The Early and Middle Neolithic in Balkans

At the end of the Ice Age, the Balkan Peninsula was inhabited by the bands of hunters and gatherers who left rather few traces. During the period of climatic optimum, sometime around 6200 BC, the first groups of stockbreeders and agriculturists started inhabiting this region. Their settlements have been ascertained in Southeast Europe over a vast area: from Greece in the south to Hungary in the north. Further development of the Neolithic communities gave rise to hundreds of settlements and rather dense settlement pattern. This cultural boom and expansion of stockbreeding and agriculture occurred during the first centuries of the 6th millennia BC. The cause of the change in subsistence pattern and the process of this epochal shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture and food production are still a controversial issue among archaeologists. One of the chronological questions about the Balkan prehistory is the subdivision of the Neolithic period. In Greece and the eastern parts of the Balkan Peninsula it has been accepted that the Neolithic period is basically divided into three parts: early, middle and late (Garaanin 1982, 84). But such division is not entirely satisfactory for the Central and western parts of Balkans. But anyway, such threepartite division should be used to avoid confusion in studying the Neolithic cultures. As in the central part of Balkans there exists a much greater degree of connexion between the earlier and the middle Neolithic periods (Garaanin 1979, 136), the Early and Middle Neolithic will be shown together here.

The beginning of the Neolithic in Balkans

Because of that, the Neolithization spread very fast, and according to the most recent datings, it seems that it took some 150 years to cross a territory of at least 550 kilometres, from the upper Strymon Valley in Bulgaria to the southern fringes of the Great Hungarian Plain (Thissen 2009, 9).

The first elements of Neolithization on Balkan peninsula were found in the caves of Theopetra and Franchthi on Peloponese peninsula where wild forms of wheat and barley were used, as well as ovicaprids and bovids (Kotsakis 2001, 66), and where the cremation, which would later be typical for Neolithic communities in Thessaly, was practiced (Perles 2003, 100; Bavarov 2003, 186). Soon, farming communities dispersed across the Peloponnese and Thessaly on the southern tip of the Balkan Peninsula (Garaanin 1979).

From the time when the first prehistoric excavations in Turkey started, similarities in material culture between the Balkans and Anatolia were obvious. The artifact assemblages of such first farming communities in Balkans contain a wide array of items that are known in earlier Anatolian or broader Near Eastern cultural traditions, and they include: bone belt-hooks, bone spoons, stone labrets, antler-handled sickles, polished stone axes, baked clay stamp-seals and slingstones, female figurines, stone frog figurines, mud-brick rectangular houses, carved stone vessels and both monochrome and red-and-white painted pottery (Fiedel&Anthony 2003, 151; Budja 2003; Biagi et al. 2005, 45). There are also isolated elements in the early pottery assemblages from the Balkan area seem to refer to contemporary phenomena in North-Western Anatolia, including the impresso ornament which appears at Ulucak Va (Cilingiroglu 2009 , 174-184) and at Ilpnar VIII a (Thissen 2008, fig. 26-27), red-slipped wares with white-painted dots, well-burnished surfaces, the use of vertically pierced knobs and tubular lugs on globular pots, snake-like appliqu on small pots, as well as the use of small pottery lids appearing at Ilpnar VI (Thissen 2001; Thissen 2009, 9).

The question about how Neolithization reached Europe is still under debate. During the time two main points of views about how Neolithization reached Europe have been developed. On the one side there is diffusionistic approach according to which the Neolithic arrived as the consequence of the migration (often seen as a demographic manifestation) from Anatolia (e.g. Miloji 1949; Childe 1957; Garaanin 1961), while on the other side there are scholars who support autochthonous development and even a diffusion from the Balkans to the East (e.g. Todorova 1978). Taking in account that Near Eastern sites exhibit a slow development and adoption of pottery over centuries, Greek and Southeast European sites generally manifest either a brief aceramic phase, or a short phase of well-made monochrome ware followed quickly by the florescence of finely made painted pottery, current archaeologists mostly favor the model of colonizations from the Middle East or Anatolia, but suggest more subtle forms of colonization of South-Eastern Europe.

Perles (2001, 59 63) argues that the Greece was inhabited through naval moving of the populations that came from Anatolia. Similary to this, Pinhasi argues that the newly came Neolithic populations in Europe originate from ayn and atal Hyk, mostly because of the great similarities with the Early Neolithic genetic groups from Europe (Pinhasi 2003, 15). Zvelebil (2001, 2-7) also addresses the fast spreading of the agricultural communities from Anatolia through the Balkans, but he especially stresses the mutual contacts among the natives and the newly came farmers. According to Van Andel and Runnels (1995), there were two waves Neolithization, the first one from Levant to Crete, Franchti and Thessaly, and the second one from Central Anatolia (Can Hassan, Hailar and atal Hyk) to the northern parts of Greece, Macedonia and Thrace. S. Fiedel and D. Anthony also claim that Neolithization was brought to Greece directly from Anatolia, but in a form of a selective Neolithic package (Fiedel&Anthony 2003, 161). Whittle (1996, 39-44) considers that settling of the Southeast Europe was not rapid, but that colonization was gradual and from the sea, because the settlements from Thrace where gradual inner changes could be noted, which caused slow culture development, with no sudden external inventions. On the other hand, Thissen (2009, 10) states that NW Anatolian features such as lat bases and two differing handle sets do not occur in the Danube sites, nor are the large dishes with roughened exteriors, typical for the SE European sites, part of the Anatolian pottery assemblages.treat these heterogeneous elements not as a proof of migration, but as shared (but patterned) attitudes concerning use and manipulation and perhaps symbolic function of specific vessel categories, as well as for shared tactical and motor habit patterns leading to specific similar outcomes in specific instances (ibid, 10). M. Budja (2011, 55) goes in line with it and notes that the earliest pottery assemblages differ morphologically and ornamentally between the Anatolia and the Balkans and between southern and northern Balkan regions.

By whichever way it arrived, after the first introduction of the Neolithic in Balkans, the Neolithization of the rest of Balkans could be continued. As the reason for the beginning of Neolithization of Balkans, it often considered to be some kind of demographic explosion which occured during the Early Neolithic, (Cavalli Sforza&Cavalli Sforza 1995), and which was, according to Renfrew (1987) essential for the occurrence and development of the agriculture. Interesting theory has been set up by N. Tasi (2000) according to whom, one of the main reasons for such a rapid Neolithization of the Balkans was the exploitation of salt. L. Nikolova (2007, 99) assumes that the limited evidence of pottery-using settlements in the Balkans before 6000 cal BC may relate to the period of dramatic climate changes known as 8.2 ka event, after which the Balkan area became more convenient for the Neolithic way of life.

Although the most of Balkan area is covered by mountains and hills, there are big river valleys which were available for flowing of people and ideas. There are three possible main routes used throughout prehistory: the first one from Thessaly passing through Vardar and Morava valleys, Iron Gates, and the Middle Basin of Danube to the Middle Basin of Mures, the second one connects the Strymon valley and Sofia Plain, continuing further through the Niava valley, while the third one follows Marica river to the North (Demoule&Lichardus-Itten 1994, 562; Todorova 1995, 83; Lazarovici 1995, 22).

According to traditional view, by the end of the Aegean Early Neolithic, the Anatolian diaspora was hypothesised as having spread simultaneously from Southeast to the Northwest northern, and farming communities were established in the Balkans and Carpathian basin (e.g. Garaanin 1979; Todorova 1995, 83). A wave of migrations along the Vardar and Morava rivers, marked by the spread of white and red painted pottery, was hypothesied (Nandris 1970; Garaanin 1979). Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1971; 1973; see also Gkiasta et al. 2003) even gave an average speed of diffusion of about 1 km/y. But recently that traditional model has been challenged by some scholars. The chronology of Early Neolithic sites within Bulgaria suggests a spread from west to east rather than from east to west, furthermore, the earliest Neolithic traces in Europe are found in Thessaly (Greece) around the mid of the 7th millennium BC, so it seems that Neolithization from Northwest Turkey could be excluded (Lichter 2005, 60). It is also clear from the pottery that the Western Macedonian Early Neolithic sites have strong Balkan affinities (Crisostomou (1997); Lichardus-Itten et al. 2002, 130), and were probably settled from the North, not from the East (Perles 2005, 108). Furthermore, recent researches revail that a neolithization of the Muntenia from the south seems less plausible than the colonization from the central Balkans over the Carpathians. Curent research show direct connections with North West Anatolia, which is not very possible because of distance, but probably a matter of the state of research (Krauss 2009, 52).

Defining the Neolithic cultures in Balkans

In the Early Neolithic, according to M. Garaanin (1982, 87), Balkan area was divided into three main cultural zones: Balkan-Danube complex which was comprised basically by Starevo/ Koros/ Cris culture, Impresso culture of the Adriatic coast and the Early Neolithic Balkan-Anatolian complex which includes Karanovo I and Amzabegovo-Vrnik I. On the other hand, some scholars (e.g. Lazarovici 2005) argue that in the entire Early Neolithic Balkans was consisted of only one, Protosesklo Sesklo Starevo Cris Koros Karanovo I Kremikovci cultural complex. Some scholars (e.g. Minichreiter 1998, 5) consider the existence of the Starevo cultural complex in which is consisted of Starevo, Koros, Cris, Karanovo-avdar-Kremikovci and Amzabegovo-Vrnik cultures.

One of the biggest problem for clearly definition of early and middle Neolithic cultures in Balkans are previously drawn lines between the Early Neolithic complexes of Karanovo, Starevo, Cri and Krs still strictly follow modern political boundaries (Krauss 2008, 35). Also, in cases when is generally thought that the early and middle Neolithic cultures in Balkans form a more or less homogenous unit only if we take in account pottery material, but on the other hand, for example, the comosition of the plant suites for example, tatally differ within the Balkan regions (Perles 2001, 62). Bearing that in mind, we should take cultural borders quite cautionally.

The oldest culture in the Northern Balkans is Veluina Porodino or Pelagonian-Albanian culture as recently named by some scholars (e.g. Krauss, 2009, 41) was situated mainly in the Western part of Macedonia, and could be separated into the four phases of which the first one last during the Early Neolithic, while the other during the Middle Neolithic (Naumov 2009, 29). Quite recently, it was also recognized at the sites of Podgorie, Rajc, Dunavec and Barc in Albania ( Korkuti 1995 , 41-57).It is older than the Amzabegovo-Vrnik one and was developed under the direct influence of the Early Neolithic period in Thessaly (Zdravkovski 2009, 42).

The Amzabegovo-Vrnik culture was spread over the upper Vardar valley and Ove Polje in the Eastern part of Macedonia, while there is also a strong affinity with the Struma river Valley in Bulgaria, and Nea Nikomedia in the Aegean Macedonia (Garaanin 1982, 89).

The pottery from the oldest layer in Amzabegovo, according to the general features of forms and ornaments, demonstrates visible similarities with the Anatolian type. The connections with Thessaly, settlement phases from Protosesklo, Presesklo and Classical Sesklo, become more evident. Further in the evolution, during the entire Middle Neolithic period, the Anzabegovo ties with the Northern Starevo group in Serbia. The leit-motive or the constant when it comes to the Anzabegovo- Vrnik group is the floral ornaments (vegetative), absent in this form in the Starevo group, although persisting and evolving in the spiraloid or girlandoid style. (Dimitrijevi 1979, 246).

A typical representation of the Early Neolithic Balkan-Anatolian complex is the Karanovo I group (Efe 2001, 64). Accordng to Krauss, Pottery from the site of Poljanica which belongs to this group, show the typological similarity to the Anatolian pottery at the transition from the Late Neolithic to the Early Chalcolithic, so it could be considered as the oldest pottery in Balkans (Krauss 2009, 50). Karanovo II shows slows an evolution from the previous phase, but new reduction firing of pottery comes in use, and technique of its production shows connection to the Amzabegovo - Vrnik II (Garaanin 1982, 117).Taken as a whole it appears that this group had mingled less with alien elements than the Amzabegovo-Vrnik group. (Garaanin 1982, 97).

Western Bulgarian Neolithic was determinated by Gaul (1948 , 10-63) as "Western Bulgarian painted pottery and by Graanin(1982, 97) as avdar-Kremikovci culture. It was spread in Western Bulgaria and could be generally connected with Karanovo II in Thrace (Krauss, 2009, 44). There is a close affinity between the Starevo and Western Bulgarian Neolithic in the Sofia basin, even that some archaeologists consider the Western Bulgarian Neolithic to be a variant of Starevo (Krauss, 2009, 44). D. Garaanin (1982, 98) considers it as a local and belated variant of Karanovo I. D. Garaanin (1982, 106) excludes the Gradenica variant of Kremikovci, which shows the fundamental characteristics of Starevo/ Koros/ Cris II a in painted pottery, especially in using of spirals, but possesses typical rhomboid and linear motifs which are nearer to avdar-Kremikovci. The Early and Middle Neolithic in the Northwestern Bulgaria and Oltenia with the occurrence of white and black painting, has always been considered that had emerged within the complex of the "West Bulgarian Painted pottery" ( Nikolov 1974 , fig. 1-2 ; Todorova - Vaisov 1993 fig. 95: 1-5). But recently it was recently, it was excluded as a special cultural phenomena and named "Gradesnca-Crcea" (Krauss 2009, 39).

The biggest culture in terms of space t occuped is Starevo Koros Cris culture. The term for this culture is still not clear. Depending by the country, this culture is mostly named Cris for the territory of Romania, Koros for the territory of Hungary and Starevo for the territory of former Yugoslavia, and even combined terms such as Starevo-Cris, Koros-Cris, or Koros-Starevo are used. It just shows that it's difficult to establish some separate cultural appearance in that period, and that it's one single culture. It began in Early Neolithic with the appearance of coarse pottery of the Pannonian-Central Balkan complex, and has been in close touch with the Balkan-Anatolian complex in regard to monochrome pottery even at an earlier stage (Garaanin 1982, 105). Between the Starevo and the Cri culture, there are no bigger differences, especially, if we take in an account the Banat gorup of the Starevo culture. Krs should be distinguished from the other two phenomena, not because od stilistic differensces, but rather because of the chronological difference, as the Krs culture appears a bit later than the other two (Krauss 2009, 39).

Chronology

The Beginning of the Neolithic in Balkans could be assumed to be at around 7050 BC, according to dates from Theopetra and Francthi (Kotsakis 2001, 64). Dates for the Initial Neolithic in Greece obtained from sites including Sesklo and Argissa, cluster between 7050 and 6500 BC, while the Early Neolithic is dated from 6500 to 5900 BC (Perles 2005, 104). Interestingly, dates for the earliest Neolithic settlements in Western Anatolia and Eastern Thrace, dated at around 6500/6400 BC are substantially later than the dates for the Initial Neolithic in Greece (Thissen 2000; Perles 2005, 105).

Furthermore, the C 14 gradient of pottery dispersal suggests that the sites in the southern Balkans are not signiicantly older than those in the northern and eastern Balkans (ibid. 55).

But another interesting feature could be seen if a comparison is made within dates for the rest of the Balkans. In northern Macedonia, the earliest Neolithic date from Amzabegovo I could be put in range 6070 6020 BC (Thissen 2009), 22), while the earliest date for Hungary from the site of Pitvaros, is between 6000 5900 BC, just a little bit later than the earliest dates from Balkans (Whittle et al, 2002, 2005; Thissen 2009, 13). Furthermore, the earliest pottery in the Central Balkans at sites such as Lepenski Vir, Padina and Blagotin, according to (Thissen 2009, 22) have appeared even as early as at around 6200 BC, which suggests that the Amzabegovo I is not significantly older than the other sites in Central Balkans, so the diffusion model of migration from south to north is questionable. But on the other hand, Naumov (2009, 23) and Whittle (2005, 348 - 350) for Amzabegovo I set up quite early date of around 6500 BC. Also, Biagi and Spataro (2005, 35; Biagi et al. 2005, 41) assume that the earliest monochrome phase which could be found at sites such as Donja Branjevina, Lepenski Vir, Vlasac, Padina, Ocna Sibiului and Gura Baciului, does not appear before around 6000 BC. The most recently obtained radiocarbon dates from the territory of Romania, have showed the beginning of Neolithic to be at around 6100/6000 BC (Suciu et al. 2010, 113).

The process of formation of the Veluina Porodino culture took place in the period from 6,400 to 6,100 BC (Zdravkovski 2009, 39). The chronology for the Veluona-Porodin culture was made according to the stratigraphy of the Veluka tumba site near Porodin, with four subsequent settlement horizons ( Simonska and Sanev 1975). It was divided into four phases named I- IV of which first phase belongs to the Early ant the rest of phases to the Middle Neolithic (Zdravkovski 2009, 39).

The periodization of early Neolithic development in the Vardar valley Pelagonia was made by M. Gimbutas (1976) according to the stratigraphies of the tells of Anzabegovo and Vrnik. D. Garaanin (1998) divided Amzabegovo-Vrnik into four phaesnamed I IV, the first belonging to the late phase of Early Neolithic, while other three phases belong to the Middle Neolithic (Garaanin 1982, 89, Naumov 2009, 28). The beginning of this culture is usually assumed to be at around 6,100 as calibrated data from Amzabegovo and Nea Nikomedeia show an exquisite synchronicity, (Zdravskovski 2009, 38; Thissen 2000, 201; Reingruber and Thissen 2005, 12, 25). Further on this, the large similarities of the white-painted vessels from Amzabegovo and Nea Nikomedeia it could be included, as well as the identical house building technique (with mud bricks) in these settlements (Naumov 2009, 26).

The periodization of the Karanovo culture has been established by Mikov and Georgiev (1981) in the 1950s and 60s according to the stratigraphy of the Karanovo tell, and is still the backbone of the prehistory in Thrace, and also the neighboring areas. Recently, the "classical" phase Karanovo III has been divided into three sub-phases, and by retaining the traditional terminology, they were named Kararanovo II / III , III and III / IV (Krauss 2009). Phases I and II represent the early Neolithic of the eastern Balkan Peninsula (Todorova 1995, 87).

The cultural development in the catchment area of the Struma River in the Early Neolithic could be divided into three stages according to the stratigraphy of the Krajinci site (ohadiev et al. 2007).

Because of the absence of the multi-layered sites in Starevo-Koros-Cris culture, the issue of the innternal chronology and periodization has focused on the definition of not allways reliable stylistic and typological criteria for pottery (Nikoli 2005, 46). For the Starevo/ Koros/ Cris culture there are several proposed periodizations. D. Aranelovic-Garaanin (1954, 131-141) divided it into the three phases, G. Lazarovici (1984) into four phases, while S. Dimitrijevi (1974) made periodization according to ornaments appearing on the pottery into four phases: monochrome, linear A, spiraloid A, spiraloid B and girlandoid. Srejovi (1971, 15) suggested periodization beginning with Protostarevo phase, which is folloved by Starevo I, II and III, the same stands for periodization made by M. Garaanin (1979, 132), expect that Protostarevo phase is named Gura Bacului group. Lazarovici (1984) in terms of Starevo-Cris, Miloji (1950) in terms of Starevo, and Raczky (1988) in terms of the Koros culture, made periodizations dividing the culture into four phases named I- IV. Very interesting chronological system is that one made by Makkay (1987), who divided this culture into the early and the classic phase, while Spiraloid A and B (according to Dimitrijevi's classification) are actually recognized as the early and the late Proto- Vina. The most recent periodization was made by D. Nikoli (2005, 65) who argues that Milojis Starevo I phase cant be recognized, so she proposes the folloving periodization: Protstarevo I-II, Starevo II-III. In all of periodizations, the first phase of Starevo belongs to the Early Neolithic, while other phases belong to the Middle Neolithic. Oross (2007, 584), assumes relative simultaneity between the regional variants of this cultural complex on its entire area, so such periodizations could be taken, with some differences, as valid whole the whole complex.

The beginning phase of development of the Starevo culture termed by various authors as Starevo I (Miloji 1950, 109-111), Starevo I and Ia (Aranelovi-Garaanin 1954,), the Monochrome and Linear A phase (Dimitrijevi 1979, 237-252) and Protostarevo I and II (Srejovi 1969, 168-173).

Pelagonia dates follow, for Veluhka Tumba and Porodin, ranging from 6030 BC, 5620 BC and 5850 BC, 5470 BC (Whittle et al. 2005, T. I, 348 - 350).

Citing various typological arguments in support of the radiocarbon dates, such as the revision of the chronology of the white-painted decoration and its assignment to the Karanovo II period, Thissen (2000) rejects Makkay's arguments concerning a parallel Koros-Starevo development. He agrees with Miloji's original proposal that the Koros culture should be syncronised with the late Starevo period. He then goes on to draw a rather absurd conclusion that the classical Koros and Protovina phases were brief periods which should be dated between 5600-5500 BC (Thiessen 2000, 285).

Pottery

When talking about the pottery, in the Balkan Early Neolithic we can see that there was cultural homogeneity among material culture, especially among pottery (Milisauskas & Kruk 2011, 223). In general, coarse pottery predominates and fine pottery occurs in an extremely low percentage (Vukovi 2010, 19). Taking a model of L. Nikolovska (2007), who assumes the connection between the evolution of pottery and social complexity, the evolution of pottery in the Early and Middle Balkan Neolithic could be divided in short into four stages: The earliest monochrome phase between 6300 and 6200/6100 BC (Hoca eme 4-3, Krajnitsi 1, Divostin 1, Donja Branjevina III) and the emergence of archaic white-painted pottery between 6200/6100 and 6000 BC (Kovaevo I a/b, Amzabegovo Ia, Nevestino I, Donja Branjevina II). The classical white painted pottery at the beginning of the 6th millennium BC (early Karanovo I, early Starevo/ Koros/ Cris horizon). Late white painted and polychrome pottery with a variety of regional models in the second quarter of the 6th millennium BC (later Karanovo I, Karanovo II, later Starevo horizon) Late polychrome and dark burnished pottery in the third quarter of the 6th millennium BC (late Starevo/ Koros/ Cris, Karanovo III and related cultures).

The earliest pottery in Balkans appears in Thessaly within a range of 6400-6300 cal BC (Thissen 2005; 2009; Reingruber and Thissen 2009; Reingruber 2009). Pottery assemblages are consisted of monochrome pottery, with a very limited use of painting, and could be found at sites such as Argissa, Sesklo, Achilleion and Nea Nikemedeia (Perles 2001).

Such 'monochrome' pottery appeared soon n the Central and Northern Balkans, and is named dferentally as 'group Glbnik' ( Pavuk and ohadziev 1984) or "Protostarcevo " ( Pavuk and Bakamska 1989; Pavuk 1993). ccording to Krauss (2009, 51), such frst 'monochrome' and white-on-red painted pottery, evolved towards Starevo ceramics, painted with dark paint on light background, rarely polychrome painting.

This early Balkan-Anatolian complex is characterized by fine red and brown monochrome wares, generally quite thin-walled. Painting was usually executed in either white on red or red on cream. The painted patterns look familiar, ladders and triangular motifs appear in regions as far spread as South-western Anatolia including the Hacilar culture in the Lake district, Thessaly, Macedonia and the southern reaches of Albania. (Efe 2001, 61)The oldest pottery in Thrace, so-called Pre-karanovo pottery could be found at the sites of Hoca eme III and IV and Aa Pnar 7 and 8. It is characterised by by monochrome pottery with brown slip and organic admixtures, pottery forms are mostly S- profiles or slightly rounded biconical pots, while ornaments are rare, and are made by plastic applications, incisions and impresso ornaments(zdoan 1998, fig. 4-8; zdoan 1999, fig. 39-40; Parzinger 2005, 45). It is important to note that the existence first, so called monochrome pottery phase, has been recently questioned (e.g. Thissen 2000, 196-197; Nikolova 2007, 91), as it's not clear could whether does monochrome pottery form a separate level on certain sites.

That monochrome phase is quite short and is followed quickly by the florescence of finely made painted pottery at around 6000 cal BC (Proto-Sesklo in Thessaly, Amza I in Macedonia, Starcevo II in Yugoslavia, Karanovo I in Bulgaria) (Fiedel&Anthony 2003, 151). Red and brown geometric and floral motifs were limited to the Peloponnese and the southern Balkans, white painted dots and spiral motifs were distributed across the northern and eastern Balkans and southern Carpathians and none of them appeared in the Early Neolithic on the eastern Adriatic (Schubert 1999; 2005; Mller 1994; Budja 2001; 2009).

At the end of the Early Neolithic, the gradual abandonment of the vessel painting in favor of the plastic ornament appears to be a general feature as it can be seen in the Amzabegovo-Vrnik phase III, Starevo-Cri III or in the the Karanovo II, and could be a reflection of the cultural development in Anatolia in that period (Krauss 2009, 42).

Amzabegovo Vrnik cultureThe oldest phases of the Amzabegovo-Vrnik cultural group, Amza-Vrnik I a-c, belong to the Old Neolithic period featuring white floral ornaments painted on a red background (Zdravskovski 2009, 39). Its pottery is broadly similar to that of the Starevo/Koros/Cris culture, while certain fragments of vessels with deeply engraved ornamentation point to an affinity with the Sesklo culture of the Greek Middle Neolithic (Garaanin 1982, 92). During the entire culture life-spam, there's a gradual increase of dark pottery (ibid. 90).

In the sense of ornaments on the pottery, during the Amzabegovo-Vrnik phase I motifs are meandrine patterns made by white paint, different combinations of bands and triangles, and characteristic floral motifs while among coarse ware barbotine and impresso motifs also occur (Garaanin 1982, 92). In Phase Ib stair-pattern and Augemuster motif appear, while floral motifs dissapear and for phase Ic droplets and denticulated bands are characteristic (Garaanin 1982, 92; Krauss 2009, 41)..

Pottery forms are globural with a sharp profile and with an inclination towards biconical forms and high shoulders, and sometimes they have several legs. Most of the vessels have spherical forms.(Garaanin 1982, 90; Krauss 2009, 41)

AmzabegovoVrnik II has a characteristic grey or brown pottery and thus is linked to the Karanovo II group in Thrace that runs parallel to the Sesklo culture, and there is also similarity with the Veluina-Porodino culture (Naumov 2009, 23) A fundamental change is seen in ornamentation, white-on-light painting was gradually replaced by dark-on-light painted ware, geometrical motifs are typical of this phase, and they continue to the end of the culture (Krauss 2009, 41). They usually consist of parallel vertical bands, often in alternate rows and with mesh-like motifs between them (Garaanin 1982, 92).

The biggest blossom of this culture took place during the phases III IV and is characterized with fine red pottery and dark brown ornaments on a red background (Zdravskovski 2009, 39). In phase III geometrical and spiral motifs predominate, the black pottery emerges, but in small quantity (Krauss 2009, 41). In phase IV the spiral motif evolve into the claw like spiral which become the main motif on painted pottery, while on coarse vessels fingerprint barbotine and impresso are very often. (Garaanin 1982, 92)

Veluina-Porodino culture

The pottery manufactured by the culture demonstrates unity in all phases and generally shows almost the same features with little changes during its development (Naumov 2009, 23).

Throughout all the phases, coarse pottery predominates, and ornaments were usally made by and barbotine.and of fine pottery (Kitanoski et al. 1978 fig. 16, 18 ). Among fine pottery, a red monochrome one prevails, sometimes decorated pottery by white painting. In all of the phases, the motif of the droplet appears along the rims of the pots (Garaanin 1982, 97). The Impresso technique is used on small vessels. These are mainly ornaments with impressions, nail prints, pitches in the form of a wheat ear and wheat grains, also present in Anzabegovo-Vrnik group pottery (Simoska&Stanev 1976, 13).

The most frequent pottery form is spherical, with an elongated neck, while hemispherical and conical forms also appear (Garaanin 1982, 98). Particularly characteristic of this culture are a conical lid and variants of biconical dishes, while hollow conical legs appear as early as phase I (Garaanin 1982, 98).

Phase I features the predominance of rough red barbotine pottery with finger traces, organized barbotine, plastic stripes with fingerprints (Krauss 2009, 42).For this phase sferical bowls are characteristic, as in the early stages of the Amzabegovo - Vrnik culture ( Simonska and Sanev 1975, tab. IX - X; Zdravkovski 2006 , fig. 1, 2). Also appears an ornament in the shape of the Cyrillic letter 3 and the Greek letter Z which is also frequently found in the phase II, while in phase III they become rare and completely disappear in phase IV (Garaanin 1982, 98; Zdravkovski 2009, 42).).

Very inetersting features which appears in phase II are biconical and sharply profiled forms at Porodin and Veluka Tumba, because such forms are totally uknown in the early phase of the Northern Balkan Early Neolithic.They start to occur from phase II on, while the older forms also continue to exist (Kitanoski et al. 1978 fig. 16, 18 ). In addition to the white painting, dark-on-red painting also occur ( Kitanoski et al. 1978, 19).

In phase III, S- profiled shapes and vessels with cylindrical neck appear. Painting has vanished but barbotine is still common on the coarse vessels (Kitanoski et al 1978 , 20).

There are also plastic applications in the form of flowers , also known from the Eastern Balkans Early Neolithic period ( Kitanoski et al 1978 , 20 fig . 48).In phases IIIIV the most often motifs become hatched bands. The Barbotine technique of ornamentation is more frequent than the impresso, while in phase IV systematized Barbotine predominates. (Garaanin 1982, 98)

Karanovo cultureOf great importance for the Balkan Early Neolithic is the site of Kovaevo (Pernitcheva 1990; Lichardus - Itten et al. 2002). In the ceramic material of the oldest horizon mainly spferical bowls and pots, coated with a red to brown-redish slip, and some pieces are painted with white paint ( Lichardus - Itten et al. 2,002 , 118). In the subsequent phase II, there's no bigger differences to the previous phase except some sharper profiled bowls that tend to biconical forms. Frequent painting motifs become grids, triangle and linear motifs ( Lichardus - Itten et al. 2002 , tab. 15). In phase III which is parallelized with the horizon Karanovo I, curvilinear and spiraloid motives in white-on- red technique appear for the first time ( Lichardus - Itten et al. 2002, tab. 13-14) . S-profiles become dominate, and Karanovo I and II tulip cups also start to appear. Furthermore, lattice patterns , spiraloid and linear motifs become common among ornaments. Paralels could be drawn with the Amazabegovo-Vrnik Ic and II (Krauss, 44) while Grammenos and Alram - Star connect with it with Karanovo I (Grammenos 1984 , 85; Alram - Star 1996 , 436).

In the Karanovo I phase, fine monochrome pottery with red slp prevails, while among painted pottery, white-on-red painting is characteristic (Vajsov 1966, 8; zdoan 1999, fig. 39-40). The basic form of this pottery which is also characteristic for the Karanovo II, isa high cylindrical cup with gently curving profile on a high hollow foot,so-called Tulpenbecher type (Graanin 1982, 95; Hiller and Nikolov 1997, tab. 65: 5-7 , 66, 67: 1). The painted decoration consists of angular bands, triangles and spirals, which are sometimes placed on the stems of the vessels(Graanin 1982, 95).In addition to the vessel painting, scratching and impresso-ornaments also occur, as well as applications with plastic strips and humps (ibid. 96). In the Rhodopes area, the pottery material could be connected with the material from the central area of Karanovo I, except that in addition to typical tulip cups, spferical forms also occur, and flutting among ornamental technques (Radieva et al 2002 , 10-13.) n the Northern Bulgaria, spherical bowls predominate, but there are also biconical bowls with vertical wals, while among ornaments, only ones knowm are plastic strips and humps on belly of the vessel, monochrome pottery with a red or brown slip and impresso ornament (Popov 1996, fig. 18). Some pottery is painted with brown coulour, and fine pots are even polished. (lenski 2006, fig. 6-7).

The Karanovo II culture developed with a gradual loss of painted pottery decoration and a transition to a reduction technology of pottery firing, and due to that special characteristic of the Karanovo II is a dark monochrome pottery, predominantly grey or black(Garaanin 1982, 114; Todorova 1995, 87). The Tulpenbecher form is still retained, but now appearing in numerousvariants from classical cylindrical shapes up to convex types ( Nikolov : Hiller - Nikolov 1997 , 117-120 ). Entire new shapes appear, such as jugs with handles often placed on the shoulders or the body of the vessel, bowls on massive feet (Garaanin 1982, 117), vessel with a narrow conical or cylindrical neck, and very rarely biconical forms (Krauss 2009, 52). The most outstanding feature of this group is the use of rippled ornamentation set in parallel or in vertical lines (Todorova 1995, 87).

In the Northern Bulgaria, pottery surface is treated with flutting, forms consist mostly of tulip cups, but with strap handle. The vessel painting is usally made with dark-on-light technique with simple linear patterns. But there is an increase in a plastic ornamentation which is consisted of scratching and impresso. Except the tulip cups which show a relationship with Thrace, the rest of the pottery points to connections with the areas of the Romanian Moldova and the Ukrainian steppes. (Krauss 2009, 52)

Western Bulgarian Neolithic

The shapes of the vessels of the avdar-Kremikovci culture correspond to those of Karanovo I, of which the Tulpenbecher type is the most typical, In the ornamentation, however, parallel to the rich motifs of spirals, another permanent motif is droplets. Polychrome painting appears quite early comparing with neighbouring cultures, and is conducted with white and red colour. (Garaanin 1982, 97)

Characteristic shapes are conical and semi-sferical bowls , globular pots with straight neck or slightly curved rim, and high pots with a narrowed neck (ohadiev 2007, 11-12). Certain differences exist in the form of the divided legs of vessels, a characteristic ascribed to the influence of Karanovo, and in painted motifs resembling hatched rhomboids. The stratigraphy of the Kremikovci site also proves the existence of the chronological sequence of white and dark painting. (Garaanin 1982, 105)

In the early phase of this culture, which could be observed at the sites of Kovacevo and Kremikovci, monochrome pottery predominates and painting is usually executed with white colour on a red slip, while among painted motifs, grd-pattern predominate (Nikolov 1992, 70, fig. 1; Demoule and Lichardus Itten 1994, 562). On "coare" ware, impressed ornaments, such as fingernail impresso, barbotine, relief ornaments and dimples on the rim are used (ohadiev 2007, 97). In the next phase, painting is executed with red, brown and black painted colour (Georgiev 1975, fig. 7, 9, 10). While observing motifs, triangulars and floral motifs, point to the Amzabegovo - Vrnik Ia(Krauss 2009, 50) , while zigzag lines, grid patterns, pointed rows and spiraloid motifs , suggest a parallels with Amzabegovo - Vrnik Ib and Ic ( Chohardzhiev 2001, 26-27 ).In the last phase, polycrome painting becomes characteristic, but white paint is no longer used, and in its place comes painting with black, brown-black and red-brown colour (Petkov 1961; Nikolov 1992 , 71, fig. 2-3). Nikolov (2002, 50) considers polychrome painting as a specific feature sphere of influences of the Karanovo and the Starevo traditions. Decoration is dominated by wide spiral motifs, so called "claws" - again a connection with Anzabegovo - Vrnik IV (Todorova and Vaisov 1993 , 64-86; Nikolov 2002). Shapes are dominantly spherical or gently profiled with straight edges or slightly curved ( Pavk - ochadiev 1984, 204).

Starevo/ Koros/ Cris culture

Despite its typological development, Starevo/ Koros/ Cris pottery is rather homogeneous technologically, for example, the white-on-red paintedWares have identical fabrics to sherds characterised by barbotinosurfaces (Spataro, 2004). The clay was heavily tempered with cereal chaff, including barley awns (Biagi et al. 2005, 45).Analyses of the technological characteristics of pottery have shown that in the course of time the avarage thickness of the walls of a vessel is reduced and the ration between organic and non-organic admixtures changes with an increase of the thermal coefficient of a vessel correlating to these characteristics (Manson 1990, 250). The rise of the thermal coefficient is brought into correlation with changes in the diet of Starevo communities, and the increased importance of cooked food-cereals above all, in the final phase of the culture, and this may indicate a gradual advance towards a crop-growing economy (Manson 1995).

Through the time spam of Starevo culture existance, the pottery painting was evoluating form white to predominantly red and finally to black painting. (Krauss 2009, 37)

The initial phase of Starevo culture is characterised by the abcence of the channelled barbotine pottery decoration, typical for its classical phase (Dimitrijevi 1979, 242-243).This phase is characterised by well-burnished, translucent, red or pink-painted wares, sometimes with simple patterns of white-painted dots and small ovals. The vessel shapes are hemispherical, globular, or more rarely cylindrical. In its further development coarse pottery continued to predominate, but painted pottery also developed. The linear phase is characterised by the appearance of barbotino and red-slipped ceramics decorated with white-painted geometric patterns in form of small dots, so called wheat grain and, more rarely (criss-cross) lines.

The girlandoid and spiraloid phases, which represent the classical Starevo/ Koros/ Cris culture, are rich in barbotino pottery, flute-decorated globular forms, incised and pinched impressed wares (Garaanin 1982, 105). Among painted pottery, linear and spiral motifs predominate, while white-on-red painted decorations seen in the earlier phases seems to have given the way to the black-on-red painted pottery (Garaanin 1982, 87). Generally, the painted ware of Starevo/ Koros/ Cris is identical with that of Amzabegovo-Vrnik II-IV. In the Middle Neolithic the coarse pottery and the painted pottery exerted a strong influence over one another. (Garaanin 1982, 105). In its final phase, SKC pottery has a tendency towards biconic forms (Petrovi 2009).

The pottery of the Cris culture is caracterised by hemispherical bowls and globular pots with straight or slightly curved rim, and forms with a short neck ( Ciuta 2005 , tab. XLVII). The basic periodization of the Romanian Early Neolithic by Lazarovici in phases Cri I to IV is still accepted by the majority of researchers and with minor modifications (Lazarovici 1979; Ciuta 2005). While in the phase Cri I the spherical shapes with straight or slightly curved rim predominate, in the phases II and III the majority of pots are those of S- profiled types. In the latest phase, biconical bowls and very high cylindrical foot appear. ( Ciuta 2005 tab. XLVIII ). In Cri I period, on the fine ceramics, a white paint on red surface predominate (Ciuta 2005 , tab. XXIX , XXX: 1-5; XXXI : 3-5 ; XXXII : 6-7). The motif consist of simple dots , net paterns and horizontal and vertical wavy lines. In Phase III, no painting is noticed. The coarse pottery , however, is often decorated with impresso ornament, punctuating, incision, plastic strips, or fingerprint barbotine (Ciuta 2005 , tab. LV- LIX ) .

Koros I phase is characterised by wares with white painted dot designs. The naxt phase, Koros II, is characterised by elements traditionally defined as representing the classical Koros period, and the absence of carinated forms. According to Horvath and Hertelendi, the appearance of white-on-red painting in Hungary can be dated to around 5800 BC (Horvath and Hertelendi 1994, 112). If this is indeed the case, it is possible that the Koros I and II phases actually represent the same chronological horizon, whose absolute date corresponds to the Cris II phase. The implication of the latter is that the appearance of the early Neolithic in the Koros distribution occured a few generations later than in the Southern Transylvania and in the Starevo heartland in Serbia. The third phase, Koros III, has a few carinated forms and a stroke-burnised design. The Koros IV assemblages have carinated wares, pattern-burnished decoration, burnished wares, chanelled patterns and chanelled barbotine.

In the phase III of the Starevo culture, motif of spiral is executed more frequently than in the preceeding phase, and polycrome painting and biconical shapes of vessels appear for the first time. There also happens an increase of fine pottery in a relation to coarse pottery, while the coarse pottery does not indicate any important changes in ornamentation (Garaanin 1979, 135).

Gradenica - Circea

A specific feature of this culture are vessels painted both with white and black colour, but, however, the majority of the vessels are still unpainted ( Nikolov 1992 , 12). That feature but is actually connected with the influence of the Starevo culture (Krauss 2009, 39). Pottery shapes also correspond to the central Balkans, with S- profiled and round bowls , some with a round bump on the belly ( Nica 1992 , 1: 2 , 6-7 , 2 : 3, 7).

Nikolov (1992 , 13) designed a three-phases development scheme of the Early Neolithic in the region. While in the first phase, only the white and black painting is used, in the second Phase, a polychrome vessels painted in the white, black and red coulours on a slightly lighter surfacealso appear (ibid, 15). Pottery forms are more profiled, such as round vessels on the high, slim feet and vessels with long cylindric neck, as the result of the distinction from the Early Neolithic Eastern Balkans results (Krauss 2009, 40). The third phase, shows only small changes comparing to the second phase, but among the coarse pottery the biconical shaping start to appear (Nikolov 1992 , 15). Among decoration styles, fingerprint barbotine predominate (Nikolov 1974 , fig. 12). Fluting on the fine pottery, which is not common at this time, also appears, and it also clearly separate it from the Early Neolithic Eastern Balkans. The Vessel painting on fine ceramics is still polychrome, often the entire body of the vessel is coated with white or black color, and then the painting with complex curvilinear and spiral motifs are attached (Nikolov 1974, fig. 14-15).

Architecture

The settlements belonging to the Amzabegovo-Vrnik group are scattered along the terraced river banks, while sometimes the settlements are found to be on the gentle slopes of small rivers or near the sources. It is important to stress that although all these settlements are constructed in several layers, they do not possess the character of tell. (Garaanin 1982, 89) The architecture is characterized by small yet often long-lived sites with rectilinear houses (Orton 2012, 6). Houses were arranged in rows intersected by passages (e.g. at Zelenikovo) at right angles to one another. Houses of the Amzabegovo-Vrnik I phase had walls of mud-brick, while buildings of phase II had walls of wattle and were erected on a platform, while the flooring was coated with several slips of clay. In phase III, the houses were of similar construction but much stronger wattles were used. (Garaanin 1982, 89)

The sites of this culture are for the most part situated on the right bank of the river Crna (Erigon) and as a rule are tells (Garaanin 1982, 98).

Houses of the Veluina-Porodino were rectangular, sometimes trapezoidal in shape, their walls were thickly built of wattle, the flooring was of tamped clay and had a substructure. (Garaanin 1982, 98)

Houses of the Veluina-Porodino culture were built in the exact same manner, with the use of reed, beams and sometimes with a sub-construction of piles below the floor to serve as insulation from humidity (Zdravkovski 2009, 42).

The settlements of the Karanovo I group were located on a plain and all are of the tell type. Houses were basically rectangular, and consisted of one room only. The walls were made of wattle, while the floors had a coating of clay and a wooden substructure. As a rule they had a hearth. All the houses were arranged in rows and were intersected by streets. (Garaanin 1982, 94)

Typical for the Starevo/Koros/Cris culture are open settlements (caves are known only from the site at the Iron Gates). These were erected either on gently sloping ground in the plains (the so-called grede) or along the floodplains and lower terraces of the major rivers (Garaanin 1982, 101; Bailey 2002, 350). These are typically short-lived, one-layer sites. The principal type of dwelling in this culture is the pit-dwelling (Garaanin 1982). Rectangular above ground houses are rare, and they were probably constructed of wattle and daub. Examples of such houses are known from Gladnice, Divostin, Starevo (Bogdanovic, 1988). Remains of some houses with a somewhat irregular rectangular foundation, a flooring of beaten earth, and wattled walls are known also from the Starevo/ Koros/ Cris layer at Lepenski Vir III b. Quite exceptionally are remains of a building whose walls were made of split saplings, discovered at Batine near Obrez in Srem (Starevo III). (Garaanin 1982, 101)

The most of the Starevo sites are single-layered. The small scale investigations undertaken so far, do not offer enpugh elements to explain mechanisms and causes for the mobility of Starevo communities, or the character of the farming economy that is likely to have been responsible for such a short-lived occupation 8Nikoli 2005, 45).

Lithic industries

Greek Mesolithic assemblages from Franchthi Cave and Sidari, for example, consist of large numbers of markedly microlithic irregular flakes; only a few pieces are geometric or regular in form, and some of these have retouched edges. In contrast, the lithic assemblages from aceramic Neolithic levels contain well-made geometric microliths in triangular and trapezoidal shapes, along with larger blade and truncated-blade tools (Sordinas 1970; Jacobsen 1973: 79; Milojcic et al. 1962, Perles 1988; 2001).

BurialsThe number of burials in the settlement do not correspond to the likely number of inhabitants within the settlement, and it must be assumed that most of the deceased were buried outside their settlement. It remains uncertain why only a few individuals from each generation and period were buried beneath the settlement. Interestingly, the largest number of burials found within the settlements, between or even inside the houses, belong to infants and children, follow next by women, and then males. The most usual funerary form was inhumation, which was practiced inside burial pits, vessels and ovens. (Naumov 2007, 255) One hypothesis suggests that during the building of a new house, infants were intentionally killed as offerings. However, new analysis of the Lepenski Vir burials shows that all neonate burial pits were cut through existing floors, so that, at least on this site, the possibility of infanticide is rejected by the researchers (Bori and Stefanovi 2004, 541). One example from atal Hyk indicates that neonates were buried high within the walls (Bavarov 2003, 179).

The deceased of the Starevo culture were buried inside of settlements, and they were only selected members of the tribal comunity. As a rule, one to four individuals were buried in the pits of pit-dwelings. In Slavonski Brod, there was found a burial structure with three scelets, traces of coulumns and a fence around it (Minichreite, 1999, 20).Burials were made within the settlement in a contracted position with no particular orientation (Garaanin 1982, 102).During the entire spam of the Amzabegov-Vrnik culture, the dead were buried inside of settlement. Skeletons were in a contracted position without any particular orientation. An interesting grave belonging to phase I c at Amzabegovo contained two skeletons of adults; beneath it there was a burial placed in a pithos, the bottom and the handles of which had been broken, apparently intentionally. Associated with the cult were two smaller quadrangular buildings with walls made of tamped clay, belonging to phases I b and I c. Each of the buildings had a fairly large hole in the centre, and in one of these holes the bones of a newly born child were discovered. (Garaanin 1982, 89)

The early Neolithic of Moldova

There is an absence of the Early Neolithic sites in Muntenia, but on the other hand metarial from Romanian Moldova could be linked with the East Balkan area, and such contacts could only be approached through the Wallachian Plain. The material could be linked with Cris III and IV. A special feature of the Moldovan Early Neolithic are numerous biconical types (Ursulescu 1983, tab 1: 3-7, 16).Ceramic material from the Cri IV horizon, just echoes the pottery of the Lower Danube region. Characteristic forms are pedestal bowls on very high feet, S-profiled pots and vessels with narrow necks while impresso is most used among decorative techniques (Larina 1994 tab. 3: 25-27, 39-42). New forms are biconical, sharp profiled bowls, which sometimes have humps on the belly (Larina 1994 , fig. 3).

Subsistence economySettlements were generally small, short-term sites, which leads to conclusion that part of human groups were considerably mobile (Whittle, 1996, 69; Bailey, 2000, 57; Tringham, 2000, 4041; Greenfield and Jongsma, 2008), and could clearly point to the existence of a more primitive agricultural development or even to cyclical movements of primitive land-tillers within this same group (Garaanin 1982, 101).

In the earlier Neolithic, sites among the hills and river valleys in the centre of the region generally have a high ratio of cattle to caprines, while sheep and goats typically play a leading role at plain sites in the north and on the high altitude plateaux of Macedonia to the south (Garaanin 1979, 243). Domestic pigs play a negligible role apart from at the two sites in umadija (Orton 2012, 26).

Pelagonija offered excellent conditions for agriculture and cattle-breeding, enabling the group to exist in relative well-being (Zdravkovski 2009, 42).