---
lsroute66@... wrote:
> > Meantime, a map on page 73 of the Zvelebil article
> shows LBK
> > settlements less than 200km from Dnieper-Donetz
> > sites, both well north of Bog-Dniester.
>
> george knysh <gknysh@...> replied:
> > *****GK: My map seems more precise. LBK is about
> 100
> > km. and B/D 80 km. away from the nearest D/D "as
> the
> > crow flies".*****
>
> Yes, well, perhaps you might want to get to Zvelebil
> on that.
******GK: I now have our University copy of T.D.
Price, ed. "Europe's Earliest Farmers" (CUP 2000).The
contribution by Marek Zvelebil and Malcolm Lillie
["Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe", pp.
57-92] is impressive, as Steve Long intimated. I fully
concur with their conclusion (p.88)questioning the
theory of "demic diffusion" as the pattern for the
spread of farming in this area. Some of their
microanalyses and accompanying data, however,are
incorrect. Before I briefly get to that I just wish to
note that on the map Steve refers to above (Zvelebil
p. 73) the LBK settlements are indeed shown to have
been less than 200 kilometers away from D/D. What
Steve failed to point out however is that the B/D
settlements, ON THIS MAP, are shown to be LESS THAN
100 KILOMETERS AWAY from D/D.(:=)).
The map itself is misleading in other ways though. I
want to pursue this by tracing its sources (Z/L refer
to articles published in 1987 (Telegin) and 1991
(Zvelebil and Dolukhanov) in the JOURNAL OF WORLD
PREHISTORY). The problem is that while Zvelebil states
on p.75 (with a reference to the p. 73 map) that he
is dealing with the relationship between Trypilia and
Dnipro-Donetsk during the early and middle phases of
the former, the MAP IN FACT PRESENTS TRYPILIA AS IT
WAS IN ITS LATE PHASE, when it spread to the northwest
and northeast, into the area across the Dnipro r. I'm
practically certain that Zvelebil/Lillie would not
have gotten this from Telegin, but will wait for
verification before looking once again at the
Dolukhanov connection (one of his 1996 maps I've
already noted as defective in an earlier post). The p.
73 map is misleading in another way: it fails to
address the issue of the Dnipro-Donetsk culture's
disappearance on the Middle and Lower Dnipro at the
end of phase II (ca. 4250 BC). And the Z/L chapter
frequently and unaccountably seems to confuse
Dnipro-Donetsk with Serednyj Stih and Surska. The
language used on p.77 suggests that Dnipro-Donetsk
shifted towards "a pastoral-based farming economy" as
a result of interplay with Trypilia. This is not so.
The Surska culture (which Zvelebil does mention in his
figure 3.8 on p. 82) is the acknowledged genetic
source for Serednyj Stih. Surska already existed as a
"pastoral-based" community, with its pointed pottery,
when Dnipro-Donetsk was still in its aceramic phase I.
It was later pushed out by Dnipro-Donetsk but came
back with a vengeance as Serednyj Stih and assimilated
many of the Dnipro-Donetsk communities here. That is
when a "pastoral based" economy reappears here. The
problem with Zvelebil/Lillie is that they do not point
out the eastern connections of Surska and Serednyj
Stih, and even of Bug-Dnister for that matter. Thus on
p. 73 they leave readers with the impression that the
"original Bug-Dniester features" in the earliest B/D
pottery (pointed forms etc.) "was introduced through
contact with the Cris communities to the west". In
fact these were introduced through contact with the
Djebel continuum to the east, a fact known since the
publication of the 3rd volume of the Arkheologiia
Ukr.S.S.R. in 1971, and reiterated by Telegin in his
classic work on Serednyj Stih.== One other point. I
wonder why Zvelebil/Lillie (and I've noticed the same
tendency in articles in ANTIQUITY) keep referring to
"DEREIVKA" as "DERIEVKA". At first I though this was a
typo, but its continuous utilization indicates
otherwise. A small but annoying inaccuracy.== On
balance though it is a good article.*****
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com