The End of the Vinča World: Modelling the Neolithic to Copper Age Transition and the Notion of Archaeological Culture

157

Archäologie in Eurasien 31 – 10_Boric – Seite 157 – 19. 8. 15

The End of the Vinča World: Modelling the Neolithicto Copper Age Transition and the Notion of Archaeological Culture

Dušan Borić

Abstract

The paper is set out to present current evidenceabout the timing of cultural change from the LateNeolithic (henceforth LN) to the Copper Age(henceforth CA) in the northern and central Bal-kans. It also discusses the character of this cul-tural change and evaluates current models thatoffer ways of explaining and interpreting differ-ent processes at play. The LN and subsequentEarly Copper Age (henceforth ECA) periods inthis region as well as in many other regions ofEurope have for a very long time been directlylinked to various culture-historical labels.Hence, I will inevitably also discuss the extentto which archaeological cultures are the excessbaggage of our disciplinary and regional archae-ological histories, and whether they can in anymeaningful way be used when modelling socie-tal changes, such as the one discussed herein.

“… an archaeological culture is a polytheticset of specific and comprehensive artefact-type categories which consistently recur to-gether in assemblages within a limited geo-graphic area.”1

“… a social archaeology is not … confined tothe stylistic elaboration of projectile pointsor the architecture of institutions believed torepresent social information. Instead, a socialapproach involves all aspects of mobility, pro-duction, consumption and discard. Repetitionand persistence of material action in time andspace produce the well known entity of the ar-chaeological culture. These entities are theresults of individuals repeating the technicalgestures they learned rather than the collec-tive mind of a group producing a pattern ofculture to be followed.”2

Introduction

The LN in the northern and central Balkans is epi-tomized in the culture-historical label of the Vin-ča culture. The emergence of Vinča culture com-munities is strongly connected with new forms ofsubsistence economy (domestic animal andplant husbandry), population nucleation at tells,“tell-like” and flat settlements, and new forms ofcraft production in the form of dark burnished

ceramics, a specific style of ceramic figurines,and the development of copper metallurgy,among other crafts. The widespread spatial dis-tribution of these crafts suggests the establish-ment of shared social networks and intra-region-al trade routes among the descendants of theearliest agrarian communities of southeasternEurope. These groups have been regionally de-fined under the umbrella term of the “Vinča cul-ture”, primarily on the basis characteristically or-namented, dark burnished ceramic ware andfigurines often displaying mask-like triangularfaces among a large variety of forms.3

On the face of current evidence, it seems that byaround 4600 calBC, tell-based existence, whichpreviously characterized most of the areas inwhich Vinča communities are found (Fig. 1),was abandoned; a burnt building horizon marksthe last Vinča culture occupation levels at manysites.4 The situation is similar in the areas to thenorth, where the Tisza and associated culture-historical taxonomic units epitomizing LN exis-tence along the Tisza River drainage system arefound in the period prior to 4600 calBC.5 Currentresearch in these northern areas of the Car-pathian Basin has indicated that the LN to CAtransition in the mid-5th millennium BC ismarked by a move from the nucleated to a dis-persed settlement pattern with the abandon-ment of tell sites and the founding of new, smal-ler, flat settlements, largely characterized byshallow stratigraphies, i. e. single-layer occupa-tion deposits, across the Great Hungarian Plain,6

along with a move from intramural burial groupsto large extramural cemeteries.7

Back to the Vinča culture zone, the lack of expli-cit research focus regarding the ECA period thatfollows the end of the LN Vinča mode of livingleaves us with only very few known, newlyfounded flat settlement sites that have eitherbeen absolutely dated or can be assigned withsome certainty to this period based on potterytypologies and other material culture traitsalone. In this paper I review this still meagreECA evidence from the area previously coveredby Vinča culture communities in the central andnorthern Balkans, evidence that only highlights

1 Clarke 1978, 490.2 Gamble 1999, 96.

3 E. g. Chapman 1981; Garašanin 1951; Gimbutas 1974;Markotić 1984; Vasić 1932; Vasić 1936a–c; Vassits 1910.4 Borić 2009; Link 2006.5 E. g. Parkinson 2002; Link 2006; Yerkes et al. 2009.6 Parkinson et al. 2004; Parkinson et al. 2010.7 E. g. Chapman 2000a.

158


Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea

the need for focused and problem-oriented re-search projects in better defining this particulartransitional period. There are also new radiocar-bon dates for some burials belonging to the ECA.These dates allow us to provide a more reliabletiming of the change. At the same time this newevidence invites us to evaluate the current mod-elling of cultural changes in the mid-5th millen-nium BC.

In the following I will first examine current mod-els for the mid-5thmillennium BC cultural changefrom the LN to the CA. This is followed by the dis-cussion concerning the chronology of the Vinčaculture communities and the settlement and dat-ing evidence characterizing the ensuing periodof the ECA in the central Balkans, placing it with-in the wider regional context of contempora-neous developments in southeastern Europe. Fi-nally, I shall return to discuss alternative modelsof this culture change and the analytical value ofthe notion of archaeological culture.

Models for LN to ECA culture changein southeastern Europe

Before considering some of the key tenets of var-ious models, explanations and interpretationsthat have provided accounts of changes that af-fected southeastern Europe after the end of theLN, I would like to note that my account here willtreat southeastern Europe as a whole during theperiod of cultural changes in the mid-5th millen-nium BC. In doing this, I start from the assump-tion that contemporaneous communities in thisregion of Europe were well connected and wereaffected by or were affecting each other in manyways through various influences, borrowings,emulations, exchange, trade and breeding net-works, within an emerging social complexity.Hence, what happened in one part of southeast-ern Europe in the 5

th millennium BC likely mat-tered for social, economic and cultural pro-cesses taking place at the same time in otherareas of the region and possibly beyond.8 While

Fig. 1. Map showing the dis-

tribution of principal Vinča

culture sites (shaded area)

and some key sites from the

adjacent regions mentioned

in the text.

8 Cf. Chapman 2013.

159


D. Borić – End of the Vinča World

pan-regional chronological synchronizations of“cultural” traditions based on ceramic styles/fossil types have been the hallmark of culture-historical and typological approaches in discus-sions of the period in question, only in the pastcouple of years with a slow increase in the num-ber of reliable absolute dates are we in the posi-tion to link processes of change that were takingplace in different parts of the region through ameaningful historical narrative. As will be shownlater, this newly gained chronological anchoring,which allows us to adequately and with greaterprecision synchronize key socio-cultural pro-cesses of the 5

th millennium BC, helps us alsoto shed as improbable some of the earlier mod-els accounting for the LN-ECA change.

To date, the interpretations offered for the mid-5th millennium BC changes can be grouped into

two camps: on the one hand, largely olderexplanations, culture-historical in their theoreti-cal provenance, see external stimuli drivingchanges, while, on the other hand, more recent,largely processual and also some post-proces-sual theoretical models understand internallydriven socio-economic dynamics or shifting so-cio-cultural paradigms as the main factors trig-gering changes. The latter group of models ischaracterized by implicit or explicit social evolu-tionary underpinnings. Here I will briefly discusshow these three different groups of researchershave described, explained, and interpreted theLN to CA changes that occurred across south-eastern Europe.

Change by external stimuli:Culture-historical narratives

Local culture-historical interpretations of thechange have persisted and perhaps are best epi-tomized in the accounts provided by an oldergeneration of Hungarian9 and Serbian scho-lars,10 among other national archaeological tra-ditions in the region, in the course of 1960s,1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The predominant in-terpretation of the change argues that the arrivalof a preformed cultural entity (implicitly equatedwith a new ethnic group) contributed to the de-mise of Vinča culture communities, bringing anend to this type of LN existence in the centraland northern Balkans. This new cultural entity,primarily identified on the basis of particulartraits in pottery production (e. g. footed beakers,pointed handles on a variety of vessel shapes,the abundance of the so-called Milchtopfgefäßor “vessels for milk”, and all ceramics exhibitingmastery of high temperatures when firing) is re-ferred to as the Proto-Tiszapolgár or Tiszapolgárculture group. Besides pottery, what charac-

terizes this period of the ECA is also the prolif-eration of tools and decorative items made fromcopper. After their rather sporadic occurrence inthe Middle and Late Neolithic of southeasternEurope, copper objects now became more fre-quently associated with settlement and, in parti-cular, mortuary contexts, which are the most visi-ble archaeological traces of the CA in theCarpathian Basin. The core area of this ECA ar-chaeological culture, with an assumed later,Middle Copper Age (henceforth MCA) phasenamed Bodrogkeresztúr, was placed along theTisza River, in the eastern and northern reachesof the Carpathian Basin, where the eponymouscemetery sites are also situated.11 B. Jovanovićargued that from the Carpathian Basin Tiszapol-gár groups spread southwards, gradually replac-ing the archaeological taxon of the Vinča culture,moving progressively from the north to the southand bringing an earlier end to the Vinča culturesettlements in the northern area of their distribu-tion.12 Thereby, he noted a longer persistence ofVinča culture sites in the south, i. e. in the terri-tory of present-day southern Serbia.

For a long time the view held by various scholarsmaintained that the latest Vinča phase, phase D,might have persisted in the southern regions ascontemporaneous with the duration of the Tisza-polgár phase in the north.13 This view also as-sumed a prolonged duration of phase D, even toaround 4000 calBC.14 An opposite view was ex-pressed by Srejović, who believed that Vinča cul-ture groups in the southern area of their distribu-tion disintegrated under the influence of theBubanj-Sălcuţa-Krivodol (henceforth BSK) cul-ture complex first.15

The main impulses for change were seen in thedevelopment of mining and copper processingin the eastern Balkans and, later, “Indo-Eur-opean nomadic migrations from the steppes”.16

As supporting arguments for a “catastrophic”scenario to account for the end of the Vinča cul-ture world as we know it, culture-historians havequoted the presence of the final burnt buildinghorizons at most of the Vinča culture sites, indi-cating the subsequent abandonment of thesesettlements after such episodes of burning of in-dividual buildings or whole villages.17 I shall ex-amine this type of evidence in more detail later.

9 E. g. Bognár-Kutzián 1963; Bognár-Kutzián 1972.10 E. g. Jovanović 1995; Tasić 1979.

11 See Bognár-Kutzián 1963; Bognár-Kutzián 1972.12 Jovanović 1995.13 E. g. Tasić 1979, 84; Tasić 1995, 11.14 E. g. Ehrich/Bankoff 1992, 382; Obelić et al. 2004.15 Srejović 1984.16 Tasić 1995, 11.17 Jovanović 1995.

160



Change by internal stimuli 1:Processual narratives

On the other hand, starting in the late 1970s, anumber of foreign, primarily Anglophone, scho-lars studying the Vinča culture, began to discussmodels, which instead of looking for externalfactors as drivers of cultural change examinedvarious other aspects that might have producedthe change seen in the patterning of materialculture between the LN and CA periods in south-eastern Europe. Not surprisingly, this interest ininternal social dynamics coincided with the riseof processual approaches in archaeology in gen-eral and the application of such approaches onvarious case studies worldwide, including theBalkan Neolithic. Important places for thespread of this influence were the Divostin andSelevac field research projects, which in the late1960s and late 1970s respectively brought to-gether various foreign and Serbian archaeolo-gists focussing on the study of the Vinča culturecommunities. R. Tringham, who led the researchat Selevac, is one of the prominent scholars, whoat the time applied cutting-edge archaeologicalmethodologies. Associated with this projectwas also J. Chapman, whose Ph.D. dissertationwork published in 1981 remains the seminal textas the most comprehensive coverage of the Vin-ča culture to date. One of the main objectives ofChapman’s dissertation was to answer the ques-tion as to whether the Vinča culture phenomen-on can politically and socially be understood asa chiefdom, tribe or some other societal type.

In the course of the 1980s and 1990s, bothTringham and Chapman, as well as several otherscholars suggested that the end of the NeolithicVinča culture mode of existence might havebeen related to a series of long-term social dy-namics, “a process of continuous transforma-tion”,18 primarily caused by internal social dy-namics within large Vinča culture settlementswith autonomous households seen as the coreunits of socio-economic integration. In Tring-ham’s model,19 the population growth at manylate Vinča culture sites reached the threshold ofthe carrying capacity of particular territories,20

including deforestation, leading to social dy-namics between assumed “senior” and “junior”persons/families/households within expandingvillages. In order for the LN village-based com-munities to overcome these social dynamicsnovel solutions were needed. Instead of movingtowards greater complexity with social hierarchyand centralized organization, processes thatmight have led to the creation of nascent urbancentres, like in the 4

th millennium BC Near East

and elsewhere, according to Tringham the mid-5th millennium BC Vinča culture groups opted

for disintegrative solutions. In this context, thepotential for conflict regarding the control overlabour and social reproduction was avoided bygroup fissioning, with bud-off “juniors” leavingovergrown villages and choosing to found newsites with “flat” stratigraphies in a variety of eco-tones, including areas that can be consideredmarginal with regard to their agricultural poten-tial. (Tringham thought that another Vinča cul-ture site that she excavated in Serbia – Opovo –

might have represented one of such late Vinčaculture settlements with an unusually large per-centage of hunted game;21 but see below aboutthe new absolute dating evidence for Opovo thatmay be at odds with this scenario). Tringham22

following A. Sherratt hypothesized that thelong-term trade-off for these bud-off groups wasthe exploration of novel uses of animals (pastur-ing, the increasing importance of “secondaryproducts”, and also reliance on wild resources)as well as the establishment of contacts overlarger territories, thereby forging new allianceswith other neighbouring groups, and in this wayexposing themselves to social/cultural/econom-ic/technological/ideological and other changesand innovations in the wider culture area. All ofthese processes might have led to an increasingweakening of the cohesive bonds and socialpower of Vinča culture type of social integrationand the final abandonment of many large settle-ments.

According to Tringham, one of the archaeologi-cally visible correlates of this “breakdown in thedominance structure” in the Vinča world mighthave been a decrease in the frequency of figur-ines, which were highly abundant in the earlierphases and which might have reflected a rangeof ritual and symbolic practices related to main-taining the status quo of the dominant socialparadigm on Vinča culture tells and tell-like set-tlements. Tringham also “hypothesized growinginability of late Vinča-Pločnik (Vinča C2) settle-ments to participate in complex networks andthe breakdown of networks themselves”.23 Inthis way a nucleated mode of existence on tellswas replaced by a dispersed settlement patternof living on flat sites, often smaller hamlets con-sisting only of several households. In addition,the catastrophic interpretation of the evidencefor the burnt house horizon in the final levels ofVinča culture sites previously mentioned was re-jected, and the evidence for burnt buildings wasnow seen in the context of intentional, ritualburning of building structures together with theirinventories as a way of closing the life-cycle of a

18 Tringham 1992, 135.19 Tringham 1992; Tringham/Krstić 1990.20 But for an opposing opinion see Greenfield 1991, 302–303.

21 Tringham et al. 1992.22 Tringham 1992, 142.23 Tringham 1992, 137.

161



household, a practice that seems to have char-acterized Vinča culture settlement sequencesthroughout the LN.24

More recently, William Parkinson, working witharchaeological evidence from the eastern Car-pathian Basin, the area situated to the north ofthe Vinča culture groups and contemporaneouswith the evidence previously described for thecentral Balkans, observed many of the similarfeatures in the LN to CA transition.25 Similar tothe approach taken by Tringham, Parkinsonlooked primarily at the internal organizationalstructure of LN versus ECA and MCA commu-nities in order to understand the nature of thechange, identifying shifting patterns of integra-tion and interaction within the assumed tribalsocial evolutionary context for both periods.Based on the definitions offered by various otherauthors, Parkinson understands tribes as “re-gionally-integrated social networks”,26 with anacephalous character and segmented structure,suggesting a degree of inherent flexibility re-garding both centripetal and centrifugal pro-cesses leading to integration and fissioning ofgroups and their members. On the basis of a de-tailed analysis of various quantifiable attributesof the archaeological record from both periods,Parkinson concludes that LN settlements in hisstudy area within the eastern Carpathian Basinwere more densely packed and occupied forlonger periods of time, indicating fixed socialboundaries. This stood in contrast to CA settle-ments that “were occupied less intensively, byfewer co-residential units, and for shorter peri-ods of time”,27 and where “social boundarieswere more permeable and flexible” or “moreeasily transcended”.28

In the settlement record, one sees a move fromfrequent multi-cell buildings in the LN that possi-bly housed several nuclear families (assumed onthe basis of the number of hearths within suchlarge buildings, a proxy derived from the Iro-quoian ethnography) to the one of single-cellbuildings almost exclusively found in the CA.Parkinson also concludes that one of the maindifferences regarding the spatial distribution ofsettlements between the two periods is that tellsor ‘supersites’ (extensive “flat” settlements),which were central foci during the LN, lost thisfunction in the course of the CA, while smallersettlements (hamlets, farmsteads) increased innumber across the landscape. With the start ofthe ECA, people often settled previously unoccu-pied territories, and it seems that the record ischaracterized by a marked rise in residential mo-

bility – a process analogous to the one pre-viously argued for within the Vinča culture con-text. It has also been suggested that the changefrom the LN to the CA relates to the growing im-portance of domestic cattle and pastoral econo-my that might have prompted the observed pat-tern of greater residential mobility. Parkinsonpostulates that breaking away from a larger kingroup might have given various advantages toindividual nuclear families involved in pastoraleconomy to produce and acquire “wealth”, al-lowing contacts farther afield, while at the sametime also leading to a more homogeneous mate-rial culture pattern across a broader region. Fi-nally, in the long-term perspective, Parkinsonsees the LN to CA transition as only one in a ser-ies of such changes with regard to the emphasison integration and interaction. He refers to thisphenomenon as tribal “pulsing” or “cycling”, forwhich support is found in various ethnographiccontexts.29

There are a number of similar explanatory solu-tions regarding analogous evidence related inparticular to the phenomenon of the abandon-ment of large and long-lived settlements at theend of the LN both in the central Balkans andthe eastern Carpathian Basin, which from thetheoretical perspective sees the change primar-ily stemming from internal dynamics in the orga-nizational structure of LN communities. Argu-ably, the patterning seen in the eastern Car-pathian Basin is backed by stronger evidencefor a dispersed settlement pattern in the ECA,something that is currently unavailable for thecentral Balkans and the southern areas of theCarpathian Basin (namely the region of Vojvodi-na). In a large part, these regional differences arerelated to a research bias, whereby programma-tic and systematic field survey efforts in the for-mer region to identify rather ephemeral CA ham-lets30 stand in contrast to an apparent dearth ofthis kind of research in the territory previouslycovered by the Vinča culture communities. I shallreturn to the existing ECA evidence from the lat-ter region below.

Change by internal stimuli 2:Post-processual narratives

The third group of archaeological narratives forthe change in question can be seen as con-cerned with various issues that are close topost-processual or interpretive archaeologyagendas: gender roles in societal transforma-tions, material culture agency, changing percep-tions of time, landscapes, places and ancestors,and similar. John Chapman has been and re-

24 Chapman 1999; Stevanović 1997; Tringham 1991.25 Parkinson 2002; 2006.26 Parkinson 2002, 395.27 Parkinson 2002, 409.28 Parkinson 2002, 418.

29 E. g. Fowles 1997 cited by Parkinson 2002, 431–432.30 E. g. Parkinson 2006; Parkinson et al. 2004; Parkinsonet al. 2010.

162



mains the most vocal advocate of this type of ap-proach with regard to the Neolithic and CA evi-dence in southeastern Europe. In many respects,Chapman has observed types of processes thatare very similar to those identified within theprocessual accounts regarding the change fromthe LN to the CA in various parts of the Balkans.First, he proposes that the household becamethe dominant unit in the ECA as opposed to theclosely-knit communities with dense social net-works and overlapping webs of interdependen-cies that must have existed on tells during theLN as an expression of “place-based values.”Second, in the CA he sees the establishment ofregional exogamous breeding networks connect-ing dispersed farmsteads. Finally, a trend duringthe CA leading to a competitive ideology with itsfocus on acquiring and producing prestigiousgoods stands in contrast to a largely egalitarianethos of tell villages in the LN.31

In a similar vein, according to Chapman, the es-tablishment of cemeteries separate from livingsites might have been a way of disassociatingthe newly deceased and their ancestral transfor-mations from the space of the living,32 in thisway breaking away from the previous emphasison the strong bond between the living commu-nity and its ancestors, sometimes expressed byplacing (a selected number of) burials as smaller(kin-based?) clusters within the remits of LN set-tlements.33 Chapman also argued that with thestart of the CA, secondary animal product inno-vations (e. g. wool and milk) might have relatedto the creation of separate spheres of genderpower in relation to females.

One of Chapman’s main recent, however, relatesto the idea that there is a link between the wayobjects were manipulated and deposited in Bal-kan prehistory, and, further, it is not a coinci-dence that we find many incomplete objects inNeolithic and CA Balkan settlements. Accordingto Chapman, such objects are not part of acci-dental refuse, but instances of structured de-position, which he refers to as “evidence forlarge-scale pot-smashing,” including broken fig-urines and other objects.34 The practice of dig-ging pits on tells along with the deposition of(broken) objects in these pits are, for Chapman,ways for the living community at these LN sitesto reaffirm the links with the past and ancestralpresence upon whom they habitually dwelt: “…incompleteness of an object is said to representthe enchained relationships of genealogy andexchange”.35 This paradigm changes in the CA,when many complete objects are deposited in

graves or hoards; in Chapman’s view, this maysignify the process of social integration ratherthan social fragmentation. In particular, metalobjects made of copper and increasingly gold,which became abundant at some sites and re-gions in the course of the CA, are completerather than broken. Following anthropologists R.Wagner and A. Weiner, Chapman suggests thatthis shift might have signified a move from theemphasis on inalienable or fractal objects thatcharacterized LN “ ‘chaotic’ networks with longchains of social indebtedness”36 to the emer-gence of alienable or representational objects(primarily made of metal) that became one ofthe hallmarks of CA societies in the Balkans,and which might have created “a representationof an abstract value, such as wealth, by the ob-ject now devoid of its most intimate personalconnotations”.37 As previously mentioned, theidea of “wealth” was also evoked in Parkinson’smodel,38 when discussing the nature of changewith the start of the CA. While the theoretical per-spectives of the two authors differ, it is interest-ing to note that in both models the idea aboutthe rise of alienable objects of wealth is of keyimportance. This is in large part the conse-quence of the significance given to metal ob-jects, assumed to have carried an intrinsic val-ue39 for communities that produced andconsumed them at this time.40

Now, having summarized some of the main typesof narratives offered for the LN to CA change insoutheastern Europe, let us turn to the evidencefrom the northern and central Balkans in order toexamine the extent to which the current state ofresearch and new evidence challenge each ofthe general models for understanding the mid-5th millennium BC change. In doing this we shall

first turn to chronology.

The end of the Vinča world

Absolute and relative chronology

On the basis of the existing radiocarbon dates(see Appendix), the Vinča culture spans the per-iod of ca. 5400–4650/4550 calBC.41 Previously,explicit Bayesian statistical modelling was ap-plied to the suite of existing and newly acquireddates for a number of Vinča culture sites,42 andsince the publication of that particular work an-other suite of dates was more recently obtained

31 Chapman 2000a, 75.32 Chapman 1996.33 Borić 2013.34 Chapman 1996, 214; Chapman 2000b.35 Chapman 1996, 214.

36 Chapman 1996, 215.37 Chapman 1996, 237.38 Parkinson 2002.39 Cf. Bailey 1998.40 For a critique of Chapman’s approach regarding the ori-gin of alienated objects see Gamble 2007, 151.41 Borić 2009; Gläser 1996.42 Borić 2009.

163



for the sites of Gomolava, Opovo, and Petnica.43

All published dates dating Vinča culture contextsare here listed in the Appendix. There is also anongoing work regarding extensive AMS dating oftwo other Vinča culture sites, Vinča-Belo Brdoand Uivar.44 This work should provide furtherhigh resolution evidence for the beginning andend dates as well as for the duration of particularbuilding phases and features at the investigatedsites. Figure 2 summarizes the current datingevidence for the Vinča culture based on the dataprovided in the Appendix and a very limited setof ECA dates. While further programmatic dating

will allow us to tighten the chronological grip onvarious Vinča culture site sequences, the currentstate of evidence already allows us to hypothe-size with some certainty that the likely end datefor the majority of the absolutely dated Vinča cul-ture sites falls in the 47

th century BC. The evi-dence is still rather limited, and we may leavethe possibility open that a few sites, includingthe eponymous site of Vinča-Belo Brdo (Figs. 3–5) and also the site of Selevac, might have con-tinued to be occupied by the same communitiesinto the 46

th century BC.

A detailed publication of pottery assemblageswill be necessary in order to connect variousdates meaningfully with the dating of stratigra-

Fig. 2. Summary of radio-

carbon evidence for the dura-

tion of the sites of the Vinča

culture and dated ECA fea-

tures. Solid bars: radiocarbon

dates; dotted lines: assumed

coverage on the basis of

diagnostic material culture

types.

43 Orton 2012.44 A. Whittle, pers. comm. 2013.

164



phically “closed” contexts with typologically dis-tinctive pottery.45 Provisionally, we could sug-gest that phase Vinča A dates to the period ofca. 5400/5300 to 5200 calBC; Vinča B betweenca. 5200 and 5000 calBC; Vinča C between ca.5000/4950 and 4850; and Vinča D between ca.4850 and 4650/4550 calBC. This evidence con-tradicts the previous assumption put forth by

Chapman in his seminal synthesis of the Vinčaculture,46 at that time based on a rather limitednumber of conventional charcoal dates, aboutthe asymmetrical duration of Vinča phases.There the combined duration of phases A to Cwas understood to have been as long as theduration of phase D.47

Current dates show that the assumed disintegra-tion of the LN tell-based mode of existence andthe abandonment of many Vinča culture sites(large and small, tells, tell-like and flat sites) inthe central Balkans might have occurred earlierthan previously suspected. This revised chronol-ogy has implications for various hypothesesabout the nature and mechanisms of LN to CAchange that various models, previously men-tioned, envisage. For instance, in her modelabout the process of fissioning of “junior” mem-bers/families/households at the end of the LN inthe central Balkans, Tringham assumed that thesite of Opovo might have been a good exampleof this process,48 and she interpreted the siteas a newly founded settlement, established byseveral bud-off families in the final phase of theVinča culture development.49 However, the newdating evidence from this site suggests that (a)the site might have been occupied for a rathershort period, sometime between ca. 4900 and4700 calBC,50 and (b) that the end of its occupa-tion came perhaps even earlier than some of theother larger Vinča culture sites. To be sure, thiscould still be an instance of a long-term processof fissioning of certain social groups, such asless privileged members/families and similar,from tells and supersites in the course of the lat-er part of the Late Neolithic; however, the evi-dence remains open to other interpretations forthis particular type of settlement (e. g. a specia-lized site focused on hunting wild resources)and cannot account for the final phase of theVinča culture disintegration.

Further, the assumption made by culture-histori-cal accounts about a phased, progressive re-placement of Vinča culture communities by Tis-zapolgár groups from the north to the south isalso challenged by new radiocarbon dates. Onthe face of current dating evidence, which, ad-mittedly, remains limited at present, the end ofVinča culture settlements in the southern areasof the Vinča culture distribution is broadly con-temporaneous with the end of the occupation atvarious sites in the north of its distribution or inthe assumed core region of the Morava RiverBasin, contradicting Jovanović’s chronologicalmodel about the latitudinal development of Gra-

45 Existing radiocarbon dates, mostly conventional andsome AMS, still do not provide a clear chronological resolu-tion for the variety of pottery styles present across the Vinčaregional zone. There has been a continuous reliance on sev-eral complicated pottery typologies (e. g. Holste 1939; Mi-lojčić 1949; Garašanin 1993) and vertical stratigraphies oftell sites in order to provide a relative chronological frame-work, which assumed that the stratigraphic sequences ofmulti-layered tell sites, such as Vinča-Belo Brdo, can beused as reliable chronological points of comparison for amuch wider region. The earliest periodizations of the Vinčaculture were based on the typological characteristics of pot-tery associated with a particular level in the vertical se-quence of the type-site. The first excavator of the site, M.M. Vasić, marked the depth from the surface of each exca-vated object (but unfortunately not their horizontal distribu-tion), laying the foundations of all subsequent periodiza-tions. The earliest periodizations come from O. Menghin(1931), F. Holste (1939) and V. Milojčić (1949). Holste’speriodization, which was later developed by Milojčić, is themost widely accepted periodization of the Vinča culture. Itdivides the culture into four phases: Vinča A (from the bot-tom to t 8 m), Vinča B (from t 8 m to t 6.5 m with a subse-quent division into two subphases B1–2), Vinča C (fromt 6.5 m to t 4.5 m) and Vinča D (from t 4.5 m up, with asubsequent division into two subphases D1–2). This peri-odization was later used as the basis for revisions by sev-eral scholars (e. g. Chapman 1981; Dimitrijević 1974; Lazar-ovici 1979; Milojčić 1949; Parzinger 1993; Schier 1991;1996; 2000; see below). A thoroughly different periodiza-tion was suggested by M. Garašanin (1951), who dividedthe complete sequence of the Vinča culture into two majorphases: Vinča-Tordoš (after the site of Turda in Romania)and Vinča-Pločnik, which he also related to the stratigraphyof the type-site while stressing the regional characteristicson the basis of two additional type-sites: Tordoš and Ploč-nik (see Figure 1). To these two major phases, Garašaninadded subphases (i. e. Vinča-Tordoš I–II and Vinča-PločnikI–II) as well as the so-called Gradac phase (recognized fromt 6.6 m to t 6 m at Vinča itself and present in the southernareas of the Vinča culture distribution on the basis of thetype-site of Gradac in southern Serbia, see Fig. 1). Garaša-nin’s (1973; 1979; 1993) own opinion on the exact corre-spondence of the two major phases that he identified in thesequence of the type-site varied over time. Building on Gar-ašanin’s recognition of the Gradac phase, B. Jovanović(1994) divided this phase into three subphases that areconfined to the Morava valley: Gradac I to III. He synchro-nized Gradac I with Vinča B2–C1 phase, or according toGarašanin’s division, to the Vinča-Tordoš II phase. Gradac Iis recognized in particular in relation to several hoardsfound at Rudna Glava, and it is further connected to the so-called “malachite horizon” at sites such as Selevac (levelsV–VIII) and Vinča-Belo Brdo (between t 7.5 m andt 6.1 m), and also with the upper levels at CrnokalačkaBara and Supska (levels 3–4). Gradac II is synchronizedwith the final level of burnt houses at the site of Divostin(phase IIb) in central Serbia, assuming that during thisphase the Vinča culture had already disappeared in the Da-nube Basin farther north. Finally, Gradac III is associatedwith the southernmost areas of the Vinča culture distribu-tion, especially the Kosovo variant found at sites such asPredionica, Fafos or Valač (characterized by monumental-sized figurines), while the site of Pločnik is stressed as theregional representative of this phase.

46 Chapman 1981.47 Cf. Chapman 2013.48 Tringham 1992.49 Tringham et al. 1992.50 Orton 2012, Fig. 6 Appendix.

165



dac phases I to III.51 Hence, if one wanted tomaintain the explanation offered by accountsthat see the key role of external factors in the re-placement of Vinča culture settlements, onewould have to envisage a swift “wave of con-quest” across the whole area of its distribution.Surely, in this case “simultaneous” still remainsrelatively broadly bracketed. Further, a muchtighter hold over the chronology of the final oc-

cupation levels of key-sites is needed in orderto be able to reaffirm with some confidence thatan end to many Vinča culture settlements was in-deed broadly contemporaneous throughout theentire area of its distribution.

Yet, if one does accept the broadly contempora-neous end to the most of the Vinča culture settle-ments, this in itself is an enigmatic develop-ment, in which an integrated network that wasseemingly stable for around 800 years based on

Fig. 3a–b. Areas in Vinča-

Belo Brdo excavated since

1908 in the core area of the

site, where more recent exca-

vations (1978 to present)

have also taken place, show-

ing the latest horizon of LN

burned buildings marked as

well as the location of burial

pits of four ECA burials

(adapted after Stevanović/

Jovanović 1996, Fig. 1; Tasić/

Ignjatović 2008, Fig. 5

and 36; Jevtić 1986, Fig. 1.

3b: Courtesy of M. Porčić).

51 Jovanović’s 1994.

166



continuities of settlement data and stylistic ex-pression might have been disrupted relativelyquickly. This situation may force us to searchfor alternative scenarios in understanding sucha sudden and punctuated nature of socioeco-nomic and culture change (see below).

Evidence of house burning:A catastrophe or structured deposition?

The evidence for LN house burning in the centralBalkans, which was previously used, on the onehand, by culture-historians to argue for a violentend to many settlements and, on the other hand,by some among those scholars who favour ex-planations that primarily focus on internal socialchanges to argue for intentional burning and de-struction as part of house life cycles and prac-tices of structured deposition, remains inconclu-sive at present. Whereas final deposits in manysites, including the eponymous site of Vinča-Belo Brdo (Fig. 6), are indeed characterized byan undeniably striking, final burning horizon, atmany tell sites burnt structures with their inven-tories are clearly present in earlier parts of thesequence (for example, see the iconic sectionof Vinča-Belo Brdo, Figs. 7–9). This suggeststhat the practice of burning buildings might havebeen one of the characteristics of many settle-ment sites throughout the LN,52 regardlesswhether such events were purely utilitarian withsubsequent levelling of the area for the construc-tion of new buildings or were (also) imbued with

symbolic meanings related to events of struc-tured deposition.53 Hence, it remains difficulton the basis of this particular material correlatealone to discriminate whether a catastrophic firecaused by “intruders” really destroyed most ofthe Vinča culture settlements around the sametime in the late 47

thor early 46th centuries calBC,although this is unlikely in the face of currentevidence. On the other hand, the decision aboutburning a building within these villages, oftenwith closely arranged structures, could not havebeen based on the whim of an “autonomous”household,54 but rather related to some sort ofcommunal consensus (at the very least amongadjacent households, or within particular“neighbourhoods”, if not the whole village)about the timing of such potentially hazardousevents of house burning. If this is so, there re-mains an important question about the type ofsocial norm and ideological/ontological struc-ture that could have brought about the need forthis kind of practice.

Fortifications: ditches and palisades

Another aspect that should also be consideredwhen discussing the possibility of a violent orcatastrophic end to Vinča culture settlements isto examine the evidence of settlement defences,i. e. fortification features. With more dedicateduse of geophysical prospection as a standard re-search procedure during the initial phase of re-

Fig. 4. LN building horizons

as seen in the southern and

western sections of Vasić’s

Trench P/1932–34, cleaned

in 1978, at Vinča-Belo Brdo

(adapted after Stevanović/

Jovanović 1996, Fig. 2–3).

52 Borić 2008.

53 Cf. Porčić 2012a.54 Whittle 1996, 107.

167



search projects, over the last decade or soacross southeastern Europe there has beenmounting evidence that fortification featureswere the rule in most if not all Late Neolithic set-tlements. Previously, extensive excavations ofsome sites also brought to light evidence of suchfeatures. Again Vinča-Belo Brdo is a good earlyexample for the existence of possibly multipleditches that likely served fortification purposes.For instance, Ditch Q in Vinča, revealed in M. M.Vasić’s early excavations of the site (Fig. 3), is awell known example.55 This ditch extended for atleast 12 m in NE-SW orientation, measuring ca.2.5 m in width and reaching up to 2 m in depth.Ditch Q was likely associated with building hori-zon III according to Stevanović and Jovanović.56

It went out of use and was filled during the earlyphase of their building horizon IV, as the settle-ment expanded, covering the backfilled ditchwith the construction of building features.

The second large ditch with a likely similar orien-tation was discovered in Vinča at the start of new

excavations at the site in 1978, when the sectionleft after Vasić’s excavations in Trench P/1934was refreshed by cutting 2 m into the existingsection and producing what is currently the mostrepresentative stratigraphic cross-section of thesite’s stratigraphy.57 This V-shaped ditch, visiblein the western section (Fig. 7), was 4.2 m wideand up to 4.1 m deep. The ditch was dug fromwhat Stevanović and Jovanović identify in thissection as building horizon III, corresponding tothe depth of 4 m in Vasić’s stratigraphic se-quence, i. e. sometime during phase Vinča D. Aswith the previous ditch, during Stevanović andJovanović’s building horizon IV, the ditch wasbackfilled and the settlement expanded over it.

There is yet another ditch cut from the topmostlevels and noted on the Danube-facing sectionin Trench G that was exposed during Vasić’s ex-cavations in 1933–1934 (Fig. 10).58 This ditch isof monumental dimensions (8.5 m wide and upto 6 m deep) with a palisade found along itsnorthern side, i. e. on the inner limits of the set-

Fig. 5. LN building horizons

in the southern section of

Vasić’s Trench P/1932–34

and corresponding ceramic

fossiles directeurs for each

phase (ceramics after Gara-

šanin 1979; Schier 1995;

1996; Tasić 2007; Vasić

1936c); not to scale.

55 Jovanović 1961; Nikolić 2006.56 Jovanović 1996.

57 Stevanović/Jovanović 1996.58 Vasić 1936a, 110 Fig. 211b.

168



tlement spread.59 While doubts were raisedabout whether this ditch can be associated withthe Vinča culture settlement at Vinča-Belo Brdo,it seems unlikely that a later prehistoric shorter-term occupation of this place would have cre-ated such a large feature. It should most likelybe associated with the final phase of the Neo-lithic settlement at Vinča-Belo Brdo.

The evidence of ditches and the existence of pa-lisades have been documented by excavations

at many other Vinča culture sites (e. g. Kormadin,Gomolava, Ravna Kosa, Divlje Polje, Pljosna Sti-jena, Valač, Gornea Liubcova, Chisoda Veche,Parţa, etc.),60 while the most recent striking ex-amples of their existence surrounding settle-ments, sometimes in concentric circles, aredocumented by geophysical surveys at the sitesof Uivar,61 Stubline,62 Belovode63 and Oreškovi-ca,64 or within the context of the neighbouringButmir culture group at the site of Okolište inBosnia (Fig. 11).65 Such ditches and palisadeswere associated with various phases of the Vin-ča culture, while in many instances they werefound in association with the earliest phases ofVinča culture settlements. It seems that after aperiod of use such features were sometimesquickly backfilled, while the settlements ex-panded outwards, beyond the previously de-fined limits.

This type of evidence suggests that the demarca-tion of settlement space was important to the in-habitants of Vinča culture sites and that certainboundaries were being constantly drawn, nego-tiated and redrawn for either practical reasons(e. g. definition of patches of arable land belong-ing to a settlement, containing herds of cattle, orprotecting oneself from possible invaders) or for

Fig. 6. Excavated floor re-

mains of the last burnt build-

ing horizon at Vinča-Belo

Brdo, 1984 excavations

(courtesy M. Jevtić).

Fig. 7. Southern and western

section of Vasić’s Trench P/

1932–34, cleaned in 1978,

Vinča-Belo Brdo (adapted

after Jovanović 2008, Plate I).

59 Jovanović 1961, 12; Jovanović 1984; Garašanin 1979,154.

60 Tripković 2013, 199–238.61 Schier 2008, 65; Schier/Draovean 2004.62 Crnobrnja 2012.63 Hanks et al. forthcoming.64 Unpublished data.65 Hofmann 2012; Müller et al. 2013.

169



defining one’s community in relation to the out-side world of “Otherness”.66 Nonetheless, itseems that these types of fortification and pali-sade features still leave us in doubt when deter-mining the level of violence that might havebrought an end to the Vinča culture world. Oneshould note that a number of Vinča culture siteswere found placed on raised ground, appropriat-ing the local topography and terrain that facili-tated easier and more effective defence of a set-tlement space. Moreover, there are indicationsthat this trend is particularly pronounced fromthe Gradac phase (start of Vinča C around5000 calBC) onwards.67 The trend clearly con-tinues into the ensuing period of the ECA, whenin many hilly areas of the central Balkans newsites were being founded on hilltop locations(see below). This last aspect of site locationmay offer clues as to the importance of bothditches and palisades to offer protection to set-tlement inhabitants from the outside world. Thisrelationship to the world outside a Neolithic vil-lage may seem similar to African ethnography, inwhich the distinction between the village andthe bush is often underlined:

“… the village is the place of social order, con-structed by human labor, maintained by rit-ual, and guaranteed in perpetuity by a seg-mentary hierarchy and the presence ofancestors; the bush is a dangerous periphery,inhabited by predatory species and harmfulspirits; a disorderly space that is associatedwith death and is an ambiguous source ofmasculine powers.”68

Dating material from backfilled ditches at thesite of Uivar in the Banat region at the northerndistribution of the Vinča culture is helpful too indetermining the chronological scope of the useof ditches. Absolute dates from this site suggestthe dating of the excavated building horizon to4940–4800 calBC, while the two ditches sur-rounding the site remained in use and are datedto 4830–4700 and 4690–4500 calBC respec-tively.69 W. Schier70 suggests that at the site ofUivar there might have been some continuity be-tween the end of the Vinča culture phase and theearly (Proto-)Tiszapolgár occupation,71 based onstratigraphic relations, pottery manufacturingand radiometric evidence. There was a continu-ing importance of ditches in this particular set-tlement towards the very end of the Vinča cultureduration. Evidence for the existence of currentlyundated post-Vinča (Proto-)Tiszapolgár occupa-tion of this site, found immediately under the

plough zone,72 leaves space open for ambigu-ous interpretations of these features.

Burials

Yet another type of evidence could be examinedfor clues as to the nature of the change that re-sulted in the disintegration of Vinča culture settle-ments: mortuary data for any possible evidence ofviolently induced traumas, collective burials orthe expression of social rivalry through conspicu-ous display of high status grave offerings. How-

Fig. 8. Detail of the southern and western sections of Vasić’s Trench P/1932–34, cleaned

in 1978, Vinča-Belo Brdo (after Jovanović 2008, Plate II/1).

Fig. 9. Detail of the southern and western sections of Vasić’s Trench P/1932–34, cleaned

in 1978, Vinča-Belo Brdo (after Jovanović 2008, Plate II/2).

66 Borić 2008, 131.67 See Opačić-Ristić 2005.68 Descola 2013, 26.69 Schier 2008, 65; Schier/Draovean 2004; see Appendix.70 Schier 2008, 61, 64–65.71 Cf. Makkay 1991. 72 Schier 2008, 61.

170



ever, the archaeological record of the Vinča cul-ture in the course of the regional Middle and LateNeolithic is notoriously thin regarding cemeterygrounds: Only two cemeteries are presentlyknown. The first one is Botoš, likely an extramuralcemetery, excavated between the two World Warswith rather little evidence in the way of detailedinformation and no preserved osteological mate-rial. Based on the typological characteristics ofceramic finds and the presence of Spondylusbeads and alabaster pendants, an earlier phaseof the Vinča culture has been assumed there.73

The second cemetery is a small intramural burialgroup at the site of Gomolava with 26 interred in-dividuals in the main group (Figs. 12–14) andanother five burials with the greatest likelihoodof belonging to the same phase found 10 to20 m away from the main group.74 This cemetery

is associated with the final phase of the Vinčaculture settlement at Gomolava (phase Ib). Theburials took place in an – at the time of the inter-ment – unoccupied area of the site, with some ofthe burials cutting foundation ditches of earlierphase Ia–b buildings. A date on an unmodifiedanimal bone from a burnt Feature A2 (phase Ib)found in the vicinity of the cemetery group maysuggest the use and abandonment of this fea-ture between 4890–4710 calBC at 95 per centprobability,75 i. e. prior to the use of this areafor the disposal of the dead. Four burials fromthis cemetery have been directly AMS-datedand indicate a fairly short period between 4680

and 4580 calBC at 68,2% probability with thelikely span of 0–70 years at 68.2% probabil-ity.76 It has been suggested that the pottery fromthe cemetery in Gomolava can be equated withceramic forms found at the eponymous site asburnt building inventory at t 4.1m, possibly dat-ing the whole cemetery to Vinča D1 phase,based on pottery typology alone.77 Hence, it islikely that the cemetery falls in the final usephase in Gomolava, which coincides with the es-timated end of the Vinča culture in its core area,confirming the latest phase as suggested by pot-tery typology as well (Fig. 15). This cemetery alsooverlaps with charcoal dates obtained forhouses 3 and 9 (Appendix) found in Sector VIIat Gomolava, some 70 m from the burial group,suggesting a broadly contemporaneous use ofthese habitation structures and the cemetery.Most of the pottery assemblages from numerousbuildings at Gomolava, however, have not beenpublished to allow for detailed comparisons ofpottery types and existing absolute dates.

No obvious traces of violence are reported for Go-molava burials, in which osteological material ispreserved.78 On the basis of currently available

Fig. 10. The largest ditch at

Vinča cut from the topmost

levels, as seen in the section

in Trench G facing the Da-

nube, during Vasić’s excava-

tion at the site in 1933–1934

(after Vasić 1936a, 211b).

Fig. 11. Examples of LN set-

tlements with ditch enclo-

sures revealed by geophysics

in the northern and central

Balkans: (a) Uivar (after

Schier 2009, Fig. 6); (b)

Stubline (after Crnobrnja

2012, Fig. 2); (c) Okolište

(after Müller et al. 2013,

Fig. 2).

73 Chapman 1981, 18–19; Marinković 2010.74 Borić 1996; Borić 2009; Brukner 1980.

75 Borić 2009 Table 5.76 Borić 2009 Fig. 40c.77 Schier 1995, 289.78 Zoffmann 1987.

171



Fig. 12. Gomolava LN intramural cemetery with AMS dated burials marked (courtesy of Museum of Vojvodina).

172



radiometric dates, the interment of burials herecorresponds with the latest phase of the settle-ment at Gomolava, but there is no obvious wayto relate these interments with an alleged “cata-strophic” end of the settlement. Similarly, the dis-play of burial goods does not offer any “dramatic”clues regarding internal social rivalry, eventhough some burials have more offerings or per-haps more “valuable” goods (e. g. a differentialnumber of ceramic vessels) and special items ofpersonal adornment (e. g. a copper bracelet andcopper beads in two burials respectively79). Itseems that a very iconic position was followedwhen placing stone adzes and likely sickles (ofwhich flint inserts are preserved) on the rightshoulder of the deceased (men). This is an icono-graphic posture that became a fixed burial canonfor (the most part) male individual intermentsthroughout the LN and CA in southeastern80 andcentral Europe.81 This iconic posture was also de-

picted on both figurines found in the Tisza culturecontext at the site of Szegvár-Tűzköves in Hun-gary (well known figurines of the “Sickle and AxeGods”)82 and on a group of 43miniature figurineswith 11 accompanying clay axe models found inthe late Vinča culture context of a burnt buildingat the site of Stubline in Serbia.83

Regarding the latter group of finds, their excava-tor suggests that rather than being seen as ob-jects of cult, this group of figurines, with onelarge, outstanding figurine possibly depicting a“leader”, may indicate a hierarchical social or-ganization and vertical differentiation within theVinča culture context.84 Surely, similar to the Go-molava cemetery, where the differential deposi-tion of objects in burials may indicate, amongother things, higher social standing of certain in-dividuals, families or “houses” within a largercommunity, the largest figurine in the figurinegroup from Stubline may indicate the existenceof individuals in the society, whose “fame” or so-cial standing were accentuated in relation to therest of the social (kin-based?) group or a“house”,85 if one assumes that such a largercommunity might have been embodied in thegroup of smaller figurines. Yet, these instancesalone do not provide unambiguous evidence ofranked, hierarchical or centrally-organized socialcontexts in these two settlements nor among theVinča culture communities as a whole.86 Theethos of egalitarianism, which pervades in muchof the evidence for the period in the wider region,might have still been dominant in these contexts,even with likely underlying currents of complexinter-personal, inter-family, inter-house or inter-village tensions regarding differential access ofdifferent social segments to preferred resources,raw materials, objects of “value”, social connec-tions, exchange networks, etc., along with oppor-tunistic social rivalries that might have ensued.

The Gomolava burial group consisting of indivi-duals of different age – from young children toolder adults, which likely belonged to only onegender (male), based on the majority of indivi-duals on which biological sexing was possible,87

and were buried in an at that time most likelyabandoned area of the settlement – rather sug-gests an incipient stage of relationship of the liv-ing community to the deceased, which came tocharacterize the CA burial record of the Car-pathian Basin and other regions of southeasternEurope.88 One should note here, however, thatsuch an argument is still made in the absence

Fig. 13. Exposed burials at

the Gomolava LN cemetery

(courtesy of Museum of

Vojvodina).

Fig. 14. Detail of the exposed

burials at the Gomolava LN

cemetery (courtesy of

Museum of Vojvodina).

79 Borić 2009.80 E. g. Borić 1996; 2015.81 E. g. Bentley et al. 2012; Whittle 1996.

82 Borić 2015.83 Crnobrnja 2011.84 Crnobrnja 2011, 141.85 Cf. Borić 2008.86 See Porčić 2012b.87 See Stefanović 2008.88 Cf. Lichter 2003.

173



of a clear pattern of mortuary evidence for eitherearlier or contemporaneous Vinča culture burialsites. Yet, it is clear that this type of burialground draws demarcation lines around gen-dered categorizations of the deceased, and a si-milar phenomenon was at work in many otherbroadly contemporaneous case studies, wherevarious elements of mortuary rites were mobi-lized for a gendered expression of corporealsymbolism (e. g. burial posture, such as ex-tended or crouched/flexed, the side – left orright – upon which the crouched/flexed burialswere placed, or associated burial offerings).89

If one assumes (although the dating and strati-graphic evidence is not yet strong enough to

make an unambiguous claim), that the Gomola-va cemetery is contemporaneous with phase-Ibburnt structures from block VII, as indicated bysome of the absolute dates, such a cemeteryground might have already been removed fromthe area of the living, another feature to linkthese late Vinča culture developments with thepattern of burial grounds throughout the CA.Hence, this cemetery should not perhaps beseen as an intramural necropolis sensu stricto.As tentative as this evidence may be, it wouldsuggest that the Gomolava cemetery could be apotent clue to a conceptual reformulation of atti-tudes of the living community towards the deadalready in the latest phase of the Vinča cultureand, thus, could indicate an element of continu-ity with ensuing changes in the emergence ofmortuary domains characterized by the rise oflarge cemetery grounds in the CA across the

Fig. 15. Male burial 2/1973;

LN phase Ib, Gomolava,

Serbia (adapted after Brukner

1980, Tab. VII).

89 Borić 2015; Lichter 2001; Sofaer Derevenski 1997; Strat-ton/Borić 2012.

174



eastern Carpathian Basin. Finally, one should re-member that such large cemetery grounds arenot the only feature of the burial record of theCA. Lone burials or small groups of a handful ofburials on older Neolithic tells and other pre-viously abandoned settlement grounds are notsuch an infrequent occurrence during this peri-od, as will be discussed further below.

The timing of the LN to CA transition:The case of Vinča-Belo Brdo

At present, the eponymous site of Vinča-BeloBrdo offers the best proxy case for modellingthe timing of the LN – CA transition in the Vinčaculture regional context. This relates to the factthat this long sequence most likely representsthe whole duration of the Vinča culture, includ-ing its latest phases, and that we have datableECA/MCA contexts represented by a small groupof four inhumations (Figs. 16–17), which werepreviously assigned to the Bodrogkeresztúr

phase of the developments in the greater east-ern Carpathian Basin.90 The Bodrogkeresztúrphase was equated with the MCA period on thebasis of a widely accepted pottery typology de-vised in relation to the eponymous sites of Tisza-polgár-Basatanya and Bodrogkeresztúr locatedin the Upper Tisza region.91 Previously, the MCAwas tentatively dated, on the basis of a handfulof mostly charcoal dates, to the first half of the4th millennium BC, i. e. from around 4000 to

3500 calBC.92

Yet, recent direct absolute dating of the as-sumed Bodrogkeresztúr MCA phase burials atthe site of Rákóczifalva-Bagi-föld93 as well as ad-ditionally obtained dates from the site of Tisza-polgár-Basatanya94 and several other Tiszapol-

Fig. 16. Detail of four ECA

burials at Vinča-Belo Brdo

(after Jevtić 1986, Fig. 2).

90 Jevtić 1986.91 Bognár-Kutzián 1963, 1972.92 Ehrich/Bankoff 1992, 390–391; Parkinson 2006, 57–63Table 4.1; Parkinson et al. 2004; Yerkes et al. 2009.93 Csányi et al. 2009, Table VI.94 Raczky/Siklósi 2013.

175



gár/Bodrogkeresztúr cemeteries in the easternCarpathian Basin,95 dating burials that were onthe basis of associated burial offerings assignedto both the assumed Tiszapolgár (early) and theBodrogkeresztúr (middle) phases of the CA de-velopments, suggests that the obtained rangesfor these two phases overlap significantly: all ofthe dates cluster in the second half of the 5thmil-lennium calBC. This new evidence calls for awider reconsideration of ECA to MCA chronologyin the region.96

Among these new dates are also two measure-ments on two out of four individuals buried with-in a small burial group in the – at the time oftheir interment – abandoned LN tell of Vinča-Belo Brdo. It has been suggested that this ceme-tery ground may extend towards the south, i. e.in the direction of the presently unexcavatedarea of the site.97 Almost all burials were accom-panied by ceramic vessels, such as theMilchtopfvessel in Burial 1, spherical bowls with net orna-ments and semi-spherical bowls (Fig. 18). Thedating results are provided in Table 1. Isotopicvalues of these two individuals suggest thattheir diets were likely predominantly terrestrialwith no reservoir effect offset by a consumptionof freshwater fish.98 The calibrated ranges ob-tained for these two dates suggest that eventhough these burials have been described as

dating to the Bodrogkeresztúr MCA phase, theirranges overlap with the assumed duration ofthe Tiszapolgár ECA phase, placing them firmlyin the range between the 44

th to 41st centuries

calBC, i. e. in the later phase of the ECA.

These two new dates are modelled here with theexisting sequence of absolute dates from theNeolithic occupation of Vinča-Belo Brdo99 withinthe Bayesian statistical framework (Fig. 19a–c)in order to determine the start and end dates ofthe LN and CA use of the site. Three chronologi-cal models for Vinča-Belo Brdo are used (Tab. 2).The first model is based on the division of thesite into the Early/Middle Neolithic occupation,the Vinča culture occupation divided into thefour classic phases A to D as defined by the ver-tical stratigraphy of the site. The second modeltakes into account building phases suggestedby Stevanović and Jovanović on the basis of thewestern and eastern sections cut into the verti-cal sequence of the site in 1978–1980.100 Final-ly, the third model relies on seriation analyses ofca. 3400 vessel fragments from Vasić’s excava-

Fig. 17. ECA burial 2 from

Vinča-Belo Brdo (after Tasić/

Ignjatović 2008).

95 Borić et al. forthcoming.96 See also Oross et al. 2010 for Transdanubia.97 Tasić 1995, 165.98 Among another group of human burials found at the bot-tom of the stratigraphic sequence in the so-called “Ossu-ary” or “Pit-dwelling” Z (Vasić 1932; 1936a, 9; 1936c, 150)and likely associated with the Middle Neolithic late Starče-vo occupation horizon at Vinča-Belo Brdo (cf. Korošec1950; Letica 1968; Perić and Nikolić 2007) were five indivi-duals, whose remains were isotopically analyzed. The re-sults showed slightly elevated δ15N between +11.0 to12.2‰, while an AMS-dated sample from this group of bur-ials had the value of +13.6‰ (Borić 2009, 230). It hasbeen suggested that such elevated δ15N values for humansalong the lower Danube River Basin may indicate a reservoireffect requiring the application of a correction factor to ac-count for age-offsets (Bonsall et al. 2015 and referencestherein). However, sulphur isotope values, which can beconsidered much more accurate indicators of fish contribu-tion to diet than δ15N isotopic values and which were mea-sured on the individuals from the Vinča group burial, con-tradict the conclusion that one may draw from the obtainedδ15N values and suggest largely terrestrial diets for these in-dividuals with negligible contributions from freshwater fishin diet (Nehlich et al. 2010). This new evidence suggeststhat there is no need to apply a correction factor for an as-sumed freshwater reservoir effect to OxA-15996 (6620 ±45 BP), obtained on one of these burials, as previously sug-gested (contra Borić 2009, 231–232 and Table 7). This con-clusion, in turn, comfortably reaffirms the assumed MiddleNeolithic, i. e. late Starčevo, date for the “Ossuary”, withthe obtained radiocarbon date, when individually cali-brated, in the range of 5624 to 5486 calBC at 95.4 per centconfidence (see also Fig. 18a–c). Such dating could possi-bly suggest a chronological hiatus between this burial fea-ture with the Middle Neolithic Starčevo occupation leveland the beginnings of the LN Vinča culture settlement atthis location.

99 Appendix; Borić 2009, 229–233.100 Stevanović/Jovanović 1996:

176



tions at Vinča-Belo Brdo, provided by Schier,who suggested eight chronological phases forthe Neolithic stratigraphic sequence of the sitewith subphases within several main phases.101

The three models are comparable in their esti-mates for the defined phases (Tab. 2).

It will suffice here to comment on the first model.Start Neolithic, i. e. beginning of the Early/Mid-dle Neolithic Starčevo occupation, is estimatedas occurring in 6070–5480 calBC (95.4% prob-ability) or 5730–5510 calBC (68.2% probabil-ity). This differs from the previously publishedestimate,102 due to the removal of the appliedcorrection factor for the modelled date OxA-15996 on a Starčevo burial from the group burial

in Pit Z.103 Starčevo to Vinča A boundary is esti-mated as occurring in 5440–5220 calBC (95.4%probability) or 5330–5240 calBC (68.2% prob-ability), suggesting that there might have beena chronological gap between the interment ofburials in Pit Z and the associated Early/MiddleNeolithic occupation at the eponymous siteand the start of the Vinča culture occupation atthis locale, the estimate being 40–260 years(95.4% probability) or 190–270 years (68.2%probability). End Neolithic is estimated as occur-ring in 4710–4300 calBC (95.4% probability) or4680–4490 calBC (68.2% probability). The twodated Copper Age burials are not statisticallyconsistent,104 which means that it might be aperiod of burial that went on for some time. The

Fig. 18. Ceramic vessels

found in ECA burials at Vinča-

Belo Brdo (after Jevtić 1986,

Fig. 3–13).

Lab.-No. Sample and context BP δ13C(‰)

δ15N(‰)

calBC (1σ) calBC (2σ)

OxA-24922 S. no. 19, Burial 1, skull frag-ment, Homo sapiens, female,

ca. 20–30 years

5451 ± 35 –20.3 10.3 4344–4264 4354–4244

OxA-24923 S. no. 20, Burial 2, skull frag-ment, Homo sapiens, female,

ca. 20 years

5335 ± 34 –20.2 10.6 4240–4066 4314–4048

Table 1. AMS-dated CA burials from Vinča-Belo Brdo.

101 Schier 1995; 1996.102 Borić 2009 Tab. 7, 232.

103 See note 98 for explanation.104 Table 1; T’ = 5.7; T’5%= 3.8; n = 1; Ward/Wilson 1978.

177



estimate between the last Neolithic activity andthe earliest Copper Age burial) is 90–420 years(95.4% probability) or 200–370 years (68.2%probability). Most probably there were betweenfour to seven human lifespans (at 50 years) be-tween the end of the Neolithic and the CA burialat the site.

However, these estimates are complicated bythe existence of Hd-17401, which dates a reddeer antler sample from the depth of t 7.3 m(phase Vinča B), and which gave an unexpectedresult for the phase that it was supposed to date(Appendix). The result of 5673 ± 34 BP was ob-tained, which when calibrated individually is da-ted to 4602–4404 calBC (95.4% confidence) or4534–4464 (68.2% confidence). Being an ob-vious outlier in the stratigraphic sequence, thisdate was not included in the sequence of mod-elled dates. However, assuming that there isnothing wrong with the dated sample, i. e. thatit reflects the actual age of the dated red deerantler, the explanation for its position at a muchdeeper level in the stratigraphy of the site couldbe related to the practice of large-scale diggingevidenced at the site in relation to severalditches previously discussed (see above). Thisantler might have been deposited there by dig-ging as much as 6 m through the existing site de-posits. Such practices might have depositedyounger materials at the significant depths, andthis particular material may represent such anactivity. The individually calibrated result is alsoambiguously and uniquely situated between thelast stratified date for the Vinča culture occupa-tion in the stratigraphic sequence and the datedECA burials. In the absence of archaeologicalcorrelates of the early phase of the ECA occupa-tion at the site, it most likely suggests a very lateVinča culture occupation at the site, which at thevery maximum continued into the first half of the45

th century BC.

These data suggest that the LN tell site of Vinča-Belo Brdo was probably abandoned for a consid-erable time before the first traces of ECA use ofthis location for burial interments. This evidencealso confirms the previous suggestion that theLN occupation of Vinča-Belo Brdo probablyshould not be expected to have continued laterthan the 46

th century calBC,105 and, if takingthe intrusive Hd-17401 into account, certainlynot later than the first centuries of the 45

th cen-tury calBC. On the basis of this evidence for achronological gap in the stratigraphic sequencebetween the two periods – the LN and ECA – atthe site along with the evidence of discontinu-ities in the use of pottery styles and a differentialuse of the site (from a large settlement to a smallburial ground), one is forced to acknowledge the

reality of a decisive break between these twoperiods. But, is this case representative of thetiming and nature of the LN to CA transitionacross the whole area of the Vinča culture?

ECA (in)visibility in the northern andcentral Balkans

Figure 20 shows the distribution of most of theknown ECA to MCA sites in the central and north-ern Balkans, i. e. across the territory previouslyoccupied by Vinča culture communities. At anumber of Vinča culture sites, especially in thenorthern areas of the Vinča culture distribution,one finds traces of the Tiszapolgár or Bodrogker-esztúr CA cultures following the Vinča culture oc-cupation, such as at the site of Gomolava. Therephase II (the existence of which in the site’s se-quence could not always be recognized, if at all,as an actual physical layer106) is also known as

Fig. 19. Probability distributions of radiocarbon dates from Vinča-Belo Brdo. Strati-

graphic models based on (a) classic phases A, B, C and D; (b) building horizons; and (c)

pottery seriation.

105 Borić 2009, 232. 106 Bottema/Ottaway 1982.

178



the “Eneolithic humus” and is characterized bymixed pottery of different ECA to MCA periods,including Tiszapolgár, Boleráz, Lengyel, Baden,etc.107 Yet, clearly stratified contexts overlap-ping the latest Neolithic occupation are oftenmissing; hence, the importance of CA burials atVinča-Belo Brdo for employing the formal model-ling of radiocarbon dates from stratigraphicallysecure contexts. Post-Vinča occupation of Uivaris attributed to (Proto-)Tiszapolgár culture andcharacterized by storage and refuse pits andonly one tentative building structure, all of whichwere found immediately under the ploughzone.108 There are also four Tiszapolgár burialsfrom this site, two of which have been directlyAMS-dated to ca. 4400 to 4200 calBC,109 which

is in agreement with the dated ECA burials fromVinča-Belo Brdo.

A potentially important site for understandingthe LN to CA transition in the northern areas ofthe Vinča culture spread is the tell-like (ca. 3-mthick deposits) settlement of Crna Bara near NoviKneževac in the region of Vojvodina (northernSerbia).110 Crna Bara is one of the rare sites withconsiderable settlement deposits of ECA/MCAprovenance found on top of earlier LN depositswith Tisza and Vinča pottery (layer 5a–b) andwith a reported superposition of Tiszapolgár(layers 1–2) and Bodrogkeresztúr (layers 3–4)levels. Building remains were reported in layers1 and 3with structures indicating NE-SW orienta-tion. It has been argued that the latest LN levelsat the site are related to Vinča C1, based on pot-tery typology traits, and that this may suggest adiscontinuity in occupation between the LN andCA levels; however, there is no independentproof of this assumed discontinuity. This is prob-ably one of the most potent sites for future inves-tigations on this transitional period in the re-gion.

In the northern region of Vojvodina, where mixedtraits of Vinča and Tisza settlements were pres-ent in the course of the LN, extramural burialgrounds such as those found at the sites of Bi-serna Obala-Nosa and Podlokanj became themost visible feature of the archaeological recordwith the start of the CA. At Podlokanj, a Tiszapol-gár/Bodrogkeresztúr cemetery with more than50 single inhumations was investigated.111 Re-cently three of these burials have been directlyAMS-dated, suggesting the use of the cemeterybetween the 44

th to 41stcenturies calBC,112

which is broadly contemporaneous with abso-lutely dated ECA burials at Vinča-Belo Brdo.There are other known cemetery sites datingto this period in the region of Vojvodina: Nosawith eight Tiszapolgár/Bodrogkeresztúr burials,some of which contained long flint knives madefrom good quality yellow, white-spotted flintfrom northern Bulgaria and gold pins in bur-ial 2,113 Srpski Krstur with 40 burials, and Batkanear Senta with seven reported Tiszapolgár/Bod-rogkeresztúr burials, but also (rubbish?) pits dat-ing to the same period.114 At the site of Rospi Ću-prija in Belgrade two ECA burials were found,115

which, along with the previously discussed bur-ials from Vinča-Belo Brdo, represent the south-ernmost examples of the Tiszapolgár/Bodrogker-esztúr style pottery in burials.

Fig. 19. (continued).

107 Brukner 1988.108 Schier 2008, 61.109 Schier 2013.

110 Link 2006, 124–125 and references therein.111 Grčki-Stanimirov/Stanimirov-Grčki 1996.112 Borić et al. forthcoming.113 Šulman 1952; 1954.114 Korek 1958.115 Todorović 1956.

179



There are also reports of possible (Proto-?) Tisza-polgár/Bodrogkeresztúr building structures in theregion of Vojvodina at the sites of Gospođinciand Sirig, where on the basis of surface findsthe footings of 15 houses were inferred. Yet, itremains uncertain whether these structuresshould indeed be attributed to the ECA or LN Len-gyel phase/culture tradition.116 Another settle-ment was found at Beljarica near Zemun, whilea golden amulet is known from Progar near Sur-čin, which possibly could also be connected tothis period. The influence of a different culturezone embodied in a distinct style of pottery isknown from the site of Gradina-Bosut, where LNlevel I related to late Sopot/Lengyel culture pot-tery is followed by level IIa, where ECA potteryknown as early Lasinja (Balaton-Lasinja I) wasfound,117 thus connecting the pottery traditionsat this particular site with areas to the west inthe northwestern Balkans and western parts ofthe Carpathian Basin and Transdanubia. Thereare some links here with newly excavated Lasin-ja sites in the region of Slavonia, northern Croa-tia, such as the sites of Bentež near Beketinci,where several above-ground, rectangular-shapedpost-framed buildings were excavated,118 andPalača near Tomašanci, where a similar buildingstructure was found.119

In the ECA in the central Balkans there are anumber of newly founded sites. Some of theselocations might have been fortified sites or lo-cated on hilltops in locations that offered impor-tant defensive advantages. For instance, a forti-fied Tiszapolgár settlement was found nearŠančine near Belegiš, upstream from Zemun.120

In western Serbia, a hilltop settlement was dis-covered at the site of Bodnjik near Koceljeva.121

The site is located at an altitude of 240 m aslwith immediate access to the Ub River. A single-layer flat settlement with a shallow stratigraphy(ca. 75–80 cm) and the remains of two burntstructures (oriented NW–SE and with the approx-imate dimensions 5 × 5 m each) with an asso-ciated domed oven were excavated (Fig. 21).Pottery forms and decoration (fine black-pol-ished ware, footed beakers and small pots withband handles that start at the rim, tongue han-dles on the rim, shallow vertical and obliquechannelling) indicate stylistic affinities with theBubanj-Sălcuţa-Krivodol ECA pottery complex,but also suggest some continuities with the pre-ceding LN Vinča pottery styles (Fig. 22). It is not-able that a sandstone adze-shaped cast wasfound there, suggesting on-site metallurgical ac-

tivities and attesting a more abundant use of me-tal tools during this period. A perforated ceramicfigurine in the form of a canine (wolf?) head wasalso discovered, but the style of figurines thatpreviously characterized Vinča culture settle-ments are absent. The analysis of chipped stonetools also reveals a pattern in this assemblagethat is reminiscent of post-Neolithic industriesin the greater region of southeastern Europe.122

There is an increase in the percentage of flakesversus blades, which is opposite to the LN pat-tern, as well as a reliance on local raw materials,while the complete exhaustion of good qualitymaterials indicates their scarcity. Also, obsidianas a raw material is completely absent, which isin contrast to its frequent occurrence in the LNVinča culture settlement record,123 indicatinglong-distance networks of exchange across the

Fig. 19. (continued).

116 Tasić 1995, 22.117 Tasić 1995.118 Minihreiter/Marković 2009.119 Balen 2008.120 Tasić 1984, 69 Fig. 43; Tasić 1995, 115.121 Palavestra et al. 1993; Palavestra 1996.

122 Radovanović 1996.123 E. g. Tripković/Milić 2009.

180



Depth fromthe surface

Phases A to D after Holste 1939 Vinča building horizons afterStevanović and Jovanović 1996

Starčevo and Vinča phases afterSchier 1996

ECA burials Start Copper Age

5500–4240 (95.4% probability)

5040–4250 (68.2% probability)

Start Copper Age

5050–4240 (95.4% probability)

5040–4250 (68.2% probability)

Start Copper Age

5050–4240 (95.4% probability)

4560–4250 (68.2% probability)

from t2.5 up

Boundary End Neolithic

4710–4300 (95.4% probability)

4680–4490 (68.2% probability)

Phase D

Boundary phases C to D

5030–4680 (95.4% probability)

4880–4700 (68.2% probability)


4690–4290 (95.4% probability)

4620–4450 (68.2% probability)

Building horizons V to VIIBoundary horizons IV to V–VII

4730–4510 (95.4% probability)

4690–4560 (68.2% probability)


4700–4380 (95.4% probability)

4680–4520 (68.2% probability)

Phase 8

Boundary phases 6 to 8

4990–4680 (95.4% probability)

4860–4710 (68.2% probability)t 3.0 Building horizon IV

Boundary horizons III to IV

4790–4590 (95.4% probability)

4760–4660 (68.2% probability)

t 3.5

t 4.0

t 4.5 Building horizon IIIBoundary phases II to III

5000–4700 (95.4% probability)

4900–4730 (68.2% probability)

t 5.0

Phase C

Boundary phases B to C

5210–4970 (95.4% probability)

5180–5000 (68.2% probability)

t 5.5 Building horizon II

Boundary horizons I–3 to II

5050–4950 (95.4% probability)

5080–4860 (68.2% probability)

Phase 7

No datest 6.0

t 6.5 Phase 6

Boundary phases 5b-c to 6

5080–4860 (95.4% probability)

5050–4950 (68.2% probability)

t 7.0Phase B

Boundary phases A to B

5260–5080 (95.4% probability)

5230–5150 (68.2% probability)

Building horizon I–3Boundary horizons I–2 to I–3

5220–5080 (95.4% probability)

5210–5120 (68.2% probability)

Phase 5b–cBoundary phases 5a to 5b-c

5220–5080 (95.4% probability)

5200–5120 (68.2% probability)

t 7.5

t 8.0 Building horizon I–2Boundary horizons I–1 to I–2

5290–5150 (95.4% probability)

5250–5190 (68.2% probability)

Phase 5aBoundary phases 4 to 5a

5260–5130 (95.4% probability)

5230–5180 (68.2% probability)

t 8.5

Phase A

Boundary Starčevo to Vinča A

5440–5220 (95.4% probability)

5330–5240 (68.2% probability)

Building horizon I–1Boundary Starčevo to horizon I–1

5440–5210 (95.4% probability)

5330–5240 (68.2% probability)

Phase 4


5290–5210 (95.4% probability)

5270–5220 (68.2% probability)

t 9.0 Phase 3


5310–5220 (95.4% probability)

5290–5240 (68.2% probability)

t 9.3 Phase 2


5570–5250 (95.4% probability)

5520–5270 (68.2% probability)

Starčevo (Pit Z) Boundary Start Neolithic

6070–5480 (95.4% probability)

5730–5510 (68.2% probability)

Boundary Start Neolithic

5920–5480 (95.4% probability)

5680–5510 (68.2% probability)

Phase 1

Boundary Start Neolithic

5870–5480 (95.4% probability)

5670–5510 (68.2% probability)

Table 2. Comparison between Bayesian estimates for the end and start boundaries of phases according to three chrono-stratigraphic models for the

dated sequence of Vinča-Belo Brdo.

181



wider region. A recently obtained and currentlyunpublished AMS date from this site falls in themid-45th century calBC124 and would representthe earliest secure dating evidence for the post-Vinča culture type of settlement in the greater re-gion. The evidence from Bodnjik suggests bothcontinuities (some aspects of pottery decorationsuch as shallow channelling, practice of houseburning, etc.) as well as discontinuities (a newlyfounded settlement with a shallow stratigraphy,different orientation of buildings as comparedto the pattern of NE–SW orientation observed inmost of the Vinča culture communities, a distinc-tively new stylistic repertoire of pottery forms, anew style of figurines, the absence of obsidian,etc.) in relation to the Vinča culture phase.

In the same region in western Serbia, similar ma-terial was also reported at the site of VelimiroviDvori near Mionica125 and the site of Kulina-Roge near Ivanjica, the latter with a similar loca-

tion as in Bodnjik and with a very comparablerange of ceramic forms.126 On the other hand,Bodrogkeresztúr pottery has been found to thesouth at Kremenilo-Višesava near Bajina Baštain southwestern Serbia,127 possibly imported/exchanged from/with the communities inhabit-ing the Carpathian Basin.128 More recently, atthe site of Kalenić-Livade in this regional contextanother ECA burnt square-shaped building wasexcavated, yielding a rich inventory of ceramicfinds, some with Vinča-ceramic-style continu-ities as well as pots typical of Tiszapolgár andBubanj Ia provenance.129

Farther to the west in central Bosnia, in theVisoko Basin, the most recent research con-ducted within the scope of an international pro-ject at the site of Okolište and its micro-regionprovides an important new high resolution and

Fig. 20. Distribution map of

ECA sites in the northern and

central Balkans during the

second half of the 5th millen-

nium BC.

124 D. Orton and M. Porčić, pers. comm., June 2013.125 Bulatović 1998, 76.

126 Zotović 1985.127 Zotović 1963, 18–20; Zotović 1985, 119.128 Tasić 1995.129 Blagojević 2005; Jovanović 2005.

182



securely dated context for understanding thetransition from the LN to the ECA. At Okolište, aLN settlement (in the Butmir culture context)with burnt structures arranged in parallel rows,with uniform NE–SW orientation and surroundedby several parallel ditches, is dated to the periodbetween ca. 5200 and 4700 calBC (based on 24

radiocarbon dates). Thereafter, probably some-time in the 46

th century calBC, this tell settle-ment was abandoned.130 Similar to other re-gions in the central Balkans and the easternCarpathian Basin, in this micro-region one sees

Fig. 21. ECA burnt building

horizon found at the single-

layer site of Bodnjik sector I,

block 1, trenches I, II, II and

IV (courtesy I. Bogdanović

and after Palavestra et al.

1994, Fig. 2).

130 Hofmann 2012; Müller et al. 2013.

183



the change from the previous settlement patternof larger LN sites with long stratigraphic se-quences to a pattern of dispersed sites in higherlocations with newly founded single-layer settle-ments and generally lower density of sites. Oneof the newly founded sites following the aban-donment of Okolište is the site of Donje Moštre.It has been suggested that the site was foundedaround 4650 calBC and possibly occupied to

around 4400/4300 calBC.131 The almost identi-cal timing of these very similar transitional de-velopments between central Bosnia and the re-gions occupied by Vinča culture groups to theeast is indicative of a broadly simultaneoustrend in changes across the Balkans at this time.

Fig. 22. Examples of ECA

ceramic forms and decoration

found at Bodnjik (after Pala-

vestra et al. 1993, Fig. 3).

131 Hofmann 2012, 192.

184



In the central parts of Serbia, the assumed corearea of the Vinča culture along the Morava RiverBasin, a similar shift in the settlement patternwith abandoned LN Vinča culture sites can beobserved in the mid-5th millennium BC, wherebyonly a few known ECA sites are found as single-layer flat settlements in newly settled locations.Such is the case of the site of Blagotin nearTrstenik, where at present undated remains ofan ECA burnt building structure (ca. 5.5 × 3.7 mwith E–W orientation) were discovered interred(ca. 15 cm) in the existing cultural level of muchearlier abandoned Early Neolithic (Starčevo) de-posits at this site.132 The building was a two-cellfeature with an accompanying domed oven inone of the rooms. The pottery associated withthe ECA phase of occupation at Blagotin andfound within the burnt structure (e. g. a biconicalkantharos with dotted punctures, ornamentationin the form of oblique shallow fluting with ‘par-quet’ pattern: Fig. 23) can be connected withthe archaeological taxon of the BSK-complex,which characterized large parts of the centraland eastern Balkans at that time, or, more speci-fically, to Bubanj-Hum-Ia phase according to M.Garašanin’s periodization.133 N. Tasić has ar-gued that Vinča and Bubanj sites “must havebeen partly contemporaneous”,134 a conclusionthat has been widespread due to the assumptionabout a longer survival of Vinča culture settle-ments in southern areas of its distribution. How-

ever, this does not seem to be supported by thecurrent dating and settlement evidence pre-viously outlined above. Yet, it can be stated thatthe repertoire of pottery forms at Blagotin indi-cate many continuities between the late Vinčaand Bubanj pottery styles, similar to the assem-blage from the site of Bodnjik in western Serbia,suggesting certain cultural/stylistic continuitieswith the previous period.

In central Serbia, a pit feature with abundantpottery material attributable to the BSK complexwas also discovered at the site of Panjevački Ritnear Jagodina.135 Although this feature was in-terpreted as a dwelling, no clear evidence hasbeen presented to support this claim. A smallcopper chisel was found within the pit feature.The pottery forms include lightly biconical bowls,plates with turned-in rims and two-handled cupsthat start at the rim, while the ornamental motifused is vertical parallel channelling below therims and on the handles. Traces of ECA Bubanjstyle pottery were also discovered at the local-ities of Padalište-Obori in Belica near Jagodi-na136 and in Makrešani near Kruševac.137

In eastern Serbia, in the area of the DanubeGorges, a lone ECA burial was found at the siteof Lepenski Vir (Fig. 24). It is now one of the rareburials from this period in the region that havebeen directly AMS-dated. The burial pit was cut

Fig. 23. Examples of ECA

ceramic forms and decoration

found at Blagotin (after Stan-

ković/Redžić 1996,

Plates I–II).

132 Stanković/Redžić 1996.133 Garašanin 1973.134 Tasić 1995, 28.

135 Bulatović 1997.136 Bulatović 1997, 76.137 Tasić 1995, 28.

185



through the Early/Middle Neolithic levels of Le-penski Vir; the skeleton (Burial 2) was found ata depth of 80 cm from the surface. The de-ceased, possibly a female (20–30 years old) layon the left side with flexed legs and was accom-panied by four whole pots that are characteristicof the early Sălcuţa period (Fig. 25).138 One potin particular could be singled out: a thick-rimmed bowl-dish with a broad band of gra-phite-burnished decoration. On the basis of thistype of pottery the burial was attributed to Săl-cuţa II phase, according to D. Berciu’s periodiza-tion of the Sălcuţa culture.139 The site of Sălcuţahad previously been dated to around 4400–

4100 calBC.140 OxA-25093 (5337 ± 32 BP) datesBurial 2 in Lepenski Vir to 4240–4070 calBC(68.2% confidence) or 4313–4050 calBC (95.4%confidence).141 Downstream from Lepenski Vir,within the same region on the Danube River, apossibly somewhat later and larger extramuralcemetery was found at Ostrovul Corbului.142 Thecemetery has been dated later, to the Sălcuţa IVphase. There are three charcoal samples datingthe Sălcuţa phase at the site.143 Two out of thesethree dates are consistent and quite early, fallingin the brackets of the early phase of the ECA, inthe period after 4500 calBC: 5627 ± 77 BP (SMU-585) calibrated to 4678–4338 calBC (95.4%confidence) or 4527–4367 calBC (68.2% confi-dence) and 5591 ± 82 BP (nec 1) calibrated to4652–4265 calBC (95.4% confidence) or 4495–4350 calBC (68.2% confidence). The third dateis later and would be consistent with the ex-pected later Sălcuţa phase, when compared tothe date obtained for the earlier Sălcuţa burialin Lepenski Vir: 5260 ± 60 BP (nec 2) calibratedto 4241–3966 calBC (95.4% confidence) or4226–3989 calBC (68.2% confidence). At Ostro-vul Corbului, most of the burials were found inflexed position on the left side, but there werealso burials placed on the right side. There werealso several cases of double burials with adultsand children, or with two children buried to-gether. Most of the burials lay in eastern orienta-tion. A number of the deceased were accompa-nied by vessels; on the average there weremore vessels in adult burials. Several so-calledMilchtöpfe (milk vessels) revealed in burials atOstrovul Corbului could indicate imports andcontacts with the Carpathian Basin and the con-temporaneous Bodrogkeresztúr complex (see

below), while the shape of most of the vesselsindicate that they might have held liquids. Flintand obsidian blades were found in three burials.Shell and copper beads were found as well asgold and copper pendants primarily around theneck or on the chest of several individuals.

The so-called Kladovo hoard found in the same re-gion contained 22 long flint blades (knives) and acruciform copper axe; tentatively it can be con-nected with the ECA/MCA period.144 Particularlyimportant is the analogy between the flint bladesfound here and similar finds found as offerings inthe Decea Mureului burial group in Transylvania.There, burials were placed on the back with lightlyflexed legs turned either to the left or to the right

Fig. 24. ECA burial 2, Lepenski Vir dated by OxA-25093: 5337 ± 32 BP (4313–4050 calBC)

(after original plans and Letica 1970).

Fig. 25. Ceramic vessels found in ECA Burial 2, Lepenski Vir (photo: National Museum in

Belgrade).

138 Letica 1970.139 Letica 1970.140 Ehrich/Bankoff 1992, 355.141 Bonsall et al. (2015, Table 1) applied a correction factorfor the freshwater reservoir effect due to the 15N of 10.6‰and thus obtained the value of 5193 ± 37 BP, which whencalibrated gives the range 4225–3945 calBC (95.4% confi-dence). However, it is very likely that there is no need forthe correction of this date and that this material has notbeen affected by the reservoir effect.142 Roman 1996.143 László 1997, 264. 144 Garašanin 1954.

186



side; the orientation is mainly with the head to-wards the southwest. One of these burials con-taining a granite macehead (Burial 12, femurbone: KIA-368: 5380 ± 40 BP) has now been di-rectly AMS-dated to 4328–4173 calBC (68.2%confidence) or 4335–4058 calBC (95.4% confi-dence).145 These ranges largely overlap with sev-eral previously mentioned burial grounds both inthe Tiszapolgár/Bodrogkeresztúr and the Sălcuţaculture zones, all dated to the last centuries ofthe 5

th millennium BC.

Farther inland from the Danube, across the terri-tory of eastern Serbia, there are a number of set-tlements that can confidently be dated to theECA period, found in a dominant position on ele-vated ground by a river. Such is the single-layersite of Beligovo at Banjska stena near Zaječar,where stone foundations of a building structure(ca. 6 × 4.6 m) were found along with a pit fea-ture, which likely contained the remains of astructured deposition with miniature vesselsand a zoomorphic figurine, among other finds.146

Pottery, which was well fired, consists of conicalbowls with thickened rims, biconical bowls(sometimes with two symmetrical handles belowthe rim – kantharoi), larger globular pots and gob-lets, while the surfaces of vessels were eitherburnished or roughened with barbotine applica-tions, or sometimes treated with oblique shallowchannelling. On the whole, this pottery can be as-sociated with the BSK complex, with a suggestionthat it should be dated to the phase of Sălcuţa III.In eastern Serbia, similar single-layer settlementremains belonging to this phase were also foundat the sites of Kovilovo near Zaječar, Krivelj nearBor,147 Škodrino polje near Knjaževac,148 Kmpijein Bor149 and several other sites.150

There is also evidence for the settling of severalcave sites in eastern Serbia in the course of theECA. At the bottom of the stratigraphic sequencein Zlotska Cave, which might have been a metal-lurgical centre, more than 50 copper artefacts(pins, awls, axes, daggers, etc.) were found inthe layer dated to the BSK phase.151 Anotherknown cave site in this region with pottery datedto the same phase is Bogovinska Cave.152

In the southern areas of the Vinča culture distri-bution, best known are the eponymous sites ofBubanj and Humska Čuka near Niš in southernSerbia.153 Similar to other sites of this period,

the site of Bubanj was founded upon elevatedground, while the earliest CA layer covers mucholder remains of the Early/Middle Neolithic(Starčevo) occupation. On the basis of the pot-tery typology and stratigraphy of Bubanj, Garaša-nin defined phase Bubanj Ia–b as the earliestphase of the CA,154 directly related to a widerBSK complex. Garašanin reports three square-shaped houses (6.4 × 5.5 m) with accompanyinghearths at the site.155 The most frequent type ofpottery is the two-handled cup as well as plateswith a thickened rim. Decorative techniques of-ten used are vertical or oblique fluting, pinching,pricking and graphite burnishing. South of Bu-banj this repertoire of pottery shapes was alsofound at the hilltop site of Antin Čukar nearVranje in the South Morava River Basin156 aswell as at the sites of Gadimlje and Hisar in Koso-vo157 or Šuplevec in Pelagonia.158

Recent excavations at Bubanj brought to light,among other things, an assemblage of animalbones related to the ECA levels, allowing the ex-amination of possible changes in animal hus-bandry patterns of LN Vinča culture sites.159

J. Bulatović, who studied mortuary profiles ofstaple livestock species found in the ECA Bubanjfaunal assemblage and compared these with thefaunal assemblage from the Vinča culture site ofVitkovo, notices that while pig remains fromboth sites show a similar mortuary profile, sug-gesting their slaughter after the first or secondyear primarily for meat, there are significant dif-ferences in the use of cattle, sheep and goat be-tween the two sites: At LN Vitkovo in the mortu-ary profile of these species subadult individualspredominate, suggesting their use primarily formeat, while at Bubanj there are both subadultand individuals older than 3.5 years, indicatingthat the latter were intentionally kept for second-ary products,160 such as milk and wool, in thecase of sheep, whereby cattle might have alsobeen used for traction.161

One can draw several conclusions from this shortoverview of the available evidence for the ECA oc-cupation of the northern and central Balkans.Firstly, the current dating evidence is still insuffi-cient to give us a clear timeline, and there areonly a handful of dated sites, often with very fewabsolute dates, while only recently have we ob-tained several AMS dates made directly on hu-man burials or other short-lived materials. How-ever, the emerging dating evidence challenges

145 Govedarica 2004, 72 and references therein.146 Nikolić/Đuričić 1997.147 Tasić 1979, 1995.148 Lazić/Sladić 1997, 229–230.149 I. Jovanović 2008.150 Kapuran/Milošević 2013.151 Tasić 1969; 1982; 1995.152 Tasić 1995.153 Garašanin 1973; Garašanin/Đurić 1983.

154 Garašanin 1997; 1998.155 Garašanin 1973, 170 Fig. 3.156 Bulatović 1998.157 Tasić 1995.158 Garašanin/Simoska 1976.159 Milanović 2011; Trajković-Filipović 2008.160 Cf. Greenfield 2010 and references therein.161 Bulatović 2012.

187



previous pottery typologies and condenses theduration of the ECA for many (especially ceme-tery) sites, confining them to the last centuriesof the 5

th millennium BC. Only a few absolutelydated ECA settlement sites tentatively suggestthat the timing of the decisive cultural break thatmarks the transition from the LN to the CA musthave been under way by the mid 45

th centurycalBC, when newly founded settlements pertain-ing to changed cultural patterns are already evi-denced (e. g. Bodnjik). Secondly, while somepractices of habitation and dwelling suggest con-tinuities with the preceding period (e. g. certainceramic shapes and decorative motifs, construc-tion of post-framed buildings and their burning),most of the cultural traits indicate profound dis-continuities, starting with the re-location of set-tlements through to the breakdown of previouslong-distance exchange networks for the circula-tion of nonlocal materials, along with the possi-ble establishment of new networks and new sty-listic/cultural boundaries within a very similarpattern of habitation across such cultural bound-aries in the greater region. It is to these wider re-gional patterns that my discussion now turns.

Wider regional processesin the mid-5th millennium BC

of southeastern Europe

In the eastern Carpathian Basin and central Bal-kans, evidence suggests a wider (perhaps simul-taneous) process of disintegration of tell-basedor tell-centred settlement systems.162 Availabledates for the end of the tell-based settlement or-ganization in the eastern Carpathian Basin con-nected with Tisza culture settlements in Hungaryseem to indicate a similar date for the end ofthe Tisza culture occupation at sites such asHódmezővásárhely-Gorzsa, Berettyóújfalu-Her-pály, Öcsöd-Kováshalom and Polgár-Csőszha-lom.163 Later, currently undated traces of ECA oc-cupation of Tiszapolgár culture provenance havebeen ascertained at a number of these settle-ments.164 There are only occasional ECA/MCAburials interred in the deposits of previouslyabandoned LN tells.165 Previously, I mentionedthe emerging pattern of extramural cemeteriesalong with the dispersed settlement patterncharacterizing the earlier and later phases ofthe ECA in the eastern Carpathian Basin.166 Thebest dating evidence that now largely fills thegap between the LN tell abandonment and theemerging CA settlement pattern in this region

comes from recent excavations at the flat sitesof Vésztő-Bikeri (22 dates) and Körösladány-Bi-keri (10 dates), both assigned to the Tiszapolgárculture complex. The main occupation phase atVésztő-Bikeri is dated to the period from around4450 to 4250 calBC, while the final occupationphase at both Vésztő-Bikeri and at Körösladány-Bikeri is dated to the period from around 4350 to4050 calBC, which is also contemporaneouswith ECA activities at the nearby LN tell of Vész-tő-Mágor.167 Yerkes et al. suggest that in theKörös region of eastern Hungary “several LateNeolithic and Early Copper Age cultural com-plexes were contemporary and/or overlapping”,while “the dispersal began before the tells wereentirely abandoned at the end of the LN period(~4550 calBC)”.168 These researchers see thetransition as a gradual process that took placeover several hundred years, and they emphasizecontinuities with the preceding period.169 Oneshould note, however, that the dating evidencein this case still remains relatively coarse-grained, in particular regarding the dating of thelatest LN levels, largely based on conventional14C dates. This inadequacy may foster the em-phasis given to continuities in the evidence andgradualist arguments about overlapping chrono-logical developments that may remain open tointerpretation. Tighter regional chronologiesmay significantly alter the notion of overlappingLN-ECA time spans instead introducing the no-tion of discontinuous occupational phases thatmight have involved episodes of abandonmentand resettling.

Cultural zones in Transdanubia, i. e. westernparts of the Carpathian Basin, are defined differ-ently from the eastern parts of the Basin boththroughout the Late Neolithic and in the courseof the CA.170 Here, the transition might haveseen a less sharp break from the LN Lengyel(phases I and II) occupation. The nomenclatureof the regional phasing emphasizes this continu-ity by referring to the earliest CA phase as Len-gyel III.171 J. Regenye suggests that the need forspecialized flint mining, which might have mobi-lized a larger community in the region north ofLake Balaton might have contributed to this pat-tern of less dramatic changes.172 Different fromthe eastern parts of the Carpathian Basin, heremetal objects remained a rare occurrence.173

The existing absolute dates from the Lengyel IIIsite of Zalaszentbalázs-Szőlőhegyi mező sug-gest that it was probably occupied between4600 and 4300 calBC, i. e. in the LN–ECA transi-

162 Cf. Link 2006; Parkinson 2002; Parkinson 2006.163 Hertelendi et al. 1998; Raczky et al. 2002; Yerkes et al.2009.164 E. g. Horváth 1987.165 E. g. at Vésztő-Mágor: Hegedűs/Makkay 1990.166 See Parkinson 2002; Parkinson et al. 2004; Parkinson2010 for comprehensive and up-to-date overviews.

167 Parkinson et al. 2004, Table 2; Yerkes et al. 2009.168 Yerkes et al. 2009, 1087.169 Parkinson et al. 2010.170 Bánffy 2013.171 Regenye 2013 and references therein.172 Regenye 2013, 564.173 Regenye 2013, 560.

188



tion period, while the Lengyel III site of Szom-bathely-Metro has somewhat later dates.174 Atthe site of Balatonszárszó-Kis-erdei-dűlő, lo-cated on the southern shore of Lake Balaton,the settlement sequence can be dated to boththe LN Lengyel and the MCA Balaton-Lasinja cul-ture complex. Recently, an AMS date from the CAoccupation phase indicates that this particularphase should tentatively be dated to the periodfrom around 4300 to around 4150 calBC, whichindicates an earlier time span for this culturecomplex than previously thought.175

In the eastern Balkans, the mid-5th millenniumBC change coincides with the appearance ofsome deeply stratified tell sites, different fromthe pattern seen in the western regions of south-eastern Europe. There are also a number of largecemetery grounds in this region, a phenomenonshared with the areas to the west. Some of thelargest tells were founded around 4700 or laterin the eastern Balkans. One such site with an in-creasingly high resolution of new settlementdata is Pietrele in southern Romania, where theECA sequence is associated with the Kodžader-men-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI culture complex.176

A series of radiocarbon dates from this tell haveallowed a more secure estimate for the durationof this ECA sequence, which ends by ca. 4250/4200 calBC.177

Also, a recent AMS dating programme has nowabsolutely dated the cemetery at Varna in east-ern Bulgaria with some certainty, suggesting arelatively short use of this burial ground fromaround 4560 to 4450 calBC. These results arebased on 18 AMS dates from different areas ofthe cemetery out of the total of almost 300 exca-vated burials. The dates are several hundredyears earlier than was expected on the basis oftypological studies of the material culture.178

This evidence suggests a society characterizedby a possibly complex social structure closelyfollowing the period of disintegration of theVinča culture in the central and northern Balkansand the eastern Carpathian Basin.

Regarding the areas of the western Balkansalong the eastern Adriatic coast, the transitionfrom the LN to the CA is the least understood per-iod of prehistory. Continuities have been claimedbetween LN and ECA ceramic production, whichis in the latter period characterized by the Nako-vana culture group. Several new dates for classicHvar style pottery from Grapčeva Cave on the is-land of Hvar cluster around 4800 to 4600 calBC,while levels with late Hvar style pottery at Nako-

vana Cave fall in the second half of the 5thmillen-nium BC.179 This may suggest that also in this re-gion there is a discontinuity in cultural traditionsaround the mid-5th millennium BC.

Finally, in northern Greece the CA phase, or GreekFinal Neolithic, at the tell site of Dikili Tash canbe dated to the period between 4800 and 4450/4250 calBC.180 At another key sequence in Sita-groi, there seems to be a continuity between LateNeolithic phase II to Final Neolithic phase III, andabsolute dates indicate a continuity in habitationthroughout the mid-5thmillennium BC.181 So, dif-fering from several other regions in southeasternEurope, patterns of continuity might have beenmore pronounced in this regional context.

These emerging data invite a reconsideration ofregional chronologies for the end of the LN andthe earliest phases of the CA in southeasternEurope. This is primarily possible thanks to theincreasing number of well excavated sites, re-cent problem-oriented research projects andmore absolute dates on short-lived materials.Profound changes were affecting different partsof southeastern Europe in the mid-5th millen-nium BC, or somewhat earlier, which were differ-ently expressed across the wider region. While inthe eastern Carpathian Basin and the northernand central Balkans previously dominant modesof tell-based existence and nucleated settlementpattern tethered around tells or supersites wereabandoned and replaced by a dispersed settle-ment pattern and on the whole smaller single-layer sites, increased residential mobility andthe relocation of settlements, sometimes to hill-top locations, the tell-based existence became anorm in the eastern Balkans. Large cemeteriesalso became the norm in the eastern Balkans,the eastern Carpathian Basin, and Transdanu-bia, but, on the face of the current evidence, notin the central Balkans. The occupation of tellsites might have continued uninterruptedly inGreece. While some continuities in pottery pro-duction can be observed between the two peri-ods, there are distinctly new styles both in pot-tery shapes and decoration and a general trendtowards stylistic standardization. Older Neolithicnetworks for the exchange of exotica and rawmaterials might have been broken in parts ofthe region and new long-distance connectionsforged. Metals, both copper and the newlyemerged gold, became desirable and relativelyabundant, found in burials, settlements andsometimes hoards in the form of ornaments andtools. Yet, different regions and sites had differ-ent access to metals.

174 Hertelendi 1995, 105; Oross et al. 2010, 397.175 Oross et al. 2010, 392 Tab. 3.176 Hansen et al. 2008; Hansen/Todera 2012.177 Reingruber/Thissen 2009.178 Higham et al. 2007.

179 Forenbaher et al. 2013, 602.180 Darcque/Tsirtsoni 2010; Valamoti et al. 2007.181 Elster/Renfrew 2003.

189



I think that most researchers would find it uncon-troversial to call these developments profound ifnot dramatic changes in the social fabric of LNpopulations, despite the fact that the changedid not happen overnight. Hence, we must inevi-tably return to the question as to why such re-structuring of the whole region took place at thisparticular time, and in the final section of thispaper I shall briefly turn to some alternatives topreviously discussed models.

Discussion: Alternative perspectiveson the LN-CA culture change

“Populations are expanding and contracting,innovations are spreading through them, lo-cal artefactual lineages are changing, andour archaeological record is sampling all ofthese processes in a very irregular way, with,more often than not, a decidedly coarse-grained chronology.”182

Here, I shall discuss two alternative ways ofthinking about the LN to CA culture change inthe central Balkans. This discussion may alsoapply to other regions in southeastern Europe atthis time, in particular the eastern CarpathianBasin with a set of similar archaeological corre-lates. The two perspectives on the question ofchange are very different, as they start from dif-ferent theoretical positions but may be seen ascomplementary with each other and previouslyoffered explanatory and interpretive solutions.

Population histories in bottlenecks,learning processes and cultural transmission

In the theoretical context of Neo-Darwinian evo-lutionary approaches, St. Shennan suggestedthat histories of biological populations in theprehistoric past might have been significantly af-fected by various external factors (e. g. climatechange, famine, war raiding, infectious dis-eases).183 In those cases, when under some ofthese factors population numbers in a given re-gion drop below a previously established equili-brium of the population carrying capacities, wemay expect significant discontinuities in culturaland social practices. Such cultural discontinu-ities caused by population bottlenecks, accord-ing to Shennan, can often be associated withthe archaeologically observable phenomenon ofculture change as reflected in settlement se-quences and material culture styles. Using thejargon of Neo-Darwinian archaeology, Shennanstresses the concept of “descent with modifica-tion”, in which a homology/analogy is drawn be-tween mechanisms of genetic transmission and

“mechanisms of cultural heredity”. This ap-proach advocates the reconstruction of culturalphylogenies, i. e. the branching/evolution of par-ticular cultural traits in order to determine affi-nity and distance between elements of culturalvariation across a given region and over time. Inthis context, the concept of social learning is ofparamount importance. It encompasses differentways for the transmission of cultural informationand knowledge: between generations (verticaltransmission), between older, non-parent com-munity members and younger generations (obli-que transmission) and between generationalpeers (horizontal transmission). Yet, ethno-graphic cases show that vertical and to lesser ex-tent oblique transmission of knowledge play thekey role in learning processes, and such pro-cesses can be significantly affected by what hap-pens to a biological population.

Throughout the prehistoric past, biological pop-ulations must have been prone to both expan-sion (for instance, through village fission, in or-der to avoid conflict, and the founding of newsettlements184) and crashes/bottlenecks. In ad-dition, Shennan emphasizes that the effectivepopulation size for transmission is always smal-ler than the total population size, somethingthat, at times of decrease in population size,may additionally contribute to the stochastic ef-fect of “drift” and lead to a differentiation in cul-tural forms and practices.185 On the other hand,population expansion and interactions can leadto “selection” for practices with adaptive advan-tages. Yet, Shennan admits that it remains diffi-cult to understand how exactly new, “founding”cultural practices come into existence. One pos-sible process contributing to particular culturalorigins or “founder effect” relates to the rise ininnovative solutions that become possible dueto the weakening of previously imposed socialsanctions and cultural codes, for instance, inthose cases when a small daughter populationbecomes separated from a parent population.

In many respects, Shennan’s approach to thequestion of culture change186 revives the inter-est in older culture historical accounts of thecauses of culture change, something that theauthor explicitly acknowledges. Different fromthe “qualitative” and descriptive tendencies ofthe older school of culture-historical approacheswhere migration and diffusion were seen as themain mechanisms of cultural change, whichShennan views as simplistic, his approach is inline with the terminology borrowed from evolu-tionary biology: He suggests that beyond themost common explanatory proxies of old school

182 Shennan 2000, 817.183 Shennan 2000.

184 Cf. Hammel/Howell 1987.185 Shennan 2000, 815.186 Shennan 1989.

190



culture-history (migration and diffusion) and pro-cessual archaeology (adaptation), cultural phe-nomena can undergo processes of mutation, se-lection and drift. Shennan strongly insists on theidea of “the real instability of prehistoric popula-tions”.187 That which this author singles out asone of the most important factors that may causeinstability in a prehistoric population is climatechange (even in the course of the Holocene), af-fecting subsistence success that in turn affectsreproductive success, i. e. the survival of chil-dren as the most vulnerable part of a population,and in this way affecting population stability andgrowth.

In the context of the discussion in this paper, Ivalue Shennan’s attempt to define a novel meth-odological approach in explaining the questionof culture change, recharging this important ar-chaeological agenda. Processual models in ar-chaeology have often tried to provide an expla-nation of culture change by primarily looking atpopulation growth dynamics that might havedestabilized the carrying capacity within a parti-cular region, thus leading to new adaptive solu-tions and changes in cultural practices (gradual-ist perspective). This blanket and unidimen-sional explanation for culture change neglects avariety of complex processes, by which culturaltraditions and ingrained cultural gestures arecarried forward beyond the functionality or adap-tive advantages of particular cultural traits. Incontrast, Shennan’s perspective exhibits an ana-lytical elegance by stressing the influence of lar-ger scale population dynamics on processes ofsocial learning and subsequently cultural trans-mission that occurs on a human scale, with anemphasis on stochastic effects of drift and selec-tion. I am also sympathetic to Shennan’s argu-ment that the archaeological record of the pre-historic past is often punctuated by discontinu-ous episodes of occupation and abandonment,which are often obscured by coarse-grainedchronologies. Yet, the deterministic nature ofthis approach is apparent as it identifies a setchain of causalities starting with climate change,which leads to population shrinking, which af-fects vertical or oblique cultural transmission,which further leads to cultural drift and, finally,the emergence of a new cultural pattern. But letus see how this mode of explanation corre-sponds with the evidence from our case studypresented thus far.

Applying Shennan’s argument to the evidence ofthe LN to CA transition in southeastern Europe,at present one would be pressed to find any ef-fect of climate change or any other archaeologi-cally observable factor leading to the decline inpopulation at that time. Yet, with the help of

higher chronological resolution that removesoverlapping chronological developments andbrings into sharper relief chronologically dis-crete events and intervals of activities, the aban-donment of LN tells and supersites in centuriesbefore or around the mid-5th millennium BC inthe northern and central Balkans and the easternCarpathian Basin could likely be read as a dropin population levels despite an increase in thenumber of individual sites. If this archaeologicalcorrelate is accepted as an argument for the con-traction in population size in the region at thistime for currently unidentified reason(s), the tim-ing of changes in the pattern of habitation andmaterial culture styles would be in line withShennan’s argument that population dynamicsare the key trigger of culture change. Or shouldthe evidence be read in another way? Tringham’sargument that group fissioning and the foundingof new settlements was the main mechanism foravoiding conflict in overcrowded LN Vinča vil-lages sits well with Shennan’s suggestion aboutpopulation expansion, which could cause the se-lection of successful solutions rather than drift.Breaking away from the constraints of large vil-lages and their power structure might have in-deed been seen as advantageous by many,allowing people to forge new regional connec-tions, further leading to the observed standardi-zation and homogeneity of many material culturetraits in the ECA.

This kind of process in itself does not explain thefounder effect of new styles at this time, for in-stance, regarding pottery shapes and decora-tion, or technologically improved pottery firing.Did the process of craft specialization play a rolein these developments? At least for the Körös re-gion of eastern Hungary, Gyucha and Parkinsonsuggest that both decorated and undecoratedpottery was for the most part locally manufac-tured.188 Certainly, this does not completely ruleout trade along certain routes, but there is theclear sense of severing of previous LN inter-re-gional connections in the ECA. Alternatively, thetransmission of practical know-howmust be con-nected to the role of vertical (perhaps the same-gender parent: for instance from mother todaughter) or oblique transmission. Could thisbe directly related, for instance, to changes inpost-marital residence patterns and kinship or-ganization of families in newly founded ECA vil-lages (e. g. selection of marital partners fromspatially and culturally distant communities thatdiffers from the preceding pattern of perhapsmore confined LN breeding networks)? The spa-tial structure of social networks thus affects thematerial correlates (e. g. ceramic styles) of cul-tural transmission processes.189 We have seen

187 Shennan 2000, 818.

188 Gyucha/Parkinson 2013.189 White 2013.

191



that towards the end of the LN and throughoutthe CA gendered differentiation of society wasstrongly emphasized through different media ofexpression. One could speculate that this inter-est in the categorization of gendered divisionmight have been related to the consolidation ofthe patrilocal pattern of residence already at theend of the LN.190 In the Vinča culture zone theGomolava cemetery with predominantly male in-dividuals can be taken as a clue in this direction.In the context of the ECA in the Körös region,Gyucha and Parkinson mention the effect of iso-chrestic (enculturation) learning191 through theunconscious absorption of new styles as a wayto account for the adoption of similar stylesacross a wide region. Yet, how this process ex-actly enfolded remains unclear, and our betterunderstanding of the process would require boththeoretical sophistication and detailed micro-re-gional studies.

In the context of the evidence presented in thispaper, one cannot easily discriminate amongthe solutions suggested in Shennan’s approachto culture change. While his argument about pre-historic population “boom and bust” pattern192

as key factor for observed discontinuities andcultural changes in the archaeological recordcould appeal as an attractive way to comprehendthe often enigmatic question of punctuated cul-ture change expressed in stylistic or settlementpattern shifts, this attempt to find a mono-causalexplanation for dynamic processes of culturalchange feels inadequate and theoretically im-poverished. Nonetheless, that which can cer-tainly be taken as useful and analytically elegantfrom Shennan’s approach relates to attempts atdiscerning aspects of cultural change related tothe modalities of social learning as the key vehi-cle of cultural transmission.

Assemblages, social networks, andmultiscalar singularities

In social analyses, how can one best connect themicro- and macro-levels of social reality? Or,better, how can we escape the habit of reifyingthese two levels only instead of studying socialphenomena at any given scale? M. DeLanda sug-gests that the concept of assemblage can be auseful way of comprehending and analyzing so-cial complexity at different analytical scales.193

DeLanda adopts the concept from G. Deleuze inhis work with F. Guattari194 and develops it in thecontext of what he calls a “realist” ontological

approach, moving midway between the perils ofessentialist and deconstructionist (idealist)thinking about social reality. DeLanda advocatesa “bottom-up ontological model” that is basedon a new theory of experience, which, similarlyto Deleuze’s theory, draws heavily on the philo-sophical school of empiricism and David Hume’sphilosophy in particular.195

DeLanda’s theory of assemblages represents aninterpretive framework for describing depths ofpluralism of social and political realities. Itinvolves the plurality of scales on which assem-blages can be examined. Assemblages are un-derstood as non-essentialist (they are histori-cally contingent actual entities, not instances ofideal forms) and non-totalizing (assemblagesare not seamless totalities, but collections ofheterogeneous components that should be ana-lyzed as such). Following Deleuze, DeLanda em-phasizes that assemblages are characterized by“relations of exteriority”: “a component part ofan assemblage may be detached from it andplugged into a different assemblage, in whichits interactions are different”.196 In order toavoid the production of “reified generalities”,i. e. essences that define a particular (social)identity, “we must instead focus on the histori-cal processes that produce these products”,since “the identity of any assemblage at any lev-el of scale is always a product of a process (…)and it is always precarious, since other pro-cesses (…) can destabilize it”.197 The ontologicalstatus of assemblages is that of “individual sin-gularities”, which are “historically contin-gent”.198 A strategy that DeLanda offers to avoidessentialization is “to focus on the process ofproduction instead of the list of properties char-acterizing the finished product”.199

These theoretical and abstract propositionscould be directly relevant to our discussion ofcultural entities, aspects of cultural change andlearning process that may play the key role inprocesses of change. Following Hume’s modelfor the genesis of subjectivity,200 habitual repe-tition is seen as the key factor in the territorializ-ing process of building a stable personal iden-tity. Loss of stability through deprivation of anysort can deterritorialize a subjective identity,while, similarly, the augmentative processes inwhich one acquires new skills could also leadto the loss of a stable identity, since “[n]ewskills …increase one’s capacities to affect andbe affected, or to put it differently, increaseone’s capacities to enter into novel assem-

190 Cf. Porčić 2011a; for the central European Linearband-keramik (LBK) see Bentley et al. 2012.191 Gyucha/Parkinson 2013, 531.192 Shennan 2013.193 DeLanda 2006.194 Deleuze/Guattari 1987, 71; 88–91; 323–337; 503–

505.

195 DeLanda 2006, 47.196 DeLanda 2006, 10.197 DeLanda 2006, 28.198 DeLanda 2006, 40.199 DeLanda 2006, 38.200 Hume 1969.

192



blages”.201 In this context, innovation as part ofthe learning process becomes key in the processof destabilizing one’s identity and may effec-tively lead to change through innovation and en-culturation.

The iterative nature of processes that lead to thecreation of interpersonal assemblages must beemphasized – from ephemeral assemblages re-lating to social encounters and “conversations”between two or more people to more complex so-cial institutions and organizations. Seeing con-versation as an assemblage, the key material pre-condition for the maintenance of such anassemblage is co-presence. Repetition of socialencounters that include “overlapping sets of par-ticipants” leads to the creation of interpersonalnetworks of greater stability. Here DeLanda em-phasizes “the pattern of recurring links, as wellas the properties of those links, which forms thesubject of study, not the attributes of the personsoccupying positions in a network”.202 In otherwords, established links and their properties re-main the same despite any changes in attributesof people, who are linked in this way: “The prop-erties of links include their strength, that is, thefrequency of interaction among the persons occu-pying given positions, as well as the emotionalcontent of the relation; their presence or absence,the absences indicating the existence of bordersseparating one network from another, or one cli-que from another within a given network; andtheir reciprocity, that is, the symmetry or asymme-try of the obligations entitled by the link”.203 So-cial networks are further characterized by theirdensity (“the intensity of connectivity”) and stabi-lity, which is primarily defined by the lack of ten-sions and conflict within a community. The combi-nation of density and stability could lead to a highdegree of solidarity within a particular commu-nity. A community solidarity can stem from “avariety of combinations of personal reasons andmotives: some members may be motivated bythe feelings of togetherness which getting in-volved in the affairs of the community producesin them, others by altruism, and yet others bystrict calculations of reciprocity”.204

Key resources for the maintenance of stable so-cial networks are time and energy, and maintain-ing relations within a network requires both rou-tine acts of co-presence (e. g. family orcommunity rituals or ceremonies and similar) aswell as efforts that involve one getting out ofone’s way for the benefit of other members ofthe network. Yet, centripetal and centrifugalforces are the property of any interpersonal net-

works. DeLanda provides examples of both typesof processes:

“Conflict has the effect of exaggerating thedistinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’, that is, itsharpens the boundaries between insidersand outsiders. While high density itself trans-forms networks into enforcement mechan-isms, the presence of conflict increases theactivities dedicated to policing a community’sborders, not only the physical boundaries of aneighbourhood or a small town, but the de-gree to which a community controls its mem-bers’ behaviour and promotes internal homo-geneity. In other words, conflict sharpens theidentity of a community. This implies that so-lidarity cannot always be viewed as desirableproperty since in the presence of conflict it re-sults in practices of social exclusion and theplacing of constraints on member’s autonomywhich greatly reduce their scope to be differ-ent. Examples of centrifugal forces includeany process that decreases a network’s den-sity, such as social mobility and seculariza-tion. Social mobility weakens links by makingpeople less interdependent and by promotinga greater acceptance of difference throughless local and more cosmopolitan attitudes.Secularization implies, among other things,the elimination of some of the rituals which,like churchgoing, are important to the mainte-nance of traditional solidarity.”205

In the context of our previous discussion regard-ing the nature of and mechanisms that led to theLN-CA transition in the northern and central Bal-kans, the previous passage offers some importantclues for explaining and interpreting the materialarchaeological correlates of social dynamics. Wehave observed that there is now mounting evi-dence of enclosures with ditches and palisadesin the LN Vinča culture context (something thatalso applies to other contemporaneous and adja-cent archaeological cultures in southeastern Eur-ope and beyond206), possibly suggesting the im-portance of drawing and emphasizing spatialboundaries even within these seemingly unified“cultures”, i. e. in defining each particular com-munity of a village by boundaries in relation tothe outside world of otherness. In this context wecan think of the LN Vinča culture as an assem-blage or social network, which for a considerabletime exhibited a high degree of density and soli-darity at different scales on which connectivitywas established – from village to micro-regionaland supraregional levels. This conclusion is ea-sily backed by an undeniable stability of manysettlements over several centuries as well as bya striking uniformity in pottery and figurine styles

201 DeLanda 2006, 50.202 DeLanda 2006, 56, original emphasis.203 DeLanda 2006, 56, original emphasis.204 DeLanda 2006, 57.

205 DeLanda 2006, 58.206 Cf. Parkinson/Duffy 2007.

193



across a large geographic territory and over con-siderable spans of time. Yet, the evidence of en-closures could tentatively be interpreted as re-flecting at least some type of low-intensityconflict throughout the Late Neolithic. Such con-flict might have been to a degree fuelled by centri-petal tendencies of tells and supersites, whichmight have increasingly imposed constraints onthe autonomy of individual households. Weshould consider that the intentional burning ofbuildings and subsequent settlement levellingbefore new structures were built at Vinča culturetells or tell-like sites was most likely a communaldecision at the level of neighbourhoods, if not thewhole village (see above).

Further, the proliferation of figurines (taken hereas proxy for ritual activities, to which other pos-sible “ritual” objects, such as prosopomorphiclids or “cultic” tables, may be added) in thesevillages throughout the LN can be interpreted asanother sign of ritual control, as previously sug-gested by Tringham,207 a way of maintaining theexisting power structure. As I have argued else-where, the iconographic canon of some figurinescan be directly connected to the limited burialevidence,208 hinting at the shared expression ofcorporeal symbolism that must have had somedegree of ritual significance. However, a de-crease in the number of figurines towards theend of the Vinča culture occupation of tells andtell-like sites, and their diminishing frequencyin the early phase of the ECA among archaeologi-cal cultures of the northern and central Balkans,might reflect centrifugal forces of “seculariza-tion” that might have led to the abandonmentof traditional forms of solidarity, likely includingfigurines in some sort of ritual activities, andpossibly complex chains of indebtedness thatmight have characterized often densely packedLN villages. Finally, social mobility linked to resi-dential mobility, as reflected in the dispersedsettlement pattern and occupation of new land-scape zones with newly founded settlements,also seems to have increased in the early phaseof the ECA. Novel supraregional connectionswere forged, which must have introduced peopleto new pottery styles, technical skills, variousforms of knowledge, access to particular re-sources, novel forms of sociality, etc. All of theseprocesses might have created dispersed inter-personal networks in the ECA, while at the sametime demanding mechanisms for the mainte-nance of ties at greater spatial distances, thusleading to the observed homogeneity of stylisticattributes over larger territories than in the LN.

In sum, assemblage theory allows us to view ar-chaeological cultures as complex assemblages

of interpersonal links that form social networksat different levels and from different, often het-erogeneous, component parts. Boundaries of ar-chaeological cultures are not the same as thoseof their constituent artefact types, which is simi-lar to D. L. Clarke’s polythetic concept of archae-ological culture.209 This view differs from an old-er culture-historical understanding, in whicharchaeological cultures are erroneously con-flated with ethnic or linguistic groups or ethno-graphic cultures. I would argue that the assem-blage theory can help us recharge the analyticalpotential of the very notion of “archaeologicalculture”, which is understood both as a complexassemblage and a multiscalar singularity.

Conclusions

The current dating evidence for the territory en-compassed by the Middle-Late Neolithic Vinčaculture in the northern and central Balkans indi-cates that most if not all Vinča culture settle-ments were abandoned by the 46

th century BC.While it seems that the abandonment of manyVinča culture settlements had already started inthe mid to late 47

th century BC, there is someevidence that a few sites, including Vinča-BeloBrdo and Selevac, remained occupied by Vinčaculture groups in the 46

th century, but certainlynot later than the first decades of the 45

th cen-tury BC. Despite these possible late survivals ofthe Vinča culture tradition, at present there is noevidence for the contemporaneity between thefinal Vinča groups and the new ECA settlementtraditions characterized by either the Tiszapol-gár or the BSK style of pottery.

While currently there is very limited dating evi-dence for the ECA across this territory, it is sug-gested that the early phase of the ECA south ofthe Sava and Danube rivers, i. e. in the core areaof the Vinča culture, relates primarily to single-layer settlement sites founded in new locationsand away from previously occupied Vinča culturesites. There is evidence suggesting that some ofthese ECA sites were fortified with defensive fea-tures, for instance, on hilltop locations. Ceramicsfrom these settlements suggest a new repertoireof pottery forms in the style of the BSK culturecomplex, which at this time is found across alarge territory of the central and partly easternBalkans that was previously covered by the Vinčaculture, but not entirely overlapping its formerboundaries. North of the Sava and the Danuberivers, few known ECA settlements exhibit cera-mics that link this territory with the rest of theeastern Carpathian Basin, where the Tiszapol-gár/Bodrogkeresztúr style ceramics becamecommon. New radiocarbon dates for ECA burials,

207 E. g. Tringham 1992; see above.208 Borić 1996; Borić 2015. 209 Clarke 1978; Trigger 1989, 300.

194



found at the sites of Vinča-Belo Brdo and Uivarand accompanied by Tiszapolgár/Bodrogkeresz-túr style ceramics, suggest that these tell siteswere used as burial grounds by CA groups onlyin the later phase of the ECA, i. e. between ca.4300 and 4000 calBC, the period to which otherlarge burial grounds in the eastern CarpathianBasin can also be dated. One AMS-dated Sălcuţaculture burial in Lepenski Vir is dated to this timespan, a date that could also perhaps be assumedfor burials found at the site of Ostrovul Corbuluiwithin the same region along the Danube. Theemergence of these small burial groups or largercemeteries in the eastern Carpathian Basin likelylags behind the establishment of large extramur-al cemeteries in the eastern Balkans, such as theones found at Varna or Durankulak, the latter dat-ing back to the Late Neolithic if not earlier.

As previously postulated by Tringham,210 it islikely that tensions and conflict in LN Vinča vil-lages were resolved by group fissioning and theestablishment of new settlements with house-holds, “houses”, or their social segments andmembers breaking away from imposed con-straints and power structure of LN Vinča culturesettlements. One of the vehicles of control inthese LN villages might have been rituals involv-ing figurines and other special-purpose “cultic”objects along with complex networks of social in-debtedness. Tringham’s view that group fission-ing was triggered by population growth that ex-ceeded the carrying capacity of the environmentdoes not seem to be supported by the existingevidence.211 The explanation should rather besought in social dynamics between differentcomponent parts comprising these communities.The ethos of group solidarity, possibly with anegalitarian rhetoric, within each village mighthave been underlined by the large communal un-dertakings such as the construction of ditchesand palisades, but it seems that it must havealso been fostered at the level of the Vinča cul-ture social network as a whole, possibly by theexistence of exogamous breeding networks and/or reciprocal and frequent ceremonies involvingdistant communities across the territory of thisarchaeological culture. There are “different inte-grative modes of fostering cooperation, somemore collective and participatory, and othersmore exclusionary and hierarchical”.212 Amongother things, such cohesive practices and itera-tive routines of co-presence might have facili-tated the diachronic repetition of distinct cera-mic styles. What exactly caused the breakdownof this social network that was successfully main-tained and seemingly stable for nearly 800 yearsstill remains enigmatic. Early culture-historical

narratives envisioning conquest and destructionby neighbouring groups seem unlikely as theprime causes for the decline of the Vinča world.

Shennan’s more recent suggestion that culturechange is most often related to population dy-namics and population bottlenecks (mostlycaused by climate change and its impact on thesuccess of subsistence practices, affecting re-productive success) due to the shrinking of theeffective learning population, which in turn af-fects the process of cultural transmission, mayhave some explanatory value.213 While there isno evidence for climate change in the mid-5th

millennium BC in this region, the pattern of smal-ler dispersed settlements in the early phase ofthe ECA following the abandonment of Vinča cul-ture sites, despite possible research biases re-garding the visibility of ECA sites, could suggesta drop in population levels for presently un-known reasons. This factor might have been di-rectly tied to the weakening of interpersonallinks across the Vinča social network likelycaused by conflict or avoidance of conflict thatled to the disintegration of cohesive bondsamong these previously dependent and closely-knit communities at a larger regional level,where – as according to the theory of scalarstress214 – not only population size and com-plexity but also modes of integration and thenature of interpersonal relations in a societymust be taken into account.215

Further, the drop in population levels and gener-al restructuring of settlements and the social ma-trix in the LN-ECA transition might have led to theloss of knowledge and of traditional ways ofdoing things, a breakdown of network stabilityand the emergence of new supraregional con-nections, leading to new material culture stylesacross the former Vinča culture territory: thecreation of new cultural assemblages. I suggestthat assemblage theory could be a useful analy-tical tool in disentangling dynamics of such pro-cesses of change at different spatio-temporalscales. Instead of abandoning altogether the no-tion of archaeological culture, it is suggestedthat the redefined ontological status of this en-tity, seen as a complex assemblage of interper-sonal social networks, can take it beyond the es-sentializing tendencies of older scholarship. Inthis way, the notion of archaeological culturecan be meaningfully connected to complexitiesand intricacies of social life.

The scenario offered that fissioning due to con-flict was the main reason for the abandonmentof tells, tell-like sites, and supersites of the

210 Tringham, e. g. 1992.211 Cf. Porčić 2011b.212 Feinman 2011, 47.

213 Shennan 2000, 2013.214 Johnson 1984.215 Feinman 2011.

195



Vinča culture, while the most parsimonious ex-planatory solution at present still needs to besubstantiated by detailed micro-regional sur-veys, excavations as well as absolute dating ofboth LN and ECA contexts. Some high-qualitydata of this kind are now available from severaladjacent regions due to successful problem-or-iented research projects. It is an overdue task toprovide similarly informed case studies in thecentral Balkans to account for the lost world ofthe Vinča culture.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Pál Raczky and Svend Hansen forthe opportunity to present this paper at the con-ference held in Budapest. Absolute dates on ECAburials from Vinča-Belo Brdo reported here arepart of a NRCF program (NF/2010/2/3) focusedon dating ECA Tiszapolgár-Bodrogkeresztúr bur-ial practices, made in collaboration with Zs. Sik-lósi, A. Gyucha, B. Parkinson, P. Raczky, T. High-am, L. Milašinović and S. Stefanović, and fundedby the NERC, UK. I thank Seren Griffiths for herhelp with the Bayesian modelling for the se-quence of dates from Vinča-Belo Brdo and IgorBogdanović for an unpublished plan of exca-vated areas at Belovode. For very insightful com-ments on earlier drafts of the paper I am gratefulto Vesna Dimitrijević, Marko Porčić, Mirjana Ste-panović, Susan Stratton and Alasdair Whittle.

References

Bánffy 2013

E. Bánffy, Die Kupferzeit im Karpatenbecken. Ein Über-blick. In: C. Lichter (ed.), Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch. DieMichelsberger Kultur und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren.Katalog zur Ausstellung. Badisches Landesmuseum(Karlsruhe 2013) 149–155.

Bailey 1998

D. W. Bailey (ed.), The Archaeology of Value. Essays onPrestige and the Processes of Valuation. British Archae-ological Reports International Series 730 (Oxford 1998).

Balen 2008

J. Balen, Rezultati zaštitnih arheoloških istraživanja natrasi autoceste Beli Manastir – Osijek – Svilaj (Zagreb2008).

Bentley et al. 2012R. A. Bentley/P. Bickle/L. Fibiger/G. M. Nowell/C. W.Dale/R. E. M. Hedges/J. Hamilton/J. Wahl/M. Francken/G. Grupe/E. Lenneis/M. Teschler-Nicola/R. M. Arbogast/D. Hofmann/A. Whittle, Community differentiation andkinship among Europe’s first farmers. Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences 109(24), 2012,9326–9330.

Biagi et al. 2005P. Biagi/S. Shennon/M. Spataro, Rapid rivers and slowseas? New data for the radiocarbon chronology of the

Balkan Peninsula. In: L. Nikolova/J. Fritz/J. Higgins(eds.), Prehistoric Archaeology & Anthropological Theo-ry and Education. Reports of Prehistoric Research Pro-jects 6–7, 2005, 41–50.

Biagi et al. 2007P. Biagi/B. Gratuze/S. Boucetta, New data on the ar-chaeological obsidians from the Banat and Transylvania(Romania). In: M. Spataro/P. Biagi (eds.), A Short Walkthrough the Balkans: the First Farmers of the CarpathianBasin and Adjacent Regions. Società per la Preistoria eProtostoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Quader-no 12, 2007, 129–148.

Blagojević 2005

M. Blagojević, Keramičke posude iz ranoeneolitske kućesa lokaliteta Livade, Kalenić. Kolubara 4, 2005, 31–76.

Bognár-Kutzián 1963

I. Bognár-Kutzián, The Copper Age Cemetery of Tiszapol-gár-Basatanya (Archaeologia Hungarica XLII (Budapest1963).

Bognár-Kutzián 1972

I. Bognár-Kutzián, The Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár Cul-ture in the Carpathian Basin (Archaeologia HungaricaXLVIII (Budapest 1972).

Bonsall et al. 2015C. Bonsall/R. Vasić/A. Broneant/M. Roksandić/A. Sofi-caru/K. McSweeney/A. Evatt/Ü. Aguraiuja/C. Pickard/V. Dimitrijević/T. Higham/D. Hamilton/G. Cook, NewAMS 14C dates for human remains from Stone Age sitesin the Iron Gates reach of the Danube, southeast Eur-ope. Radiocarbon 57,1, 2015, 33–46.

Borić 1996

D. Borić, Social dimensions of mortuary practices in theNeolithic: A case study. Starinar 47, 1996, 67–83.

Borić 2008

D. Borić, First households and ‘house societies’ in Eur-opean prehistory. In: A. Jones (ed.), Prehistoric Europe(Malden, MA. 2008) 109–142.

Borić 2009

D. Borić, Absolute dating of metallurgical innovations inthe Vinča Culture of the Balkans. In: T. K. Kienlin/B. W.Roberts (eds.), Metals and Societies. Studies in honourof Barbara S. Ottaway. Universitätsforschungen zur prä-historischen Archäologie (Bonn 2009) 191–245.

Borić 2015

D. Borić, Mortuary practices, bodies and persons in theNeolithic and Early–Middle Copper Age of SoutheastEurope. In: C. Fowler/J. Harding/D. Hofmann (eds.), TheOxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe (Oxford 2015).

Borić et al. (forthcoming)D. Borić/A. Gyucha/T. Higham/L. Milašinović/W. A. Par-kinson/P. Raczky/Zs. Siklósi/S. Stefanović, Dating theappearance of burial grounds in the Early Copper Ageof the eastern Carpathian Basin (forthcoming).

Bottema/Ottaway 1982

S. Bottema/B. S. Ottaway, Botanical, malaecologicaland archaeological zonation of settlement deposits ofGomolava. Journal of Archaeological Science 9, 1982,221–246.

196



Breunig 1987

P. Breunig, 14C-Chronologie des vorderasiatischen, süd-ost- und mitteleuropäischen Neolithikums (Köln 1987).

Bronk Ramsey 1995C. Bronk Ramsey, Radiocarbon calibration and analysisof stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37, 2,1995, 425–430.

Bronk Ramsey 2001C. Bronk Ramsey, Development of the radiocarbon pro-gram OxCal. Radiocarbon 43, 2A, 2001, 355–363.

Brukner 1980B. Brukner, Naselje vinčanske grupe na Gomolavi (neo-litski i ranoeneolitski sloj). Izveštaj sa iskopavanja1967–1976. godini. Rad vojvođanskih muzeja 26,1980, 5–55.

Brukner 1988B. Brukner, Die Siedlung der Vinča-Gruppe auf Gomola-va (die Wohnschicht des spätneolithikums und früh-äneolithikums – Gomolava Ia, Gomolava Ia–b und Go-molava Ib) und der Wohnhorizont des äneolithischenHumus (Gomolava II). In: N. Tasić/J. Petrović (eds.), Go-molava – Chronologie und Stratigraphie der vor-geschichtlichen und antiken Kulturen der Donaunieder-ung und Südosteuropas. Internationales Symposium,Ruma 1986 (Novi Sad 1988) 9–38.

Bulatović 1997

A. Bulatović, Sondažno rekognosciranje eneolitskog na-selja na nalazištu Antin Čukar kod Vranja. GlasnikSrpskog arheološkog društva 13, 1997, 71–77.

Bulatović 1998

A. Bulatović, Eneolitski stambeni objekat sa nalazištaPanjevački Rit u Jagodini. Glasnik Srpskog arheološkogdruštva 14, 1998, 71–77.

Bulatović 2012

J. Bulatović, Eksploatacija životinja u kasnom neolitu ieneolitu na području centralnog Balkana. Studije sluča-ja: Vitkovo i Bubanj. Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društ-va 28, 2012, 279–300.

Burleigh/Nelson 1979

R. Burleigh/A. Nelson, British Museum natural radiocar-bon measurements XI. Radiocarbon 21, 1979, 39–352.

Chapman 1981

J. Chapman, Vinča culture of southeast Europe: Studiesin chronology, economy and society. British Archaeolo-gical Reports International Series 117 (Oxford 1981).

Chapman 1996

J. Chapman, Enchainment, commodification, and genderin the Balkan Copper Age. Journal of European Archaeol-ogy 4, 1996, 203–242.

Chapman 1999

J. Chapman, Deliberate house-burning in the prehistoryof Central and Eastern Europe. In: A. Gustafsson/H.Karlsson (eds.), Glyfer och arkeologiska rum–en vänboktill Jarl Nordbladch (Göteborg 1999) 113–126.

Chapman 2000aJ. Chapman, Tensions at funerals: Micro-tradition analy-sis in later Hungarian prehistory (Budapest 2000).

Chapman 2000bJ. C. Chapman, Fragmentation in archaeology. People,places and broken objects in the prehistory of south-eastern Europe (London, New York 2000).

Chapman 2013

J. Chapman, From Varna to Brittany via Csőszhalom–

Was there a “Varna effect”? In: A. Anders/G. Kulcsár(eds.), Moments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Racz-ky on His 60th Birthday (Budapest 2013) 323–335.

Clarke 1978

D. L. Clarke, Analytical archaeology (London 1978).

Crnobrnja 2011

A. Crnobrnja, Arrangement of Vinča culture figurines: Astudy of social structure and organization. DocumentaPraehistorica 38, 2011, 131–147.

Crnobrnja 2012

A. Crnobrnja, Group identities in the central Balkan LateNeolithic. Documenta Praehistorica 39, 2012, 155–165.

Csanyi et al. 2009M. Csányi/P. Raczky/J. Tárnoki, Előzetes jelentés a ré-zkori bodrogkeresztúri kultúra Rákóczifalva-Bagi-földönfeltárt temetőjéről (Preliminary report on the cemeteryof the Bodrogkeresztúr culture excavated at Rákóczifal-va-Bagi-föld). Tisicum 18, 2009, 13–34.

Darcque/Tsirtsoni 2010P. Darcque/Z. Tsirtsoni, Evidence from Dikili Tash (East-ern Macedonia, Greece) and the tell issue. In: S. Hansen(ed.), Leben auf dem Tell als soziale Praxis, Beiträgedes internationalen Symposiums in Berlin vom 26–27

Februar 2007. Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte14 (Bonn 2010) 55–69.

DeLanda 2006

M. DeLanda, A new philosophy of society: Assemblagetheory and social complexity. (London, New York 2006).

Deleuze/Guattari 1987G. Deleuze/F. Guattari, A thousand plateaus. Capitalismand schizophrenia (translated by B. Massumi) (Minnea-polis, London 1987).

Descola 2013

P. Descola, Beyond nature and culture (Chicago 2013).

Dimitrijević 1974

S. Dimitrijević, Das Problem der Gliederung der Starče-vo-Kultur mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den Beitrag dersüdpannonischen Fundstellen zur Lösung dieses Pro-blems. Materijali 10, 1974, 93–115.

Draovean 1994

F. Draovean, Die Stufe Vinča C im Banat. Germania 72,1994, 409–425.

Draovean 2005

F. Draovean, Zona thessalo-macedoneană i Dunăreamijlocie la sfâritul mileniului al VI-lea i la începutulmileniului al V-lea A.CHR (Thessalo-Macedonian and Da-nube regions at the end of the 6th and the beginning ofthe 5th millennium BC. Apulum 42, 2005, 12–26.

197



Ehrich/Bankoff 1992

R. W. Ehrich/A. H. Bankoff, Geographical and chronolo-gical patterns in east central and southeastern Europe.In: R. W. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archae-ology I–II (Chicago, London 1992) Vol. I, 375–392;Vol. II, 341–363.

Elster/Renfrew 2003

E. S. Elster/C. Renfrew, Prehistoric Sitagroi: Excavationsin Northeast Greece, 1968–1970. Volume 2: The FinalReport (Los Angeles 2003).

Feinman 2011

G. M. Feinman, Size, complexity, and organizational var-iation: A comparative approach. Cross-Cultural Research45, 2011, 37–58.

Forenbaher et al. 2013S. Forenbaher/T. Kaiser/P. T. Miracle, Dating the EastAdriatic Neolithic. European Journal of Archaeology 16,4, 2013, 589–609.

Fowles 1997

S. Fowles, Scalar Dynamics in Tribal Society. Unpub-lished manuscript. University of Michigan, Museum ofAnthropology (1997).

Gamble 1999

C. Gamble, The Palaeolithic societies of Europe (Cam-bridge 1999).

Gamble 2007

C. Gamble, Origins and revolutions (Cambridge 2007).

Garašanin 1951

M. Garašanin, Hronologija vinčanske grupe (Ljubljana1951).

Garašanin 1954

M. Garašanin, Ostava iz Kladova i problem stepskih uti-caja u kasnom neolitu Donjeg Podunavlja. ArheološkiVestnik 5, 1954, 225–238.

Garašanin 1973

M. Garašanin, Praistorija na tlu SR Srbije (I–II) (Beograd1973).

Garašanin 1979

M. Garašanin, Centralno-balkanska zona. In: A. Benac(ed.), Praistrija jugoslavenskih zemalja II, neolitskodoba (Sarajevo 1979) 79–212.

Garašanin 1997

M. Garašanin, Zu den Problemen der Gruppe Bubanj-Hum II. In: C. Becker/M. L. Dunkelmann/C. Metzner-Ne-belsick/H. Peter-Röcher/M. Roeder/B. Teržan (eds.),Χρόνος. Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologiezwischen Nord- und Südosteuropa. Festschrift für Bern-hard Hänsel. Intenationale Achäologie, Studia honoraria1 (Rahden/Westf. 1997) 143–148.

Garašanin 1998

M. Garašanin, Zur Verbreitung des Salkuţa-Krivodol-Bu-banj-Komplexes auf dem Mittleren Balkan. In: P. Anrei-ter/L. Bartosiewicz/E. Jerem/W. Meid (eds.), Man andthe animal world. Studies in archaeozoology, archaeol-ogy, anthropology and palaeolinguistics in memoriamSándor Bökönyi. Archaeolingua 8 (Budapest 1998)265–274.

Garašanin/Đurić 1983

M. Garašanin/M. Đurić, Bubanj i Velika Humska čuka(Niš 1983).

Garašanin/Simoska 1976

M. Garašanin/D. Simoska, Kontrolni iskopavanja na Šu-plevec i nekoi problemi za grupata Šuplevec-BakarnoGumno. Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 2, 1976, 9–41.

Gläser, 1996R. Gläser, Zur absoluten Datierung der Vinča-Kultur an-hand von 14C-Daten. In: F. Drașovean (ed.), The VinčaCulture, Its Role and Cultural Connections (Timișoara1996) 175–212.

Gligor 2007M. Gligor, Situl arheologic de la Alba Iulia – LumeaNouă. Istoricul Cercetărilor. Annales Universitatis Apu-lensis 11(I), 2007, 161–178.

Gimbutas 1974

M. Gimbutas, The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe7000 to 3500 B.C.: Myths, Legends and Cult Images(Berkeley 1974).

Gimbutas 1976

M. Gimbutas, Chronology. In: M. Gimbutas (ed.), Neo-lithic Macedonia: As reflected by excavation at Anza,Southeast Yugoslavia. Monumenta Archaeologica 1,1976, 29–77.

Govedarica 2004

B. Govedarica, Zepterträger – Herrscher der Steppen.Die frühen Ockergräber des älteren Äneolithikums imkarpaten-balkanischen Gebiet und im SteppenraumSüdost- und Osteuropas (Mainz 2004).

Grčki-Stanimirov/Stanimirov-Grčki 1996S. Grčki-Stanimirov/S. Stanimirov-Grčki, Eneolitsko isrednjevekovno nalazište kod Podloknja (Aeneolithicand Medieval Site at Podlokanj). Glasnik Srpskog arheo-loškog društva 13, 1996, 89–94.

Greenfield 1991

H. J. Greenfield, A Kula Ring in prehistoric Europe? Aconsideration of local and interregional exchange dur-ing the Late Neolithic of the central Balkans. In: S. A.Gregg (ed.), Between bands and states: Sedentism,Subsistence and Interaction in Small Scale Societies(Carbondale, IL. 1991) 287–308.

Greenfield 2010

H. J. Greenfield, The Secondary Products revolution: Thepast, the present and the future. World Archaeology 42,1, 2010, 29–54.

Gyucha/Parkinson 2013

A. Gyucha/W. A. Parkinson, Archaeological “cultures”and the study of social interaction: The emergence ofthe Early Copper Age Tiszapolgár Culture. In: A. An-ders/G. Kulcsár (eds.), Moments in Time. Papers Pre-sented to Pál Raczky on His 60th Birthday (Budapest2013) 521–537.

Hanks et al. (forthcoming)B. K. Hanks/R. Doonan/M. Kočić/D. Borić, Settlementspace and early metallurgy at the Vinča culture site ofBelovode (Serbia) (forthcoming).

198



Hansen et al. 2008S. Hansen/M. Todera/A. Reingruber/I. Gatsov/F. Klim-scha/P. Nedelcheva/R. Neef/M. Prange/T. D. Price/J.Wahl/B. Weninger/J. Wunderlich/H. Wrobel/P. Zidarov,Der kupferzeitliche Siedlungshügel Măgura Gorganabei Pietrele in der Walachei. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabun-gen im Sommer 2007. Eurasia Antiqua 14, 2008, 1–83.

Hansen/Todera 2012

S. Hansen/M. Todera, The Copper Age settlement Pie-trele on the Lower Danube River (Romania). In: R. Hof-mann/F.-K. Moetz/J. Müller (eds.), Tells: Social and en-vironmental space (Bonn 2012) 127–138.

Hammel/Howell 1987E. A. Hammel/N. Howell, Research in population andculture: An evolutionary framework. Current Anthropol-ogy 28, 1987, 141–180.

Hegedűs/Makkay 1990

K. Hegedűs/J. Makkay, Vésztő-Mágor: A settlement ofthe Tisza culture. In: P. Raczky (ed.), The Late Neolithicof the Tisza region (Budapest-Szolnok 1990) 85–104.

Hertelendi 1995E. Hertelendi, 14Carbon dating of Zalaszentbalázs-Szőlő-hegyi mezzo 1992–1993. Antaeus 22, 1995, 105–107.

Hertelendi et al. 1998E. Hertelendi/É. Svingor/P. Raczky/F. Horváth/I. Futo/L.Bartosiewicz, Duration of tell settlements at four prehis-toric sites in Hungary. Radiocarbon 40, 2, 1998, 659–665.

Higham et al. 2007T. Higham/J. Chapman/V. Slavchev/B. Gaydarska/N.Honch/Y. Yordanov/B. Dimitrova, New perspectives onthe Varna cemetery (Bulgaria) – AMS dates and socialimplications. Antiquity 81, 2007, 640–654.

Hofmann 2012

R. Hofmann, Style and function of pottery in relation tothe development of Late Neolithic settlement patternsin Central Bosnia. In: R. Hofmann/F.-K. Moetz/J. Müller(eds.), Tells: Social and environmental space (Bonn2012) 181–201.

Holste 1939

F. Holste, Zur chronologische Stellung der Vinča-Kera-mik. Wiener Prähistorische Zeitschrift 26, 1939, 1–21.

Horváth/Hertelendi 1994F. Horváth/E. Hertelendi, Contribution to the 14C basedabsolute chronology of the Early and Middle NeolithicTisza region. Jósa András Múzeum Évkönyve 36, 1994,11–133.

Hume 1969

D. Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (London 1969).

Jevtić 1986

M. Jevtić, Grobovi bakarnog doba iz Vinče. Starinar 37,1986, 135–144.

Johnson 1982

G. A. Johnson, Organizational structure and scalarstress. In: C. Renfrew/M. Rowlands/B. Segraves (eds.),Theory and Explanation in Archaeology (New York1982) 389–421.

Jovanović 1961

B. Jovanović, Stratigrafska podela vinčanskog naselja.Starinar 11, 1961, 9–20.

Jovanović 1984

B. Jovanović, Naselje vinčanske kulture. Stratigrafija. In:N. Tasić (ed.), Vinča u praistoriji i srednjem veku (Beo-grad 1984) 23–34.

Jovanović 1994

B. Jovanović, Gradac phase in the relative chronology ofthe Late Vinča culture. Starinar 43, 1994, 1–10.

Jovanović 1995

B. Jovanović, Late Vinča settlement Divostin IIb. CulturalChanges in the Early Eneolithic in the Central Balkans.In: A. Aspes (ed.), Settlement Patterns between the Alpsand the Black Sea 5th to 2nd Millennium B.C. Sympo-sium Verona – Lazise 1992. Memorie del Museo Civicodi Storia Naturale di Verona, Ser. 2 (Verona 1995) 51–54.

Jovanović 2005

B. Jovanović, Poreklo i relativna hronologija ranog eneo-lita zapadne Srbije. Kolubara 4, 2005, 11–17.

Jovanović 2008

I. Jovanović, Arheološka istraživanja na lokalitetuKmpije u Boru. Arheološki pregled 4, 2008, 53–55.

Kapuran/Milošević 2013

A. Kapuran/S. Milošević, Rockshelter Mokranjske Stene– A New Late Prehistoric Site in Eastern Serbia Region.Archaeologia Bulgarica 17, 2, 2013, 17–37.

Korošec 1950

J. Korošec, Grobovi u Vinči. Arheološki vestnik 1, 1–2,1950, 156–169.

Korek 1958

J. Korek, Groblje kasnog bakarnog doba i eneolitsko na-selje u Senti. Rad Vojvođanskih muzeja 7, 1958, 21–30.

László 1997

A. László, Datarea prin radiocarbon în arheologie (Bu-cureti 1997).

Lazarovici 1979Gh. Lazarovici, Neoliticul Banatului. Bibliotheca MuseiNapocensis IV (Cluj-Napoca 1979).

Lazarovici et al. 2007Gh. Lazarovici/C.-M. Lazarovici/E. Gilot/Z. Maxim, Dateradiocarbon pentru cultura Banatului. In: R. tefănes-cu/I. Bauman/L. Savu (eds.), Studia. In honorem Dr.Florea Costea (Braov 2007) 20–31.

Lazić/Sladić 1997

M. Lazić/M. Sladić, Eneolitsko naselje u Škodrinom pol-ju kod Knjaževca. In: M. Lazić (ed.), Arheologija istočneSrbije (Beograd 1997) 211–222.

Letica 1968

Z. Letica, Starčevo and Körös at Vinča. Archaeologica Iu-goslavica 9, 1968, 11–18.

Letica 1970

Z. Letica, Grob Salkuca kulture sa Lepenskog Vira. Star-inar 21, 1970, 117–124.

199



Lichter 2001C. Lichter, Untersuchungen zu den Bestattungssittendes südosteuropäischen Neolithikums und Chalkolithi-kums (Mainz 2001).

Lichter 2003C. Lichter, Kontinuität und Wandel in den Bestattungs-sitten der Jungstein- und Kupferzeit im Karpatenbecken.Das Altertum 48, 2003, 105–128.

Link 2006

T. Link, Das Ende der neolithischen Tellsiedlungen. Einkulturgeschichtliches Phänomen des 5. Jahrtausendsv. Chr. im Karpatenbecken (Bonn 2006).

Linick 1977

T. W. Linick, La Jolla natural radiocarbon measurementsVII. Radiocarbon 19, 1977, 19–48.

Luca 2003

S. A. Luca, Date noi cu privire la cronologia absolută aeneoliticului timpuriu din Transilvania. Rezultatele pre-lucrării probelor radiocarbon de la Orătie-Dealul Pemi-lor, punct X2, jud. Hunedoara, în Tibiscum. Studii i Co-municări de Istorie locală i Etnografie Caransebe 11,2003, 215–230.

Luca et al. 2006S. A. Luca/D. Diaconescu/A. Georgescu/C. Suciu, Săpă-turile arheologice de la Miercurea Sibiului-Petri, (jud.Sibiu) campanile anilor 1997–2005. Stratigrafie i cro-nologie. Brukental Acta Musei 1, 1, 2006, 9–19. (in Ro-manian).

Makkay 1991

J. Makkay, Entstehung, Blüte und Ende der Theiß-Kultur.In: J. Lichardus (ed.), Die Kupferzeit als historischeEpoche I–II. Symposium Saarbrücken und Otzenlausen6.–13. 11. 1988 (Bonn 1991) 319–328.

Mantu 2000

C.-M. Mantu, Relative and Absolute Chronology of the Ro-manian Neolithic. Analele Banatului 7–8, 2000, 75–105.

Markotić 1984

V. Markotić, The Vinča Culture (Calgary 1984).

Marinković 2010

S. Marinković, Arheološki materijal sa nalazišta Živani-ćeva dolja iz zbirke Narodnog muzeja u Zrenjaninu.Rad Muzeja Vojvodine 52, 2010, 21–36.

Maxim 1999

Z. Maxim, Neo-Eneoliticul din Transilvania. BibliothecaMusei Napocensis XIX (Cluj-Napoca 1999).

McPherron et al. 1988A. McPherron/V. Bucha/M. J. Aitken, Absolute Dating ofDivostin, Grivac-Barice and Banja. In: A. McPherron/D.Srejović (eds.), Divostin and the Neolithic of central Ser-bia (Pittsburgh 1988) 379–387.

Menghin 1931

O. Menghin, Weltgeschichte der Steinzeit (Wien 1931).

Merlini/Lazarovici 2008M. Merlini/Gh. Lazarovici, Settling discovery circum-stances, dating and utilization of Tărtăria tablets. ActaTerrae Septemcastrensis 7, 2008, 111–196.

Milanović 2011

D. Milanović, Naselje Černavoda III kulture na lokalitetuBubanj. Starinar 61, 2011, 101–119.

Milojčić 1949

V. Milojčić, Chronologie der jüngeren Steinzeit Mittel-und Südösteuropas (Berlin 1949).

Minihreiter/Marković 2009

K. Minihreiter/Z. Marković, The prehistoric and earlymedieval settlement of Bentež near Beketinci. Prilozi In-stituta za arheologiju u Zagrebu 26, 2009, 21–44.

Müller et al. 2013J. Müller/R. Hofmann/N. Müller-Scheeßel/K. Rassmann,Neolithische Arbeitsteilung: Spezialisierung in einemTell um 4900 v. Chr. In: A. Anders/G. Kulcsár (eds.), Mo-ments in Time. Papers Presented to Pál Raczky on His60th Birthday (Budapest 2013) 407–420.

Nehlich et al. 2010O. Nehlich/D. Borić/S. Stefanović/M. P. Richards, Sul-phur isotope evidence for freshwater fish consumption:A case study from the Danube Gorges, SE Europe. Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 37, 2010, 1131–1139.

Nikolić 2006

D. Nikolić, On the issue of fortification at Vinča. GlasnikSrpskog arheološkog društva 22, 2006, 9–22.

Nikolić/Đuričić 1997

D. Nikolić/S. Đuričić, Rezultati sondažnog istraživanjaeneolitskog naselja Beligovo. Glasnik Srpskog arheološ-kog društva 13, 1997, 79–88.

Obelić et al. 2004B. Obelić/M. Krznarić Škrivanko/B. Marijan/I. KrajcarBronić, Radiocarbon dating of Sopot culture sites (LateNeolithic) in eastern Croatia. Radiocarbon 46(1), 2004,245–258.

Opačić-Ristić 2005

J. Opačić-Ristić, Topografsko-hronološke karakteristikenaselja vinčanske kulture na teritoriji Srbije. GlasnikSrpskog arheološkog društva 21, 2005, 71–112.

Oross et al. 2010K. Oross/T. Marton/A. Whittle/R. E. M. Hedges/L. J. E.Cramp, Die Siedlung der Balaton-Lasinja-Kultur in Bala-tonszárszó-Kis-erdei-dűlő. In: J. Šuteková/P. Pavúk/P. Ka-lábková/B. Kovár (eds.), PANTA RHEI. Chronology and cul-tural development of south-eastern and central Europe inearlier prehistory. Presented to Juraj Pavúk on the Occa-sion of his 75th Birthday (Bratislava 2010) 379–405.

Orton 2012

D. Orton, Herding, settlement, and chronology in theBalkan Neolithic. European Journal of Archaeology 15,1, 2012, 5–40.

Palavestra et al. 1993A. Palavestra/I. Bogdanović/A. Starović, Bodnjik-Druže-tić – eneolitsko gradinsko naselje. Glasnik Srpskog ar-heološkog društva 9, 1993, 186–191.

Palavestra et al. 1996A. Palavestra/I. Bogdanović/A. Starović, Bodnjik–Druže-tić, kampanja 1994. Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društ-va 11, 1996, 190–197.

200



Parkinson 2002

W. A. Parkinson, Integration, interaction, and tribal ‘cy-cling’: The transition to the Copper Age on the GreatHungarian Plain. In: W. A. Parkinson (ed.), The archaeol-ogy of tribal societies (Archaeological series 15). Inter-national Monographs in Prehistory (Ann Arbor 2002)391–438.

Parkinson 2006

W. A. Parkinson, The social organization of early CopperAge tribes on the Great Hungarian Plain. British Archae-ological Reports International Series 1573 (Oxford2006).

Parkinson/Duffy 2007

W. A. Parkinson/P. R. Duffy, Fortifications and enclo-sures in European Prehistory: A cross-cultural perspec-tive. Journal of Archaeological Research 15, 2007, 97–141.

Parkinson et al. 2004W. A. Parkinson/R. W. Yerkes/A. Gyucha, The Transitionfrom the Neolithic to the Copper Age: Excavations atVésztő-Bikeri, Hungary, 2000–2002. Journal of Field Ar-chaeology 29, 2004, 101–121.

Parkinson et al. 2010W. A. Parkinson/R. W. Yerkes/A. Gyucha/A. Sarris/M.Morris/R. B. Salisbury, Early Copper Age Settlements inthe Körös Region of the Great Hungarian Plain. Journalof Field Archaeology 35, 2, 2010, 164–183.

Parzinger 1993H. Parzinger, Studien zur Chronologie und Kultur-geschichte der Jungstein-, Kupfer-, und Frühbronzezeitzwischen Karpaten und Mittlerem Taurus (Mainz 1993).

Perić/Nikolić 2008

S. Perić/D. Nikolić, On the issue of an ossuary – pitdwelling Z in the oldest horizon at Vinča. Starinar 56/2006, 2008, 47–72.

Porčić 2011aM. Porčić, Marital residence patterns in Late Neolithiccommunities of the Vinča culture. Etnoantropološki pro-blemi 6, 2, 2011, 497–512 (in Serbian).

Porčić 2011bM. Porčić, An exercise in archaeological demography:Estimating the population size of Late Neolithic settle-ments in the Central Balkans. Documenta Praehistorica38, 2011, 323–332.

Porčić 2012aM. Porčić, De facto refuse or structured deposition?House inventories of the Late Neolithic Vinča culture.Starinar 62, 2012, 19–43.

Porčić 2012b.M. Porčić, Social complexity and inequality in the LateNeolithic of the Central Balkans: Reviewing the evi-dence. Documenta Praehistorica 39, 2012, 167–183.

Quitta/Kohl 1969H. Quitta/G. Kohl, Neue Radiocarbondaten zum Neolithi-kum und zur frühen Bronzezeit Südosteuropas und derSowjetunion. Zeitschrift für Archäologie 3, 1969, 223–255.

Raczky et al. 2002P. Raczky/W. Meier-Arendt/A. Anders/Z. Hajdú/E. Nagy/K. Kurucz/L. Domboróczki/K. Sebők/P. Sümegi/E. Ma-gyari/Zs. Szántó/S. Gulyás/K. Dobó/E. Bácskay/K.Biró/Ch. Schwartz, Polgár-Csőszhalom (1989–2000):Summary of the Hungarian-German excavations on aNeolithic settlement in eastern Hungary. In: R. Aslan/S. Blum/G. Kastl/F. Schweizer/D. Thum (eds.), Mauer-schau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann (Remshalden-Grunbach 2002) 833–860.

Raczky/Siklósi 2013P. Raczky/Zs. Siklósi, Reconsideration of the CopperAge chronology of the eastern Carpathian Basin: ABayesian approach. Antiquity 87, 2013, 555–573.

Radovanović 1996

I. Radovanović, Preliminarna analiza kremene industrijesa lokaliteta Bodnjik. Iskopavanja 1994 – prolećnakampanja. Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 11,1996, 41–54.

Regenye 2013

J. Regenye, Surviving Neolithic – the Early Copper Age inTransdanubia, North of Lake Balaton. In: A. Anders/G.Kulcsár (eds.), Moments in Time. Papers presented toPál Raczky on his 60th Birthday (Budapest 2013) 557–568.

Reingruber/Thissen 2009

A. Reingruber/L. Thissen, Depending on 14C-data:Chronological frameworks in the Neolithic and Chalco-lithic of southeastern Europe. Radiocarbon 51, 2009,751–770.

Roman 1996

P. Roman, Forschungsgeschichte, Ausgrabungen undStratigraphie. In: H. Hauptmann/P. Roman (eds.), Ostro-vul Corbului (Bukarest 1996) 35–113.

Schier 1995W. Schier, Vinča – Studien. Tradition und Innovation imSpätneolithikum des zentralen Balkanraumes am Beis-piel der Gefäßkeramik aus Vinča-Belo Brdo. Unpub-lished habilitation thesis (Heidelberg 1995).

Schier 1996W. Schier, The relative and absolute chronology of Vin-ča: New evidence from the type site. In: F. Draovean(ed.), The Vinča Culture, its role and cultural connec-tions (Timioara 1996) 141–162.

Schier 2000W. Schier, Measuring change: The Neolithic pottery se-quence of Vinča-Belo Brdo. Documenta Praehistorica27, 2000, 187–197.

Schier 2008W. Schier, Uivar: A late Neolithic-early Eneolithic forti-fied tell site in western Romania. In: D. Bailey/A. Whit-tle/D. Hofmann (eds.), Living well together? Settlementand materiality in the Neolithic of south-east and cen-tral Europe (Oxford 2008) 54–67.

Schier 2009W. Schier, Tell formation and architectural sequence atLate Neolithic Uivar (Romania). In: F. Draovean/D. L.Ciobotaru/M. Maddison (eds.), Ten years after: The Neo-

201



lithic of the Balkans, as uncovered by the last decade ofresearch (Timioara 2009) 219–233.

Schier 2013W. Schier, An antiquarian’s grave? Early Tiszapolgár bur-ials in the Late Vinča tell site of Uivar (Romania). In:A. Anders/G. Kulcsár (eds.), Moments in Time. Paperspresented to Pál Raczky on his 60th Birthday (Budapest2013) 569–577.

Schier/Draovean 2004

W. Schier/F. Draovean, Vorbericht über die rumänisch-deutschen Prospektionen und Ausgrabungen in der be-festigten Tellsiedlung von Uivar, jud. Timi, Rumänien(1998–2002). Praehistorische Zeitschrift 79, 2004,145–230.

Shennan 1989

S. Shennan, Cultural transmission and cultural change.In: S. van der Leeuw/R. Torrence (eds.), What’s New? ACloser Look at the Process of Innovation (London 1989)330–346.

Shennan 2000

S. Shennan, Population, culture history, and the dy-namics of culture change. Current Anthropology 41(5),2000, 811–835.

Shennan 2013

S. Shennan, Demographic continuities and discontinu-ities in Neolithic Europe: Evidence, methods and impli-cations. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory20(2), 2013, 300–311.

Sofaer Dervenski 1997J. Sofaer Dervenski, Age and gender at the site of Tisza-polgár-Basatanya, Hungary. Antiquity 71, 1997, 875–

889.

Srdoč et al. 1975D. Srdoč/A. Sliepčević/J. Planinić, Rudjer Bošković Insi-tute radiocarbon measurements III. Radiocarbon 17,1975, 149–155.

Srdoč et al. 1977D. Srdoč/A. Sliepčević/B. Obelić/N. Horvatinčić, RudjerBošković Insitute radiocarbon measurements IV. Radio-carbon 19, 1977, 465–475.

Srdoč et al. 1987D. Srdoč/B. Obelić/A. Sliepčević/I.K. Bronić/N. Horva-tinčić, Rudjer Bošković Insitute radiocarbon measure-ments X. Radiocarbon 29, 1987, 135–147.

Srejović 1984

D. Srejović, Umetnost i religija. In: S. Ćelić (ed.), Vinča upraistoriji i srednjem veku (Beograd 1984) 42–56.

Stanković/Redžić 1996

S. Stanković/M. Redžić, Eneolitska i starčevačka kućasa lokaliteta Blagotin kod Trstenika (istraživanja u1995. godini). Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva12, 1996, 61–76.

Stefanović 2008

S. Stefanović, Late Neolithic boys at the Gomolava cem-etery (Serbia). In: K. Bačvarov (ed.), Babies reborn: In-fant/child burials in pre- and protohistory. British Ar-

chaeological Reports International Series 1832 (Oxford2008) 95–99.

Stevanović 1997

M. Stevanović, The age of clay: The social dynamics ofhouse destruction. Journal of Anthropological Archaeol-ogy 16, 1997, 334–395.

Stevanović/Jovanović 1996

M. Stevanović/B. Jovanović, Revisiting Vinča-Belo Brdo.Starinar 47, 1996, 193–204.

Stratton/Borić 2012

S. Stratton/D. Borić, Gendered bodies and objects in amortuary domain: Comparative analysis of Durankulakcemetery. In: R. Kogălniceanu/R.-G. Curcă/M. Gligor/S. Stratton (eds.), Homines, Funera, Astra: Proceedingsof the International Symposium on Funerary Anthropol-ogy. British Archaeological Reports International Series2410 (Oxford 2012) 73–81.

Šulman 1952

M. Šulman, Grobovi iz bakrenog doba iz Subotice. Nauč-ni zbornik Matice srpske 3, 1952.

Šulman 1954

M. Šulman, Groblje bakrenog doba u blizini Subotice.Naučni zbornik Matice srpske 6, 1954.

Tasić 1969

N. Tasić, Osnovni rezultati istraživanja u Zlotskoj pećinii nalazišta na Đerdapu. Materijali 6, 1969, 71–80.

Tasić 1979

N. Tasić, Tiszapolgar i Bodrogkeresztur kultura. In:A. Benac (ed.), Praistorija Jugoslavenskih zemalja III –eneolitsko doba (Sarajevo, Akademija nauka i umetnos-ti Bosne i Hercegovine 1979) 55–85.

Tasić 1982

N. Tasić, Naselja bakarnog doba u istočnoj Srbiji. Zbor-nik Muzeja rudarstva i metalurgije u Boru 2, 1982, 19–36.

Tasić 1984

N. Tasić, Vinča u bakarno i bronzano doba. In: S. Ćelić(ed.), Vinča u praistoriji i srednjem veku (Beograd1984) 69–83.

Tasić 1995

N. Tasić, Eneolithic cultures of the central and westernBalkans (Beograd 1995).

Tasić 1989

N. N. Tasić, Apsolutna hronologija neolitskih kulturacentralnog Balkana na osnovu fizičko-hemijskih meto-da. Unpublished M.A. thesis (University of Belgrade,Belgrade 1989).

Tasić 2007

N. N. Tasić, Ritual pottery set from Vinča. Glasnik Srpskogarheološkog društva 23, 2007, 203–210.

Tasić/Ignjatović 2008

N. N. Tasić/M. Ignjatović, Od tradicionalne do modernemetodologije. Istraživanja u Vinči 1978–2008. In: D. Ni-kolić (ed.), Vinča – praistorijska metropola, istraživanja1908–2008 (Beograd 2008) 87–119.

202



Todorović 1956

J. Todorović, Praistorijska nekropola na Rospi Ćuprijikod Beograda. Godišnjak Muzeja grada Beograda 3,1956, 27–59.

Todorović/Cermanović 1961

J. Todorović/A. Cermanović, Banjica: naselje vinčanskeculture (Beograd 1961).

Trajković-Filipović et al. 2008T. Trajković-Filipović/D. Milanović/A. Bulatović, Revizio-na arheološka iskopavawa lokaliteta Bubanj kod Niša u2008. godini. Zbornik, Narodni muzej Niš 16–17, 2008,309–318.

Trigger 1989B. G. Trigger, A history of archaeological thought (Cam-bridge 1989).

Tringham 1991

R. E. Tringham, Households with faces: The challenge ofgender in prehistoric architectural remains. In: J. Gero/M. Conkey (eds.), Engendering Archaeology: Womenand Prehistory (Oxford 1991) 93–131.

Tringham 1992

R. E. Tringham, Life after Selevac: Why and how a Neo-lithic settlement is abandoned. Balcanica 23, 1992,133–145.

Tringham/Krstić 1990

R. E. Tringham/D. Krstić (eds.), Selevac: A Neolithic vil-lage in Yugoslavia (Los Angeles 1990).

Tringham et al. 1992R. E. Tringham/B. Brukner/T. Kaiser/K. Borojević/N. Rus-sell/P. Steli/M. Stevanović/B. Voytek, Excavations atOpovo 1985–1987: Socioeconomic change in the Bal-kan Neolithic. Journal of Field Archaeology 19, 1992,351–386.

Tripković 2013

B. Tripković, Domaćinstvo i zajednica. Kućne i naseo-binske istorije u kasnom neolitu centralnog Balkana(Beograd 2013).

Tripković/Milić 2009

B. Tripković/M. Milić, The origin and exchange of obsi-dian from Vinča-Belo Brdo. Starinar 58/2008, 2009,71–86.

Valamoti et al. 2007S. M. Valamoti/M. Mangafa/Ch. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki/D. Malamidou, Grape-pressings from northern Greece:The earliest wine in the Aegean? Antiquity 81, 2007,54–61.

Vasić 1932

M. M. Vasić, Preistoriska Vinča I. Industrija cinabarita ikosmetika u Vinči (Beograd: Izdanje i štampa Državneštamparije Kraljevine Jugoslavije, 1932).

Vasić 1936aM. M. Vasić, Preistoriska Vinča II. Oblici grobova. – Mis-tične oči. – Igra na tabli. – Datovanje Vinče (Beograd:Izdanje i štampa Državne štamparije Kraljevine Jugosla-vije, 1936).

Vasić 1936bM. M. Vasić, Preistoriska Vinča III: Plastika (Beograd: Iz-danje i štampa Državne štamparije Kraljevine Jugosla-vije, 1936).

Vasić 1936cM. M. Vasić, Preistoriska Vinča IV: Keramika (Beograd:Izdanje i štampa Državne štamparije Kraljevine Jugosla-vije, 1936).

Vassits 1910

M. M. Vassits, Die Hauptergebnisse der prähistorischenAusgrabung in Vinča im Jahre 1908. PraehistorischeZeitschrift II, 1, 1910, 23–39.

Vogel/Waterbolk 1963

J. C. Vogel/H. T. Waterbolk, Groningen radiocarbondates IV. Radiocarbon 5, 1963, 163–202.

Ward/Wilson 1978

G. K. Ward/S. R. Wilson, Procedures for comparing andcombining radiocarbon age-determinations – critique.Archaeometry 20, 1978, 19–31.

Waterbolk 1988

H. T. Waterbolk, C14-datirungen von Gomolava. In:N. Tasić/J. Petrović (eds.), Gomolava – Chronologie undStratigraphie der vorgeschichtlichen und antiken Kultu-ren der Donauniederung und Südosteuropas. Internatio-nales Symposium, Ruma 1986 (Novi Sad 1988) 117–

121.

White 2013

A. White, An abstract model showing that the spatialstructure of social networks affects the outcomes of cul-tural transmission processes. Journal of Artificial Socie-ties and Social Simulation 16 (3) 9, 2013 (http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/9.html).

Whittle 1996

A. Whittle, Europe in the Neolithic: The creation of newworlds (Cambridge 1996).

Whittle et al. 2002A. Whittle/L. Bartosiewicz/D. Borić/P. Pettitt/M. Ri-chards, In the beginning: New radiocarbon dates forthe Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-eastHungary. Antaeus 25, 2002, 63–117.

Yerkes et al. 2009R. W. Yerkes/A. Gyucha/W. A. Parkinson, A multiscalarapproach to modeling the end of the Neolithic on theGreat Hungarian Plain using calibrated radiocarbondates. Radiocarbon 51, 3, 2009, 1071–1109.

Zoffmann 1987

Zs. Zoffmann, Das anthropologische Material das spät-neolithischen Gräberfelds von Hrtkovci-Gomolava. Radvojvođanskih muzeja 30, 1987, 43–69.

Zotović 1963

M. Zotović, Kremenilo, Višesava, Bajina Bašta – više-slojno praistorijsko nalazište. Arheološki pregled 5,1963, 18–20.

Zotović 1985

M. Zotović, Arheološki i etnički problemi bronzanog igvozdenog doba Zapadne Srbije (Titovo Užice-Beograd1985).

203



App

endix

Radiocarbon

dates

from

Vinča

culturesitesof

theno

rthernan

dcentralB

alka

ns,inc

ludingrelatedFoen

i,Ban

at,Z

auan

dPe

tre

tigrou

psin

Roman

ia.O

utlie

rssu

ppos

edto

date

Vinča

cultureoc

cupationarealso

listed.Laboratoryreferenc

eco

de:

Bln-:Berlin

;BM-:British

Mus

eum;Deb

-:Deb

recen;

GrA-:Groning

enAccelerator;GrN-:Groning

en;HAR-:

Harwell;Hd-:Heidelberg;

LJ-:La

Jolla

.Lv-:Louv

ain;

OxA

-:Oxford;Po

z-:Po

znań

;R-:R

ome;

Z-:Za

greb

.Calibratedus

ingOxC

al4.2

(Bronk

Ramsey1995,2

001).

Lab.-No.

Sam

plemate-

rial

Sam

pleas

sociation

Rad

iocar-

bonag

e(BP)

δ13C

(‰)

δ15N

(‰)

Calib

ratedda

te(at

68.2

and95.4

perc

ent

confiden

cecalBC)

Siteph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Cultureph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Sou

rce

Anz

abeg

ovo

1LJ-2411

Charco

alSq.VIII,un

it55

6070±190

––

5221–4771(68.2

%)

5464–4547(95.4

%)

IV.b

BGim

butas

1976;

Linick

1977

2LJ-2329

Charco

alSq.XX

,de

pth

190cm

below

datum

6230±60

––

5298–5077(68.2

%)

5320–5026(95.4

%)

IV.b

BGim

butas

1976;

Linick

1977

Ban

jica

1GrN-1536

Charco

al5670±120

––

4652–4369(68.2

%)

4792–4270(95.4

%)

DVog

el/W

aterbolk1963

2GrN-1542

Charco

al5710±90

––

4680–4460(68.2

%)

4766–4358(95.4

%)

DVog

el/W

aterbolk1963;

Chap

man

1981

Bap

ska

1Bln-348

Charco

al5820±80

––

4778–4582(68.2

%)

4882–4487(95.4

%)

D1

Quitta/Ko

hl1969;

Chap

man

1981

2BM-1124

Charco

alfrag

-men

ts(ref.

1974/5

7)

Tren

ch23,sq

.1,Pit21,sp

its4–6

5871±54

–25.8

–4826–4687(68.2

%)

4896–4586(95.4

%)

ABurleigh/H

ewso

n1979;

Chap

man

1981

Belov

ode

1OxA

-14678

reddee

ran

tler

(BEL12)

‘ritua

lzone

’:Tren

ch6,sp

its1–3,176.5

masl;

buildingfloo

rsan

dthreeov

enswith35whole

vessels,

anthropom

orphic

andzoom

orphic

fig-

urines

(07/0

7/1

997)

4431±36

–22.9

9.8

3310–2942(68.2

%)

3330–2924(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

2OxA

-14628

reddee

ran

tler

(BEL13)

ston

ecach

e:Tren

ch7,sp

it4,176.57m

asl;

230dispos

edston

eartefactswithbe

adsan

dlumpsof

malachiteorethermallytrea

ted(1999)

5800±36

–22.3

7.0

4710–4609(68.2

%)

4727–4546(95.4

%)

Gradac

Borić

2009

3OxA

-14679

Bos

sp.man

d-

ible

(BEL14)

surfacewithmalachite(0.6

×0.5

m):Tren

ch7,

spit12,175.53m

als;

conc

entrationof

small

grains

ofmalachite

(2–15mm

butalso

<2mm)

mixed

withsand

andch

arco

al(14/0

7/2

000);

pottery

decoration:

cann

eluring,

incision

san

drowsof

pun

ctua

tion

s

6090±36

–21.1

6.4

5051–4948(68.2

%)

5207–4855(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

204


Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean SeaLab.-No.

Sam

plemate-

rial

Sam

pleas

sociation

Rad

iocar-

bonag

e(BP)

δ13C

(‰)

δ15N

(‰)

Calib

ratedda

te(at

68.2

and95.4

perc

ent

confiden

cecalBC)

Siteph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Cultureph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Sou

rce

4OxA

-14680

pig

tooth

(BEL15)

burnt

surface:

Tren

ch7,sp

it14,175.22m

asl;

ashan

dburnt

cons

truc

tion

aldeb

riswithlumps

ofmalachiteof

larger

size;on

elumpof

azurite

withch

arco

al(17/0

7/2

000)

6268±37

–23.0

8.4

5298–5222(68.2

%)

5323–5079(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

5OxA

-14681

pig

metatarsu

s(BEL16)

burnt

surface:

Tren

ch7,sp

it19,174.68m

asl;

ashan

dch

arco

alwithlumpsof

malachite(26/

07/2

000);pottery

decoration:

barbotine,

poly-

chromy

6182±37

–19.5

7.7

5211–5070(68.2

%)

5281–5010(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

6OxA

-14700

Bossp

.rib

(BEL18)

oven

floor:Tren

ch8,sp

it9,175.93m

asl;

lumpsof

malachite

andazurite,

thermally

trea

-ted(16/0

7/2

001);pottery

decoration:

chan

nel-

ling,

incision

san

dpun

ctua

tion

swithor

withou

twhitepaint,polychromy

6145±40

–21.6

8.5

5207–5028(68.2

%)

5216–4987(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

7OxA

-14682

Ruminan

tia

long

bone

(BEL19)

burnt

surface:

Tren

ch8,sp

it11,175.73m

asl;

surfacewithch

arco

al,ashan

dlumpsof

mala-

chite(19/0

7/2

001);pottery

&decoration:

pe-

destalledbea

kers,proso

pom

orphic

lids;

chan

-ne

lling

,incision

s,orga

nizedbarbotine,

‘straluc

ido’

6025±36

–20.4

8.6

4981–4849(68.2

%)

5016–4806(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

8OxA

-14683

Bossp

.rib

(BEL20)

oven

floo

r(2

phases

ofre-plastering):Tren

ch8,

spit15,175.25m

asl;thermally

trea

tedlumps

ofmalachite(25/0

7/2

001):pottery

&decora-

tion

:proso

pom

orphic

lids;

chan

nelling

,inci-

sion

s,orga

nizedbarbotine,

polych

romy

6258±36

–20.9

8.7

5298–5218(68.2

%)

5318–5077(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

9OxA

-14684

Bossp

.rib

(BEL21)

burnt

featuredeb

ris:

Tren

ch8;sp

it23,

174.46m

asl;thermally

trea

tedlumpsof

mala-

chite(01/0

8/2

001);pottery

decoration:

orga

-nizedbarbotine

6354±36

–21.3

7.0

5375–5301(68.2

%)

5467–5228(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

Beran

-Krš

1Z-492

Charco

alTren

chIII,layer13

5870±150

––

4931–4548(68.2

%)

5206–4373(95.4

%)

BChap

man

1981;

Srdoč

etal.1977

2Z-491

Charco

alTren

chIII,layer7

6030±60

––

4999–4843(68.2

%)

5204–4771(95.4

%)

BChap

man

1981;

Srdoč

etal.1977

Cârcea

Viad

uct

1Bln-2294

Charco

al5865±95

––

4842–4605(68.2

%)

4962–4498(95.4

%)

Dud

eti–

Vinča

CMan

tu2000

2Bln-2289

Charco

al5910±50

––

4836–4722(68.2

%)

4932–4688(95.4

%)

Dud

eti–

Vinča

CMan

tu2000

205



3Bln-2291

Charco

al5990±55

––

4943–4801(68.2

%)

5006–4728(95.4

%)

Dud

eti–Vinča

CMan

tu2000

4Bln-1980

Charco

al6100±60

––

5205–4936(68.2

%)

5213–4849(95.4

%)

Dud

eti–Vinča

BMan

tu2000

5Bln-2008

Charco

al6250±40

––

5303–5211(68.2

%)

5316–5070(95.4

%)

Dud

eti–Vinča

BMan

tu2000

6Bln-2287

Charco

al6300±55

––

5326–5217(68.2

%)

5464–5076(95.4

%)

Dud

eti–Vinča

CMan

tu2000

7Bln-2292

Charco

al6350±60

––

5464–5230(68.2

%)

5469–5221(95.4

%)

Dud

eti–Vinča

BMan

tu2000

CauceCa

ve

1Grn–28994

Bossp

.,tibia

Gr.104,dep

th50cm

from

thesu

rface

5760±40

––

4680–4551(68.2

%)

4710–4505(95.4

%)

P.Biagi,pers.

comm.

DaiaRom

ână

1Bln-1201

Charco

al5710±100

––

4684–4459(68.2

%)

4771–4356(95.4

%)

PetretiA

Maxim

1999

2Bln-1199

Charco

al5835±100

––

4796–4553(68.2

%)

4936–4463(95.4

%)

PetretiA

Maxim

1999

3Bln-1197

Charco

alS.V/1

971

5900±100

––

4932–4621(68.2

%)

5029–4529(95.4

%)

PetretiA

Maxim

1999

Divos

tin

1OxA

-14694

pig

maxilla

(D35)

Hou

se13:Feature21,qua

d.F8/1

0(1969)

5775±39

–18.8

9.8

4688–4581(68.2

%)

4719–4532(95.4

%)

IID

Borić

2009

2OxA

-14705

dog

man

dible

(D36)

Hou

se13:Feature21,qua

d.F8/1

0(Bag

590)

(1969)

5810±36

–19.2

10.0

4716–4614(68.2

%)

4767–4550(95.4

%)

IID

Borić

2009

3OxA

-14693

reddee

r(juve-

nilis)skull–

unfusedsu

-tures(D34)

Hou

se13:Feature20,qu

ad.F8/1

0,sp

it5

(1969)

5811±34

–18.8

8.0

4716–4616(68.2

%)

4767–4551(95.4

%)

IID

Borić

2009

4Bln-867

Charco

alFeature110(Pit1),be

neaththefloo

rof

Hou

se15,intrus

iveinto

phaseIpit

5250±100

––

4230–3972(68.2

%)

4331–3806(95.4

%)

IStarčevo

Borić

2009;McP

herron

etal.1988,Table

14.1.

5Bln-863

‘Burnt

earth’

(charco

al)

Hea

rth2(und

ermultiple

layers

ofbak

edclay

that

form

rene

walsof

hea

rthsu

rface)

inHou

se14

5825±100

––

4788–4552(68.2

%)

4932–4460(95.4

%)

IID

Borić

2009;McP

herron

etal.1988,Table

14.1.

6Bln-865a

Charco

alFeature117,ben

eath

Hou

se14

5965±100

––

4976–4725(68.2

%)

5207–4601(95.4

%)

IID

Borić

2009;McP

herron

etal.1988,Table

14.1.

7Bln-865

6020±100

––

5048–4790(68.2

%)

5212–4711(95.4

%)

206



Sam

ple

material

Sam

pleas

sociation

Rad

iocar-

bonag

e(BP)

δ13C

(‰)

δ15N

(‰)

Calib

ratedda

te(at

68.2

and95.4

perc

ent

confiden

cecalBC)

Siteph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Cultureph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Sou

rce

8BM-574

Charco

al(sin-

glesample

sent

to3dif-

ferent

labora-

tories)

Feature121(Pit20),~35cm

below

level7–a

pitwithmixed

charco

alfrom

differen

tperiods

5247±100

––

4229–3971(68.2

%)

4330–3806(95.4

%)

IID

Borić

2009;

McP

herronet

al.1988,

Table

14.1

9Bln-898

5860±100

––

4842–4594(68.2

%)

4981–4493(95.4

%)

10

Z-336a

6005±93

––

5020–4786(68.2

%)

5207–4709(95.4

%)

11

Z-336b

6052±90

––

5195–4810(68.2

%)

5215–4730(95.4

%)

Foen

i

1Hd-22653

Charco

al5699±37

––

4580–4466(68.2

%)

4677–4456(95.4

%)

Foen

iDrașov

ean2005

2Hd-22658

Charco

al5782±27

––

4689–4600(68.2

%)

4706–4552(95.4

%)

Foen

iDrașov

ean2005

3Deb

-5725

Charco

al5835±40

––

4770–4618(68.2

%)

4794–4560(95.4

%)

Foen

iDrașov

ean2005

4Deb

-5771

Charco

al5855±55

––

4795–4619(68.2

%)

4841–4556(95.4

%)

Foen

iDrașov

ean2005

Gom

olava

1OxA

-21132

Bostaurus,

femur

Hou

se4/8

0,un

it151/8

0;intrus

ive

4169±34

–19.0

–2876–2695(68.2

%)

2884–2632(95.4

%)

IbD

Orton

2012

2GrN-7373

See

d(?)

pit(?),Block

IV,sq

.84–85/X,sp

it17,81.46m

asl(1972);intrus

ive

4435±60

––

3324–2939(68.2

%)

3339–2919(95.4

%)

Ia-b?

C?

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

3GrN-7375

Charco

alapit(?),Block

IV,sq

.77,78/IX(1972);intru-

sive

4590±60

––

3501–3120(68.2

%)

3520–3098(95.4

%)

Ia?

B/C

?Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

4OxA

-14708

Hum

anverte-

bra

(GO40),

adultmale

Burial21,flexed

inhum

ation,

leftside;

acco

m-

pan

iedby6ceramic

vessels,

onegrou

ndston

eaxean

daflintkn

ife;

therewerepatholog

ical

chan

geson

theskull

5739±35

–19.9

11.1

4669–4536(68.2

%)

4688–4499(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009

5OxA

-14706

Hum

anrib

(GO38),ad

ult

male

Burial7,flexed

inhum

ation,

leftside;

acco

m-

pan

iedby3ceramic

vessels

5824±37

–19.8

10.9

4726–4614(68.2

%)

4785–4559(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009

6OxA

-14709

Hum

anrib

(GO41),ad

ult

male

Burial25,flexed

inhum

ation,

leftside;

acco

m-

pan

iedby4ceramic

vesselsbythehea

dan

d1ston

eaxe

5773±35

–19.7

10.4

4687–4584(68.2

%)

4712–4541(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009

207



7OxA

-14707

Hum

anrib

(GO39),ad

ult

male

Burial12,flexed

inhum

ation,

leftside;

acco

m-

pan

iedbyco

pper

braceletarou

ndthewrist

oftheleftarm;ston

eaxean

d2ceramicvesselsby

thelegs

5848±38

–19.6

10.9

4782–4687(68.2

%)

4823–4601(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009

8GrN-13160

Charco

alHou

se9/8

0,Block

VII;

sq.E3

,4(spits17/1

8,

79.45m

asl)

5710±60

––

4614–4464(68.2

%)

4711–4401(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

9GrN-7374

See

d(?)

Block

IV,sq

.77–78/XII–

XIII,

spit17,81.46m

asl,(1972)

5715±75

––

4677–4465(68.2

%)

4722–4371(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

10

GrN-13091

Charco

alHou

se3/8

0,Block

VII;

sq.B3,4,sp

its17/1

8,

79.47m

asl

5820±70

––

4770–4586(68.2

%)

4837–4505(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

11

GrN-13164

Charco

alaprofile

(?)of

Block

VII,

spit?,

78.83m

asl

5860±70

––

4827–4618(68.2

%)

4903–4544(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

12

GrN-13162

Charco

alHou

se10/8

0,Block

VII,

sq.B2,C1,sp

it18,

79.19m

asl

5835±35

––

4770–4619(68.2

%)

4791–4596(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

13

GrN-13161

Charco

alHou

se10/8

1,Block

VII,

sq.B2,C1,sp

it18,

79.19m

asl

5895±35

––

4796–4721(68.2

%)

4843–4696(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

14

OxA

-14710

Largemam

mal

long

bone

,tool

(GO43)

FeatureA2:Block

II,sq

.101/XX,

spit16,

t3.88m;fieldinv.

1011,mus

eum

inv.

2856

(28/0

8/7

5)

5922±36

–20.3

6.4

4837–4729(68.2

%)

4897–4716(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009

15

GrN-13094

Charco

alHou

se11/8

1,Block

VII;

sq.B3,sp

its18–19,

79.21m

asl

5930±45

––

4845–4728(68.2

%)

4932–4714(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

16

GrN-13097

Charco

alHou

se1/8

0,Block

VII,

sq.H2,sp

it?,

80.24m

asl

5945±50

––

4899–4745(68.2

%)

4948–4713(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

17

GrN-13163

Charco

alHou

se8/8

0,Block

VII,

sq.E4

,F3

,sp

it18,

79.49m

asl

6015±35

––

4946–4846(68.2

%)

5000–4802(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

18

GrN-13092

Charco

alHou

se5/8

0,B

lock

VII;

sq.B

2,4

-C1,3

,spits17/

18,79.17m

asl

6025±35

––

4979–4849(68.2

%)

5016–4806(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

19

GrN-13159

Charco

alHou

se5/8

0,B

lock

VII;

sq.B

2,4

-C1,3

,spits17/

18,79.42m

asl

5720±140

––

4721–4400(68.2

%)

4931–4328(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

20

GrN-13166

Charco

alHou

se6/8

0,Block

VII,

sq.F1

,E2

(spit18,

79.45m

asl

5920±100

––

4936–4691(68.2

%)

5052–4543(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

21

GrN-13093

Charco

alHou

se6/8

0,Block

VII,

sq.F1,E2

,sp

its18/1

9,

79.29m

asl

6040±100

––

5191–4798(68.2

%)

5216–4720(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

22

GrN-13165

Charco

alHou

se11/8

1,Block

VII,

sq.B3,sp

its18/1

9,

79.20m

asl

6060±35

––

5019–4911(68.2

%)

5053–4848(95.4

%)

IbD

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

23

GrN-7376

Charco

alPit“C”,Block

V,sq

.74–75/X–XII(1972)

6010±70

––

4996–4803(68.2

%)

5202–4721(95.4

%)

IaB/C

Borić

2009;

Waterbolk1988

24

OxA

-21133

Bostaurus,

humerus

Pit1/8

3,un

it23/8

45934±40

–20.2

–4847–4729(68.2

%)

4931–4718(95.4

%)

Ia-b

COrton

2012

208



Sam

ple

material

Sam

pleas

sociation

Rad

iocar-

bonag

e(BP)

δ13C

(‰)

δ15N

(‰)

Calib

ratedda

te(at

68.2

and95.4

perc

ent

confiden

cecalBC)

Siteph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Cultureph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Sou

rce

25

OxA

-21134

Susscrofa,

femur

Pit1/8

3,un

it41/8

45971±37

–20.8

–4906–4797(68.2

%)

4954–4730(95.4

%)

IaB/C

Orton

2012

26

OxA

-21135

Cervusela-

phus,

hum

erus

Pit1/8

3,un

it43/8

46020±40

–22.3

–4960–4846(68.2

%)

5011–4799(95.4

%)

IaB/C

Orton

2012

27

OxA

-21138

Bostaurus,

metacarpal

Pit2/8

3,un

it37/8

45946±35

–20.8

–4896–4780(68.2

%)

4931–4726(95.4

%)

IaB/C

Orton

2012

28

OxA

-21137

Bostaurus,

humerus

Pit2/8

3,un

it30/8

45985±33

–20.4

–4932–4834(68.2

%)

4964–4787(95.4

%)

IaB/C

Orton

2012

29

OxA

-21136

Bostaurus,

femur

Pit2/8

3,un

it20/8

46015±40

–21.0

–4953–4844(68.2

%)

5004–4797(95.4

%)

IaB/C

Orton

2012

30

OxA

-21140

Bostaurus,

tibia

Pit12/8

4,un

it6/8

55930±35

–20.8

–4843–4730(68.2

%)

4902–4718(95.4

%)

IaB/C

Orton

2012

31

OxA

-22339

Bostaurus,

humerus

Pit12/8

4,un

it19/8

45944±34

–21.4

–4896–4777(68.2

%)

4931–4725(95.4

%)

IaC

Orton

2012

32

OxA

-21139

Bostaurus,

humerus

Pit12/8

4,un

it6/8

55964±35

–20.4

–4900–4793(68.2

%)

4944–4730(95.4

%)

IaC

Orton

2012

Gorne

a

1BM-1124

Charco

alPit21,Tren

ch23,sq

.1

5871±54

––

4826–4687(68.2

%)

4896–4586(95.4

%)

CBurleigh/N

elso

n1979

GornjaTu

zla

1GrN-1974

Charco

alCharredbea

mat

thedep

thof

3.5

m5580±60

––

4457–4357(68.2

%)

4534–4335(95.4

%)

IIID

Vog

el/W

aterbolk1963;

Chap

man

1981

2Bln-349

Charco

al5710±100

––

4684–4459(68.2

%)

4771–4356(95.4

%)

IIID

Quitta/Ko

hl1969;

Chap

man

1981

Grivac

1Bln-872

Charco

alTren

chA,layer4,burnt

buildingfloo

r5915±100

––

4936–4688(68.2

%)

5048–4542(95.4

%)

‘Early

Ploc

-nik’

CChap

man

1981;

McP

herronet

al.1988

2Z-1507

Charco

alTren

chA,level5

5600±140

––

4614–4274(68.2

%)

4785–4072(95.4

%)

CSrdoč

etal.1987

3Bln-871

Charco

alTren

chA,level7

6190±100

––

5294–5021(68.2

%)

5365–4851(95.4

%)

‘LateTor-

doš

’

CChap

man

1981;

McP

herronet

al.1988

4Z-1508

Charco

alTren

chA,level9

6000±140

––

5195–4718(68.2

%)

5291–4551(95.4

%)

CSrdoč

etal.1987

5Bln-868

Charco

al(?)

‘Burnt

earth’from

Tren

chB,un

der

aburnt

building

6070±100

––

5205–4841(68.2

%)

5282–4728(95.4

%)

CMcP

herronet

al.1988

209



6Bln-870

Charco

alAlargepitin

subso

il,SEco

rner

ofTren

chB

6315±100

––

5466–5210(68.2

%)

5480–5043(95.4

%)

BChap

man

1981;

McP

herronet

al.1988

Hod

oni

1Deb

-2018

Reddee

ran

tler

Pit4

5870±60

––

4830–4684(68.2

%)

4897–4559(95.4

%)

C1

Gläser1996

2Deb

-1963

Reddee

ran

tler

Pit4

5880±60

––

4831–4690(68.2

%)

4929–4586(95.4

%)

C1

Drașov

ean1994

Limba

Borda

ne

1GrN-28112

Bossp

.,rib

6290±50

––

5313–5221(68.2

%)

5372–5076(95.4

%)

A3?

Biagi

etal.2005

Liub

cova

1Bln-2133

Charco

al6175±85

––

5222–5003(68.2

%)

5318–4859(95.4

%)

B2

László

1997

Lumea

Nou

ă

1Po

z-19375

Man

dible

G1/S

p.II–2003,dep

th1m

5650±40

––

4536–4451(68.2

%)

4556–4365(95.4

%)

Foen

iGlig

or2007

2Po

z-19376

Maxilla

C1/S

p.III–2005,dep

th0.8

m5670±40

––

4539–4460(68.2

%)

4611–4373(95.4

%)

Foen

iGlig

or2007

3Po

z-22521

Man

dible

C1/S

p.III–2005,dep

th1.55–1.6

m5690±40

––

4553–4461(68.2

%)

4679–4450(95.4

%)

Foen

iGlig

or2007

4Po

z-22522

Maxilla

1/S

p.III–2005,dep

th1.85–1.9

m5695±35

––

4553–4464(68.2

%)

4653–4454(95.4

%)

Foen

iGlig

or2007

5Po

z-19451

Charco

alB1/S

p.II–2006,de

pth

1m

5700±50

––

4592–4464(68.2

%)

4690–4408(95.4

%)

Foen

iGlig

or2007

6Po

z-19489

Maxilla

G1/S

p.II–2003,de

pth

0.9

m5750±50

––

4683–4543(68.2

%)

4716–4466(95.4

%)

Foen

iGlig

or2007

7Po

z-19377

Man

dible

G1/S

p.III–2005,de

pth

1.1

5770±40

––

4686–4561(68.2

%)

4717–4526(95.4

%)

Foen

iGlig

or2007

8Po

z-19490

Charco

alB1/S

p.II–2006,dep

th1.4–1.5

m6090±50

––

5200–4934(68.2

%)

5208–4851(95.4

%)

Foen

iGlig

or2007

Lupljanica

1M-2455

Charco

al5600±200

––

4702–4257(68.2

%)

4908–3990(95.4

%)

Chap

man

1981;

Breun

ig1987

Med

vedn

jak

1LJ-2523

Charco

al6100±65

––

5206–4935(68.2

%)

5214–4848(95.4

%)

BGim

butas

1976

210



Sam

ple

material

Sam

pleas

sociation

Rad

iocar-

bonag

e(BP)

δ13C

(‰)

δ15N

(‰)

Calib

ratedda

te(at

68.2

and95.4

perc

ent

confiden

cecalBC)

Siteph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Cultureph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Sou

rce

Miercurea

Sibiului-Pe

tri

1GrA-26606

Bon

e6180±40

––

5211–5066(68.2

%)

5286–5002(95.4

%)

B1

Luca

etal.2006

2GrA-30500

Bon

e6200±60

––

5218–5070(68.2

%)

5295–5045(95.4

%)

B?

Biagi

etal.2007

3GrN-29053

Charco

al6350±130

––

5477–5212(68.2

%)

5556–5001(95.4

%)

IIbA3-B1

Luca

etal.2006

4GrA-33127

Bon

ePit18

6475±40

––

5482–5380(68.2

%)

5516–5357(95.4

%)

Early

Biagi

etal.2007

Opo

vo

1OxA

-21454

Largemam

mal,

long

bon

eF52,un

it1885

5887±36

–20.1

–4791–4719(68.2

%)

4838–4691(95.4

%)

BH2

COrton

2012

2OxA

-21212

Bos

/Cervu

stibia

F52,un

it1783

5913±30

–20.7

–4826–4729(68.2

%)

4846–4714(95.4

%)

BH2

COrton

2012

3OxA

-21131

Cerphuselaphus,

metatarsal

F52,un

it1797

5992±39

–20.8

–4937–4836(68.2

%)

4989–4790(95.4

%)

BH2

COrton

2012

4OxA

-21127

Bos

/Cervu

s,tibia

F41(E),un

it1663

5921±35

–19.5

–4836–4729(68.2

%)

4897–4715(95.4

%)

BH2

COrton

2012

5OxA

-21128

Capreoluscapreo-

lus,

metatarsal

F41(E),un

it1744

5926±35

–20.5

–4841–4729(68.2

%)

4899–4717(95.4

%)

BH2

COrton

2012

6OxA

-21126

Cervuselaphus,

metap

odial

F41(W

),un

it1604

5966±36

–20.4

–4902–4794(68.2

%)

4945–4730(95.4

%)

BH3

COrton

2012

7OxA

-21129

Bos

/Cervu

s,me-

tatarsal

F45,un

it1863

5963±34

–20.63

–4898–4795(68.2

%)

4942–4743(95.4

%)

BH3

COrton

2012

8OxA

-21130

Capreolusela-

phus,

metatcarpal

F45,un

it1876

5972±37

–20.1

–4906–4798(68.2

%)

4958–4731(95.4

%)

BH3

COrton

2012

9OxA

-21125

Cervuselaphus,

metatarsal

F30,un

it1596

5973±35

–20.7

–4906–4799(68.2

%)

4953–4746(95.4

%)

BH3

COrton

2012

10

OxA

-21123

Cervuselaphus,

metatarsal

F30,un

it1588

5978±35

–21.0

–4931–4802(68.2

%)

4976–4777(95.4

%)

BH3

COrton

2012

11

OxA

-21124

6036±36

–20.9

–4992–4853(68.2

%)

5033–4837(95.4

%)

Orătie–

Dea

lulPe

milo

r

1Deb

-5775

Hum

anskull

‘Pit-dwellin

g’2/1

994

5790±55

––

4710–4562(68.2

%)

4780–4517(95.4

%)

B2

Luca

2003

211



2Deb

-5762

Bos

sp.,femur

‘Pit-dwellin

g’1/1

993,

firstlevelof

limestone

5825±60

––

4770–4604(68.2

%)

4831–4537(95.4

%)

B1

Luca

2003

3Deb

-5765

Hum

anskull

‘Pit-dwellin

g’2/1

994,

seco

ndlevelof

limestone

1.2

m6070±70

––

5195–4849(68.2

%)

5211–4803(95.4

%)

B2

Luca

2003

Ószen

tiván8

1Bln-480

Charco

alPitVIII/e

3,0.75–1m

6050±100

––

5200–4802(68.2

%)

5219–4722(95.4

%)

A(Ban

at)

Kohl/Quitta1970;

Chap

man

1981

2Bln-478

Charco

alPitVIII/e

5,1.2–1.5

m6070±100

––

5205–4841(68.2

%)

5282–4728(95.4

%)

A(Ban

at)

Kohl/Quitta1970;

Chap

man

1981

3Bln-477

Charco

alPit4,levelVIII/e,1–1.2

m6270±80

––

5325–5077(68.2

%)

5466–5027(95.4

%)

A(Ban

at)

Kohl/Quitta1970;

Chap

man

1981

4Bln-479

Charco

alPit2,levelVIII/e

2,0.65–0.90m

6460±100

––

5492–5323(68.2

%)

5616–5227(95.4

%)

A(Ban

at)

Kohl/Quitta1970;

Chap

man

1981

Parţa

1Lv-2145

Charco

alShrine

1,Level7

a(1984),Platform

8

(S.6

,c.37,–1.9m)

6560±140

––

5627–5377(68.2

%)

5732–5228(95.4

%)

IA3–B1(Ban

at)

Lazarovici

etal.2007;

Man

tu2000

2Lv-2147

Charco

alLevel7c-6a,

Hou

se41(S.9,c.24,

–1.45–1.5m)

6500±130

––

5606–5341(68.2

%)

5671–5215(95.4

%)

IIB1–B2(Ban

at)

Lazarovici

etal.2007;

Man

tu2000

3Lv-2146

Charco

alShrine

1,Level7b,Pit63(S.6,c.43,–1.9m)

6470±150

––

5607–5307(68.2

%)

5701–5068(95.4

%)

IA3–B1(Ban

at)

Lazarovici

etal.2007;

Man

tu2000

4Lv-2143

Charco

alLevel6

a,Hou

se42(S.10,c.14–16),so

uth

oftheov

enpots3–6

6340±100

––

5466–5220(68.2

%)

5485–5055(95.4

%)

IIB1–B2(Ban

at)

Lazarovici

etal.2007;

Man

tu2000

5Lv-2139

Charco

alLevel7c-6a,

Hou

se41(S.9,c.8,–1.6m)

6330±140

––

5475–5081(68.2

%)

5556–4956(95.4

%)

IIB1–B2(Ban

at)

Lazarovici

etal.2007;

Man

tu2000

6Lv-2141

Charco

alLevel7c-6a,

Hou

se42(S.9,c.11,–1.9m)

6290±80

––

5370–5081(68.2

%)

5467–5056(95.4

%)

IIB1–B2(Ban

at)

Lazarovici

etal.2007;

Man

tu2000

7Lv-2148

Charco

alLevel7c-6a,

Hou

seP2

0(S.8,c.33,–1.6m)

6240±70

––

5305–5077(68.2

%)

5356–5011(95.4

%)

IIB1–B2(Ban

at)

Lazarovici

etal.2007;

Man

tu2000

8Lv-2151

Charco

alLevel7

c-6a,

Hou

se17/4

3,silo

pit(S.9

,c.5,

–1.5m)

6240±70

––

5305–5077(68.2

%)

5356–5011(95.4

%)

IA3–B1(Ban

at)

Lazarovici

etal.2007;

Man

tu2000

9Lv-2142

Charco

alLevel7c-6a,

Hou

se42(S.9,c.8,–1.75–2m)

6240±80

––

5307–5073(68.2

%)

5460–4987(95.4

%)

IA3–B1(Ban

at)

Lazarovici

etal.2007;

Man

tu2000

10

Lv-2149

Burnt

cereal

grain

Level6

a,Hou

se18(Pit4),so

uthernpart,

aclay

‘drawer’withcereals

6160±90

––

5221–4990(68.2

%)

5313–4850(95.4

%)

IIB1–B2(Ban

at)

Lazarovici

etal.2007;

Man

tu2000

11

Lv-2138

Charco

alLevel6

a,Hou

se41(S.9,c.16,

–1.40–1.65m),ea

sternpart

6160±100

––

5225–4964(68.2

%)

5322–4842(95.4

%)

IIB1–B2(Ban

at)

Lazarovici

etal.2007;

Man

tu2000

12

Lv-2140

Charco

alLevel7c-6a,

Hou

se40(S.9,–1.6m)

6140±80

––

5211–4996(68.2

%)

5299–4851(95.4

%)

IIB(Ban

at)

Lazarovici

etal.2007;

Man

tu2000

212



Sam

ple

material

Sam

pleas

sociation

Rad

iocar-

bonag

e(BP)

δ13C

(‰)

δ15N

(‰)

Calib

ratedda

te(at

68.2

and95.4

perc

ent

confiden

cecalBC)

Siteph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Cultureph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Sou

rce

13

Lv-2144

Burnt

cereal

grain

Level6

a,Hou

se41(S.9,c.15,–1.6m)

6100±80

––

5207–4934(68.2

%)

5282–4801(95.4

%)

IIB1–B2(Ban

at)

Lazarovici

etal.2007;

Man

tu2000

14

Lv-2150

Charco

alLevel6

a,Hou

se41(S.9,c.15,–1.6m)

6070±90

––

5202–4844(68.2

%)

5222–4746(95.4

%)

IIB1–B2(Ban

at)

Lazarovici

etal.2007;

Man

tu2000

Petnica

1OxA

-23223

Cervuselaphus,

hum

erus

Loom

,un

it97–1377

6074±37

–21.8

–5040–4938(68.2

%)

5201–4848(95.4

%)

3D1

Orton

2012

2OxA

-23224

5970±36

–21.5

–4904–4797(68.2

%)

4950–4730(95.4

%)

Orton

2012

3OxA

-23225

Bos

/Cervu

s,scap

ula

Upper

Pit3,un

it97–1656

5937±36

–20.9

–4876–4730(68.2

%)

4929–4721(95.4

%)

2C

Orton

2012

4OxA

-23221

Cervuselaphus,

hum

erus

Upper

Pit2,un

it97–1378

6034±38

–22.1

–4992–4851(68.2

%)

5034–4834(95.4

%)

3D1

Orton

2012

5OxA

-23222

Cervuselaphus,

metatarsal

Hou

se1,wallc

ollapse,un

it97–1642

6002±37

–21.4

–4941–4842(68.2

%)

4991–4797(95.4

%)

1B2

Orton

2012

6OxA

-23226

Bos

/Cervu

s,metatrsal

Hou

se1,wallc

ollapse,un

it97–1640

6047±37

–21.6

–4999–4856(68.2

%)

5045–4843(95.4

%)

1B2

Orton

2012

7OxA

-14754

smallRu

minan

tmetap

odial(P17),

bon

etool

Cou

rtyard

ofHou

se2,Tren

ch10,sq

.27,sp

it17,stratigrap

hicun

it1402(16/0

9/1

997)

6091±37

–23.6

7.2

5053–4947(68.2

%)

5207–4855(95.4

%)

2C

Borić

2009

Ploč

nik

1OxA

-14685

Bossp

.,proximal

tibia

(PL2

3)

Burnt

buildingdeb

ris:

Tren

ch16,sp

it7,

297.79m

asl;co

pper

chisel

foun

dun

der

the

deb

ris(07/1

1/2

000)

5765±35

–20.6

5.7

4682–4557(68.2

%)

4710–4530(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

2OxA

-14686

Bossp

.,calca-

neus

(PL2

4)

Buildingfloo

r:Tren

ch14,sp

it10,297.29m

asl;am

orphou

slumpsof

copper

(2000)

6046±37

–19.8

4.8

4999–4856(68.2

%)

5045–4842(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

3OxA

-14687

Bossp

.,rib

(PL2

5)

Burnt

surface:

Tren

ch14,sp

it13,297.02m

asl;ch

arco

al,ashan

dburnt

soil(2000)

6148±37

–21.4

6.4

5207–5036(68.2

%)

5212–5000(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

4OxA

-14688

Bossp

.,verteb

ra(PL2

6)

Tren

ch14,bottom,sp

it22,295.87m

asl

(2000)

6153±37

–21.0

6.8

5207–5048(68.2

%)

5213–5003(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

5OxA

-14689

Bos

-sizebon

e(PL2

8)

Surface

V,Tren

ch15,sp

it12,300.18m

asl;

lumpsof

thermally

chan

gedmalachite(02/

10/2

001)

6026±38

–20.4

5.8

4981–4850(68.2

%)

5023–4806(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

6OxA

-14690

Dog

,distal

hum

erus

(PL2

9)

Oven,

Surface

VII:

Tren

ch15,sp

it16,

299.56m

asl(10/1

0/2

001)

6160±37

–19.2

8.5

5207–5055(68.2

%)

5215–5005(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

213



7OxA

-14691

largemam

mal

long

bon

e(PL3

0),

awl

Burnt

surface:

Tren

ch15,sp

it20,299.09m

asl,ch

arco

alan

dash(11/1

0/2

001)

6193±37

–20.1

5.9

5215–5070(68.2

%)

5290–5036(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

8OxA

-14692

Bossp

.,rib

(PL3

1)

Hea

rth:Tren

ch15,sp

it26,298.08m

asl;

hea

rthdu

ginto

thesterile

soil(15/1

1/2

001)

6181±34

–20.6

7.6

5210–5070(68.2

%)

5225–5019(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

Pred

ionica

1Bln-435

Charco

alLevel3b

6279±80

––

5358–5080(68.2

%)

5467–5046(95.4

%)

AChap

man

1981;

Gim

butas

1974

Rud

naGlava

1OxA

-14676

Reddee

r,an

tler

(RG1),perforated

mattock

(inv

.8)

Shaft10,up

per

portion,

5.5

mfrom

theea

st-

ernborder

ofShaft9(15/1

0/1

981)

4273±32

–22.4

9.4

2909–2884(68.2

%)

3007–2764(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

2OxA

-16585

Carnivo

ra,pelvis

(RG2-rep

)Shaft4f:in

ach

anne

lattheno

rthernside;

419.09m

asl(?)

5816±35

–17.9

10.7

4721–4616(68.2

%)

4770–4554(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

3OxA

-14662

Ovis/Cap

ra,distal

righ

thum

erus

(RG10)

Hoa

rd5/S

haft2n:

levelof

Hoa

rd5:dne

vni

kop–

t2.2

mfrom

thesu

rface(27/9

/1983)

5938±37

–17.1

8.3

4876–4744(68.2

%)

4931–4721(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

4OxA

-14699

Reddee

r,an

tler

(RG6)

Shaft4a:

bottom

ofthesh

aft–ahoa

rdof

ston

ead

zesan

dan

tler

mattocks(16/1

0/

1974)

5974±39

–21.0

4.1

4908–4799(68.2

%)

4976–4743(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

5OxA

-14626

Reddee

r,an

tler

(RG9)

Hoa

rd3:dn

evni

kop–so

uth-eastern

partof

Western

platform

3(27/1

0/1

977)

6008±35

–21.8

5.9

4941–4846(68.2

%)

4994–4801(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

6OxA

-14624

reddee

r,an

tler

(RG8)

Hoa

rd3:dn

evni

kop–so

uth-eastern

partof

Western

platform

3(27/1

0/1

977)

6042±36

–21.9

6.2

4996–4856(68.2

%)

5038–4841(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

7OxA

-14625

6018±36

–21.9

6.2

4951–4846(68.2

%)

5003–4802(95.4

%)

8OxA

-14661

Reddee

r,an

tler

(RG3),tool

(inv

.2755)

Shaft2g:

coord.:i=

1.7

m;z=1.25m;

s=1.14m;j=

0.83m;t5.51m

from

the

surface;

417.41m

asl(19/0

9/1

986)

6171±39

–22.2

5.3

5208–5063(68.2

%)

5221–5001(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

9OxA

-14622

Reddee

r,an

tler

(RG4),tool-nee

dle

(inv

.2763)

Shaft2g:

t7.9

mfrom

theen

tran

ceto

the

shaft(1988)

6188±35

–21.5

6.0

5213–5071(68.2

%)

5287–5026(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

10

OxA

-14704

Reddee

ran

tler

(RG5),tool

(inv

.2754)

Shaft2g:

coord.:i=

1.4

m;z=1.7

m;s=0.7

m;j=

1m;t5.51m

from

thesu

rface;

427.44m

asl(19/0

9/1

986)

6123±36

–21.5

6.7

5205–4992(68.2

%)

5209–4962(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

11

OxA

-14677

unmod

ifiedmam

-mal

bon

e(RG2)

Hoa

rd1(nea

rShaft6a):from

aceramic

ves-

selleftat

theen

tran

ceplatform

(11/1

0/

1974)

6393±38

–20.4

11.9

5465–5322(68.2

%)

5470–5315(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

214



Sam

ple

material

Sam

pleas

sociation

Rad

iocar-

bonag

e(BP)

δ13C

(‰)

δ15N

(‰)

Calib

ratedda

te(at

68.2

and95.4

perc

ent

confiden

cecalBC)

Siteph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Cultureph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Sou

rce

12

OxA

-14627

Reddee

r,an

tler

(RG11),tool

(inv

.2136)

Shaft2i:sectionof

Western

platform

3,ne

xtto

aston

ead

ze–t2.2

mfrom

thesu

rface

(18/1

0/1

980)

6665±36

–23.2

5.9

5628–5560(68.2

%)

5643–5523(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

13

OxA

-14623

Reddee

r,an

tler

(RG7),tool

(inv

.2756)

Shaft4f:in

ach

anne

lattheno

rthernside;

419.09m

asl

7198±36

–22.0

5.8

6077–6018(68.2

%)

6205–5998(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

Satch

inez

1Deb

-2579

Charco

alPit1

6270±40

––

5300–5222(68.2

%)

5325–5076(95.4

%)

A2(Ban

at)

Man

tu2000

Selevac

1HAR3218

Charco

alTren

ch18,sq

.3/4

,level10(BH77–78:IX?)

5670±80

–25.3

–4606–4375(68.2

%)

4690–4355(95.4

%)

IIIB/C

Tringh

am/Krstić1990

2HAR3230

Charco

alFeature220–de

eppos

thole(BH77–78:VIII

orIX)

5750±80

–25.7

–4691–4505(68.2

%)

4791–4402(95.4

%)

II/III

B/C

Tringh

am/Krstić1990

3HAR3232

Charco

alCharco

allens

inFeature62(BH77–78:V)

6040±70

–25.5

–5031–4841(68.2

%)

5207–4783(95.4

%)

IIB

Tringh

am/Krstić1990

4HAR3211

Charco

alTren

ch18,sq

.2,level9(BH77–78:V)

6050±70

–26.0

–5041–4846(68.2

%)

5207–4792(95.4

%)

IIB

Tringh

am/Krstić1990

5HAR3221

Charco

alFeature210–ditch

relatedto

Hou

se4(BH

77–78:VII)

6050±70

–26.7

–5041–4846(68.2

%)

5207–4792(95.4

%)

IIB

Tringh

am/Krstić1990

6HAR3220

Charco

alFeature44–co

llapsedov

ensu

perstructure

(BH77–78:VI)

6100±70

–27.1

–5207–4934(68.2

%)

5218–4841(95.4

%)

IIB

Tringh

am/Krstić1990

7HAR3222

Grain

Feature60(Hou

se7)(BH77–78:II)

6230±100

–25.6

–5308–5057(68.2

%)

5466–4939(95.4

%)

IB

Tringh

am/Krstić1990

8HAR3217

Charco

alFeature227in

Tren

ch14(BH77–78:VII,

VIII

orIX)

6240±100

–26.3

–5315–5059(68.2

%)

5466–4949(95.4

%)

IIB

Tringh

am/Krstić1990

9LJ-2521

Grain

Silo

A6080±70

––

5202–4851(68.2

%)

5213–4834(95.4

%)

BSrdoč

etal.1975

10

Z-233a

6113±80

––

5207–4946(68.2

%)

5291–4837(95.4

%)

Srdoč

etal.1975

11

Z-233b

6152±90

––

5219–4986(68.2

%)

5310–4848(95.4

%)

Srdoč

etal.1975

12

Z-233

6366±100

––

5471–5230(68.2

%)

5518–5069(95.4

%)

Srdoč

etal.1975

215



Tărtăria

1R-1630

Bon

eClearingthesection

6200±65

––

5283–5054(68.2

%)

5311–4996(95.4

%)

A3-B1

Merlin

i/Lazarovici

2008

2R-1655

Bon

ePit–bottom

6215±65

––

5293–5066(68.2

%)

5315–5004(95.4

%)

A3-B1

Merlin

i/Lazarovici

2008

3R-1631

Bon

eRitual

pit

6310±65

––

5357–5219(68.2

%)

5469–5077(95.4

%)

A3-B1

Merlin

i/Lazarovici

2008

Tiszas

zige

t

1Bln-1631

Pit1

6285±60

5338–5210(68.2

%)

5463–5060(95.4

%)

A(Ban

at)

Horvath

andHertelend

i1994

Uivar

1Po

z-18972

Bon

eBurial1,male,

F.3443

5440±40

–22.3

–4340–4261(68.2

%)

4358–4233(95.4

%)

Tiszap

olgá

rSch

ier2013

2Po

z-18973

Bon

eBurial2,female,

F.3476

5470±40

–17.4

–4355–4266(68.2

%)

4442–4240(95.4

%)

Tiszap

olgá

rSch

ier2013

3Hd-22930

Charco

alF.

1029–filling

ofinco

mplete

inne

rditch,

dep

th1.4

m5726±77

––

4683–4493(68.2

%)

4766–4371(95.4

%)

CSch

ier2008

4Hd-22928

Charco

alFilling

ofou

terditch

5740±55

––

4682–4529(68.2

%)

4710–4463(95.4

%)

CSch

ier2008

5Hd-22659

Charco

alBurnt

chaff

,F.

1043–filling

ofinne

rmos

tditch

,77.86m

asl

5862±32

––

4780–4707(68.2

%)

4826–4619(95.4

%)

CSch

ier2008

6Hd-22751

Charco

alBurnt

chaff

,F.

1043–filling

ofinne

rmos

tditch

,77.12m

asl

5896±36

––

4796–4721(68.2

%)

4844–4694(95.4

%)

CSch

ier2008

7Hd-22688

Charco

alF.

54–burnt

hou

se5947±41

––

4899–4777(68.2

%)

4933–4725(95.4

%)

CSch

ier2008

8Hd-22736

Charco

alF.

351/3

73–burnt

hou

se5949±38

––

4897–4783(68.2

%)

4933–4727(95.4

%)

CSch

ier2008

9Hd-22754

Charco

alCharredwoo

din

F.1021–rectan

gularpos

tpit

5989±26

––

4931–4839(68.2

%)

4945–4797(95.4

%)

CSch

ier2008

10

Hd-22734

Charco

alF.

370–filling

ofsu

nken

hut

5996±60

––

4954–4800(68.2

%)

5031–4728(95.4

%)

CSch

ier2008

11

Hd-22756

Charco

alF.

1046–rectan

gularpos

tpit

6008±27

––

4938–4848(68.2

%)

4987–4809(95.4

%)

CSch

ier2008

12

Hd-22735

Charco

alF.

205–burnt

hou

se6022±28

––

4956–4849(68.2

%)

4995–4841(95.4

%)

CSch

ier2008

13

Hd-22737

Charco

alF.

205–burnt

hou

sewalld

ebris

6036±22

––

4982–4859(68.2

%)

4999–4848(95.4

%)

CSch

ier2008

216



Sam

ple

material

Sam

pleas

sociation

Rad

iocar-

bonag

e(BP)

δ13C

(‰)

δ15N

(‰)

Calib

ratedda

te(at

68.2

and95.4

perc

ent

confiden

cecalBC)

Siteph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Cultureph

ase

supp

osed

toda

te

Sou

rce

Valač

1Bln-436

Aco

rns

5895±80

––

4897–4686(68.2

%)

4957–4551(95.4

%)

DQuitta/Ko

hl1969;

Gim

butas

1974

Vinč

a-BeloBrdo

1OxA

-16597

Bostaurus,

meta-

tarsal

(R3)

Hou

se6:sector

II,segm

entIII,bag

56,field

inv.

42

5728±34

–19.0

6.9

4614–4505(68.2

%)

4686–4491(95.4

%)

Borić

2009

2GrN-1537

Cerea

lgrain

Hou

seat

t3.48m

5845±160

––

4903–4518(68.2

%)

5204–4356(95.4

%)

D2

Borić

2009;Vog

el/

Waterbolk1963

3Hd-17374

Mam

mal

bon

et4.1m

5855±27

––

4770–4694(68.2

%)

4795–4619(95.4

%)

D1

Borić

2009;Sch

ier1996

4Hd-16639

Reddee

ran

tler

t6.4

m6081±68

––

5202–4853(68.2

%)

5212–4836(95.4

%)

CBorić

2009;Sch

ier1996

5Hd-17525

Mam

mal

bon

et6.9

m6051±34

––

5001–4858(68.2

%)

5042–4847(95.4

%)

BBorić

2009;Sch

ier1996

6Hd-17776

Reddee

ran

tler

t6.9

m6259±47

––

5310–5210(68.2

%)

5325–5063(95.4

%)

BBorić

2009;Sch

ier1996

7Hd-16733

Reddee

ran

tler

t7m

6293±79

––

5372–5081(68.2

%)

5468–5057(95.4

%)

BBorić

2009;Sch

ier1996

8Hd-16864

Reddee

ran

tler

t7.1

m6145±34

––

5207–5029(68.2

%)

5211–5001(95.4

%)

BBorić

2009;Sch

ier1996

9Hd-17674

Reddee

ran

tler

t7.1

m6198±51

––

5221–5059(68.2

%)

5300–5022(95.4

%)

BBorić

2009;Sch

ier1996

10

Hd-17401

Reddee

ran

tler

t7.3

m5673±34

––

4534–4464(68.2

%)

4603–4404(95.4

%)

BBorić

2009;Sch

ier1996

11

Hd-14110

Reddee

ran

tler

t7.8

m6149±63

––

5208–5029(68.2

%)

5293–4936(95.4

%)

BBorić

2009;Sch

ier1996

12

Hd-16636

Reddee

ran

tler

t7.8

m6180±40

––

5211–5066(68.2

%)

5286–5002(95.4

%)

BBorić

2009;Sch

ier1996

13

GrN-1546

Cerea

lgrain

t8m

6190±60

––

5219–5053(68.2

%)

5302–4999(95.4

%)

ABorić

2009;Vog

el/

Waterbolk1963

14

Hd-17665

Reddee

ran

tler

t8.4

m6273±49

––

5309–5216(68.2

%)

5359–5072(95.4

%)

ABorić

2009;Sch

ier1996

15

Hd-14235

Reddee

ran

tler

t8.5

m6264±22

––

5297–5221(68.2

%)

5303–5216(95.4

%)

ABorić

2009;Sch

ier1996

217



16

Hd-16661

Reddee

r,an

tler

t8.7

m6353±66

––

5465–5231(68.2

%)

5472–5219(95.4

%)

ABorić

2009;Sch

ier1996

17

Hd-14184

Reddee

r,an

tler

Pitat

t9.3

m6249±31

––

5296–5215(68.2

%)

5311–5077(95.4

%)

ABorić

2009;Sch

ier1996

18

GrN-13156

?6010±150

––

5202–4720(68.2

%)

5298–4560(95.4

%)

Borić

2009;Tasić1989

19

GrN-1535

Charco

al?

6170±85

––

5221–5001(68.2

%)

5316–4856(95.4

%)

Borić

2009;Todorov

ić/

Cerman

ović

1961

20

GrN-13157

?6240±45

––

5304–5081(68.2

%)

5314–5061(95.4

%)

Borić

2009;Tasić1989

21

GrN-13155

?6470±170

––

5616–5299(68.2

%)

5719–5051(95.4

%)

Borić

2009;Tasić1989

22

OxA

-15996

hum

anskull,

adult(R1)

PitZ–grou

pburial“ch

amber”

6620±45

–19.7

13.6

5616–5524(68.2

%)

5624–5488(95.4

%)

Starčevo

Borić

2009

Vršac-At

1OxA

-8595

Bon

e,med

ium/

largemam

mal,

tool

Pitfill

5660±65

–20.2

–4577–4374(68.2

%)

4679–4358(95.4

%)

Starčevo

Whittleet

al.2002

Zaude

Câmpie

1Ly-8931

Charco

alPit8from

P8A

6050±55

––

5024–4850(68.2

%)

5205–4794(95.4

%)

IIZa

u(Vinča

C1)

Maxim

1999

2Ly-8933

Charco

alP8

A6104±55

––

5205–4941(68.2

%)

5213–4853(95.4

%)

IIZa

uIIIa

(Vinča

C1)

Maxim

1999

3Ly-8932

Charco

alPit32

6185±55

––

5216–5056(68.2

%)

5296–5001(95.4

%)

I/II

ZauIIa

(Vinča

C1)

Maxim

1999

4Ly-8934

Charco

alPit11

6230±55

––

5298–5079(68.2

%)

5316–5046(95.4

%)

IaZa

uIa?

(Vinča

B2/C

1)

Maxim

1999

The End of the Vinča World: Modelling the Neolithic to Copper Age Transition and the Notion of Archaeological Culture

Documents