PROTO-STARCEVO WHITE PAINTED AND EARLY PAINTED POTTERY OF SE EUROPE: Similarities and Differences ' Bogdan Brukner* ‘The problem of genesis of the painted pottery of the Staréevo culture (GaraSanin 1979, 127-138), as well as the almost identical pottery of the Cris group (Lazarovici 1979, 35-38; Coma 1987, 195), and similarities with Kérts ceramics (Makkay 1981, 95-98) have been explained in general. It is well-known today that these cultural groups were a part of a larger Balkan and Middle Neolithic complex.’ Painted pottery of the Barly end Middle Neolithic of southeastem Europe has a crucial role in determining the phases of development and specific characteristics of the earliest agricultural and stock-breeding communities of southeastern Pannonia, the southern Carpathian area and the Balkan region. It is relevant in the search for the geographical, chronological and cultural contacts and mutual influences between the Southeast of Europe and Asia Minor. After the first investigations at the Staréevo site (GaraSanin-Arandelovié 1954) and other minor excavations in Serbia (GaraSanin 1959, 4-12), the Staréevo group was classified as belonging, to the oldest Neolithic period (GaraSanin 1959, 4) with the phases I, Ila and Mb and III (GaraSanin- Arandelovié 1954, 144) or Starevo FIV stages (Milojéié 1949, 70-81). Analysis of the Stargevo group from eastern Slavonia (Dimitrijevié 1969) led to the modified classification of the Startevo cultural sequence (Dimitrijevié 1979, 235-260), ‘The genesis of the Staréevo group according to Dimitrijevié will be summarized here as the best illustration of the evolution of Staréevo pottery decoration. To begin with, there is the Pre-classical Staréevo culture, which was later recognized by its monochrome and linear A or white linear pottery phases. Itis followed by the Early classical Staréevo culture with its linear B or dark linear phase, followed a little later by a phase with garland-like designs. This sequence ends with the Late classical Staréevo culture with spiral A Phase and spiral B phase (Dimitrijevié 1979, 237). The monochrome phase in Dimitrijevié’s classification is analog to Stargevo I, according to D. GaraSanin (GaraSanin-Arandelovié 1954, 144), M, GaraSanin (Garakanin 1979, 119) and V. Milojéié 1949, 69), to Proto-Staréevo I (Srejovié 1988, 15) and hypothetically to Gura Baciului I A (Lazarovici 1979, 220; Kalmar 1990, 15). "This contribution was inspired by the participation atthe “Neolithic Painted Pottery from Southeast Europe and its Links with Anatolia” symposium in Cluj-Napoca 1994. 1¢ go its final form in the library of the Institut far Ur- und Frihgeschichte ofthe University of Heidelberg as a segment ofthe work done in the Federal Republic of Germany and financially supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation in Summer 1995. 2 University of Novi Sad, Yugoslavia. * Middle Neolithic Staréevo Culture, s. Srejovié 1968, 012; Barly Neolithic Staréevo-Crig Culture, s. Lazaroviei 1979, 216; Early Neolithic Kords Culture, . Raczky 1989, 234; Trogmeyer 1989,244 BOGDAN BRUKNER White painted linear A is comparable to Gura Baciului IB (Kalmar 1990, 15) or Staréevo-Crig TB (Lazarovici 1979, 40 PI. Il, 21-30) and Proto-Staréevo Il (Srejovié 1971, 7, 14-15). Itshould be emphasized that this phase, according GaraSanin, Milojéié and Dimitsijevié, belongs to the Early Neolithic period and is a constituent of the Staréevo culture. For Srejovig, the three phases of Proto-Staréevo belong to the Early Neolithic, while the further development of this group is assigned to the Middle Neolithic period (Srejovié 1988, 15) ‘The middle and the late phases of the Staréevo culture are basically the same as the I-II phase in GaraSanin’s periodization (GaraSanin-Arandelovié 1954, 136-238), Milojéié’s phases TL-LV (Milojéié 1949, 70) and phases I-III by Srejovié (Srejovié 1993, 275). ‘At the present state of research of the beginning of Proto-Staréevo, there are still certain problems in the definition of the monochrome phase. In Srejovié's opinion, Staréevo begins in the Early Neolithic (Proto-Staréevo 1), since only the monochrome pottery occurs during that period (Srejovié 1969, 165-167). This initial phase is still only hypothetical, and not a fully reliable stratigraphic indicator of the Proto-Staréevo characteristics (Srejovié 1988, 15). The most recent results from Z. Kalmar’s investigations bring us to the same conclusion. Based on the material from the oldest habitation level in Gura Baciului (GB), Kalmar considers the definition of the GB I A phase hypothetical (Kalmar 1990, 5). It is our opinion as well that it is too early to definitively single out the oldest settlement horizon with monochrome. Taking the Bulgarian, the Romanian and the Yugoslav parts of the Danube valley into consideration, one cannot speak of any larger areas which have been investigated. Small trail excavations do not offer us enough information which could lead to a definite conclusion, at least when so-called “fine” chronological and stratigraphic analysis of the process of Neolithization is in question, and itis very hard to recognize by itself. However, at certain sites in the Near East and Turkey itis probable that the monochrome phase was earlier than that of the white painted pottery. One example isthe distinction of Eastern Marmara monochrome vessels in the Hupinar X and a Fikirtepe- Pendik group (Ozdogan 1983; Roodenberg 1993, 257). Many experts on the Neolithization of southeastern Europe agree that the monochrome phase, or “Friikeramikum", represents the earliest phase of the Early Neolithioc period (Gzdogan 1993, 177, 12; Wijnen 1993, 321). So far, J.P. Demoule has connected the issue of Neolithization in the Balkans with the formation of a monochrome horizon in the eastern Mediterranean in a very indirect way (Demoule 1994). Although our opinion on the chronological priority of the monochrome horizon appearance in Thessaly to the monochrome phase of some Bulgarian tells, as in Krainici (Demoule 1994, 79), is similar to Demoule’s theory, we are very restrained about the explanation of the origin of the monochrome horizon in the Southeast of Europe and the Southeast of Pannonia, J.P. Demoule has included Lhpinar X (Turkey), Franchthi, Elateia, ‘Sidari and Argissa-Frithkeramikum (Greece) and Krainici (Bulgaria) in the earliest zone of Neolithiz- ation (Demoule 1993, 15, Map 1). In view of the principle which regards these sites as a part of the monochrome phase in the Neolithic of Southeast Europe, we are truly surprised that Demoule has not included the sites of Donja Branjevina (Karmanski 1979, 14-15) and Gura Baciului (Lazarovici 1984, 55, 91, 4-5, 7-10), as well as the widely acknowledged initial phase of the Early Neolithic in the Balkans and Romania, termed Proto-Staréevo I (Srejovié 1988, 12). This view has been generally recognized in most of the archaeological publications on the Early Neolithic of the southeastern Balkans (Pavikk 1993).ANATOLICA XXIII, 1997 245 ‘The need to distinguish the monochrome phase within the Early Neolithic was first explained by a Greek expert on the Neolithic in Greece, D. Theocharis. In 1973 he wrote : “In the beginning, the pottery is monochrome. From Thessaly to Lema and from Corfu to Skyros, the Early Neolithic phase is monochrome.” (Theocharis 1973, 39). In the 1990's the settlement levels with monochrome pottery at the sites in Bulgaria could be distinguished. The best example exists at Krainici (Cohadziev, Bakamska 1990). Now four phases can be differentiated within the Early Neolithic in Bulgaria: M (monochrome), and A-C (Todorova, Vajsov 1993, Tab. 2, Taf. 10). Interesting, but not yet proven, is the classification of the Early Balkan Neolithic Monochrome (EBNM) by Todorova and Vajsov (1993) with the phases A and B, However, we are not sure if it was necessary to include the early pottery horizon in Thessaly (Todorova, Vajsov 1993, 74) in the EBNM Phase A and to relate EBNM B with Proto-Staréevo and the Bulgarian monochrome sites: Plateau Poljanica, Krainici, Korprivec ete. (Todorova, Vajsov 1993, 74). We can only conclude that a more precise synchronization of the monochrome pottery horizon in southeastern Europe is yet to appear. Thus, we are prepared to agree with Todorova and Vajsov that certain common problems in the typology of monochrome vessels still exist. The codification of common and regional characteristics of the pottery from this period (Todorova, Vajsov 1993, 74, 273, 278) remains a task for the experts Before continuing with a detailed description of the similarities and differences between Proto-Staréevo white painted pottery and the synchronous phenomena in southeastern Europe, it seems useful to review some of the contemporary assumptions concerning relations between ‘Asia Minor and the Southeast of Europe. However, before pointing out the examples which, in a wider sense, represent a modified migration theory, we should note that the model of an autochthonous genesis of the Neolithic is increasingly gaining credibility. The viewpoint of D. Srejovié, one of the most prominent Balkan and European advocates of the theory of the autochthonous Balkan Neolithic-origin, deserves our full attention. This author divides Central, Southeastern and Eastern Europe into six zones (Srejovié 1993, 271-278). Analogous to the discussion about distinguishing a horizon with an autonomous monochrome and white painted pottery, other questions have also arisen. Redefining the character of possible connections and influence between the Balkans and Asia Minor, that is southeastern Europe and the Near East, has again become a current issue. From the 1950's to the 1980's the influence of theories on cultural adaption ( Childe 1957, 16) and Neolithic migration (Schachermeyr 1984, 22) from the Aegean to the Balkans and farther North, predominated. With certain modifications, these interpretations of the genesis of the Neolithic were supported by certain aspects of economy and colonization. This applies especially when considering movement from the Near East towards Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic ( G. Clark, S. Piggott 1967, 224-227; Clark 1964, 126-131). Some studies in European and other archaeological publications still favour the superiority of the Neolithic in Asia Minor (ecological advantage) over the one in the Balkans and Europe (Fagan 1983, 197-198). ‘The Vardar-Morava basin has long been considered a primary route for contacts between mainland Asia Minor and the central Balkans with Pannonia (GaraSanin 1979, 79). Nevertheless, with reference to the spread of Neolithization in the Balkan region, central Europe and areas to the North and Northeast of the lower Danube (Romania, Moldavia and the Ukraine), it now becomes apparent that connections on almost parallel lines through the Struma-, Isker-, South Morava- and Danube basins must be taken into account (Nikoloy 1918a, 199 Abb. 6; Lichardus-Itten