Re: LBK and Bulgarian Early Neolithic crop and weed



In sci.archaeology message news:eh1thb$mab$1@xxxxxxxxx by "Uwe Müller"
<uwemueller@xxxxxxxxxx> . . . :


"prd" <X_header@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:tGYYg.291523$QM6.224381@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In sci.archaeology message
news:4533e24c$0$34080$dbd4d001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx by "Peter Alaca"
<P.Alaca@xxxxxxxxx> . . . :

prd wrote:
"Uwe Müller" . . . :
"Peter Alaca" schrieb

Kreuz, A., E. Marinova, E. Schäfer & J. Wiethold (2005)
A comparison of early Neolithic crop and weed
assemblages from the Linearbandkeramik and
the Bulgarian Neolithic cultures: differences and
similarities.
Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14(3):237-258
http://tinyurl.com/yhj4g7 (website Elena Marinova)
[pdf, 27 pp, 2mb]


snip >

The earliest Bandkeramik cultivation system with
only five species was different from the neighbouring
Starèevo, Körös, Èris cultures and the Bulgarian
Neolithic. We could speculate whether manpower
was a problem for Bandkeramik groups, which later
even led to a time-saving change in lithic technology
and harvest technique (see above). On the other
hand there might also have been other priorities
concerning parts of the agricultural system.

snip >

The use of different plants, different methods of cultivation and
processing, is a big argument against the theory of the
distribution of a neolithic 'tool-kit'.
The argument about the shortage of manpower amongst the LBK
would mean, that there was little or no population surplus, that
could
have spread neolithisation according to the classic migration
theory.

This is an idealization. Manpower shortages are not the only reason
that people migrate.

I think you misunderstand this. Uwe is talking about
spreading, expansion, not about leaving an moving on.

There is one solution to picking little Triticum Monococcum from their
hulls, let the wild animals eat them and then shoot the animals.
Saves alot of time, then you one have to skin one big fat corn.

That works only, if you have a big surplus in grain. Otherwise it is
more practical to feed the hunters on grain, and let the prey fend for
itself.


No associated risk for northern dwellers either.

You need a surplus in order to make expansion possible
without destroying your economy at the same time.

The bottom line is that the Neolithizers were flexible
about how they expanded, modern rigidity cannot contain
the boundaries of past behavior.

It is not reflecting modern behaviour but an expansion in the absolute
number of neolithic people. There has to be a sizable population
surplus, if you can cover hundreds of square kilometers of land with
neolithic settlers without abandoning existing settlements or stopping
local expansion. Where did those people come from?

From the HLA, various areas in the SE, probably at different times.

We agree that there was not a massive migration from the Iron
Gourges region. But there were migrations, for example up the Danube
southern forks. The issue is were did the ancestors of the Germans
come from, some, a relatively small number came from the south via
france and the paris basin, netherlands route. The 'migrant' pattern in the
Germans is largely from the South East but sources are spread over a wide
area. Translation: There was not one group producing fissions into Germany
but groups in widely different places that contributed.


By the data I know about, they can not have come from the the neolithic
core areas, or from those areas settled earlier. Which, in my opinion,
points at locals being neolithisised in considerable numbers. If this
holds true, there should have been a more marked regional difference
between early LBK areas.

The Paris basin is an excellent example, it was LBK, but in terms of
genetics there is little indicating that this population came from the
East, via Germany. On the contrary it looks to have been largely from the
south (Not just Italy) it has a higher density of african and middle
eastern genes. My opinion was that in this basin it was settled by
ambiguous Neolithic/Mesolithic and was transformed by LBK.

Only if there was a super-regional mesolithic
culture, providing culturally similar starting populations,
neolithisation would have produced local cultures similar enough to
comply with the archaeological record.

I think that in France and parts of Netherlands, Germany, Belgium that it
is certain when the Mesolithic/Neolithic (M/N) boundary. The argument is
confused by 2 scenarios. The Eastern/ Rapid Neolithization and the Western
(Rabbit pops in and out of hat) Neolithization. The Neolithic sites in
western Italy and S. France are older than the extend of LBK, the issue is
when this spread into France, and if like the Italian M/N boundary it may
have been more focused on pastoral activities and remaining an M/N boundary
culture until the LBK shows up. In which case you might have had semi-
settled peoples who grazed herds to the east on occasion prior to the LBK.

The critical issue is why behind the LBK expansion is
the Neolithization process so disorganized? You have
people living in caves, people raising sheep, people
raising one cultivar, some others raising another.

That could have been a residue of the mesolithics, adaption to local
conditions was there unifying principle.


There was pressure in the Iron Gourges to do something
that there was not in the south, and so without pressure
the neolithization process remained disorganized and casual.

Or, because main neolithic technics were not as succesfull in the cooler
and heavily forested west and north as in the warmer south and east.


This is not the only example, the ICW spontaneously and without
transition gave way to La Hoguette, which was probably first into
the Paris basin but got beat out, culturally by LBK.
Better organization.

Those Neoliths the penetrated the german highlands did not come from
LBK but from the ICW cultures, which probably means that LBK
expanded under a set of circumstances and was very dominant under
those circumstances, moving out of those circumstances the less
organized ICW could dominate.

Still, it would have to be explained why highly fertile areas being
situated along the way (like the Havel and Spree valleys, were not
utilised, while the southern Baltic does show a sizable LBK population.
The best explanation would concern different points of origin, and
different routes of communication, all leading to a result, which is
strikingly uniform in tools and artefacts.

Because the highland versions were true cultural adoptations of people
who had already adapted to the regions, in the LBK you have a small
percentage of the initiators who had a strong preference for regions
which were comparable to those from which they came.

Since the migration theory is seriously challenged, not enough
population for sizable inter-regional migrations, those differences in
the use of ressources hint at different points of origin for the
neolithisation impuls.

I contest this is the case. The LBK was a package that some 'ideology'
kept in place as it moved, but with certain moves, for example across the
channel, those things were disrupted the cultural ties with the SE may
have been the cause for the change.

At the same time the uniform material culture
suggest an uniformity for both the underlying mesolithic and the newly
introduced neolithic economies, implying both close and plentyfull
contacts across great distances.

With economies comes politics, religions.
.