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

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 Copper Age in Southeast Europe historical epoch or

typo-chronological construct?
Wolfram Schier

Abstract
The article addresses questions of chronological methodology and terminology related to the period of the Eneolithic or Copper Age. By relating absolute and relative chronology to ordinal and metric time scales and with reference to statistical scale theory some methodological consequences are briefly discussed and illustrated by selected
chronological charts of the time period under consideration. Besides absolute and relative time scales further components of archaeological chronology are periodisation and (culture-historical) phaseology. In archaeological practice authors often decide to refer chronological charts either to culture sequences or to hierarchical period systems,
whereas both are necessary.
A critical review of the archaeological practice in comparative chronology demonstrates some sources of mismatching and discrepancies both within and between chronological systems. Here quantitative approaches relying
on representative samples of stratigraphies are strongly recommended, instead of arguing with selected import
sherds.
The second part of the article deals with the concept of the Copper Age as a historical epoch, introduced into German-speaking archaeology by scholars as H. Mller-Karpe and J. Lichardus. A critical review of Lichardus criteria
for a pan-European Copper Age in the light of the actual chronology and evidence challenges the notion of a homogenous historical epoch. Therefore it is suggested to abandon the idea of a historical Copper Age, to use the term
Eneolithic merely as an element of chronological terminology and to analyse the cultural dynamics and regional
diversity exclusively within a solid framework of absolute dates.
Introduction
Suggested in 1884 by Franz von Pulszk for the first time, the notion of a distinct Copper Age has become firmly
established in the archaeology of eastern Central, southeastern and eastern Europe as well as southwestern Asia, thus
signifying a fourth period inserted into J. Thomsens Three Age System between the Stone and Bronze Age. This
term as well as the chronological concept has, however, never been generally accepted and/or widely used in western
Central, Western and Northern Europe.
In the archaeological literature on Southeast Europe and the Near East the terms Eneolithic or, respectively,
Chalcolithic are far more commonly used than Copper Age. While generally considered roughly synonymous,
Eneolithic/Chalcolithic seem to be understood rather as chronological termini technici, while Copper Age is
more frequently employed in popular texts in a metaphorical sense, suggesting a distinct epoch in prehistory embracing particular processes, events and associations. In Continental European archaeology, since the 1970s the Copper
Age has indeed been conceived as a historical epoch, defined not only by time, but also by common cultural traits
(see below).
In the present article we shall review the terminology of Eneolithic as a concept in terms of relative and absolute chronology, in relation to copper metallurgy and other claimed common cultural phenomena. At first, however, some methodological aspects of chronology will briefly be discussed and illustrated by selected chronological charts of the time period
under consideration. A critical review of the archaeological practice of comparative chronologies will demonstrate some
sources of mismatching and discrepancies both within and between chronological systems.
Chronology and archaeological practice
Looking closely, chronological charts can be considered quite complex, two-dimensional representations of cultural sequences in spatially distinct, yet neighbouring areas. Usually they contain aspects of both relative and absolute
chronology as well as attributions to cultures or/and regional chronological terminology. Until two to three decades
ago, comparative chronological charts, however, were quite often constructed without any reference to absolute dating (fig. 1).

420

Wolfram Schier

Fig. 1. Example of a relative chronological chart (Pavk

1990, 127).

Fig. 2. Example of an early absolute (uncalibrated)

chronological chart (Mantu 1995, 224 fig. 2)

Relative chronology refers to an ordinal time scale, which allows only for a sequential ordering of temporal
units, whose length remains undefined and which therefore cannot be compared quantitatively (proportionally).
Time cannot be measured directly on an ordinal scale, but is expressed instead basing on proxies of time: either visual similarity/dissimilarity (typology, seriation) or spatial relations between find complexes (stratigraphy) (Schier
2014).
Since the mid 1990s the majority of published chronological charts of the southeast European Neolithic and Eneolithic refer to absolute chronology. Some early examples applied an uncalibrated time scale (fig. 2). The nonlinear
absolute (calibrated) time scale of others (fig. 3) reveals, that the mental scaling of cultural sequences still rests firmly
upon relative chronology, to which absolute figures were added later. The latter chart also contains a reference to
the third dimension of prehistoric chronology, the phasing system (early/middle/late Neolithic and early/middle/late
Eneolithic). Many authors, however, have decided to refer either to the hierarchical period terminology or to the specific cultures and their respective phases, which makes comparisons between different assignments to periods more
difficult.
Logical inconsistencies arise, when the period terminology in a comparative chronological chart is valid only for a
part of the table. In his chronological chart (fig. 4). W. A. Parkinson added in the righthand column the period assignment for Hungary, which is inconsistent with the respective terminology for Bulgaria in the neighbouring column. If
it is taken at face value, the table suggests that the Kodadermen-Gumelnia-Karanovo (KGK) VI culture complex
to be Early Eneolithic, whereas, according to Bulgarian archaeology it is defined as Late Eneolithic (Todorova 2002,
37; 40; Boyadzhiev this volume). Parkinson used an absolute timescale in steps of 500 years, but without equidistant
spacing of the year figures. Another problem in his chart is the very long duration of the Vina culture: the late end
of Vina D around 4000 calBC implies a contemporaneity with the Tiszapolgr culture, which is in contradiction to
published radiocarbon dates for Vina D (Bori 2009).

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe historical epoch or typo-chronological construct?

Fig. 3. Relative and absolute chart with assignment of phase terminology (Grsdorf/Bojadiev 1996, 107 Abb. 1)

Fig. 4. Comparative relative/absolute chart with overall period assignment (Parkinson 2006, 57 fig. 4.4).

421

422

Wolfram Schier

Fig. 5. Comparative relative/absolute chart with overall period assignment and oblique dividing lines (Govedarica 2004, 227 Abb. 56).

Fig. 6. Comparative absolute/relative chart with the indication of different periodisations (Schier 2010, 33).

Another common feature in chronological charts are stepped or oblique dividing lines between different phases of
a culture or within a region (fig. 5). Despite their frequent use, the precise meaning of oblique lines is rarely specified. Some researchers seem to prefer oblique lines to express the gradual transition between an older and a younger
phase within a cultural sequence, others may just refer to existing uncertainties in the absolute dating, while a third

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe historical epoch or typo-chronological construct?

423

Fig. 7. Phaseological borders using an absolute time scale (Narr 1975, 12 Abb. 2)

group apparently draws oblique lines to account for the fact that the transition between two phases might not occur
at the same time throughout the region concerned. In the last case the width of a column represents the geographical
variability of such a phase transition while the angle of the oblique line would represent the time difference between
the earliest and the latest occurrence of the new phase.
An example of a chronological chart accounting for all three chronological dimensions 1) (relative) cultural sequence, 2) absolute dating and 3) terminological period attribution is shown in fig. 6. As in most charts, the geographical diversity is presented in parallel columns; the cultural phases are indicated by horizontal divisions referring to a
linear calibrated time scale. Oblique lines in this chart are used to indicate chronological overlap or divergent transitions within one region (column).
The attribution to regional period terminologies is expressed by colours, whereby different shading is equivalent to
early/middle/late stages within the periods. The overlaying of culture phasing and period attribution illustrates clearly
the terminological fault line running right through Central Europe. While the Eneolithic represents a period of its
own in Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, it has never been established in German-speaking archaeology.
Therefore, for instance, the Baden culture is classified as Late Eneolithic in Hungary, Middle Eneolithic in the Czech
Republic and Late Neolithic in Austria.
Culture-historical phaseology
The offset in the period attribution between neighbouring regions reflects, at first sight, different research
traditions, regional schools and concepts. Taken at large, however, these offsets are the consequence of a specific perspective to archaeological chronology which we refer to as culture-historical phaseology. An early
explication of this perspective is given by K.-J. Narr in the introduction to his Handbuch der Urgeschichte
(Narr 1975, 12 Abb. 2). The large-scale, comparative perspective on periodisation is, as Narr states, based on
the principle of iso-phenomenology, i.e. the occurrence of the same major transformations and cultural processes in different regions at different times, yet in the same relative sequence. He chooses the neolithisation
as example, referring to the same process of change from hunter-gatherer to agrarian subsistence, but covering a time span from the 10 th/9th millennium in the Near East until the early 4th millennium in northwestern
Europe (fig. 7). Like the neolithisation line, some other phaseological boundaries follow a time gradient from
the Near East and Egypt towards northern Europe: literacy, the introduction of iron, bronze and copper, pottery, proto-urban settlements.
The isophenomenological perspective is complementary to, but logically incompatible with its counterpart, the
isochronological view of prehistory. The latter perspective compares the different processes and cultural phenomena occurring synchronously, i.e. projected on an absolute (metric) timescale. This perspective has been supported,
among others, by C. Strahm as an alternative option to the prevailing use of (relative) cultural phase systems in the
1980s and 1990s (Strahm 1988).

424

Wolfram Schier

Fig. 8. An assumed time horizon can link stratigraphic layers of different duration at different points in their lifespan (Parzinger
1993, 14 Abb. 1).

Synchronising chronologies the past, the present and the future

Since the times of V. Miloji Chronologie der Jngeren Steinzeit (1949), the methodological approach of comparative relative chronology has not changed fundamentally. Site by site, stratigraphic sequences that are considered
representative and sufficiently well published, are compared and correlated, using selected elements of assumed diagnostic character. Usually no assessment is made as to how frequent the pottery types and decorative techniques occur
in both sites, how specific they are for the layer or phase concerned, or how many corresponding elements relate to
how many divergent ones.
In transcultural chronological comparisons import sherds frequently play a crucial role for regarding phases as
contemporary. The notion of import actually implies a territorial concept of archaeological cultures: only when
we can define a culture area spatially by a sharp boundary, can we distinguish between inside and outside, between
elements constituting a culture and imports in the context of a neighbouring culture. If, however, a less homogenous,
more fuzzy concept of culture is applied, as, for instance, the polythetic model suggested by D. L. Clarke as early as
1968 (Clarke 1978, 263266), the recognition and definition of imported elements becomes less clear.
Elements of material culture that have turned out to be frequent but short living in one site, often are taken as
chronological marker for far reaching correlations. There are however examples where pottery or other characteristics
are diagnostic only for one region, while in other regions they may have had a much longer production lifespan.
Another problematic assumption is the stratigraphic gap, the hiatus. Keeping in mind the rules of scale theory
(Stevens 1946), we have to realise that an ordinal scale, unlike interval or proportional scales, can reproduce neither
dynamic processes (acceleration, retardation) nor gaps adequately. Increased dissimilarity of material culture between
neighbouring units on an ordinal scale, be it based on seriation or on stratigraphy, can reflect either a longer time
interval (hiatus?) or accelerated change (innovation?, culture change?). Relative chronology just does not permit to
dissolve this ambiguity.
In the practice of archaeological chronology the concept of a stratigraphical hiatus sometimes is used to account for
mismatches in the correlation of two stratigraphies. If sequence A contains layers and types between an upper and lower
layer that can be linked to another sequence B, where the intermediate types are lacking, this may be an indication of discontinuity in sequence B. It may, however, also be due to a delayed diffusion of the lower types in A to B, a local origin
of the intermediate material, or an increased sedimentation rate in sequence A during the intermediate phase.
Again, relative chronology, using an ordinal time scale, does not allow us to decide between these alternative options. Stratigraphic layers (groups) as well as the phases derived from a seriation are discrete units of unknown time
This could be shown, f. i. for shallow bowls with thickened and channelled rim, typical for Vina C2/C3 at the type site, but occurring much earlier at Karanovo IIIIV and Vina sites in southern Serbia (Schier 2000).


As an example: by comparing his Romanian relative chronology of the Vina culture with the stratigraphy of the eponymous
tell site, Gh. Lazarovici suggested several interruptions in the sequence of Vina Belo Brdo (Lazarovici 1981, 173178), which,
however, could not be supported by other authors.


The Copper Age in Southeast Europe historical epoch or typo-chronological construct?

425

Fig. 9. Application of the horizon approach to the end of Neolithic tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin (Link 2006, 45 Abb. 221).

depth. Even if a stratigraphy is expressed in meters and the eigenvector plot of a Correspondence Analysis suggests
a continuous metric scale, both are nonlinear proxies of time (Schier 2014, 269270).
H. Parzinger was aware of the immanent uncertainties and ambiguities of comparative stratigraphy, when he applied his concept of time horizons in his comprehensive study of Neolithic/Eneolithic chronology between the Taurus
Mountains and the Carpathian Basin (Parzinger 1993). He intended to overcome the discrepancies of regional terminologies and phasing systems by referring to a set of 15 main and 22 subdivided horizons, correlating the individual
stratigraphic sequences of hundreds of sites included in his study. He illustrated three possible scenarios of comparative stratigraphy, which would result in the same attribution to a specific horizon (fig. 8). Obviously, the correlation of
discrete units of unknown length cannot account for the (inaccessible) information on the real calendar scale. Thus,
the horizon approach reduces temporal resolution and introduces, unintentionally, further errors and ambiguities into
the resulting chronological systems.
Applied to the question of the end of tell settlement in the Carpathian Basin (Link 2006), the horizon approach
suggests a gradual abandonment of tell sites around the transition Late Neolithic/Eneolithic (fig. 9). For the reasons
mentioned above, however, a comparative relative chronology based on the horizon model can a) mask real synchronisms (the end of one horizon being contemporary with the beginning of the following one); b) exaggerate real time
lags or c) suggest a synchronism where in reality two sites were abandoned at the beginning and end of a horizon
respectively.
Even today the search for analogies in material culture appears as a valid approach of comparative chronology,
but only if some methodological prerequisites are acknowledged: It ought to be performed on a quantitative basis
and should respect the geographical distance between sites and regions as well as any evidence for culture contact
between them. Furthermore, wide ranging comparisons should be embedded in a framework of absolute dates and be
submitted to a methodological cross-check for inconsistencies (for instance Bayesian dating models).
Comparative relative chronology in continental European archaeology has only occasionally been performed by
applying statistical analysis, based on large samples. An early example is the joint seriation of two distinct regional
Linearbandkeramik sequences, the Rhineland and Baden-Wrttemberg by Stehli (1994). Two paraboloid shapes,

426

Wolfram Schier

resulting from Correspondence Analysis, could be projected in a common space, thus demonstrating regional differences, but also a consistent time trend (Zimmermann 1994).
More recently, M. Furholt used Correspondence and Network analysis in his spatio-temporal analysis of the regional groups within the northern Baden Culture (Furholt 2009).
In a recent study M. Woidich applied Correspondence Analysis to the western Globular Amphora Culture (GAC).
By using spatial cells instead of closed finds he could statistically separate spatial from temporal variability of GAC
pottery. The latter was established using spatially insensitive elements in a conventional, find complex-based Correspondence Analysis (Woidich 2014, 142174).
Future research might show that Correspondence and/or Network Analysis can also be successfully applied to
stratigraphic units, thus providing a quantitative approach to comparative stratigraphy. Such new approaches might
review, correct and modify conventional cross-referencing of distinct stratigraphies based on selective elements or
types. However, comparing the real dynamic of culture change between different regions requires a dense mesh of
absolute dates.
Regional time lags in similar transformations of material culture, economy and society tend to be interpreted as
evidence for a) a diffusion process, b) different regional response to common prime movers, c) structural differences
between the societies involved (stratification, specialisation etc.), or d) innovation. If we search for the origins and
diffusion paths of innovations, a gradient of time (depending on temporal resolution) should be identifiable.
The Copper Age as Historical Epoch Grand narratives of the 1970s and 80s
Within German-speaking archaeology, one of the first archaeologists and surely the most influential one to develop
the concept of Copper Age was H. Mller-Karpe. In the introduction to the third volume (Kupferzeit) of his monumental Handbuch der Vorgeschichte (Mller-Karpe 1974), he defined the Copper Age as the period between the 27th
and 17th century BC (!), covering early historical periods such as the Old and Middle Kingdom in Egypt, the Early
Dynastic and Akkad period in Mesopotamia, as well as the Early and Middle Helladic period in Greece. Beyond the
scope of historical chronology he considered as contemporary the megalithic cultures of northwestern and western
Europe as well as the Younger and Late Neolithic cultures Michelsberg, Baalberg, Corded Ware and Bell Beaker.
Accordingly, he suggested applying the term Copper Age also to regions and cultures hitherto classified as Early,
Middle, Younger, Late Neolithic or Eneolithic, since he regarded all of the above mentioned cultures and periods not
only as contemporary but even historically linked.
It is important to note that with this concept Mller-Karpe took the isochronological perspective, based on the
(nowadays obsolete) absolute chronology of the 1970s, and claimed historical links between areas and cultures with
largely different economic, socio-political and cultural properties. If, however, historical links between cultures and
impulses from ancient civilisations towards the prehistoric periphery of Europe could be recognised, basing on
their (claimed) synchronisms, these historical links must be abandoned after their chronology has been proven to be
false. This logical conclusion would not necessarily hold true for an isophenomenological perspective, which allows
for variable temporal offsets between similar processes and developments.
Probably the most prominent advocate for the idea of a pan-European Copper Age was Jan Lichardus. Based on
his own field research in Bulgaria, an intense network of scientific relations and almost four decades of academic
teaching at the University of Saarbrcken, Lichardus became one of the most active, committed and sometimes even
pugnacious academicians in the field of Southeast European later prehistory in the German-speaking archaeological
community.
In 1988 he organised the renowned international conference Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche at Saarbrcken and Otzenhausen, which was published in two volumes in 1991. In his introduction Lichardus reviews
the history of the concept of Copper Age since the late 19th century (Lichardus 1991a). He points out that within
the research of the 196080s three groups of opinions can be distinguished: a) the rejection of a general European
Copper Age, conceding, however, the introduction of copper objects in later stages of the Neolithic; b) the acceptance of Copper Age as independent chronological period; and c) the notion of Copper Age as a truly historical
epoch, which regards copper metallurgy as just one of several innovative common traits and phenomena leading
to a major step in cultural evolution (Lichardus 1991a, 1618). Lichardus referred to E. Chernych, E. Neustupn,
E. Pleslov-tikov and A. Sherratt as influential supporters of this approach. He assigns his own and M. LicharFreilich erweist es sich bei einer grorumigen Betrachtung chronologisch zusammengehriger und wie sich zunehmend
herausstellt historisch miteinander in Verbindung stehender Erscheinungen als wnschenswert, gewisse nomenklatorische Angleichungen vorzunehmen und dem Begriff Kupferzeit auch dort Geltung zu verschaffen, wo bis jetzt wie in Teilen Europas
von Frh-, Mittel-, Jung-, Spt- oder neolithikum oder wie in Teilen Vorderasiens bereits von Bronzezeit gesprochen wird.
(Mller-Karpe 1974, V).


The Copper Age in Southeast Europe historical epoch or typo-chronological construct?

427

dus-Ittens approach to the same position, emphasizing a polythetic genesis of the Copper Age which happened
largely independently of the Near East, rooted in what he called the Late Neolithic civilisation of Southeast Europe
(Lichardus 1991a, 20; 24).
It is interesting to note that Lichardus, while criticising the chronological mismatches in Mller-Karpes concept
of Copper Age (Lichardus 1991a, 18), relies entirely upon comparative relative chronology in his outline of the
temporal framework for the historical epoch of the Copper Age. The correlation of regional sequences, depicted in
his comparative chronological chart (Lichardus 1991a, 2627), lists all of the regional cultures and phases, without
discussing the evidence for their simultaneity (contact finds, imports, typological comparison etc.). Neither his nor
any other contribution in the two volumes contain any radiocarbon dates.
In the second volume Lichardus developed his view of the Copper Age as a historical epoch extensively, referring
to three cultural complexes, i.e. Cucuteni-Tripole, Tiszapolgr-Bodrogkeresztr and Early Funnel Beaker (Lichardus
1991b). In conclusion he compiled a catalogue of social, economic and religious phenomena which he considered
constitutive for the Copper Age civilization (tab. 1).
Some of these features and their claimed synchrony will be discussed in the following in the light of the present
absolute chronology, more than two decades later.
A) Society

B) Economy

C) Religion

1) Centralised and fortified settlements,

relating to traffic routes

1) Focus on lifestock husbandry, larger

herds, new type of sheep

1) first cult buildings

2) Hierarchical social structure,

regional and supra-regional elites, high
social status also for some children

2) horse domestication, first use of

horses as riding and draft animals

2) large ditch enclosures with ritual

depositions in the ditches and the
interior

3) First symbols of status and power

3) draft animals (cattle)

4) first plough (ard)

3) spiritual beliefs guided by

hierarchical social structure

4) First monumental burial architecture

5) careful crop cultivation,

systematic weeding
6) cultivation of spices and herbs

4) changes in burial customs (partial,

collective, multiple)

5) Social specialisation: prospectors,

miners, craftsmen besides farmers

7) Intensified salt extraction

5) new rites connected with the sun,

animal husbandry and male gender

6) distinct gender rles

8) mining of flint, copper ore and gold

9) specialised craft: metallurgy

6) new customs of deposition

7) metrical systems and astronomical

knowledge

10) increased harvesting of wood and

charcoal production
11) organisation of transport and
exchange networks
12) first wheeled transport
13) innovations in ship building

Tab. 1. Catalogue of social, economic and religious phenomena which were considered constitutive of the Copper Age (after
Lichardus 1991b).

Society
If we accept tell settlements as representing some kind of central function in a graded settlement system, this type
of settlement can be found starting from the Early Neolithic in Macedonia and Thrace to the Middle/Late Neolithic
at the Lower Danube (Polyanica and Boian cultures), the Central Balkans (Vina culture) and the eastern Carpathian
Basin (Tisza and Herply-Csszhalom cultures). A number of tell sites meanwhile have been shown to be surrounded
by fortification ditches, dating to the Middle and Late Neolithic as well as the Eneolithic.
Raczky et al. 1994; Schier/Draovean 2004; Schier 2008a; 2009; Hansen et al. 2005, 344 f.; Mller/Rassmann/Hofmann 2013,
103; 106; Mischka 2008; 2009.


428

Wolfram Schier

Fig. 10. Beginning of tell accumulation in the Near East and Southeastern Europe (Schier 2005, 10 Abb. 2).

While the beginning of tell settlements shows a temporal gradient from Southeast to Northwest (fig. 10), the
abandonment of nucleated tells and a shift to more dispersed settlement patterns occurs in the Carpathian basin
starting in 4700 calBC (Link 2006; Bori 2009; Parkinson 2006, Parkinson/Gyucha/Yerkes 2004), while the end
of tell settlement comes about half a millennium later at the Lower Danube (end of KGK VI culture complex ca.
4250 calBC).
Evidence for increased social stratification is based mainly on the cemetery of Varna, still only selectively
published. The comprehensively published cemetery of Durankulak (Todorova 2002) displays a similar, but less
pronounced tendency towards social inequality, increasing from the Middle Neolithic Hamangia III phases, the
Late Neolithic Hamangia IIIV until the Varna phases IIII. Whereas this process of social differentiation and the
emergence of social elites with (at least) an ideology of inheritable status (as manifested by richly equipped child
burials), is very visible in the western Pontic region, the situation in other parts of Southeast Europe is less clear.
For Thrace and the Central Balkans cemeteries are lacking almost completely for both Late Neolithic and Early
Eneolithic. In the eastern Carpathian Basin some continuity in burial practices can be observed between Late Neolithic Tisza burials and Early Copper Age Tiszapolgr cemeteries. The latter, however, reveal an increased concern
for status and gender differentiation.
Monumental burial architecture, typical for Early and Middle Neolithic northwestern Europe since the mid 5th
(Britanny) and the early-late 4th millennium (British Isles, Netherlands, northern Germany, southern Scandinavia), is
by and large absent in the Early Copper Age of Southeast Europe. Burial mounds emerge in the North Pontic steppe
region during the 4th millennium and occur in Southeast Europe with the Yamnaya expansion at the turn of 4th/3rd millennium and occasionally in Central Europe in the mid 4th millennium.
While metrical systems have been suggested (and disputed) even for the Linerbandkeramik and the Early Neolithic
of northwestern Europe, evidence for detailed astronomical knowledge is provided by the Middle Neolithic circular
enclosures of the Lengyel, Stichband, Oberlauterbach and Grogartach cultures between northwestern Hungary and
northeastern Germany, dating between 4800 and 4500 calBC. Nevertheless the existence of such advanced astronomical knowledge in the almost contemporary Early Copper Age of Southeast Europe can neither been ruled out
nor has it been proven yet.

Derevenski 1997; Chapman 2000.

Borgna/Mller Celka 2011; Yamnaya migration: Ecsedy 1979; Heyd 2011; Adriatic coast: Primas 1996.

Thom 2003; Rasch 1996.

Schier 2008b; 2011; Schlosser 2012; Zotti 2012.

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe historical epoch or typo-chronological construct?

429

Economy
The first six arguments (tab. 1, B1B6) presented by Lichardus refer to the eneolithic subsistence economy and
require, in addition to archaeological evidence, support from bioarchaeological data. In hindsight, it appears quite
courageous to draw these general conclusions based on the scanty and heterogeneous evidence of the later 1980s.
A greater focus on lifestock husbandry during the late 5th to early 3rd millennia is indeed suggested by some indirect
evidence for various cultures and regions concerned. It ranges from stylised depictions of cattle made of sheet gold
in the cemetery of Varna, dated to the mid 5th millennium, to burials of pairs and groups of cattle in the Baden and
Globular Amphora cultures in the second half of the 4th millennium, reaching as far north as Jutland10.
The dispersed settlement structure of the Tiszapolgr culture has also been interpreted as reflection of a more mobile and pastoral way of life11 (Bognr-Kutzian 1972, 160164) and for the giant enclosures of the somewhat younger
Michelsberg culture (42003500 calBC) in western Central Europe a function as site for gathering and dividing large
herds of cattle has recently been suggested (Geschwinde/Raetzel-Fabian 2009, 242249).
Nonetheless, all of this heterogeneous and indirect evidence is far from rendering a consistent, quantifiable and
synchronous picture for the period concerned. The introduction of wool-bearing sheep (B1), draft animals (B3) and
the plough (B4) were components of A. Sherratts concept of a Secondary Products Revolution (Sherratt 1981), which
was criticised for a lack of synchronous and consistent evidence12, but recently defended in its general arguments by
H. Greenfield (Greenfield 2010).
No less controversial during the last three decades has been the debate about origins and dating of the domestication
of the horse. Critical re-examination of the available evidence suggests a later occurrence of the domesticated horse
than formerly claimed for the key site Dereivka and the Early Eneolithic in the steppe zone (Benecke 2002).
Careful cultivation of crops, including systematic weeding (tab. 1, B5) can hardly be regarded as typical (only) for Copper Age agriculture, since it has been demonstrated already for Early and Middle Neolithic agriculture in several studies13,
whereas, on the other hand, archaeobotanical studies for eneolithic settlements are still rare for Southeast Europe.
Salt production on an almost industrial scale has indeed been recently proven by V. Nikolov for the Late Eneolithic
phases at the tell Provadia, 50 km inland from Varna (Nikolov 2008; 2012). However, the scale of salt production in
Provadia still remains a unique case for the 5th and 4th millennium. The attractiveness of salt springs for human settlement, which are well known, for instance, on the eastern fringe of the Carpathians, is attested already for the Early
Neolithic (Tasi 2012; Saile 2012).
The mining of copper ores is obviously a prerequisite for any copper metallurgy that exceeds the hammering of
native copper. It is amazing that since the identification of Rudna Glava in Eastern Serbia and Ai Bunar in the Bulgarian Sredna Gora region in the early 1970s, no further prehistoric mines have been identified in Southeast Europe.
The intensive work on archaeometallurgical provenance, pioneered by the teams of E. ernych and E. Pernicka, suggested prehistoric mining also in Majdanpek in Serbia and Medni Rid at the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast (Pernicka et
al. 1997, 141146). At both sites, however, historical mining activity (from Antiquity to modern times) apparently
has eliminated any earlier traces. D. Bori recently published new radiocarbon dates from Rudna Glava, which push
back the beginning of malachite extraction at the site to the end of the 6th millennium (Bori 2009). At the nearby site
of Belovode, a Vina B/C site, the working of malachite and the smelting of copper ore seems to have been practised
as early as 5250 calBC (Bori 2009, 207210).
The mining of silex, however, started considerably earlier and the mining of gold occurs much later than suggested
by Lichardus 1991: The German site of Abensberg-Arnhofen in Lower Bavaria is a well documented large-scale mining area comprising thousands of vertical shafts, dug down to 15 meters depth in order to reach the layer containing
Jurassic flint nodules (Rind 2006). The extraction of silex started in Arnhofen already during the Linearbandkeramik
(54004900 calBC) and continued throughout the Middle Neolithic (49004200 calBC).
Increased harvesting of wood and charcoal production (tab. 1, B10) seem to be assumed rather than proven consequences of incipient metallurgy. Indeed many 4th millennium pollen profiles from bog and lake sediments in Central
and Northern Europe show raised non-arboreous pollen counts correlating with intensified precipitation of charcoal
micro particles (Rsch 2000; Rsch et al. 2002). These types of evidence, however, point to an opening of the landscape by fire and/or fire-based cultivation practices (Schier 2009).


Burial 36: Ivanov 1988,66 Abb. 34; Marazov 1988, 70 Abb. 36.

10

See Johannsen/Laursen 2010 for the most recent compilation and mapping of late Neolithic cattle burials.

Bognr-Kutzian 1972, 160164; according to Bartosiewicz 2005 the main archaeozoological difference between Late Neolithic
and Early Eneolithic is a decrease of hunted wild animals. Gyucha/Parkinson/Yerkes (this volume) suggest that an increased emphasis on animal husbandry might have taken place already in the Late Neolithic.
11

12

Chapman 1982; Vosteen 1996.

13

Kreuz 1990; Bogaard 2004.

430

Wolfram Schier

Fig. 11. Synoptic chart of selected phenomena (according to Lichardus 1991b) in their spatial and temporal distribution over
Europe, based on actual absolute chronology.

Exchange networks or the organisation of transport (tab. 1, B11) can hardly be considered an achievement of the
Copper Age. Spondylus is probably the most striking example of a (almost) pan-European Neolithic exchange system
of prestige goods (Ifantidis/Nikolaidou 2011), while quite recognisable silex varieties like Rijckholt and Szent Gl radiolarite or the Jstebsko amphibolite are well known examples of Neolithic functional commodities being exchanged
over hundreds of kilometres across Central Europe14.
The earliest wheeled transport has been a topic of archaeological debate for more than fifty years. In the last two
decades it proved to have been one of the fastest innovations in European prehistory. Since there is almost no time
difference between the oldest dated wheels in lakeside and bog settlements along the Alps, the wheeled ceramic
containers of the Baden culture and the Late Tripole culture as well as the earliest indirect evidence of wheel and
wagon in the Near East15, neither the origin nor the direction of spread of the wagon can be traced with certainty. All
available dates for the worlds earliest wheeled vehicles cluster between 3300 and 2800 cal/denBC (Veluek 2009;
Kninger et al. 2002), pertaining to Late/Final Neolithic, Late Eneolithic or Early Bronze Age depending upon the
regional terminologies.
Hence we have to face the fact that two major and well datable innovations attributed to the Copper Age by Lichardus copper metallurgy and wheeled transport occurred separated by about 1 millennia, while most of the other
claimed economic changes are unspecific, ambiguous, not quantifiable, geographically too localised, not representative or insufficiently researched.

14

Gronenborn 1997; Zimmermann 1995; Ramminger/da 2012.

15

Cf. Various contributions in Fansa/Burmeister 2004.

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe historical epoch or typo-chronological construct?

431

Religion
The association of the Copper Age with the occurrence of the first cult buildings in Southeast Europe is based mainly on the evidence of a building with decorated loam-covered pillars at the Late Boian/Gumelnia tell of Cscioarele
(Dumitrescu 1970). Another prominent example, not referred to by Lichardus, are the two so-called sanctuaries of
Para, tell I, displaying symbolic plastic wall decorations, a so-called altar with an attached bucranion and other features which are unusual for a normal domestic building. The probable cult buildings, however, date to the end of the
Middle Neolithic period B2 of the Vina culture (Lazarovici/Draovean/Maxim 2001, 204241).
Large ditch enclosures containing ritual depositions in the backfill of ditches and/or in their interior are a widespread phenomenon in Central, Western and Northern Europe. Its chronological range covers a long time span, starting with the enigmatic LBK enclosure of Herxheim (southwestern Germany; Zeeb-Lanz et al. 2007) dated to the late
6th millennium, continuing with monumental enclosures of the Michelsberg culture (42003500 calBC)16, the Chassen Septentrional and the British Early Neolithic up to the Funnel Beaker enclosures like Sarup (Jutland, Denmark)
and Bdelsdorf (Schleswig-Holstein, Germany), dating to the second half of the 4th millennium17. A chronological
concentration can be observed at the end of the 5th and in the first half of the 4th millennium geographically, however,
this phenomenon is specific to northwestern and western Central Europe and hardly known from the Copper Age of
Southeast Europe.
A similar geographical distribution show hitherto unusual burial customs (partial, multiple, collective burials; tab. 1,
C4): partial and multiple burials occur occasionally in the later Middle Neolithic of Southern Germany at the end of the
5th mill., while collective burials are common in the North European Funnel Beaker culture (collective burials in complex dolmen and passage graves, concentrating ca. 35003200 calBC), Late Neolithic non-megalithic collective graves
in Central Germany (Wartberg, Walternienburg and Bernburg cultures) and Central Poland (Kujavia) as well as megalithic alles couvertes of the Seine-Oise-Marne Culture of Northern and Eastern France18. Thus, the custom of collective
burial is widespread in the 2nd half of the 4th millennium, but widely unknown in Copper Age Southeast Europe.
Spiritual beliefs guided by hierarchical social structure as well as new rites in connection with the sun, the male
gender and animal husbandry (tab. 1, C3, C5) appear as rather speculative categories for implying specific interpretations and seem to be strongly inspired by the cemetery of Varna. Neither these, nor new customs of deposition (tab.
1, C6) can be regarded as representative for the whole of Copper Age Europe.
If we apply Lichardus criteria to the current chronology for the Later Neolithic and Copper Age (fig. 11), it becomes obvious that the phenomena are neither ubiquitous or at least wide spread nor contemporaneous. Some
suggested criteria had been hypothetically derived from other observations and cannot be considered independent
evidence. Some criteria, such as collective burial custom and monumental funeral architecture, are specific for northern and northwestern Europe, thus emphasizing differences between Neolithic and Copper Age rather than supporting
the pan-European notion of a Copper Age.
Even if focussed on Southeast Europe, the claimed criteria are not consistent in their temporal sequence: in the
Western Pontic and Lower Danube area, for instance, metallurgy, burials representing high social status and complex
tell settlements develop more or less parallel. In the Carpathian Basin, however, Late Neolithic tells end well before
metallurgy becomes omnipresent and gender-specific status-emphasizing burials become a widespread phenomenon.
The end of complex tell settlements in the Carpathian Basin precedes the end of Late Eneolithic tells in southeastern
Romania and northwestern Bulgaria by several centuries. Therefore, even an isophenomenological approach, allowing for the delayed diffusion of innovations, does not work: The time lags in the spread of copper metallurgy, the end
of tell settlement and the evolution of highly status-differentiated cemeteries do not reflect a geographical gradient,
but instead work the wrong way round.
Conclusion
Looking back more than two decades, the concept of the Copper Age as a historical epoch appears far less convincing than it was perceived around 1990. The changes in absolute chronology have affected many claimed synchronisms and created new, hitherto unrecognised ones19. Complex tell settlements are a feature of the Late Neolithic,
the Early Copper Age or both; their abandonment and transformation to more dispersed settlement patterns are not
16

Seidel 2008, Jeunesse/Seidel 2010; Geschwinde/Raetzel-Fabian 2009.

17

Cf. Andersen 1997; Varndall/Topping 2002; Meyer/Raetzel-Fabian 2006.

Several contributions in Beinhauer et al. 1999; Walternienburg/Bernburg burials: Beier 1983; non-megalithic TRB burials: Kossian 2005; alles couvertes: Masset/Soulier 1995.
18

As, for instance, the parallel occurrence of heavy copper tools in Southeast and prestigious jadeite axes in western Europe (Petrequin et al. 2013).
19

432

Wolfram Schier

synchronous. Even though the absolute chronology for the 5th and 4th millennium in Southeast Europe still requires
much improvement and an enhanced time resolution, it is already clear now that there is more temporal dynamic and
regional variability and less uniformity in the cultural, social and economic processes concerned. We suggest, therefore, that the notion of Copper Age as a historical epoch be abandoned and the terms Eneolithic/Chalcolithic be used
just as terminological conventions without culture-historical or even holistic implications. The processes of change
and transformation that doubtlessly took place between the beginning of the 5th and the end of the 4th millennium in
(Southeastern) Europe should, however, be studied, compared and interpreted using an absolute timescale as frame
of reference. The time of grand narratives may be over, but local and regional stories are equally fascinating and more
adequate reflections of the dynamic cultural diversity in prehistoric Europe.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Dr. Emily Schalk, Berlin for improving the English of the present article.
Bibliography
Andersen 1997: N. H. Andersen, Sarup: 1 The Sarup enclosures (Aarhus 1997).
Bartosiewicz 2005: L. Bartosiewicz, Plain talk: animals, environment and culture in the Neolithic of the Carpathian
Basin and adjacent areas. In: D. A. Bailey/A. Whittle/V. Cummings (eds), (Un)settling the Neolithic: Breaking
down Concepts, Boundaries and Origins (Oxford 2005) 5163.
Beinhauer et al. 1999: K. W. Beinhauer/G. Cooney/C. E. Guksch/S. Kus (eds), Studien zur Megalithik. Forschungsstand und ethnoarchologische Perspektiven (Weissbach 1999).
Beier 1983: H.-J. Beier, Die Grab- und Bestattungssitten der Walternienburger und Bernburger Kultur. Neolithische
Studien 3 (Halle [Saale] 1983).
Benecke 2002: N. Benecke, Zu den Anfngen der Pferdehaltung in Eurasien. Ethnogr.-Arch. Zeitschr. 43/2, 2002,
187226.
Bogaard 2004: A. Bogaard, Neolithic Farming in Central Europe. An archaeological study of crop husbandry practices (London/New York 2004).
Bognr-Kutzin 1972: I. Bognr-Kutzin, The Early Copper Age Tiszapolgr Culture in the Carpathian Basin (Budapest 1972).
Borgna/Mller 2011: E. Borgna/S. Mller (eds), Ancestral landscapes:burial mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages
(Central and Eastern Europe-Balkans-Adriatic-Aegean, 4th2nd millennium B.C.) : proceedings of the International
Conference held in Udine, May 15th18th 2008 Celka (Lyon 2011).
Bori 2009: D. Bori, Absolute Dating of Metallurgical Innovations in the Vina Culture of the Balkans. In: T. L.
Kienlin/B. W. Roberts (eds), Metals and Societies. Studies in honour of Barbara Ottaway (Bonn 2009) 191245.
Chapman 1982: J. Chapman, The secondary products revolution and the limitations of the Neolithic. Bull. Inst. Arch.
Univ. College London 1982, 107122.
Chapman 2000: J. Chapman, Tensions at funerals. Micro-tradition analysis in later Hungarian prehistory. Archaeolingua, Ser. Minor 14 (Budapest 2000).
Clarke 1968: D. L. Clarke, Analytical Archaeology (London2 1978).
Derevenski 1997: J. S. Derevenski, Age and gender at the site of Tiszapolgr-Basatanya, Hungary. Antiquity 71/274,
1997, 874889.
Dumitrescu 1970: V. Dumitrescu, Edifice destin au culte dcouvert dans la couche Boian-Spanov de la station-tell
Cscioarele. Dacia N. S. 14, 1970, 524.
Ecsedy 1979: I. Ecsedy, The people of the Pit-Grave Kurgans in Eastern Hungary. Fontes arch. Hungariae (Budapest
1979).
Fansa/Burmeister 2004: M. Fansa/S. Burmeister (eds), Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im
Vorderen Orient und Europa (Mainz 2004).
Furholt 2009: M. Furholt, Die nrdlichen Badener Keramikstile im Kontext des mitteleuropischen Sptneolithikums
(36502900 v. Chr.). Stud. Arch. Ostmitteleuropa 3 (Bonn 2009).
Geschwinde/Raetzel-Fabian 2009: M. Geschwinde/D. Raetzel-Fabian, EWBSL. Eine Fallstudie zu den jungneolithischen Erdwerken am Nordrand der Mittelgebirge. Beitr. Arch. Niedersachsen 14 (Rahden/Westfalen 2009).
Grsdorf/Bojadiev 1996: J. Grsdorf/J. Bojadiev, Absolute Chronologie der bulgarischen Urgeschichte. Eurasia
Ant. 2, 1996, 105172.
Govedarica 2004: B. Govedarica, Zeptertrger Herrscher der Steppen. Die frhen Ockergrber des lteren neolithikums im karpaten-balkanischen Gebiet und im Steppenraum Sdost- und Osteuropas (Mainz 2004).

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe historical epoch or typo-chronological construct?

433

Greenfield 2010: H. J. Greenfield, The Secondary Products Revolution: the Past, the Present and the Future. World
Arch. 42, 2010, 2954.
Gronenborn 1997: D. Gronenborn, Silexartefakte der ltestbandkeramischen Kultur. Univforsch. Prhist. Arch. 37
(Bonn 1997).
Hansen et al. 2005: S. Hansen/A. Dragoman/A. Reingruber/I. Gatsov/J. Grsdorf/P. Nedelcheva/S. Oana-Marghitu/
B. Song, Der kupferzeitliche Siedlungshgel Pietrele an der Unteren Donau. Bericht ber die Ausgrabungen im
Sommer 2004. Eurasia Ant. 11, 2005, 341393.
Heyd 2011: V. Heyd, Yamnaya groups and tumuli west of the Black Sea. In: E. Borgna/S. Mller Celka (eds), Ancestral Landscapes: Burial mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe Balkans Adriatic
Aegean, 4th2nd millennium BC). Maison de lOrient et de la Mditerrane (Lyon 2011) 535555.
Ifantidis/Nikolaidou 2011: F. Ifantidis/M. Nikolaidou (eds), Spondylus in Prehistory: new data and approaches. Contributions to the archaeology of shell technologies. British Arch. Rep. Internat. Ser. 2216 (Oxford 2011).
Ivanov 1988: I. Ivanov, Die Ausgrabungen des Grberfelds von Varna (19721986). In: Al. Fol/J. Lichardus (eds),
Macht, Herrschaft und Gold. Das Grberfeld von Varna (Bulgarien) und die Anfnge einer neuen europischen
Zivilisation (Saarbrcken 1988) 4966.
Jeunesse/Seidel 2010: C. Jeunesse/U. Seidel, Die Erdwerke. In: Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch. Die Michelsberger Kultur und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren (Karlsruhe/Darmstadt 2010) 5869.
Johannsen/Laursen 2010: N. Johannsen/S. Laursen, Routes and Wheeled Transport in Late 4thEarly 3rd Millennium
Funerary Customs of the Jutland Peninsula. Praehist. Zeitschr. 85, 2010, 1558.
Kninger et al. 2002: J. Kninger/M. Mainberger/H. Schlichtherle/M. Vosteen (eds), Schleife, Schlitten, Rad und
Wagen. Zur Frage frher Transportmittel nrdlich der Alpen, (Hemmenhofen 2002).
Kossian 2005: R. Kossian, Nichtmegalithische Grabanlagen der Trichterbecherkultur in Deutschland und den Niederlanden (Halle [Saale] 2005).
Kreuz 1990: A. Kreuz, Die ersten Bauern Mitteleuropas. Eine archobotanische Untersuchung zu Umwelt und Landwirtschaft der ltesten Bandkeramik. Analecta Praehist. Leidensia 23 (Leiden 1990).
Lazarovici 1981: Gh. Lazarovici, Die Periodisierung der Vina-Kultur in Rumnien. Praehist. Zeitschr. 56, 1981,
169196.
Lazarovici/Draovean/Maxim 2001: Gh. Lazarovici/F. Draovean/Z. Maxim, Para, I/1 (Timioara 2001).
Lichardus 1991a: J. Lichardus, Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Eine forschungsgeschichtliche Einleitung. In: J.
Lichardus (ed.), Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Symposium Saarbrcken und Otzenhausen 6.13.11.1988,
1 (Bonn 1991) 1332.
Lichardus 1991b: J. Lichardus, Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Versuch einer Deutung. In: J. Lichardus (ed.),
Die Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Symposium Saarbrcken und Otzenhausen 6.13.11.1988, 2 (Bonn 1991)
763800.
Link 2006: T. Link, Das Ende der neolithischen Tellsiedlungen. Ein kulturgeschichtliches Phnomen des 5.
Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Karpatenbecken. Univforsch. prhist. Arch. 134 (Bonn 2006).
Mantu 1995: C. M. Mantu, Cronologia absolut a neo-eneoliticului. Stud. i Cercetri Ist. Veche i Arh. 46, 1995,
213235.
Marazov 1988: I. Marazov, Tod und Mythos. berlegungen zu Varna. In: Macht, Herrschaft und Gold. Das Grberfeld von Varna (Bulgarien) und die Anfnge einer neuen europischen Zivilisation (Saarbrcken 1988) 6778.
Masset/Soulier 1995: C. Masset/P. Soulier, Alles couvertes et autres monuments funraires de Nolithique dans la
France de Nord-Ouest: Alles sans retour (Paris 1995).
Meyer/Raetzel-Fabian 2006: M. Meyer/D. Raetzel-Fabian, Neolithische Grabenwerke in Mitteleuropa Ein berblick. www.jungsteinsite.de (15.12.2006).
Miloji 1949: V. Miloji, Chronologie der Jngeren Steinzeit (Berlin 1949).
Mischka 2008: C. Mischka, Geomagnetische Prospektion neolithischer und kupferzeitlicher Siedlungen in Rumnien. Eurasia Ant. 14, 2008, 101115.
Mischka 2009: C. Mischka, Neue Ergebnisse der geomagnetischen Prospektion neolithischer und kupferzeitlicher
Siedlungen in Rumnien. Eurasia Ant. 15, 2009, 114.
Mller-Karpe 1974: H. Mller-Karpe, Handbuch der Vorgeschichte. Dritter Band, Kupferzeit, erster Teilband, Text
(Mnchen 1974).
Mller/Rassmann/Hofmann 2013: J. Mller/K. Rassmann/R. Hofmann (Hrsg.), Okolite I Untersuchungen einer
sptneolithischen Siedlungskammer in Zentralbosnien. Univschr. Prhist. Arch. 228 (Bonn 2013).
Narr 1975: K.-J. Narr, Einleitung, In: K.-J. Narr, Handbuch der Urgeschichte, Bd. 2, Jngere Steinzeit und Steinkupferzeit. Anfnge von Bodenbau und Viehzucht (Bern, Mnchen 1975) 731.
Nikolov 2008: V. Nikolov (ed.), Praistorieski solodobiven centr Provadija-Solnicata (Sofia 2008).

434

Wolfram Schier

Nikolov 2012: V. Nikolov, Salt, early complex society, urbanization: Provadia-Solnitsata (55004200 BC). In: V.
Nikolov/K. Bacvarov (eds), Salt and Gold: The Role of Salt in Prehistoric Europe (Provadia-Veliko Tarnovo 2012)
1165.
Parkinson 2006: W. A. Parkinson, The Social Organization of Early Copper Age Tribes on the Great Hungarian Plain.
BAR Internat. Ser. 1573 (Oxford 2006).
Parkinson/Gyucha/Yerkes 2004: W. A. Parkinson/A. Gyucha/R. W. Yerkes, Settlement reorganization at the end of
the Neolithic in Central Europe: recent research inthe Krs River Valley, southeastern Hungary. Eurasian Prehist.
2/2, 2004, 5773.
Parzinger 1993: H. Parzinger, Studien zur Chronologie und Kulturgeschichte der Jungstein-, Kupfer- und Frhbronzezeit zwischen Karpaten und mittlerem Taurus. Rm.-Germ. Forsch. 52 (Mainz 1993).
Pavk 1990: J. Pavk, Genetische und chronologische Beziehungen der Vina-Kultur zum Neolithikum und neolithikum Mitteleuropas. In: D. Srejovi/N. Tasi (eds), Vina and its World (Beograd 1990) 127132.
Pernicka et al. 1997: E. Pernicka/F. Begemann/S. Schmitt-Strecker/H. Todorova/I. Kuleff, Prehistoric copper in Bulgaria. Ist composition and provenance. Eurasia Ant. 3, 1997, 41180.
Ptrequin et al. 2013: P. Ptrequin/S. Cassen/M. Errera/L. Klassen/A.-M. Ptrequin/A. Sheridan, The production and
circulation of Alpine jade axes during the 5th4th millennia in a European perspective. In: T. Kerig/A. Zimmermann
(eds), Economic Archaeology: From Structure to Performance in European Archaeology (Bonn 2013) 6582.
Primas 1996: M. Primas, Velika Gruda 1. Hgelgrber des frhen 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Adriagebiet Velika
Gruda, Mala Gruda und ihr Kontext. Univforsch. z. prhist. Arch. 32 (Bonn 1996).
Raczky et al. 1994: P. Raczky/W. Meier-Arendt/K. Kurucz/Z. Hajd/A. Szikora, Polgr-Csszhalom. A Late Neolithic settlement in the Upper Tisza region and its cultural connections (Preliminary report). Jsa Andrs Mz.
vknyve 36, 1994, 231236.
Ramminger/da 2012: B. Ramminger/P. da, Der bandkeramische Felsgesteinabbauplatz Jistebsko, Kataster
Jablonec nad Nisou, und sein regionales Siedlungsumfeld im mittleren Isertal, Tschechische Republik. In: S. Wolfram/H. Stuble/M. Cladders/Th. Tischendorf (Hrsg.), Siedlungsstruktur und Kulturwandel in der Bandkeramik.
Beitrge der internationalen Tagung Neue Fragen zur Bandkeramik oder alles beim Alten? Leipzig, 23. bis 24.
September 2010 (Dresden 2012) 167179.
Rasch 1995: W. Rasch, Das megalithische Yard: Ein Ma durch Zeiten und Rume des Neolithikums. In: Ordo et
mensura. 3. Internationaler Interdisziplinrer Kongress fr Historische Metrologie vom 17. bis 21. November 1993
im Stdtischen Museum Simeonsstift Trier (St. Katharinen 1995) 3955.
Rind 2006: M. M. Rind, New excavations in the Neolithic chert mine of Arnhofen, Stadt Abensberg, Lkr. Kelheim,
Lower Bavaria. In: G. Krlin/G. Weisgerber (eds), Stone Age Mining Age. Der Anschnitt, Beih. 19 (Bochum
2006).
Rsch 2000: Rsch, M., Anthropogener Landschaftswandel in Mitteleuropa whrend des Neolithikums. Beobachtungen und berlegungen zu Verlauf und mglichen Ursachen. Germania 78/2, 2000, 293318.
Rsch et al. 2002: M. Rsch/O. Ehrmann/L. Hermann/E. Schulz/A. Bogenrieder/J. P. Goldammer/M. Hall/H. Page/W.
Schier, An experimental approach to Neolithic shifting cultivation. Veget. Hist. Archaeobot. 11, 2002, 143154.
Saile 2012: T. Saile, Salt in the Neolithic of Central Europe: production and distribution. In: V. Nikolov/K. Bacvarov
(eds), Salt and Gold: The Role of Salt in Prehistoric Europe (Provadia-Veliko Tarnovo 2012) 225238.
Schier 2000: W. Schier, Karanovo und Vina. Mglichkeiten und Grenzen eines stratigraphischen Vergleichs. In: St.
Hiller/V. Nikolov (Hrsg.), Karanovo Band III. Beitrge zum Neolithikum in Sdosteuropa (Wien 2000) 349358.
Schier/Draovean 2004: W. Schier/F. Draovean (mit Beitrgen von H. Becker, E. Fischer, A. Kadereit, M. Rsch,
S. Scharl, S. Suhrbier, B. Sponholz u. A. Tillmann), Der sptneolithisch-frhkupferzeitliche Tell von Uivar, jud.
Timi, Rumnien. Vorbericht ber die Prospektionen und Ausgrabungen 19982002. Praehist. Zeitschr. 79, 2004,
145230.
Schier 2005: W. Schier, Einfhrung. In: W. Schier (Hrsg.), Katalog zur Ausstellung Masken, Menschen, Rituale,
Martin von Wagner-Museum der Universitt Wrzburg, 21. April10. Juli 2005 (Wrzburg 2005) 918.
Schier 2008a: W. Schier, Uivar. A late Neolithic-early Eneolithic fortified tell site in western Romania. 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) 5467.
Schier 2008b: W. Schier (mit einem Beitrag von Th. Schmidt-Kaler), Zur astronomischen Orientierung der mittelneolithischen Kreisgrabenanlage von Ippesheim, Mittelfranken. Acta Praehist. et Arch. 40, 2008, 4555.
Schier 2009: W. Schier, Tell formation and architectural sequence at late Neolithic Uivar (Romania). In: F. Draovean/
D. L. Ciobotaru/M. Maddison (Hrsg.), Ten years after: The Neolithic of the Balkans, as uncovered by the last decade of research (Timioara 2009) 219233.

The Copper Age in Southeast Europe historical epoch or typo-chronological construct?

435

Schier 2010: W. Schier, Einfhrung. In: Jungneolithikum und Kupferzeit in Mitteleuropa (45002800 v. Chr.). In:
Jungsteinzeit im Umbruch. Die Michelsberger Kultur und Mitteleuropa vor 6000 Jahren (Karlsruhe/Darmstadt
2010) 2636.
Schier 2011: W. Schier, Activitatea edilitar ca reflectare a cunotiinelor complexe monumentale de anuri circulare (Kreisgrabenanlagen) din mileniul al V-lea . Chr. din Europa central. Anal. Banatului, Ser. nou Arh. 19,
2011, 2132.
Schier 2014: W. Schier, Zeitbegriffe und chronologische Konzepte in der Prhistorischen Archologie. Praehist.
Zeitschr. 88/2, 2013, 258273.
Schlosser 2012: W. Schlosser, Astronomische Untersuchungen der Kreisgrabenanlage von Goseck. In: F. Bertemes/
H. Meller (Hrsg.), Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung vom 7. bis 9. Mai in
Goseck. Tag. Landesmus. Vorgesch. Halle 8 (Halle a. d. Saale 2012) 389393.
Seidel 2008: U. Seidel, Michelsberger Erdwerke im Raum Heilbronn. Math. Arch. Baden-Wrttemberg 81/1 (Stuttgart 2008).
Sherratt 1981: A. G. Sherratt, Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution. In: I. Hodder/G.
Isaac/N. Hammond (eds), Patterns of the Past (Cambridge 1981) 261306.
Stehli 1994: P. Stehli, Chronologie der Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal. In: J. Lning/P. Stehli, Die Bandkeramik im
Merzbachtal auf der Aldenhovener Platte. Rhein. Ausgr. 36 (Kln 1994) 79191.
Stevens 1946: S. S. Stevens, On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science 103, 1946, 677680.
Strahm 1988: C. Strahm, Chalkolithikum und Metallikum: Kupferzeit und frhe Bronzezeit in Sdwestdeutschland
und der Schweiz. Rassegna Arch. 7, 1988, 175190.
Tasi 2012: N. Tasi, New evidence on salt use in the Neolithic of Southeast Europe. In: V. Nikolov/K. Bacvarov
(eds), Salt and Gold: The Role of Salt in Prehistoric Europe (Provadia-Veliko Tarnovo 2012) 213218.
Thom 2003: A. Thom, Megaliths and Mathematics. In: T. Darvill/C. Malone (eds), Megaliths from antiquity (Cambridge 2003) 325332.
Todorova 2002: H. Todorova (ed.), Durankulak, Band II. Die prhistorischen Grberfelder (Sofia 2002).
Varndall/Topping 2002: G. Varndall, P. Topping, Enclosures in Neolithic Europe: essays on causewayed and noncausewayed sites (Oxford 2002).
Veluek 2009: A. Veluek, Stare gmajne pile-dwelling settlement and its era. The Ljubljansko barje in the 2nd half
of the 4th millennium BC (Ljubljana 2009).
Vosteen 1996: M. Vosteen, Unter die Rder gekommen. Untersuchungen zu Sherratts Secondary products revolution. Arch. Ber. 7 (Bonn 1996).
Woidich 2014: Die Westliche Kugelamphorenkultur. Untersuchungen zu ihrer raumzeitlichen Differenzierung, kulturellen und anthropologischen Identitt. Topoi Berlin Stud. Ancient World 24 (Berlin 2014).
Zeeb-Lanz et al. 2007: A. Zeeb-Lanz/F. Haack/R.-M. Arbogast/M. N. Haidle/Ch. Jeunesse/J. Orschiedt/D. Schimmelpfennig, Auergewhnliche Deponierungen der Bandkeramik die Grubenanlage von Herxheim. Germania
85, 2007, 199274.
Zimmermann 1994: A. Zimmermann, Prokrustes-Rotation als Technik zur Synchronisierung lokaler Chronologien.
In: J. Lning/P. Stehli (Hrsg.), Die Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal auf der Aldenhovener Platte. Rhein. Ausgr. 36
(Kln 1994) 193205.
Zimmermann 1995: A. Zimmermann, Austauschsysteme von Silexartefakten in der Bandkeramik Mitteleuropas.
Univforsch z. Prhist. Arch. 26 (Bonn 1995).
Zotti 2012: G. Zotti, Versuch einer astronomischen Interpretation ausgezeichneter Richtungen der Kreisgrabenanlagen Niedersterreichs. In: F. Bertemes/H. Meller (Hrsg.), Neolithische Kreisgrabenanlagen in Europa. Internationale Arbeitstagung vom 7. bis 9. Mai in Goseck. Tag. Landesmus. Vorgesch. Halle 8 (Halle a. d. Saale 2012)
401431.

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