumsy zigzag grooving that is occasionally encountered. The successful application of pliss decoration required extreme skill, forethought and planning; these aspects are challenged and played out to the full during the Vdastra period when they were attempted in grand designs on large jars. The various categories suggest different uses; I start thinking about these differences. Obviously, there are preset rules linked to various categories with mutually exclusive attributes; specific forms and surface treatment appear to be linked to a large degree and they enable categorisation on the basis of the most salient characteristics. A red-firing ochre slip is used for large pedestaled dishes, for smaller-sized pedestaled cups, and for open bowls which are decorated with black and/or white paint. Red slip is hardly ever used for other forms, but it occurs on a large basin with wavy rim where the inside is red slipped and burnished, while the outside has surface roughening. Surface roughening (a term that encompasses impresso, barbotine and/or slashed exterior surface treatments) is associated with medium- and larger-sized pots with thick disk bases, where the interiors are mostly covered with a diluted clay slip and carefully burnished. Such exterior surface treatment occurs also on two large sloping-sided basins, with undulating rims; it is not yet attested on other forms. Plain-burnished forms in dark colours (dark-brown, grey-black, never redslipped) represent various types of bowls: mostly elegantly S-shaped and occasionally carinated ones. They have small and low disk bases (which are slightly concave underneath) or delicate ring bases. The insides of such vessels are also burnished. Sporadically, such plainburnished bowls have zigzag-grooved decorations on the shoulders. At present, I do not have full control of all the shapes; the heavy fragmentation of the pottery recovered prevents this. The description above might be too simple. For

73

instance, possibly there is a discrete association of size and specific variants of surface-roughened pots. Thick, cable-like appliqu decoration on the outsides of body sherds seems to co-occur with surface-roughened vessels of large size; this is suggested by the large diameters of those body sherds.7 Vertically-pierced knob handles, always plain-burnished, never surface-roughened or redslipped, turn up occasionally, and they suggest a plainburnished basic-level category not yet recovered. Summarising, the assemblage appears to consist of the following basic-level categories: a) plain-burnished small- and medium-sized bowls, well made and carefully finished, of dark colours; b) surface-roughened mediumto large-sized pots with thick disk bases, in buff to brown colours; c) red-ochre all-over-slipped dishes on high pedestal bases that might be lobed (originally such vessels shined with burnishing); and d) small-sized cups on small pedestal bases, and larger everted and carinated bowls (no associated bases yet known) that are both red-slipped and decorated with various linear and curvilinear motifs in a black manganese and/or a white non-calcareous paint.

Pits in context
In addition to the restrictions caused by the nature of the sample and its size, the meaning of the assemblage eludes me for two other factors. First, the sense of ephemerality caused by the Starevo-Cri pit features from Teleor 003 (the only structural features recovered until now from the site so far), and our inability to comprehend these features in terms of function (were they dwellings, storage, refusefills?). Second, the archaeological context of the sherds. They occur in considerable quantities within and outside these pits, but preliminary analysis of deposition (taking into account sizing, breakage, degree of erosion, presence/ absence of joins, and the counting and weighing of sherds) does not indicate clear-cut association with features (e.g. in terms of joins, size and degree of abrasion). At best, the material is secondarily deposited. Interpretation of the material thus has to come from the sherds themselves. Even so, I attempt to put the ceramics within a social context, conceiving of them as tools/ objects within the life of Starevo-Cri society. Each vessel was handmade, and as such was a statement of expertise, experience, and of a successful operational chain. The sherds on my table link up to original, new objects playing their role within society. Due to their individual hand manufacture, the original brilliance when first used (literally for the slipped and/or burnished vessels), their subsequent attrition and ultimate breakage may represent carefully monitored stages in the use-life of the vessel. There is nothing fortuitous here. In saying this I want to avoid allowing the ceramics to be subsumed beneath something other than themselves (Shanks 1993). I am not interested here in chronology (which phase of Starevo-Cri), or in style (is the painting

74

Laurens Thissen mobility of Starevo-Cri society in the lower Danube Plain influences my interpretation of vessel use.

subsumed beneath the Linear A, or the Girlandoid B), or even in issues of identifying pottery workshops (though this latter is not applicable here because I assume domestic production). Pits, and pits conceived as habitations are a classic feature of Starevo-Cri sites, and critical assessments of cultural development, chronology and contact have been made on the basis of pit (conceived as house) contexts (e.g. Starevo, Donja Branjevina, Crcea). Given their irregular size, irregular ground surface, the absence of primary contexts within them, and other practical objections, their function as habitations, even short-term ones, is difficult to accept (see Lichter 1993, 24 for a succinct dismissal of the dwelling option; cf. also the experiment carried out by Monah, as described by Chapman 2000, 86). In fact, although many StarevoCri sites are defined only by pits, there are many surfacelevel houses excavated in Romania, enough to discard the idea that the many pits in early Neolithic sites served as habitations unless they were very temporary ones.8 Rectangular structures excavated at Glvnetii Vechi are reduced to many burnt fragments of daub covering a rectangular area,9 that the excavator reconstructed as a building resting on a platform of rather thin branches joined by wattlework and plastered with a coat of loam (Coma 1978, 12; Mantu 1991). There were no postholes. The description suggests structures that we might reconstruct with quite low standing walls and that have a lean-to, overhanging gable roof. Roof coverage might have been with the reeds (still collected today by farmers) and which may have been isolated and strengthened with a coating of mud. The platform might have rested on wood blocks in this stone-poor region. The frequent presence of surface-level habitations leaves room for assuming that such structures also were built on sites where only pits have been found (e.g. Crcea-La Hanuri, Gura Baciului, Donja Branjevina, Starevo). When not burnt, the nature of construction contributes to archaeological invisibility, certainly so where excavation methods are of low resolution, and/or excavation areas small, or laid out as narrow trenches (cf. Peri 1998 for a similar critique concerning the early Neolithic in Serbia). Even if one accepts that the surface-level structure was the normal dwelling type for Starevo-Cri society, the aspect of ephemerality remains. The archaeological invisibility of these structures when not burnt, with their living floors resting on wood-blocks and hovering over the earth rather than anchored to it, creates the image of houses floating on the Danube Plain. This landscape should probably also be filled in with the untraceable campsites related to hunting, fishing and herding cattle, up- or downstream of the rivers, or south to the banks of the Danube. This complex image of frequent site relocations and short (seasonal) stays combines to structure my thoughts towards mobility, semi-sedentism, or residential mobility (Whittle 1997, 15). Residential

Stones, baked-clay objects and cooking

The increased sedentism of the Starevo-Cri period, as implied by settlements with structural features, by evidence of crop cultivation, and perhaps also by the abundant presence of ceramics, fits within a longer trajectory that starts at least in the Mesolithic. Though we do not have solid information on the Mesolithic in the lower Danube, we can profitably reconsider the use of material culture as well as peoples dealings with animals and plants in the Starevo-Cri stage and then link that back to the practices of a previous time. Because they are deliberate incorporations within existing frameworks of technology and method, all accepted (hence, successful) innovations link back to previous times as well. For example, the attested predominance of cattle in favour of sheep/goat in the archaeozoological record of StarevoCri (as well as in the later Dudeti) sites should be considered within existing pre-Neolithic practices, ideally to be explored along Mesolithic dealings with bovids.10 Another potential link to pre-ceramic times (and proof of unchanging ritual practice) is the use of red ochre in Starevo-Cri society. As pointed out by G, red ochre has been used in ritual contexts in the lower Danube region from Epi-Palaeolithic times to the Bronze Age (G and Mateescu 19992001; and Bailey 2000, 111 for the use of red ochre in the Iron Gates area). In addition, red ochre was used as background for the blackor white-painted decoration, and exclusively for all-over slipping of the large (up to 3035cm in diameter) pedestaled dishes. Moreover, all the red ochre, both from burials11 and that used for slipping Cri pottery was of local origin and derived from loams, clays and terra rossa from Oltenia, Muntenia, Northern Bulgaria, the Iron Gates region and Northern Serbia (G and Mateescu 19992001). We may at least assume that the shiningly burnished, red Cri pedestaled dishes had a special significance, and maybe they represent a transference of red ochre use from non-ceramic containers in a nonceramic Mesolithic context on to more permanent media; the slipping, burnishing and firing processes that were involved served to immortalise the raw material as well as its associated connotations. In addition, the continued use of red ochre suggests the preservation of local knowledge, and the maintenance of tradition on the part of Star evo-Cri society: a proof of insertion and of belonging to an earlier time. The use of pottery can be explored fruitfully within a framework of continuity and incorporation, and it can be set off against, but more significantly perhaps treated as an addition to, possibly existing patterns in non-ceramic containers in the Mesolithic period. My interpretation of a specific vessel category of the early Neolithic, a medium-sized hole-mouth pot with roughened (impresso

The role of pottery in agropastoralist communities in southern Romania and/or barbotine) exterior surfaces may represent a clue to specific previous practices in the process of being transformed and adapted. If true, this interpretation might simultaneously reveal the tensions of dealing with innovation.12 I propose that the surface-roughened pots in StarevoCri society in the lower Danube area were used for cooking by means of stone boiling, or indirect moist heating (Sassaman 1995). All vessels belonging to this group have their exterior surfaces roughened in one way or other, which may be slashed, impressed/pinched by nail, grooved, or barbotined. Average wall thicknesses are 910mm, though they vary from 817mm. Diameters range from 1230cm, but seem to concentrate between 1220cm (though the sample is not big enough to be more precise). All such pots were fitted out with thick, solid disk bases, which always have traces of use-wear underneath. General exterior colours are buff, brown, occasionally dark brown or orangey, with the lighter shades dominating. Interior colours may have similar shades as the exteriors, but many are a shade darker, or even dark brown to blackish and real black. All interiors were originally covered with a diluted clay-slip, and carefully burnished all-over; this contrasts with the surface-roughened exteriors. There are few clear traces of smudging or smoke blackening, either on base fragments or on the insides of shoulder pieces. Some of the base fragments, burnished on the inside, have traces of use-abraded interiors, with a slightly duller burnishing cover. This is the case for the centre of base interiors which are lighter coloured than are the bordering interior zones which, in turn, appear smudged. Some of the base fragments have bleached interiors, possibly as a result of frequent water heating and cooking. These pots were capacious, had heavy, stable bases, thick walls and fibre temper; the widening and shrinking of the pores in the heating/cooling process would have made them heatproof. The slipping and burnishing of interiors must have had a purpose which might have varied from liquid or food storage to heating and cooking (see Schiffer 1990; Schiffer et al. 1994). The almost complete absence of smudging and soot traces on bases suggests that these pots were not heated directly on an open fire. Their shape and technology make them suited for indirect moist heating with cooking stones. Indirect moist heating was common practice in American Indian contexts and was associated with thickwalled fibre-tempered vessels (Braun 1983; Brown 1989; Crown and Willis 1995; Sassaman 1995). Pre-heated stones were used to boil the vessels contents; baked-clay objects, which conduct heat and resist thermal shock when tempered with plant fibres, might have been successfully used for the same purpose, as has been demonstrated by Jones in ethnoarchaeological experiments (Jones 1998).13 Jones additionally proved that baked-clay objects are able to bring water to a boil in non-ceramic containers. In the American south-east,

75

perforated soapstone cooking stones which were first interpreted as net sinkers are now understood as heating elements; perforations enabled the use of sticks or antlers for easy manipulation to transport them from fire to pot (Sassaman 1995, 229 and figure 18.4, mentioning ethnographical examples). Given this proven capability to boil water with preheated cooking stones and bakedclay objects, it is worth reconsidering the baked-clay objects found within Star evo-Cri contexts: the net sinkers, loom weights and crudely shaped balls that have been found at several Starevo-Cri sites in Romania (e.g. several sites in the Banat (Lazarovici 1969, figure 2; 1979, 28f., plate 4: H)). Similar baked-clay objects (often perforated) turn up in Krs assemblages as well: Tiszajen (Raczky 1976, figure 3, 1315) and MaroslelePana (Trogmayer 1964, figure 10.7). Where neither the characterisation of net sinkers nor of loom weights can be established conclusively (i.e. where baked-clay net sinkers are impractical), the potential use of these objects for indirect moist heating takes on a greater potential. Along with my assumption of the local development from the Mesolithic into the early Neolithic, we might consider the use of cooking stones and ceramic pots as reflecting cooking methods in non-ceramic containers during the Mesolithic. Obviously, the adoption of pottery within Starevo-Cri society was full-hearted; however, I suggest that its use was no more than an addition to existing ways of life. It is not so much that the existing technology became unsuitable or unsatisfactory, as Rice put it (1999, 40), as it is that pottery was found suitable to fulfil needs that could be met while people were resident. Ceramics could have had various practical advantages over non-ceramic materials (see Arnolds list 1985, 12842); an important one is that pots are not worn out so rapidly by new tasks (Crown and Willis 1995, 244). Being semi-sedentary, people were rapidly enabled to perceive qualities of pottery (e.g. stability, taste, durability in terms of attrition) that outweighed any potential disadvantage (e.g. reduced portability, friability, heaviness) when compared to baskets, wooden or leather containers.

Conclusions
The adoption of pottery, at a fully developed level, suggests that there existed mechanisms that enabled craftpersons to successfully insert ceramics into society. Such people must have had knowledge of local clay-sources, slips, pigments (red ochre, manganese, white paint), fibre tempers, fuels, and so on. Furthermore, the adoption of pottery presupposes the societys willingness and readiness to embrace the innovation. In the hypothetical case of cooking pots, as discussed above, the innovation existed alongside existing practices of heating foodstuffs/ liquids in non-ceramic containers. Within a semisedentary society such as the Starevo-Cri communities, possibly both techniques of cooking continued to be used

76

Laurens Thissen
sites are usually directly covered by Neolithic layers that produced pottery datable to Star evo IIIII (Miloj i s periodisation). This is the case at the sites of Schela Cladovei (Boronean 1990; Bonsall et al. 1997; 2000), Ostrovul Corbului, Ostrovul Banului, Dubova-Cuina Turcului and Icoana (Boronean 1970, 25; Nica 1977, 13). It is of course also the case at Lepenski Vir, Padina, and Vlasac, among others (Radovanovi 1996). Also see Chapman (1989, 513) for the early Neolithic Danube floodplain site of Basarabi, which was hidden by 2m of alluvial deposit see also Nica 1971, 547f. The same authors refer also to large pits on Upper Palaeolithic sites in Central Russia which have been interpreted as facilities for storing meat (Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil 1989, 55). Despite dealing with quite prosaic material, I am acting as the archaeologist as connoisseur (Shanks 1993). My assessment of the pottery conforms to connoisseurship based on intuition, long-term handling and reading around the material (Shanks 1993). I am directed to this idea by a possible parallel in the Karanovo III assemblages from the type site, where large storage vessels as they are labelled, seem to be (exclusively?) linked with finger-impressed appliqu ridges either running around the body of the vessels or applied randomly (Nikolov 1997, plates. 41: 16, 51: 1, 58: 7, 60 62, among many others). Surface-level houses are, for instance, excavated at Glvnetii Vechi (Coma 1978), Poieneti (Mantu 1991), Bal (Popuoi 1980), Verbia, Trestiana (Popuoi 1983), Ocna Sibiului (Paul 1995), eua (Ciut 2000), and many more (see Ursulescu 1988 for an overview). The discrete distribution of burnt daub might indicate that houses were set on fire intentionally, possibly at the end of their use-lifes (see Tringham this volume). Dependence on cattle in favour of sheep/goat is also attested for early Neolithic Romanian Banat sites (see El Susi 1996, 218); similar conclusions were reached for the sites of Glvnetii Vechi (Coma 1978, 13) and Verbia (Coma 1959, 176). A domination of cattle was noted also in the Moldavian Republic (Dergachev et al. 1991). Bolomey (1976) notes a high ratio of cattle breeding in Crcea-La Hanuri, and frequent killings of young animals under two years. This is in contrast with early Neolithic evidence from Schela Cladovei, where there is preponderance of sheep/goat and fishing (Bartosiewicz et al. 1995, 12), although, even here, cattle rank second among domestic animal remains. A big lump of red ochre (diameter 15cm) was found with a burial at the StarevoCri site of Suceava-Parcul Cetii (Ursulescu 1978). During the Dudeti period, which follows StarevoCri, vessels that might be regarded as cooking pots lacked any fibre tempering, were thinner walled, had simple flat bases and lacked an interior clay slip. After filling a gourd with roughly four liters of water, I retrieved a red-hot BCO [BCO = baked clay object; ed.] from the fire; I hesitantly dropped it into the gourd, half expecting to hear the muffled whump of a BCO disintegrating from thermal shock. To my amazement, it simply hissed and sizzled as though it were a stone. So in went another, then another Five clay balls brought the

simultaneously. People may have used the old ways of cooking (in non-ceramic containers) while groups were mobile and used the new method of cooking (in pottery vessels) only while resident. Such a network possibly covered the lower Danube catchment at least from the Iron Gates in the west to eastern Romania. Within such a network may have featured sites in northern Bulgaria (e.g. Kremikovci, Gradeshnitsa-Malo Pole and Devetaki Cave), as well as the fully agricultural sites of Bulgarian Thrace. Specific technological traits of pot manufacture in the lower Danube area resemble those known at Karanovo: coil-manufacture and firing methods for preserving the red ochre slips (Nikolov 1997, 106); and the covering of the insides of surface-roughened pots with diluted clay-slips (Nikolov 1997, 110).14 A key mover towards the adoption of farming and pottery in the lower Danube area may have been more stable, typically agricultural communities in the Sofia Basin and over the Balkan range in Bulgarian Thrace, where the Maritsa Plain was settled 58005700 cal BC. Pottery in Star evo-Cri society was probably introduced or adopted concurrently with the new subsistence techniques, and although there is no direct causal relationship between these two phenomena (Rice 1999, 10), initial pottery-use in the early Neolithic lower Danube area can be linked practically to the preparation and boiling of (potentially new) vegetable foods with meat being prepared according to existing practice (e.g. roasting, grilling, pit-cooking). If we want to explain the emergence of pottery in the lower Danube, then we must also explain the emergence of farming. The origins for subsistence change in the Danube region may rest on increased seasonal floodings that transformed riverineregions, providing more varied and abundant disturbed habitats for pioneer plant colonisation (Rice 1999, 24). Expanding on Bonsall et al.s argument that due to the increase of seasonal floodings people abandoned their existing settlements and moved them to higher locations (Bonsall et al . 2002, 4), we can hypothesise that in the first half of the sixth millennium cal BC, people began looking for alternative subsistence methods in order to counteract growing instability of the riparian resources.

10

Notes
1 Since 2001 I have participated in the Southern Romanian Archaeological Project (Bailey et al. 1999; 2001; 2002) as a ceramics analyst. The Neolithic pottery from the site Teleor 003, currently being excavated within SRAP, provides the basis for the thoughts ventured here. Funding for SRAP comes from the British Academy, Cardiff University and the Teleorman County Council (Romania). But a scatter of flint, without associated sherds, on the Vedea River terrace near the modern town of Alexandria might be of Mesolithic date (Pavel Mirea pers. comm.). At locations that provided some time depth, Mesolithic

11

12

13

The role of pottery in agropastoralist communities in southern Romania

gourd to a low boil, and resulted in no observable damage to the clay (Jones 1998). 14 StarevoCri society in the lower Danube area as described here is roughly contemporaneous to Karanovo III in Bulgarian Thrace (i.e. about 5700 cal BC), but predating the parallel phenomena of Karanovo III and Dudeti.

77

Bibliography
Arnold, D.E. 1985. Ceramic theory and cultural process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bailey, D.W. 2000. Balkan prehistory. Exclusion, incorporation and identity. London: Routledge. Bailey, D.W., Andreescu, R., Howard, A., Macklin, M. and Mills, S. 2002. Alluvial landscapes in the temperate Balkan Neolithic: transition to tells. Antiquity 76, 34955. Bailey, D.W., Andreescu, R. and Mills, S. 1999. Southern Romania Archaeological Project. Preliminary report 1998. Cardiff: School of History and Archaeology, Cardiff University. Bailey, D., Andreescu, R., Mills, S. and Trick, S. 2001. Southern Romania Archaeological Project. Second preliminary report . Cardiff: School of History and Archaeology, Cardiff University. Bartosiewicz, L., Bonsall, C., Boronean, V. and Stallibrass, S. 1995. Schela Cladovei: a preliminary review of the prehistoric fauna. Mesolithic Miscellany 16, 219. Bolomey, A. 1976. Pe marginea analizei arheoostrologice a materialului de la Crcea-Dolj. Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche i Arheologie 27, 46575. Bonsall, C., Cook, G., Lennon, R., Harkness, D., Scott, M., Bartosiewicz, L. and. McSweeney, K. 2000. Stable isotopes, radiocarbon and the MesolithicNeolithic transition in the Iron Gates. Documenta Praehistorica 27, 119132. Bonsall, C., Lennon, R., McSweeney, K., Stewart, C., Harkness, D., Boronean , V., Bartosiewicz, L., Payton, R. and Chapman, J. 1997. Mesolithic and early Neolithic in the Iron Gates: a palaeodietary perspective. Journal of European Archaeology 5, 5092. Bonsall, C., Macklin, M., Payton, R. and Boronean, A. 2002. Climate, floods and river gods: environmental change and the MesoNeolithic transition in southeast Europe. Before Farming 34, 115. Bori, D. 1999. Places that created time in the Danube Gorges and beyond, c. 90005500 BC. Documenta Praehistorica 26, 4170. Boronean, V. 1970. La civilisation Cri de Cuina Turcului. Actes du VIIe Congrs International des Sciences Prhistoriques et Protohistoriques, Prague 1966, 407410. Boronean, V. 1990. Le site de Schela Cladovei: problmes poss par la transition de la culture Cri-Starevo la culture Vina. In D. Srejovi and N. Tasi (eds), Vina and its world, international symposium. The Danubian region from 6000 to 3000 B.C., 1437. Beograd: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Braun, D. 1983. Pots as tools. In J. Moore and A. Keene (eds), Archaeological hammers and theories, 10734. New York: Academic Press. Brown, J.A. 1989. The beginnings of pottery as an economic process. In S. van der Leeuw and R. Torrence (eds), Whats new? A closer look at the process of innovation, 20324. London: Unwin Hyman.

Chapman, J. 1989. Demographic trends in neothermal southeast Europe. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe, 50015. Edinburgh: John Donald. Chapman, J. 2000. Pit-digging and structured deposition in the Neolithic and Copper Age. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 6187. Ciut, M. 2000. Contribuii la cunoaterea celui mai vechi orizont al neoliticului timpuriu din Romnia: cultura Precri descoperirile arheologice de la eua-La crarea morii. Apulum 37, 51101. Coma, E. 1959. La civilisation Cri sur le territoire de la R. P. Roumaine. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica 1, 17384. Coma, E. 1978. Contribution ltude de la culture Cri en Moldavie (le site de Glvnetii Vechi). Dacia 22, 936. Crown, P. and Wills, W. 1995. Economic intensification and the origin of ceramic containers in the American southwest. In W. Barnett and J. Hoopes (eds), The emergence of pottery. Technology and innovation in ancient societies, 24154. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Dergachev, V., Sherratt, A. and Larina, O. 1991. Recent results of Neolithic research in Moldavia (USSR). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 10, 116. El Susi, G. 1996. Vntori, Pescari i Cresctori de Animale n Banatul Milenilor vi .Ch I d.Ch. Studiu Arheozoologic (Jger, Fischer und Viehzchter im Banat im 6. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 1. Jahrtausend n. Chr. Archozoologisches Studium. Timioara: Editura Mirton. G, G. and Mateescu, C. 19992001. The use of ochre for pottery decoration in the middle Neolithic at Vdastra. Dacia 4345, 18395. Jones, S. 1998. More news from the archaic kitchen: the roots of ceramic technology in North America. World Atlatl Magazine 1 (http://www.atlatl.net/). Lazarovici, G. 1969. Cultura Starevo-Cri n Banat. Acta Musei Napocensis 6, 326. Lazarovici, G. 1979. Neoliticul Banatului. Cluj-Napoca: Muzeul de Istorie al Transilvaniei Cluj. Lazarovici, G. 1984. Neoliticul timpuriu n Romnia. Acta Musei Porolissensis 8, 49104. Lichter, C. 1993. Untersuchungen zu den Bauten des sdosteuropischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithikums . Buch am Erlbach: Verlag Marie L. Leidorf. Mantu, M. 1991. The Starevo-Cri settlement from Poieneti (Vaslui County). Banatica 11, 17383. Miller, D. 1985. Artefacts as categories. A study of ceramic variability in central India . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nica, M. 1971. O aezare de tip Starevo-Cri lng Basarabi (Jud. Dolj). Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche i Arheologie 22, 54756. Nica, M. 1977. Nouvelles donnes sur le nolithique ancien dOltnie. Dacia 21, 1353. Nica, M. and Rdoiescu, L. 2002. Aezri i locuine neolitice descoperite pe teritoriul Olteniei. Arhivele Olteniei 16, 7 26. Nikolov, V. 1997. Die neolithische Keramik. In S. Hiller and V. Nikolov (eds), Karanovo. Die Ausgrabungen im Sdsektor 19841992 , 10546. SalzburgSofia: Verlag Ferdinand Berger und Shne. Paul, I. 1995. Vorgeschichtliche Untersuchungen in Siebenbrgen. Alba Iulia: Universitatea Alba Iulia. Peri, S. 1998. Vieslojna neolitska naselja i problem kulturne

78

Laurens Thissen
Science 17, 37381. Schiffer, M., Skibo, J., Boelke, T., Neupert, M. and Aronson, M. 1994. New perspectives on experimental archaeology: surface treatments and thermal response of the clay cooking pot. American Antiquity 59, 197217. Thomas, J. 1988. Neolithic explanations revisited: the MesolithicNeolithic transition in Britain and south Scandinavia. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54, 59 66. Trogmayer, O. 1964. Megjegyzesek a Krs csoport relativ idrentjehez. Archaeologiai rtesit 91, 6786. Ursulescu, N. 1978. Mormintele Cri de la Suceava-Platoul cimitirului. Suceava 5, 818. Ursulescu, N. 1988. Unele observaii privind locuinele culturii Starevo-Cri din Moldova. Hierasus 78, 715. Ursulescu, N. 1993. La typologie et lorganisation des tablissements des premiers civilisations nolithiques de la Moldavie. Arheologia Moldovei 16, 1114. Whittle, A. 1997. Moving on and moving around: Neolithic settlement mobility. In P. Topping (ed.), Neolithic landscapes, 1522. Oxford: Oxbow. Zvelebil, M. 1986. Mesolithic societies and the transition to farming: problems of time, scale and organisation. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition. Mesolithic societies of temperate Eurasia and their transition to farming, 167 88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zvelebil, M. 1998. Whats in a name: the Mesolithic, the Neolithic, and social change at the MesolithicNeolithic transition. In M. Edmonds and C. Richards (eds), Understanding the Neolithic of north-western Europe, 1 36. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.

stratigrafije neolita na teritoriji Srbije (Mehrschichtige neolithische Siedlungen und das Problem der Kulturstratigraphie des Neolithikums in Serbia). Starinar 49, 1138. Popuoi, E. 1980. Sondajul arheologic de la Bal (jud. Iai). Arheologia Moldovei 9, 717. Popuoi, E. 1983. Spturile arheologice de la Trestiana, com. Grivia (jud. Vaslui). Materiale i Cercetri Arheologice 15, 2836. Radovanovi, I. 1996. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory. Raczky, P. 1976. A Krs kultra leletei Tiszajen n. Archaeologiai rtesit 103, 17189. Rice, P. M. 1999. On the origins of pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6, 154. Rowley-Conwy, P. and Zvelebil, M. 1989. Saving it for later: storage by prehistoric hunter-gatherers in Europe. In P. Halstead and J. OShea (eds), Bad year economics: cultural responses to risk and uncertainty , 4056. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sassaman, K. 1995. The social contradictions of traditional and innovative cooking technologies in the prehistoric American southeast. In W. Barnett and J. Hoopes (eds), The emergence of pottery. Technology and innovation in ancient societies, 22340. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Shanks, M. 1993. Style and the design of a perfume jar from an Archaic Greek city state. Journal of European Archaeology 1, 77106. Schiffer, M. 1990. The influence of surface treatment on heating effectiveness of ceramic vessels. Journal of Archaeological