The (E)Neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia

S

PRÄHISTORISCHE ARCHÄOLOGIE IN SÜDOSTEUROPA BAND 28

THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE NEW APPROACHES TO DATING AND CULTURAL DYNAMICS IN THE 6TH TO 4TH MILLENNIUM BC

EDITED BY WOLFRAM SCHIER AND FLORIN DRAŞOVEAN

RAHDEN / WESTF. 2014

S



EDITED BY WOLFRAM SCHIER AND FLORIN DRAŞOVEAN

RAHDEN / WESTF. 2014

THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE


Herausgegeben von

BERNHARD HÄNSEL und WOLFRAM SCHIER Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie der Freien Universität Berlin

VERLAG MARIE LEIDORF GMBH • RAHDEN/WESTF. 2014



Edited by WOLFRAM SCHIER and FLORIN DRAŞOVEAN

Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH . Rahden/Westf. 2014

440 Seiten mit 313 Abbildungen Published with financial support of the Timiş County Council

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Schier, Wolfram / Draşovean, Florin (Hrsg.): The Neolithic and Eneolithic in Southeast Europe ; New approaches to dating and cultural Dynamics in the 6th to 4th Millennium BC / hrsg. von Wolfram Schier… . Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf 2014 (Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa ; Bd. 28) ISBN 978-3-89646-599-3

Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. Detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier Alle Rechte vorbehalten © 2014

Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH Geschäftsführer: Dr. Bert Wiegel Stellerloh 65 · D-32369 Rahden/Westf. Tel: +49/(0)5771/ 9510-74 Fax: +49/(0)5771/ 9510-75 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.vml.de ISBN 978-3-89646-599-3 ISSN 0723-1725 Kein Teil des Buches darf in irgendeiner Form (Druck, Fotokopie, CD-ROM, DVD, Internet oder einem anderen Verfahren) ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages Marie Leidorf GmbH reproduziert werden oder unter Verwendung elektronischer Systeme verarbeitet, vervielfältigt oder verbreitet werden. PC-Texterfassung und Scans: Die Autoren Redaktion: Wolfram Schier, Florin Draşovean Satz, Layout und Bildnachbearbeitung: Morten Hegewisch Druck und Produktion:

Preface

The present volume assembles contributions presented at two international conferences dedicated to recent studies on the Neolithic and Eneolithic of Southeast and Eastern Central Europe. Twenty years after the publication of the last comprehensive and broad scale conference on the historical concept, materiality and chronology of the Copper Age the International Conference “The Transition from the Neolithic to the Eneolithic in Central and South-Eastern Europe in the Light of Recent Research” took place in Timişoara, Romania on 10–12 November 2011. Organised by the editors of this volume, 23 colleagues from seven countries gathered at the atmospheric venue of the baroque fortification “Bastionul” for a two days intensive program of lectures, focussing on regional overviews over the transition from the Neolithic to the Eneolithic. The meeting brought together new data and new perspectives on the final periods of the Neolithic as well as the transition process to the Eneolithic. In 2013, while most of the Timişoara conference contributions had been submitted and editorial work had already begun, the editors of the present volume organised the session A32 at the 19th meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) at Plzeň, Czech Republic on “Relative vs absolute chronology of the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin and South Eastern Europe”. Twelve lectures and one poster presentation were given by scholars of nine European countries, some of which had also taken part at the Timişoara conference. The thematic scope of the EAA session was focussed rather on approaches to adjust and revise traditional relative chronologies using new radiocarbon dates and calibration models (Bayesian statistics). Only a part of the EAA session contributions, however, was submitted until spring 2014 – too few to be published in a separate volume. The editors therefore decided to integrate the Plzeň papers into the volume originally planned as the Timişoara proceedings. The present volume, thus, has developed a broader scope – both in terms of chronology (from Early Neolithic to Late Eneolithic) and geography (from Greece to Slovenia and Ukraine). The editors are convinced that it represents quite an impressive cross section of ongoing research on the Neolithic and Eneolithic in Southeast and Eastern Central Europe. Finally we would like to thank all the contributors for their patient cooperation, the Muzeul Banatului Timişoara, County Timiş and the Freie Universität Berlin for the financial support in organising the Timişoara conference and publishing this volume, the Czech organisers of the EAA meeting at Plzeň for a smooth organisation and pleasant atmosphere, Dr. Morten Hegewisch and Jan Müller-Edzards (FU Berlin) for the substantial editorial work. We hope that this volume will both stimulate discussions on our present knowledge and be an incentive for further research. Only an improved chronological resolution will help us to better understand the dynamics of cultural processes in prehistory. Berlin and Timişoara, November 2014

J. Lichardus (ed.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche (Bonn 1991).

Wolfram Schier and Florin Draşovean

Participants of the conference “The Transition from the Neolithic to the Eneolithic in Central and South-Eastern Europe in the Light of Recent Research” (Timişoara, Romania on 10.–12. November 2011 in front of the baroque fortification “Bastionul”. From left: Dragoş Diaconescu, Ferenc Horváth, Katalin Vályi, Vladimir Slavčev, Yavor Boyadzhiev, Raiko Krauß, Florin Draşovean, Johannes Müller, Wolfram Schier, Yuri Rassamakin, Borislav Jovanovic, Mirjana Blagojević, Gheorghe Lazarovici, Pál Raczky, Marcel Burić, Nenad Tasić, Kristina Penezić, Saša Lukić, Alexander Möser, Alexandra Anders, Eszter Bánffy, Attila Gyucha, Georgeta El Susi.

Content

Preface .............................................................................................................................................................................

6

Darko Stojanovski, Trajče Nacev; Marta Arzarello, Pottery typology and the monochrome Neolithic phase in the Republic of Macedonia ...................................................................................................................................................

9

Stratis Papadopoulos, Nerantzis Nerantzis, Eastern Macedonia during the 5th millennium BC: Stability and Innovation ........................................................................................................................................................................

29

Yavor Boyadzhiev, The transition between Neolithic and Chalcolithic on the territory of Bulgaria ..............................

49

Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici, The Late Neolithic and Copper Age in Eastern Romania .................................................

69

Knut Rassmann, Michael Videjko, Daniel Peters, Roland Gauss, Großflächige geomagnetische Untersuchungen einer kupferzeitlichen Siedlung der Trypillia-Kultur. Aktuelle Prospektionen in Taljanky und Maydanetske (Ukraine) im Vergleich mit früheren Forschungen .........................................................................................................

99

Gheorghe Lazarovici, Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici, Corelations and new observations regarding absolute and relative chronology based on Banat and Transylvania researches ..................................................................................

113

Florin Draşovean, On the Late Neolithic and Early Eneolithic Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Eastern Carpathian Basin. A Bayesian approach ..........................................................................................................................

129

Adam N. Crnobrnja, The (E)neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia ..............................................................

173

Mirjana Blagojević, The Transition from Late Neolithic to Eneolithic in Western Serbia in the Light of Recent Research – archaeological rescue excavations in the Kolubara mining basin ................................................................

187

Saša Lukić, Early copper metallurgy in the Central Balkans: from technological determinism towards sociotechnical interpretation ....................................................................................................................................................

213

Dragoş Diaconescu, New remarks about the typology and the chronology of the Pločnik and čoka copper hammeraxes ..................................................................................................................................................................................

221

Gheorghe Lazarovici, Beginning of the Copper age in Transylvania and some data regarding the copper and gold metallurgy ........................................................................................................................................................................

243

Attila Gyucha, William A. Parkinson, Richard W. Yerkes, The Transition from the Late Neolithic to the Early Copper Age: Multidisciplinary Investigations in the Körös Region of the Great Hungarian Plain ................................

273

Ferenc Horváth, Questions relating to the Proto-Tiszapolgár Period in South-Eastern Hungary. Main issues and present state of research ..................................................................................................................................................

297

Pál Raczky, Alexandra Anders, Zsuzsanna Siklósi, Trajectories of Continuity and Change between the Late Neolithic and the Copper Age in Eastern Hungary .........................................................................................................

319

Eszter Bánffy, Istvan Zalai-Gaál, Tibor Marton, Krisztián Oross, Anett Osztás, Jörg Petrasch, Das Sárköz im südungarischen Donaugebiet – ein Korridor zwischen dem Balkan und Mitteleuropa im 6.–5. Jt. v. Chr. ....................

347

Marko Sraka, Bayesian modeling the 14C calendar chronologies of the Neolithic-Eneolithic transition. Case studies from Slovenia and Croatia ...............................................................................................................................................

369

Lea Čataj, Middle Eneolithic Lasinja and Retz-Gajary cultures in northern Croatia – development of chronology .....

397

Borislav Jovanović, Mirjana Blagojević, Bratislava type lids as indicators of early copper metallurgy in the early Chalcolithic of central and southeast Europe ..................................................................................................................

409

Nicolae Ursulescu, Neolithic – Eneolithic/Chalcolithic – Copper Age: a simple terminological problem? ..................

413

Wolfram Schier, The Copper Age in Southeast Europe – historical epoch or typo-chronological construct? ................

419

List of authors ..................................................................................................................................................................

437

The (E)neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia Adam N. Crnobrnja

Abstract In this paper, analyzing results of geomagnetic mapping and excavation results, I consider the organization of space in a large flat Late Vinča culture settlement at the site Crkvine-Stubline. Densely packed houses (in rows and clusters) almost premeditated the settlement organization, more like the top of a development, than the last decades of an epoch. The destruction and abandoning of this and similar settlements at the very end of the Vinča culture (phase D2) in northwestern Serbia resulted in the disappearance of such social organization. At the end, instead of giving an answer, I am trying to find out new and different questions of this transitional period. Introduction The existence of large flat settlements in the Late Neolithic of the central Balkans, i.e. in the Vinča culture is a well-known phenomenon. Nevertheless, the investigations conducted so far did not encompass large enough sections of settlements to provide a better understanding of their internal spatial organization. At few sites of diverse types (large flat, small flat or tell type settlement) where rather large areas have been excavated (Parţa, Vinča, Gomolava, Banjica, Divostion, Jakovo), or where certain sections were geomagnetically mapped (Divostin, Grivac, Opovo), the building of houses in regular rows has been recorded (Fig. 1). Only in the first decade of the 21st century magnetometric scanning at Uivar in Romania provided information about the complete appearance of one settlement of the Vinča culture10. The first geomagnetic mapping of considerable extent of a large Late Vinča settlement in the central Balkans has been carried out at the site Crkvine-Stubline, hence it is for the time being a unique example of the complex organization of large Late Neolithic settlements in that area (Fig. 2). These data indirectly help to better undrstand the social organization in the given period if we take settlement organization pattern as material imprint of the community, which created it. (E)Neolithic Settlement Geographic Position The Late Neolithic settlement Crkvine in the village Stubline is situated on a hill covering an area of 16 ha which from a geological point of view belongs to the category of a second river terrace. The mentioned hill is located at the southeastern edge of a diluvial-proluvial plain higher than the surrounding terrain (Drenski Vis), which is between 100 and 120 meters above sea level (Fig. 3). This plain was actually the former bank of the Sava River and until few decades ago after river flooding the marshes reached as far as the north and west edge of the Drenski vis. In the east side Drenski Vis descends toward the once marshy valley of the rivers Tamnava and Kolubara. Between Drenski Vis

Drasovean 2007.

Tasić 2008, 28–29.

Brukner 1988.

Tripković 2007, 72; 83.

McPherron/Srejović 1988, Pl. IV.

Bulatović et al. 2010, 14 fig. 3.

Mužijević/Ralph 1988, 402–406 fig. 15.9–15.13.

Mužijević/Ralph 1988, 412–413 fig. 15.19–15.20.

Tringham et al. 1985, 427–428 fig. 3.

Schier 2007, 64–65. The Settlement at Uivar dates from the earlier phases of the Vinča culture (Vinča B2–C2) in comparison to the settlements and their distinct phases, which will be studies in this work (Vinča D1–D2). 10

174

Adam N. Crnobrnja

and the three mentioned rivers there were many oxbow swamps with dry terrains of an arched shape. Few rather small brooks are running from Drenski Vis toward the rivers Sava and Tamnava, so the hill where the Crkvine settlement is situated is surrounded from the north and south with two small brooks, which join below its east end and flow on toward the Tamnava River. The height of the hill where the Late Vinča settlement is situated is 111.50 to 98.30 meters above sea level (along westeast axis), i.e. 99.00–110.50–92.40 meters (north-west section in central area) (Fig. 4). History of investigations First small-scale investigations were carried out at this site in 1967 (16 square meters)11. New systematic investigations of this Late Vinča settlement have started in 2006, since that time detailed surface survey (2006), geomagnetic mapping (2007–2011), scanning of geoelectric profiles (2010–2011) and archaeological excavations (2008–2011)12 have been conducted. Geomagnetic mapping at the site Crkvine-Stubline hitherto covering an area of 85,000 square meters offered for the first time information about spatial organization of one large Late Vinča settlement (Fig. 2 and 4). By combining the data obtained by detailed surface prospection, geomagnetic mapping, geoelectric profile measuring (with a total length of 1250 m) and excavations we came to the conclusion that most of the structures identified by magnetometer date from the last habitation horizon13, and that opened also the possibility for a more serious study of the spatial organization of the settlement.

Fig. 1. Sites mentioned in the text: 1) Crkvine-Stubline; 2) Grabovac; 3) Gomolava; 4) Obrež-Beletinci; 5) Jakovo-Kormadin; 6) Banjica; 7) Vinča; 8) Grivac; 9) Divostin; 10) Uivar; 11) Parţa; 12) Opovo; 13) Crkvine-Mali Borak; 14) Čučuge; 15) Kalenić; 16) Družetić-Bodnjik; 17) Velimirovi dvori; 18) Belovode.

Settlement – basic data It is relatively easy to determine the borders of the settlement at Crkvine-Stubline. Besides the section of the settlement with structures there is also an area within the assumed continuation of the ditches, between these and last rows of houses. The existence of ditches is assumed on the basis of geomagnetic mapping and these anomalies are discernible (mapped only partially) in the north, west and south section of the settlement. It is impossible to continue geomagnetic scanning in the north section because of vegetation and a present village road but the direction of the ditch extension could be assumed on the basis of surface finds and configuration of the terrain. Immediately below the lowest ditch position at the south side (94.0 m AMSL) there is terrain which had been flooded until recently, so it is not plausible to expect any building activity in that area. A similar situation could be assumed also in the east section of the settlement although the precise border of settlement in that zone is still unknown. In the west the settlement hill is separated from the flat plateau in the background by an ellipsoid funnel-like depression (dims. 110 x 45 m, depth 2 m) whose date of origin is unknown (Fig. 4), but it is indicative that such depressions appear at many Late Vinča sites in the vicinity. Some authors were of the opinion that these depressions were borrowing pits for the material necessary in construction of Neolithic settlements as they were adjacent to them14. The total settlement area

11

Todorović 1967a.

12

Simić/Crnobrnja 2008; Crnobrnja et al. 2010; 2012a.

13

Crnobrnja 2012b, 157–158.

Todorović 1967b; Drasovean (2007, 24) suggests the possibility of using earth which was dug out from defence ditches for building houses. 14

The (E)neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia

175

Fig. 2. Crkvine-Stubline, magnetometric plan.

including ditches is around 12.5 ha, the area enclosed by ditches is around 10 ha, while the area under the buildings was around 7.5 ha. Considering the results of all hitherto undertaken investigations the following preliminary conclusions about the main characteristics of the Late Vinča settlement at Crkvine-Stubline immediately before the end of its life could be drawn15: – The settlement was surrounded by ditches; – It appears, that almost all houses detected by geomagnetic mapping date from the last habitation horizons and that all of them perished in conflagration. – In the area covered by geomagnetic mapping for 218 anomalies could be assumed to represent the remains of burnt houses – Houses, except few, have almost uniform orientation (NE-SW) – Houses in the settlement are densely built within the rows running in SE-NW direction – The distance between the houses in rows is small, only around 2 meters on average (varying from 1 to 3.5 m) – At many locations within the settlement houses are grouped around rather large empty areas resembling small squares (500–1200 square meters). Ditches around the Settlement Geomagnetic prospection revealed anomalies for which it could be assumed, considering their position and relation to the settlement structures that they indicate ditches, which encompassed the settlement. Such anomalies (ditches) were recorded in the north, west and south zone of the geomagnetically mapped area, while a double ditch could be 15

Crnobrnja 2012b, 158.

176

Adam N. Crnobrnja

Fig. 3. Geographical location of Drenski Vis region and position of Crkvine-Stubline site.

assumed in the northwestern section of the settlement. No surface finds have been encountered outside the zone surrounded by the mentioned anomalies (ditches) during site survey and immediately below that zone is also terrain, which had been until recently flooded by the brooks. In the central settlement zone there are conspicuous anomalies in the geomagnetic spectrum indicating the existence of yet another double ditch. It seems that this ditch surrounded a settlement from some earlier phase of living at this site because it is ignored by many rows of houses spreading on top, dating from the later habitation horizon (Fig. 2). First excavations in 1967 have been conducted at the easternmost end of the settlement immediately outside the zone covered by geomagnetic mapping and on that occasion three habitation horizons have been recorded. The earliest is a horizon with semi-dugouts and on top of it are two horizons with aboveground structures16. Geoelectric profiles did not reveal earlier habitation horizons at other locations within the settlement. The existence of defensive ditches around Vinča settlements in the central Balkans until recently has been considered as an exception (JakovoKormadin)17 but their existence has been recently confirmed at many previously known sites (Vinča18, Uivar19, Be16

Todorović 1967a, 18.

17

Jovanović/Glišić 1961, 115.

18

Nikolić 2006.

19

Schier/Draşovean 2004, 158–162.


177

Fig. 4. The topography of the Late Neolithic settlement Crkvine-Stubline (equidistance 0.5 m) with assumed ditches and houses disposition.

lovode20, Djurića Vinogradi-Grabovac21, Crkvine-Stubline). My opinion is that defensive ditches should be expected around most of the Late Vinča settlements and that their absence from the archaeological evidence should be ascribed to insufficient or inadequate investigation. Houses House Position After detailed analysis of magnetometric mapping it could be assumed with considerable reliability that 218 recorded anomalies represent houses22. Something that draws the attention at very first sight is an almost uniform orientation of most magnetometric anomalies – Late Vinča houses, which are in most instances oriented in northwest-southeast direction regarding their longer axis. In my earlier works I already pointed to this regularity but I would like to present even slightly more detailed analysis on this occasion. The problem, which impedes the discussion of spatial organization of the Late Vinča settlement at Crkvine considerably is the small area investigated by excavations. In fact it could not be claimed with absolute certainty that all houses recorded by magnetometric mapping are contemporary, so this raises questions of horizontal stratigraphy in this settlement. Nevertheless, considering the investigation results obtained so far I am of the opinion that most of the recorded houses are most probably contemporary because of the following reasons: 20

Personal communication, Dušan Šljivar, National Museum, Belgrade.

21

Field documentation, Belgrade City Museum’s Documentation Center.

22

Not necessarily residential structures as some could have been workshops or had communal or some other purpose.

178

Adam N. Crnobrnja

Fig. 5. Geoelectric profile 14–15/2009. The Anomaly on the right side is the profile of excavated house 1/2010.

– Material gathered by detailed surface collection and later examined suggests that over the entire area of the site pottery originating from the last horizon of life of the Late Vinča settlement23 was encountered, which corresponds to the structures recorded by magnetometer. – By scanning geoelectric profiles along the total length of 1250 meters (placed in such a way that each profile included many anomalies obtained by magnetometer) we came to the conclusion that the geomagneting anomalies are located immediately below the surface. Also there are no earlier structures below these anomalies except in few instances judging by the size of possible pits (Fig. 5). – So far two Late Vinča houses have been investigated24 and inside them where found objects, which correspond with the finds gathered during surface collection. Also, testing of geomagnetic anomalies has been carried out at three more locations and it was also concluded that these were aboveground structures (houses) with similar archaeological material25. – Disposition of recorded geomagnetic anomalies (houses) reveals a high level of uniformity. If we ponder the settlement through ekistics26 we might understand it as living organism, whose certain parts could be created within many decades and even an entire century but that would not mean that all its parts could not have existed simultaneously at a given time27. House Size To start with, I would like to present the estimated size of house plans according to the magnetometric mapping. The sizes of anomalies recorded by magnetometer undoubtedly do not correspond entirely to the actual size of houses, but it should be borne in mind that they could be larger as well as smaller than the actual house dimensions and that depends either on the intensity of magnetic spectrum of remains, or on the degree of preservation of their ground plans. As it could be expected that ground plans of most houses are damaged to a certain extent (both investigated houses are considerably damaged in their south sections), and that in case of high intensity of magnetic spectrum in certain house sections some sections with lower intensity remain ‘invisible’ for the magnetometer, I determined the assumed house size by drawing rectangular ground plan around the ultimate dimensions of an anomaly. In that way I came to the following conclusions: ground plan area over 100 m2 90–99 m2 80–89 m2 70–79m2 60–69m2 50–59m2 40–49m2 30–39m2 20–29m2 less than 20 m2

number of houses

9 12 12 23 29 51 38 26 13 5 218

orientation NS

– –

orientation WE

1 2 3 6 1 4 3 2 22

9 12 11 21 26 45 37 22 10 3 196

Tab. 1. Dimensions of houses in the Late Vinča settlement Crkvine-Stubline. On that occasion, a small amount of Late Eneolithic, Baden culture pottery has been gathered. That pottery was encountered also during excavation of the surface layer but the structures from which it might originate have not been recorded. 23

24

Crnobrnja et al. 2010; 2012a.

25

Simić/Crnobrnja 2008, 45; Crnobrnja et al. 2010, 12.

26

Doksijadis 1982.

The Practice of non-disturbing once established arrangement of houses within rows was also been observed, when on top of old demolished houses new ones had been erected in the same location: Vinča (Jovanović 2008, 50; Tasić 2008, 26), Banjica (Tripković 2007, 112), Parţa (Drasovean 2007, 19). In such a way an already established arrangement had been observed through time, while new house groups could have been built just extending the already established settlement matrix. 27


179

The average house size on the basis of geomagnetic scanning is 57.2 square meters28, and there are 120 houses, (55%) whose floor area was between 40 and 70 square meters. For the comparison I would like to present the recorded average dimensions of houses from few other Vinča settlements, first of all from the Vinča D1–D2 period (Table 2). Site

Number of houses

Largest house

Smallest house

Divostin IIb

8

104

52

Gomolava Ib Opovo 1–3 Kormadin Vinča Parţa

8 6 2 18 5

54

15

74.5 45

8.6 6.7

Average area

house 70.2 33.5 36.7 30.0 36.7 21.0

Tab. 2. Average house size in the Late Vinča settlements29.

It could be concluded from the data mentioned above that houses in the last/final living phases in the settlement Crkvine-Stubline have been built almost uniformly with an expected degree of oscillations in their size (recorded also at other settlements). Their average size is considerably larger than in most other Late Vinča settlements30 but still smaller than the average house size in the final phase of living at Divostin. Although this difference might also be ascribed to the small investigated area and actually a random sample of investigated houses at Divostin it should be mentioned that only these two settlements of all the above mentioned belong to the type of large flat settlements. The average size of investigated houses from Opovo, Jakovo-Kormadin, Gomolava and Vinča indicate the possibility that most structures at Crkvine-Stubline could have been of residential character. Still, two types of structures/houses at Crkvine-Stubline could be distinguished as exceptions: extremely small structures up to 20 square meters in size and structures whose orientation deviates around 90º from the usual one. Exceptions For structures less than 20 square meters in size it could be assumed with considerable certainty that having in mind dimensions of other houses they could have been some kind of secondary/auxiliary structures, whose purpose need not be primarily residential. We know about such houses whose purpose is not quite clear31 from few sites (Vinča32, Grabovac33). Structures whose orientation deviates for 90º from the usual one arouse special attention. Seven such structures out of 23 are concentrated in small area in the east zone of the settlement, while other are distributed almost evenly along the central settlement axis running in east-west direction. It has been planned for the next year campaign to investigate one of these ‘irregularly’ oriented structures in order to get closer information about their purpose. Population Considering that many authors base their estimation of number of inhabitants in Neolithic settlements and distinct households on the inside living area34 I would like to underline the fact that in both investigated houses at Crkvine-Stubline remains have been encountered, which suggest the existence of an upper storey most probably only above one section of the house35. Such a situation has been recorded at few other sites (Uivar36, Parţa37, Opovo38), so in such analyses it should be I published the information, that the average house size was 58.3 square meters, but that is the result of a calculation mistake (Crnobrnja 2012b, 158). 28

29

According Porčić 2010. Concerning Parţa in Tab. 1: latest building phase date from Vinča C period.

30

From which I have information about average house size.

31

They could have been typical storing structures but for some of them also cult/ritual purpose is assumed.

32

Tasić 2007, 206 Pl. I.

33

Todorović 1968.

34

Porčić 2010, 65–77.

35

Crnobrnja et al. 2010, 20; Crnobrnja 2012a, 50.

36

Schier/Draşovean 2004, 166 Fig. 9; 11.

37

Lazarovici/Lazarovici 2006, 373.

38

Tringham 1992, 361.

180

Adam N. Crnobrnja

Fig. 6. Different possibilities of perception of the same space - possible models of primary organization of Crkvine-Stubline Late Neolithic settlement (after Crnobrnja 2012b, fig. 3,5–7): a) assumed houses disposition; b) rows of houses as the main factor of interior organisation, or c) open areas (squares) surrounded by groups of houses; c) assumed disposition of main and auxiliary communications; combined complex organisation?

taken into account that the floor area was not including only the ground floor but also the additional 20–30% of floor area on the upper storey. The estimated number of inhabitants who could have lived in the settlement at Crkvine-Stubline if all recorded houses were contemporary varies from 2322 to 400039. I myself am inclined to the smaller number. Taking into account an estimation that 5–7 inhabitants40 lived in each house in the Late Neolithic communities, and that this settlement could have had 250 houses the most41, hence it could be assumed that between 1250 and 1750 inhabitants at most could have lived there at one moment in time. Interior Organization of Settlement Most of the recorded houses were situated above 107.5 meters AMSL (the highest altitude being 111.50 m). Only 22 out of 218 recorded structures are above this isohypse, and all these houses are located in the southern part of the settlement (Fig. 4).

39

Porčić 2010, 342; 2012, 172.

40

Porčić 2010; Raczky 2009, 104; Кошелев 2005.

41

Considering the building density and section, which is still not geomagnetically mapped.


181

The regularities in the disposition of houses could be studied in many ways, particularly considering the fact that we still do not know which house dates from which period. Thus we could consider the interior organization of our settlement at least in three different ways: – The predominant model of organization is linear arrangement of houses and main communication routes; houses were built in more or less parallel rows running in the southeast-northwest direction (Fig. 6b). – The predominant model of organization is the grouping of houses around rather large open areas, like small ‘squares’ between 500 and 1200 square meters in size (Fig. 6c). – Combined model: linear settlement structure including also blocks of houses clustered around large open areas (Fig. 6d). Linear arrangement of houses in the Late Neolithic settlements contemporary with the settlement at Crkvine-Stubline have been encountered not only in Serbia42 but also in the immediate neighborhood of the Vinča culture – Okolište43 and Obre II44 in Bosnia (Butmir culture), in the flat part of Polgár-Csöszhalom settlement in Hungary (Tisza culture)45. Certain authors think that one reason for building houses densely packed in rows is a more efficient protection against the wind and better thermal protection46 but our settlement is a good example that uniform house orientation was observed even if they are not in rows and that around 10% of the houses show an entirely different orientation. The question could be asked whether the reason for such a building system could be sought in the most rational occupation of space by linear arrangement47, or the area has been purposely planned already in the initial phase of establishing large settlements? Taking into account the small distance between the houses and also the need for storage and disposal areas as well as the passages between them (Fig. 6d), I am inclined to think that the open areas were the only spaces where public activities could have taken place48. However, it is interesting that the density of structures was different in the east and west section of the settlement. The distance between given rows of houses is somewhat larger in the east settlement section than in the west while in the east (more scattered) section of settlement the houses are bigger than in the west section. As first explanation for such a phenomenon a horizontal stratigraphy could be assumed, i.e. different date of these two sections of the settlement. I think that it is not the case here, because in addition to the already mentioned results, which indicate that it was highly probable that most of the recorded houses were contemporary at least during a short interval, there are other facts, which also suggest a similar conclusion: – Few rows of hoses extend continuously also through more and less densely built zone (Fig. 2 and Fig. 6); – All house rows (in both zones) run approximately in the same direction (SE-NW); – Houses of ‘irregular’ orientation were recorded in both sections of the settlement; – along the entire settlement length and in the SE-NW direction there is an open area (without structures) of 350 by 10 to 15 meters wide that suggests a central communication line within the settlement, indicating probable contemporaneity of the entire settlement. If all or at least most of the houses recorded by geomagnetic mapping existed simultaneously at one time interval it could be assumed that the settlement expanded from the southeast toward the northwest. Building of new structures next to already existing house groups implied the assent of inhabitants of already built houses. Such concession would mean reducing of living space and comfort of already present population and that is something not accepted easily in any period. Therefore, it seems to me rather probable that houses were most densely built just in the period when the expansion of the settlement was reaching its physical limit (at that end was also already the mentioned depression in the terrain) resulting in a smaller floor area of houses in that part of the settlement where a lack of building lots is conspicuous. Conclusion An almost premeditated organization of the Late Vinča settlement at the site Crkvine-Stubline indicates that we should not regard the households as basic organizational units49. The basic settlement texture consists of rows of houses and their discrete clustering in blocks around empty areas (squares), indicating the possible existence of

42

See footnote 2–9.

43

Hofmann et al. 2009, 28 fig. 7.

44

Hofmann et al. 2009, 32 fig. 13.

45

Raczky/Anders 2008, 40 fig. 2.

46

Miloradović/Tasić 2008.

47

Bafna/Shah 2007.

48

Crnobrnja 2012b, 160.

49

Crnobrnja 2011, 137–138.

182

Adam N. Crnobrnja

Fig. 7. View of the Late Neolithic village Crkvine-Stubline from southwest (reconstruction).

premeditated organization above household level, i.e. grouping within kinship or corporative groups50. The level of construction and house disposition suggests that the entire settlement is a single entity, not only from the physical aspect but also regarding the social organization, implying the existence of a strong group identity. As been pointed out previously, the reasons why I think that near the end of Vinča culture there was horizontal and vertical stratification within communities and that special attention should be paid to recognizing possible existence of settlement clusters as potential extended communities. Many authors suggest certain territorial organization or hierarchical relations between distinct settlements in the Late Neolithic in the Balkans and neighboring regions51. but there are still lacking investigations in Serbia aiming in that direction. Late Vinča settlement at Crkvine-Stubline dates from the very end of the Vinča culture, its phase D2. This period in Serbian archaeological literature is most often identified as Late Neolithic, while the authors in more recent works suggest that it is also possible to ascribe the phase Vinča D2 to the horizon of advanced Early Eneolithic to whom also sites of Proto-Tiszapolgar, Tiszapolgar, Sopot-Lengyel III, early Bubanj-Hum Ia and Salcuta II cultures in Serbia belong52. To this horizon also the settlements at sites Crkvine-Mali Borak53, Jakovo-Kormadin, Obrež-Beletinci54, Gomolava Ib, layers above 4.1 m at Vinča, final horizon at Banjica, Čučuge55 and Divostin IIb can be dated. Despite the possibility that the settlement at Crkvine-Stubline was close to or contemporary with the cultures of Advanced Early Eneolithic, I would like to remind once more of its almost planned organization. The disappearance of such settlements and social organization leading to their establishing represent a clear dividing point between two epochs, and within a very large area. In northwestern Serbia, i.e. in the peripheral zone of the Pannonian basin few sites have been recorded dating to the Early Eneolithic in its full sense56: An isolated house (outside settlement) at the site Kalenić57, the hillfort settlement Bodnjik-Družetić58 and the settlement at the site Velimirovi Dvori59. It is interesting to note that in northwestern Serbia not a single case of continuous occupation of any Late Vinča settlement also during Early Eneolithic period has been recorded. On this occasion I would like to mention the works of Parkinson where he studies the phenomenon of disintegration of large Late Neolithic settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain and the transformation of social organization 50

Crnobrnja 2011, 163.

51

Chapman et al. 2006, 29; Parkinson 2002, 410; 2006, 43; 53; Raczky/Anders 2008, 38.

52

Spasić 2011, 143.

53

Blagojević 2011.

54

Brukner 1962.

55

Jež/Starović 1995.

56

It concerns not only attribution of portable finds but also type of settlement or habitation.

57

Blagojević 2005.

58

Palavestra et al. 1996.

59

Stevanović 1998.


183

Fig. 8. What could the inhabitants see inside the settlement? A possible view inside the Crkvine-Stubline settlement (reconstruction).

of communities inhabiting these settlements60. Although in Serbia we still do not have at our disposal a comparable quantity of data as Parkinson had, a similar process could be assumed also in the area studied for this work. Particularly interesting are Parkinson’s ideas that „the transition from more-or-less egalitarian to more-or-less hierarchical political systems was one of the most dramatic in the course of human history and prehistory“61 as well as his question posed in the same text: „Why did institutionalized hereditary inequality emerge during the Bronze Age, and not during the Late Neolithic?“62. I think that his question should be preceded by others as well: Why did the commenced process of horizontal and vertical stratification within the Late Neolithic communities not continue? Why substituted people that life in almost proto-urban settlements by a life in small settlements? I am asking the first question because I think that the beginning of such stratification could be noticed in settlements on the very edge of Pannonian basin, at Gomolava and at Crkvine-Stubline. After analyzing the Late Vinča necropolis at Gomolava, D. Borić suggested a possible existence of inherited status63 and that this necropolis „represents the very beginning of the process that would eventually produce a social structure clearly reflected in the extensively excavated Early Eneolithic necropolis in north-east Bulgaria, with extremely rich grave goods“64. Subsequently published DNA analyses revealed that all individuals in this necropolis are males (aged from 6 months to 60 years) and that all descend from the same male ancestor, so the author concluded that „they could have been members of one patrilineal group, which could indicate the kinship structure“65. When the settlement at Crkvine-Stubline is concerned the existence of vertical and horizontal social stratification is indicated by a spatial settlement organization and a probable way of distribution of resources around it66, as well as the very interesting find of distinct composition consisting of 43 figurines67. The second question I am asking seems perhaps unnecessary, considering the frequent discussions of disintegrating processes at the transition from Late Neolithic to Early Eneolithic. Nevertheless, I ask myself that question frequently not to try to get to the heart of mechanism of global changes in that time, but in order to comprehend at least partially the changes experienced by common people in that period. There are many aspects, which we use in our attempts to

60

Parkinson 2002; 2006; Parkinson/Gyucha 2012.

61

Parkinson 2012, 244.

62

Parkinson 2012, 245.

63

Borić 1996, 81–82.

64

Borić 1996, 83.

65

Stefanović 2008, 97–98.

66

Crnobrnja 2012b, 160–162.

67

Crnobrnja 2011.

184

Adam N. Crnobrnja

comprehend the mentioned processes (social, economic, climatic, organizational, technological, etc.) but we rarely think of active participants, common people living with all that. The path toward examining just one settlement from any period and the needs of people living in that settlement, runs through wider and wider multidisciplinary approaches. Common people living in the settlement and being themain participants in all events are almost never aware of such complexity (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8). I will quote here one simple but interesting opinion: „Final aim of human settlements is to satisfy the needs of their inhabitants and inhabitants of other settlements and particularly the needs satisfaction of which brings happiness and security … To deprive man of security means depriving him of the fourth dimension – the time, by losing the concept of future happiness the very feeling of happiness is lost“68. When I think about that period in such simple and seemingly prosaic way, the main questions I ask myself concern personal experience of the participants. Why someone wanted to abandon the life in a well-organized, densely populated and defended settlement with arable land and water in abundance in the immediate vicinity? Whether the descendants of people deserting these settlements were happier and feeling more secure in small settlements scattered throughout the fringes of marshes and on desolate hills, frequently surrounded only by their extended family? Did they remember the places inhabited by their ancestors? Why no one wanted to live at the locations of large Late Vinča settlements for next few centuries? Why did certain cult objects present throughout the entire Vinča culture (chronologically and spatially)69 suddenly disappear (from use)? Does it mean that great changes in social organization resulted in disappearance or modification of beliefs and customs? Are these people at all the descendants of the last inhabitants of the Late Vinča settlement? Searching for any answers about great changes happening in northwestern Serbia in the middle of 5th millennium BC imply also great changes in the approach of archaeological investigations in Serbia. Investigations in Serbia have generally been limited to larger or smaller excavations of certain sites or basic field survey. There were no regional or microregional investigations in order to acquire a more complete picture about organization of life in distinct periods. An essential shift in that field, especially for the region and time I discuss in this work, is the project of B. Tripković „Life in swamp-settlements of Obrovac type“70. The shortage of high-quality data about Late Neolithic – Early Eneolithic in the wider surroundings of settlement at the site Crkvine-Stubline emerged as crucial limiting factor, in comprehending the role this settlement had in a wider community and the reason for its appearance and disappearance. Because of that me and my colleagues from the Belgrade City Museum started to plan the project „Late Neolithic of Tamnava Region“. This project will start in 2014 and in the course of its realization we will try to establish a highquality basis for more detailed investigations in the decades to come. References Bafna/Shah 2007: S. Bafna/S. Shah, The Evolution of Orthogonality in Built Space: An Argument from Space Syntax, Procedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium (Istanbul 2007) 054.1–054.14. Blagojević 2005: M. Blagojević, Keramičke posude iz ranoeneolitske kuće sa lokaliteta Livade, Kalenić. In: Č. Jordović/B. Jovanović (eds), Kolubara 4 (Beograd 2005) 31–77. Blagojević 2011: M. Blagojević (ed.), Crkvine, Mali Borak – naselje vinčanske culture. In: M. Blagojević (ed.), Kolu-bara 5 (Beograd 2011) 53–259. Borić 1996: D. Borić, Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices in the Neolithic: A Case Study. Starinar n.s. 47, 1996, 67–83. Brukner 1962: B. Brukner, Praistorijsko naselje Beletinci kod Obreža. Rad vojvođanskih muzeja 12, 1962, 89–122. Brukner 1988: B. Brukner, Die Siedlung der Vinča-Gruppe auf Gomolava (Die Wohnschicht des Spätneolithikums und Frühäneolithikums – Gomolava Ia, Gomolava Ia–b und Gomolava Ib) und der Wohnhorizont des äneolithischen Humus (Gomolava II). In: N. Tasić/J. Petrović (eds.), Gomolava:Chronologie und Stratigraphie der vorgeschichtlichen und antiken Kulturen der Donauniederung und Südosteuropas (Novi Sad 1988) 19–38. Bulatović et al. 2010: A. Bulatović/A. Kapuran/N. Strugar, Neolitski stratum na lokalitetu kormadin u Jakovu – iskopavanja 2008. godine. Godišnjak grada Beograda 47, 2010, 11–42. Chapman et al. 2006: J. Chapman/B. Gaydarska/K. Hardy, Does enclosure make a difference? A view from the Balkans. In: A. Harding/S. Sievers/N. Venclova (eds), Enclosing the past: inside and outside in prehistory. Sheffield arch. monog. 15 (Sheffield 2006) 20–43.

68

Doksijadis 1982, 48.

69

Vessels with 4 and 8 protomes turned inwards (Crnobrnja/Spasić 2012) and bucrania in houses (Spasić 2012).

70

Tripković 2012.


185

Crnobrnja 2011: A. Crnobrnja, Arrangement of Vinča culture figurines: a study of social structure and organization, In: M. Budja (ed.), 18th Neolithic Studies. Doc. Praehist. 38 (Ljubljana 2011) 131–147. Crnobrnja 2012a: A. Crnobrnja, Investigations of Late Vinča House 1/2010 at Crkvine in Stubline. Starinar n.s. 62, 2012, 45–64. Crnobrnja 2012b: A. Crnobrnja, Group identities in the Central Balkan Late Neolithic. In: M. Budja (ed.), 19th Neolithic Studies. Doc. Praehist. 39 (Ljubljana 2012) 155–165. Crnobrnja et al. 2010: A. Crnobrnja/Z. Simić/M. Janković,Late Vinča Culture Settlement at Crkvine in Stubline: Household organization and urbanization in the Late Vinča culture period. Starinar n.s. 59, 2010, 9–25. Crnobrnja/Spasić 2012: A. Crnobrnja/M. Spasić, Zdele sa protomama – kanonizovani obrazac jedne epohe? Srpsko arheološko društvo XXXV skupština i godišnji skup (Valjevo 2012) 48–49. Doksijadis 1982: K. Doksijadis, Čovek i grad (Beograd 1982). Draşovean 2007: F. Draşovean, The Neolithic tells from Parţa and Uivar (South-West Romania) – Similarities and differences of the organization of the social space. Anal. Banatului s.n. 15, 2007, 19–45. Hofmann et al. 2009: R. Hofmann/Z. Kujundžić-Vejzagić/J. Müller/K. Rassmann/N. Müller-Scheesel, Rekonstrukcija procesa naseljavanja u kasnom neolitu na prostoru centralne Bosne. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu 50/51, 2009, 11–179. Jež/Starović 1995: Ž. Jež/A. Starović, Čučuge – Ilića brdo, zaštitna arheološka iskopavanja. Glasnik Društva konzervatora Srbije 19, 1995, 60–64. Jovanović 2008: B. Jovanović, Vek polemike 1908–2008: stratigrafija nalazišta Vinča-Belo brdo. Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 24, 2008, 45–54. Jovanović/Glišić 1961: B. Jovanović/J. Glišić,Eneolitsko naselje na Kormadinu kod Jakova.Starinar n.s. 11, 1961, 113–139. Кошелев 2005: И.Н. Кошелев, Памятники Трипольской культуры по данным магнитной разведки.(Киев 2005). Lazarovici/Lazarovici 2006: M. Lazarovici/G. Lazarovici, Architectura neoliticului si epocii cuprului din Romania I. Neoliticul (Iasi 2006). McPherron/Srejović 1988: A. McPherron/D. Srejović (eds), Divostin and Neolitic of Central Serbia. Ethnol. monogr. 10 (Pittsburgh 1988). Miloradović/Tasić 2008: N. Miloradović/N. Tasić, Neolitsko naselje Vinča – termički aspect. Zbornik radova sa 39. kongresa o KGH (Beograd 2008) 419–426. Mužijević/Ralph 1988: R. Mužijević/E. Ralph, Geomagnetic Surveys at Divostin. In: A. McPherron/D. Srejović (eds), Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia. Ethnol. Monogr. 10 (Pittsburgh 1988) 389–413. Nikolić 2006: D. Nikolić, On the Issue of Fortification at Vinča. Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 22, 2006, 9–22. Palavestra et al. 1996: A. Palavestra/I. Bogdanović/A. Starović, Bodnjik-Družetić, kampanja 1994. Glasnik srpskog arh. društva 11, 1996, 190–197. Parkinson 2002: W. A. Parkinson, Integration, Interaction, and Tribal ‘Cycling’: The Transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. In: W. A. Parkinson (ed.), The archaeology of tribal societies. Internat. Monogr. in Prehist. Arch. ser. 15 (Ann Arbor 2002) 391–438. Parkinson 2006: W. A. Parkinson, Tribal boundaries: Stylistic variability and social boundary maintenance during the transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. Journal Anthrop. Arch. 25, 2006, 33–58. Parkinson/Gyucha 2012: W.A. Parkinson/A. Gyucha, Long-Term Social Dynamics and the Emergence of Hereditary Inequality: A Prehistoric Example from the Carpathian Basin. In: T. Kienlin/A. Zimmermann (eds), Beyond Elites: Alternatives to Hierarchical Systems in Modeling Social Formations. Univforsch. z. prähist. Arch. 215 (Bonn 2012) 243–250. Porčić 2010: M. Porčić, Arheologija Vinčanskih kuća: teorijskometodološki okviri proučavanja demografije i društvene strukture (Unpubl. PhD thesis. Univ. Beograd, Beograd 2010). Porčić 2012: M. Porčić, Social complexity and inequality in the Late Neolithic of the Central Balkans: reviewing the evidence. In: M. Budja (ed), 19th Neolithic Studies. Doc. Praehist. 39 (Ljubljana 2012) 167–183. Raczky 2009: P. Raczky, Archaeological Data on Space Use at a Tell-like Settlement of the Tisza Culture (New results from Öcsöd-Kováshalom, Hungary). In: F. Draşovean/D. L. Ciobotaru/M. Maddison (eds), Ten Years After: The Neolithic of the Balkans, as Uncovered by the Last Decade of Research (Timişoara 2009) 101–124. Raczky/Anders 2008: P. Raczky/A. Anders, Late Neolithic spatial differentiation at Polgár-Csoszhalom, eastern Hungary. In: D. W. Bailey/A. Whittle/D. Hofmann (eds), Living Well Together?Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe (Oxford 2008) 35–53. Schier 2007: W. Schier, Uivar: a late Neolithic-early Eneolithic fortified tell site in western Romania. In: D. Bailey/A. Whittle/D. Hofmann (eds), Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe (Oxford 2008) 54–67.

186

Adam N. Crnobrnja

Schier/Draşovean 2004: W. Schier/F. Draşovean, Vorbericht über die rumanischdeutschen Prospektionen und Ausgrabungen in der befestigten Tellsiedlung von Uivar, jud. Timiş, Rumänien (1998–2002). Praehist. Zeitschr. 79, 2004, 145–230. Simić/Crnobrnja 2008: Z. Simić/A. Crnobrnja, Sondažno iskopavanje lokaliteta Crkvine u selu Stubline. Arh. pregled n.s. 4, 2008, 44–46. Spasić 2011: M. Spasić, Vinčanska keramika sa lokaliteta Crkvine. In: M. Blagojević (ed.), Kolubara 5 (Beograd 2011) 101–146. Spasić 2012: M. Spasić, Cattle to settle – bull to rule: on bovine iconography among Late Neolithic Vinča culture communities. In: M. Budja (ed.), 19th Neolithic Studies. Doc. Praehist. 39 (Ljubljana 2012) 295–308. Stefanović 2008: S. Stefanović, Late Neolithic Boys at the Gomolava Cemetery (Serbia). In: K. Bacvarov (ed.), Babies Reborn: Infant/Child Burials in Pre- and Protohistory. Proceedings of the XV World Congress of the International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. BAR Internat. Ser. 1832 (Oxford 2008) 95–99. Stevanović 1998: P. Stevanović, Upotrebna grnčarija sa eneolitskog lokaliteta Velimirovi dvori – Ključ. Petničke sveske 48 – arheologija, 1998, 341–354. Tasić 2007: N. Tasić, Ritual Pottery Set from Vinča. Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 23, 2007, 203–210. Tasić 2008: N. Tasić, Nemi svedoci jednog vremena: figuralna umetnost Vinče. In: D. Nikolić (ed.), Vinča – praistorijska metropola: istraživanja 1908–2008 (Beograd 2008) 139–179. Todorović 1967a: J. Todorović, Crkvine, Stubline, Obrenovac – naselje vinčanske grupe. Arh. pregled 9, 1967, 17–18. Todorović 1967b: J. Todorović, Jasenje, Brdo (groblje), Vukićevica, Obrenovac – naselje vinčanske grupe. Arh. pregled 9, 1967, 16–17. Todorović 1968: J. Todorović, Grabovac, Đurića vinogradi, Obrenovac – naselje starčevačke i vinčanske grupe. Arh. pregled 10, 1968, 11–13. Tringham et al. 1985: R. Trhingham/B. Brukner/B. Voytek, The Opovo Project: A Study of Socioekonomic Change in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal Field Arch. 12.4, 1985, 425–444. Tringham et al. 1992: R. Tringham/B. Brukner/T. Kaiser/K. Borojević/Lj. Bukvić/P. Šteli/N. Russell/M. Stevanović/ B. Voytek, Excavations at Opovo, 1985–1987: Socioeconomic Change in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal Field Arch. 19.3, 1992, 351–386. Tripković 2007: B. Tripković, Domaćinstvo i prostor u kasnom neolitu: Vinčansko naselje na Banjici (Beograd 2007). Tripković 2012: B. Tripković, Život u močvari: mikroregionalna adaptacija u severozapadnoj Srbiji. Srpsko arheološko društvo XXXV skupština i godišnji skup (Valjevo 2012) 25–26.

List of authors

Alexandra Anders Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University H-1088 Budapest Múzeum körút 4/B Hungary E-mail: [email protected] Marta Arzarello LT TEKNEHUB Sezione di Scienze Preistoriche e Antropologiche Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Università degli Studi di Ferrara C.so Ercole I d’Este 32 44100 Ferrara Italy E-mail: [email protected] Eszter Bánffy Erste Direktorin Römisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Palmengartenstr. 10–12 Germany E-mail: [email protected] Mirjana Blagojević Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments of Serbia – Belgrade Radoslava Grujića 11 11000 Belgrade Serbia E-mail: [email protected] Yavor Boyadzhiev National Institute of Archeology with Museum Saborna 2, 1000 Sofia Bulgaria e-mail: [email protected] Lea Čataj Croatian Conservation Institute Archaeological Heritage Department for Land Archaeology Kožarska 5 10 000 Zagreb Croatia

E-mail: [email protected] Adam N. Crnobrnja Belgrade City Museum Zmaj Jovina 1 11000 Beograd Serbia E-mail: [email protected] Dragoş Diaconescu Muzeul Banatului Timişoara Piaţa Huniade nr. 1 Romania E-mail: [email protected] Florin Draşovean Muzeul Banatului Timişoara Piaţa Huniade nr. 1 Romania E-mail: [email protected] Roland Gauss Fraunhofer-Institut für Silicatforschung ISC Projektgruppe für Wertstoffkreisläufe und Ressourcenstrategie IWKS Brentanostraße 2 63755 Alzenau Germany E-Mail: [email protected] Attila Gyucha Hungarian National Museum Center of National Heritage Protection Regional Office in Szeged Hungary e-mail: [email protected] Ferenc Horváth Móra Ferenc Múzeum Szeged H-6720 Roosevelt tér I-3 Hungary E-mail: [email protected] Borislav Jovanović Serbian Academy of Science and Arts Knez Mihailova 35 11000 Belgrade, Serbia

438

List of authors

E-mail: [email protected] Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici Institute of Archaeology Codrescu 6, Pavilion H Iaşi 700479 Romania E-mail: [email protected] Gheorghe Lazarovici Lucian Blaga University Facultatea de Istorie si Patrimoniu Bulevardul Victoriei 10 Sibiu 550024 Romania E-mail: [email protected] Saša Lukić Hauptstr. 93 12159 Berlin Germany E-Mail: [email protected] Tibor Marton Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Úri u. 49 H-1014 Budapest Hungary E-mail: [email protected] Trajče Nacev Associate Professor Institute for Archaeology and History Faculty of Educational Sciences Goce Delcev University, Stip Republic of Macedonia E-mail: [email protected] Nerantzis Nerantzis Archaeological Museum of Komotini A. Syneonidi 4 69100 Komotini, Greece Greece E-mail: [email protected] Krisztián Oross Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Úri u. 49 H-1014 Budapest Hungary E-mail: [email protected] Anett Osztás Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of

Sciences Úri u. 49 H-1014 Budapest Hungary E-mail: [email protected], Stratis Papadopoulos Archaeological Museum of Kavala Eryhtrou Stavrou 17 56110 Kavala Greece E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] William A. Parkinson Department of Anthropology Field Museum of Natural History Chicago, IL USA E-mail: [email protected] Daniel Peters Freie Universität Berlin Fachbereich Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie Altensteinstraße 15 D-14195 Berlin Germany E-mail: [email protected] Jörg Petrasch Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters Abteilung für Jüngere Urgeschichte und Frühgeschichte Schloß Hohentübingen 72070 Tübingen E-mail: [email protected] Pál Raczky Institute of Archaeological Sciences Eötvös Loránd University Múzeum körút 4/B H-1088 Budapest Hungary E-mail: [email protected] Knut Rassmann Leiter Technische Abteilung Römisch-Germanische Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Palmengartenstr. 10–12 Germany E-mail: [email protected] Wolfram Schier

List of authors

Freie Universität Berlin Fachbereich Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften Institut für Prähistorische Archäologie Altensteinstraße 15 D-14195 Berlin Germany E-mail: [email protected] Zsuzsanna Siklósi Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University Múzeum körút 4/B H-1088 Budapest Hungary E-mail: [email protected] Marko Sraka Department of Archaeology Faculty of Arts University of Ljubljana Slovenia E-mail: [email protected] Darko Stojanovski International Doctorate in Quaternary and Prehistory, PhD student Department of Geology University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro Quinta de Prados 5000-801 Vila Real Portugal

439

E-mail: [email protected] Nicolae Ursulescu “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi Faculty of History Bld. Carol I, no. 11 70056 Iaşi Romania E-mail: [email protected] Michael Videjko Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine 12 Geroiv Stalingrada Ave 04210 Kyiv-210 Ukraine E-mail: [email protected] Richard W. Yerkes Department of Anthropology Ohio State University Columbus, OH USA E-mail: [email protected] István Zalai-Gaál Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Úri u. 49 H-1014 Budapest Hungary E-mail: [email protected]

The (E)Neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia

Recommend Documents