The Körös culture/Criş culture is a Neolithic archaeological culture in Central Europe, named after the river Körös in eastern Hungary. The same river has the name Criș in Romania, hence the name Criş culture; the 2 variants of the river name are used for the same archaeological culture in the 2 regions. The Criș culture survived from about 5800 to 5300 BC, it is related to the neighboring Starčevo culture and is included within a larger grouping known as the Starčevo–Körös–Criş culture. Starčevo–Kőrös–Criș culture Criş culture Starčevo culture Trbuhović, V.. Indoevropljani. Belgrade: Pešić i sinovi; the Körös culture
Narva culture or eastern Baltic was a European Neolithic archaeological culture found in present-day Estonia, Lithuania, Kaliningrad Oblast, adjacent portions of Poland and Russia. A successor of the Mesolithic Kunda culture, Narva culture continued up to the start of the Bronze Age; the technology was that of hunter-gatherers. The culture was named after the Narva River in Estonia; the people of the Narva culture had little access to flint. For example, there were few flint arrowheads and flint was reused; the Narva culture relied on local materials. As evidence of trade, researchers found pieces of pink flint from Valdai Hills and plenty of typical Narva pottery in the territory of the Neman culture while no objects from the Neman culture were found in Narva. Heavy use of bones and horns is one of the main characteristics of the Narva culture; the bone tools, continued from the predecessor Kunda culture, provide the best evidence of continuity of the Narva culture throughout the Neolithic period.
The people were buried on their backs with few grave goods. The Narva culture used and traded amber. One of the most famous artifacts is a ceremonial cane carved of horn as a head of female elk found in Šventoji; the people were fishers and gatherers. They began adopting husbandry in middle Neolithic, they were not nomadic and lived in same settlements for long periods as evidenced by abundant pottery and structures built in lakes and rivers to help fishing. The pottery had specific characteristics. One of the most persistent features was mixing clay with other organic matter, most crushed snail shells; the pottery was made of 6-to-9 cm wide clay strips with minimal decorations around the rim. The vessels were large; the bottoms were pointed or rounded, only the latest examples have narrow flat bottoms. From mid-Neolithic Narva pottery was influenced and disappeared into the Corded Ware culture. For a long time archaeologists believed that the first inhabitants of the region were Finno-Ugric, who were pushed north by people of the Corded Ware culture.
In 1931, Latvian archeologist Eduards Šturms was the first to note that artifacts found near Zebrus Lake in Latvia were different and belonged to a separate archaeological culture. In early 1950s settlements on the Narva River were excavated. Lembit Jaanits and Nina Gurina grouped the findings with similar artifacts from eastern Baltic region and described the Narva culture. At first it was believed. However, newer research extended it up to the Bronze Age; as Narva culture spanned several millennia and encompassed a large territory, archaeologists attempted to subdivide the culture into regions or periods. For example, in Lithuania two regions are distinguished: southern and western. There is an academic debate what ethnicity represented the Narva culture: Finno-Ugrians or other Europids, preceding arrival of the Indo-Europeans, it is unclear how the Narva culture fits with the arrival of the Indo-Europeans and formation of the Baltic tribes. Overview of Neolithic sites on Narva River in Estonia
The Starčevo–Körös culture or Starčevo–Körös–Criş culture is a grouping of two related Neolithic archaeological cultures in Southeastern Europe: the Starčevo culture and the Körös or Criş culture. The Starčevo culture is an archaeological culture of Southeastern Europe, in what is now Serbia, dating to the Neolithic period between c. 5500 and 4500 BCE. The Starčevo culture is sometimes grouped sometimes not; the Körös culture in Central Europe. It was named after the river Körös in eastern Hungary and western Romania, where it is named Criş, it survived from about 5800 to 5300 BC. Ruth Tringham. Hunters and Farmers of Eastern Europe, 6000-3000 B. C. Routledge. Pp. 80–. ISBN 978-1-317-59946-3. Ian Shaw. A Dictionary of Archaeology. John Wiley & Sons. Pp. 541–. ISBN 978-0-631-23583-5. Alisdair Whittle; the Archaeology of People: Dimensions of Neolithic Life. Routledge. Pp. 136–. ISBN 978-1-134-40982-2. Graeme Barker. Prehistoric Farming in Europe. CUP Archive. Pp. 90–. ISBN 978-0-521-22810-7. Sarunas Milisauskas. European Prehistory: A Survey.
Springer Science & Business Media. Pp. 155–. ISBN 978-0-306-46793-6. I. J. Thorpe; the Origins of Agriculture in Europe. Routledge. Pp. 29–. ISBN 978-1-134-62009-8. Biagi, P. and Spataro, M. 2005. New observations on the radiocarbon chronology of the Starčevo-Criş and Körös cultures. Prehistoric Archaeology & Anthropological Theory and Education. Reports of Prehistoric Research Projects, pp. 6–7. Kertész, R. Sümegi, P. 2001. Theories, critiques and a model: Why did the expansion of the Körös–Starcevo culture stop in the centre of the Carpathian Basin. Kertész, R.–Makkay, J. eds. From the Meoslithic to the Neolithic. Archaeolinqua Press, Budapest, pp. 225–246. KOZŁOWSKI, J. K. and RACZKY, P. 2010. Neolithization of the Carpathian Basin: Northernmost distribution of the Starčevo/Körös culture. Polska Akademia Umiejetnosci, Kraków. Ursulescu, N. 2001. Local variants of the Starčevo-Criş culture in the Carpato-Nistrean area. Festschrift für Gh. Lazarovici. Timişoara: Muzeul Banatului, pp. 59–67. El Susi, G. 2008. The comparative analyze of faunal samples from Sites dated in Starčevo-Körös-Criş Culture–phases IB-IIA from Transylvania and Banat.
Spataro, M. 2004. Differences and similarities in the pottery production of the Early Neolithic Starcevo-Criş and Impressed Ware Cultures. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche, 57, pp. 321–336. Letica, Z. 1971. Starčevo and Körös culture at Vinča. Archaeologia Iugoslavica IX, pp. 11–18. Jongsma, T. L. 1997. Distinguishing pits from pit houses: an analysis of architecture from the Early Neolithic central Balkan Starčevo-Criş culture through the analyses of daub distribution. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Manitoba, Department of Anthropology. Beldiman, C. and Sztancs, D. M. 2013. The osseous artefacts of the Starčevo-Criş culture in Romania. An overview. In Facets of the Past; the Challenge of the Balkan Neo-Eneolithic. Proceedings of the International Symposium Celebrating the 85th Birth Anniversary of Eugen Comşa, 6–12 October 2008. Editura Academiei Române Bucureşti. Beldiman, C. and Diana-Maria, S. 2011. Technology of Skeletal Materials of the Starčevo-Criş Culture in Romania; the First Neolithic Sites in Central/South-East European Transect, 2, pp. 57–70
The Neolithic, the final division of the Stone Age, began about 12,000 years ago when the first development of farming appeared in the Epipalaeolithic Near East, in other parts of the world. The division lasted until the transitional period of the Chalcolithic from about 6,500 years ago, marked by the development of metallurgy, leading up to the Bronze Age and Iron Age. In Northern Europe, the Neolithic lasted until about 1700 BC, while in China it extended until 1200 BC. Other parts of the world remained broadly in the Neolithic stage of development, although this term may not be used, until European contact; the Neolithic comprises a progression of behavioral and cultural characteristics and changes, including the use of wild and domestic crops and of domesticated animals. The term Neolithic derives from the Greek νέος néos, "new" and λίθος líthos, "stone" meaning "New Stone Age"; the term was coined by Sir John Lubbock in 1865 as a refinement of the three-age system. Following the ASPRO chronology, the Neolithic started in around 10,200 BC in the Levant, arising from the Natufian culture, when pioneering use of wild cereals evolved into early farming.
The Natufian period or "proto-Neolithic" lasted from 12,500 to 9,500 BC, is taken to overlap with the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of 10,200–8800 BC. As the Natufians had become dependent on wild cereals in their diet, a sedentary way of life had begun among them, the climatic changes associated with the Younger Dryas are thought to have forced people to develop farming. By 10,200–8800 BC farming communities had arisen in the Levant and spread to Asia Minor, North Africa and North Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia is the site of the earliest developments of the Neolithic Revolution from around 10,000 BC. Early Neolithic farming was limited to a narrow range of plants, both wild and domesticated, which included einkorn wheat and spelt, the keeping of dogs and goats. By about 6900–6400 BC, it included domesticated cattle and pigs, the establishment of permanently or seasonally inhabited settlements, the use of pottery. Not all of these cultural elements characteristic of the Neolithic appeared everywhere in the same order: the earliest farming societies in the Near East did not use pottery.
In other parts of the world, such as Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, independent domestication events led to their own regionally distinctive Neolithic cultures, which arose independently of those in Europe and Southwest Asia. Early Japanese societies and other East Asian cultures used pottery before developing agriculture. In the Middle East, cultures identified as Neolithic began appearing in the 10th millennium BC. Early development occurred from there spread eastwards and westwards. Neolithic cultures are attested in southeastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia by around 8000 BC; the prehistoric Beifudi site near Yixian in Hebei Province, contains relics of a culture contemporaneous with the Cishan and Xinglongwa cultures of about 6000–5000 BC, neolithic cultures east of the Taihang Mountains, filling in an archaeological gap between the two Northern Chinese cultures. The total excavated area is more than 1,200 square yards, the collection of neolithic findings at the site encompasses two phases.
The Neolithic 1 period began around 10,000 BC in the Levant. A temple area in southeastern Turkey at Göbekli Tepe, dated to around 9500 BC, may be regarded as the beginning of the period; this site was developed by nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes, as evidenced by the lack of permanent housing in the vicinity, may be the oldest known human-made place of worship. At least seven stone circles, covering 25 acres, contain limestone pillars carved with animals and birds. Stone tools were used by as many as hundreds of people to create the pillars, which might have supported roofs. Other early PPNA sites dating to around 9500–9000 BC have been found in Jericho, West Bank, Gilgal in the Jordan Valley, Byblos, Lebanon; the start of Neolithic 1 overlaps the Heavy Neolithic periods to some degree. The major advance of Neolithic 1 was true farming. In the proto-Neolithic Natufian cultures, wild cereals were harvested, early seed selection and re-seeding occurred; the grain was ground into flour. Emmer wheat was domesticated, animals were herded and domesticated.
In 2006, remains of figs were discovered in a house in Jericho dated to 9400 BC. The figs are of a mutant variety that cannot be pollinated by insects, therefore the trees can only reproduce from cuttings; this evidence suggests that figs were the first cultivated crop and mark the invention of the technology of farming. This occurred centuries before the first cultivation of grains. Settlements became more permanent, with circular houses, much like those of the Natufians, with single rooms. However, these houses were for the first time made of mudbrick; the settlement had a surrounding stone wall and a stone tower. The wall served as protection from nearby groups, as protection from floods, or to keep animals penned; some of the enclosures suggest grain and meat storage. The Neolithic 2 began around 8800 BC according to the ASPRO chronology in the Levant; as with the PPNA dates, there are two versions from the same laboratories noted above. This system of terminology, however, is not convenient for southeast Anatolia and settlements of the middle Anatolia basin.
A settlement of 3,000 inhabitants was found in th
The Boian culture known as the Giuleşti–Mariţa culture or Mariţa culture, is a Neolithic archaeological culture of Southeast Europe. It is found along the lower course of the Danube in what is now Romania and Bulgaria, thus may be considered a Danubian culture; the Boian culture originated on the Wallachian Plain north of the Danube River in southeastern Romania. At its peak, the culture expanded to include settlements in the Bărăgan Plain and the Danube Delta in Romania, Dobruja in eastern Romania and northeastern Bulgaria, the Danubian Plain and the Balkan Mountains in Bulgaria; the culture's geographical extent went as far west as the Jiu River on the border of Transylvania in south-central Romania, as far north as the Chilia branch of the Danube Delta along the Romanian border with Ukraine and the coast of the Black Sea, as far south as the Rhodope Mountains and the Aegean Sea in Greece. The type site of the Boian culture is located on an island on Lake Boian in the region of Muntenia, on the Wallachian Plain north of the Danube River.
The Boian culture emerged from two earlier Neolithic groups: the Dudeşti culture that originated in Anatolia. The Boian culture is divided traditionally into four phases, each of, given a name of one of the archaeological sites that are associated with it: Phase I – Bolintineanu Phase, 4300–4200 BC. Phase II – Giuleşti Phase, 4200–4100 BC. Phase III – Vidra Phase, 4100–4000 BC. Phase IV – Spanţov Phase, 4000–3500 BC; the Boian culture ended through a smooth transition into the Gumelniţa culture, which borrowed from the Vădastra culture. However, a segment of the Boian society ventured to the northeast along the Black Sea coast, encountering the late Hamangia culture, which they merged with to form the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture; the time when the Boian culture developed into the Gumelniţa culture is referred to as a transitional period, during which there are commonalities found on both sides of the chronological divide between the two cultures. As a result, there are frequent references to this by scholars, who use the term Boian-Gumelniţa culture to describe this specific period.
Sometimes, this term is mis-used by some to include both the entire Boian culture and Gumelniţa culture periods, not just the transitional period overlapping the two cultures. Since each culture is distinct from the other during its main phases, they should each be considered and named separately, with the exception of the transitional phases of their development. Boian archaeological sites have tended to be found next to rivers and lakes that had rich floodplains that provided fertile soil for agriculture. There were three different types of structures found in Boian sites. During Boian phases I and II the dwellings of this culture were thrown-together, oval-shaped lean-to or dugout pit-house shelters built into river banks and ledges. In Boian phases III and IV the dwellings became more sophisticated, resulting in structures that were small with raised wooden platform floors; the third type of houses were larger, rectangular wattle and daub structures with wooden platform floors covered in clay, roughly-thatched roofs, built at ground level.
During phases III and IV the first settlements began to appear, resulting in the first of this region's archaeological tells. These settlements were built on high, steep terraces or headlands above the floodplain of the rivers or lakes that were always nearby. At this time the houses began to incorporate more sophisticated elements, such as raised platform floors, painted interior walls exhibiting geographic designs in red and white patterns, painted clay furniture, indoor clay ovens. Settlements sometimes showed signs of possible fortification in the form of deep, wide defensive ditches; the settlements in Phase III showed indications of having intersettlement and intrasettlement hierarchy, based on the sizes and locations of the residential buildings, which were built in nucleated rows around a central location. In Phase IV surface houses became dominant over subterranean, the settlements grew to include up to 150 people, their economy was characterized by the practice of agriculture, animal husbandry, hunting and fishing.
The proximity of their settlements to deciduous forests and steppe vegetation provided a good supply of wild game for their diet and fuel for their fires and homes. In addition, their nearness to rivers and marshes provided a good source of game fowl and fish, as well as a source of lithic materials from the banks. Archaeological evidence indicates that members of the Boian culture included the following animals in their diet, or used their furs, bones, or flesh for making tools and clothes: Bos primigenius Bos taurus Canis lupus Canis lupus familiaris Capra hircus Capreolus capreolus Castor fiber Cervus elaphus Equus ferus Lepus europaeus Meles meles Ovis aries Sus domesticus Sus scrofa Unio ssp Vulpes vulpes Boian pottery exhibited influences from the earlier cultures from which it arose: chequers and flutings from the Dudeşti culture, small triangles bordering the lines it inherited from the Musical
Pitted Ware culture
For the North-East European culture of similar name, see Pit–Comb Ware culture. The Pitted Ware culture was a hunter-gatherer culture in southern Scandinavia along the coasts of Svealand, Götaland, Åland, north-eastern Denmark and southern Norway. Despite its Mesolithic economy, it is by convention classed as Neolithic, since it falls within the period in which farming reached Scandinavia, it was first contemporary and overlapping with the agricultural Funnelbeaker culture, with the agricultural Corded Ware culture. The economy was based on fishing and gathering of plants. Pitted Ware sites contain bones from elk, beaver, seal and pig. Pig bones found in large quantities on some Pitted Ware sites emanate from wild boar rather than domestic pigs. Seasonal migration was a feature of life, as with many other hunter-gatherer communities. Pitted Ware communities in Eastern Sweden spent most of the year at their main village on the coast, making seasonal forays inland to hunt for pigs and fur-bearing animals and to engage in exchange with farming communities in the interior.
This type of seasonal interaction may explain the unique Alvastra Pile Dwelling in south-western Östergötland, which belongs to the Pitted Ware culture as far as the pottery is concerned, but to the Funnelbeaker culture in tools and weapons. The repertoire of Pitted Ware tools varied from region to region. In part this variety reflected regional sources of raw materials; however the use of fish-hooks and nets and sinkers was widespread. Tanged arrow heads made from blades of flintstone are abundant on Scandinavia's west coast, were used in the hunting of marine mammals. One notable feature of the Pitted Ware Culture is the sheer quantity of shards of pottery on its sites; the culture has been named after the typical ornamentation of its pottery: horizontal rows of pits pressed into the body of the pot before firing. Though some vessels are flat-bottomed, others are round-based or pointed-based, which would facilitate stable positioning in the soil or on the hearth. In shape and decoration, this ceramic reflects influences from the Comb Ceramic culture of Finland and other parts of north-eastern Europe, established in the sixth and fifth millennia BC.
Small animal figurines were modelled out of clay, as well as bone. These are similar to the art of the Comb Ware culture. A large number of clay figurines have been found at Jettböle on the island of Åland, including some which combine seal and human features, its grave customs are not well known, but Västerbjers on the island of Gotland has produced a large number of grave fields, where the limestone has preserved the graves well. In these graves, archaeologists found skeletons laid on their backs with well-preserved tools in bone and horn. Numerous imported objects testify to good connections with the Scandinavian mainland and Germany. A theory among archaeologists was that the Pitted Ware culture evolved from the Funnelbeaker culture by a process of abandonment of farming for hunting and fishing; however the two populations are genetically distinct. The nineteen Pitted Ware samples from Gotland were dominated by mitochondrial DNA haplogroups U4, U5 and U5a although, because of the low resolution of the tests performed, some haplotypes reported as U4 may belong to haplogroup H.
By contrast the three Funnelbeaker samples from Gökhem contained no haplogroup U. This is consistent with findings elsewhere in northern Europe of a distinct difference in mtDNA between hunter-gatherers and farmers. Another hunter-gatherer of the Pitted Ware culture, dated to 2,900 to 2,600 BC, belonged to Y-Haplogroup I-M438. A low level of an allele associated with the ability to consume unprocessed milk at adulthood was found among Pitted Ware Culture individuals in Gotland, Sweden; this frequency is different from the extant Swedish population. As the language left no records, its linguistic affiliations are uncertain, it has been suggested that its people spoke a language related to the Uralic languages and provided the unique linguistic features discussed in the Germanic substrate hypothesis