The second phase of Neolithization in east-central Europe

Nowak, Marek

doi:10.1017/s0003598x00088815

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is generally agreed that this was a case of colonisation by immigrant farmers, which has recently been shown as more extensive than previously thought (Bogucki 2000;. The arrival of the first farming communities initiated contacts with the local Mesolithic groups, who inhabited the region in distinct territories (Kozłowski 1973, Kozłowski andKozłowski 1986;Balcer 1986;Midgley 1992;Nowak 2001;Czerniak 1994).…”

Section: The Constitution Of Neolithic Communi-ties In the Southern Bmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…A third view accords hunter-gatherer communities of the North European Plain a major role (i.e. Sherratt 1990;Midgley 1992;Nowak 2001;Whittle 1996;Thomas 1996;Bogucki 1987; to the point where they are regarded as the main cultural and genetic element in the constitution of the TRB at least in some areas of its distribution, as in Kujavia, Schleswig-Holstein, Zealand, or Scania (i.e. Andersen 1973;Rowley-Conwy 1984;Niesiowska-Śreniowska 1998;Zvelebil 1996;Fischer 1982;2002;Price 2000;Larsson 1985;1988;Hartz, Heinrich and Lubke 2004).…”

Section: The Constitution Of Neolithic Communi-ties In the Southern Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The coalescence of the hunter-gatherer traditions on one hand and of Danubian (LBK, Rossen and Lengyel) farming traditions on the other, gave rise to the TRB culture in the lowland region between lower Elbe (Labe), Oder and Vistula between 4400 and 4200 BC (3500-3200 bc) (Midgley 1992. 194;Balcer 1986;1988;Czerniak 1988;1994;Rzepecki 2004;Kosko 1980;Niesiolowska-Reniowska 1987;Nowak 2001;Price 2000). There is clear evidence for regional variations in the emergence of the TRB, reflecting relative contributions of the ancestral farming and hunting-gathering communities in its constitution, as well as regional differences in the processes responsible for its formation.…”

Section: The Constitution Of Neolithic Communi-ties In the Southern Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This can be seen as a functional response to economic changes (i.e. Bogucki 1996;Nowak 2001), but such changes in subsistence altered the structural conditions under which the new subsistence could operate.…”

Section: ❸ Agency By Hunter-gatherers: Subversion Of the Bk-lengyel Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Homo habitus: agency, structure and the transformation of tradition in the constitution of the TRB foraging-farming communities in the North European plain (ca 4500–2000 BC)

Zvelebil

2005

Doc. praeh.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current generally accepted view of the dispersal of farming into Europe is that farming groups in the eastern Mediterranean colonised selectively optimal farming areas. The role of contact between indigenous hunter-gatherers and incoming farmers was very important to the operation of this process. This general view of the spread of farming at a broad inter-regional scale gives us our understanding of the origins of the Neolithic but merits closer examination at the local and regional level, as increasingly it is becoming apparent that the causes and motivations may have differed. In this paper, Mesolithic to Neolithic communities with evidence of the transition from hunter-gatherer to farmer will be examined at a regional scale, in the central part of the north European plain, focussing on Kujavia. Additionally, the theory of structuration will be applied in order to elucidate the transition process at this level.

show abstract

Section: The Constitution Of Neolithic Communi-ties In the Southern Bmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: The Constitution Of Neolithic Communi-ties In the Southern Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Constitution Of Neolithic Communi-ties In the Southern Bmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: ❸ Agency By Hunter-gatherers: Subversion Of the Bk-lengyel Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Homo habitus: agency, structure and the transformation of tradition in the constitution of the TRB foraging-farming communities in the North European plain (ca 4500–2000 BC)

Zvelebil

2005

Doc. praeh.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The longhouse implies the formation of an entirely new mode of sociality: not the imposition onto central Europe of a Balkan model, but something that developed in the protracted negotiation between hunters and farmers, and which facilitated the subsequent pioneer expansion into the loess country of Europe north of the Alps and Carpathians (Gronenborn 1999). Similarly, in the period following the Bandkeramik expansion we can identify parallel processes in western France and the North European plain which began with the exchange of ceramics, stone tools, livestock, furs, and presumably also personnel between Neolithic and Mesolithic communities, and culminated in the formation of hybrid forms of sociality which drew on both traditions, with Cerny and the earliest TRB (Domanska 2003;Nowak 2001;Zvelebil 2004.51). Just as the formation of the LBK introduced an entirely new social focus and forum in the shape of the longhouse, so with Cerny and TRB it was monumental funerary architecture that was central to a new kind of social life (Midgley 2005.36).…”

Section: Frontiers Interaction and Hybriditymentioning

confidence: 98%

Gene-flows and social processes: The potential of genetics and archaeology

Thomas

2006

Doc. praeh.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scales and units of analysisOver the past forty years, a fascinating dialogue has been developing between archaeology and genetics, specifically in relation to the question of the dispersal of domesticated plants and animals into Europe and its relationship with the movements of human populations. This debate has often been marked by a degree of mutual confusion, owing largely to the different temporal and spatial scales at which the two disciplines operate, and the different questions that they address (Brown and Pluciennik 2001. 101). While genetics generally concerns itself with the global or continental scale, archaeology is often more focused on the regional and the local, with the result that phenomena that are described at different levels of magnitude may appear to contradict each other. Some common ground is now beginning to emerge, but from an archaeological point of view it is especially interesting to ask whether the finegrained patterns that we think we can discern in the evidence can be accommodated by the broader sweep of the genetic information, or whether there is a degree of dissonance between the two, whose investigation might prove fruitful.We are indebted to Albert Ammerman and Luca Cavalli-Sforza (1971;1973) for initially stimulating debate with their discussion of the expansion of agriculture into Europe through demic diffusion, developed in the first instance in relation to radiocarbon dates from Neolithic sites, and later used as a means of explaining the distribution of genetic markers across the continent. The model of farming communities gradually expanding as their population rose, fuelled by the productivity and reliability of their subsistence base was explicitly differentiated from migrationary arguments, in which communi-

show abstract

European Neolithization and Ancient DNA: An Assessment

Deguilloux

Leahy²,

Pémonge³

et al. 2012

Evolutionary Anthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neolithic processes underlying the distribution of genetic diversity among European populations have been the subject of intense debate since the first genetic data became available. However, patterns observed in the current European gene pool are the outcome of Paleolithic and Neolithic processes, overlaid with four millennia of further developments. This observation encouraged paleogeneticists to contribute to the debate by directly comparing genetic variation from the ancient inhabitants of Europe to their contemporary counterparts. Pre-Neolithic and Neolithic paleogenetic data are becoming increasingly available for north and northwest European populations. Despite the numerous problems inherent in the paleogenetic approach, the accumulation of ancient DNA datasets offers new perspectives from which to interpret the interactions between hunter-gatherer and farming communities. In light of information emerging from diverse disciplines, including recent paleogenetic studies, the most plausible model explaining the movement of Neolithic pioneer groups in central Europe is that of leapfrog migration.

show abstract

The second phase of Neolithization in east-central Europe

Cited by 19 publications

References 6 publications

Homo habitus: agency, structure and the transformation of tradition in the constitution of the TRB foraging-farming communities in the North European plain (ca 4500–2000 BC)

Homo habitus: agency, structure and the transformation of tradition in the constitution of the TRB foraging-farming communities in the North European plain (ca 4500–2000 BC)

Gene-flows and social processes: The potential of genetics and archaeology

European Neolithization and Ancient DNA: An Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About