The chronology of Neolithic dispersal in Central and Eastern Europe

Dolukhanov, Pavel; Shukurov, Anvar; Gronenborn, Detlef; Sokoloff, Dmitry D.; Тимофеев, Владимир Юрьевич; Зайцева, Г.И.

doi:10.1016/j.jas.2005.03.021

Cited by 84 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further north, in the northern Balkan area and Middle Danube basin, several early farming cultures were recognized, including Karanovo I-II (6.1-5.8 kyr cal BC), Karanovo III (5.4-5.1 kyr cal BC), Karanovo IV (5.3-4.8 kyr cal BC), StarËevo-Körös-Cri∫ (5.9-5.5 kyr cal BC), and VinËa (5.5-4.0 kyr cal BC). The expansion of early agriculture in central and western Europe took the form of the Linear Pottery culture spreading at about 5154 ± 62 BC with an average speed of 4-6 km/yr (Dolukhanov et al 2005). The new evidence cited above indicates that early pottery-making developed in the forest-steppe areas of the East European Plain much earlier than the first farming communities appeared in southeastern Europe.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…If, however, the date cluster is large (i.e. >8 dates), the χ 2 statistical test can be used to calculate the most likely date T 0 of a coeval subsample as described in detail by Dolukhanov et al (2005). The calculations results are presented in the form T = T 0 ± Δ, where Δ is the confidence interval corresponding to the 1-σ deviation.…”

Section: P M Dolukhanov Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Spread of the Neolithic in the South East European Plain: Radiocarbon Chronology, Subsistence, and Environment

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Newly available radiocarbon dates show the early signs of pottery-making in the North Caspian area, the Middle-Lower Volga, and the Lower Don at 8-7 kyr cal BC. Stable settlements, as indicated by "coeval subsamples," are recognized in the Middle-Lower Volga (Yelshanian) at 6.8 kyr cal BC and the Caspian Lowland at about 6 kyr cal BC. The ages of the Strumel-Gostyatin, Surskian, and Bug-Dniesterian sites are in the range of 6.6-4.5 kyr BC, overlapping with early farming entities (StarËevo-Körös-Cri∫ and Linear Pottery), whose influence is perceptible in archaeological materials. Likewise, the 14 C-dated pollen data show that the spread of early pottery-making coincided with increased precipitation throughout the forest-steppe area.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: P M Dolukhanov Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

The Spread of the Neolithic in the South East European Plain: Radiocarbon Chronology, Subsistence, and Environment

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On a more detailed scale, however, the fi t is much worse. The Neolithic spread 1,000 km from western Hungary to the Rhine in a few centuries (e.g., Dolukhanov et al 2005), and along the Mediterranean coast of southern Europe the spread was even faster (Di Giacomo et al 2004;Zilhão 2001). Although m or a or both might be adjusted to fi t the wave of advance model to dispersals in each specifi c region, this fi ne-tuning could be argued to compromise the explanatory power and predictive utility of the model.…”

Section: Wave Of Advance Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the Black Sea region, a frontier between the Bug-Dniester Mesolithic and the Cris-Körös Neolithic lasted perhaps 1,500 years, from about 6100 BC to 4300 cal. BC (Dolukhanov et al 2005;Zvelebil and Lillie 2000), although in fact the Cris-Körös farmers themselves may been descended from local foragers.…”

Section: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Kinship, Marriage, and the Genetics of Past Human Dispersals

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The extent to which colonizing farmer populations have overwhelmed or "replaced" indigenous forager populations, as opposed to having intermarried with them, has been widely debated. Indigenous-colonist "admixture" is often represented in genetic models as a single parameter that, although parsimonious and simple, is incongruous with the sex-specifi c nature of mtDNA and Y-chromosome data. To help interpret genetic patterns, we can construct useful null hypotheses about the generalized migration history of females (mtDNA) as opposed to males (Y chromosome), which differ signifi cantly in almost every ethnographically known society. We seek to integrate ethnographic knowledge into models that incorporate new social parameters for predicting geographic patterns in mtDNA and Y-chromosome distributions. We provide an example of a model simulation for the spread of agriculture in which this individual-scale evidence is used to refine the parameters. Abstract The extent to which colonizing farmer populations have overwhelmed or "replaced" indigenous forager populations, as opposed to having intermarried with them, has been widely debated. Indigenous-colonist "admixture" is often represented in genetic models as a single parameter that, although parsimonious and simple, is incongruous with the sex-specifi c nature of mtDNA and Y-chromosome data. To help interpret genetic patterns, we can construct useful null hypotheses about the generalized migration history of females (mtDNA) as opposed to males (Y chromosome), which differ significantly in almost every ethnographically known society. We seek to integrate ethnographic knowledge into models that incorporate new social parameters for predicting geographic patterns in mtDNA and Y-chromosome distributions.We provide an example of a model simulation for the spread of agriculture in which this individual-scale evidence is used to refi ne the parameters.Understanding the processes through which populations grow and disperse is crucial to the study of human history and diversity and forms a major topic in anthropology and other related disciplines. A key problem is determining the extent to which colonizing populations (e.g., modern humans, Neolithic farmers, European colonists) overwhelmed or "replaced" native populations (e.g., Neanderthals, hunter-gatherers, non-European indigenous societies), as opposed to having integrated into or intermarried with them. These issues have been debated by numerous researchers in a variety of different historical and regional contexts, but no consensus has yet been reached about whether or not it is possible to discern any general patterns. Here, we aim to contribute to a more sophisticated understanding of human migratory activity by integrating data drawn from several disciplines, namely, archaeology, ethnography, and human genetics. Our critique focuses on the highly infl uential wave of advance model of human dispersals, as fi rst developed by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (1984). We argue that this model is not equipped to con...

show abstract

“…We also examine the possibilities proposed chronology and present dwelling site data possess for making interpretations of the spread and scale of prehistoric settlement and population dynamics in the Karelian Isthmus over time (see e.g. Kuzmin and Orlova, 2000;Dolukhanov et al, 2005;Zaitseva and Dergachev, 2009;Tallavaara et al, 2010), and the constraints set by the current, on no account optimal, research situation, as well as other factors, such as the environmental history (see Surovell and Brantingham, 2007;Surovell et al, 2009). …”

Section: Fig 1 the Study Area (Bordered With Dotted Line) Comprisesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“The good, the bad, the weird”: Stone Age and Early Metal Period radiocarbon dates and chronology from the Karelian Isthmus, North-West Russia

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this paper all the Stone Age and Early Metal Period (ca. 8600 cal BC -300 AD) radiocarbon dates from the Karelian Isthmus, Russia, are compiled and their archaeological usability assessed using a set of evaluation principles. The quality of radiometric dates from such a large area has rarely been methodologically examined in Finnish or North-West Russian archaeology, and is applied here for the first time on the present material. Special attention is given to the discussion on the deficiencies and limitations of the current data. Based on the 81 dates evaluated as useful, a tentative radiocarbon chronology is presented for the study area. This is generally in sequence with the chronologies of the nearby areas, but suggests some differences especially towards the end of Stone Age, as well as the presence of biases caused by taphonomic and research-related factors.

show abstract

The chronology of Neolithic dispersal in Central and Eastern Europe

Cited by 84 publications

References 19 publications

The Spread of the Neolithic in the South East European Plain: Radiocarbon Chronology, Subsistence, and Environment

The Spread of the Neolithic in the South East European Plain: Radiocarbon Chronology, Subsistence, and Environment

Kinship, Marriage, and the Genetics of Past Human Dispersals

“The good, the bad, the weird”: Stone Age and Early Metal Period radiocarbon dates and chronology from the Karelian Isthmus, North-West Russia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About