The Not Very Patrilocal European Neolithic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley E. Ensor
Keyword(s):  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-148
Author(s):  
Pamela Armstrong

Vincent Ard and Lucile Pillot eds, Giants in the Landscape: Monumentality and Territories in the European Neolithic. Proceedings of the XV11 International Union of the Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences World Congress. Edited by Volume 3 / Session A25d. Oxford, UK: Archaeopress (2016). Paperback, English, vi+94 pages; illustrated throughout in black and white. ISBN: 9781784912857. £26.00. Also available to download from Archaeopress Open Access.


Radiocarbon ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 859-866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ede Hertelendi ◽  
Ferenc Horváth

We investigated chronological questions of five Late Neolithic settlements in the Hungarian Tisza-Maros region. Fifty new radiocarbon dates provide an internal chronology for the developmental phases of the tell settlements, and place them into the wider framework of the southeastern European Neolithic. An example is presented of how a unique type of stratigraphic excavation helps the interpretation of radiocarbon data, which are in contradiction with the stratigraphic position of the samples.


1956 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 96-101
Author(s):  
Stuart Piggott

Twenty-five years ago Professor Gordon Childe laid the foundations of our knowledge of the foreign affinities of our British Neolithic cultures in a classic paper. In it he gave expression to the view which we have all of us held since that time, that ‘the culture associated with Windmill Hill pottery belongs, like the pottery itself, to a Western family’; ‘Western’ being used in the sense defined by Schuchhardt in his division of the European Neolithic groups. Our knowledge of the complexities of the Windmill Hill culture increased with new discoveries, and we were also able to grasp something of the diversity of the cultures within the Western family at large, particularly as a result of the work of Vouga, Vogt and von Gonzenbach in Switzerland. But the place of the Windmill Hill culture within the family seemed unchallenged, and the present writer re-affirmed a couple of years ago that it seemed to him ‘abundantly clear that the Windmill Hill culture is a member of the great Western family’. It is the purpose of this paper to re-examine the question in the light of certain new orientations in Continental prehistory which make it desirable to ask whether the culture of Windmill Hill can be regarded as an indivisible unit, or whether it may not contain contributions from more than one European source.


Author(s):  
Graeme Barker

Ever since the speculations of the Victorians about the inexorable progress of Man from the savagery of foraging to agriculture and civilization, Europe has been one of the main theatres of debate about transitions from foraging to farming (Chapter 1). The dominant model in the twentieth century, first developed explicitly by Gordon Childe in The Dawn of European Civilization (1925) and The Danube in Prehistory (1929), has been that of ex oriente lux, ‘light from the Near East’. According to this theory, farming began in Europe because it was introduced by Neolithic farmers from South-West Asia, who brought with them domesticated plants and animals together with a new technology that included pottery and polished stone tools. They colonized a land thinly occupied by Mesolithic foragers except at the coastal margins. In southern Europe, the first farmers would have ‘taken to their boats and paddled or sailed on the alluring waters of the Mediterranean to the next landfall—and the next’ (Childe, 1957: 16). In temperate Europe, expansion was facilitated by ‘slash-and-burn’ (swidden) agriculture practised by the first farmers: they arrived at a particular location, cleared the forest, burnt the cut timber, and planted their crops, and then moved on after a few years. The first suite of 14C dates from European Neolithic sites obtained in the 1960s astonished archaeologists, because the (uncalibrated) dates of c.6000 bc from Greek Neolithic settlements such as Nea Nikomedeia and Knossos (Fig. 9.1) were 3,000 years older than Childe’s suggested date for the beginning of the European Neolithic: c.3000 BC. He established the latter by an elaborate process of cross-dating European prehistoric sites with historically dated cultures in the eastern Mediterranean, in turn dated by links to Pharaonic Egypt. At the same time, the 14C data appeared to confirm Childe’s ex oriente lux theory, because there was a clear trend of increasingly younger dates with distance from South-West Asia (J. G. D. Clark, 1965; Fig. 1.7). The dates of c .6000 BC in south-east Europe were in the same time-frame as dates for PPNB Neolithic settlements in South-West Asia, dates in central Europe and the Mediterranean were of the order of 4500 BC, and dates from Early Neolithic sites on the Atlantic margins of Europe were nearer 3000 BC.


2009 ◽  
Vol 203 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 10-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Davison ◽  
P.M. Dolukhanov ◽  
G.R. Sarson ◽  
A. Shukurov ◽  
G.I. Zaitseva

The Holocene ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
pp. 1188-1199 ◽  
Author(s):  
María Fernanda Sánchez Goñi ◽  
Elena Ortu ◽  
William E Banks ◽  
Jacques Giraudeau ◽  
Chantal Leroyer ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document