S

PRHISTORISCHE ARCHOLOGIE IN SDOSTEUROPA

BAND 28

THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC

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

EDITED BY
WOLFRAM SCHIER
AND
FLORIN DRAOVEAN

RAHDEN / WESTF. 2014

PRHISTORISCHE ARCHOLOGIE IN SDOSTEUROPA

BAND 28

THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC

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

EDITED BY
WOLFRAM SCHIER
AND
FLORIN DRAOVEAN

RAHDEN / WESTF. 2014

THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC

IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE

PRHISTORISCHE ARCHOLOGIE IN SDOSTEUROPA

BAND 28

Herausgegeben
von

BERNHARD HNSEL
und
WOLFRAM SCHIER
Institut fr Prhistorische Archologie
der Freien Universitt Berlin

VERLAG MARIE LEIDORF GMBH RAHDEN/WESTF. 2014

PRHISTORISCHE ARCHOLOGIE IN SDOSTEUROPA

BAND 28

THE NEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC

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

Edited by
WOLFRAM SCHIER
and
FLORIN DRAOVEAN

Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH . Rahden/Westf.

2014

440 Seiten mit 313 Abbildungen

Published with financial support of the Timi County Council

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek

Schier, Wolfram / Draovean, Florin (Hrsg.):
The Neolithic and Eneolithic in Southeast Europe ; New approaches
to dating and cultural Dynamics in the 6th to 4th Millennium BC /
hrsg. von Wolfram Schier .
Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf 2014
(Prhistorische Archologie in Sdosteuropa ; Bd. 28)
ISBN 978-3-89646-599-3

Die Deutsche Bibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie.

Detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet ber http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.
Gedruckt auf alterungsbestndigem Papier
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
2014

Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH

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

Preface

The present volume assembles contributions presented at two international conferences dedicated to recent studies on
the Neolithic and Eneolithic of Southeast and Eastern Central Europe.
Twenty years after the publication of the last comprehensive and broad scale conference on the historical concept,
materiality and chronology of the Copper Age the International Conference The Transition from the Neolithic to the
Eneolithic in Central and South-Eastern Europe in the Light of Recent Research took place in Timioara, Romania
on 1012 November 2011. Organised by the editors of this volume, 23 colleagues from seven countries gathered at
the atmospheric venue of the baroque fortification Bastionul for a two days intensive program of lectures, focussing
on regional overviews over the transition from the Neolithic to the Eneolithic. The meeting brought together new data
and new perspectives on the final periods of the Neolithic as well as the transition process to the Eneolithic.
In 2013, while most of the Timioara conference contributions had been submitted and editorial work had already
begun, the editors of the present volume organised the session A32 at the 19th meeting of the European Association of
Archaeologists (EAA) at Plze, Czech Republic on Relative vs absolute chronology of the Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin and South Eastern Europe. Twelve lectures and one poster presentation were given by scholars of nine
European countries, some of which had also taken part at the Timioara conference. The thematic scope of the EAA
session was focussed rather on approaches to adjust and revise traditional relative chronologies using new radiocarbon dates and calibration models (Bayesian statistics).
Only a part of the EAA session contributions, however, was submitted until spring 2014 too few to be published
in a separate volume. The editors therefore decided to integrate the Plze papers into the volume originally planned
as the Timioara proceedings. The present volume, thus, has developed a broader scope both in terms of chronology (from Early Neolithic to Late Eneolithic) and geography (from Greece to Slovenia and Ukraine). The editors are
convinced that it represents quite an impressive cross section of ongoing research on the Neolithic and Eneolithic in
Southeast and Eastern Central Europe.
Finally we would like to thank all the contributors for their patient cooperation, the Muzeul Banatului Timioara,
County Timi and the Freie Universitt Berlin for the financial support in organising the Timioara conference and
publishing this volume, the Czech organisers of the EAA meeting at Plze for a smooth organisation and pleasant
atmosphere, Dr. Morten Hegewisch and Jan Mller-Edzards (FU Berlin) for the substantial editorial work.
We hope that this volume will both stimulate discussions on our present knowledge and be an incentive for further
research. Only an improved chronological resolution will help us to better understand the dynamics of cultural processes in prehistory.
Berlin and Timioara, November 2014

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

Wolfram Schier and Florin Draovean

Participants of the conference The Transition from the Neolithic to the Eneolithic in Central and South-Eastern Europe in the
Light of Recent Research (Timioara, Romania on 10.12. November 2011 in front of the baroque fortification Bastionul. From
left: Drago Diaconescu, Ferenc Horvth, Katalin Vlyi, Vladimir Slavev, Yavor Boyadzhiev, Raiko Krau, Florin Draovean,
Johannes Mller, Wolfram Schier, Yuri Rassamakin, Borislav Jovanovic, Mirjana Blagojevi, Gheorghe Lazarovici, Pl Raczky,
Marcel Buri, Nenad Tasi, Kristina Penezi, Saa Luki, Alexander Mser, Alexandra Anders, Eszter Bnffy, Attila Gyucha,
Georgeta El Susi.

Content

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

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

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

29

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

49

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

69

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

99

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

113

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

129

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

173

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

187

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

213

Drago Diaconescu, New remarks about the typology and the chronology of the Plonik and oka copper hammeraxes ..................................................................................................................................................................................

221

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

243

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

273

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

297

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

319

Eszter Bnffy, Istvan Zalai-Gal, Tibor Marton, Krisztin Oross, Anett Oszts, Jrg Petrasch, Das Srkz im
sdungarischen Donaugebiet ein Korridor zwischen dem Balkan und Mitteleuropa im 6.5. Jt. v. Chr. ....................

347

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

369

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

397

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

409

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

413

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

419

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

437

The (E)neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia

Adam N. Crnobrnja

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


Drasovean 2007.

Tasi 2008, 2829.

Brukner 1988.

Tripkovi 2007, 72; 83.

McPherron/Srejovi 1988, Pl. IV.

Bulatovi et al. 2010, 14 fig. 3.

Muijevi/Ralph 1988, 402406 fig. 15.915.13.

Muijevi/Ralph 1988, 412413 fig. 15.1915.20.

Tringham et al. 1985, 427428 fig. 3.

Schier 2007, 6465. The Settlement at Uivar dates from the earlier phases of the Vina culture (Vina B2C2) in comparison to
the settlements and their distinct phases, which will be studies in this work (Vina D1D2).
10

174

Adam N. Crnobrnja

and the three mentioned rivers there were many oxbow

swamps with dry terrains of an arched shape. Few rather
small brooks are running from Drenski Vis toward the
rivers Sava and Tamnava, so the hill where the Crkvine
settlement is situated is surrounded from the north and
south with two small brooks, which join below its east
end and flow on toward the Tamnava River. The height
of the hill where the Late Vina settlement is situated
is 111.50 to 98.30 meters above sea level (along westeast axis), i.e. 99.00110.5092.40 meters (north-west
section in central area) (Fig. 4).
History of investigations
First small-scale investigations were carried out at
this site in 1967 (16 square meters)11. New systematic investigations of this Late Vina settlement have
started in 2006, since that time detailed surface survey
(2006), geomagnetic mapping (20072011), scanning
of geoelectric profiles (20102011) and archaeological
excavations (20082011)12 have been conducted. Geomagnetic mapping at the site Crkvine-Stubline hitherto
covering an area of 85,000 square meters offered for
the first time information about spatial organization of
one large Late Vina settlement (Fig. 2 and 4). By combining the data obtained by detailed surface prospection, geomagnetic mapping, geoelectric profile measuring (with a total length of 1250 m) and excavations
we came to the conclusion that most of the structures
identified by magnetometer date from the last habitation horizon13, and that opened also the possibility for
a more serious study of the spatial organization of the
settlement.

Fig. 1. Sites mentioned in the text: 1) Crkvine-Stubline; 2)

Grabovac; 3) Gomolava; 4) Obre-Beletinci; 5) Jakovo-Kormadin;
6) Banjica; 7) Vina; 8) Grivac; 9) Divostin; 10) Uivar; 11) Para;
12) Opovo; 13) Crkvine-Mali Borak; 14) uuge; 15) Kaleni;
16) Drueti-Bodnjik; 17) Velimirovi dvori; 18) Belovode.

Settlement basic data

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

11

Todorovi 1967a.

12

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

13

Crnobrnja 2012b, 157158.

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

The (E)neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia

175

Fig. 2. Crkvine-Stubline, magnetometric plan.

including ditches is around 12.5 ha, the area enclosed by ditches is around 10 ha, while the area under the buildings
was around 7.5 ha.
Considering the results of all hitherto undertaken investigations the following preliminary conclusions about the
main characteristics of the Late Vina settlement at Crkvine-Stubline immediately before the end of its life could be
drawn15:
The settlement was surrounded by ditches;
It appears, that almost all houses detected by geomagnetic mapping date from the last habitation horizons and
that all of them perished in conflagration.
In the area covered by geomagnetic mapping for 218 anomalies could be assumed to represent the remains of burnt houses
Houses, except few, have almost uniform orientation (NE-SW)
Houses in the settlement are densely built within the rows running in SE-NW direction
The distance between the houses in rows is small, only around 2 meters on average (varying from 1 to 3.5 m)
At many locations within the settlement houses are grouped around rather large empty areas resembling small
squares (5001200 square meters).
Ditches around the Settlement
Geomagnetic prospection revealed anomalies for which it could be assumed, considering their position and relation
to the settlement structures that they indicate ditches, which encompassed the settlement. Such anomalies (ditches)
were recorded in the north, west and south zone of the geomagnetically mapped area, while a double ditch could be
15

Crnobrnja 2012b, 158.

176

Adam N. Crnobrnja

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

assumed in the northwestern section of the settlement. No surface finds have been encountered outside the zone surrounded by the mentioned anomalies (ditches) during site survey and immediately below that zone is also terrain,
which had been until recently flooded by the brooks. In the central settlement zone there are conspicuous anomalies
in the geomagnetic spectrum indicating the existence of yet another double ditch. It seems that this ditch surrounded
a settlement from some earlier phase of living at this site because it is ignored by many rows of houses spreading on
top, dating from the later habitation horizon (Fig. 2).
First excavations in 1967 have been conducted at the easternmost end of the settlement immediately outside the
zone covered by geomagnetic mapping and on that occasion three habitation horizons have been recorded. The
earliest is a horizon with semi-dugouts and on top of it are two horizons with aboveground structures16. Geoelectric
profiles did not reveal earlier habitation horizons at other locations within the settlement. The existence of defensive
ditches around Vina settlements in the central Balkans until recently has been considered as an exception (JakovoKormadin)17 but their existence has been recently confirmed at many previously known sites (Vina18, Uivar19, Be16

Todorovi 1967a, 18.

17

Jovanovi/Glii 1961, 115.

18

Nikoli 2006.

19

Schier/Draovean 2004, 158162.

The (E)neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia

177

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

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

Personal communication, Duan ljivar, National Museum, Belgrade.

21

Field documentation, Belgrade City Museums Documentation Center.

22

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

178

Adam N. Crnobrnja

Fig. 5. Geoelectric profile 1415/2009. The Anomaly on the right side is the profile of excavated house 1/2010.

Material gathered by detailed surface collection and later examined suggests that over the entire area of the site
pottery originating from the last horizon of life of the Late Vina settlement23 was encountered, which corresponds to
the structures recorded by magnetometer.
By scanning geoelectric profiles along the total length of 1250 meters (placed in such a way that each profile
included many anomalies obtained by magnetometer) we came to the conclusion that the geomagneting anomalies
are located immediately below the surface. Also there are no earlier structures below these anomalies except in few
instances judging by the size of possible pits (Fig. 5).
So far two Late Vina houses have been investigated24 and inside them where found objects, which correspond with the
finds gathered during surface collection. Also, testing of geomagnetic anomalies has been carried out at three more locations and it was also concluded that these were aboveground structures (houses) with similar archaeological material25.
Disposition of recorded geomagnetic anomalies (houses) reveals a high level of uniformity. If we ponder the settlement
through ekistics26 we might understand it as living organism, whose certain parts could be created within many decades and
even an entire century but that would not mean that all its parts could not have existed simultaneously at a given time27.
House Size
To start with, I would like to present the estimated size of house plans according to the magnetometric mapping. The sizes
of anomalies recorded by magnetometer undoubtedly do not correspond entirely to the actual size of houses, but it should
be borne in mind that they could be larger as well as smaller than the actual house dimensions and that depends either on the
intensity of magnetic spectrum of remains, or on the degree of preservation of their ground plans. As it could be expected
that ground plans of most houses are damaged to a certain extent (both investigated houses are considerably damaged in
their south sections), and that in case of high intensity of magnetic spectrum in certain house sections some sections with
lower intensity remain invisible for the magnetometer, I determined the assumed house size by drawing rectangular
ground plan around the ultimate dimensions of an anomaly. In that way I came to the following conclusions:
ground plan area
over 100 m2
9099 m2
8089 m2
7079m2
6069m2
5059m2
4049m2
3039m2
2029m2
less than 20 m2

number of houses

9
12
12
23
29
51
38
26
13
5
218

orientation NS

orientation WE

1
2
3
6
1
4
3
2
22

9
12
11
21
26
45
37
22
10
3
196

Tab. 1. Dimensions of houses in the Late Vina settlement Crkvine-Stubline.

On that occasion, a small amount of Late Eneolithic, Baden culture pottery has been gathered. That pottery was encountered also
during excavation of the surface layer but the structures from which it might originate have not been recorded.
23

24

Crnobrnja et al. 2010; 2012a.

25

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

26

Doksijadis 1982.

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

The (E)neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia

179

The average house size on the basis of geomagnetic scanning is 57.2 square meters28, and there are 120 houses,
(55%) whose floor area was between 40 and 70 square meters.
For the comparison I would like to present the recorded average dimensions of houses from few other Vina settlements, first of all from the Vina D1D2 period (Table 2).
Site

Number of houses

Largest house

Smallest house

Divostin IIb

104

52

Gomolava Ib
Opovo 13
Kormadin
Vina
Para

8
6
2
18
5

54

15

74.5
45

8.6
6.7

Average
area

house
70.2
33.5
36.7
30.0
36.7
21.0

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

It could be concluded from the data mentioned above that houses in the last/final living phases in the settlement
Crkvine-Stubline have been built almost uniformly with an expected degree of oscillations in their size (recorded also
at other settlements). Their average size is considerably larger than in most other Late Vina settlements30 but still
smaller than the average house size in the final phase of living at Divostin. Although this difference might also be
ascribed to the small investigated area and actually a random sample of investigated houses at Divostin it should be
mentioned that only these two settlements of all the above mentioned belong to the type of large flat settlements. The
average size of investigated houses from Opovo, Jakovo-Kormadin, Gomolava and Vina indicate the possibility that
most structures at Crkvine-Stubline could have been of residential character.
Still, two types of structures/houses at Crkvine-Stubline could be distinguished as exceptions: extremely small structures up to 20 square meters in size and structures whose orientation deviates around 90 from the usual one.
Exceptions
For structures less than 20 square meters in size it could be assumed with considerable certainty that having in mind
dimensions of other houses they could have been some kind of secondary/auxiliary structures, whose purpose need
not be primarily residential. We know about such houses whose purpose is not quite clear31 from few sites (Vina32,
Grabovac33). Structures whose orientation deviates for 90 from the usual one arouse special attention. Seven such
structures out of 23 are concentrated in small area in the east zone of the settlement, while other are distributed almost
evenly along the central settlement axis running in east-west direction. It has been planned for the next year campaign
to investigate one of these irregularly oriented structures in order to get closer information about their purpose.
Population
Considering that many authors base their estimation of number of inhabitants in Neolithic settlements and distinct households on the inside living area34 I would like to underline the fact that in both investigated houses at Crkvine-Stubline
remains have been encountered, which suggest the existence of an upper storey most probably only above one section of
the house35. Such a situation has been recorded at few other sites (Uivar36, Para37, Opovo38), so in such analyses it should be
I published the information, that the average house size was 58.3 square meters, but that is the result of a calculation mistake
(Crnobrnja 2012b, 158).
28

29

According Pori 2010. Concerning Para in Tab. 1: latest building phase date from Vina C period.

30

From which I have information about average house size.

31

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

32

Tasi 2007, 206 Pl. I.

33

Todorovi 1968.

34

Pori 2010, 6577.

35

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

36

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

37

Lazarovici/Lazarovici 2006, 373.

38

Tringham 1992, 361.

180

Adam N. Crnobrnja

Fig. 6. Different possibilities of perception of the same space - possible models of primary organization of Crkvine-Stubline Late
Neolithic settlement (after Crnobrnja 2012b, fig. 3,57): a) assumed houses disposition; b) rows of houses as the main factor of
interior organisation, or c) open areas (squares) surrounded by groups of houses; c) assumed disposition of main and auxiliary
communications; combined complex organisation?

taken into account that the floor area was not including only the ground floor but also the additional 2030% of floor area
on the upper storey. The estimated number of inhabitants who could have lived in the settlement at Crkvine-Stubline if all
recorded houses were contemporary varies from 2322 to 400039. I myself am inclined to the smaller number. Taking into
account an estimation that 57 inhabitants40 lived in each house in the Late Neolithic communities, and that this settlement
could have had 250 houses the most41, hence it could be assumed that between 1250 and 1750 inhabitants at most could
have lived there at one moment in time.
Interior Organization of Settlement
Most of the recorded houses were situated above 107.5 meters AMSL (the highest altitude being 111.50 m). Only
22 out of 218 recorded structures are above this isohypse, and all these houses are located in the southern part of the
settlement (Fig. 4).

39

Pori 2010, 342; 2012, 172.

40

Pori 2010; Raczky 2009, 104; 2005.

41

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

The (E)neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia

181

The regularities in the disposition of houses could be studied in many ways, particularly considering the fact that
we still do not know which house dates from which period. Thus we could consider the interior organization of our
settlement at least in three different ways:
The predominant model of organization is linear arrangement of houses and main communication routes; houses
were built in more or less parallel rows running in the southeast-northwest direction (Fig. 6b).
The predominant model of organization is the grouping of houses around rather large open areas, like small
squares between 500 and 1200 square meters in size (Fig. 6c).
Combined model: linear settlement structure including also blocks of houses clustered around large open areas (Fig. 6d).
Linear arrangement of houses in the Late Neolithic settlements contemporary with the settlement at Crkvine-Stubline
have been encountered not only in Serbia42 but also in the immediate neighborhood of the Vina culture Okolite43
and Obre II44 in Bosnia (Butmir culture), in the flat part of Polgr-Csszhalom settlement in Hungary (Tisza culture)45.
Certain authors think that one reason for building houses densely packed in rows is a more efficient protection
against the wind and better thermal protection46 but our settlement is a good example that uniform house orientation
was observed even if they are not in rows and that around 10% of the houses show an entirely different orientation.
The question could be asked whether the reason for such a building system could be sought in the most rational occupation of space by linear arrangement47, or the area has been purposely planned already in the initial phase of establishing large settlements? Taking into account the small distance between the houses and also the need for storage
and disposal areas as well as the passages between them (Fig. 6d), I am inclined to think that the open areas were the
only spaces where public activities could have taken place48. However, it is interesting that the density of structures
was different in the east and west section of the settlement. The distance between given rows of houses is somewhat
larger in the east settlement section than in the west while in the east (more scattered) section of settlement the houses
are bigger than in the west section. As first explanation for such a phenomenon a horizontal stratigraphy could be assumed, i.e. different date of these two sections of the settlement. I think that it is not the case here, because in addition
to the already mentioned results, which indicate that it was highly probable that most of the recorded houses were
contemporary at least during a short interval, there are other facts, which also suggest a similar conclusion:
Few rows of hoses extend continuously also through more and less densely built zone (Fig. 2 and Fig. 6);
All house rows (in both zones) run approximately in the same direction (SE-NW);
Houses of irregular orientation were recorded in both sections of the settlement;
along the entire settlement length and in the SE-NW direction there is an open area (without structures) of 350
by 10 to 15 meters wide that suggests a central communication line within the settlement, indicating probable
contemporaneity of the entire settlement.
If all or at least most of the houses recorded by geomagnetic mapping existed simultaneously at one time interval it
could be assumed that the settlement expanded from the southeast toward the northwest. Building of new structures next
to already existing house groups implied the assent of inhabitants of already built houses. Such concession would mean
reducing of living space and comfort of already present population and that is something not accepted easily in any period. Therefore, it seems to me rather probable that houses were most densely built just in the period when the expansion
of the settlement was reaching its physical limit (at that end was also already the mentioned depression in the terrain)
resulting in a smaller floor area of houses in that part of the settlement where a lack of building lots is conspicuous.
Conclusion
An almost premeditated organization of the Late Vina settlement at the site Crkvine-Stubline indicates that we
should not regard the households as basic organizational units49. The basic settlement texture consists of rows of
houses and their discrete clustering in blocks around empty areas (squares), indicating the possible existence of

42

See footnote 29.

43

Hofmann et al. 2009, 28 fig. 7.

44

Hofmann et al. 2009, 32 fig. 13.

45

Raczky/Anders 2008, 40 fig. 2.

46

Miloradovi/Tasi 2008.

47

Bafna/Shah 2007.

48

Crnobrnja 2012b, 160.

49

Crnobrnja 2011, 137138.

182

Adam N. Crnobrnja

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

premeditated organization above household level, i.e. grouping within kinship or corporative groups50. The level of
construction and house disposition suggests that the entire settlement is a single entity, not only from the physical aspect but also regarding the social organization, implying the existence of a strong group identity. As been pointed out
previously, the reasons why I think that near the end of Vina culture there was horizontal and vertical stratification
within communities and that special attention should be paid to recognizing possible existence of settlement clusters
as potential extended communities. Many authors suggest certain territorial organization or hierarchical relations
between distinct settlements in the Late Neolithic in the Balkans and neighboring regions51. but there are still lacking
investigations in Serbia aiming in that direction.
Late Vina settlement at Crkvine-Stubline dates from the very end of the Vina culture, its phase D2. This period
in Serbian archaeological literature is most often identified as Late Neolithic, while the authors in more recent works
suggest that it is also possible to ascribe the phase Vina D2 to the horizon of advanced Early Eneolithic to whom
also sites of Proto-Tiszapolgar, Tiszapolgar, Sopot-Lengyel III, early Bubanj-Hum Ia and Salcuta II cultures in Serbia
belong52. To this horizon also the settlements at sites Crkvine-Mali Borak53, Jakovo-Kormadin, Obre-Beletinci54,
Gomolava Ib, layers above 4.1 m at Vina, final horizon at Banjica, uuge55 and Divostin IIb can be dated.
Despite the possibility that the settlement at Crkvine-Stubline was close to or contemporary with the cultures of
Advanced Early Eneolithic, I would like to remind once more of its almost planned organization. The disappearance
of such settlements and social organization leading to their establishing represent a clear dividing point between two
epochs, and within a very large area.
In northwestern Serbia, i.e. in the peripheral zone of the Pannonian basin few sites have been recorded dating to
the Early Eneolithic in its full sense56: An isolated house (outside settlement) at the site Kaleni57, the hillfort settlement Bodnjik-Drueti58 and the settlement at the site Velimirovi Dvori59. It is interesting to note that in northwestern
Serbia not a single case of continuous occupation of any Late Vina settlement also during Early Eneolithic period
has been recorded.
On this occasion I would like to mention the works of Parkinson where he studies the phenomenon of disintegration of large Late Neolithic settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain and the transformation of social organization
50

Crnobrnja 2011, 163.

51

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

52

Spasi 2011, 143.

53

Blagojevi 2011.

54

Brukner 1962.

55

Je/Starovi 1995.

56

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

57

Blagojevi 2005.

58

Palavestra et al. 1996.

59

Stevanovi 1998.

The (E)neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia

183

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

of communities inhabiting these settlements60. Although in Serbia we still do not have at our disposal a comparable
quantity of data as Parkinson had, a similar process could be assumed also in the area studied for this work. Particularly interesting are Parkinsons ideas that the transition from more-or-less egalitarian to more-or-less hierarchical
political systems was one of the most dramatic in the course of human history and prehistory61 as well as his question posed in the same text: Why did institutionalized hereditary inequality emerge during the Bronze Age, and not
during the Late Neolithic?62.
I think that his question should be preceded by others as well: Why did the commenced process of horizontal and
vertical stratification within the Late Neolithic communities not continue? Why substituted people that life in almost
proto-urban settlements by a life in small settlements?
I am asking the first question because I think that the beginning of such stratification could be noticed in settlements
on the very edge of Pannonian basin, at Gomolava and at Crkvine-Stubline. After analyzing the Late Vina necropolis
at Gomolava, D. Bori suggested a possible existence of inherited status63 and that this necropolis represents the very
beginning of the process that would eventually produce a social structure clearly reflected in the extensively excavated Early Eneolithic necropolis in north-east Bulgaria, with extremely rich grave goods64. Subsequently published
DNA analyses revealed that all individuals in this necropolis are males (aged from 6 months to 60 years) and that all
descend from the same male ancestor, so the author concluded that they could have been members of one patrilineal
group, which could indicate the kinship structure65. When the settlement at Crkvine-Stubline is concerned the existence of vertical and horizontal social stratification is indicated by a spatial settlement organization and a probable
way of distribution of resources around it66, as well as the very interesting find of distinct composition consisting of
43 figurines67.
The second question I am asking seems perhaps unnecessary, considering the frequent discussions of disintegrating
processes at the transition from Late Neolithic to Early Eneolithic. Nevertheless, I ask myself that question frequently
not to try to get to the heart of mechanism of global changes in that time, but in order to comprehend at least partially
the changes experienced by common people in that period. There are many aspects, which we use in our attempts to

60

Parkinson 2002; 2006; Parkinson/Gyucha 2012.

61

Parkinson 2012, 244.

62

Parkinson 2012, 245.

63

Bori 1996, 8182.

64

Bori 1996, 83.

65

Stefanovi 2008, 9798.

66

Crnobrnja 2012b, 160162.

67

Crnobrnja 2011.

184

Adam N. Crnobrnja

comprehend the mentioned processes (social, economic, climatic, organizational, technological, etc.) but we rarely
think of active participants, common people living with all that.
The path toward examining just one settlement from any period and the needs of people living in that settlement,
runs through wider and wider multidisciplinary approaches. Common people living in the settlement and being themain participants in all events are almost never aware of such complexity (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8). I will quote here one
simple but interesting opinion: Final aim of human settlements is to satisfy the needs of their inhabitants and inhabitants of other settlements and particularly the needs satisfaction of which brings happiness and security To deprive
man of security means depriving him of the fourth dimension the time, by losing the concept of future happiness
the very feeling of happiness is lost68.
When I think about that period in such simple and seemingly prosaic way, the main questions I ask myself concern personal experience of the participants. Why someone wanted to abandon the life in a well-organized, densely
populated and defended settlement with arable land and water in abundance in the immediate vicinity? Whether the
descendants of people deserting these settlements were happier and feeling more secure in small settlements scattered throughout the fringes of marshes and on desolate hills, frequently surrounded only by their extended family?
Did they remember the places inhabited by their ancestors? Why no one wanted to live at the locations of large Late
Vina settlements for next few centuries? Why did certain cult objects present throughout the entire Vina culture
(chronologically and spatially)69 suddenly disappear (from use)? Does it mean that great changes in social organization resulted in disappearance or modification of beliefs and customs? Are these people at all the descendants of the
last inhabitants of the Late Vina settlement?
Searching for any answers about great changes happening in northwestern Serbia in the middle of 5th millennium
BC imply also great changes in the approach of archaeological investigations in Serbia. Investigations in Serbia have
generally been limited to larger or smaller excavations of certain sites or basic field survey. There were no regional or
microregional investigations in order to acquire a more complete picture about organization of life in distinct periods.
An essential shift in that field, especially for the region and time I discuss in this work, is the project of B. Tripkovi
Life in swamp-settlements of Obrovac type70. The shortage of high-quality data about Late Neolithic Early Eneolithic in the wider surroundings of settlement at the site Crkvine-Stubline emerged as crucial limiting factor, in comprehending the role this settlement had in a wider community and the reason for its appearance and disappearance.
Because of that me and my colleagues from the Belgrade City Museum started to plan the project Late Neolithic of
Tamnava Region. This project will start in 2014 and in the course of its realization we will try to establish a highquality basis for more detailed investigations in the decades to come.
References
Bafna/Shah 2007: S. Bafna/S. Shah, The Evolution of Orthogonality in Built Space: An Argument from Space Syntax, Procedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium (Istanbul 2007) 054.1054.14.
Blagojevi 2005: M. Blagojevi, Keramike posude iz ranoeneolitske kue sa lokaliteta Livade, Kaleni. In: .
Jordovi/B. Jovanovi (eds), Kolubara 4 (Beograd 2005) 3177.
Blagojevi 2011: M. Blagojevi (ed.), Crkvine, Mali Borak naselje vinanske culture. In: M. Blagojevi (ed.),
Kolu-bara 5 (Beograd 2011) 53259.
Bori 1996: D. Bori, Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices in the Neolithic: A Case Study. Starinar n.s. 47, 1996,
6783.
Brukner 1962: B. Brukner, Praistorijsko naselje Beletinci kod Obrea. Rad vojvoanskih muzeja 12, 1962, 89122.
Brukner 1988: B. Brukner, Die Siedlung der Vina-Gruppe auf Gomolava (Die Wohnschicht des Sptneolithikums
und Frhneolithikums Gomolava Ia, Gomolava Iab und Gomolava Ib) und der Wohnhorizont des neolithischen Humus (Gomolava II). In: N. Tasi/J. Petrovi (eds.), Gomolava:Chronologie und Stratigraphie der vorgeschichtlichen und antiken Kulturen der Donauniederung und Sdosteuropas (Novi Sad 1988) 1938.
Bulatovi et al. 2010: A. Bulatovi/A. Kapuran/N. Strugar, Neolitski stratum na lokalitetu kormadin u Jakovu iskopavanja 2008. godine. Godinjak grada Beograda 47, 2010, 1142.
Chapman et al. 2006: J. Chapman/B. Gaydarska/K. Hardy, Does enclosure make a difference? A view from the Balkans. In: A. Harding/S. Sievers/N. Venclova (eds), Enclosing the past: inside and outside in prehistory. Sheffield
arch. monog. 15 (Sheffield 2006) 2043.

68

Doksijadis 1982, 48.

69

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

70

Tripkovi 2012.

The (E)neolithic Settlement Crkvine at Stubline, Serbia

185

Crnobrnja 2011: A. Crnobrnja, Arrangement of Vina culture figurines: a study of social structure and organization,
In: M. Budja (ed.), 18th Neolithic Studies. Doc. Praehist. 38 (Ljubljana 2011) 131147.
Crnobrnja 2012a: A. Crnobrnja, Investigations of Late Vina House 1/2010 at Crkvine in Stubline. Starinar n.s. 62,
2012, 4564.
Crnobrnja 2012b: A. Crnobrnja, Group identities in the Central Balkan Late Neolithic. In: M. Budja (ed.), 19th Neolithic Studies. Doc. Praehist. 39 (Ljubljana 2012) 155165.
Crnobrnja et al. 2010: A. Crnobrnja/Z. Simi/M. Jankovi,Late Vina Culture Settlement at Crkvine in Stubline:
Household organization and urbanization in the Late Vina culture period. Starinar n.s. 59, 2010, 925.
Crnobrnja/Spasi 2012: A. Crnobrnja/M. Spasi, Zdele sa protomama kanonizovani obrazac jedne epohe? Srpsko
arheoloko drutvo XXXV skuptina i godinji skup (Valjevo 2012) 4849.
Doksijadis 1982: K. Doksijadis, ovek i grad (Beograd 1982).
Draovean 2007: F. Draovean, The Neolithic tells from Para and Uivar (South-West Romania) Similarities and
differences of the organization of the social space. Anal. Banatului s.n. 15, 2007, 1945.
Hofmann et al. 2009: R. Hofmann/Z. Kujundi-Vejzagi/J. Mller/K. Rassmann/N. Mller-Scheesel, Rekonstrukcija procesa naseljavanja u kasnom neolitu na prostoru centralne Bosne. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu 50/51, 2009, 11179.
Je/Starovi 1995: . Je/A. Starovi, uuge Ilia brdo, zatitna arheoloka iskopavanja. Glasnik Drutva konzervatora Srbije 19, 1995, 6064.
Jovanovi 2008: B. Jovanovi, Vek polemike 19082008: stratigrafija nalazita Vina-Belo brdo. Glasnik Srpskog
arheolokog drutva 24, 2008, 4554.
Jovanovi/Glii 1961: B. Jovanovi/J. Glii,Eneolitsko naselje na Kormadinu kod Jakova.Starinar n.s. 11, 1961,
113139.
2005: .. , .(
2005).
Lazarovici/Lazarovici 2006: M. Lazarovici/G. Lazarovici, Architectura neoliticului si epocii cuprului din Romania
I. Neoliticul (Iasi 2006).
McPherron/Srejovi 1988: A. McPherron/D. Srejovi (eds), Divostin and Neolitic of Central Serbia. Ethnol. monogr.
10 (Pittsburgh 1988).
Miloradovi/Tasi 2008: N. Miloradovi/N. Tasi, Neolitsko naselje Vina termiki aspect. Zbornik radova sa 39.
kongresa o KGH (Beograd 2008) 419426.
Muijevi/Ralph 1988: R. Muijevi/E. Ralph, Geomagnetic Surveys at Divostin. In: A. McPherron/D. Srejovi
(eds), Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia. Ethnol. Monogr. 10 (Pittsburgh 1988) 389413.
Nikoli 2006: D. Nikoli, On the Issue of Fortification at Vina. Glasnik Srpskog arheolokog drutva 22, 2006, 922.
Palavestra et al. 1996: A. Palavestra/I. Bogdanovi/A. Starovi, Bodnjik-Drueti, kampanja 1994. Glasnik srpskog
arh. drutva 11, 1996, 190197.
Parkinson 2002: W. A. Parkinson, Integration, Interaction, and Tribal Cycling: The Transition to the Copper Age
on the Great Hungarian Plain. In: W. A. Parkinson (ed.), The archaeology of tribal societies. Internat. Monogr. in
Prehist. Arch. ser. 15 (Ann Arbor 2002) 391438.
Parkinson 2006: W. A. Parkinson, Tribal boundaries: Stylistic variability and social boundary maintenance during the
transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. Journal Anthrop. Arch. 25, 2006, 3358.
Parkinson/Gyucha 2012: W.A. Parkinson/A. Gyucha, Long-Term Social Dynamics and the Emergence ofHereditary
Inequality: A Prehistoric Example from the Carpathian Basin. In: T. Kienlin/A. Zimmermann (eds), Beyond Elites:
Alternatives to Hierarchical Systems in Modeling Social Formations. Univforsch. z. prhist. Arch. 215 (Bonn
2012) 243250.
Pori 2010: M. Pori, Arheologija Vinanskih kua: teorijskometodoloki okviri prouavanja demografije i
drutvene strukture (Unpubl. PhD thesis. Univ. Beograd, Beograd 2010).
Pori 2012: M. Pori, Social complexity and inequality in the Late Neolithic of the Central Balkans: reviewing the
evidence. In: M. Budja (ed), 19th Neolithic Studies. Doc. Praehist. 39 (Ljubljana 2012) 167183.
Raczky 2009: P. Raczky, Archaeological Data on Space Use at a Tell-like Settlement of the Tisza Culture (New results from csd-Kovshalom, Hungary). In: F. Draovean/D. L. Ciobotaru/M. Maddison (eds), Ten Years After:
The Neolithic of the Balkans, as Uncovered by the Last Decade of Research (Timioara 2009) 101124.
Raczky/Anders 2008: P. Raczky/A. Anders, Late Neolithic spatial differentiation at Polgr-Csoszhalom, eastern
Hungary. In: D. W. Bailey/A. Whittle/D. Hofmann (eds), Living Well Together?Settlement and Materiality in the
Neolithic of South-East and Central Europe (Oxford 2008) 3553.
Schier 2007: W. Schier, Uivar: a late Neolithic-early Eneolithic fortified tell site in western Romania. In: D. Bailey/A.
Whittle/D. Hofmann (eds), Living Well Together? Settlement and Materiality in the Neolithic of South-East and
Central Europe (Oxford 2008) 5467.

186

Adam N. Crnobrnja

Schier/Draovean 2004: W. Schier/F. Draovean, Vorbericht ber die rumanischdeutschen Prospektionen und Ausgrabungen in der befestigten Tellsiedlung von Uivar, jud. Timi, Rumnien (19982002). Praehist. Zeitschr. 79,
2004, 145230.
Simi/Crnobrnja 2008: Z. Simi/A. Crnobrnja, Sondano iskopavanje lokaliteta Crkvine u selu Stubline. Arh. pregled
n.s. 4, 2008, 4446.
Spasi 2011: M. Spasi, Vinanska keramika sa lokaliteta Crkvine. In: M. Blagojevi (ed.), Kolubara 5 (Beograd
2011) 101146.
Spasi 2012: M. Spasi, Cattle to settle bull to rule: on bovine iconography among Late Neolithic Vina culture
communities. In: M. Budja (ed.), 19th Neolithic Studies. Doc. Praehist. 39 (Ljubljana 2012) 295308.
Stefanovi 2008: S. Stefanovi, Late Neolithic Boys at the Gomolava Cemetery (Serbia). In: K. Bacvarov (ed.),
Babies Reborn: Infant/Child Burials in Pre- and Protohistory. Proceedings of the XV World Congress of the International Union for Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. BAR Internat. Ser. 1832 (Oxford 2008) 9599.
Stevanovi 1998: P. Stevanovi, Upotrebna grnarija sa eneolitskog lokaliteta Velimirovi dvori Klju. Petnike
sveske 48 arheologija, 1998, 341354.
Tasi 2007: N. Tasi, Ritual Pottery Set from Vina. Glasnik Srpskog arheolokog drutva 23, 2007, 203210.
Tasi 2008: N. Tasi, Nemi svedoci jednog vremena: figuralna umetnost Vine. In: D. Nikoli (ed.), Vina praistorijska metropola: istraivanja 19082008 (Beograd 2008) 139179.
Todorovi 1967a: J. Todorovi, Crkvine, Stubline, Obrenovac naselje vinanske grupe. Arh. pregled 9, 1967,
1718.
Todorovi 1967b: J. Todorovi, Jasenje, Brdo (groblje), Vukievica, Obrenovac naselje vinanske grupe. Arh.
pregled 9, 1967, 1617.
Todorovi 1968: J. Todorovi, Grabovac, uria vinogradi, Obrenovac naselje starevake i vinanske grupe. Arh.
pregled 10, 1968, 1113.
Tringham et al. 1985: R. Trhingham/B. Brukner/B. Voytek, The Opovo Project: A Study of Socioekonomic Change
in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal Field Arch. 12.4, 1985, 425444.
Tringham et al. 1992: R. Tringham/B. Brukner/T. Kaiser/K. Borojevi/Lj. Bukvi/P. teli/N. Russell/M. Stevanovi/
B. Voytek, Excavations at Opovo, 19851987: Socioeconomic Change in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal Field Arch.
19.3, 1992, 351386.
Tripkovi 2007: B. Tripkovi, Domainstvo i prostor u kasnom neolitu: Vinansko naselje na Banjici (Beograd
2007).
Tripkovi 2012: B. Tripkovi, ivot u movari: mikroregionalna adaptacija u severozapadnoj Srbiji. Srpsko arheoloko
drutvo XXXV skuptina i godinji skup (Valjevo 2012) 2526.

List of authors

Alexandra Anders
Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Etvs Lornd
University
H-1088 Budapest
Mzeum krt 4/B
Hungary
E-mail: anders.alexandra@btk.elte.hu
Marta Arzarello
LT TEKNEHUB
Sezione di Scienze Preistoriche e Antropologiche
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici
Universit degli Studi di Ferrara
C.so Ercole I dEste 32
44100 Ferrara
Italy
E-mail: marta.arzarello@unife.it
Eszter Bnffy
Erste Direktorin
Rmisch-Germanische Kommission
des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts
Palmengartenstr. 1012
Germany
E-mail: eszter.banffy@dainst.de
Mirjana Blagojevi
Institute for the Protection of
Cultural Monuments of Serbia Belgrade
Radoslava Grujia 11
11000 Belgrade
Serbia
E-mail: blagojevicmiki@gmail.com
Yavor Boyadzhiev
National Institute of Archeology with Museum
Saborna 2,
1000 Sofia
Bulgaria
e-mail: yavordb@abv.bg
Lea ataj
Croatian Conservation Institute
Archaeological Heritage
Department for Land Archaeology
Koarska 5
10 000 Zagreb
Croatia

E-mail: lcataj@h-r-z.hr
Adam N. Crnobrnja
Belgrade City Museum
Zmaj Jovina 1
11000 Beograd
Serbia
E-mail: ancrnobrnja@gmail.com
Drago Diaconescu
Muzeul Banatului Timioara
Piaa Huniade nr. 1
Romania
E-mail: goshu_d@yahoo.com
Florin Draovean
Muzeul Banatului Timioara
Piaa Huniade nr. 1
Romania
E-mail: fdrasovean2000@yahoo.com
Roland Gauss
Fraunhofer-Institut fr Silicatforschung ISC
Projektgruppe fr Wertstoffkreislufe und
Ressourcenstrategie IWKS
Brentanostrae 2
63755 Alzenau
Germany
E-Mail: roland.gauss@isc.fraunhofer.de
Attila Gyucha
Hungarian National Museum
Center of National Heritage Protection
Regional Office in Szeged
Hungary
e-mail: attila.gyucha@mnm-nok.gov.hu
Ferenc Horvth
Mra Ferenc Mzeum
Szeged H-6720
Roosevelt tr I-3
Hungary
E-mail: f_horvath@mfm.u-szeged.hu
Borislav Jovanovi
Serbian Academy of Science and Arts
Knez Mihailova 35
11000 Belgrade, Serbia

438

List of authors

E-mail: bjovanovic@yubc.net
Cornelia-Magda Lazarovici
Institute of Archaeology
Codrescu 6, Pavilion H
Iai 700479
Romania
E-mail: magdamantu@yahoo.com
Gheorghe Lazarovici
Lucian Blaga University
Facultatea de Istorie si Patrimoniu
Bulevardul Victoriei 10
Sibiu 550024
Romania
E-mail: ghlazarovici@yahoo.com
Saa Luki
Hauptstr. 93
12159 Berlin
Germany
E-Mail: addstol@gmail.com
Tibor Marton
Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences
ri u. 49
H-1014 Budapest
Hungary
E-mail: marton@archeo.mta.hu
Traje Nacev
Associate Professor
Institute for Archaeology and History
Faculty of Educational Sciences
Goce Delcev University, Stip
Republic of Macedonia
E-mail: trajce.nacev@ugd.edu.mk
Nerantzis Nerantzis
Archaeological Museum of Komotini
A. Syneonidi 4
69100 Komotini, Greece
Greece
E-mail: nnerantzis2001@yahoo.co.uk
Krisztin Oross
Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences
ri u. 49
H-1014 Budapest
Hungary
E-mail: oross@archeo.mta.hu
Anett Oszts
Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of

Sciences
ri u. 49
H-1014 Budapest
Hungary
E-mail: osztas.anett@btk.mta.hu,
Stratis Papadopoulos
Archaeological Museum of Kavala
Eryhtrou Stavrou 17
56110 Kavala
Greece
E-mail: efstratiospa@gmail.com,
epapadopoulos@culture.gr
William A. Parkinson
Department of Anthropology
Field Museum of Natural History
Chicago, IL
USA
E-mail: wparkinson@fieldmuseum.org
Daniel Peters
Freie Universitt Berlin
Fachbereich Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften
Institut fr Prhistorische Archologie
Altensteinstrae 15
D-14195 Berlin
Germany
E-mail: d.peters@fu-berlin.de
Jrg Petrasch
Eberhard-Karls-Universitt Tbingen
Institut fr Ur- und Frhgeschichte und Archologie des
Mittelalters
Abteilung fr Jngere Urgeschichte und Frhgeschichte
Schlo Hohentbingen
72070 Tbingen
E-mail: joerg.petrasch@uni-tuebingen.de
Pl Raczky
Institute of Archaeological Sciences
Etvs Lornd University
Mzeum krt 4/B
H-1088 Budapest
Hungary
E-mail: raczky.pal@btk.elte.hu
Knut Rassmann
Leiter Technische Abteilung
Rmisch-Germanische Kommission
des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts
Palmengartenstr. 1012
Germany
E-mail: knut.rassmann@dainst.de
Wolfram Schier

List of authors

Freie Universitt Berlin

Fachbereich Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften
Institut fr Prhistorische Archologie
Altensteinstrae 15
D-14195 Berlin
Germany
E-mail: wolfram.schier@fu-berlin.de
Zsuzsanna Siklsi
Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Etvs Lornd
University
Mzeum krt 4/B
H-1088 Budapest
Hungary
E-mail: siklosi.zsuzsanna@btk.elte.hu
Marko Sraka
Department of Archaeology
Faculty of Arts
University of Ljubljana
Slovenia
E-mail: Marko.sraka@ff.uni-lj.si
Darko Stojanovski
International Doctorate in Quaternary and Prehistory,
PhD student
Department of Geology
University of Trs-os-Montes e Alto Douro
Quinta de Prados
5000-801 Vila Real
Portugal

439

E-mail: stjdrk@unife.it
Nicolae Ursulescu
Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iai
Faculty of History
Bld. Carol I, no. 11
70056 Iai
Romania
E-mail: n.ursulescu@gmail.com
Michael Videjko
Institute of Archaeology NAS of Ukraine
12 Geroiv Stalingrada Ave
04210 Kyiv-210
Ukraine
E-mail: wideiko@gmail.com
Richard W. Yerkes
Department of Anthropology
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
USA
E-mail: yerkes.1@osu.edu
Istvn Zalai-Gal
Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences
ri u. 49
H-1014 Budapest
Hungary
E-mail: gaal.istvan@btk.mta.hu